Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Dora Smith

Norman aristocrat named Dolitel? Doolittle and Dollittle ro

Legg inn av Dora Smith » 14 jun 2007 12:53:54

I need to learn more about this family of Norman aristocrats who apparently
lived in England.

Here are some "old English records" that may pertain to the roots of the
Doolittle family of Kidderminster, Worcestershire.

Radulphus de Dolieta, Testemonio: For forgiveness of misdeeds of himself and
his predecessors and successors he grants in the time of William, King of
England, to the Monks of St. Michael for the brotherhood and the prayers of
St. Michael and the Monks, his servants, all the dues on his lands, etc.
[Recorded in original charters in archives of La Manche, Abbey of Mont St.
Michael for Benedictine monks in Diocese of Avranche, France, A.D.
1085-1087. ]



Note: Dolieta is said to have been the name of a place on
the coast of Normandy, probably in the province of Manche (which included
the peninsula on which Cherbourg is located) near the town of Avranches and
the neighboring Mt. St. Michael; and this Rudolph of Dolieta, a Norman
noble, who accompanied the Conqueror appears to have been the progenitor of
all our family in England.



Wiliam, son of Alan Dolatel or Dolitel, is mentioned
m8d.patent 7, Edward I, year 1279.



Robert Dolittel for some offense, was granted a royal pardon
"by reason of his services in Scotland". Guilford, Jan. 20. Calendar of
Patent Rolls 31, Edward I. year 1303.



The first record is apparently in France, though it concerns someone who
served William I - who continued to rule Normandy after he became king of
England. The second two records pertain to someone in England but not
clear where they are located. Second one mentions Guilford. Google maps
can't find Guilford and I wonder if it could possibly mean Guildford.



In the 16th century wills and church and other records, a Doolittle family
turn up in Kidderminster, Worcestershire. Actually a half dozen Doolittle
families turn up in Kidderminster and its surrounding villages, and not
known if they are related to each other. Two Y DNA haplotypes of two
different haplogroups turn up in the Doolittle DNA project. The people in
that project are neither clear thinkers nor very forthcoming with
information, so not known if this represents a nonpatermity event, maybe in
the U.S. or Ireland, or more than one Doolittle family in Kidderminster.
Two published genealogical efforts to reconstruct "the" Doolittle family of
that area in the 16th and 17th centuries are speculative and full of big
logical holes and leaps of logic.



Despite the problems with their genealogy, however, it looks possible that
there has ever been one Doolittle family or geographical clump of families
named Doolittle in England. There were four geographical clumpings of
them in the 19th century that were geographically separated from each other
by large amounts of space. Y DNA testing proves that the Irish
Doolittles, the Doolittle family descended from Abraham Doolittle who
settled in Wallingford, Connecticut in the 17th century, and the Doolittle
family that migrated from the Kidderminster area to London early in the 19th
century, are closely related to each other. The Doolittle DNA Project
chart does not identify the participants or their lines, but I was able to
learn from them that the R1b1c people include a group of descendants of
Abraham of Wallingford, a group of descendants of the Irish Doolittle
family, and the husband of one of the genealogical researchers whose line
never left England and cleanly traces to the Kidderminster area, and whose Y
DNA exactly matches the Irish family (which closely but not exactly matches
the Abraham Doolittle family, meaning that two lines of descent have mutated
at different rates, which is common). A fourth clumping of Doolittle's
appeared in the 19th century in Lancashire and Yorkshire (and one from these
families may have appeared in London in the 20th century). The UK census
shows that atleast some of these people came from Ireland. Since the
Kidderminster Doolittle's were often in the textile and clothing industries,
some could conceivably have headed for Lancashire and Yorkshire as
Kidderminster's textile industry died and that of Lancashire and Yorkshire
developed.



If this family has any connection to Dolitel or whoever, they could be
descended from him, or they could have lived on his land or worked for him.



My question is, how do I learn more about these Dolitel people, including
their genealogy and where their manors and estates were?


Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com



--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.465 / Virus Database: 269.5.7/771 - Release Date: 4/21/2007 11:56 AM

Tony Hoskins

Re: Stupid Question

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 14 jun 2007 23:38:09

Not at all a stupid question.

In Welsh:

"Ap" or "Ab" = son of
"Ferch" = daughter of


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

Gary Smith

Re: Stupid Question

Legg inn av Gary Smith » 15 jun 2007 08:27:20

The single 'f' in Welsh is pronounced as the English 'v' , so ferch is
sometimes spelled 'verch' like its pronunciation; a double 'ff' is like the
English 'f', such as 'ffireman'.
The 'Ab' gives such constructions as 'Ap Owen', son of Owen, leading to
the contracted surname 'Bowen', and Ap Howell, giving 'Powell'.


"Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:mailman.3294.1181860729.5576.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Not at all a stupid question.

In Welsh:

"Ap" or "Ab" = son of
"Ferch" = daughter of


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

barbarapsmith

RE: Death date/place for Beatrice of Provence (Queen of Char

Legg inn av barbarapsmith » 16 jun 2007 19:09:19

Thank you Doug; I've now ordered mine.

Barbara

Barbara Parsons Smith, M.A.
Project Chairman and Interviewer
Victoria County Historical Commission
Oral History Project



-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Douglas Richardson
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 12:47 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Death date/place for Beatrice of Provence (Queen of Charles I
ofSicily)

Dear Newsgroup ~

I have the highest opinion of the book, A Handbook of Dates for
Students of British History. I have it on my work desk and use it on
a regular basis. The book is an invaluable aid to any British
medievalist.

For those interested in ordering a copy, they may do so at the
following weblink:

http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Dates-St ... 052177845X

The price is $28.49, plus shipping.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake Clty, Utah


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

Karen Rosenstiel

Re: Luria

Legg inn av Karen Rosenstiel » 17 jun 2007 00:05:23

Dear Sir,
Thank you for sharing this interesting list. However, you did not include
any dates, information or documentation from recent research and I must say
that this line appears to be based more on faith than fact.

"Ford Mommaerts-Browne" <FordMommaerts@cox.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.3261.1181787561.5576.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Obed
Jesse
David
Shephatiah
Daniel
Natan
Maacha
Jedija
Manasseh
Ephraim
Gilhon
Joash
Joshua
Natan
Jehoram
Ezram
Tola
Shimon
Ammon
Moche
Melchiah
Amminadab
Elnatan
Judah
Uriah
David
Shlomo
Ahitophel
Avimelech
Natan
Gideon
Avraham
Basha
Ephraim
Joash
Jehosaphat
Eliezer
David
Shlomo
Uzziah
Hezekiah
Hillel
Shimon Hanassi
Raban Gamliel
Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamliel
*
Rav Yohanan Hasandlar
Joshua Zimri
Yochanan
Nachman
Yosei
Yanai
Binyamin
Yosei
Avraham
Aharon Harofeh
Elyakum
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Shlomo
Yitzchak
Rashi
Miriam = Riban
Rabbeinu Yom Tov
Rabbeinu Yehuda MeParis
*
R Yochanan Ashkenazi
R Yosef Troish
R Mattisyahu Troish
bat = R Shmuel Spiro
R Shlomo Spiro
Miriam = R Shimson Luria
R Yechiel Luria
R Netanel Luria
R Aaron Lurie
R Yechiel Lurie, Brisk
Dresel = R Elasar Schrenzel
Malka = R Israel Isserles
R Moshe Isserles (Rama)
Dresel = R Simcha Bunem
bat = R Yitzchak Bunems
R Binyamin (Wolf) Wilner
Yenta = Shabtai Cohen (Shach)
Yocheved = R Aaron miGesza Zvi, Luntschitz
R Moshe miGesza Zvi, Glogau
R Aaron miGesza Zvi, Berlin
R Eliezer (Lazarus), Mainberheim
R Moshe Trier
Kelche Lazarus = R Naftali Berlinger
R Yaakov
Menachem (Eli)
Yehuda

Ford Mommaerts-Browne

Re: Luria

Legg inn av Ford Mommaerts-Browne » 17 jun 2007 02:48:53

I found this list as is, and thought to share it as a 'curiosity'. The
author is Yehuda Berlinger, (@ end). He compiled this w/o sources; but, if
one wants to go to the time, one can verify all of this from RaShI & RIBaN
down to Yehuda. Ihave seen all of this information in reputable sources,
but it was pulled together here, in this simple format. I have also sent
three (3) other lines to the list with dates. They have been compiled from
the internet, ('cause it's handy & quick), and verified against research
that I have collected from the four sources which I had cited in an earlier
email.
Ford

"Karen Rosenstiel" <krosenstiel @ comcast.net> wrote in message
news:M76dnRsNqpA48enbnZ2dnUVZ_viunZ2d@comcast.com...
| Dear Sir,
| Thank you for sharing this interesting list. However, you did not include
| any dates, information or documentation from recent research and I must
say
| that this line appears to be based more on faith than fact.
|
| "Ford Mommaerts-Browne" <FordMommaerts @ cox.net> wrote in message
| news:mailman.3261.1181787561.5576.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
| > Obed
| > Jesse
| > David
| > Shephatiah
| > Daniel
| > Natan
| > Maacha
| > Jedija
| > Manasseh
| > Ephraim
| > Gilhon
| > Joash
| > Joshua
| > Natan
| > Jehoram
| > Ezram
| > Tola
| > Shimon
| > Ammon
| > Moche
| > Melchiah
| > Amminadab
| > Elnatan
| > Judah
| > Uriah
| > David
| > Shlomo
| > Ahitophel
| > Avimelech
| > Natan
| > Gideon
| > Avraham
| > Basha
| > Ephraim
| > Joash
| > Jehosaphat
| > Eliezer
| > David
| > Shlomo
| > Uzziah
| > Hezekiah
| > Hillel
| > Shimon Hanassi
| > Raban Gamliel
| > Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamliel
| > *
| > Rav Yohanan Hasandlar
| > Joshua Zimri
| > Yochanan
| > Nachman
| > Yosei
| > Yanai
| > Binyamin
| > Yosei
| > Avraham
| > Aharon Harofeh
| > Elyakum
| > *
| > *
| > *
| > *
| > *
| > *
| > *
| > *
| > *
| > *
| > *
| > *
| > *
| > *
| > *
| > *
| > *
| > *
| > *
| > *
| > Shlomo
| > Yitzchak
| > Rashi
| > Miriam = Riban
| > Rabbeinu Yom Tov
| > Rabbeinu Yehuda MeParis
| > *
| > R Yochanan Ashkenazi
| > R Yosef Troish
| > R Mattisyahu Troish
| > bat = R Shmuel Spiro
| > R Shlomo Spiro
| > Miriam = R Shimson Luria
| > R Yechiel Luria
| > R Netanel Luria
| > R Aaron Lurie
| > R Yechiel Lurie, Brisk
| > Dresel = R Elasar Schrenzel
| > Malka = R Israel Isserles
| > R Moshe Isserles (Rama)
| > Dresel = R Simcha Bunem
| > bat = R Yitzchak Bunems
| > R Binyamin (Wolf) Wilner
| > Yenta = Shabtai Cohen (Shach)
| > Yocheved = R Aaron miGesza Zvi, Luntschitz
| > R Moshe miGesza Zvi, Glogau
| > R Aaron miGesza Zvi, Berlin
| > R Eliezer (Lazarus), Mainberheim
| > R Moshe Trier
| > Kelche Lazarus = R Naftali Berlinger
| > R Yaakov
| > Menachem (Eli)
| > Yehuda

Gjest

Re: Hannah family in Scotland

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jun 2007 16:06:48

I cannot directly be of help but I know the clan Hannay which claims a Vipont connection is in and around Sorbie. Sorbie was given the Viponts in the 1200's.
Pat
From: JMT <jmshepherd@inglenookdesigns.org
Date: 2007/06/17 Sun AM 02:01:28 EDT
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Hannah family in Scotland

Can anyone help me with an Alexander Hannah, born around 1560 in the
Sorbie, Scotland area?

I'm not absolutely positive about this connection, but I can't find a
thing on him.

Thanks!


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

Kay Allen

Re: Stupid Question

Legg inn av Kay Allen » 17 jun 2007 17:50:03

Under English common law, a single woman, never
married or widowed, could own land or property, She
was called a "femme sole" or woman alone. If the woman
remarried, it would be up to the husband whether or
not she could retain control of the property. If the
daughter was unmarried, and of age, she would control
her property. Again, if she married, her husband would
have control.

Hope this helps.

K
--- Janet <monkey@getgoin.net> wrote:

Back in the 1600s if a husband left land to his wife
in his will. Can she
own land?
If a father left land to his daughter, can own it.
Would the English law let her?
Even if she was in America?

Janet

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

W. D. Allen

Re: Was King Edward IV Of England A Bastard?

Legg inn av W. D. Allen » 17 jun 2007 20:48:41

"...A forklift truck driver...." Then he has to be brighter than the present
"pretender". What sane male would anyone ever throw over a chick like Diane
for a granny?

WDA

end

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:SZfdi.68$oj2.276@eagle.america.net...
An Excellent Summary -- Closely Reasoned.

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

Rafal Heydel-Mankoo: Reflections of a Young Fogey

Rants, Reflections, Recollections, Remembrances and Reminiscences from a
traditionalist High Tory perspective

Tuesday, 22 May 2007

King Michael of Australia?

It appears that a group of republicans have latched on to the following
2004
story and are trying to make mischief:
----------------------

BBC NEWS STORY: "Aussie is 'Heir to the Crown'" (first reported 5 January
2004).

A forklift truck driver in a remote Australian town is the rightful King
of
England, a historian has claimed

"Dr Michael Jones says Queen Elizabeth's claim to the throne is false
because her distant ancestor, Edward IV, was illegitimate. He concludes
that
the crown should have passed instead through another royal line which
today
ends at British-born Michael Abney-Hastings, 62.

"King Michael" said he was shocked by the news - but remained a
republican.

Hilarious! -- DSH

He said it was "unlikely" that he would go to Buckingham Palace to claim
the
crown.

Dr Jones' thesis, explored in a recent television documentary, suggests
that
Edward IV, who reigned from 1461 to 1483, was conceived when his parents
were 160 kilometers apart.

His "father", Richard Duke of York, was fighting the French at Pontoise,
near Paris, while his mother, Lady Cicely Neville, was at court in Rouen.

She was said to be spending much of her time in the company of a local
archer with whom she was rumoured to be having an affair.

Dr Jones said Edward IV's alleged illegitimacy means the crown should
instead have been passed down the Plantagenet line - ending at Mr
Abney-Hastings. The unlikely heir lives in Jerilderie, a small town 640km
southwest of Sydney, in New South Wales, where he moved from the UK as a
teenager.

"I don't think it's really sunk in yet," he said. The farm forklift truck
driver said he had already known he was a descendant of the Plantagenet
family - and 14th Earl of Loudon in Scotland - but never guessed he could
be
a contender to the throne.

"I'm definitely a republican," he said. "As much as I love England, I
honestly feel in this day and age Australia should be standing on its own
feet in everything, and that means we have to be a republic. In the last
referendum we had on it, I actually voted to become a republic."

He said it was "very unlikely" he would go to London and demand entry at
Buckingham Palace. But he quipped, "I'll hedge my bets."

Mr Abney-Hastings, who is widowed, said he was treated the same as ever by
friends and family - except on Christmas Day, when he was welcomed to
dinner
with a rendition of God Save the King.

He said his eldest son had not mentioned inheriting his crown, and warned:
"He'll have to wait. It's not available till I go."

Buckingham Palace, meanwhile, refused to respond specifically to the
claims,
saying any conclusions reached in the television documentary were "a
matter
for the programme makers".
-------------------------------

Buckingham Palace may have wisely chosen to remain silent on this issue
but
this Monarchist is not fettered by the same constraints.

Dr. Michael Jones and his cohorts and, indeed, all who have advocated this
theory, appear to have a very poor grasp of history, biology and the
constitution.

In common with many Wacko Academics. -- DSH

It is easiest to rebut the story in point form:

1. The programme host and historian contend that during the period in
which
Edward IV was supposed to have been conceived, his father, The Duke of
York,
was at war in Pontoise. The Duke of York was away from his wife (who was
in
Rouen) for 2.5 weeks either side of the alleged point of conception. The
programme failed to consider the possibility of a late pregnancy and
unfairly dismissed the concept of a premature birth. It is quite
ridiculous
for a serious scholar to dismiss either possibility in such a cavalier
manner. If one takes into account the very real possibility of either a
premature or a delayed birth it is entirely plausible that Edward IV was
conceived whilst the Duke of York was in England.

2. Even if we accept that Edward IV was a bastard it is of no great
concern
since his father accepted him as his legitimate issue. The significance of
such recognition appears to have been lost upon all who have reported this
story. Legitimacy is a legal concept. ****Edward IV was legitimate in
law.**** End of story.

3. Those advocating for this theory place far too much emphasis on the
notion of primogeniture as the all-important factor for deciding who would
reign in this period. In Medieval England primogeniture was not as
important
as it would later become. If it were we would not have had a King John.

Similarly, the programme and subsequent articles fail to consider the
impact
of the Tudors (or the Hanoverians for that matter). Henry VII became king
by
the ancient concept of the "Mandate of Heaven", having defeated Richard
III
at Bosworth Field in 1485. Henry VII was not the rightful genealogical
successor; he became King by right of battle and later secured his
position
through marriage to Edward IV's daughter.

Whether or not Edward IV was legitimate, the Wars of the Roses would most
likely still have been fought and Henry VII may still have become King.

4. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 also appears to have been forgotten.
Parliament invited William of Orange to come to Britain -- causing King
James II to flee. Mary was not next in the line of succession (that was
James "III", the Old Pretender) and so again we have an example of
primogeniture taking secondary position.

5. Most important of all, the programme (and articles) completely ignores
the critical fact that our Sovereign, HM The Queen, reigns not by virtue
of
her Plantagenet descent but because of the ACT OF SETTLEMENT!

In 1701 Parliament decided that the Hanoverians should reign and, in
choosing a king, passed over many persons who had a better genealogical
claim than George I; the Electress Sophia became the person from whom
descent was to be traced, not Edward IV! Parliament has decided the
matter.

Conclusion: The whole issue of Edward IV's illegitimacy is completely
irrelevant. Arrant nonsense!
---------------------------------------

Indeed!

And:

Posted by Rampant Republican Pogues.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

Semper Fidelis

Dora Smith

Re: Stupid Question

Legg inn av Dora Smith » 17 jun 2007 22:27:19

Did the husband have the right to decide the woman could suddenly own
property upon his death, or did the right to decide that pass to another
male authority figure who controlled whether she actually inherited land her
husband left her or not?

