Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
a.spencer3

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 24 jun 2007 15:02:24

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ertfi.4082$uR5.1316@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:m5tfi.4299$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...


You've long been able to select non-smoking establishments to an increasing
extent.
I'll no longer have the reverse privilege anywhere.
That's what's so xxxxxxx unfair.

Surreyman

William Black

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av William Black » 24 jun 2007 15:35:29

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:QPufi.3327$ri2.1535@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ertfi.4082$uR5.1316@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...

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...


You've long been able to select non-smoking establishments to an
increasing
extent.

There aren't any non-smoking pubs within reasonable distance of where I
live. All there is for the likes of me is a back room without a bar and
full of broken and shabby furniture and screaming kids...

I'm happy, you're not.

The solution is in your own hands.

Get elected and change things...

--
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.

J Antero

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av J Antero » 24 jun 2007 15:44:50

Quit smoking and whining, and start working out



"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:QPufi.3327$ri2.1535@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ertfi.4082$uR5.1316@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...

"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...


You've long been able to select non-smoking establishments to an
increasing
extent.
I'll no longer have the reverse privilege anywhere.
That's what's so xxxxxxx unfair.

Surreyman


hippo

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av hippo » 24 jun 2007 18:51:02

"a.spencer3" wrote in message

[.]

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!

Chuckle, they passed a similar ordinance here too that was supposed to go
into effect yesterday. The kids who went out last night said folks were
smoking in all the bars in spite of the ban. It may turn out to be one of
those 'feel good' laws that are not enforced. It would be saner to require
an air exchanger capable of a certain capacity per cubic feet of space with
built in ion scrubbers for the recirculated air. That would have made
everyone but the real nutters happy.

Originally the smoking set-off from public buildings would have had people
standing to smoke in the middle of the street. The idiots had to change that
at the last minute.

I have a list of the names of the city councilpersons who voted for the ban
to remind me who not to vote for again. -the Troll

Kerryn Offord

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av Kerryn Offord » 25 jun 2007 00:44:06

hippo wrote:
<SNIP>
Chuckle, they passed a similar ordinance here too that was supposed to go
into effect yesterday. The kids who went out last night said folks were
smoking in all the bars in spite of the ban. It may turn out to be one of
those 'feel good' laws that are not enforced. It would be saner to require
an air exchanger capable of a certain capacity per cubic feet of space with
built in ion scrubbers for the recirculated air. That would have made
everyone but the real nutters happy.

Originally the smoking set-off from public buildings would have had people
standing to smoke in the middle of the street. The idiots had to change that
at the last minute.

I have a list of the names of the city councilpersons who voted for the ban
to remind me who not to vote for again. -the Troll


In NZ the bars were claiming there would be massive losses suffered as
the punters were scared away....

Some bars promised to ignore the ban..

They only had to prosecute one person...

Now you don't hear about it.... There are even suggestions that bar
takings haven't been affected (Certainly haven't heard the bar owners
complaining.. Maybe lots of people who can't stand the stench of tobacco
smoke have decided they might go out to the pub etc...

a.spencer3

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 25 jun 2007 11:17:46

"hippo" <south-sudan.net> wrote in message
news:467eab96$0$9217$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
"a.spencer3" wrote in message

[.]

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!

Chuckle, they passed a similar ordinance here too that was supposed to go
into effect yesterday. The kids who went out last night said folks were
smoking in all the bars in spite of the ban. It may turn out to be one of
those 'feel good' laws that are not enforced. It would be saner to require
an air exchanger capable of a certain capacity per cubic feet of space
with
built in ion scrubbers for the recirculated air. That would have made
everyone but the real nutters happy.

Originally the smoking set-off from public buildings would have had people
standing to smoke in the middle of the street. The idiots had to change
that
at the last minute.

I have a list of the names of the city councilpersons who voted for the
ban
to remind me who not to vote for again. -the Troll


Not here.

We're stupid, remember? We're the nation that largely follows all the rules
whilst the rest (in the EU for instance) flout 'em.
I laughed when Ireland did this last year - but apparently even the country
pubs comply. NI, Wales & Scotland already have, and it holds.
It's here for real.
Even if it only lasts as long as Prohibition it'll be too late for me ......
I wish all the minority-lovers in Parliament would now remember me.

Surreyman

allan connochie

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av allan connochie » 25 jun 2007 16:29:06

"Kerryn Offord" <kao16@ext.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:467f01c7@clear.net.nz...
hippo wrote:
SNIP
Chuckle, they passed a similar ordinance here too that was supposed to go
into effect yesterday. The kids who went out last night said folks were
smoking in all the bars in spite of the ban. It may turn out to be one of
those 'feel good' laws that are not enforced. It would be saner to
require an air exchanger capable of a certain capacity per cubic feet of
space with built in ion scrubbers for the recirculated air. That would
have made everyone but the real nutters happy.

Originally the smoking set-off from public buildings would have had
people standing to smoke in the middle of the street. The idiots had to
change that at the last minute.

I have a list of the names of the city councilpersons who voted for the
ban to remind me who not to vote for again. -the Troll

In NZ the bars were claiming there would be massive losses suffered as the
punters were scared away....

Some bars promised to ignore the ban..

They only had to prosecute one person...

Now you don't hear about it.... There are even suggestions that bar
takings haven't been affected (Certainly haven't heard the bar owners
complaining.. Maybe lots of people who can't stand the stench of tobacco
smoke have decided they might go out to the pub etc...

The ban seems to have gone off very smoothly in Scotland too. There are some
real moaners but they seem to be in a real minority. There have been some
real silly stories in the press of course. One story was of a father who
claimed the ban was damaging his children's health. That is because he
didn't go to the pub as often the children were being subjected to his
smoking. Nothing like taking responsibility for you own actions :-) Another
story was that people were being more obviously subjected to people passing
wind because there was no smoke to disguise the smell!

Allan

Gjest

Re: Sir Richard Baskerville and his wife Isabel, and other C

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 jun 2007 20:46:02

Here are two extracts from the Calendar of Papal Registers, which Tony
Ingham has kindly sent me:-

1354 Calendar of Papal Registers Papal Letters III. 1342-1362. p.537/8.
6 Kal. June. Villeneuve by Avignon.
To the bishop of Hereford. Mandate to dispense Richard de Baskervyle [sic],
knight, and Isabella Gryseley [sic] to remain in the marriage, which she
contracted in ignorance that Eustace de Whiteney [sic], knight, her first
husband, was related to Richard in the fourth degree of kindred, declaring their
past and future offspring legitimate. [27 May 1354]

1354 Calendar of Papal Registers Papal Letters III. 1342-1362. p.522.
2 Kal. Aug. Villeneuve by Avignon.
Confirmation, with exemplification, at the request of Richard de Baskervile
[sic], knight, and Isabella his wife, of the diocese of Hereford, of the
letters issued by Clement VI. 2 Non. June, anno 3, ruling, in the case of John,
earl of Warenne, and Joan de Barro, that dispensation for the marriage of
persons related in the fourth degree of kindred shall hold good if they are
related in the fourth and third degrees. [31 Jul 1354].

What seems to have happened here is that Sir Richard and his wife Isabel
obtained a papal dispensation for their marriage on the basis that Isabel's
first husband was related to Sir Richard in the fourth degree of kindred, but
that it soon emerged that there was a closer relationship, in the third degree,
between the two husbands. The existence of this closer relationship between
the two husbands, not covered by the dispensation, might have thrown doubt on
the efficacy of the dispensation. But fortunately there was a papal
precedent available from an earlier ruling in the case of Warenne and de Barre, so
that Sir Richard's dispensation held good.

Does anybody know how Sir Richard was related to Sir Eustace de Whitney, or
who Isabel was, or when her marriages may have taken place?
Secondary sources variously give her as a Paveley or a Hampton. But was she
perhaps a Grisley?

Apart from the Papal documents I have yet to find any contemporary documents
mentioning any Isabel as wife of any of the Baskervilles. What we do have,
though, are references found by Tony Ingham to the following 14th century
wives of various Richard Baskervilles:-
A. Philippa, wife of RB(1), lord of Eardisley in 1323/4, when RB(1) and
Philippa settled Eardisley by Fine on themselves for life, with remainder to
RB(1)'s grandson Richard (RB2), son of RB(1)'s son Walter, and RB(2)'s wife
Joan, daughter of Nicholas Poynings. Philippa's maiden name is not stated, but I
think she must have been a Solers heiress, since I cannot otherwise account
for the appearance of the Solers arms - argent a chevron between three lions'
heads erased gules- on later Baskerville quarterings.
I take RB(1) to be the younger brother and successor of the Walter
Baskerville who died in 1286 as Lord of Eardisley, Combe, Orcop, Stretton Sugwas etc:
IPM C133/44/1. I have no date for the death of RB(1), but he must have lived
to a great age if he was still alive in 1323/4, since he and his brother
Walter were I believe the sons of an earlier Walter B whose IPM (C132/1/20) is
dated 1244. At any rate he was it seems sheriff of Herefordshire in 8 and 9
EII, when he must have been aged 70 or so.
B. Joan, daughter of Nicholas Poynings, married to RB(2) by 1323/4, named in
the Fine of that year. Morgan G.Watkins ("Collections ...in continuation of
Duncumb's History", 1897) asserts that RB(2) died in 1344, and that he was
succeeded by his son Sir Richard, perhaps RB(3). I have yet to trace an IPM for
him. But I think that he may have lived beyond 1348- see the Fine next
mentioned
C. Joan, daughter of Adam de Everingham, married to RB(3), who was I suggest
the son of RB(2). By a Fine dated the quinzaine of Hilary 1348/9 a Sir
Richard B settled the manor of Combe Baskerville on a Richard B and his wife, the
said Joan, and the heirs of their bodies, at an annual rent of a rose at the
Nativity of St John Baptist, with remainder to Sir Richard and his heirs, in
return for 100 marks of silver. A John de Stretton is named as the guardian
of the querents, which suggests that RB(3) was still an infant at the date of
the Fine. The Fine does not state any relationship between the Baskerville pa
rties, but the annual rent of a rose suggests one, and I would guess that the
100 marks may have been provided by Adam de Everingham as a dowry, paid to
the bridegroom's father in return for the settlement of the manor of Combe as
a home for the young couple

It appears that RB(3) died 1374 (IPMs C135/236/13 and C136/1/7), as lord of
Eardisley (Cal Pat Rot 48 EIII v16, 57) and had a son and heir Richard (4),
perhaps by his wife Joan Everingham, although if this Joan was already married
to RB(3) by 1349 it seems surprising that their eldest son was born as late
as 30th January 1369/70 (IPMs C135/236/13 and C136/1/7). Richard (3)'s
widow Joan (not necessarily Joan de Everingham)remarried Giles de "Malore":- see
Cal.Pat.Rot. EIII, v.16,199.

The identification of the various Richard Baskervilles, and their wives, has
been hopelessly confused by the work of Watkins. As an example, his
identification of Joan Everingham as the wife of RB(4) can be mentioned: he gives
this Richard Baskerville, d. 1396, as her husband, even though we know that this
Joan was already married by 1349, 20 years before the birth of RB(4)! She
may or may not have been his mother, but she was certainly not his wife. (I
have seen no reliable evidence as to the identity of his wife).

I am no further forward in identifying who may have been the children of
Isabel de Everingham and her husband Sir Richard B, married by 1354. Watkins,
op. cit., asserts erroneously that Isabel was the daughter of Sir Richard
Hampton.

All help, or criticisms, would be greatly welcomed
MM

Gjest

Re: Sir Richard Baskerville and his wife Isabel, and other C

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 jun 2007 22:28:56

On 25 Jun., 19:39, Millerfairfi...@aol.com wrote:
Here are two extracts from the Calendar of Papal Registers, which Tony
Ingham has kindly sent me:-

1354 Calendar of Papal Registers Papal Letters III. 1342-1362. p.537/8.
6 Kal. June. Villeneuve by Avignon.
To the bishop of Hereford. Mandate to dispense Richard de Baskervyle [sic],
knight, and Isabella Gryseley [sic] to remain in the marriage, which she
contracted in ignorance that Eustace de Whiteney [sic], knight, her first
husband, was related to Richard in the fourth degree of kindred, declaring their
past and future offspring legitimate. [27 May 1354]

1354 Calendar of Papal Registers Papal Letters III. 1342-1362. p.522.
2 Kal. Aug. Villeneuve by Avignon.
Confirmation, with exemplification, at the request of Richard de Baskervile
[sic], knight, and Isabella his wife, of the diocese of Hereford, of the
letters issued by Clement VI. 2 Non. June, anno 3, ruling, in the case of John,
earl of Warenne, and Joan de Barro, that dispensation for the marriage of
persons related in the fourth degree of kindred shall hold good if they are
related in the fourth and third degrees. [31 Jul 1354].

What seems to have happened here is that Sir Richard and his wife Isabel
obtained a papal dispensation for their marriage on the basis that Isabel's
first husband was related to Sir Richard in the fourth degree of kindred, but
that it soon emerged that there was a closer relationship, in the third degree,
between the two husbands. The existence of this closer relationship between
the two husbands, not covered by the dispensation, might have thrown doubt on
the efficacy of the dispensation. But fortunately there was a papal
precedent available from an earlier ruling in the case of Warenne and de Barre, so
that Sir Richard's dispensation held good.

Does anybody know how Sir Richard was related to Sir Eustace de Whitney, or
who Isabel was, or when her marriages may have taken place?
Secondary sources variously give her as a Paveley or a Hampton. But was she
perhaps a Grisley?