I know it looks like you answered that, but if she had been married and the
husband died, would not teh husband's male heir or the wife's father then
have her property rights? Or did she actually become independent when he
died.

Suppose he died with no will? Did she inherit his property automatically,
or did it go to someone else because her husband had not implied in his will
that he was giving her permission to own it?

Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kay Allen" <allenk@pacbell.net>
To: "Janet" <monkey@getgoin.net>; <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: Stupid Question


Under English common law, a single woman, never
married or widowed, could own land or property, She
was called a "femme sole" or woman alone. If the woman
remarried, it would be up to the husband whether or
not she could retain control of the property. If the
daughter was unmarried, and of age, she would control
her property. Again, if she married, her husband would
have control.

Hope this helps.

K
--- Janet <monkey@getgoin.net> wrote:



--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.465 / Virus Database: 269.5.7/771 - Release Date: 4/21/2007 11:56 AM

Peter Stewart

Re: Early Yorkshire Charters - contents

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 18 jun 2007 04:35:28

"Ken Ozanne" <kenozanne@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.2926.1181033540.5576.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
John,
You are almost right. But Volumes 1 and 2 are from the 1914 edition (4
volumes I think) and vol 3 from the 1916 edition, which is 6 volumes. Even
so, there didn't appear to be a lot of overlap at a quick glance.

Perhaps one of the better connected members of the group could tell us
a
bit more about the various editions.

I'd also like to hear about availability of things like this in
Australian libraries.

I didn't have time to answer this thoroughly before, but this morning due to
a gunman on the loose in Melbourne I was diverted to the State Library and
checked the books. The contents of individual volumes are as follows:

Vol. I - edited by William Farrer (Edinburgh, 1914), the title page
announcing "In four volumes": 1. Pre-Norman Charters; 2. The Archbishop of
York's Fee; 3. The City of York; 4. St Mary's Abbey, York; 5. St Clement's
Priory, York; 6. The Crown Fee; 7. Aincurt Fee; 8. Arches Fee; 9. Balliol
Fee; 10. Belvoir Fee; 11. Bigod Fee

Vol. II - - edited by William Farrer (Edinburgh, 1915), the title page
repeating "In four volumes": 12. Brus Fee; 13. Bulmer Fee; 14. Archbishop of
Canterbury's Fee; 15. Caux Fee; 16. Chamberlain's Fee; 17. Chauncy Fee; 18.
Earl of Chester's Fee; 19. Bishop of Durham's Fee; 20. Fossard Fee; 21. Gant
Fee; 22. Greystoke Fee

Vol. III - edited by William Farrer (Edinburgh, 1916), the title page
announcing "In six volumes": 23. The Fee of Hallamshire; 24. Holderness:
Albemarle Fee; 25. Honor of Lancaster; 26. Lascy Fee; 27. The Malet Fee; 28.
The Fee of Meschin; 29. The Fee of Mortemer

_A Consolidated Index of Persons and Places_ in vols. I-III, prepared by
Charles Travis Clay and Edith Margaret Clay was published as Yorkshire
Archaeological Society Record Series - extra series vol. IV (1942)

Vol. IV - edited by Charles Travis Clay, YAS Record Series - extra series
vol. I (1935): The Honour of Richmond, part 1

Vol. V - edited by Charles Travis Clay, YAS Record Series - extra series
vol. II (1936): The Honour of Richmond, part 2

Vol. VI - edited by Charles Travis Clay, YAS Record Series - extra series
vol. III (1939): The Paynel Fee

Vol. VII - edited by Charles Travis Clay, YAS Record Series - extra series
vol. V (1947): The Honour of Skipton

Vol. VIII - edited by Charles Travis Clay, YAS Record Series - extra series
vol. VI (1949): The Honour of Warenne

Vol. IX - edited by Charles Travis Clay, YAS Record Series - extra series
vol. VII (1952): The Stuteville Fee

Vol. X - edited by Charles Travis Clay, YAS Record Series - extra series
vol. VIII (1955): The Trussebut Fee

Vol. XI - edited by Charles Travis Clay, YAS Record Series - extra series
vol. IX (1963): The Percy Fee

Vol. XII - edited by Charles Travis Clay, YAS Record Series - extra series
vol. X (1965): The Tison Fee

Peter Stewart

Ford Mommaerts-Browne

Re: Karl Marx - (was Isaac Luria)

Legg inn av Ford Mommaerts-Browne » 18 jun 2007 04:56:33

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ford Mommaerts-Browne" <FordMommaerts@Cox.net>
To: "Gen-Medieval" <Gen-Medieval-l@Rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 1:09 AM
Subject: Re: Isaac Luria


On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, at 07:43:10
"Karen Rosenstiel" <krosenstiel @ comcast . net> wrote in message
news:5-idnUSffK_De_LbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com

Dear Folks,
I am assisting a friend who of Shepardic Jewish background. His mother,
Miriam Lurie, claims descent from Isaac ben Solomon Luria (1534-1572), a
famous Kabbalist rabbi, and some kind of kinship with Karl Marx. Royal
descent from the House of David is claimed for Luria.

Any suggestions or referrals?

I am new to Jewish genealogy, however I have been researching
French-Canadian genealogy for ~30 years and am familiar with standards of
proof and historical research. No descent from Adam and Eve here! I can
read
French and Latin and my friend can probably manage Spanish. I use The
Master
Genealogist, among other tools, if anyone has a database they would be
willing to share.

TIA

Karen Rosenstiel
(Searching Quebec Richard and Acadian LeBlanc)
Seattle WA USA


The Lurias were a medieval rabbinic dynasty.
Rottenberg, Dan, _Finding Our Fathers: A guidebook to Jewish
genealogy_, Genealogical Publishing Co.,
Inc., (Baltimore, 1998), 0-8063-1151-7, has a series of charts showing the
inter-related Sephardic and Ashkenazi
rabbinic dynasties from RaShI to the grt.-gr.-parents of Karl Marx.
Rosenstein, Neil, _The Unbroken Chain_, C. I. S. Communications, Inc,
(United States, 1990), 0-9610578-4-8,
shows the descendants of the a rabbi from the
Luria-Katzenellenbogen-Treves nexus, (I forget, now, exactly which
one), to Karl Marx, the Countess Mountbatten of Burma, some Rothschilds
and many Chasidic rabbinic dynasties,
as well as, IIRC, the Maharal of Prague. Many of these rabbinic dynasties
can be found in the _Encyclopaedia
Judaica_ and _The Jewish Encyclopedia_.
Rashi claimed descent from R. Yonatan haSandalar, (Rabbi Jonathan the
Sandlemaker), one of the Tannaim,
(Rabbinic scholars whose teachings were central to the compilation of the
Talmud), who was a member of the
Patriarchal dynasty of Yehudah haNasi, founded by Hillel the Great, who
claimed descent from David. The Lurias,
Shaltiels, Charlaps, Iacchias, ibn Dauds, the Maharal of Prague and others
claimed descent from David, all
through the last Exilarchs, (Reshim Galuta/Roshim haGolah), of Babylon.



From Rosenstein, Rottenberg, Encyclopeadia Judaica & Jewish Encyclopedia.

Line #1

Karl Heinrich Marx, 5.5.1818, Trier-14.3.1883, London

ben Heinrich Marx, 1777, Saarlouis, Frankrijk-10.5.1838, Trier

ben Yakov Marx,

ben R. Mordechai Marx, né Meir Levi, 1743, Postoloprty, Bohemia-24.10.1804,
Trier

ben R. Schmuel ha-Levi, 1735-pr. 1777, Postoloprty, Bohemia, & Malka Spira

bat R. Lobil Spira, -3.2.1711/12, Praha

ben R. Eliah Spira, -13.4.1722, Praha

ben R. Benyamin Wolf Spira, 1640-11.1.1714/15, Praha

ben R. Aharon Shimon Spira, 1599-2.12.1679, Praha

ben R. Wolf Elabes Spira

ben R. Yechiel Michael Spira ca. 1530, Posen-

ben R. Shimson Spira of Posen

ben R. Natan Spira of Posen

ben R. Peretz Spira of Konstanz

ben R. Shlomo Spira

ben R. Shmuel Spira, ca. 1345- , & Vergentin Hannah Treves

bat R. Matityahu Treves of Provence, 1325/35-1385/7

ben R. Yosef ha-Gadol Treves, 1304-1370

ben R. Yochanan Treves

ben Avraham Treves

ben

bat R. Yehuda Shir Leon of Paris, 1166-1224

ben R. Yitzak, b. 114x

ben R. Yehuda, b. 1115

ben Tosafist R. Yom Tov of Falais, 1090-1140

ben R. Yehuda ben Natan, (RIBaN), b. 1065, & Miryam

bat R. Shlomo ben Yitzak, (RaShI), 1040, Troyes, Champagne-1105, Troyes

ben R. Yitzak Tzarfarti, -1060, Worms, (descended from Rabban Yochanan
ha-Sandalar of Alexandria, grt.-gr.-son of Rabban Gamalliel ha-Zaken, [the
Great], President of the Sanhedron, ben Shimon, ben Hillel ha-Zaken), & the
sister of R. Shimon ha-Zaken of Mainz

bat R. Yitzak Kalonymo, d. 960, Mainz

ben R. Abba Kalonymos, of LeMans

ben R. Yitzak Kalonymos

ben R. Meshulam Kalonymos, d. 976

ben Klonimus Kalonymos, of Luka, d. 950

ben Moishe Kalonymos, 870, Lucca-940, Mainz

ben Kalonymos, ha-Gaon, of Luka, d. 900

ben Yechutiel Kalonymos, d. 876

ben Meshulam Kalonymos

ben Kalonymos

ben Yehuda



According to the researches of David Kelley, the Kalonymoi were the family
of the 'Judiarchs' of Nrbonne, descended from Natronai/Makhir.



Line #2



Karl Heinrich Marx, 5.51818, Trier-14.3.1883, London

ben Heinrich Hirschel Marx, 15.4.1777-10.5.1838, Trier

ben Yakov Marx, d. Sélestat

ben Meier Marx, né ha-Levi, d. 1802, & Chaya Lwow, d. 13.5.1823, Trier

bat Moishe Lwow

ben Yaheshua Lwow, 1692-25.7.1771, Schwabach, Près de Nuremberg

ben Aharon Moishe Ezechiel Lwow

ben Moishe Lwow of Lemberg

ben Moishe Cohen & Nissle Wahl

bat Meier Moishe Wahl, ca. 1869-1630, Brest-Litovsk

ben Saul Wahl, 1541, Padova-1617, Brest-Litovsk

ben Shmuel Yahuda Katzenellenbogen, 1521, Venezia-

ben Meier Katzenellenbogen, 1482, Padova- , Erfurt, Thuringia

ben Yitzak Katzenellenbogen, 1482-ca. 1530, Praha, & of

bat Yechiel Luria, pr. 1446, Brisk-1489, Brest-Litovsk

ben R. Aharon Luria, pr. 1426-1470, & Rebbitzen Miryam Spira

bat R. Shlomo Spira

ben R. Shmuel Spira, ca. 1345- , & Vergentin Hannah Treves

bat R. Matityahu Treves of Provence, 1325/35-1385/7

ben R. Yosef ha-Gadol Treves, 1304-1370

ben R. Yochanan Treves

ben Avraham Treves

ben Matityahu Treves

ben Porat Yosef

ben Moishe, d. 1230

ben Posek Yechiel, & of

bat R. Yitzak ben Meier, (RIBaM)

ben R. Hayashish Meier & Yocheved

bat R. Shlomo ben Yitzak, (RaShI), 1040, Troyes, Champagne-1105, Troyes, see
no. 1.



Line #3



Karl Heinrich Marx, 5.51818, Trier-14.3.1883, London

ben Heinrich Hirschel Marx, 15.4.1777-10.5.1838, Trier

ben Yakov Marx, d. Sélestat

ben Meier Marx, né ha-Levi, d. 1802, & Chaya Lwow, d. 13.5.1823, Trier

bat Moishe Lwow

ben Yaheshua Lwow, 1692-25.7.1771, Schwabach, Près de Nuremberg

ben Aharon Moishe Ezechiel Lwow

ben Moishe Lwow of Lemberg

ben Moishe Cohen & Nissle Wahl

bat Meier Moishe Wahl, ca. 1869-1630, Brest-Litovsk

ben Saul Wahl, 1541, Padova-1617, Brest-Litovsk

ben Shmuel Yahuda Katzenellenbogen, 1521, Venezia-

ben Meier Katzenellenbogen, 1482, Padova- , Erfurt, Thuringia

ben Yitzak Katzenellenbogen, 1482-ca. 1530, Praha, & of

bat Yechiel Luria, pr. 1446, Brisk-1489, Brest-Litovsk

ben Aharon Luria, pr. 1426-1470

ben R. Nataniel Luria, b. pr. 1406-ca. 1460

ben R. Yechiel Luria, b. ca. 1375, pr.1386

ben R. Shimson Luria, 1206-1268, & Rebbitzen Miriam Treves, b. 1350

bat R. Matityahu Treves of Provence, 1325/35-1385/7

ben R. Yosef ha-Gadol Treves, 1304-1370, see no. 1.

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Stupid Question

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 18 jun 2007 06:39:15

My understanding is that on being widowed all HER property
automatically passed back into her control. Any other property held
be her husband would pass to HIS heir.

I am not sure that a husband could decide whether his wife could "own"
her own property. I understood that it automatically vested in the
husband on marriage. He could of course allow her control of her own
property, but I think it was still legally his for the time of the
marriage. In one sense he was a trustee for it.

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Hannah family in Scotland

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 18 jun 2007 06:43:15

At this period they were usually called Ahannay, probably cognate with
"Ap" in Welsh. They were an important gentry family in Galloway. The
main Sorbie line died out and they were later, and still are, based at
Kirkdale, near Gatehouse of Fleet.

Ken Ozanne

Re: Early Yorkshire Charters

Legg inn av Ken Ozanne » 18 jun 2007 11:12:42

Peter,
Thank you very much for doing considerably more than I thought I
asked. I have downloaded the first three volumes and will try to have a look
at relevant bits of the others when I am in Melbourne later in the year.

I was emboldened to try the Libraries Australia site on Friday and had
a phone call today saying that they will send me a couple of pages from Vol
4 part 2 of Nichols (ed) The History and Antiquities of Leicester gratis.
I'm more in charity with the State Library of NSW than I have been in years.

Best,
Ken

From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 03:35:28 GMT
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Early Yorkshire Charters - contents


"Ken Ozanne" <kenozanne@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.2926.1181033540.5576.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
John,
You are almost right. But Volumes 1 and 2 are from the 1914 edition (4
volumes I think) and vol 3 from the 1916 edition, which is 6 volumes. Even
so, there didn't appear to be a lot of overlap at a quick glance.

Perhaps one of the better connected members of the group could tell us
a
bit more about the various editions.

I'd also like to hear about availability of things like this in
Australian libraries.

I didn't have time to answer this thoroughly before, but this morning due to
a gunman on the loose in Melbourne I was diverted to the State Library and
checked the books. The contents of individual volumes are as follows:

Vol. I - edited by William Farrer (Edinburgh, 1914), the title page
announcing "In four volumes": 1. Pre-Norman Charters; 2. The Archbishop of
York's Fee; 3. The City of York; 4. St Mary's Abbey, York; 5. St Clement's
Priory, York; 6. The Crown Fee; 7. Aincurt Fee; 8. Arches Fee; 9. Balliol
Fee; 10. Belvoir Fee; 11. Bigod Fee

Vol. II - - edited by William Farrer (Edinburgh, 1915), the title page
repeating "In four volumes": 12. Brus Fee; 13. Bulmer Fee; 14. Archbishop of
Canterbury's Fee; 15. Caux Fee; 16. Chamberlain's Fee; 17. Chauncy Fee; 18.
Earl of Chester's Fee; 19. Bishop of Durham's Fee; 20. Fossard Fee; 21. Gant
Fee; 22. Greystoke Fee

Vol. III - edited by William Farrer (Edinburgh, 1916), the title page
announcing "In six volumes": 23. The Fee of Hallamshire; 24. Holderness:
Albemarle Fee; 25. Honor of Lancaster; 26. Lascy Fee; 27. The Malet Fee; 28.
The Fee of Meschin; 29. The Fee of Mortemer

_A Consolidated Index of Persons and Places_ in vols. I-III, prepared by
Charles Travis Clay and Edith Margaret Clay was published as Yorkshire
Archaeological Society Record Series - extra series vol. IV (1942)

Vol. IV - edited by Charles Travis Clay, YAS Record Series - extra series
vol. I (1935): The Honour of Richmond, part 1

Vol. V - edited by Charles Travis Clay, YAS Record Series - extra series
vol. II (1936): The Honour of Richmond, part 2

Vol. VI - edited by Charles Travis Clay, YAS Record Series - extra series
vol. III (1939): The Paynel Fee

Vol. VII - edited by Charles Travis Clay, YAS Record Series - extra series
vol. V (1947): The Honour of Skipton

Vol. VIII - edited by Charles Travis Clay, YAS Record Series - extra series
vol. VI (1949): The Honour of Warenne

Vol. IX - edited by Charles Travis Clay, YAS Record Series - extra series
vol. VII (1952): The Stuteville Fee

Vol. X - edited by Charles Travis Clay, YAS Record Series - extra series
vol. VIII (1955): The Trussebut Fee

Vol. XI - edited by Charles Travis Clay, YAS Record Series - extra series
vol. IX (1963): The Percy Fee

Vol. XII - edited by Charles Travis Clay, YAS Record Series - extra series
vol. X (1965): The Tison Fee

Peter Stewart

Janet

Re: Stupid Question

Legg inn av Janet » 18 jun 2007 11:45:03

English law back then says women can not own land.
Now she could have it in trust for her children.
But this lady husband give her land when he died and when she died she give
the land to one her children.

I that this could not be. We have both wills and it mention in both.
I think if husband gives land and she wills it. Then she own it Right
Because you can will what you do not have.

Janet

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

From: Dora Smith
Date: 6/17/2007 4:27:27 PM
To: Kay Allen; Janet; gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Stupid Question

Did the husband have the right to decide the woman could suddenly own
Property upon his death, or did the right to decide that pass to another
Male authority figure who controlled whether she actually inherited land her

Husband left her or not?