Apart from the Papal documents I have yet to find any contemporary documents
mentioning any Isabel as wife of any of the Baskervilles. What we do have,
though, are references found by Tony Ingham to the following 14th century
wives of various Richard Baskervilles:-
A. Philippa, wife of RB(1), lord of Eardisley in 1323/4, when RB(1) and
Philippa settled Eardisley by Fine on themselves for life, with remainder to
RB(1)'s grandson Richard (RB2), son of RB(1)'s son Walter, and RB(2)'s wife
Joan, daughter of Nicholas Poynings. Philippa's maiden name is not stated, but I
think she must have been a Solers heiress, since I cannot otherwise account
for the appearance of the Solers arms - argent a chevron between three lions'
heads erased gules- on later Baskerville quarterings.
I take RB(1) to be the younger brother and successor of the Walter
Baskerville who died in 1286 as Lord of Eardisley, Combe, Orcop, Stretton Sugwas etc:
IPM C133/44/1. I have no date for the death of RB(1), but he must have lived
to a great age if he was still alive in 1323/4, since he and his brother
Walter were I believe the sons of an earlier Walter B whose IPM (C132/1/20) is
dated 1244. At any rate he was it seems sheriff of Herefordshire in 8 and 9
EII, when he must have been aged 70 or so.
B. Joan, daughter of Nicholas Poynings, married to RB(2) by 1323/4, named in
the Fine of that year. Morgan G.Watkins ("Collections ...in continuation of
Duncumb's History", 1897) asserts that RB(2) died in 1344, and that he was
succeeded by his son Sir Richard, perhaps RB(3). I have yet to trace an IPM for
him. But I think that he may have lived beyond 1348- see the Fine next
mentioned
C. Joan, daughter of Adam de Everingham, married to RB(3), who was I suggest
the son of RB(2). By a Fine dated the quinzaine of Hilary 1348/9 a Sir
Richard B settled the manor of Combe Baskerville on a Richard B and his wife, the
said Joan, and the heirs of their bodies, at an annual rent of a rose at the
Nativity of St John Baptist, with remainder to Sir Richard and his heirs, in
return for 100 marks of silver. A John de Stretton is named as the guardian
of the querents, which suggests that RB(3) was still an infant at the date of
the Fine. The Fine does not state any relationship between the Baskerville pa
rties, but the annual rent of a rose suggests one, and I would guess that the
100 marks may have been provided by Adam de Everingham as a dowry, paid to
the bridegroom's father in return for the settlement of the manor of Combe as
a home for the young couple

It appears that RB(3) died 1374 (IPMs C135/236/13 and C136/1/7), as lord of
Eardisley (Cal Pat Rot 48 EIII v16, 57) and had a son and heir Richard (4),
perhaps by his wife Joan Everingham, although if this Joan was already married
to RB(3) by 1349 it seems surprising that their eldest son was born as late
as 30th January 1369/70 (IPMs C135/236/13 and C136/1/7). Richard (3)'s
widow Joan (not necessarily Joan de Everingham)remarried Giles de "Malore":- see
Cal.Pat.Rot. EIII, v.16,199.

The identification of the various Richard Baskervilles, and their wives, has
been hopelessly confused by the work of Watkins. As an example, his
identification of Joan Everingham as the wife of RB(4) can be mentioned: he gives
this Richard Baskerville, d. 1396, as her husband, even though we know that this
Joan was already married by 1349, 20 years before the birth of RB(4)! She
may or may not have been his mother, but she was certainly not his wife. (I
have seen no reliable evidence as to the identity of his wife).

I am no further forward in identifying who may have been the children of
Isabel de Everingham and her husband Sir Richard B, married by 1354. Watkins,
op. cit., asserts erroneously that Isabel was the daughter of Sir Richard
Hampton.

Dear Michael

Very interesting - as usual. It amazes me that there is both so much
material on the Baskervilles, and such a relative paucity of reliable
published studies of them as a whole. You and Tony seem to be doing a
sterling job at sorting them out. I seem to recall a putative Solers
heiress (earlier than 1320) in one or two of the Visitation records -
I presume that placement has been debunked?

I will try to pull out my Baskerville papers tomorrow afternoon, and
will post again once I have been through them, in case there are any
useful snippets for you. Keep up the good work!

Kind regards,

Michael Andrews-Reading

alden@mindspring.com

Re: Sir Richard Baskerville and his wife Isabel, and other C

Legg inn av alden@mindspring.com » 25 jun 2007 23:56:15

On Jun 25, 5:28 pm, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
On 25 Jun., 19:39, Millerfairfi...@aol.com wrote:



Here are two extracts from the Calendar of Papal Registers, which Tony
Ingham has kindly sent me:-

1354 Calendar of Papal Registers Papal Letters III. 1342-1362. p.537/8.
6 Kal. June. Villeneuve by Avignon.
To the bishop of Hereford. Mandate to dispense Richard de Baskervyle [sic],
knight, and Isabella Gryseley [sic] to remain in the marriage, which she
contracted in ignorance that Eustace de Whiteney [sic], knight, her first
husband, was related to Richard in the fourth degree of kindred, declaring their
past and future offspring legitimate. [27 May 1354]

1354 Calendar of Papal Registers Papal Letters III. 1342-1362. p.522.
2 Kal. Aug. Villeneuve by Avignon.
Confirmation, with exemplification, at the request of Richard de Baskervile
[sic], knight, and Isabella his wife, of the diocese of Hereford, of the
letters issued by Clement VI. 2 Non. June, anno 3, ruling, in the case of John,
earl of Warenne, and Joan de Barro, that dispensation for the marriage of
persons related in the fourth degree of kindred shall hold good if they are
related in the fourth and third degrees. [31 Jul 1354].

What seems to have happened here is that Sir Richard and his wife Isabel
obtained a papal dispensation for their marriage on the basis that Isabel's
first husband was related to Sir Richard in the fourth degree of kindred, but
that it soon emerged that there was a closer relationship, in the third degree,
between the two husbands. The existence of this closer relationship between
the two husbands, not covered by the dispensation, might have thrown doubt on
the efficacy of the dispensation. But fortunately there was a papal
precedent available from an earlier ruling in the case of Warenne and de Barre, so
that Sir Richard's dispensation held good.

Does anybody know how Sir Richard was related to Sir Eustace de Whitney, or
who Isabel was, or when her marriages may have taken place?
Secondary sources variously give her as a Paveley or a Hampton. But was she
perhaps a Grisley?

Apart from the Papal documents I have yet to find any contemporary documents
mentioning any Isabel as wife of any of the Baskervilles. What we do have,
though, are references found by Tony Ingham to the following 14th century
wives of various Richard Baskervilles:-
A. Philippa, wife of RB(1), lord of Eardisley in 1323/4, when RB(1) and
Philippa settled Eardisley by Fine on themselves for life, with remainder to
RB(1)'s grandson Richard (RB2), son of RB(1)'s son Walter, and RB(2)'s wife
Joan, daughter of Nicholas Poynings. Philippa's maiden name is not stated, but I
think she must have been a Solers heiress, since I cannot otherwise account
for the appearance of the Solers arms - argent a chevron between three lions'
heads erased gules- on later Baskerville quarterings.
I take RB(1) to be the younger brother and successor of the Walter
Baskerville who died in 1286 as Lord of Eardisley, Combe, Orcop, Stretton Sugwas etc:
IPM C133/44/1. I have no date for the death of RB(1), but he must have lived
to a great age if he was still alive in 1323/4, since he and his brother
Walter were I believe the sons of an earlier Walter B whose IPM (C132/1/20) is
dated 1244. At any rate he was it seems sheriff of Herefordshire in 8 and 9
EII, when he must have been aged 70 or so.
B. Joan, daughter of Nicholas Poynings, married to RB(2) by 1323/4, named in
the Fine of that year. Morgan G.Watkins ("Collections ...in continuation of
Duncumb's History", 1897) asserts that RB(2) died in 1344, and that he was
succeeded by his son Sir Richard, perhaps RB(3). I have yet to trace an IPM for
him. But I think that he may have lived beyond 1348- see the Fine next
mentioned
C. Joan, daughter of Adam de Everingham, married to RB(3), who was I suggest
the son of RB(2). By a Fine dated the quinzaine of Hilary 1348/9 a Sir
Richard B settled the manor of Combe Baskerville on a Richard B and his wife, the
said Joan, and the heirs of their bodies, at an annual rent of a rose at the
Nativity of St John Baptist, with remainder to Sir Richard and his heirs, in
return for 100 marks of silver. A John de Stretton is named as the guardian
of the querents, which suggests that RB(3) was still an infant at the date of
the Fine. The Fine does not state any relationship between the Baskerville pa
rties, but the annual rent of a rose suggests one, and I would guess that the
100 marks may have been provided by Adam de Everingham as a dowry, paid to
the bridegroom's father in return for the settlement of the manor of Combe as
a home for the young couple

It appears that RB(3) died 1374 (IPMs C135/236/13 and C136/1/7), as lord of
Eardisley (Cal Pat Rot 48 EIII v16, 57) and had a son and heir Richard (4),
perhaps by his wife Joan Everingham, although if this Joan was already married
to RB(3) by 1349 it seems surprising that their eldest son was born as late
as 30th January 1369/70 (IPMs C135/236/13 and C136/1/7). Richard (3)'s
widow Joan (not necessarily Joan de Everingham)remarried Giles de "Malore":- see
Cal.Pat.Rot. EIII, v.16,199.

The identification of the various Richard Baskervilles, and their wives, has
been hopelessly confused by the work of Watkins. As an example, his
identification of Joan Everingham as the wife of RB(4) can be mentioned: he gives
this Richard Baskerville, d. 1396, as her husband, even though we know that this
Joan was already married by 1349, 20 years before the birth of RB(4)! She
may or may not have been his mother, but she was certainly not his wife. (I
have seen no reliable evidence as to the identity of his wife).

I am no further forward in identifying who may have been the children of
Isabel de Everingham and her husband Sir Richard B, married by 1354. Watkins,
op. cit., asserts erroneously that Isabel was the daughter of Sir Richard
Hampton.

Dear Michael

Very interesting - as usual. It amazes me that there is both so much
material on the Baskervilles, and such a relative paucity of reliable
published studies of them as a whole. You and Tony seem to be doing a
sterling job at sorting them out. I seem to recall a putative Solers
heiress (earlier than 1320) in one or two of the Visitation records -
I presume that placement has been debunked?

I will try to pull out my Baskerville papers tomorrow afternoon, and
will post again once I have been through them, in case there are any
useful snippets for you. Keep up the good work!

Kind regards,

Michael Andrews-Reading

I would have to second that. Excellent work. Burke's Landed Gentry
(1852) sub Baskerville has some information but it appears to be weak
(not surprisingly). This family deserves more work. There was an
Eustace Whitney who died about 1346 as I recall alleged to have
married Elizabeth Freville. I do not have either line well documented
but I do not see any possible connection as yet. The line I have from
BLG is:

Richard d. 1297 m. Philippa de Solers
Walter d. 1319 m. Sybil Corbet
Richard d. abt 1344 m. Joan Poyntz (not Poynings)
Richard m. Isabel dau of Walter Paveley (not clear which one)
Richard d. 1395 m. Joan de Everingham (dau. Adam)
John d. 1415 etc.

Usual disclaimer - I wouldn't enter the above in any database (it is
likely wrong).

A Joan de Everingham dau. of Adam was married to William de Routh (d.
aft 1370 according toChris Humphrey, A Short History of the Family of
Routh, (2002). It is possible she was daughter of Adam II and that
the other Joan was daughter of Adam I. There are many possibilities
here including a Baskerville generation left out in this descent. It
would appear from what you posted that one Richard de B. was married
to a Joan de Everingham bef. 1348/9 but this may well have been a
child marriage with children born some years later.

Particularly with the dispensation that you cited, sorting this out
might prove very interesting.

Doug Smith

WJhonson

Re: How many wives did Sir Henry Brailsford have?

Legg inn av WJhonson » 26 jun 2007 05:11:14

I got at least this part:

the wife of Henry Brailsford, by 1350, was named Joan. She was a Hastings.

Her parents were John de Hastings and his wife Joan. John de Hastings was dead by 1336. His widow Joan was yet living in 1335.

The rest is a bit confused.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Sir Richard Baskerville and his wife Isabel, and other C

Legg inn av WJhonson » 26 jun 2007 05:34:05

John Baskerville of Eardisley married Elizabeth Touchet and were thereby the parents of that Sir James Baskerville, KB in 1485

This John Baskerville is said to have been born 12 Feb 1403

Was he the son of that Richard de Baskerville who you've said was born 30 Jan 1369/70 ?

Thanks
Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Any comments on this line? TAF?

Legg inn av WJhonson » 26 jun 2007 05:48:16

<<In a message dated 06/19/07 14:29:58 Pacific Standard Time, FordMommaerts@cox.net writes:
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. >>


This may or may not be so, however being able to view the actual documentation would help with the issue. Any online copies of these documents ?

Will

Ford Mommaerts-Browne

Re: Any comments on this line? TAF?

Legg inn av Ford Mommaerts-Browne » 26 jun 2007 07:36:17

----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 11:48 PM
Subject: Re: Any comments on this line? TAF?


: <<In a message dated 06/19/07 14:29:58 Pacific Standard Time, FordMommaerts@cox.net writes:
: 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. >>
:
:
: This may or may not be so, however being able to view the actual documentation would help with the issue. Any online copies of these documents ?
:
: Will
:

This is what I have been able to find, quickly. Some will have more information. Much of the work, (as with anything), is not on the web, (yet).

Ford
http://www.jewishgen.org/Rabbinic/
http://www.jewishgen.org/Rabbinic/discussion.htm
http://www.jewishgen.org/rabbinic/journal/main.htm
http://www.jewishgen.org/Rabbinic/journal/kdavid2.htm
http://www.jewishgen.org/Rabbinic/journal/descent.htm
http://www.jewishgen.org/Rabbinic/journ ... _part2.htm
http://failedmessiah.wordpress.com/2006 ... of-prague/
http://www.davidicdynasty.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seder_Olam_Zutta - I know, I know - wikipedia
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rabbi-rabbi/


'Give me the judgement of balanced minds in preference to laws
everytime. Codes and manuals create patterned behavior. All patterned
behavior tends to go unquestioned, gathering destructive momentum.'

hippo

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av hippo » 26 jun 2007 07:38:15

"Kerryn Offord" wrote in message

<SNIP>

Chuckle, they passed a similar ordinance here too that was supposed to go
into effect yesterday. The kids who went out last night said folks were
smoking in all the bars in spite of the ban. It may turn out to be one of
those 'feel good' laws that are not enforced. It would be saner to
require an air exchanger capable of a certain capacity per cubic feet of
space with built in ion scrubbers for the recirculated air. That would
have made everyone but the real nutters happy.