I know it looks like you answered that, but if she had been married and the
Husband died, would not the husband's male heir or the wife's father then
Have her property rights? Or did she actually become independent when he
Died.

Suppose he died with no will? Did she inherit his property automatically,
Or did it go to someone else because her husband had not implied in his will

That he was giving her permission to own it?

Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kay Allen" <allenk@pacbell.net>
To: "Janet" <monkey@getgoin.net>; <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: Stupid Question


Under English common law, a single woman, never
married or widowed, could own land or property, She
was called a "femme sole" or woman alone. If the woman
remarried, it would be up to the husband whether or
not she could retain control of the property. If the
daughter was unmarried, and of age, she would control
her property. Again, if she married, her husband would
have control.

Hope this helps.

K
--- Janet <monkey@getgoin.net> wrote:



--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.465 / Virus Database: 269.5.7/771 - Release Date: 4/21/2007
11:56 AM




--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/852 - Release Date: 6/17/2007
8:23 AM

..

CE Wood

Re: Stupid Question

Legg inn av CE Wood » 18 jun 2007 17:28:53

Read "The Widow's War," by Sally Gunning.

" In your husband's will he gives you your standard 'widow's thirds.'
Mr. Clarke, as your nearest male relative, receives title to all
property while you, as Edward's relict, retain life use of a third of
either the physical property itself or a third the interest resulting
from its sale, whichever Mr. Clarke deems appropriate, for as long as
you remain Edward Berry's widow."

This in 18th century New England!!

We have "come a long way, baby," but we still struggle to maintain our
gains.

CE Wood

On Jun 18, 2:40 am, "Janet" <mon...@getgoin.net> wrote:
English law back then says women can not own land.
Now she could have it in trust for her children.
But this lady husband give her land when he died and when she died she give
the land to one her children.

I that this could not be. We have both wills and it mention in both.
I think if husband gives land and she wills it. Then she own it Right
Because you can will what you do not have.

Janet

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

From: Dora Smith
Date: 6/17/2007 4:27:27 PM
To: Kay Allen; Janet; gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Stupid Question

Did the husband have the right to decide the woman could suddenly own
Property upon his death, or did the right to decide that pass to another
Male authority figure who controlled whether she actually inherited land her

Husband left her or not?

I know it looks like you answered that, but if she had been married and the
Husband died, would not the husband's male heir or the wife's father then
Have her property rights? Or did she actually become independent when he
Died.

Suppose he died with no will? Did she inherit his property automatically,
Or did it go to someone else because her husband had not implied in his will

That he was giving her permission to own it?

Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernu...@yahoo.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kay Allen" <all...@pacbell.net
To: "Janet" <mon...@getgoin.net>; <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: Stupid Question

Under English common law, a single woman, never
married or widowed, could own land or property, She
was called a "femme sole" or woman alone. If the woman
remarried, it would be up to the husband whether or
not she could retain control of the property. If the
daughter was unmarried, and of age, she would control
her property. Again, if she married, her husband would
have control.

Hope this helps.

K
--- Janet <mon...@getgoin.net> wrote:

--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.465 / Virus Database: 269.5.7/771 - Release Date: 4/21/2007
11:56 AM

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/852 - Release Date: 6/17/2007
8:23 AM

.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Was King Edward IV Of England A Bastard?

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 18 jun 2007 19:05:11

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tEqdi.1836$uR5.1008@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...

In this case, if I remember correctly, it involves the medieval new year
being in April rather than in January and so the years the king has been
king changes between March and June and not on the aniversary [sic] of his
coronation...
-------------------------------------------


No...

Wrong.

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

"In the Middle Ages in Europe a number of significant feast days in the
ecclesiastical calendar of the Roman Catholic Church came to be used as the
beginning of the Julian year:

In Christmas Style dating the new year started on 25 December. This was used
in Germany and England until the thirteenth century, and in Spain from the
fourteenth to the sixteenth century.

In Annunciation Style dating the new year started on 25 March, the feast of
the Annunciation. This was used in many parts of Europe in the Middle Ages,
and was the style introduced by Dionysius Exiguus in AD 525. Annunciation
Style continued to be used in the Kingdom of Great Britain until January 1,
1752, except Scotland which changed to Circumcision Style dating on 1
January 1600.

The rest of Great Britain changed to Circumcision Style on the 1 January
preceding the conversion in Great Britain from the Julian calendar to the
Gregorian calendar on 3/14 September 1752. The UK tax year still starts on 6
April which is 25 March + 12 days, eleven for the conversion from the Julian
to the Gregorian calendar plus a dropped leap day in 1900.

In Easter Style dating, the new year started on Easter Saturday (or
sometimes on Good Friday). This was used in France from the eleventh to the
sixteenth century. A disadvantage of this system was that because Easter was
a movable feast the same date could occur twice in a year; the two
occurrences were distinguished as "before Easter" and "after Easter".

In Circumcision Style dating, the new year started on 1 January, the Feast
of the Circumcision (of Jesus).

The ancient Roman new year of 1 March was used in the Republic of Venice
until its destruction in 1797, and in Russia from 988 until the end of the
fifteenth century.

1 September was used in Russia from the end of the fifteenth century until
the adoption of the Christian era in 1700 (previously, Russia had counted
years since the creation of the world).

Since the seventeenth century, the Roman Catholic ecclesiastic year has
started on the first day of Advent, the Sunday nearest to St. Andrew's Day
(30 November).

Autumnal equinox day (usually 22 September) is "New Year's Day" in the
French Republican Calendar, which was in use from 1793 to 1805. This was
primidi Vendemière, the first day of the first month."

<http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year's_Day>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

William Black

Re: Was King Edward IV Of England A Bastard?

Legg inn av William Black » 18 jun 2007 19:26:40

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:VPzdi.96$oj2.225@eagle.america.net...
"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tEqdi.1836$uR5.1008@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...

In this case, if I remember correctly, it involves the medieval new
year
being in April rather than in January and so the years the king has been
king changes between March and June and not on the aniversary [sic] of
his
coronation...
-------------------------------------------

No...

Wrong.

Well, reading what you lifted from Wiki...

No.


--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Larsy

Re: Hillary's "Feminist Problem" -- Feminists Rescind Their

Legg inn av Larsy » 18 jun 2007 20:58:18

The Nation: Feminists Rescind Their Support For Former First Lady

This will probably help her in the long run: Hillary C. ain't hardly
no fool ...

Now, if she could only lose the Chicaago accent ...

george

Re: Was King Edward IV Of England A Bastard?

Legg inn av george » 18 jun 2007 22:25:22

On Jun 19, 6:26 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in messagenews:VPzdi.96$oj2.225@eagle.america.net...

"William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tEqdi.1836$uR5.1008@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...

In this case, if I remember correctly, it involves the medieval new
year
being in April rather than in January and so the years the king has been
king changes between March and June and not on the aniversary [sic] of
his
coronation...
-------------------------------------------

No...

Wrong.

Well, reading what you lifted from Wiki...

No.

Is Hines doing a web search for his daddy?

WJhonson

Re: Early Yorkshire Charters - contents

Legg inn av WJhonson » 18 jun 2007 22:43:02

In a message dated 06/17/07 20:40:50 Pacific Standard Time, p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
Vol. I - edited by William Farrer (Edinburgh, 1914), the title page
announcing "In four volumes": ...
Vol. II - - edited by William Farrer (Edinburgh, 1915), the title page
repeating "In four volumes": ...
Vol. III - edited by William Farrer (Edinburgh, 1916), the title page
announcing "In six volumes": ...
_A Consolidated Index of Persons and Places_ in vols. I-III... extra series vol. IV (1942)

Vol. IV - edited by Charles Travis Clay, - ...extra series vol. I (1935):
Vol. V - edited by Charles Travis Clay, ...- extra series vol. II (1936):
Vol. VI - edited by Charles Travis Clay, ...- extra series vol. III (1939):
Vol. VII - edited by Charles Travis Clay, ...- extra series vol. V (1947):
Vol. VIII - edited by Charles Travis Clay, ...- extra series vol. VI (1949):
Vol. IX - edited by Charles Travis Clay, ...- extra series vol. VII (1952):
Vol. X - edited by Charles Travis Clay, ...- extra series vol. VIII (1955):
Vol. XI - edited by Charles Travis Clay, ...- extra series vol. IX (1963):
Vol. XII - edited by Charles Travis Clay, ...- extra series vol. X (1965):

Disclaimer: Snipped parts not relevant to my summary from the above.

From looking at this it would appear (correct me if I'm wrong) that what occurred was something like this:
In 1914 William Farrer decided to publish a work that he thought would extend over four volumes. After he'd published the first two, he decided that really it would have to extend over six volumes. After he'd published the third of those six, he stopped.


In 1935, Charles Travis Clay decided to pick up from where Farrer had stopped and started publishing, not only the missing three volumes, but then went on to publish even more.

And in 1942, someone created an index to the first three volumes that Farrer had done.

Would that be an accurate summation ?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Peter Stewart

Re: Early Yorkshire Charters - contents

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 18 jun 2007 23:28:23

On Jun 19, 7:43 am, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 06/17/07 20:40:50 Pacific Standard Time, p_m_stew...@msn.com writes:
Vol. I - edited by William Farrer (Edinburgh, 1914), the title page
announcing "In four volumes": ...
Vol. II - - edited by William Farrer (Edinburgh, 1915), the title page
repeating "In four volumes": ...
Vol. III - edited by William Farrer (Edinburgh, 1916), the title page
announcing "In six volumes": ...
_A Consolidated Index of Persons and Places_ in vols. I-III... extra series vol. IV (1942)

Vol. IV - edited by Charles Travis Clay, - ...extra series vol. I (1935):
Vol. V - edited by Charles Travis Clay, ...- extra series vol. II (1936):
Vol. VI - edited by Charles Travis Clay, ...- extra series vol. III (1939):
Vol. VII - edited by Charles Travis Clay, ...- extra series vol. V (1947):
Vol. VIII - edited by Charles Travis Clay, ...- extra series vol. VI (1949):
Vol. IX - edited by Charles Travis Clay, ...- extra series vol. VII (1952):
Vol. X - edited by Charles Travis Clay, ...- extra series vol. VIII (1955):
Vol. XI - edited by Charles Travis Clay, ...- extra series vol. IX (1963):
Vol. XII - edited by Charles Travis Clay, ...- extra series vol. X (1965):

Disclaimer: Snipped parts not relevant to my summary from the above.

From looking at this it would appear (correct me if I'm wrong) that what occurred was something like this:

In 1914 William Farrer decided to publish a work that he thought would extend over four volumes. After he'd published the first two, he decided that really it would have to extend over six volumes. After he'd published the third of those six, he stopped.

In 1935, Charles Travis Clay decided to pick up from where Farrer had stopped and started publishing, not only the missing three volumes, but then went on to publish even more.

And in 1942, someone created an index to the first three volumes that Farrer had done.

Would that be an accurate summation ?

Yes. William Farrer died in 1924 - his papers were used by Charles
Clay to continue the publication of EYC. However, the nine further
volumes published by YAS were arranged to Clay's plan, not following
on directly from the varying projections of 1914 and 1916.

Peter Stewart

WJhonson

Re: Two Margaret Skipwiths

Legg inn av WJhonson » 19 jun 2007 00:09:01

<<In a message dated 06/16/07 22:45:42 Pacific Standard Time, WatsonJohnM@gmail.com writes:
Slip of the pen there, I meant 1337 - but the same objection to his
daughter having children in the 1380's still applies I think. >>


There might be an unwarranted assumption there. I show Margaret Skipwith, wife of Sir Robert Constable with two children, Joan and Marmaduke. There may certainly have been more.

Joan married Robert Hilton and they had at least one child born *between* 1399 and 1404, Isabel Hilton

In looking through my notes, I see *no good authority* for a birth year for either child.

I also question your birthyear for Robert Constable of "about 1350". It seems significantly later than my own birthrange of 1316 to 1340.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Hattons of Maryland to Wolfath, Count of Hatton

Legg inn av WJhonson » 19 jun 2007 00:11:10

On the mother being "Jane Shute" I refer you to
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... atton2.htm

You might check what *their* underlying sources are, probably some Visitation.

Will Johnson

Janet

Re: Stupid Question

Legg inn av Janet » 19 jun 2007 00:15:04

Thank you but I look for a Lady in New England 1600s who husband give land
and DAMES says women by England Law can own land not even when Husband give
it them in a will

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

From: CE Wood
Date: 6/18/2007 11:30:51 AM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Stupid Question

Read "The Widow's War," by Sally Gunning.

" In your husband's will he gives you your standard 'widow's thirds.'
Mr. Clarke, as your nearest male relative, receives title to all
Property while you, as Edward's relict, retain life use of a third of
Either the physical property itself or a third the interest resulting
From its sale, whichever Mr. Clarke deems appropriate, for as long as
You remain Edward Berry's widow."


This in 18th century New England!!

We have "come a long way, baby," but we still struggle to maintain our
Gains.

CE Wood

On Jun 18, 2:40 am, "Janet" <mon...@getgoin.net> wrote:
English law back then says women can not own land.
Now she could have it in trust for her children.
But this lady husband give her land when he died and when she died she
give
the land to one her children.

I that this could not be. We have both wills and it mention in both.
I think if husband gives land and she wills it. Then she own it Right
Because you can will what you do not have.

Janet

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

From: Dora Smith
Date: 6/17/2007 4:27:27 PM
To: Kay Allen; Janet; gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Stupid Question

Did the husband have the right to decide the woman could suddenly own
Property upon his death, or did the right to decide that pass to another
Male authority figure who controlled whether she actually inherited land
her

Husband left her or not?

I know it looks like you answered that, but if she had been married and
the
Husband died, would not the husband's male heir or the wife's father then
Have her property rights? Or did she actually become independent when he
Died.

Suppose he died with no will? Did she inherit his property automatically,
Or did it go to someone else because her husband had not implied in his
will

That he was giving her permission to own it?

Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernu...@yahoo.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kay Allen" <all...@pacbell.net
To: "Janet" <mon...@getgoin.net>; <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: Stupid Question

Under English common law, a single woman, never
married or widowed, could own land or property, She
was called a "femme sole" or woman alone. If the woman
remarried, it would be up to the husband whether or
not she could retain control of the property. If the
daughter was unmarried, and of age, she would control
her property. Again, if she married, her husband would
have control.

Hope this helps.

K
--- Janet <mon...@getgoin.net> wrote:

--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.465 / Virus Database: 269.5.7/771 - Release Date: 4/21/2007
11:56 AM

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/852 - Release Date: 6/17/2007
8:23 AM

.



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



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/852 - Release Date: 6/17/2007
8:23 AM

..

WJhonson

Re: Luria

Legg inn av WJhonson » 19 jun 2007 00:31:28

What is the source for this parentage for Hillel?
Wikipedia does not have it, and states that his specific ancestry, even the name of his father, is unknown.

Will Johnson

MLS

RE: Luria

Legg inn av MLS » 19 jun 2007 00:41:31

Wikipedia ??!!


-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of WJhonson
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 1:31 AM
To: Gen-Medieval; gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Luria


What is the source for this parentage for Hillel?
Wikipedia does not have it, and states that his specific ancestry, even
the name of his father, is unknown.

Will Johnson

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

WJhonson

Re: Two Margaret Skipwiths

Legg inn av WJhonson » 19 jun 2007 01:14:00

Thanks John. I've confirmed the entry from CPR which is here
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/r ... ge0381.pdf

that it says what you say it says.

I agree that
A) if this lady is Margaret Skipwith, daughter of William Skipwith by his wife Margaret FitzSimon, that she must be already into her middle-age by now;
B) *if* she is the mother of Joan and Marmaduke Constable that they must have both been born sometime between 1380 and 1385;

This allows both Joan and Marmaduke to be even closer in age to their aleged spouses, Robert Hilton and Catherine Cumberworth respectively. Running this chronology up-and-down what I have it presents no problems elsewhere

Is there a contemporary source which states when Alexander Surtays died? Could they have been married for some time prior to the Pardon ?

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Sir William Cavendish, (died 1557)

Legg inn av WJhonson » 19 jun 2007 01:29:43

Can you fill in for me *which* Robert Vernon was the second husband of Mrs Frances Kirton?

Thanks
Will

Ford Mommaerts-Browne

Re: Luria

Legg inn av Ford Mommaerts-Browne » 19 jun 2007 05:38:44

----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: "Gen-Medieval" <gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com>; <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: Luria


: What is the source for this parentage for Hillel?
: Wikipedia does not have it, and states that his specific ancestry, even the name of his father, is unknown.
:
: Will Johnson

We know the name of Hillel's brother. But Hillel and his descendants, as well as his contemporaries, (who would have all had access to records now lost), all believed that he was descended from the tribe of Benjamin, in the male line, and from David in the female line. He came to Judaea from Babylon. That is all that we have. No intervening generations. David Hughes gives a male-line descent from David, with all the names included - BUT that is not what the benHillelim, themselves believed or claimed.

jonathan kirton

Re: Sir William Cavendish, (died 1557)

Legg inn av jonathan kirton » 19 jun 2007 11:45:26

Attention: Will Jhonson.

Thanks for your email. My statement made before that Lady Frances
Vernon died in
1617 was incorrect, see below. She died in 1624.

I cannot supply a specific answer as to "which" Sir Robert Vernon was
the second
husband of Mrs. Frances Kirton, but maybe there are some clues in
what we do know.

I have never found any Kirton connection at Mitcham, Surrey, south of
London, so
suspect that this was the location of the place of residence of her
second husband.

I suspect that she married Sir Robert Vernon during or after 1603,
and that he
predeceased his wife, when he died in 1617.

"Abstracts of Somersetshire Wills, Etc., by Rev. Frederick Brown,
M.A., F.S.A., First
Series, Privately printed for Frederick Arthur Crisp, 1887, page 44
shows:

"Lady Frances Vernon, widow. Will dated Nov. 7, 1624, proved Dec. 7,
1624 (P.C.C.)
[ 111 Byrde] ....... My daughter Bugge (Lady Frances Bugge)......my
daughter Bamfield
.........Arabella Kirton......my son Kirton." (Edward Kirton of
Almesford and Castle Carye)
(I do not know who "her daughter Bamfield" may be; perhaps a
daughter that she
had with Sir Robert Vernon ?)

The same page shows a Kirton pedigree in connection with the will of
Sir James
Kirton (on the previous page 43) which shows that Frances, widow of
Daniel Kirton
(died 1594), married secondly Sir Robert Vernon, buried at Mitcham
(Surrey),
20 Sep., 1617.