Originally the smoking set-off from public buildings would have had
people standing to smoke in the middle of the street. The idiots had to
change that at the last minute.

I have a list of the names of the city councilpersons who voted for the
ban to remind me who not to vote for again. -the Troll

In NZ the bars were claiming there would be massive losses suffered as the
punters were scared away....

Some bars promised to ignore the ban..

They only had to prosecute one person...

Now you don't hear about it.... There are even suggestions that bar
takings haven't been affected (Certainly haven't heard the bar owners
complaining.. Maybe lots of people who can't stand the stench of tobacco
smoke have decided they might go out to the pub etc...

That's certainly possible. I intend to eat and drink in establishments
outside the city and have already been making plans in the event the ban is
enforced. I remember bars smelling like wet wool, spilled beer, and packed
humanity. I can't imagine tobacco smoke making it any worse. -the Troll

hippo

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av hippo » 26 jun 2007 07:54:37

"a.spencer3" wrote in message

[.]

Not here.
We're stupid, remember? We're the nation that largely follows all the
rules
whilst the rest (in the EU for instance) flout 'em.
I laughed when Ireland did this last year - but apparently even the
country
pubs comply. NI, Wales & Scotland already have, and it holds.
It's here for real.
Even if it only lasts as long as Prohibition it'll be too late for me
......
I wish all the minority-lovers in Parliament would now remember me.

Politically we are strong enough a minority to swing the vote in a local
election. The problem is we won't. The bastards are clever enough to have
made us feel guilty by years of propaganda before they tried the ban.
They're working on booze now and roast beef and chips will follow. Soon
we'll be the ruminating bovine society they want, docile and easy to push
around. -the Troll

Gjest

Re: Sir Richard Baskerville and his wife Isabel, and other C

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 jun 2007 08:33:00

On 25 Jun., 23:56, "a...@mindspring.com" <a...@mindspring.com> wrote:
On Jun 25, 5:28 pm, m...@btinternet.com wrote:





On 25 Jun., 19:39, Millerfairfi...@aol.com wrote:

Here are two extracts from the Calendar of Papal Registers, which Tony
Ingham has kindly sent me:-

1354 Calendar of Papal Registers Papal Letters III. 1342-1362. p.537/8.
6 Kal. June. Villeneuve by Avignon.
To the bishop of Hereford. Mandate to dispense Richard de Baskervyle [sic],
knight, and Isabella Gryseley [sic] to remain in the marriage, which she
contracted in ignorance that Eustace de Whiteney [sic], knight, her first
husband, was related to Richard in the fourth degree of kindred, declaring their
past and future offspring legitimate. [27 May 1354]

1354 Calendar of Papal Registers Papal Letters III. 1342-1362. p.522.
2 Kal. Aug. Villeneuve by Avignon.
Confirmation, with exemplification, at the request of Richard de Baskervile
[sic], knight, and Isabella his wife, of the diocese of Hereford, of the
letters issued by Clement VI. 2 Non. June, anno 3, ruling, in the case of John,
earl of Warenne, and Joan de Barro, that dispensation for the marriage of
persons related in the fourth degree of kindred shall hold good if they are
related in the fourth and third degrees. [31 Jul 1354].

What seems to have happened here is that Sir Richard and his wife Isabel
obtained a papal dispensation for their marriage on the basis that Isabel's
first husband was related to Sir Richard in the fourth degree of kindred, but
that it soon emerged that there was a closer relationship, in the third degree,
between the two husbands. The existence of this closer relationship between
the two husbands, not covered by the dispensation, might have thrown doubt on
the efficacy of the dispensation. But fortunately there was a papal
precedent available from an earlier ruling in the case of Warenne and de Barre, so
that Sir Richard's dispensation held good.

Does anybody know how Sir Richard was related to Sir Eustace de Whitney, or
who Isabel was, or when her marriages may have taken place?
Secondary sources variously give her as a Paveley or a Hampton. But was she
perhaps a Grisley?

Apart from the Papal documents I have yet to find any contemporary documents
mentioning any Isabel as wife of any of the Baskervilles. What we do have,
though, are references found by Tony Ingham to the following 14th century
wives of various Richard Baskervilles:-
A. Philippa, wife of RB(1), lord of Eardisley in 1323/4, when RB(1) and
Philippa settled Eardisley by Fine on themselves for life, with remainder to
RB(1)'s grandson Richard (RB2), son of RB(1)'s son Walter, and RB(2)'s wife
Joan, daughter of Nicholas Poynings. Philippa's maiden name is not stated, but I
think she must have been a Solers heiress, since I cannot otherwise account
for the appearance of the Solers arms - argent a chevron between three lions'
heads erased gules- on later Baskerville quarterings.
I take RB(1) to be the younger brother and successor of the Walter
Baskerville who died in 1286 as Lord of Eardisley, Combe, Orcop, Stretton Sugwas etc:
IPM C133/44/1. I have no date for the death of RB(1), but he must have lived
to a great age if he was still alive in 1323/4, since he and his brother
Walter were I believe the sons of an earlier Walter B whose IPM (C132/1/20) is
dated 1244. At any rate he was it seems sheriff of Herefordshire in 8 and 9
EII, when he must have been aged 70 or so.
B. Joan, daughter of Nicholas Poynings, married to RB(2) by 1323/4, named in
the Fine of that year. Morgan G.Watkins ("Collections ...in continuation of
Duncumb's History", 1897) asserts that RB(2) died in 1344, and that he was
succeeded by his son Sir Richard, perhaps RB(3). I have yet to trace an IPM for
him. But I think that he may have lived beyond 1348- see the Fine next
mentioned
C. Joan, daughter of Adam de Everingham, married to RB(3), who was I suggest
the son of RB(2). By a Fine dated the quinzaine of Hilary 1348/9 a Sir
Richard B settled the manor of Combe Baskerville on a Richard B and his wife, the
said Joan, and the heirs of their bodies, at an annual rent of a rose at the
Nativity of St John Baptist, with remainder to Sir Richard and his heirs, in
return for 100 marks of silver. A John de Stretton is named as the guardian
of the querents, which suggests that RB(3) was still an infant at the date of
the Fine. The Fine does not state any relationship between the Baskerville pa
rties, but the annual rent of a rose suggests one, and I would guess that the
100 marks may have been provided by Adam de Everingham as a dowry, paid to
the bridegroom's father in return for the settlement of the manor of Combe as
a home for the young couple

It appears that RB(3) died 1374 (IPMs C135/236/13 and C136/1/7), as lord of
Eardisley (Cal Pat Rot 48 EIII v16, 57) and had a son and heir Richard (4),
perhaps by his wife Joan Everingham, although if this Joan was already married
to RB(3) by 1349 it seems surprising that their eldest son was born as late
as 30th January 1369/70 (IPMs C135/236/13 and C136/1/7). Richard (3)'s
widow Joan (not necessarily Joan de Everingham)remarried Giles de "Malore":- see
Cal.Pat.Rot. EIII, v.16,199.

The identification of the various Richard Baskervilles, and their wives, has
been hopelessly confused by the work of Watkins. As an example, his
identification of Joan Everingham as the wife of RB(4) can be mentioned: he gives
this Richard Baskerville, d. 1396, as her husband, even though we know that this
Joan was already married by 1349, 20 years before the birth of RB(4)! She
may or may not have been his mother, but she was certainly not his wife. (I
have seen no reliable evidence as to the identity of his wife).

I am no further forward in identifying who may have been the children of
Isabel de Everingham and her husband Sir Richard B, married by 1354. Watkins,
op. cit., asserts erroneously that Isabel was the daughter of Sir Richard
Hampton.

Dear Michael

Very interesting - as usual. It amazes me that there is both so much
material on the Baskervilles, and such a relative paucity of reliable
published studies of them as a whole. You and Tony seem to be doing a
sterling job at sorting them out. I seem to recall a putative Solers
heiress (earlier than 1320) in one or two of the Visitation records -
I presume that placement has been debunked?

I will try to pull out my Baskerville papers tomorrow afternoon, and
will post again once I have been through them, in case there are any
useful snippets for you. Keep up the good work!

Kind regards,

Michael Andrews-Reading

I would have to second that. Excellent work. Burke's Landed Gentry
(1852) sub Baskerville has some information but it appears to be weak
(not surprisingly). This family deserves more work. There was an
Eustace Whitney who died about 1346 as I recall alleged to have
married Elizabeth Freville. I do not have either line well documented
but I do not see any possible connection as yet.

All I have on this (in case it helps to date things) is this:

Elizabeth de Freville, daughter of Sir Alexande de Freville and Joan
Cromwell, married circa 1301 Eustace de Whitney:

"agreement made on 5 June, 29 Edward I before the Bishop, between Sir
Alexander de Frevylle and Eustace de Wyteneye, touching the marriage
between the said Eustace and Elizabeth, daughter of the said
Alexander; various settlements of lands, etc; witnesses: Sir Robert de
Chandos, the Lady Joan de Friville, mother of [Elizabeth], and John de
Stan', parson of Rippel'" (Episcopal Registers, Diocese of Worcester,
Bishop Godfrey Giffard)

Gjest

Re: Sir Richard Baskerville and his wife Isabel, and other C

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 jun 2007 13:45:03

Will Johnson asked:-
<John Baskerville of Eardisley married Elizabeth Touchet and were thereby
the parents of that Sir James <Baskerville, KB in 1485
<This John Baskerville is said to have been born 12 Feb 1403
<Was he the son of that Richard de Baskerville who you've said was born 30
Jan 1369/70 ?

No, Will, grandson. His father was Richard's son, another Sir John, and his
mother was Elizabeth, daughter and heiress of John Brugge of Letton. His
grandfather Richard had died in 1395, not long after proving his age at
C136/79/9 in 16 RII.
The John said to have been born in 1403 died in 1455: his IPM is at
C139/175/10, dated to 38-9 HVI.
His son Sir James was not KB, I think, but according to C.J Robinson's
Castles of Herefordshire he was knighted as a Banneret after some heroics at the
battle of Stoke in 1487. However the full acount of the battle given in
tudorplace.com.ar/Documents/the battle of stoke.htm
does not include him among the list of royalists knighted on that occasion.
Other secondary sources show Sir James as having been knighted at Henry
VII's coronation, but I have seen no primary source for this. His IPM dated 14
HVII (E150/408/1) shows him as a knight.
Hope that helps, Will
MM

V. Chris and Tom Tinney,

Re: Why Genealogy is Bunk: Swallowing the DNA Poison Pill

Legg inn av V. Chris and Tom Tinney, » 26 jun 2007 18:14:05

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/26/2007 8:35:54 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
vctinney@sbcglobal.net writes:

"The central idea of biological evolution is that
all life on Earth shares a common ancestor,
just as you and your cousins share a common
grandmother." NOT. This empty idea justifies
wars, killing the weak, Jews, innocents and outcasts.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0_0/evo_02
Is the remarkable idea that belief in evolution leads to killing Jews yours?
If so, perhaps you could expand on that, as I don't understand the
connection.
Will Johnson

No, it is not mine. It comes from Yehuda Bauer.

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

He noted the Darwinian Jewish Aryan conflict:
"[T]he basic motivation [of the Holocaust] was purely
ideological, rooted in an illusionary world of Nazi imagination,
where an international Jewish conspiracy to control the world
was opposed to a parallel Aryan quest. No genocide to date
had been based so completely on myths, on hallucinations,
on abstract, nonpragmatic ideology — which was then executed
by very rational, pragmatic means."

See also:
http://web.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/ ... Hitler.htm
From Darwin to Hitler:
Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany

Gjest

Re: Why Genealogy is Bunk: Swallowing the DNA Poison Pill

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 jun 2007 18:16:02

<<<In a message dated 6/26/2007 8:35:54 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
vctinney@sbcglobal.net writes:

"The central idea of biological evolution is that
all life on Earth shares a common ancestor,
just as you and your cousins share a common
grandmother." NOT. This empty idea justifies
wars, killing the weak, Jews, innocents and outcasts.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0_0/evo_02>>>
Is the remarkable idea that belief in evolution leads to killing Jews yours?
If so, perhaps you could expand on that, as I don't understand the
connection.
Will Johnson





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

taf

Re: Why Genealogy is Bunk: Swallowing the DNA Poison Pill

Legg inn av taf » 26 jun 2007 19:40:48

On Jun 26, 9:11 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/26/2007 8:35:54 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

vctin...@sbcglobal.net writes:

"The central idea of biological evolution is that
all life on Earth shares a common ancestor,
just as you and your cousins share a common
grandmother." NOT. This empty idea justifies
wars, killing the weak, Jews, innocents and outcasts.http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0_0/evo_02

Is the remarkable idea that belief in evolution leads to killing Jews yours?

It is not unique to him. It is, however, logically flawed (that the
Nazi's justified their anti-semitism in this manner does not mean that
Nazi anti-semitism was the result of Darwinism), and patently
ridiculous (as if there were no wars, and that no innocents, outcasts,
weak or Jews were killed prior to the publication of Origin of the
Species; or that Tomas de Torquemada, Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot were
Darwinists). It is simply an attempt to discredit a scientific theory
by decrying some who were proponents of it - a disguised ad hominem.

More importantly, it is severely off topic.

If so, perhaps you could expand on that, as I don't understand the
connection.