I now see that I have misinterpreted this entry, and it was Sir
Robert Vernon who
was buried at Mitcham, Surrey on 20 Sept., 1617, while Lady Frances
Vernon
evidently died between 7 Nov., 1624, when she wrote her will, and 7
Dec., 1624,
one month later, when her will was proved.

Perhaps these additional details will provide a enough information
for you to be able
to positively identify which Sir Robert Vernon we are discussing.
I do hope so.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Kirton

Matthew Connolly

Re: Sir William Cavendish, (died 1557)

Legg inn av Matthew Connolly » 19 jun 2007 14:44:30

On Jun 19, 12:45 pm, jonathan kirton <jonathankir...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
Attention: Will Jhonson.

Thanks for your email. My statement made before that Lady Frances
Vernon died in
1617 was incorrect, see below. She died in 1624.

I cannot supply a specific answer as to "which" Sir Robert Vernon was
the second
husband of Mrs. Frances Kirton, but maybe there are some clues in
what we do know.

I have never found any Kirton connection at Mitcham, Surrey, south of
London, so
suspect that this was the location of the place of residence of her
second husband.

I suspect that she married Sir Robert Vernon during or after 1603,
and that he
predeceased his wife, when he died in 1617.

"Abstracts of Somersetshire Wills, Etc., by Rev. Frederick Brown,
M.A., F.S.A., First
Series, Privately printed for Frederick Arthur Crisp, 1887, page 44
shows:

"Lady Frances Vernon, widow. Will dated Nov. 7, 1624, proved Dec. 7,
1624 (P.C.C.)
[ 111 Byrde] ....... My daughter Bugge (Lady Frances Bugge)......my
daughter Bamfield
........Arabella Kirton......my son Kirton." (Edward Kirton of
Almesford and Castle Carye)
(I do not know who "her daughter Bamfield" may be; perhaps a
daughter that she
had with Sir Robert Vernon ?)

The same page shows a Kirton pedigree in connection with the will of
Sir James
Kirton (on the previous page 43) which shows that Frances, widow of
Daniel Kirton
(died 1594), married secondly Sir Robert Vernon, buried at Mitcham
(Surrey),
20 Sep., 1617.

I now see that I have misinterpreted this entry, and it was Sir
Robert Vernon who
was buried at Mitcham, Surrey on 20 Sept., 1617, while Lady Frances
Vernon
evidently died between 7 Nov., 1624, when she wrote her will, and 7
Dec., 1624,
one month later, when her will was proved.

Perhaps these additional details will provide a enough information
for you to be able
to positively identify which Sir Robert Vernon we are discussing.
I do hope so.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Kirton

I've downloaded the PCC will of this Sir Robert Vernon (proved 8 Oct
1617) for further details- haven't deciphered it all but will be happy
to send it on if of interest. It seems to mention the following:

Arbella Bugge daughter of Mr Anthony Bugge
Kathrean Benbowe wyfe of John Benbowe my sister P..k.. [Parker?]
daughter
Sislie Vernon my brother Henrie Vernon his daughter
Elizabeth Messenger
Anthonie Bugge (overseer)
Edward Kirton (overseer)
Dame ffrancis Vernon my wife (sole executor)
The lands, etc. "I have in Lincolnshire late of Sir Arthur Ingram and
Edward Kirton and at Mitcham in the County of Surrey or in any other
place..."

So it looks as though Sir Robert had no surviving issue of his own, as
we have seen that Kirton was his stepson and Bugge his stepson-in-law.
As for which one he is, we can rule out the contemporary Sir Robert of
Hodnet (d.1625) who was married throughout the same period to Mary
Needham, widow of Sir Thomas Onslow. Shaw's Knights lists three
Roberts:

1599 July 12 Robert Vernon at Dublin by Earl of Essex Lord Lt.
1603/4 July 23/4 Robert 'Varnam' of Cheshire at Whitehall before
coronation
1615 Mar 30 (Apr 3) Robert Vernon The Avener, Woking

The Robert who married Frances Kirton was already a knight by 1606,
when he is named as such in the marriage licence of his stepdaughter
Frances and Anthony Bugge, so the last one can be discounted (that
then is presumably the man who had the wife Ann (d.1627) mentioned in
my previous post). As Robert of Hodnet was not 'of Cheshire' he is
presumably the 1599 knight (the Earl of Essex was first cousin of
Robert of Hodnet, too). So the Robert who d.1617 could be the Robert
'of Cheshire' knighted in 1603/4.

From the information in his will I can't immediately place him with
any certainty; but in the pedigree of the Vernons of Haslington there

is a younger son Robert, who in the 1580 visitation (HS xviii p236) is
given a wife Anne, widow to Williamson, which Ormerod expands to Anne,
widow of Thomas Williamson of London, merchant, daughter of John
Glaston of Lincolnshire. Conjecturally this Robert could have been
widowed and remarried between 1580 and 1603; he has a younger brother
Henry in the pedigrees (and their mother was called Cicely, making
that name likely for a niece); and a sister Jane was wife of Robert
Sparke, per Ormerod, which could be a variation of the name in the
will (or the latter could be another marriage of one of the sisters).
All hypothetical though, for the moment.

John P. Ravilious

Re: Mowbray ancestry of Camoys and Hansard: a conjecture

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 19 jun 2007 18:08:19

[original post from 14 June, whereabouts unknown.....]


Thursday, 14 June, 2007


Dear Rosie, Doug, Will, Doug, et al.,

Following on the earlier posts to this thread, an
alternate suggestion was made by Rosie. I had mentioned a
charter in Monasticon Anglicanum to which 'Roberto de
Mubrai', a son of Roger de Mowbray and Alice de Gant, was a
witness. Rosie has provided a charter of Nigel de Mowbray
(d. 1191) confirming a grant to Byland, dated 1186x1190,
which is witnessed by 'Robert de Mowbray my brother, William
and Robert my sons' and others [1]. Nigel's brother Robert
was the same individual I had mentioned: of the other two,
William was Nigel's well-known successor ca. 1191, and
Robert a younger son re: whom nothing further was heard,
at least until now.

Rosie suggests that Matilda (_____) Haunsard and Mabel
(___) de Torpel were nieces of the latter Robert, and
thereby also of William de Mowbray (d. 1224). This
suggestion has several positive elements: (A) there is no
need to postulate a hitherto unknown Robert de Mowbray, as
per my suggestion; (B) there are known siblings of Robert
de Mowbray (Roger de Mowbray, and a sister, wife of
Enguerrand du Humez (or de Hommet) - see CP IX:373, sub
_Mowbray_) for whom there is no subsequent record as to
English lands or heirs; and (C) Mabel de Torpel would have
a notable namesake by this identification, with Mabel
(allegedly Patric), wife of Nigel de Mowbray, as a
grandmother.

[ NOTE: this chart provides a conjectured connection,
indicated _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ]


Roger de Mowbray = Alice de Gant
______________________I_________________
I I
Nigel de Mowbray Robert de Mowbray
crusader; d. 1191
= Mabel
___I_____________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _
I I I I I ?
William Philip Robert Roger NN = NN
d. 1224 d. aft ? d. bef Enguerrand I
= Avice 1212 10 Nov du Hummet I
I 1233 ? I
_I____________________ _____________I__
I I I I
Nele Roger Matilda Mabel
d. 1230 b. aft 2 Oct = John = Roger
Oct 1209: Hansard de Torpel
d. 1266 ___________I
I ____________I______
V I I
Ascelin Roger de
= Ralph de Torpel
Camoys
I
V


There is certainly the possibility that Robert de
Mowbray, younger brother of William, had devised his lands
in Melton Mowbray to his nieces Maud and Mabel so that they
did not revert to the overlord (either his nephew Nele de
Mowbray, d. 1230, or his successor Roger, depending on the
actual date of death). We know of further that Mabel,
widow of Nigel de Mowbray, was dowered in the manor or a
moiety of Melton Mowbray (CP). Unfortunately, the VCH
volume that would cover Framland Hundred in Leicestershire
(including Melton Mowbray) has not seen the light of day
to date, which may hold the key as to what the exact
relationship was.

Should anyone have further documentation on this
matter, or suggestions for further fossicks, that would
be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

John *




NOTES

[1] D. E. Greenway, Charters of the Honour of Mowbray
(London: Oxford Univ. Press for the British Academy,
1972), p.54, courtesy Rosie Bevan.


* John P. Ravilious

Matthew Connolly

Re: Sir William Cavendish, (died 1557)

Legg inn av Matthew Connolly » 19 jun 2007 19:39:27

On Jun 19, 3:44 pm, Matthew Connolly <mvernonconno...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
I've downloaded the PCC will of this Sir Robert Vernon (proved 8 Oct
1617) for further details- haven't deciphered it all but will be happy
to send it on if of interest. It seems to mention the following:

Arbella Bugge daughter of Mr Anthony Bugge
Kathrean Benbowe wyfe of John Benbowe my sister P..k.. [Parker?]
daughter
Sislie Vernon my brother Henrie Vernon his daughter
Elizabeth Messenger
Anthonie Bugge (overseer)
Edward Kirton (overseer)
Dame ffrancis Vernon my wife (sole executor)
The lands, etc. "I have in Lincolnshire late of Sir Arthur Ingram and
Edward Kirton and at Mitcham in the County of Surrey or in any other
place..."

So it looks as though Sir Robert had no surviving issue of his own, as
we have seen that Kirton was his stepson and Bugge his stepson-in-law.
As for which one he is, we can rule out the contemporary Sir Robert of
Hodnet (d.1625) who was married throughout the same period to Mary
Needham, widow of Sir Thomas Onslow. Shaw's Knights lists three
Roberts:

1599 July 12 Robert Vernon at Dublin by Earl of Essex Lord Lt.
1603/4 July 23/4 Robert 'Varnam' of Cheshire at Whitehall before
coronation
1615 Mar 30 (Apr 3) Robert Vernon The Avener, Woking

The Robert who married Frances Kirton was already a knight by 1606,
when he is named as such in the marriage licence of his stepdaughter
Frances and Anthony Bugge, so the last one can be discounted (that
then is presumably the man who had the wife Ann (d.1627) mentioned in
my previous post). As Robert of Hodnet was not 'of Cheshire' he is
presumably the 1599 knight (the Earl of Essex was first cousin of
Robert of Hodnet, too). So the Robert who d.1617 could be the Robert
'of Cheshire' knighted in 1603/4.

From the information in his will I can't immediately place him with

any certainty; but in the pedigree of the Vernons of Haslington there
is a younger son Robert, who in the 1580 visitation (HS xviii p236) is
given a wife Anne, widow to Williamson, which Ormerod expands to Anne,
widow of Thomas Williamson of London, merchant, daughter of John
Glaston of Lincolnshire. Conjecturally this Robert could have been
widowed and remarried between 1580 and 1603; he has a younger brother
Henry in the pedigrees (and their mother was called Cicely, making
that name likely for a niece); and a sister Jane was wife of Robert
Sparke, per Ormerod, which could be a variation of the name in the
will (or the latter could be another marriage of one of the sisters).
All hypothetical though, for the moment.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Support for this identification is the marriage of John Benbowe to
"Katheren da. & heire to Robert Sparke" given in the 1623 Visitation
of Shropshire (HS xxviii p.39). The IGI has the extracted record for
the marriage of "Johnes. Benbow" and "Kather. Sparke", 23 Dec 1613 at
St Martin-in-the-Fields. The will does seem to say 'my sister Parkes
daughter', with no initial S, but it seems a distinct possibility that
the same people are intended. This would make the Sir Robert Vernon in
question the one given at ((B)) on the Stirnet page here (married to
Anne Glaston, who would thus be a first wife):

http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... rnon03.htm

taf

Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 629

Legg inn av taf » 19 jun 2007 21:23:24

On Jun 19, 12:56 pm, Millerfairfi...@aol.com wrote:
Dear Mary,
Please do not send off-topic message to Soc-Gen-Med

For what it is worth, none of the current participants in these latest
discussions are reading soc.gen.med, so none will see this request,
which only appeared in soc.gen.med.

Mr. Hines apparently gets his joy in life from saying provocative
things and then seeing people argue over them. In order to generate a
big argument rather than a small one, he posts these provocative posts
to multiple groups at once, the plan being to get all of the people in
all of the groups arguing with each other. Each person is responding
in their own group, not realizing or not caring that because of
Hines's initial broadcast, their responses as well are going to all of
these groups. Thus, because Mr. Hines included this group at the
start, we are subjected to the subsequent discussion deriving from all
the groups.

There is nothing that can be done to stop Mr. Hines from his childish
disruptive behavior, and little to end the discussion once it starts.
What is important is that no one further the discussion by posting a
response.

taf

Ford Mommaerts-Browne

Re: Any comments on this line? TAF?

Legg inn av Ford Mommaerts-Browne » 19 jun 2007 21:43:48

"taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message news:1182283733.056709.40140@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
| On Jun 19, 10:20 am, Hovite <paulvhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
| > > just as there are problems
| > > with pedigrees tracing descents of modern rulers from Mohammad
| >
| > They are like the Anglo-Saxon descents from Woden: fictional.
|
| On Jun 19, 10:20 am, Hovite <paulvhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
| > > just as there are problems
| > > with pedigrees tracing descents of modern rulers from Mohammad
| >
| > They are like the Anglo-Saxon descents from Woden: fictional.
|
| It is not quite so simple as this, as this sets up a false dichotomy.
| Proven and fictional are not antonyms, and not the only two options.
|
| We don't know that all such lines are fictional. To know that we would
| need the same type of evidence (which is lacking) necessary to show
| them true. They are simply not supported by surviving evidence, and
| while some of them can be more or less safely concluded likely to be
| false, for some we have nothing on which to base even this. These must
| simply be left to be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism.
|
| In the Anglo Saxon case, I would put a different (and decreasing)
| probability of accuracy on the pedigrees of Ine, Ecgbert and the
| latter's immediate predecessors.
|
| taf
|

Since this thread began with a discussion, in part, of Rabbinical lineages, I feel obligated to point out that Jewish communities were extremely scrupulous and conscientious in recording the lineage(s) of their rabbis. Yes! Some later, (often Christian exotica-seekers), did introduce the horticultural practise of grafting branches onto the trunk. But, in context, this recent exchange would imply that such rabbinical lines are fiction. Simply not so.
Ford

Gjest

Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 629

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 jun 2007 22:06:02

Dear Mary,
Please do not send off-topic message to Soc-Gen-Med
Best wishes
mm

Matthew Connolly

Re: Sir William Cavendish, (died 1557)

Legg inn av Matthew Connolly » 19 jun 2007 22:28:36

On Jun 19, 8:39 pm, Matthew Connolly <mvernonconno...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
On Jun 19, 3:44 pm, Matthew Connolly <mvernonconno...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:





I've downloaded the PCC will of this Sir Robert Vernon (proved 8 Oct
1617) for further details- haven't deciphered it all but will be happy
to send it on if of interest. It seems to mention the following:

Arbella Bugge daughter of Mr Anthony Bugge
Kathrean Benbowe wyfe of John Benbowe my sister P..k.. [Parker?]
daughter
Sislie Vernon my brother Henrie Vernon his daughter
Elizabeth Messenger
Anthonie Bugge (overseer)
Edward Kirton (overseer)
Dame ffrancis Vernon my wife (sole executor)
The lands, etc. "I have in Lincolnshire late of Sir Arthur Ingram and
Edward Kirton and at Mitcham in the County of Surrey or in any other
place..."

So it looks as though Sir Robert had no surviving issue of his own, as
we have seen that Kirton was his stepson and Bugge his stepson-in-law.
As for which one he is, we can rule out the contemporary Sir Robert of
Hodnet (d.1625) who was married throughout the same period to Mary
Needham, widow of Sir Thomas Onslow. Shaw's Knights lists three
Roberts:

1599 July 12 Robert Vernon at Dublin by Earl of Essex Lord Lt.
1603/4 July 23/4 Robert 'Varnam' of Cheshire at Whitehall before
coronation
1615 Mar 30 (Apr 3) Robert Vernon The Avener, Woking

The Robert who married Frances Kirton was already a knight by 1606,
when he is named as such in the marriage licence of his stepdaughter
Frances and Anthony Bugge, so the last one can be discounted (that
then is presumably the man who had the wife Ann (d.1627) mentioned in
my previous post). As Robert of Hodnet was not 'of Cheshire' he is
presumably the 1599 knight (the Earl of Essex was first cousin of
Robert of Hodnet, too). So the Robert who d.1617 could be the Robert
'of Cheshire' knighted in 1603/4.

From the information in his will I can't immediately place him with

any certainty; but in the pedigree of the Vernons of Haslington there
is a younger son Robert, who in the 1580 visitation (HS xviii p236) is
given a wife Anne, widow to Williamson, which Ormerod expands to Anne,
widow of Thomas Williamson of London, merchant, daughter of John
Glaston of Lincolnshire. Conjecturally this Robert could have been
widowed and remarried between 1580 and 1603; he has a younger brother
Henry in the pedigrees (and their mother was called Cicely, making
that name likely for a niece); and a sister Jane was wife of Robert
Sparke, per Ormerod, which could be a variation of the name in the
will (or the latter could be another marriage of one of the sisters).
All hypothetical though, for the moment.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Support for this identification is the marriage of John Benbowe to
"Katheren da. & heire to Robert Sparke" given in the 1623 Visitation
of Shropshire (HS xxviii p.39). The IGI has the extracted record for
the marriage of "Johnes. Benbow" and "Kather. Sparke", 23 Dec 1613 at
St Martin-in-the-Fields. The will does seem to say 'my sister Parkes
daughter', with no initial S, but it seems a distinct possibility that
the same people are intended. This would make the Sir Robert Vernon in
question the one given at ((B)) on the Stirnet page here (married to
Anne Glaston, who would thus be a first wife):

http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... non03.htm- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Google Books throws up the following (snippet only, even with proxy,
so I'll just quote it) from 'Cheshire Inquisitions Post Mortem: Stuart
Period, 1608-1660', p.62: "So being seised, the said Robert Sparke
made his will, appointing his brother, Sir Robert Vernon kt. & his
cousin, Mr. George Vernon, executors...", which adds further support
for the placement.

taf

Re: Any comments on this line? TAF?

Legg inn av taf » 20 jun 2007 00:44:40

On Jun 19, 1:43 pm, "Ford Mommaerts-Browne" <FordMommae...@cox.net>
wrote:
Since this thread began with a discussion, in part, of Rabbinical lineages, I feel obligated to point out that Jewish communities were extremely scrupulous and conscientious in recording the lineage(s) of their rabbis. Yes! Some later, (often Christian exotica-seekers), did introduce the horticultural practise of grafting branches onto the trunk. But, in context, this recent exchange would imply that such rabbinical lines are fiction. Simply not so.
Ford

It was not my intent to indicate that they are fiction - only that
they should be viewed with skepticism (the case for all lines,
right?). That being said, even "extremely scrupulous" records can
have accuracy problems when they run through 5 centuries of otherwise
undocumented individuals with nothing but names. I don't know that we
should give the _Seder Olam Zuta_ a free pass, any more than we would
give a free pass to a christian chronicle presenting such a line.

By the way, weren't the clergy and the secular leaders derived from
different houses/clans? Yet this line traces rabbis from Exilarchs.

taf

Gjest

Re: Sir William Browne of Flushing marries a Huguenot

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 jun 2007 02:25:03

Sorry Will, I missed you posts of 30th May below, until tonight,

As you have seen, my reference to John Browne (who m1 Anne Montgomary) as
being of Snelston was in reply to Rosie Beven's message where she quotes Susan
Wright, Derbyshire Gentry in the Fifteenth Century, p.216 citing PRO
C142/33/63 calling him of Snelston - not my assertion, but just following the tread.

The PRO web page states that this reference is not in their catalogue.

The series C142 are inquisitions post mortams.

Pym Yateman gives the following for this John Browne's ipm:

The inquisition of John Browne (Chancery Inq., 13 Elizabeth, Part 1, No. 120
[1570]) was taken April 18th, in the thirteenth year of the Queen. He held
shops in Hart Street, St. Olave, ... Although only extracts, PY would surly
repeat any mention of Snelston

There is no mention of Snelston in his Will, a summary is as follows

Will Summary made 17 Sep 1570, proved PCC 19 Oct 1570
John Browne of London, citizen now dwelling at Raynolds, Horton Kirby, Kent
Sisters: wife of rt hon Sir William Petre knt
Brother in law Rauf Carkete
Sister-in-Law My lady chamberlyn
Sons William Browne (s&h, executor); Charles Browne (executor, ?2nd son);
Edward Browne (?3rd son); Mamyne Browne (=Mawryce?, 4th son; underage;
provision for his maintenance and education)
Daughters Elizabeth now the wife of Benjamin English (or Inglish) (issue
includes William, John and Michael English); Anne now the wife of John Hall
(left godson John Hill); Gertrude now the wife of Humffrey Browne
Also mentioned; Sir Mawrice Barkley knyght; Sir William Campell knight;
Richard Baker of Sissinghurst; Thomas Short of London skryvener; John Althen or
Altyen vicar of Horton Richard Brown of Staunton, Leicester yeoman; Davyd
Wythers of London, merchant
Nephews: John Fofler; Vyncent Mundy
Cousins: Thomasyn Hairryson wydower; Thomas Brenil of London staven
Godson: William Pyerson; Late wifes goddaughter: Rose Feyerson
Servants: Robert Samll Roger Hodgeson; goodwif Robson; goodman Hewes
Apprentice: George Smyth
Poor releif to Saint Albans parish, Wood Street, London and to Horton Kirby,
Kent; also poor scholers of Cambridge University
Property: Lease of Neleyn Wood, Bromley and Stane, Kent (to Son Wm);
Raynolds manor, Horton Kirby, Kent; manor adjoining Southsuloos, St Albans,
Woodchurch, London (to Charles); manor in Warslowe [Warstow below] and Langnor,
Staffs; Rent from tenement called Harts Horne, [ac: below Hartshorn] Golding Lane,
[ac: below Golden Lane] St Giles without, London (to Wm Browne); manor of
Stratton in lerfyild Leicester/Derbs (to Charles Browne); 4 tennements against
the late Crossed Friers, Hart Street (let to Wm or Francis Wythers merchant,
Wm Williams, Robert Tullyer and Katherine Chayny widow) to Maurice Browne;
Rents from of tenement of Rayleth, Essex (let to Richard Gosling) (to Edward
Browne)


Adrian




Will Johnson wrote

In a message dated 30/05/2007 19:01:09 GMT Standard Time, wjhonson@aol.com

writes:
On the existence of a "John Browne OF SNELSTON" [emphasis mine]
see
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... ead/82e829
a1794df673/4cf9c63ab8086de2?lnk=gst&q=Browne+of+Snelston&rnum=1&hl=en#4cf9c63a
b8086de2

citing "Derbyshire Gentry..." which itself cites PRO C 142/33/63
this thread calls him "John Browne of Snelston" exactly as stated

Adrian Channing then replies that this John Browne was "... a son of William
Browne (1467-1514), mayor of London in 1513, by his second wife Alice
Kebyll".

Will Johnson
<<<<<

and to me wrote
You said it. See

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... ead/82e829
a1794df673/4cf9c63ab8086de2?lnk=gst&q=Browne+of+Snelston&rnum=1&hl=en#4cf9c63a
b8086de2
where you say exactly that.



In a message dated 05/30/07 09:19:06 Pacific Standard Time, ADRIANCHANNING02
writes:
What evidence is there that William Browne, lord mayor of London in 1513 or

his son John Browne, master of the mint were ever of Snelston?

<<<<

Paul Mackenzie

Re: Early Yorkshire Charters

Legg inn av Paul Mackenzie » 20 jun 2007 04:28:39

Ken Ozanne wrote:
Peter,
Thank you very much for doing considerably more than I thought I
asked. I have downloaded the first three volumes and will try to have a look
at relevant bits of the others when I am in Melbourne later in the year.

I was emboldened to try the Libraries Australia site on Friday and had
a phone call today saying that they will send me a couple of pages from Vol
4 part 2 of Nichols (ed) The History and Antiquities of Leicester gratis.
I'm more in charity with the State Library of NSW than I have been in years.

Best,
Ken


Hi Ken:

I, myself am not pleased with the State Library of NSW. I go to NSW
once a year to search their books. Unfortunately, the last time I was
there they told me all the PROs Calendar of Patents, Close Rolls, Fines
etc were placed offsite. You placed an order and then waited a day or
so for it to be delivered. The problem was if you wanted to browse the
indexes you needed a large number of the books ( each vol having a
separate index). That meant requesting a large number of volumes (
Calendar of Patent Vols has some 50 vols.). They would only allow three
books at a time. I gave up and wandered down to Sydney University
Library, where it is a lot easier.

Regards

Paul

Ford Mommaerts-Browne

Re: Any comments on this line? TAF?

Legg inn av Ford Mommaerts-Browne » 20 jun 2007 06:19:19

----- Original Message -----
From: "taf" <farmerie@interfold.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: Any comments on this line? TAF?


: On Jun 19, 1:43 pm, "Ford Mommaerts-Browne" <FordMommae...@cox.net>
: wrote:
: >
: > Since this thread began with a discussion, in part, of Rabbinical lineages, I feel obligated to point out that Jewish communities were extremely scrupulous and conscientious in recording the lineage(s) of their rabbis. Yes! Some later, (often Christian exotica-seekers), did introduce the horticultural practise of grafting branches onto the trunk. But, in context, this recent exchange would imply that such rabbinical lines are fiction. Simply not so.
: > Ford
:
: It was not my intent to indicate that they are fiction - only that
: they should be viewed with skepticism (the case for all lines,
: right?).

'Of course right!'

: That being said, even "extremely scrupulous" records can
: have accuracy problems when they run through 5 centuries of otherwise
: undocumented individuals with nothing but names.


This discussion started not with the line from the _Seder Olam Zuta_, but with another, that had only about a ?-dozen such names. Still, I have trouble with that, also.


: I don't know that we
: should give the _Seder Olam Zuta_ a free pass, any more than we would
: give a free pass to a christian chronicle presenting such a line.


The _SOZ_ should not be given a free pass - for all of the reasons that we have discussed with other longer lines.

:
: By the way, weren't the clergy and the secular leaders derived from
: different houses/clans? Yet this line traces rabbis from Exilarchs.
:
: taf


No. Rabbi means teacher; but originally the chief function of rabbis was as judge - specifically because of their great learning. They were judging, as a _bet din_, (usually a rabbinic tribunal), cases or matters of _halachah_, the Jewish collection of laws, _mitzvot_ and rites. They Exilarhic family tree is replete with rabbis and _gaonim_, (heads of the academies), who were, by the way, appointed by the Rosh haGolah/Resh Galuta/Exilarch.


Ford

Larsy

Re: Early Yorkshire Charters

Legg inn av Larsy » 20 jun 2007 14:54:01

I, myself am not pleased with the State Library of NSW. I go to NSW
once a year to search their books. Unfortunately, the last time I was
there they told me all the PROs Calendar of Patents, Close Rolls, Fines
etc were placed offsite. You placed an order and then waited a day or
so for it to be delivered. The problem was if you wanted to browse the
indexes you needed a large number of the books ( each vol having a
separate index). That meant requesting a large number of volumes (
Calendar of Patent Vols has some 50 vols.). They would only allow three
books at a time. I gave up and wandered down to Sydney University
Library, where it is a lot easier.

Our library has a similar system in place (older, supposedly "unused"
books in remote storage), which I agree is an extreme pain and
botheration. The books are stored in sliding bins in a very tall wall
and have to be retrieved by someone on a cherrypicker according to
barcode, not call number. Who knows how many books have been
effectively "lost" through this crazy rigamarole?

Some books (especially sets) need to be available for browsing.

Larsy

Re: Sir William Browne of Flushing marries a Huguenot

Legg inn av Larsy » 20 jun 2007 15:18:21

Since he gave to the poor of St. Albans, could that have been his
place of birth?

Gjest

Re: Hillary's "Feminist Problem" -- Feminists Rescind Their

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 jun 2007 16:41:02

What does all this Hillary Junk have to do with medieval genealogy?

Jno



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

Larsy

Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 629

Legg inn av Larsy » 20 jun 2007 19:41:46

Mr. Hines apparently gets his joy in life from saying provocative
things and then seeing people argue over them. In order to generate a
big argument rather than a small one, he posts these provocative posts
to multiple groups at once, the plan being to get all of the people in
all of the groups arguing with each other. Each person is responding
in their own group, not realizing or not caring that because of
Hines's initial broadcast, their responses as well are going to all of
these groups. Thus, because Mr. Hines included this group at the
start, we are subjected to the subsequent discussion deriving from all
the groups.

I thought Peter Stewart had cleared up, once and for all, the
problematic postings of DSH. Peter, O Peter, where are ye when we
need ye?

To tell the truth, Spencer's earlier style of interacting was more to
my taste (at least he used to pretend to have a little genealogical
substance to his posts, not just this recent "discuss-among-
yourselves" current-events bull).

Robert Forrest

CP Correction

Legg inn av Robert Forrest » 20 jun 2007 20:48:18

CP 12(1):506, Surrey--
"...[John de Warenne] 16 Apr 1291 was summoned to be at Norham with horses
and arms in connection with the claims to the throne of Scotland (c); and in
the same year was appointed Keeper of Scotland (d)...
.. . .
(c) Lords' Report; cf. Chron. Edw. I and II, vol. i, p. 122.
(d) Ypodigma Neustriae, p. 203; Chron. Mon. S. Albani, p. 164. Edward
Balliol, the successful claimant, m. the Earl's daughter; but in 1295 (6
Jul) the Earl, with other envoys, was unceremoniously repulsed without the
required answer (Chron. Lanercost, p. 162)."

I assume this is an inadvertent error in CP. It is well established that it
was John Balliol who married Isabel de Warenne, and it was their son who was
Edward. For example, Plantagenet Ancestry, Third Edition, 2004, p. 750, as a
daughter of John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey and Sussex, and his wife Alice
de Lusignan: "Isabel de Warenne, married in 1279 John de Balliol, of Barnard
Castle, Durham, Fotherinhgay, Northamptonshire...They had two sons, Edward
(King of Scotland, Lord Balliol) and Henry..."

Robert Forrest

Gjest

Re: Sir William Browne of Flushing marries a Huguenot

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 jun 2007 21:56:03

This is St Albans, Woodstreet, London. It is not far from Milkstreet, a
fairly short street, but where the earlier Browne's in this family held
property. The London mayor Stephen Browne, and a second Stephen Browne, possibly his
father, also held property in Milkstreet suggesting there may be a
connection between John's ancestors London mayors and Stephen Browne mayor. I posted
a bit on the latera few weeks ago.

Adrian



In a message dated 20/06/2007 15:20:49 GMT Standard Time,
ravinmaven2001@yahoo.com writes:

Since he gave to the poor of St. Albans, could that have been his
place of birth?


-------------------------------
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: Early Yorkshire Charters

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 20 jun 2007 23:43:53

"Larsy" <ravinmaven2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1182347641.770605.119280@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I, myself am not pleased with the State Library of NSW. I go to NSW
once a year to search their books. Unfortunately, the last time I was
there they told me all the PROs Calendar of Patents, Close Rolls, Fines
etc were placed offsite. You placed an order and then waited a day or
so for it to be delivered. The problem was if you wanted to browse the
indexes you needed a large number of the books ( each vol having a
separate index). That meant requesting a large number of volumes (
Calendar of Patent Vols has some 50 vols.). They would only allow three
books at a time. I gave up and wandered down to Sydney University
Library, where it is a lot easier.

Our library has a similar system in place (older, supposedly "unused"
books in remote storage), which I agree is an extreme pain and
botheration. The books are stored in sliding bins in a very tall wall
and have to be retrieved by someone on a cherrypicker according to
barcode, not call number. Who knows how many books have been
effectively "lost" through this crazy rigamarole?

Library assistants can manage to lose enormous sets as well as individual
volumes, just by carelessness in shelving these. I recently asked for one
volume in a 110 year run of a periodical, only to be told that NONE of them
could be found. All periodicals before 1965 (I think) had been moved from
Melbourne to storage in Ballarat (ca 100 kms, but next door would have been
no less challenging), and apparently they were thrown willy-nilly onto
shelves both before and after this move.

Some books (especially sets) need to be available for browsing.

Remote storage must be a headache for librarians too, but predictably these
professionals have devised ways to make it more of a nuisance to the public
than to themselves. The State Library of Victoria has a typical system for
ordering books through the online catalogue, so that this can be done,
efficiently, in advance. However, if a book held off-site is required, the
user has to go in person to request it from a reference librarian, who then
logs into the same catalogue, wastes time & patience with the inevitable
fussing and questioning and missspelling of titles, etc, and then finally
orders it in EXACTLY the same way as the user could have done unaided. It
then takes a day to retrieve the book, so that a special preliminary visit
is needed to obtain something that could have been simply requested from
home for the following day.

Librarians somehow imagine they have a magic touch and/or secret knowledge
of books that qualifies them alone to access items in the sanctum of
storage, as if they are members of a cult rather than functionaries
providing a service. I am lucky enough to live just a few minutes away from
this place, but can sympathise with people from further away who have to
deal with the same librarians by phone.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 629

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 jun 2007 03:43:02

"Larsy" <ravinmaven2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1182364906.262278.190850@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Mr. Hines apparently gets his joy in life from saying provocative
things and then seeing people argue over them. In order to generate a
big argument rather than a small one, he posts these provocative posts
to multiple groups at once, the plan being to get all of the people in
all of the groups arguing with each other. Each person is responding
in their own group, not realizing or not caring that because of
Hines's initial broadcast, their responses as well are going to all of
these groups. Thus, because Mr. Hines included this group at the
start, we are subjected to the subsequent discussion deriving from all
the groups.

I thought Peter Stewart had cleared up, once and for all, the
problematic postings of DSH. Peter, O Peter, where are ye when we
need ye?

You are trolling again - this is of course a gross misrepresentation by you
of what was said before. Are you incapable of taking in straightforward
statements, or does posing as an idiot somehow jolly your warped ego?

To tell the truth, Spencer's earlier style of interacting was more to
my taste (at least he used to pretend to have a little genealogical
substance to his posts, not just this recent "discuss-among-
yourselves" current-events bull).

I'm sure I would prefer Hines at his worst to Brandon at his usual. But at
least you do acknowledge a change in his behaviour in this forum, that is
exactly what you pretended not to understand above.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: CP Correction

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jun 2007 12:47:12

On 20 Jun., 20:48, "Robert Forrest" <forr...@whidbey.com> wrote:
CP 12(1):506, Surrey--
"...[John de Warenne] 16 Apr 1291 was summoned to be at Norham with horses
and arms in connection with the claims to the throne of Scotland (c); and in
the same year was appointed Keeper of Scotland (d)...
. . .
(c) Lords' Report; cf. Chron. Edw. I and II, vol. i, p. 122.
(d) Ypodigma Neustriae, p. 203; Chron. Mon. S. Albani, p. 164. Edward
Balliol, the successful claimant, m. the Earl's daughter; but in 1295 (6
Jul) the Earl, with other envoys, was unceremoniously repulsed without the
required answer (Chron. Lanercost, p. 162)."

I assume this is an inadvertent error in CP. It is well established that it
was John Balliol who married Isabel de Warenne, and it was their son who was
Edward. For example, Plantagenet Ancestry, Third Edition, 2004, p. 750, as a
daughter of John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey and Sussex, and his wife Alice
de Lusignan: "Isabel de Warenne, married in 1279 John de Balliol, of Barnard
Castle, Durham, Fotherinhgay, Northamptonshire...They had two sons, Edward
(King of Scotland, Lord Balliol) and Henry..."

Robert Forrest

Well spotted - it should indeed read "John Balliol". Having been the
favoured candidate of Edward I, by 1295 John was in revolt against the
English overlordship, resulting in his abdication and imprisonment the
following year, after being defeated by an army led by his father-in-
law.

MA-R

Larsy

Re: Sir William Browne of Flushing marries a Huguenot

Legg inn av Larsy » 21 jun 2007 14:53:30

This is St Albans, Woodstreet, London. It is not far from Milkstreet, a

Oh, okay. I was thinking St. Albans in Hertfordshire (er wherever it
is).

hippo

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av hippo » 21 jun 2007 16:01:10

"William Black" wrote in message

[.]

Smaller sieges and skirmishes tend not to end in confrontations between
armed and armoured men.