Please don't encourage him.

taf

Monica Kanellis

Fwd: Why Genealogy is Bunk: Swallowing the DNA Poison Pill

Legg inn av Monica Kanellis » 26 jun 2007 19:42:57

sorry, i meant this to be open

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Monica Kanellis <monica.kanellis@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 26, 2007 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: Why Genealogy is Bunk: Swallowing the DNA Poison Pill
To: "V. Chris and Tom Tinney, Sr." <vctinney@sbcglobal.net>

I think this refers to a late 18th century obsession with the idea of
de-evolution, particularly of urban populations. They felt that if
populations were not fixed in form, they must therefore be subject to
erosion in some ways. They associated homosexuality, intellectual genius,
and outsiders (esp. Jews) as being forces that would weaken the gene pool.
Oscar Wilde was among those who suffered from this particular world view, as
were the Jews of the Holocaust.

I'm not sure, though, how it ties into the idea that we all have common
ancestors, and therefore are all related and part of a large extended
family. This would seem to me to have quite the opposite effect and would
encourage tolerance rather than the opposite. There is a big difference in
talking about evolution as a natural force and talking about the
interconnectedness of humanity.

Besides, the influence of your ancestors on you has already happened; in
order to weed out your ancestors on the basis of race or religion you'd need
a time machine. Could anyone be so loony that finding out they had, let's
say Orthodox Greek ancestors, would inspire in them a hatred for Orthodox
Greeks?

mk

On 6/26/07, V. Chris and Tom Tinney, Sr. <vctinney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/26/2007 8:35:54 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
vctinney@sbcglobal.net writes:

"The central idea of biological evolution is that
all life on Earth shares a common ancestor,
just as you and your cousins share a common
grandmother." NOT. This empty idea justifies
wars, killing the weak, Jews, innocents and outcasts.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0_0/evo_02
Is the remarkable idea that belief in evolution leads to killing
Jews yours?
If so, perhaps you could expand on that, as I don't understand the
connection.
Will Johnson

No, it is not mine. It comes from Yehuda Bauer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehuda_Bauer

He noted the Darwinian Jewish Aryan conflict:
"[T]he basic motivation [of the Holocaust] was purely
ideological, rooted in an illusionary world of Nazi imagination,
where an international Jewish conspiracy to control the world
was opposed to a parallel Aryan quest. No genocide to date
had been based so completely on myths, on hallucinations,
on abstract, nonpragmatic ideology — which was then executed
by very rational, pragmatic means."

See also:
http://web.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/ ... Hitler.htm
From Darwin to Hitler:
Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany

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

J Antero

re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av J Antero » 26 jun 2007 23:08:36

Bush and his handler's want to pass on the Iraq war to the next President,
so they can evade blame for a catastrophically mishandled war.

They may not be able to do that.


Lugar Urges Quick Shift in Iraq War Strategy


By JEFF ZELENY
Published: June 26, 2007

WASHINGTON, June 25 - After offering a bleak assessment of the Bush
administration's strategy in Iraq, Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the
ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said today that he
was urging lawmakers and President Bush to change course quickly to protect
a further erosion of America's standing in the world.

"We're heading into a very partisan era," Mr. Lugar said in an interview
today, following a speech he delivered on the Senate floor on Monday night
in which he called on the administration to rethink its Iraq strategy. "The
president has the opportunity now to bring about a bipartisan foreign
policy. I don't think he'll have that option very long."

For months, Mr. Lugar has kept his skepticism about the president's Iraq
policy to himself, seldom offering anything beyond a wait-and-see reply. But
three weeks ago, Mr. Lugar said, he privately concluded that the troop
buildup plan was not achieving its goals and he began preparing remarks he
delivered Monday evening.

"In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path
outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved," Mr. Lugar said on
the Senate floor. "Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will
delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital
interests over the long term."

Mr. Lugar is among the highest-ranking Republican in Congress to call for a
troop drawdown in Iraq, a position that Senator George Voinovich, an Ohio
Republican, quickly echoed today in a letter to the president. While the
White House moved to play down the criticism, the comments from the two
Midwestern senators reverberated across Capitol Hill today, where other
Republicans said their patience also was expiring.

"I think September is absolutely the endpoint of decision, whether
individuals will come to a conclusion before that, I think is likely," said
Senator Richard Burr, Republican of North Carolina. "What you're beginning
to see is a natural process of people evaluating the events on the ground in
Iraq."

White House officials attempted today to minimize the importance of Mr.
Lugar's comments, saying the senator's opposition to the administration's
Iraq plan was nothing new. Speaking during his daily news briefing, the
White House press secretary Tony Snow dismissed questions about whether the
White House was concerned that Mr. Lugar's criticism of on the Iraq war
would encourage fellow Republicans to join him in his break with the
president.

Still, the Bush administration is worked vigorously to limit any political
damage, hastily setting up a meeting this week between Mr. Lugar and Mr.
Bush's national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley.

But Republican officials privately conceded that should the images out of
Iraq continue to be bloody in September - a likelihood - the White House
would find it that much harder to maintain Republican support for the
strategy, if not the war itself. They acknowledged that flagging Republican
support is likely to emerge during the next debate over the war
appropriations and military spending this summer.

Democrats seized upon the remarks from the Republicans, particularly those
by Mr. Lugar, and said they were a sign that the tide is shifting in the
protracted Iraq debate.

"I am encouraged by what he said and it just adds to the momentum for
change," said Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services
Committee. "Hopefully, he'll take some very specific steps to implement what
his words mean. They are powerful words."

Tony Hoskins

Re: "Mary Boleyn's Carey Children: offsping of King Henry VI

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 27 jun 2007 00:31:49

"Footnote 5, seems to be missing, however."

Thank you! I've also noted a few typos. Will convey corrections to the
editor.

Tony Hoskins


-------------------------------
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: Sir Richard Baskerville and his wife Isabel, and other C

Legg inn av WJhonson » 27 jun 2007 01:25:07

<<In a message dated 06/26/07 04:44:30 Pacific Standard Time, Millerfairfield writes:
His son Sir James was not KB, I think, but according to C.J Robinson's
Castles of Herefordshire he was knighted as a Banneret after some heroics at the
battle of Stoke in 1487. >>
That Sir James Was KB comes straight from you.
I quote below
Will Johnson

Subj: Re: Hounding the BASKERVILLES
Date: 2/13/07 10:11:02 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: Millerfairfield@aol.com
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
On 1st Feb Louise Staley posted
<snip>
The main Eardisley Castle Baskerville seems to be;
<1. Sir John = Elizabeth Tuchet
<2. Sir James = Sybil Devereux
<snip>
I can confirm this line. There are IPMs for Sir James (E 150/408/1, dated 1499),
who was made Knight of the Bath at Henry VII's coronation, and

Leo van de Pas

Re: Baron Erik Classon Bielke (d.1638) - who was his mother?

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 27 jun 2007 02:49:35

According to Elgenstierna, Baron Eerikki Bielke, died 22 December 1638, was
by the first wife. He married also a Fleming but I am not sure whether he
had children.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 10:13 AM
Subject: Baron Erik Classon Bielke (d.1638) - who was his mother?


Am unsure by which of his two wives - Baroness Elin Fleming (d. 1586) or
Elsa Bielke (mar. 1588, d. bef 20 Mar 1622) - did Baron Clas Nilsson
Bielke father Baron Erik Bielke (d.1638), of Penningby, Roslagen,
Uppland, Sweden.

Baron Clas's first wife Baroness Elin Fleming brought Penningby
(descending in the Bonde, Sture, Ulf, Tre Rosor, and Fleming families)
by marriage to the family of her husband, Baron Clas Bielke. Penningby
next was in the possession of Baron Clas's and Elin Fleming's daughter
Baroness Margareta Bielke (d.1629), (2nd) wife of Baron Gabriel
Gustafsson Oxenstierna (d.1641). But, at her death in 1629, her brother
(half-brother?) Baron Erik Classon Bielke interested Penningby, which
became his chief home and where he died in 1638.

Penningby Castle and lands being such a rich holding, I wonder if the
fact that they were inherited first by Margareta (Erik was Baron Clas's
only son) doesn't imply Erik wasn't Elin Fleming's son. And, that at
Margareta's death, her half-brother Baron Erik inherited from her (her
mother's heirs being apparently extinct), despite his not being in the
bloodline that brought it to Margareta.

[see: Svenska Familj-Journalen (1866): 141-2; Nordström, Felix. "En
lännabo, som 1648 utvandrade till Nya Sverige," Hundare och skeppslag
8 (1947-8); and
http://www.roskildehistorie.dk/stamtavl ... Bielke.htm

Unfamiliar as I am with aristocratic inheritance patterns in Sweden in
the 17th century, I would appreciate hearing from someone with
expertise in these matters.

Thanks.

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

707/545-0831, ext. 562

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

V. Chris and Tom Tinney,

Re: Why Genealogy is Bunk: Swallowing the DNA Poison Pill

Legg inn av V. Chris and Tom Tinney, » 27 jun 2007 05:09:15

taf wrote:
More importantly, it is severely off topic.
REPLY: No, it is not.


The misuse of DNA is killing valid genealogy.
We know that FoxNews is fair and balanced.
So, Technology FoxNews can really be relied upon.
FOXNEWS.COM HOME > TECHNOLOGY
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Internet, DNA Tests Let Average Joes Practice
'Extreme Genealogy'
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256631,00.html

COMMENT: "To push farther into the past, he turned
to DNA." DNA testing has made it possible for people
to make connections when the paper trail fades into
tatters." FALSE. WRONG. The following is NOT
genealogy. It is assumptions within assumptions,
NOT connections.

[A statistical analysis of the genetic data showed
that whether they were named Huebscher or Isseroff,
Wolinsky or Rosa, all of the families must have
shared a single common ancestor who probably lived
four or five centuries ago, long before most Jews
even had surnames, much less written vital records.
Though his research is not yet conclusive, Huebscher
believes the common genetic ancestor may have been
descended from Sephardic Jews who lived in Spain
before the Inquisition.]
.. . .

["We're all related to royalty," Drew said.
The trick is to prove it. But thanks to the power
of extreme genealogy, it can be a lot easier than
you might think.] NOT.

Understanding Evolution: History, Theory, Evidence,
and Implications
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... _Evolution
"Modern" evolution is just a continuous rerun
of idolatry, a very old philosophy, generated by
those who have never understood the true worth
and dignity of mankind, (which lack of social
self esteem and personal self worth), is a core
source, over time, of wars, killing the weak,
Jews, innocents and outcasts. Real genealogy
turns the hearts and is intelligent.

[The first logically proposed evolutionary
concept is agreed to have come from Anaximandros
Anaximander) of Miletos, who lived from 610 BCE
to 547 BCE . . . Anaximandros; for he declares,
not that fishes and men were generated at the
same time, but that at first men were generated
in the form of fishes, and that growing up as
sharks do till they were able to help themselves,
they then came forth on the dry ground.
- Plutarch (1st century CE) . . .
Animals come into being through vapors raised
by the sun. Man, however, came into being from
another animal, namely the fish, for at first he
was like a fish. Winds are due to a separation
of the lightest vapors and the motion of the
masses of these vapors ; and moisture comes
from the vapor raised by the sun from them;
and lightning occurs when a wind falls upon
clouds and separates them. Anaximandros was
born in the third year of the forty-second
Olympiad. . . .]
- Hippolytus (3rd century CE)

The DNA tool, used to establish idolatry, in
any form, is the DNA poison pill for all WRITTEN
records. This is the poison pill for all cultural
history. Example: [Tinith, Tinnit, or Tint,
i.e. Tanit appears circa the 5th century B.C.
at Carthage. This chief goddess of Carthage,
similar to Astarte, was mainly a mother
goddess with fertility symbols included in her
reproductions and some data indicating connection
with the heavens. Worship was performed in the
areas of Malta, Spain and Sardinia, many times
given the characteristic of the face of Baal.
This dreadful religion included human sacrifice
of child victims. The remains were buried in
urns found in the "Sanctuary of Tanit" at
Carthage, as well as at Hadrumetum, Sulcis,
Cirta, Calaris, Nora and Motya.]

Today? Abortion.

RE: Why Genealogy is Bunk: Swallowing the DNA Poison Pill

Eastman's Online Genealogy Newsletter notes,
as of June 20, 2007, that, in "A Video Interview
with David Nicholson" . . . " David gives a brief
background of the research you can accomplish
by using DNA. Would you believe 170,000 years?"
http://eogn.typepad.com/

This is the DNA poison pill for all WRITTEN records.
This is the poison pill for all cultural history.
We only have records back circa 6,000 years.
What does 6K or less [circa A.D. 1500] do for
someone who can spit into the more esoteric
170K time frame? It is all meaningless from
an evolutionary standpoint, is it not? As well
as emotion, feeling, caring, or remembering?

"The central idea of biological evolution is that
all life on Earth shares a common ancestor,
just as you and your cousins share a common
grandmother." NOT. This empty idea justifies
wars, killing the weak, Jews, innocents and outcasts.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0_0/evo_02

Respectfully yours,

Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
Family Genealogy & History Internet Education Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/

Diana Gale Matthiesen

RE: Why Genealogy is Bunk: Swallowing the DNA Poison Pill

Legg inn av Diana Gale Matthiesen » 27 jun 2007 07:21:45

I accidentally sent this privately, when I meant to send it to the list.

-----Original Message-----
From: Diana Gale Matthiesen [mailto:DianaGM@dgmweb.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 2:15 PM
To: 'V. Chris and Tom Tinney, Sr.'
Subject: RE: Why Genealogy is Bunk: Swallowing the DNA Poison Pill

Far from being meaningless, DNA testing is the most powerful
tool genealogists, paleoanthropologists, and paleontologists
have ever had.

There are basically two kinds of DNA testing being used; STR
testing and SNP testing. The former is most useful in a
"genealogical timeframe" for proving (or debunking) paper
pedigrees; the latter is most useful in a
paleoanthropological or paleontological timeframe. You can
read more about testing for genealogy at my web site, where I
run five DNA projects, including this one:

http://dgmweb.net/genealogy/DNA/Straub/StraubDNA.shtml

My interests are primarily genealogical: proving pedigrees,
debunking legends, and breaking through "brick walls." I
find the paleoanthropological side of it interesting, but I
wouldn't have been DNA tested for that reason alone. The
most readable site on that aspect is the National Geographic
Society's Genographic Project:

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

As for "emotion, feeling, caring, or remembering," I'm not a
novelist, I'm a (retired) scientist. I'm interested in
documenting my family history, not romanticizing it.

Diana

-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of V. Chris and Tom Tinney,
Sr.
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 11:33 AM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Why Genealogy is Bunk: Swallowing the DNA Poison Pill

Why Genealogy is Bunk: Swallowing the DNA Poison Pill

Eastman's Online Genealogy Newsletter notes,
as of June 20, 2007, that, in "A Video Interview
with David Nicholson" . . . " David gives a brief
background of the research you can accomplish
by using DNA. Would you believe 170,000 years?"
http://eogn.typepad.com/

This is the DNA poison pill for all WRITTEN records.
This is the poison pill for all cultural history.
We only have records back circa 6,000 years.
What does 6K or less [circa A.D. 1500] do for
someone who can spit into the more esoteric
170K time frame? It is all meaningless from
an evolutionary standpoint, is it not? As well
as emotion, feeling, caring, or remembering?

"The central idea of biological evolution is that
all life on Earth shares a common ancestor,
just as you and your cousins share a common
grandmother." NOT. This empty idea justifies
wars, killing the weak, Jews, innocents and outcasts.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0_0/evo_02

Respectfully yours,

Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
Family Genealogy & History Internet Education Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/

Diana Gale Matthiesen

RE: Why Genealogy is Bunk: Swallowing the DNA Poison Pill

Legg inn av Diana Gale Matthiesen » 27 jun 2007 07:24:17

I accidentally sent this privately, when I meant to send it to the list.

-----Original Message-----
From: Diana Gale Matthiesen [mailto:DianaGM@dgmweb.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 1:46 PM
To: 'WJhonson@aol.com'
Subject: RE: Why Genealogy is Bunk: Swallowing the DNA Poison Pill

I agree, Will. Definitely a non sequitur, if not just the opposite.

-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of WJhonson@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 12:11 PM
To: vctinney@sbcglobal.net; gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Why Genealogy is Bunk: Swallowing the DNA Poison Pill

In a message dated 6/26/2007 8:35:54 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
vctinney@sbcglobal.net writes:

"The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares
a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common
grandmother." NOT. This empty idea justifies wars, killing the weak,
Jews, innocents and outcasts.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0_0/evo_02


Is the remarkable idea that belief in evolution leads to killing Jews yours?
If so, perhaps you could expand on that, as I don't understand the
connection.
Will Johnson


Diana Gale Matthiesen

RE: Why Genealogy is Bunk: Swallowing the DNA Poison Pill

Legg inn av Diana Gale Matthiesen » 27 jun 2007 07:25:58

I accidentally sent this privately, when I meant to send it to the list.

-----Original Message-----
From: Diana Gale Matthiesen [mailto:DianaGM@dgmweb.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 1:52 PM
To: 'V. Chris and Tom Tinney, Sr.'
Subject: RE: Why Genealogy is Bunk: Swallowing the DNA Poison Pill

Why in the world drag up social Darwinsim? Not only is it a
defunct worldview, it has nothing whatsoever to do with DNA
testing for genealogy.

Diana

-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of V. Chris and Tom Tinney,
Sr.
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 1:14 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Why Genealogy is Bunk: Swallowing the DNA Poison Pill

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
snip
No, it is not mine. It comes from Yehuda Bauer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehuda_Bauer

He noted the Darwinian Jewish Aryan conflict:
"[T]he basic motivation [of the Holocaust] was purely
ideological, rooted in an illusionary world of Nazi imagination,
where an international Jewish conspiracy to control the world
was opposed to a parallel Aryan quest. No genocide to date
had been based so completely on myths, on hallucinations,
on abstract, nonpragmatic ideology - which was then executed
by very rational, pragmatic means."

See also:

http://web.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/ ... Hitler.htm
From Darwin to Hitler:
Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany




Gjest

Re: Why Genealogy is Bunk: Swallowing the DNA Poison Pill

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 jun 2007 07:54:56

On 27 Jun., 07:34, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
Tom in these long rambling messages, I'm finding it is impossible to tell
when *you* are speaking and when *you are *quoting*.

Will

Dear Will

taf is spot on - the Tinney posts are the invariably impenetrable
offerings of one of this group's Ur-trolls. They are full of
apparently impressive phraseology and concepts, but they actually mean
*nothing*. Their purpose, so far as I can tell, is to make our brains
hurt by playing on the human instinct to find meaning, even when we
have to start constructing it ourselves.

Some time ago taf posited that they are the production of a 'bot',
which I find an very attractive theory. Just kill-file it or ignore
it - any time spent considering it is dead time.

Cheers, Michael

Gjest

Re: Why Genealogy is Bunk: Swallowing the DNA Poison Pill

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 jun 2007 08:40:04

Tom in these long rambling messages, I'm finding it is impossible to tell
when *you* are speaking and when *you are *quoting*.

Will



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

Tony Hoskins

Re: Baron Erik Classon Bielke (d.1638) - who was his mother?

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 27 jun 2007 17:29:17

Thanks so much, Leo. I had wondered what Elgenstierna would have to
say.

Apparently, Baron Erik Classon Bielke (d. 1638) and his wife Baroness
Karin Fleming (d.4 May 1649) had no chidlren.

Tony

taf

Re: Why Genealogy is Bunk: Swallowing the DNA Poison Pill

Legg inn av taf » 27 jun 2007 21:03:56

On Jun 26, 9:09 pm, "V. Chris and Tom Tinney, Sr."
<vctin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
taf wrote:
More importantly, it is severely off topic.

REPLY: No, it is not.

The misuse of DNA is killing valid genealogy.

This is taking my comment out of context. It was the (ridiculous)
relationship you stated between Nazi antisemitism and Darwinism that
is severely off topic. Your decrying of DNA analysis is only somewhat
off topic (but equally ill-informed).

We know that FoxNews is fair and balanced.

Ummmm . . . . we do? Anyhow, the accuracy of FoxNews is also severely
off topic.

Understanding Evolution: History, Theory, Evidence,

Severely off topic.

Real genealogy
turns the hearts and is intelligent.

Surely you have been participating in this group long enough to know
that this is not always the case. In fact, it is particularly in
those cases where it turns the heart that it tends to become less
intelligent, (a trait that is not exclusive to genealogy, as your own
post amply demonstrates).

[The first logically proposed evolutionary
concept is agreed to have come from Anaximandros
Anaximander) of Miletos, who lived from 610 BCE
to 547 BCE

More severely off topic material.

The DNA tool, used to establish idolatry, in
any form, is the DNA poison pill for all WRITTEN
records. This is the poison pill for all cultural
history.

This tips from off topic to totally incomprehensible.

Today? Abortion.

Also severely off topic.

This is the DNA poison pill for all WRITTEN records.
This is the poison pill for all cultural history.

You are repeating yourself.

This empty idea justifies
wars, killing the weak, Jews, innocents and outcasts.

Again, no Jews killed before Darwin? It would seem that your
preconceptions and misconceptions are proving a poison pill to
historical reality. AND IT IS STILL SEVERELY OFF TOPIC.

taf

Larsy

Re: Why Genealogy is Bunk: Swallowing the DNA Poison Pill

Legg inn av Larsy » 27 jun 2007 22:37:11

We know that FoxNews is fair and balanced.

We know FoxNews tried to copyright the phrase "fair and balanced,"
which hints rather broadly that the description is not true.

Leo van de Pas

Re: Saint Bernard of Clairvaux

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 28 jun 2007 14:59:11

IF this line went to King Edward IV, I am sure John Higgins or Ian Fettes
could tell. However I doubt the line is correct as I doubt Edward IV had de
Marcy ancestors, as well I doubt very much that St.Bernard of Clairvaux had
children.

Did your source give all generations? Or only like what you display here?

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: <Vondoering@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 10:34 PM
Subject: Saint Bernard of Clairvaux


Can anyone confirm or dispute this lineage:


Bernard II de Montbard
m: Humberge de Roucy
|
|
|

Blessed Aleth (Feast Aoril 4)
b. 1069.
m: Tecolin
Relics enshrined in Clairevaux
|
|
|

Saint Humberline, a Benedictine abbess
married Guy de Marcy.
Her sister-in-law was Elizabeth de Marcy. Elizabeth was also an abbess
and
when she died, Humberline took her place

Saint Bernard of Clairvaux
|
|
|
Decendants include:

King Edward IV Plantagenet
Edward Stafford 3rd Duke of Buckingham
John I Brienne, King of Jerusalem

Margaret Sypniewski herbu Odrowaz





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

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

Monica Kanellis

Re: Saint Bernard of Clairvaux

Legg inn av Monica Kanellis » 28 jun 2007 15:25:52

Don't know if they are correct, but have seen possible lines of descent from
Humberline to Edward IV using these individuals; there are 3 descents from
Edw. III, and a questionable 4th from the grandmother of Catherine de Roet

Humberline de Troyes + Anseric de Chacenay
Petronille de Chacenay + Guy de Brienne
Ermensinde de Bar-sur-Seine + Theobald de Bar
Henry de Bar = Philippa de Dreux
Marguerite de Bar = Henry of Luxembourg
Philippa of Luxembourg=John of Avesnes
Wm III of Avesnes=Jeanne de Valois
Philippa of Hainault=Edward III

mk


On 6/28/07, Leo van de Pas <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
IF this line went to King Edward IV, I am sure John Higgins or Ian Fettes
could tell. However I doubt the line is correct as I doubt Edward IV had
de
Marcy ancestors, as well I doubt very much that St.Bernard of Clairvaux
had
children.

Did your source give all generations? Or only like what you display here?

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: <Vondoering@aol.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 10:34 PM
Subject: Saint Bernard of Clairvaux


Can anyone confirm or dispute this lineage:


Bernard II de Montbard
m: Humberge de Roucy
|
|
|

Blessed Aleth (Feast Aoril 4)
b. 1069.
m: Tecolin
Relics enshrined in Clairevaux
|
|
|

Saint Humberline, a Benedictine abbess
married Guy de Marcy.
Her sister-in-law was Elizabeth de Marcy. Elizabeth was also an abbess
and
when she died, Humberline took her place

Saint Bernard of Clairvaux
|
|
|
Decendants include:

King Edward IV Plantagenet
Edward Stafford 3rd Duke of Buckingham
John I Brienne, King of Jerusalem

Margaret Sypniewski herbu Odrowaz





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

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



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

Muppet Man

Re: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh h

Legg inn av Muppet Man » 28 jun 2007 15:57:13

On May 21, 5:50 am, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
The Carolingians were a very special family and even illegitimate children
and the lines of younger sons were recorded.
As far as I know the last Carolingian was a woman ten generations removed
from Charlemagne, Adelaide Countess of Vermandois and Valois who died about
1120/1124. If you go to my website call up Charlemagne and ask for his male
line descendants, you will see what happened to his male line descendants.

I would say all modern royalty are descended from Charlemagne---many times
over----but none are in the male line.

Who established that Thomas Jefferson descends from Charlemagne in a strict
male line? Burke's Presidential Families starts the Jefferson line with

Samuel Jeaffreson---died after 23 October 1590
/
John Jeaffreon
/
Samuel Jeaffreson, who emigrated to the West-Indies
/
Samuel Jeaffreson
/
Thomas JEFFERSON
/
Thomas Jefferson born 1679 or 1680 died after 1725 (probably 1731)
/
Peter Jefferson
/
President Thomas Jefferson

Jeaffreson is how they give the first generations, Jeaffre and Jeffrey to
sound very different.. I do not know when Thomas Jefferson (son of Samuel
Jeaffreson) changed the spelling of his suyrname, but I guess if would be
after 1650 and he was the third generation in the West Indies and USA,
according to Burke's the first of the male line lived inPettistreenear
Woodbridge, Suffolk Then to find Jeffersons in England with the same DNA as
the American Jeaffresons is quite a find.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia



----- Original Message -----
From: "Dora Smith" <villan...@austin.rr.com

Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh huh

I'd be astounded if no male lines to Charlemagne. All modern royalty are
descended from him many times over. But it's possible. Most medieval
royal lines arose as warlords who married females from earlier noble lines
to establish legitmacy. But did noone have younger sons?

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

lostcoo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179714117.017345.281070@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On May 20, 5:48 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
What? Because Jefferson was descended from the Phoenicians, Charlemagne
must
also be? Since when is Jefferson's male line Carolingian?
Has that been established?
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dora Smith" <villan...@austin.rr.com

Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history,
alt.history.colonial,alt.history, soc.history.war.us-revolution
To: <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 9:22 AM
Subject: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh huh

To start with, LOL.

Seehttp://phoenicia.org/genetics.html, and
http://phoenicia.org/jefferson.html Jefferson's DNA proves that
Charlemagne was descended from the Phoenicians, because Jefferson was
descended from the Phoenicians, and we know he was descended from
Charlemagne. The Lebanese have somehow been proven to have
"Phoenician"
genetic markers. The Phoenicians are a very mysterious people who are
the
granddaddies of us all. Eyes rolling! They cursed, and everything!

These people have Phoenicians on the brain. However, apparently
Spencer
Wells picked up on it. I get the idea the he apparently thinks
Jefferson's DNA has something to do with Phoenicians. Though I've
yet to
actually verify that he thinks such a thing, and clearly the people
who
quote him here are over the edge off the deep end. Wells is not the
most intellectually rigorous person in the world, but .... ?

So I thought I'd better point out a couple of things.

Phoenicia was a little state in the northwestern corner of Palestine,
where Lebanon is now. Only Lebanon covers more territory. Vuhhy
mysterious why the Lebanese should be genetically similar to
"Phoenicians", however we know what sort of DNA they had.

But we can make some pretty good guesses what sort of DNA Phoenicians
would ahve had. THe people of Palestine at that time, and
particularly
northwestern Palestine, were a mixture of northwest Semitic,
proto-Indo-European, Hurrian (Asiatic), and Indo-Aryan.