I don't think that's right. Sieges, certainly, used armed and armored
forces and there was rarely a time without conflict between the barons
until the fifteenth century. These may not be elevated to the category of
'battles' or 'wars' by the history books, but were armed conflicts just
the same. Even travel for people likely to be attacked by enemies was
with armed escorts and the marcher lords were constantly fighting in
Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and at the edges of the empire in Eastern
Europe. The reconquista in Spain never really stopped, and Italy was a
morass of city states constantly at war with one another.

True, but lots of ambushes and inconclusive sieges and the emergence of
cannon later on meant that the conventional conflict between armoured men
just didn't happen very often.

That's right, by the fifteenth century, but earlier there was never a time
there wasn't war somewhere. Ireland, the Balkans, Prussia, the present
Baltic States, Poland, Scotland, Italy, and Spain were particular hot spots.

Caesare Borgia didn't die in some vast battle, but in a silly little
ambush on the road...

Most of his opponents died with a stiletto in the back or a with belly
full of poison.

That doesn't mean there were no battles and sieges taking the Romagna and
the Marches or in his wars allied to the French against the Spanish.

The Wars of the Roses in England are odd because there are lots of pitched
battles.

The reason usually given for this is that the development of
fortifications in England was neglected and so 'places of strength'
couldn't stand against modern cannon and so people had to come out and
fight...

Castles were still useful as assembly points, for the storage of supplies,
and for the short-term protection of the local big cheese. They also
couldn't be easily bypasses as they were often astride major roads. Siege
trains were not quickly assembled, were not always available, and were
expensive. The poopy little field guns of the time were not useful against
fortifications.

As late as the summer of 1936, 1200 defenders, with no guns to speak of,
held the medieval Alcazar of Toledo against 6000 Reds armed with batteries
of modern guns up to 150mm for seventy odd days. None of the 600 women and
children hiding in the subterranean cellars was killed. There were two
natural deaths from old age and two children were born during the siege. The
walls of the place were, in places, sixteen feet thick of granite
blocks. -the Troll

hippo

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av hippo » 21 jun 2007 16:02:51

"La N" wrote in message

[.]

Geeze, last weekend I purchased something at a store that my sis
manages; and, among the coins I produced that I thought was a dime,
caught her eye and she exclaimed: "What is this! This isn't a dime.
Oh my god - it looks Roman! It might be worth something!" Without her
reading glasses all she could see was an ancient looking guy with a
helmet on the silver coin. Of course, I said, "Well, then give it back
to me!" Her spousal unit comes around, puts on his own reading glasses,
and reads on it: "Balboa" Panama 1996. My sister, the history buff,
was embarrassed to assume that any old helmeted guy who appears on a
coin makes it "ancient Roman".

Chuckle, a denarius is about the size and weight of a dime. Tell your sis
it is an easy mistake. -the Troll


Will do. And I'll buy her a beer in your name, Hipster!

:^) Not a bad way to get introduced. Thanks, kid. -the Troll

William Black

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av William Black » 21 jun 2007 17:01:42

"hippo" <south-sudan.net> wrote in message
news:467a8f4b$0$9246$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...

.. The poopy little field guns of the time were not useful against
fortifications.

You need to do some reading.

I can recommend Blackmore's catalogue of the Artillery of the Tower
Armouries...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Larsy

Re: Early Yorkshire Charters

Legg inn av Larsy » 21 jun 2007 20:00:42

Library assistants can manage to lose enormous sets as well as individual

As one of these low-class individuals (an "assistant"), I feel obliged
to point out that your set was probably prepared for remote storage by
*shelvers*, an even lower subspecies of individuals.

You did at least finally say one true thing: that librarians have
grandiose ideas about their own importance. Keep in mind that a
Masters of Library Science is the easiest Masters degree -- three
semesters of busy work + no thesis.

La N

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av La N » 21 jun 2007 20:50:23

"hippo" <south-sudan.net> wrote in message
news:467a8fad$0$9246$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
"La N" wrote in message

[.]

Geeze, last weekend I purchased something at a store that my sis
manages; and, among the coins I produced that I thought was a dime,
caught her eye and she exclaimed: "What is this! This isn't a dime.
Oh my god - it looks Roman! It might be worth something!" Without her
reading glasses all she could see was an ancient looking guy with a
helmet on the silver coin. Of course, I said, "Well, then give it back
to me!" Her spousal unit comes around, puts on his own reading
glasses, and reads on it: "Balboa" Panama 1996. My sister, the
history buff, was embarrassed to assume that any old helmeted guy who
appears on a coin makes it "ancient Roman".

Chuckle, a denarius is about the size and weight of a dime. Tell your
sis it is an easy mistake. -the Troll


Will do. And I'll buy her a beer in your name, Hipster!

:^) Not a bad way to get introduced. Thanks, kid. -the Troll


That's the canuckistanian way, Hips!

And, btw, it 'pears that Hines is shutting down his (x-posting) franchise,
so I'll miss you, Hipster, in the event of the severing of the ties that
bind our two star crossed groups ... sniff ....

Hippo, I hardly knew ye!

- nilita

Gjest

Re: CP Correction

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jun 2007 20:51:02

In a message dated 6/21/2007 4:50:47 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

Well spotted - it should indeed read "John Balliol". Having been the
favoured candidate of Edward I, by 1295 John was in revolt against the
English overlordship, resulting in his abdication and imprisonment the
following year, after being defeated by an army led by his father-in-
law.


But was evidently released after a short time (as few as a few years) to his
grandfather Warenne. His father meanwhile retired to the continent where he
probably died.

John also went to the continent at some time, and was many years later
recalled to England in an attempt to counter-act the Bruce's.



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

hippo

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av hippo » 21 jun 2007 21:03:25

"William Black" wrote in message

"hippo" <south-sudan.net> wrote in message

. The poopy little field guns of the time were not useful against
fortifications.

You need to do some reading.

I can recommend Blackmore's catalogue of the Artillery of the Tower
Armouries...

Do you mean guns, gunners, and gunpowder were cheap, that heavy guns could
be moved quickly overland, or that light guns could be used to knock down
walls? The first two wheeled gun wasn't recorded until 1454 in France. Your
friend Borgia had great difficulty moving guns around and paying for them -
in Italy.

'Armies' during the Wars of the Roses averaged 2000-2500 men. I don't think
armies of this size dragged along a train of guns capable of knocking down
castle walls. Most of the army would have spent its time guarding this
train.

My argument is a well built castle could have resisted an attacking army for
some time if in good repair and properly stocked and garrisoned. They still
had a role to play in warfare of the period if no longer decisive. -the
Troll

William Black

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av William Black » 21 jun 2007 21:45:33

"hippo" <south-sudan.net> wrote in message
news:467ad623$0$9174$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
"William Black" wrote in message

"hippo" <south-sudan.net> wrote in message

. The poopy little field guns of the time were not useful against
fortifications.

You need to do some reading.

I can recommend Blackmore's catalogue of the Artillery of the Tower
Armouries...

Do you mean guns, gunners, and gunpowder were cheap, that heavy guns could
be moved quickly overland, or that light guns could be used to knock down
walls? The first two wheeled gun wasn't recorded until 1454 in France.
Your friend Borgia had great difficulty moving guns around and paying for
them - in Italy.

Warwick's artillery train was the largest in Europe, and it moved.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

hippo

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av hippo » 21 jun 2007 23:18:14

"William Black" wrote in message

[.]

Do you mean guns, gunners, and gunpowder were cheap, that heavy guns
could be moved quickly overland, or that light guns could be used to
knock down walls? The first two wheeled gun wasn't recorded until 1454 in
France. Your friend Borgia had great difficulty moving guns around and
paying for them - in Italy.

Warwick's artillery train was the largest in Europe, and it moved.

....which didn't help him much at Barnet.

The large number of guns recorded in Medieval records is accounted for by
the fact they made no distinction between hand held guns and what would
later be called canon.

Mons Meg fired a 350 pound shot. I wouldn't have wanted to move around even
one on the roads of the period. Meg weighed six tons and moved at the rate
of 3 miles per day - as long as it wasn't raining. That's 90 miles in a
month - of good weather. I realize old Meg was larger than the usual bombard
of the period, but it points out the difficulties. -the Troll

William Black

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av William Black » 21 jun 2007 23:27:12

"hippo" <south-sudan.net> wrote in message
news:467af5bc$0$9223$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
"William Black" wrote in message

[.]

Do you mean guns, gunners, and gunpowder were cheap, that heavy guns
could be moved quickly overland, or that light guns could be used to
knock down walls? The first two wheeled gun wasn't recorded until 1454
in France. Your friend Borgia had great difficulty moving guns around
and paying for them - in Italy.

Warwick's artillery train was the largest in Europe, and it moved.

...which didn't help him much at Barnet.

The large number of guns recorded in Medieval records is accounted for by
the fact they made no distinction between hand held guns and what would
later be called canon.

Mons Meg fired a 350 pound shot. I wouldn't have wanted to move around
even one on the roads of the period. Meg weighed six tons and moved at the
rate of 3 miles per day - as long as it wasn't raining. That's 90 miles in
a month - of good weather. I realize old Meg was larger than the usual
bombard of the period, but it points out the difficulties.

The thing is you're saying that field guns are no good for knocking down
walls and siege guns are no good at following field armies.

Nobody has a problem with that.


--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Peter Stewart

Re: Early Yorkshire Charters

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 jun 2007 23:27:58

On Jun 22, 5:00 am, Larsy <ravinmaven2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Library assistants can manage to lose enormous sets as well as individual

As one of these low-class individuals (an "assistant"), I feel obliged
to point out that your set was probably prepared for remote storage by
*shelvers*, an even lower subspecies of individuals.

You did at least finally say one true thing: that librarians have
grandiose ideas about their own importance. Keep in mind that a
Masters of Library Science is the easiest Masters degree -- three
semesters of busy work + no thesis.

I was not denigrating library assistants as "low-class", but just
remarking on the extraordinary outcomes that their carelessness can
produce. They are not obliged by professional standards to be careful.

My view is that librarians are responsible for this, rather than the
assistants who are not trained to the same (inadequate) degree. In the
Melbourne-Ballarat case, there should have been better planning and
practices throughout the relocation of stored items - indeed there
should have been far better shelf audits for years before this
happened. I used to have a stack pass, and would occasionally find
rats contentedly munching on books, so that I am never surprised now
to be told that one I order from the catalogue cannot be found. But
even rodents couldn't account for 110 volumes of a periodical, and the
head librarian is primarily to blame for this kind of rank
incompetence in storing a collection.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Early Yorkshire Charters

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 22 jun 2007 01:01:28

On Jun 22, 8:27 am, Peter Stewart <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
On Jun 22, 5:00 am, Larsy <ravinmaven2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Library assistants can manage to lose enormous sets as well as individual

As one of these low-class individuals (an "assistant"), I feel obliged
to point out that your set was probably prepared for remote storage by
*shelvers*, an even lower subspecies of individuals.

You did at least finally say one true thing: that librarians have
grandiose ideas about their own importance. Keep in mind that a
Masters of Library Science is the easiest Masters degree -- three
semesters of busy work + no thesis.

I was not denigrating library assistants as "low-class", but just
remarking on the extraordinary outcomes that their carelessness can
produce. They are not obliged by professional standards to be careful.

My view is that librarians are responsible for this, rather than the
assistants who are not trained to the same (inadequate) degree. In the
Melbourne-Ballarat case, there should have been better planning and
practices throughout the relocation of stored items - indeed there
should have been far better shelf audits for years before this
happened. I used to have a stack pass, and would occasionally find
rats contentedly munching on books, so that I am never surprised now
to be told that one I order from the catalogue cannot be found. But
even rodents couldn't account for 110 volumes of a periodical, and the
head librarian is primarily to blame for this kind of rank
incompetence in storing a collection.

I should add that librarians, with notable exceptions, have tended to
think of themselves as grandees in the world of books for much longer
than the recent decline in professional standards - otherwise the rats
would never have taken up residence in the stacks of one of the
world's great public libraries in the first place. Many librarians
even in their best days had little thought for the working conditions
of their assistants, and of course hardly ever deigned to visit the
stacks themselves.

They have probably never been well-regarded by the assistants who do
most of the useful work in libraries. I was told this story by an eye-
witness: when the new building of the Bodleian library in Oxford was
offically opened by King George VI, the gold key he had been given for
the task snapped off in the lock. His bad temper was notorious - he
turned on the head librarian and abused him roundly in front of
everyone. The crowd was silent, aghast, until a group of library
assistants standing at the rear started to applaud, not at the formal
opening that was still unperformed, but at the humiliation of their
boss. (He should have been sacked for having anything to do with
commissioning the design of that most hideous building, before it ever
got to be finished.)

Peter Stewart

hippo

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av hippo » 22 jun 2007 03:03:46

"William Black" wrote in message

[.]

The large number of guns recorded in Medieval records is accounted for by
the fact they made no distinction between hand held guns and what would
later be called canon.

Mons Meg fired a 350 pound shot. I wouldn't have wanted to move around
even one on the roads of the period. Meg weighed six tons and moved at
the rate of 3 miles per day - as long as it wasn't raining. That's 90
miles in a month - of good weather. I realize old Meg was larger than the
usual bombard of the period, but it points out the difficulties.

The thing is you're saying that field guns are no good for knocking down
walls and siege guns are no good at following field armies.

Nobody has a problem with that.

That's what I'm saying and by extension that castles still had an important
role in the warfare of the period. -the Troll

hippo

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av hippo » 22 jun 2007 03:24:41

"La N" wrote in message

[.]

Will do. And I'll buy her a beer in your name, Hipster!

:^) Not a bad way to get introduced. Thanks, kid. -the Troll


That's the canuckistanian way, Hips!

And, btw, it 'pears that Hines is shutting down his (x-posting)
franchise, so I'll miss you, Hipster, in the event of the severing of the
ties that bind our two star crossed groups ... sniff ....

Hippo, I hardly knew ye!

- nilita

Not enough of either bile or snobby Scotch drinkers for him on staid old AHB
probably. Will miss you, Paul, and Vince, though. Maybe he's just cashing in
some stocks or something. If not, it's been a real pleasure and fun to have
a referee around to keep the gents almost gentlemanly. -the Troll

La N

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av La N » 22 jun 2007 03:38:50

"hippo" <south-sudan.net> wrote in message
news:467b2f7f$0$9361$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
"La N" wrote in message

[.]

Will do. And I'll buy her a beer in your name, Hipster!

:^) Not a bad way to get introduced. Thanks, kid. -the Troll


That's the canuckistanian way, Hips!

And, btw, it 'pears that Hines is shutting down his (x-posting)
franchise, so I'll miss you, Hipster, in the event of the severing of the
ties that bind our two star crossed groups ... sniff ....

Hippo, I hardly knew ye!

- nilita

Not enough of either bile or snobby Scotch drinkers for him on staid old
AHB probably. Will miss you, Paul, and Vince, though. Maybe he's just
cashing in some stocks or something. If not, it's been a real pleasure and
fun to have a referee around to keep the gents almost gentlemanly. -the
Troll

< nil looks around the room for said referee > Who, *moi*? I'm more a fan
/ slash / agent provocateur.

I *do* think it's cute, though, how you would miss the "liberals" in the
aforementioned groups if we were to be detached from your vista ...I think
it's time you grab my hand, emerge from the Dark Side, and come into The
Light ..%)

- nilita

Tiglath

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av Tiglath » 22 jun 2007 04:26:09

On Jun 18, 2:26 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Correct on all counts, Tony Blair hangs tough and is a stalwart right to the
end of his tenure as Prime Minister.

History will vindicate him -- and damn his critics.

Nothing left but vain hopes and hollow tough talk.

And with not even prospects of any vindicating developments.

Typical of someone trained and conditioned to go down with his ship
saluting.

And he want the whole country to follow him, to cover Bush's
Blunder.

What has Mr. Hines to offer that might vindicate Bush and Blair,
predictions?

We know about Mr. Hines' predictions. They are as accurate as Bush's
and Blair's.




Absolutely Correct. But the Cut-And-Run Crowd doesn't twig to that
verity. -- DSH

Not even close.

It's people like you, who make it a personal matter and are willing to
invest unlimited resources on a point of pride over the national
interests, who do nothing but reinforce failure. It's bad business,
bad politics, and bad international policy.

Mr. Hines can't detach ego feelings from the exigences of spheres
other than the personal sphere. That is why he is such a bad
businessman as well as bad politician. This is not about cojones, Mr
Hines. This is about what's best for our country. Continuing to
agitate millions of Muslims and motivate them to be kamikaze warriors
is not it. Meddling into centuries-old religious disputes is not
it.

You have as much to learn from Sun-Tzu as from Jigoro Kano, Mr. Hines.

We DON"T care what the Jihadist think. There is no reason for us to
have a problem with them. An ocean divides us, they control no oil,
or can't hurt us in any major way. If we get our of their hair they
will get out of our hair.

There are NO WMD, remember. Saddam is dead. We have no business
being in the middle of other people's civil wars. There is no silver
lining, no payoff, only more losses.

Hawks go home.

Mr.Hines has forgotten that resisting us in Iraq IS THE RIGHT THING to
do if you are an Iraqi who doesn't want to be told what to do by
America.

barbarapsmith

RE: Hattons of Maryland to Wolfath, Count of Hatton

Legg inn av barbarapsmith » 22 jun 2007 05:00:24

I am also interested in finding the origins of John Hatton, Ancient Planter
of Jamestowne, Virginia.

Barbara

Barbara Parsons Smith, M.A.
Project Chairman and Interviewer
Victoria County Historical Commission
Oral History Project



-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Lockehead
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 10:43 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Hattons of Maryland to Wolfath, Count of Hatton

On Jun 20, 2:44 pm, rgr <rgr1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 15, 10:48 pm, Lockehead <franklo...@mris.com> wrote:

This subject was breifly addressed on this thread back in 1999. Please
forgive me for reliving the past ;)

I was just given a genealogy of theHattonfamily which goes back to
Sir ChristopherHattonback to Wolfath, Count ofHattonwho rode with
William the Conqueror. It doesn't look right to me, especially showing
the parents of Sir ChristopherHattonto be JohnHattonand Jane
Shute. It comes from a self-published book by the name of "TheHatton
Family: Genealogical Notes and Reminiscences" by FlorenceHatton
Kelton 1969. Has anyone researched the family of ThomasHatton
(1603-1655) or ElizabethHatton(his neice), who were early arrivals
to Maryland who is willing to share their findings? Has their been any
major findings on this line since 1999?

See 'Stirnet', "HATTON1" for Wolfaith of Hatton as Hatton ancestor.

Thank you for responding. I still don't see the conection on the
Stirnet pages. I am specifically looking for the connection to Thomas
Hatton or his neice. Thomas' parents were John Hatton and Margaret
Alstone (Austin?).


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

William Black

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av William Black » 22 jun 2007 08:37:49

"hippo" <south-sudan.net> wrote in message
news:467b2a97$0$9326$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
"William Black" wrote in message

[.]

The large number of guns recorded in Medieval records is accounted for
by the fact they made no distinction between hand held guns and what
would later be called canon.

Mons Meg fired a 350 pound shot. I wouldn't have wanted to move around
even one on the roads of the period. Meg weighed six tons and moved at
the rate of 3 miles per day - as long as it wasn't raining. That's 90
miles in a month - of good weather. I realize old Meg was larger than
the usual bombard of the period, but it points out the difficulties.

The thing is you're saying that field guns are no good for knocking down
walls and siege guns are no good at following field armies.

Nobody has a problem with that.

That's what I'm saying and by extension that castles still had an
important role in the warfare of the period.

True, but not in England...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

a.spencer3

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 22 jun 2007 10:35:43

"hippo" <south-sudan.net> wrote in message
news:467ad623$0$9174$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
"William Black" wrote in message

"hippo" <south-sudan.net> wrote in message

. The poopy little field guns of the time were not useful against
fortifications.

You need to do some reading.

I can recommend Blackmore's catalogue of the Artillery of the Tower
Armouries...

Do you mean guns, gunners, and gunpowder were cheap, that heavy guns could
be moved quickly overland, or that light guns could be used to knock down
walls? The first two wheeled gun wasn't recorded until 1454 in France.
Your
friend Borgia had great difficulty moving guns around and paying for
them -
in Italy.

'Armies' during the Wars of the Roses averaged 2000-2500 men. I don't
think
armies of this size dragged along a train of guns capable of knocking down
castle walls. Most of the army would have spent its time guarding this
train.

My argument is a well built castle could have resisted an attacking army
for
some time if in good repair and properly stocked and garrisoned. They
still
had a role to play in warfare of the period if no longer decisive. -the
Troll



Well, it still took me three hours to force my way into Windsor Castle last
week.

Surreyman

Larsy

Re: Early Yorkshire Charters

Legg inn av Larsy » 22 jun 2007 15:16:42

offically opened by King George VI, the gold key he had been given for

Don't you mean George V? George VI was very mild and retiring, I
believe. An elderly library patron told me his eyewitness account of
seeing George VI and Elizabeth through the windows of a slow-moving
train leaving Washington (during the Roosevelt era). The King was
dead tired (almost in a stupor) while the Queen Mum was angrily
shaking her finger at him and obviously giving him "what for."

hippo

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av hippo » 22 jun 2007 15:46:55

"William Black" wrote in message

[.]

The thing is you're saying that field guns are no good for knocking down
walls and siege guns are no good at following field armies.

Nobody has a problem with that.

That's what I'm saying and by extension that castles still had an
important role in the warfare of the period.

True, but not in England...

Why not? Because the castles were not as large and advanced as those on the
continent? -the Troll

hippo

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av hippo » 22 jun 2007 16:19:51

"a.spencer3" wrote in message

[.]

Well, it still took me three hours to force my way into Windsor Castle
last
week.

Tourist or have you been keeping better company these days? :^)

My friends in NI have given up on the Canary Islands idea and got paid back
by the most splendid spring and early summer in memory. Ultimately it was
probably the lack of green and separation from the kids and grands that
didn't quite make up for the sun. How is it going with the escape to Spain
plan going? -the Troll

a.spencer3

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 22 jun 2007 16:37:25

"hippo" <south-sudan.net> wrote in message
news:467be52b$0$9319$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
"a.spencer3" wrote in message

[.]

Well, it still took me three hours to force my way into Windsor Castle
last
week.

Tourist or have you been keeping better company these days? :^)

My friends in NI have given up on the Canary Islands idea and got paid
back
by the most splendid spring and early summer in memory. Ultimately it was
probably the lack of green and separation from the kids and grands that
didn't quite make up for the sun. How is it going with the escape to Spain
plan going? -the Troll


They're our neighbours, don'tyerknow! Needed to chat for them to fix their

fence ....

Well, the Canaries are pretty bleak. They're just an early-year sun place.

Not so keen on permanency in Spain these days. The next year is for retiring
properly, completing a mass of probate/estate management I got lumbered with
(numerous return trips to Caerphilly for the first time in many years!),
consolidating finances and, when all's organised, deciding on the Great Leap
Forward. Could be anything/anywhere currently. Possibly a small UK nest and
several months wintering overseas in a different place wherever each year.

How's your barrier reef fort doing?

Surreyman

Gjest

Re: Early Yorkshire Charters

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 jun 2007 16:50:41

On Jun 22, 4:16 pm, Larsy <ravinmaven2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
offically opened by King George VI, the gold key he had been given for

Don't you mean George V? George VI was very mild and retiring, I
believe. An elderly library patron told me his eyewitness account of
seeing George VI and Elizabeth through the windows of a slow-moving
train leaving Washington (during the Roosevelt era). The King was
dead tired (almost in a stupor) while the Queen Mum was angrily
shaking her finger at him and obviously giving him "what for."


For someone who seems to spend most of his working day on google books
I'm surprised you don't google to check your facts before questioning
someone else. Peter was quite correct that it was George VI - a number
of references to the key breaking in the lock can be found

Larsy

Re: Early Yorkshire Charters

Legg inn av Larsy » 22 jun 2007 17:11:55

For someone who seems to spend most of his working day on google books
I'm surprised you don't google to check your facts before questioning
someone else. Peter was quite correct that it was George VI - a number
of references to the key breaking in the lock can be found

Well, blow me down. Actually a second true statement by Peter!

I'm sure he is also pleased to have such a diligent and devoted lackey
as yourself looking out for his interests.

William Black

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av William Black » 22 jun 2007 18:52:50

"hippo" <south-sudan.net> wrote in message
news:467bdd73$0$9242$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
"William Black" wrote in message

[.]

The thing is you're saying that field guns are no good for knocking
down walls and siege guns are no good at following field armies.

Nobody has a problem with that.

That's what I'm saying and by extension that castles still had an
important role in the warfare of the period.

True, but not in England...

Why not? Because the castles were not as large and advanced as those on
the continent?

Exactly.

England was the aggressor in the Hundred Years War.

There was no need for advanced 'cannon proof' castles there.

There was in places like France because the 'Godamns' were coming sooner or
later...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

hippo

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av hippo » 22 jun 2007 19:05:18

"La N" wrote in message

[.]

Not enough of either bile or snobby Scotch drinkers for him on staid old
AHB probably. Will miss you, Paul, and Vince, though. Maybe he's just
cashing in some stocks or something. If not, it's been a real pleasure
and fun to have a referee around to keep the gents almost
gentlemanly. -the Troll

nil looks around the room for said referee > Who, *moi*? I'm more a
fan / slash / agent provocateur.

I *do* think it's cute, though, how you would miss the "liberals" in the
aforementioned groups if we were to be detached from your vista ...I think
it's time you grab my hand, emerge from the Dark Side, and come into The
Light ..%)

Look in the mirror for the referee. She's there.

You can shine a light on an ant farm all night and still only have an ant
farm. I don't want to live in the 'worker's paradise' you guys are selling
and I'm not willing to empower government enough to get there. I just don't
trust the bastards enough and history bears me out. They only do what we ask
while they need us to stay in power. Once they have the power without us
it's 'to hell with the people'. I don't ever want my government to have the
chance to say that. If you give 'em power, they'll take it every time, and
they don't give anything back.

I like you three because I have come to believe you are sincere. There are
other lefties that are every bit as mean spirited as DSH. I would like to
consign the lot of them to several years in the Gulag to see what the
worker's paradise is really like and why it isn't a good idea to trust
governments.

You are the least 'knee jerk' of the lot, having attained a level of
objectivity that lets you spot failed logic when you see it - no matter
which direction it is coming from. Maybe men depend too much on what they
perceive as logic. -the Troll

La N

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av La N » 22 jun 2007 19:19:06

"hippo" <south-sudan.net> wrote in message
news:467c0bf2$0$9179$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
"La N" wrote in message

[.]

Not enough of either bile or snobby Scotch drinkers for him on staid old
AHB probably. Will miss you, Paul, and Vince, though. Maybe he's just
cashing in some stocks or something. If not, it's been a real pleasure
and fun to have a referee around to keep the gents almost
gentlemanly. -the Troll

nil looks around the room for said referee > Who, *moi*? I'm more a
fan / slash / agent provocateur.

I *do* think it's cute, though, how you would miss the "liberals" in the
aforementioned groups if we were to be detached from your vista ...I
think it's time you grab my hand, emerge from the Dark Side, and come
into The Light ..%)

Look in the mirror for the referee. She's there.

You can shine a light on an ant farm all night and still only have an ant
farm. I don't want to live in the 'worker's paradise' you guys are selling
and I'm not willing to empower government enough to get there. I just
don't trust the bastards enough and history bears me out. They only do
what we ask while they need us to stay in power. Once they have the power
without us it's 'to hell with the people'. I don't ever want my government
to have the chance to say that. If you give 'em power, they'll take it
every time, and they don't give anything back.

I like you three because I have come to believe you are sincere. There are
other lefties that are every bit as mean spirited as DSH. I would like to
consign the lot of them to several years in the Gulag to see what the
worker's paradise is really like and why it isn't a good idea to trust
governments.

You are the least 'knee jerk' of the lot, having attained a level of
objectivity that lets you spot failed logic when you see it - no matter
which direction it is coming from. Maybe men depend too much on what they
perceive as logic. -the Troll


< preen >

Thanks, Hippo ... you're a very pleasant gentleman in me own mind with whom
to exchange convos. I am working on my patience, but in the past I have
experienced a bit of an allergic reaction to those of the x-treme right
....%). In Usenet, the x-treme kooks from both wings go straight to the
sh*tcan.

- nil

Peter Stewart

Re: Early Yorkshire Charters

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 23 jun 2007 00:42:39

"Larsy" <ravinmaven2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1182521802.720393.66890@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
offically opened by King George VI, the gold key he had been given for

Don't you mean George V? George VI was very mild and retiring, I
believe. An elderly library patron told me his eyewitness account of
seeing George VI and Elizabeth through the windows of a slow-moving
train leaving Washington (during the Roosevelt era). The King was
dead tired (almost in a stupor) while the Queen Mum was angrily
shaking her finger at him and obviously giving him "what for."

No, this was George VI - his father George V reportedly had a fearsome
temper too, but with more self-possession, at least in front of strangers.
George VI would occasionally burst into uncontrolled rages in public that
were very frequent in private.

Oxford has a hiustory of bringing out the inner person with the royal
family. There is a famous story of Queen Mary, normally a statue of
formidable of dignity at official events, turning up for a reception at the
town hall in an onion truck bringing the farmer's produce to market. Her
Rolls-Royce had broken down on the way from London, and she thought getting
there was more important than the style of her arrival. Her lady-in-waiting
perched on the back with the onions probably had other ideas.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Early Yorkshire Charters

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 23 jun 2007 01:06:48

"Larsy" <ravinmaven2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1182528715.674060.153150@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

[someone else had written:]
For someone who seems to spend most of his working day on google books
I'm surprised you don't google to check your facts before questioning
someone else. Peter was quite correct that it was George VI - a number
of references to the key breaking in the lock can be found

Well, blow me down. Actually a second true statement by Peter!

I'm sure he is also pleased to have such a diligent and devoted lackey
as yourself looking out for his interests.

I don't know whom you mean to favour with this reply, but here is a
newsflash for you: this is a PUBLIC forum, where anyone can respond to
anyone else.

If you don't like it, lump it - or, better still, leave it.

Peter Stewart

La N

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av La N » 23 jun 2007 04:27:10

"Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
news:f5i2rc$2al$1@reader2.panix.com...
In alt.history.british hippo <south-sudan.net> wrote:

"La N" wrote in message

[.]

Will do. And I'll buy her a beer in your name, Hipster!

:^) Not a bad way to get introduced. Thanks, kid. -the Troll


That's the canuckistanian way, Hips!

And, btw, it 'pears that Hines is shutting down his (x-posting)
franchise, so I'll miss you, Hipster, in the event of the severing of
the
ties that bind our two star crossed groups ... sniff ....

Hippo, I hardly knew ye!

- nilita

Not enough of either bile or snobby Scotch drinkers for him on staid old
AHB
probably. Will miss you, Paul, and Vince, though. Maybe he's just cashing
in
some stocks or something. If not, it's been a real pleasure and fun to
have
a referee around to keep the gents almost gentlemanly. -the Troll

I suspect it was La N's reference to an unhappy marriage that
did him in. I've seen nothing from him since.

He's always operated on the Cowardice Rule: I will do to you
what I will, if you do it to me, I'm out of here.

I had thought of that angle myself, and that's why I asked.

He can poke poke poke at others in a malicious way, slurming their spouses,
children, parents, ancestors, etc. but when the same bitter medicine is
spoonfed back to him ... well ... you know the story. *I* have a thick
skin; his is a little more friable.

- nil

J Antero

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av J Antero » 23 jun 2007 04:48:08

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:BbAdi.99$oj2.284@eagle.america.net...
Correct on all counts, Tony Blair hangs tough and is a stalwart right to
the
end of his tenure as Prime Minister.

History will vindicate him -- and damn his critics.

He's an astute judge of men.

"Trying to stop suiciders -- which we're doing a pretty good job of on
occasion -- is difficult to do. And what the Iraqis are going to have to
eventually do is convince those who are conducting suiciders who are not
inspired by Al Qaeda, for example, to realize there's a peaceful
tomorrow." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 24, 2006

"I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember -- I was raised in the
desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those
words?" --George W. Bush, asked if the tide was turning in Iraq, Washington,
D.C., June 14, 2006

Paul J Gans

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av Paul J Gans » 23 jun 2007 05:10:03

In alt.history.british hippo <south-sudan.net> wrote:

"La N" wrote in message

[.]

Will do. And I'll buy her a beer in your name, Hipster!

:^) Not a bad way to get introduced. Thanks, kid. -the Troll


That's the canuckistanian way, Hips!

And, btw, it 'pears that Hines is shutting down his (x-posting)
franchise, so I'll miss you, Hipster, in the event of the severing of the
ties that bind our two star crossed groups ... sniff ....

Hippo, I hardly knew ye!

- nilita

Not enough of either bile or snobby Scotch drinkers for him on staid old AHB
probably. Will miss you, Paul, and Vince, though. Maybe he's just cashing in
some stocks or something. If not, it's been a real pleasure and fun to have
a referee around to keep the gents almost gentlemanly. -the Troll

I suspect it was La N's reference to an unhappy marriage that
did him in. I've seen nothing from him since.

He's always operated on the Cowardice Rule: I will do to you
what I will, if you do it to me, I'm out of here.

By the way, for medieval threads (and you have one), soc.history.
medieval is the way to go. For others, I read and post in
alt.history.british, though there is precious little brit history
in the group now.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

Tiglath

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av Tiglath » 23 jun 2007 05:47:22

I was just saying....


"The operational commander of troops battling to drive fighters with
Al Qaeda from Baquba said Friday that 80 percent of the top Qaeda
leaders in the city fled before the American-led offensive began
earlier this week. [...] In an otherwise upbeat assessment, Lt. Gen.
Raymond T. Odierno, the second-ranking American commander in Iraq,
told reporters that leaders of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia had been
alerted to the Baquba offensive by widespread public discussion of the
American plan to clear the city before the attack began. He portrayed
the Qaeda leaders' escape as cowardice, saying that "when the fight
comes, they leave,"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/23/world ... ref=slogin

General Odierno, like Mr. Hines, doesn't get it. Al-Qaeda leaders
don't care about the American OK Corral mentality.

They understand the art of PLIANCY. There are many good times in
life where it is good to be stiff, but war is not one of them.

Yielding to great force is no cowardice. You yield to it and use it
to your advantage, or at the very least you live another day to worry
your enemy.

The flexible branch yields to the accumulated snow, which drops to the
ground. The stiffer branch keeps piling snow until it cracks.

J Antero

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av J Antero » 23 jun 2007 14:17:39

"Tiglath" <temp4@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:1182574042.254888.25740@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
I was just saying....


"The operational commander of troops battling to drive fighters with
Al Qaeda from Baquba said Friday that 80 percent of the top Qaeda
leaders in the city fled before the American-led offensive began
earlier this week. [...] In an otherwise upbeat assessment, Lt. Gen.
Raymond T. Odierno, the second-ranking American commander in Iraq,
told reporters that leaders of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia had been
alerted to the Baquba offensive by widespread public discussion of the
American plan to clear the city before the attack began. He portrayed
the Qaeda leaders' escape as cowardice, saying that "when the fight
comes, they leave,"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/23/world ... ref=slogin

General Odierno, like Mr. Hines, doesn't get it. Al-Qaeda leaders
don't care about the American OK Corral mentality.

They understand the art of PLIANCY. There are many good times in
life where it is good to be stiff, but war is not one of them.

Yielding to great force is no cowardice. You yield to it and use it
to your advantage, or at the very least you live another day to worry
your enemy.

The flexible branch yields to the accumulated snow, which drops to the
ground. The stiffer branch keeps piling snow until it cracks.


Well, the dumbya hisself done showed just that kinda wisdom in gittng his
daddy to git him in the National Guard steada gittng coralled inta goin to
some feregn place.

Here's some nuggets of wisdom from the man Presidential historians are
regarding as "extraordinary":
"If you don't stand for anything, you don't stand for anything! If you don't
stand for something, you don't stand for anything!" --George W. Bush,
Bellevue Community College, Nov. 2, 2000

"It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It's
not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know, the
dark dungeons of the Internet." --George W. Bush, Arlington Heights, Ill.,
Oct. 24, 2000

"I think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can have a
gun." --George W. Bush, third presidential debate, St. Louis, Missouri, Oct.
18, 2000

"I don't know whether I'm going to win or not. I think I am. I do know I'm
ready for the job. And, if not, that's just the way it goes." --George W.
Bush, Des Moines, Iowa, Aug. 21, 2000

a.spencer3

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 23 jun 2007 15:24:04

"J Antero" <ae@re.com> wrote in message
news:T39fi.137$Od7.134@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Tiglath" <temp4@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:1182574042.254888.25740@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
I was just saying....