The genetic mythology seems to be that Phoenicians formed large
Indo-European or whatever colonies all along the Mediterranean.
Ummm,
that would have been the Sea Peoples, who were a mixture of
proto-Indo-European and Indo-European people, and by the time they'd
spread around enough some Middle Eastern as well. The Sea Peoples
took
over parts of Anatolia, and parts of southwestern Palestine, and they
included the Myceneans.

I honestly don't think the Phoenicians got very far in very large
numbers.
Not impossible they traded with Spain and Britain, as they were
merchants
and traders and trade networks went all over in their time; but they
sure
didn't supplant the local populations or whatever.

On the other hand, Joblin et al present clear evidence of a genetic
trail
leading through Egypt and North Africa to Spain, of people who are
close
genetic matches (atleast with 8 markers), of Thomas Jefferson.

--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernu...@yahoo.com
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltay...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-.net

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

- Show quoted text -

Maybe I missed something but I was under the impression that there are
no male lines to Charlemagne that would have lived during Jefferson's
time. Anyway, back to bed, Leo! You need your rest. Best, Bronwen

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

- Show quoted text -

Can I just say that I live in Pettistree and have heard the same to be
true. Pettistree is a tiny village of only 20 or so houses, all of
which are quite sizeable. My dates back to around that sort of time
but is unlikely to be the one the Jefferson's lived in.

Gordon Johnson

Re: Montgomery Matters: parentage of Elizabeth de Eglinton

Legg inn av Gordon Johnson » 28 jun 2007 16:22:45

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 19 Feb, "John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com> wrote:


Dear Will,

The Douglas marriage is doubtful; the Scots Peerage account (SP
III:427 or 428, I don't have it to hand at this time) states, as I
recall, that there is no evidence for it, and discusses the problems
with the identification of a daughter of that Earl of Douglas as a
wife of Montgomery (John or Alexander). I don't believe there is any
support for it even as a conjecture at this point.


SP III, 427, has:

"According to the Memorials he [Alexander Montgomerie] married 'a
daughter of William, first Earl of Douglas, and his wife Margaret,
daughter of the Earl of Dunbar and March,' but as William, Earl of
Douglas (see that title) had no such wife nor daughter, the name of
Alexander Mongomerie's wife remains unknown."

'Memorials' is 'Memorials of the Montgomeries, Earls of Eglinton' by Sir
William Fraser, publication date not given.

** Tim - sorry to be so late in joining in!, but the origin of the

marriage claim is porobably from the "History of the Houses of Douglas
and Angus" by David Hume of Godscroft (1644). The more recent edn.
(Scottish Text Society, 1996) has the reprinted and updated text saying
of William, 1st earl of Douglas:
"Anent his mariage, we find that by succession of time he had thrie
wives; the first was Margaret Dumbar doughter to the earl of Dumbar and
Merche; by whom he begat twa sonnes , James slain at Otterburne, and
Archibald callit the Grim, lord of Galloway and efter Earle of Douglas.
In second mariage he had Margaret Mar, doughter to Donald or Duncane
earle of Mar, and efter heretrix of that earldome....... Efter the death
of this Margaret Mar, William earle of Douglas in his third mariage did
take to wife Margaret Stewart doughter to Thomas Stewart earle of Angus,
and efter him heretrix of the house..."

Gordon Johnson.

Gordon Banks

[SPAM] Re: Why Genealogy is Bunk: Swallowing the DNA Poison

Legg inn av Gordon Banks » 28 jun 2007 16:48:21

Advocates of scientific ideas are rarely inspired by them to commit genocide.

Now RELIGIOUS ideas, that's another matter entirely.

Gjest

Re: Sir Richard Baskerville and his wife Isabel, and other C

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 jun 2007 17:40:03

On 25/06/2007 I referred to a document dated 1323/4, which Tony Ingham had
mentioned to me, whereby Richard Baskerville and his wife Philippa settled
Eardisley on themselves for life, with remainder to Richard's grandson Richard
(son of the older Richard's son Walter) and his wife. My post erroneously gave
the younger Richard's wife as Joan, daughter of Nicholas Poynings, in
reliance on an extract from Morgan Watkins' work which Tony had sent me.
However Tony has now obtained a photocopy of the original Fine, dated the
quinzaine of Easter 16 Edw II.
It is clear from this that the wife of the younger Richard was daughter of
Nicholas Poyntz, not Nicholas Poynings. I suppose that her father may have been
Sir Nicholas Poyntz of Iron Acton, who died in 1311, but I have not seen
this authoritatively stated
MM

D. Patterson

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av D. Patterson » 28 jun 2007 20:09:23

"hippo" <south-sudan.net> wrote in message
news:467eab96$0$9217$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
"a.spencer3" wrote in message

[.]

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!

Chuckle, they passed a similar ordinance here too that was supposed to go
into effect yesterday. The kids who went out last night said folks were
smoking in all the bars in spite of the ban. It may turn out to be one of
those 'feel good' laws that are not enforced. It would be saner to require
an air exchanger capable of a certain capacity per cubic feet of space
with built in ion scrubbers for the recirculated air. That would have made
everyone but the real nutters happy.

Originally the smoking set-off from public buildings would have had people
standing to smoke in the middle of the street. The idiots had to change
that at the last minute.

I have a list of the names of the city councilpersons who voted for the
ban to remind me who not to vote for again. -the Troll


Based on a quarter-century of experience, it will take little time for the
smoking ban to become very very popular, because most people will quickly
breathe in relief when they no longer find it necessary to avoid public and
private venues just to be able to breathe air without the illnesses
associated with nicotine. They predicted widespread business dislocations
when the ban was put in place in California and other states. Instead,
business improved as non-smokers found it was no longer necessary to avoid
those businesses. Hippo, do you have any idea whatsoever just how much
illness and grief that smoking inflicts on other people? Do you have any
idea how exposure to secondhand smoke causes many people to develop lifelong
respiratory illnesses as a consequnce of the autoimmune reactions to the
smoke and nicotine. Do you have any idea how bad and objectionable you, your
clothing, and objects exposed to your rancid tar and nicotine smoke smell
when they are in the presence of non-smokers?

Gjest

Re: Saint Bernard of Clairvaux

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 jun 2007 23:40:04

Hi Leo and Monica~

The book doesn't really give any real information other than what I show. I
thought Bernard was celibate too. He was said to have been tempted many
times as a youth. He came close to a few women in his life, but more in the
spiritual sense. His sister eventually became a nun, after a life of material
excess. I have a book called ST BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX: ORACLE OF THE TWELFTH
CENTURY by Abbe Theodore Ratisbonne. Rockford, IL.: Tan Books, first
published in 1855. As we know St. Bernard was associated withen the Knights
Templar and that many of the Templars had wives and children before joining the
Order. Hugh de Paynes had a few children and joined after his wife died and
became their first Grand Master. His wife was Catherine de St Clair, which
evolved into Sinclair in Scotland.

In this book, by Ratisbonne, it states Bernard's parents were: Elizabeth
[also Alais/Aleth] (age 15) , daughter of Count Bernard de Montbar and
Tecelin, Lord of Fontaines. They were married near Dijon. It was said that she was
called against her will to become a wife, even though she had seven
children. Later she reached the level of Blessed, but not a full-fledged saint.

........................................................MORE
BELOW...................................................................

<< In a message dated 6/28/2007 9:59:56 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

IF this line went to King Edward IV, I am sure John Higgins or Ian Fettes
could tell. However I doubt the line is correct as I doubt Edward IV had de
Marcy ancestors, as well I doubt very much that St.Bernard of Clairvaux had
children.

Did your source give all generations? Or only like what you display here?

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia>>
...............................................................................
...........................................................................

AND _monica.kanellis@gmail.com_ (mailto:monica.kanellis@gmail.com) stated:

<<Don't know if they are correct, but have seen possible lines of descent
from Humberline to Edward IV using these individuals; there are 3 descents
from Edw. III, and a questionable 4th from the grandmother of Catherine de Roet

Humberline de Troyes + Anseric de Chacenay
Petronille de Chacenay + Guy de Brienne
Ermensinde de Bar-sur-Seine + Theobald de Bar
Henry de Bar = Philippa de Dreux
Marguerite de Bar = Henry of Luxembourg
Philippa of Luxembourg=John of Avesnes
Wm III of Avesnes=Jeanne de Valois
Philippa of Hainault=Edward III

mk>>

...............................................................................
........................................................................

I think that this is most likely the lineage that works..........See below,
where I added a few more siblings. My original message has been updated:

----- Original Message -----
From: <Vondoering@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 10:34 PM
Subject: Saint Bernard of Clairvaux


Can anyone confirm or dispute this lineage:


Bernard II de Montbard
m: Humberge de Rouc = Parents of Blessed Aleth.
|
|
|

Blessed Aleth (Feast April 4)
b. 1069. Aleth died of some sort of fever.
m: Tescelin of Sorus, a knight
Aleth's relics are enshrined in Clairevaux
|
|
|
THEIR CHILDREN WERE:
1. Guido, the eldest son.
2. Gerald, second born son.


3. Saint Humberline/Hombeline, their only daughter, was a Benedictine
abbess. She
married Guy de Marcy. Her sister-in-law was Elizabeth de Marcy.
Elizabeth was also an abbess and when she died, Humberline took her place. Her son

was Erad II, Count of Brienne.
4. Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, was the third born son, and he was born
in 1091, at the Castle of Fontaines, in Burgundy. While he was studying at

Chatillon, his brothers successfully entered careers in the military.

5. Andre

6. Barthelemi

7. Nivard

The only thing I can figure is that someone in his family has these
connections. Thus not in his direct line???
This information was in a book called SAINTS WHO LEFT DESCENDANTS by Brian
Daniel Starr (2003). I got my copy from Amazon.com. It lists Blessed Aleth,
Saint Humberline, who has the same descendants listed below:

Decendants include:
King Edward IV Plantagenet
Edward Stafford 3rd Duke of Buckingham
John I Brienne, King of Jerusalem

However, no other details are given.

Margaret Sypniewski herbu Odrowaz







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

hippo

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av hippo » 29 jun 2007 01:35:12

"D. Patterson" wrote in message

[.]

Based on a quarter-century of experience, it will take little time for the
smoking ban to become very very popular, because most people will quickly
breathe in relief when they no longer find it necessary to avoid public
and private venues just to be able to breathe air without the illnesses
associated with nicotine. They predicted widespread business dislocations
when the ban was put in place in California and other states. Instead,
business improved as non-smokers found it was no longer necessary to avoid
those businesses. Hippo, do you have any idea whatsoever just how much
illness and grief that smoking inflicts on other people? Do you have any
idea how exposure to secondhand smoke causes many people to develop
lifelong respiratory illnesses as a consequnce of the autoimmune reactions
to the smoke and nicotine. Do you have any idea how bad and objectionable
you, your clothing, and objects exposed to your rancid tar and nicotine
smoke smell when they are in the presence of non-smokers?

Using that logic the same can be said for the internal combustion engine,
animal fats, booze, guns, red meat, soda, french fries, fake sugar, barbecue
and hearth fires, and even milk, cheese, and butter, oh yes, and coffee,
tea, and everything else with caffeine in it or anything on the vast
'possibly carcinogenic' list. .

I think it should be a matter of choice. License places for smoking with
rigid standards of air exchanges and filtration and give folks a choice. I
don't like imposing my tastes or bad habits on others or their imposing
theirs on me.

I particularly disliked the morally superior attitude of non-smokers who
pass me shivering on the street in winter. They shoot their noses into the
air in a very superior way as if I was an unwashed homeless person urinating
on the sidewalk instead of a corporate VP chased out of my own damned
office.

In my less charitable moments, I would like to open a bar just across the
city line called 'Smokers' with a sign on the door that says 'non-smokers
admitted at their own risk' and the picture of a protester with a red line
across him/her inside a red circle. The non-smoking section would be a table
for two between the doors to the latrines and under the public phone. See
how they enjoy being social pariahs. -the Troll

D. Patterson

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av D. Patterson » 29 jun 2007 04:17:51

"hippo" <south-sudan.net> wrote in message
news:46845046$0$9325$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
"D. Patterson" wrote in message

[.]

Based on a quarter-century of experience, it will take little time for
the smoking ban to become very very popular, because most people will
quickly breathe in relief when they no longer find it necessary to avoid
public and private venues just to be able to breathe air without the
illnesses associated with nicotine. They predicted widespread business
dislocations when the ban was put in place in California and other
states. Instead, business improved as non-smokers found it was no longer
necessary to avoid those businesses. Hippo, do you have any idea
whatsoever just how much illness and grief that smoking inflicts on other
people? Do you have any idea how exposure to secondhand smoke causes many
people to develop lifelong respiratory illnesses as a consequnce of the
autoimmune reactions to the smoke and nicotine. Do you have any idea how
bad and objectionable you, your clothing, and objects exposed to your
rancid tar and nicotine smoke smell when they are in the presence of
non-smokers?

Using that logic the same can be said for the internal combustion engine,
animal fats, booze, guns, red meat, soda, french fries, fake sugar,
barbecue and hearth fires, and even milk, cheese, and butter, oh yes, and
coffee, tea, and everything else with caffeine in it or anything on the
vast 'possibly carcinogenic' list. .

I think it should be a matter of choice. License places for smoking with
rigid standards of air exchanges and filtration and give folks a choice. I
don't like imposing my tastes or bad habits on others or their imposing
theirs on me.

I particularly disliked the morally superior attitude of non-smokers who
pass me shivering on the street in winter. They shoot their noses into the
air in a very superior way as if I was an unwashed homeless person
urinating on the sidewalk instead of a corporate VP chased out of my own
damned office.

In my less charitable moments, I would like to open a bar just across the
city line called 'Smokers' with a sign on the door that says 'non-smokers
admitted at their own risk' and the picture of a protester with a red line
across him/her inside a red circle. The non-smoking section would be a
table for two between the doors to the latrines and under the public
phone. See how they enjoy being social pariahs. -the Troll


Speaking as a person who worked as a professional bartender and bar manager
for more than a decade in my youth, I can observe that non-smokers were
treated in exactly that manner and much worse in many an establishment
ranging from the finest restaurants to the worst hole in the wall beer
taverns. If smokers today have to endure such treatment for only a decade or
so of the recent years, it hardly serves as more than a minor inconvenience
and recompense for more than a century of such treatment and worse taunting
at the hands of contemptuous smokers.