"The operational commander of troops battling to drive fighters with
Al Qaeda from Baquba said Friday that 80 percent of the top Qaeda
leaders in the city fled before the American-led offensive began
earlier this week. [...] In an otherwise upbeat assessment, Lt. Gen.
Raymond T. Odierno, the second-ranking American commander in Iraq,
told reporters that leaders of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia had been
alerted to the Baquba offensive by widespread public discussion of the
American plan to clear the city before the attack began. He portrayed
the Qaeda leaders' escape as cowardice, saying that "when the fight
comes, they leave,"


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/23/world ... 1&hp&oref=

slogin
General Odierno, like Mr. Hines, doesn't get it. Al-Qaeda leaders
don't care about the American OK Corral mentality.

They understand the art of PLIANCY. There are many good times in
life where it is good to be stiff, but war is not one of them.

Yielding to great force is no cowardice. You yield to it and use it
to your advantage, or at the very least you live another day to worry
your enemy.

The flexible branch yields to the accumulated snow, which drops to the
ground. The stiffer branch keeps piling snow until it cracks.


Well, the dumbya hisself done showed just that kinda wisdom in gittng his
daddy to git him in the National Guard steada gittng coralled inta goin to
some feregn place.

Here's some nuggets of wisdom from the man Presidential historians are
regarding as "extraordinary":
"If you don't stand for anything, you don't stand for anything! If you
don't
stand for something, you don't stand for anything!" --George W. Bush,
Bellevue Community College, Nov. 2, 2000

"It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important.
It's
not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know,
the
dark dungeons of the Internet." --George W. Bush, Arlington Heights, Ill.,
Oct. 24, 2000

"I think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can have a
gun." --George W. Bush, third presidential debate, St. Louis, Missouri,
Oct.
18, 2000

"I don't know whether I'm going to win or not. I think I am. I do know I'm
ready for the job. And, if not, that's just the way it goes." --George W.
Bush, Des Moines, Iowa, Aug. 21, 2000


I've always liked his quote of some years back, but which still seems to
apply.
Something like:
"I'll never apologise for the USA, whatever the facts".

Surreyman

hippo

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av hippo » 23 jun 2007 18:14:07

"William Black" wrote in message

[.]

Why not? Because the castles were not as large and advanced as those on
the continent?

Exactly.

England was the aggressor in the Hundred Years War.

There was no need for advanced 'cannon proof' castles there.

There was in places like France because the 'Godamns' were coming sooner
or later...

Makes perfect sense. The exception would be the castles built by the king in
Wales and elsewhere, which are what you guys call a serious bit of kit. -the
Troll

hippo

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av hippo » 23 jun 2007 18:56:42

"a.spencer3" wrote in message

[.]

How is it going with the escape to Spain
plan going? -the Troll


They're our neighbours, don'tyerknow! Needed to chat for them to fix their
fence ....

Well, the Canaries are pretty bleak. They're just an early-year sun place.

Not so keen on permanency in Spain these days. The next year is for
retiring
properly, completing a mass of probate/estate management I got lumbered
with
(numerous return trips to Caerphilly for the first time in many years!),
consolidating finances and, when all's organised, deciding on the Great
Leap
Forward. Could be anything/anywhere currently. Possibly a small UK nest
and
several months wintering overseas in a different place wherever each year.

How's your barrier reef fort doing?

Sounds like a great plan and glad to hear you're not leaving. Olde England
just wouldn't be the same if the English all went to Spain and I hate to
give up on my romantic visions. It was giving up the pub after all, right?
Bullfighting just ain't a viable alternative.

The fort has been delayed by land prices and finding the right parcel to
build on. It needs to be high enough in elevation to build on the ground - a
concession to old age, not yet incorporated into the city, able to sustain
two in-ground septic systems, and be off the main roads. There is a parcel
of 8 acres I'm looking at as we speak. It already has a small lake on it but
lacks enough trees. I'm too old to wait for new ones to grow.

Meanwhile I'm fixing up the old place to sell. You will have to do the same.
Even with a falling national real estate market my house has nearly doubled
in value - again. A house several down from me just went on the market for
4.2 million bucks. It's a bit larger than mine, newly completely restored,
and architecturally finer, but it is on a noisy street and has half the
garden area and less privacy. If it sells for anything like the asking
price, mine will fetch 3.5 million US and an offset against the delay. -the
Troll

hippo

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av hippo » 23 jun 2007 19:02:41

"La N" wrote in message

[.]

Look in the mirror for the referee. She's there.

You can shine a light on an ant farm all night and still only have an ant
farm. I don't want to live in the 'worker's paradise' you guys are
selling and I'm not willing to empower government enough to get there. I
just don't trust the bastards enough and history bears me out. They only
do what we ask while they need us to stay in power. Once they have the
power without us it's 'to hell with the people'. I don't ever want my
government to have the chance to say that. If you give 'em power, they'll
take it every time, and they don't give anything back.

I like you three because I have come to believe you are sincere. There
are other lefties that are every bit as mean spirited as DSH. I would
like to consign the lot of them to several years in the Gulag to see what
the worker's paradise is really like and why it isn't a good idea to
trust governments.

You are the least 'knee jerk' of the lot, having attained a level of
objectivity that lets you spot failed logic when you see it - no matter
which direction it is coming from. Maybe men depend too much on what they
perceive as logic. -the Troll


preen

Thanks, Hippo ... you're a very pleasant gentleman in me own mind with
whom to exchange convos. I am working on my patience, but in the past I
have experienced a bit of an allergic reaction to those of the x-treme
right ...%). In Usenet, the x-treme kooks from both wings go straight to
the sh*tcan.

Chuckle, it's the same with me. I don't want to go back to the '50s and I
sure don't want social revolution and a nanny state. Something like what we
have now is fine with me after knocking off a glitch here and there. -the
Troll

William Black

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av William Black » 23 jun 2007 19:35:17

"hippo" <south-sudan.net> wrote in message
news:467d5170$0$9309$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
"William Black" wrote in message

[.]

Why not? Because the castles were not as large and advanced as those on
the continent?

Exactly.

England was the aggressor in the Hundred Years War.

There was no need for advanced 'cannon proof' castles there.

There was in places like France because the 'Godamns' were coming sooner
or later...

Makes perfect sense. The exception would be the castles built by the king
in Wales and elsewhere, which are what you guys call a serious bit of kit.

Not by the time decent cannon come along.

By then they're anachronistic piles of stone that impress only the rubes.

So, for example, Sarzana castle in Ferreira (and I mention it because I've
been there) isn't really a fortification at all much, but the Henrician
stuff like Tilbury Fort (been there as well) is an artillery bastion
enclosed by a low wall.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

hippo

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av hippo » 23 jun 2007 19:50:43

"Paul J Gans" wrote in message

[.]

Not enough of either bile or snobby Scotch drinkers for him on staid old
AHB
probably. Will miss you, Paul, and Vince, though. Maybe he's just cashing
in
some stocks or something. If not, it's been a real pleasure and fun to
have
a referee around to keep the gents almost gentlemanly. -the Troll

I suspect it was La N's reference to an unhappy marriage that
did him in. I've seen nothing from him since.

He's always operated on the Cowardice Rule: I will do to you
what I will, if you do it to me, I'm out of here.

By the way, for medieval threads (and you have one), soc.history.
medieval is the way to go. For others, I read and post in
alt.history.british, though there is precious little brit history
in the group now.

I feel sorry for the guy. I know men like him and they have no idea what the
world looks like to the rest of us. They lack a critical component of basic
'humanness', if you will. The sad part is he doesn't understand that because
he has never known anything else. It must be like living half a life without
ever realizing it. He assumes, by the way, that the rest of us are exactly
like he is. It's easier to excuse his egocentric bullying if you understand
that.

SHM might be a good group without DSH, but it sure wasn't when I stumbled
onto the group. There are disputes on AHB, but there is nothing like the
personal acrimony. -the Troll

Leo van de Pas

Re: Robert Marsham 2nd Baron Romney

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 23 jun 2007 23:01:38

Dear Le,

I feel a bit confused by the details you give.

I can find only one Sir Francis Wyatt married to a Margaret Sandys. Sir
Francis lived from 1575 to 1644 and was Governort of Virginia.

Robert Marsham, 2nd Baron Romney lived from 1712 to 1794 and he married
(only one wife) Priscilla Pym.

I looked at earlier generations of the Marsham family but cannot spot a link
to the Wyatt family.

Pity I cannot be more helpful.
Leo van de Pas


----- Original Message -----
From: "Le Bateman" <LeBateman@att.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 7:45 AM
Subject: Robert Marsham 2nd Baron Romney


Does anyone know the ancestry and descent of Robert Marsham 2nd Baron
Romney, and how he ties into the Wiatt family? If I am not mistaken
according to the Boxley Parish History by J. Cave-Brown he married the
only
daughter of Sir Francis Wyatt and Margaret Sandys. Her name was
Margaruette.
Is this how Allington passed out of the possession of the Wyatts?
Le


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

The Highlander

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av The Highlander » 24 jun 2007 01:13:07

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 14:24:04 GMT, "a.spencer3"
<a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"J Antero" <ae@re.com> wrote in message
news:T39fi.137$Od7.134@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

"Tiglath" <temp4@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:1182574042.254888.25740@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
I was just saying....


"The operational commander of troops battling to drive fighters with
Al Qaeda from Baquba said Friday that 80 percent of the top Qaeda
leaders in the city fled before the American-led offensive began
earlier this week. [...] In an otherwise upbeat assessment, Lt. Gen.
Raymond T. Odierno, the second-ranking American commander in Iraq,
told reporters that leaders of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia had been
alerted to the Baquba offensive by widespread public discussion of the
American plan to clear the city before the attack began. He portrayed
the Qaeda leaders' escape as cowardice, saying that "when the fight
comes, they leave,"


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/23/world ... 1&hp&oref=
slogin

General Odierno, like Mr. Hines, doesn't get it. Al-Qaeda leaders
don't care about the American OK Corral mentality.

They understand the art of PLIANCY. There are many good times in
life where it is good to be stiff, but war is not one of them.

Yielding to great force is no cowardice. You yield to it and use it
to your advantage, or at the very least you live another day to worry
your enemy.

The flexible branch yields to the accumulated snow, which drops to the
ground. The stiffer branch keeps piling snow until it cracks.


Well, the dumbya hisself done showed just that kinda wisdom in gittng his
daddy to git him in the National Guard steada gittng coralled inta goin to
some feregn place.

Here's some nuggets of wisdom from the man Presidential historians are
regarding as "extraordinary":
"If you don't stand for anything, you don't stand for anything! If you
don't
stand for something, you don't stand for anything!" --George W. Bush,
Bellevue Community College, Nov. 2, 2000

"It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important.
It's
not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know,
the
dark dungeons of the Internet." --George W. Bush, Arlington Heights, Ill.,
Oct. 24, 2000

"I think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can have a
gun." --George W. Bush, third presidential debate, St. Louis, Missouri,
Oct.
18, 2000

"I don't know whether I'm going to win or not. I think I am. I do know I'm
ready for the job. And, if not, that's just the way it goes." --George W.
Bush, Des Moines, Iowa, Aug. 21, 2000


I've always liked his quote of some years back, but which still seems to
apply.
Something like:
"I'll never apologise for the USA, whatever the facts".

Ah yes! That was Bush demonstrating his patriotism by excusing an act
of cold-blooded mass-murder by the U.S. Navy on July 3, 1988, when the
U.S. Navy warship Vincennes shot down an Iranian commercial airliner.
All 290 civilian people in the aircraft were killed.

The plane was on a routine flight in a commercial corridor in Iranian
airspace. The targeting of it by the U.S. Navy was blatantly illegal.
That it was grossly immoral is also obvious. Except to a patriot of
course - they were only foreigners, after all.

I note too that Guantanamo Bay is going to be quietly shut down for
public relations reasons, which is to say that the Administration top
brass has finally realized that the rest of the world thinks the
difference between Guantanamo and the former Soviet Union's Gulags is
indistinguishable.

Allan Connachie said a little while ago that I hate America. That was
never true. Indeed for some years here I was a lone voice supporting
the US against most of SCS before Mr. Connachie began posting here.

What I do despise is an administration that thinks it can abolish
civil rights for people from other countries; ignore the rule of law
and make the United States as it now stands - the most loathed and
detested country in the world.

The American people did not deserve that, but they will pay for it;
just as the British people are now paying with homegrown terrorism and
bombings because of Blair's determination to cash in on the supposed
glory of being the US ally and thereby hailed as an international
statesman. Both of course are now pariahs in the eyes of the ordinary
citizen in their respective countries; and both should be brought to
trial to justify all the deaths they have caused. Two fuckwits with
but a single aim - their own glorification.




Surreyman



The Highlander
Tilgibh smucaid air do làmhan,
togaibh a' bhratach dhubh agus
toisichibh a' geàrradh na sgòrnanan!

hippo

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av hippo » 24 jun 2007 03:37:17

"William Black" wrote in message

[.]

There was no need for advanced 'cannon proof' castles there.

There was in places like France because the 'Godamns' were coming sooner
or later...

Makes perfect sense. The exception would be the castles built by the king
in Wales and elsewhere, which are what you guys call a serious bit of
kit.

Not by the time decent cannon come along.

By then they're anachronistic piles of stone that impress only the rubes.

So, for example, Sarzana castle in Ferreira (and I mention it because
I've been there) isn't really a fortification at all much, but the
Henrician stuff like Tilbury Fort (been there as well) is an artillery
bastion enclosed by a low wall.

Any serious castle built later than about 1200 could house troops and
supplies, and couldn't be carried without some kind of siege if properly
garrisoned. It might not take more than a week to breach the walls but then
the attacker would need sufficient force to storm the place, say a ratio of
2:1 for the attacker at least. Too, the attacker would need guns large
enough to knock down the walls. All of these count as an investment for the
attacker and against his timetable. If there were three enemy castles along
the attacker's route of march, three weeks would be a minimum needed to pass
them unless the attacker was willing to string out his force against all
three at once and thus expose himself to attack in detail.

Taken together, it means castles could still be relevant as late as 1550, or
so, or until guns and carriages of sufficient force became light enough move
quickly with a field army.

In the Highlands, very small castles were useful even past that time. A very
clever one I saw was a simple tower with very narrow steps leading to the
entrance on the second floor. There was no moat or outer wall, no barbican,
no elaborate gate. The entrance was a stout narrow door only wide enough for
a single man to pass through. There was no rail for the narrow stone
staircase. This meant that the place could not be taken by surprise as long
as one man stood guard by the door, which for clan warfare of the period,
was enough. -the Troll

a.spencer3

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 24 jun 2007 13:04:34

"hippo" <south-sudan.net> wrote in message
news:467d5b6c$0$9317$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...

Sounds like a great plan and glad to hear you're not leaving. Olde England
just wouldn't be the same if the English all went to Spain and I hate to
give up on my romantic visions. It was giving up the pub after all, right?
Bullfighting just ain't a viable alternative.


The pubs are no bloody good any more.

There's a smoking ban starting in a week's time.
Might seem trivial to many.
But to smokers, like myself, it means no more drinking inside at the bar -
the heart of the pub. Or even anywhere at the pub in winter.
Also means the Loyal Toast means nothing at dinners etc., so one or two
favourite dining clubs will be getting resignations after some 35 years of
enjoyment.
A xxxxxxxxxxx unecessary draconian measure that is xxxxxxxxx up the social
lives of a third of the drinking classes.
And don't tell me to stop smoking, after 50 years!
And don't even mention the so-called arguments for all this rubbish.
It means an absolute change of a way of life. Totally sickening. And totally
unnecessary.
Bastards!

Surreyman

William Black

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av William Black » 24 jun 2007 13:27:54

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:m5tfi.4299$nE2.3030@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
"hippo" <south-sudan.net> wrote in message
news:467d5b6c$0$9317$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...


Sounds like a great plan and glad to hear you're not leaving. Olde
England
just wouldn't be the same if the English all went to Spain and I hate to
give up on my romantic visions. It was giving up the pub after all,
right?
Bullfighting just ain't a viable alternative.


The pubs are no bloody good any more.
There's a smoking ban starting in a week's time.
Might seem trivial to many.
But to smokers, like myself, it means no more drinking inside at the bar -
the heart of the pub. Or even anywhere at the pub in winter.
Also means the Loyal Toast means nothing at dinners etc., so one or two
favourite dining clubs will be getting resignations after some 35 years of
enjoyment.
A xxxxxxxxxxx unecessary draconian measure that is xxxxxxxxx up the social
lives of a third of the drinking classes.
And don't tell me to stop smoking, after 50 years!
And don't even mention the so-called arguments for all this rubbish.
It means an absolute change of a way of life. Totally sickening. And
totally
unnecessary.
Bastards!

I gave up smoking a couple of years ago (except for an insanely expensive
cigar now and again) and found I couldn't stand going into a pub for more
than an hour or so in the evening.

I found that even when sitting outside one and trying to eat a meal with
someone smoking two tables away it was distressing.

From the end of the month I'll be able to spend an evening in a pub without
feeling ill.

Mind you, pub gardens will become 'forbidden zones'...

Still, you can't have everything.

The poor shivering smokers staggering back inside all wet and cold this
autumn will make entertaining watching...

I think I will go to the folk club on Monday evening, for the first time in
two years...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Josiah Jenkins

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av Josiah Jenkins » 24 jun 2007 14:47:10

Whilst perusing Usenet on Sun, 24 Jun 2007 00:13:07 GMT, I read these
words from The Highlander <micheil@shaw.ca> :
a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote:

snip

I've always liked his (George W. Bush) quote of some years back,
but which still seems to apply. Something like:
"I'll never apologise for the USA, whatever the facts".

Ah yes! That was Bush demonstrating his patriotism by excusing an act
of cold-blooded mass-murder by the U.S. Navy on July 3, 1988, when the
U.S. Navy warship Vincennes shot down an Iranian commercial airliner.
All 290 civilian people in the aircraft were killed.

The plane was on a routine flight in a commercial corridor in Iranian
airspace. The targeting of it by the U.S. Navy was blatantly illegal.
That it was grossly immoral is also obvious. Except to a patriot of
course - they were only foreigners, after all.

Which of course may have led to the event which is featured on the
front page of this morning's Sunday Herald :

Abdelbaset Mohmed al-Megrahi's defence is convinced that it was
politically important for the prosecution to alter evidence in 1990.
With the first gulf war, it was necessary to avoid antagonising Iran,
and Libya was the perfect scapegoat.
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/herald ... 16.0.0.php

-- jjj

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»