Indeed, non-smokers have always been subjected to the indignities you
suggest, and they are still subjected to them in many of the states which
still have a limited smoking ban today. If you were a non-smoker, you would
be indignant over the fact you still cannot enter a fast food restaurant, a
typical chain restaurant, or the fanciest of expensive restaurants today
without your hair and clothes becoming badly fouled with the reek of rancid
tobacco smoke. When you return home, the foul stench on your person and in
your clothing proceeds to permeate the interior of your automobile
upholstery, your home furnishings, and the clothing in your closets. If it
were yourself being assaulted by the effects of the tobacco smoke, you would
be quite indinant about the injustice of it all, instead of patiently
enduring and patiently disapprovaing as most non-smokers have been about
this serious problem. I know this to be more likely true than not, becuase I
have known life long smokers of pipe tobacco, cigars, and cigarettes who
have been quite indignant about the problem after they quit smoking.

Note also that I have said nothing whatsoever about the carcinogenic
problems associated with tobacco smoke. However serious the carcinogenic
probelms may ultimately prove to be, the health problems associated with
exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke are serious enough to ban without even
taking its carcinogenic properties into account. Tobacco smoke and the
addictive properties of nicotine cause very serious autoimmune health
problems for non-smokers. We're talking about everything from diagnosed
emphysema to undiagnosed problems with mild to severely debilitating
allergies. This is not a problem to be treated lightly. It is a problem
which cannot be justly trivialized as comparable to caffeine and the items
you listed. Putting all issues of cancer aside, nicotine and particles of
smoke tobacco are each in their own right serious causes of health problems
in humns, other animals, and even many plants in the Plant Kingdom. Smokers
are not welcome in Iris gardens, because the tobacco mosaic virus carried on
their clothing and person can deadly to Iris and can destroy an entire Iris
garden by carrying the destructive virus into the garden. So, please do not
try to trivialize the problems of tobacco and nicotine, because they can and
do cause a wide range of health problems for plants and animals which are
not at all reasonably comparable to caffeine or the assortment of other
excuses smokers like to use to trivialize the problems with tobacco use.

I am a non-smoker who had the misfortune of being raised within a household
of tobacco smokers. They smoked cigarettes, cigars, and pipes with
absolutely no regard whatsoever to the consequences for myself or any other
non-smoker, other than an occassional special guest. When I went anywhere
outside the home to school or elsewhere, my hair, clothes, and other items
from home reeked with foul smelling stale tobacco tar and nicotine. Being
smokers, they could no longer smell how bad their smoking habits fouled
everything their smoke permeated. I'm already well acquainted with how
smokers were treated in the past and are treated today, having been treated
as if I were a smoker bcause of the reeking secondhand smoke that permeated
my hair and clothing. To empathize with non-smokers you should try quitting
smoking long enough to experience what it is like to be a non-smoker with a
regained sense of smell subjected to the tobacco smoke in most of the public
places you must frequent to pursue a normal life.

Renia

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av Renia » 29 jun 2007 05:47:52

hippo wrote:


In my less charitable moments, I would like to open a bar just across the
city line called 'Smokers' with a sign on the door that says 'non-smokers
admitted at their own risk' and the picture of a protester with a red line
across him/her inside a red circle. The non-smoking section would be a table
for two between the doors to the latrines and under the public phone. See
how they enjoy being social pariahs. -the Troll

I went to such a place in Greece! When they bought in the new law which
demanded bars and restaurants have separate smoking and non-smoking
areas, most bars decided to designate only one table to non-smokers. One
bar designated the single table upstairs, which was next to the toilets.
But most were smack bang in the middle of the smokers area. Smoking is
a national sport in Greece and things have settled down now, but the
non-smoking tables are usually empty.

Renia

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av Renia » 29 jun 2007 06:19:04

D. Patterson wrote:


have known life long smokers of pipe tobacco, cigars, and cigarettes who
have been quite indignant about the problem after they quit smoking.

Ex-smokers are the sanctimonious worst. Because they have managed to
give up they think this gives them moral superiority.

Smoking is legal. It is actively encouraged by hypocritical governments
who welcome the revenue its sale generates but who ban its use.

Governments should make up their minds. Is smoking lethal or not? If it
is, then ban its sale and send all the nicotine addicts to anti-smoking
"drying-out" centres.

But they won't do this because the smoking issue has become a means of
imposing social control.

The Bensham Cunt

Re: Folke Bernadotte

Legg inn av The Bensham Cunt » 29 jun 2007 09:58:19

On Jun 29, 1:46 pm, "Lisa Davidson" <ldavids...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
"The Bensham Cunt" <soonm...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1182858456.675479.194750@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...> Is it possible to find out more regarding Folke Bernadotte ? Does he a
title to speak of ?

The Bensham Cunt

1. Yes there is much information about Folke Bernadotte - books,
articles, and other info on the web.
2. The only Folke Bernadotte currently alive is the son of Count Folke
Bernadotte. Don't know if he has a title or not. The original Folke
Bernadotte was styled as a Count. His father was born a Prince of Sweden

Thanks Lisa. I was aware that Folke Snr held the title of Count
however I was and I am unsure about his son Folke. Does he have a
title ? Or is he simply Mr Bernadotte ?

The Bensham Cunt

a.spencer3

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 29 jun 2007 12:03:33

"D. Patterson" <proamer@legypt.net> wrote in message
news:13881ripgnahi62@corp.supernews.com...
"hippo" <south-sudan.net> wrote in message
news:467eab96$0$9217$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...

"a.spencer3" wrote in message

[.]

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!

Chuckle, they passed a similar ordinance here too that was supposed to
go
into effect yesterday. The kids who went out last night said folks were
smoking in all the bars in spite of the ban. It may turn out to be one
of
those 'feel good' laws that are not enforced. It would be saner to
require
an air exchanger capable of a certain capacity per cubic feet of space
with built in ion scrubbers for the recirculated air. That would have
made
everyone but the real nutters happy.

Originally the smoking set-off from public buildings would have had
people
standing to smoke in the middle of the street. The idiots had to change
that at the last minute.

I have a list of the names of the city councilpersons who voted for the
ban to remind me who not to vote for again. -the Troll


Based on a quarter-century of experience, it will take little time for the
smoking ban to become very very popular, because most people will quickly
breathe in relief when they no longer find it necessary to avoid public
and
private venues just to be able to breathe air without the illnesses
associated with nicotine. They predicted widespread business dislocations
when the ban was put in place in California and other states. Instead,
business improved as non-smokers found it was no longer necessary to avoid
those businesses. Hippo, do you have any idea whatsoever just how much
illness and grief that smoking inflicts on other people? Do you have any
idea how exposure to secondhand smoke causes many people to develop
lifelong
respiratory illnesses as a consequnce of the autoimmune reactions to the
smoke and nicotine. Do you have any idea how bad and objectionable you,
your
clothing, and objects exposed to your rancid tar and nicotine smoke smell
when they are in the presence of non-smokers?


Non-smokers have always had plenty of choice for venues.
Some choice for smokers is all that's asked.

Have you any idea how obnoxious the noise and gasses from your posts are, to
many?

Surreyman

Gjest

Re: Why Genealogy is Bunk: Swallowing the DNA Poison Pill

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 jun 2007 14:46:49

A serious genealogist, amateur or professional, will acknowledge that
authentic deeds may lie, intentionally or not.
Because the law likes certainty, authentic deeds are very difficult to
contest, but it is not impossible.
The presumption that the father of a child born to a married woman is
her husband could be rebutted,
but by the child only, and when the child was old enough to understand
what giving up legitimacy meant.

DNA is an extraordinary discovery and will help (at least I hope so)
prove and convince racists that we are
all cousins. In the meantime, I enjoy drawing links between people
based on family relationships, and enjoy
even more seeing how families come and go, travel, make good or bad
alliances. To a very dear friend of mine
who was born following a fling between an African-American engineer
and a French-Canadian hotel maid in the early
1960's, and who does not even know who his mother is (she won't see
him and she realised she was pregnant
after the fellow's business trip to Montreal was over), I say: imagine
that you descend from African and European
royalty. He is tall, very handsome, considerate, and his stock is
certainly not "fin-de-race"

John P. Ravilious

Re: Montgomery Matters: parentage of Elizabeth de Eglinton

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 29 jun 2007 15:27:50

Dear Gordon (and Tim),

Unfortunately, Hume of Godscroft's account of at least the
marital history of William, Earl of Douglas (d. 1384) is severely
flawed.

1. There is no record of a daughter Margaret of Patrick, Earl of
March
(d. ca. 1368). His successor George Dunbar, Earl of March (d.
1420)
had no known daughter Margaret, and being born ca. 1340
himself
could hardly have been the grandfather of James Douglas, the
slain
hero of Otterburn (born say 1355-1360). More to the point,
James
Douglas was styled Earl of Mar, being the
heir to his mother Margaret, Countess of Mar (see Complete
Peerage
and Scots Peerage accounts to this effect).

2. Archibald Douglas 'the Grim', 3rd Earl of Douglas (succeeding
the
aforementioned James in 1388) was not William's son and James'
brother, but rather the first cousin of William. He was the
illegitimate son of Sir James Douglas 'the Good', the well-
known compatriot of Robert _the Bruce_ . He was certainly not
a brother of Earl James: the only known sibling of James was
Isabel Douglas, wife of (1) Sir Malcolm Drummond and (2)
Alexander Stewart, Earl of Mar (de jure uxoris),
illegitimate son of Alexander Stewart, Earl of Buchan, best
(or worst) known as 'The Wolf of Badenoch'.

3. The first and only known marriage of William, 2nd Earl of
Douglas was to Margaret, Countess of Mar. He had a
relationship with Margaret Stewart, Countess of Angus,
by whom he fathered George Douglas, the first Douglas
Earl of Angus. That George was illegitimate is well
beyond question (see Scots Peerage, sub Douglas, Earl
of Angus, and presumably also Complete Peerage).

Cheers,

John


On Jun 28, 11:22 am, Gordon Johnson <gor...@kinhelp.co.uk> wrote:
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 19 Feb, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:

Dear Will,

The Douglas marriage is doubtful; the Scots Peerage account (SP
III:427 or 428, I don't have it to hand at this time) states, as I
recall, that there is no evidence for it, and discusses the problems
with the identification of a daughter of that Earl of Douglas as a
wife of Montgomery (John or Alexander). I don't believe there is any
support for it even as a conjecture at this point.

SP III, 427, has:

"According to the Memorials he [Alexander Montgomerie] married 'a
daughter of William, first Earl of Douglas, and his wife Margaret,
daughter of the Earl of Dunbar and March,' but as William, Earl of
Douglas (see that title) had no such wife nor daughter, the name of
Alexander Mongomerie's wife remains unknown."

'Memorials' is 'Memorials of the Montgomeries, Earls of Eglinton' by Sir
William Fraser, publication date not given.

** Tim - sorry to be so late in joining in!, but the origin of the
marriage claim is porobably from the "History of the Houses of Douglas
and Angus" by David Hume of Godscroft (1644). The more recent edn.
(Scottish Text Society, 1996) has the reprinted and updated text saying
of William, 1st earl of Douglas:
"Anent his mariage, we find that by succession of time he had thrie
wives; the first was Margaret Dumbar doughter to the earl of Dumbar and
Merche; by whom he begat twa sonnes , James slain at Otterburne, and
Archibald callit the Grim, lord of Galloway and efter Earle of Douglas.
In second mariage he had Margaret Mar, doughter to Donald or Duncane
earle of Mar, and efter heretrix of that earldome....... Efter the death
of this Margaret Mar, William earle of Douglas in his third mariage did
take to wife Margaret Stewart doughter to Thomas Stewart earle of Angus,
and efter him heretrix of the house..."

Gordon Johnson.

Larsy

Re: Folke Bernadotte

Legg inn av Larsy » 29 jun 2007 17:04:00

The Bensham Cunt

What an odd name ...

hippo

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av hippo » 29 jun 2007 17:29:18

"D. Patterson" wrote in message

[.]

Using that logic the same can be said for the internal combustion engine,
animal fats, booze, guns, red meat, soda, french fries, fake sugar,
barbecue and hearth fires, and even milk, cheese, and butter, oh yes, and
coffee, tea, and everything else with caffeine in it or anything on the
vast 'possibly carcinogenic' list. .

I think it should be a matter of choice. License places for smoking with
rigid standards of air exchanges and filtration and give folks a choice.
I don't like imposing my tastes or bad habits on others or their imposing
theirs on me.

I particularly disliked the morally superior attitude of non-smokers who
pass me shivering on the street in winter. They shoot their noses into
the air in a very superior way as if I was an unwashed homeless person
urinating on the sidewalk instead of a corporate VP chased out of my own
damned office.

In my less charitable moments, I would like to open a bar just across the
city line called 'Smokers' with a sign on the door that says 'non-smokers
admitted at their own risk' and the picture of a protester with a red
line across him/her inside a red circle. The non-smoking section would be
a table for two between the doors to the latrines and under the public
phone. See how they enjoy being social pariahs. -the Troll


Speaking as a person who worked as a professional bartender and bar
manager for more than a decade in my youth, I can observe that non-smokers
were treated in exactly that manner and much worse in many an
establishment ranging from the finest restaurants to the worst hole in the
wall beer taverns. If smokers today have to endure such treatment for only
a decade or so of the recent years, it hardly serves as more than a minor
inconvenience and recompense for more than a century of such treatment and
worse taunting at the hands of contemptuous smokers.

Indeed, non-smokers have always been subjected to the indignities you
suggest, and they are still subjected to them in many of the states which
still have a limited smoking ban today. If you were a non-smoker, you
would be indignant over the fact you still cannot enter a fast food
restaurant, a typical chain restaurant, or the fanciest of expensive
restaurants today without your hair and clothes becoming badly fouled with
the reek of rancid tobacco smoke. When you return home, the foul stench on
your person and in your clothing proceeds to permeate the interior of your
automobile upholstery, your home furnishings, and the clothing in your
closets. If it were yourself being assaulted by the effects of the tobacco
smoke, you would be quite indinant about the injustice of it all, instead
of patiently enduring and patiently disapprovaing as most non-smokers have
been about this serious problem. I know this to be more likely true than
not, becuase I have known life long smokers of pipe tobacco, cigars, and
cigarettes who have been quite indignant about the problem after they quit
smoking.

Note also that I have said nothing whatsoever about the carcinogenic
problems associated with tobacco smoke. However serious the carcinogenic
probelms may ultimately prove to be, the health problems associated with
exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke are serious enough to ban without
even taking its carcinogenic properties into account. Tobacco smoke and
the addictive properties of nicotine cause very serious autoimmune health
problems for non-smokers. We're talking about everything from diagnosed
emphysema to undiagnosed problems with mild to severely debilitating
allergies. This is not a problem to be treated lightly. It is a problem
which cannot be justly trivialized as comparable to caffeine and the items
you listed. Putting all issues of cancer aside, nicotine and particles of
smoke tobacco are each in their own right serious causes of health
problems in humns, other animals, and even many plants in the Plant
Kingdom. Smokers are not welcome in Iris gardens, because the tobacco
mosaic virus carried on their clothing and person can deadly to Iris and
can destroy an entire Iris garden by carrying the destructive virus into
the garden. So, please do not try to trivialize the problems of tobacco
and nicotine, because they can and do cause a wide range of health
problems for plants and animals which are not at all reasonably comparable
to caffeine or the assortment of other excuses smokers like to use to
trivialize the problems with tobacco use.

I am a non-smoker who had the misfortune of being raised within a
household of tobacco smokers. They smoked cigarettes, cigars, and pipes
with absolutely no regard whatsoever to the consequences for myself or any
other non-smoker, other than an occassional special guest. When I went
anywhere outside the home to school or elsewhere, my hair, clothes, and
other items from home reeked with foul smelling stale tobacco tar and
nicotine. Being smokers, they could no longer smell how bad their smoking
habits fouled everything their smoke permeated. I'm already well
acquainted with how smokers were treated in the past and are treated
today, having been treated as if I were a smoker bcause of the reeking
secondhand smoke that permeated my hair and clothing. To empathize with
non-smokers you should try quitting smoking long enough to experience what
it is like to be a non-smoker with a regained sense of smell subjected to
the tobacco smoke in most of the public places you must frequent to pursue
a normal life.

Do you mean you got kicked out of hotels, restaurants, bars, public
buildings, and people's houses to back porches and the street in winter for
*not* smoking? I don't think so.

No kidding, you get a lot of credit from me for not sucking up to peer
pressure to smoke. I did and try to keep the kids from taking up the habit.
My son doesn't smoke.

The best argument against smoking is it is an addictive drug just like every
other addictive drug. No one likes to think of themselves as an addict.

I still see no reason for there not to be free choice for establishments and
smokers. You can have bars and restaurants licensed for smokers and smoke
free ones. It is fairer and more just. -the Troll

hippo

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av hippo » 29 jun 2007 17:37:50

"Renia" wrote in message

In my less charitable moments, I would like to open a bar just across the
city line called 'Smokers' with a sign on the door that says 'non-smokers
admitted at their own risk' and the picture of a protester with a red
line across him/her inside a red circle. The non-smoking section would be
a table for two between the doors to the latrines and under the public
phone. See how they enjoy being social pariahs. -the Troll

I went to such a place in Greece! When they bought in the new law which
demanded bars and restaurants have separate smoking and non-smoking areas,
most bars decided to designate only one table to non-smokers. One bar
designated the single table upstairs, which was next to the toilets. But
most were smack bang in the middle of the smokers area. Smoking is a
national sport in Greece and things have settled down now, but the
non-smoking tables are usually empty.

I know, been there. Smoking is still macho in Greece and the cigarettes are
stronger and made up of at least a portion if Turkish tobacco. I had quit
before going there. It was driving on Greek roads over the Arcadian
mountains and in the Mani that got me off the wagon. -the Troll

hippo

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av hippo » 29 jun 2007 17:43:03

"a.spencer3" wrote in message

[.]

Non-smokers have always had plenty of choice for venues.
Some choice for smokers is all that's asked.

YES. How hard could that be? License smoking establishments and check them
for air standards regularly. A Chinese restaurant I went to last night has a
glassed in enclosure with a large evac. fan for smokers. -the Troll

Gjest

Re: Why Genealogy is Bunk: Swallowing the DNA Poison Pill

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 jun 2007 18:35:06

<<In a message dated 6/29/2007 7:06:15 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
aeam@videotron.ca writes:

The presumption that the father of a child born to a married woman is
her husband could be rebutted,
but by the child only, and when the child was old enough to understand
what giving up legitimacy meant.>>

What is the source for this chestnut?
Thanks
Will Johnson





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

WJhonson

Re: Booth Genealogy and Owen of Condover again

Legg inn av WJhonson » 29 jun 2007 19:25:03

A correspondent has alerted me that in my data I have Booth of Cheshire. In poking about I noticed that I have an odd person named St John Booth. Checking the Ancestral File, they give that not only is he the son of some John Booth by some wife Dorothy St John, but that also St John Booth married Anne Owen, thereby having a daughter Catherine Booth who married Roger Owen of Condover, Shropshire.

I just happen to co-incidentally have a disconnected Anne Owen baptised 1 Jan 1646 at Condover, Shropshire, the daughter of some Griffith Owen.

Can anyone confirm that this Anne, is that Anne? Or even that that Anne exists?

Thanks
Will Johnson

wjhonson

Re: Booth Genealogy and Owen of Condover again

Legg inn av wjhonson » 29 jun 2007 19:29:02

Well ask and you shall receive isn't it true?
Here we see Douglas Richardson himself giving me the answer

http://books.google.com/books?id=CmYgwL ... FDfGzqvFJA

Magna Carta Ancestry, page 112


Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Sir Richard Baskerville and his wife Isabel, and other C

Legg inn av WJhonson » 29 jun 2007 20:30:29

From this document the grandson Richard Baskerville is, by 1324 already married to some Joan. However you had also said that his heir Richard was born 30 Jan 1369/70.

So it would seem that Joan is not his mother. Who was the heir's mother?

Thanks
Will Johnson

J Antero

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av J Antero » 29 jun 2007 22:38:56

"hippo" <south-sudan.net> wrote in message
news:46852fe1$0$9331$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
"D. Patterson" wrote in message



I still see no reason for there not to be free choice for establishments
and smokers. You can have bars and restaurants licensed for smokers and
smoke free ones. It is fairer and more just. -the Troll


Because of the cost to general society.

It creates a population of physically debilitated people who need expensive
medical care.

When someone buys a pack of cigarettes, none of the sales revenue is sunk
into a fund to care for the eventual cumulative effects of smoking.

It's the same reason the government is eventually going to have to involve
itself in controlling junk and fast food. If anything, that's emerging as an
even more catastrophic medical and economic situation.

The Bensham Cunt

Re: Folke Bernadotte

Legg inn av The Bensham Cunt » 29 jun 2007 23:02:55

On Jun 30, 2:04 am, Larsy <ravinmaven2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The Bensham Cunt

What an odd name ...

Larsy I assume you mean Folke ?

WJhonson

Re: Wives of Sir Hampden Paulet of Nether Wallop, Hampshire

Legg inn av WJhonson » 29 jun 2007 23:44:07

<<In a message dated 06/27/07 00:27:51 Pacific Standard Time, b.shortridge@auckland.ac.nz writes:
An online transcription of Hampshire marriages would seem to give a date for the marriage:
http://www.familyresearcher.net/SHERFIE ... ODDON.html

PAWLETT Hamlyn HADNOLL Anne.Mrs. 01 Nov 1581/2 >>

An alternative date is given in the extracted marriages on IGI of 1 Nov 1580.
Perhaps the year is confusing in the register and each extractor made a guess.
Will Johnson

theunscot

Re: Folke Bernadotte

Legg inn av theunscot » 30 jun 2007 14:38:50

On Jun 29, 4:58 am, The Bensham Cunt <soonm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 29, 1:46 pm, "Lisa Davidson" <ldavids...@socal.rr.com> wrote:

"The Bensham Cunt" <soonm...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1182858456.675479.194750@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...> Is it possible to find out more regarding Folke Bernadotte ? Does he a
title to speak of ?

The Bensham Cunt

1. Yes there is much information about Folke Bernadotte - books,
articles, and other info on the web.
2. The only Folke Bernadotte currently alive is the son of Count Folke
Bernadotte. Don't know if he has a title or not. The original Folke
Bernadotte was styled as a Count. His father was born a Prince of Sweden

Thanks Lisa. I was aware that Folke Snr held the title of Count
however I was and I am unsure about his son Folke. Does he have a
title ? Or is he simply Mr Bernadotte ?

The Bensham Cunt

Folke Jr, known as 'Ockie', does hold the title of Count af Wisborg,
as did his father. This was an hereditary title given to Ockie's
grandfather (the former Prince Oscar of Sweden), by Grand Duke Adolphe
of Luxembourg, after Oscar had married without consent and lost his
princely title. The title continues through the agnatic
descendants.

Larsy

Re: Folke Bernadotte

Legg inn av Larsy » 30 jun 2007 16:23:38

The Bensham Cunt

What an odd name ...

Larsy I assume you mean Folke ?

Of course, Cunt, what other name would I be referring to?

Ford Mommaerts-Browne

Re: A site to explore

Legg inn av Ford Mommaerts-Browne » 30 jun 2007 17:18:24

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ford Mommaerts-Browne" <FordMommaerts@cox.net>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 10:44 AM
Subject: A site to explore


: I just stumbled across a site, which I have not had time to explore greatly. It seems to have an emphasis on Swedes, which is something different from other sites mentioned here.
: Ford
:
:
: -------------------------------
: 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


It would, undoubtedly help, were I to include the link! D'ya think?

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... obiliorum/

Julian Richards

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av Julian Richards » 30 jun 2007 20:31:54

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:17:50 -0700, "D. Patterson"
<proamer@legypt.net> wrote:

You cannot control the distribution and sale of deadly narcotics or alcohol,
so it appears rather absurd and disingenuous of you to suggest an impossible
regulatory task as an alternative to ordinary commonsense means.

The thing is that if tobacco was to arrive in the UK for the first
time now, it would be a Class C drug.

There is a legal challenge being brought against the ban. With all
that is going on on the world, I would have thought that such people
would have had better things to bring court cases about.
--

Julian Richards

http://www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"

THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL

D. Patterson

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av D. Patterson » 30 jun 2007 20:41:06

"hippo" <south-sudan.net> wrote in message
news:46852fe1$0$9331$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
"D. Patterson" wrote in message

[.]

Using that logic the same can be said for the internal combustion
engine, animal fats, booze, guns, red meat, soda, french fries, fake
sugar, barbecue and hearth fires, and even milk, cheese, and butter, oh
yes, and coffee, tea, and everything else with caffeine in it or
anything on the vast 'possibly carcinogenic' list. .

I think it should be a matter of choice. License places for smoking with
rigid standards of air exchanges and filtration and give folks a choice.
I don't like imposing my tastes or bad habits on others or their
imposing theirs on me.

I particularly disliked the morally superior attitude of non-smokers who
pass me shivering on the street in winter. They shoot their noses into
the air in a very superior way as if I was an unwashed homeless person
urinating on the sidewalk instead of a corporate VP chased out of my own
damned office.

In my less charitable moments, I would like to open a bar just across
the city line called 'Smokers' with a sign on the door that says
'non-smokers admitted at their own risk' and the picture of a protester
with a red line across him/her inside a red circle. The non-smoking
section would be a table for two between the doors to the latrines and
under the public phone. See how they enjoy being social pariahs. -the
Troll


Speaking as a person who worked as a professional bartender and bar
manager for more than a decade in my youth, I can observe that
non-smokers were treated in exactly that manner and much worse in many an
establishment ranging from the finest restaurants to the worst hole in
the wall beer taverns. If smokers today have to endure such treatment for
only a decade or so of the recent years, it hardly serves as more than a
minor inconvenience and recompense for more than a century of such
treatment and worse taunting at the hands of contemptuous smokers.

Indeed, non-smokers have always been subjected to the indignities you
suggest, and they are still subjected to them in many of the states which
still have a limited smoking ban today. If you were a non-smoker, you
would be indignant over the fact you still cannot enter a fast food
restaurant, a typical chain restaurant, or the fanciest of expensive
restaurants today without your hair and clothes becoming badly fouled
with the reek of rancid tobacco smoke. When you return home, the foul
stench on your person and in your clothing proceeds to permeate the
interior of your automobile upholstery, your home furnishings, and the
clothing in your closets. If it were yourself being assaulted by the
effects of the tobacco smoke, you would be quite indinant about the
injustice of it all, instead of patiently enduring and patiently
disapprovaing as most non-smokers have been about this serious problem. I
know this to be more likely true than not, becuase I have known life long
smokers of pipe tobacco, cigars, and cigarettes who have been quite
indignant about the problem after they quit smoking.

Note also that I have said nothing whatsoever about the carcinogenic
problems associated with tobacco smoke. However serious the carcinogenic
probelms may ultimately prove to be, the health problems associated with
exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke are serious enough to ban without
even taking its carcinogenic properties into account. Tobacco smoke and
the addictive properties of nicotine cause very serious autoimmune health
problems for non-smokers. We're talking about everything from diagnosed
emphysema to undiagnosed problems with mild to severely debilitating
allergies. This is not a problem to be treated lightly. It is a problem
which cannot be justly trivialized as comparable to caffeine and the
items you listed. Putting all issues of cancer aside, nicotine and
particles of smoke tobacco are each in their own right serious causes of
health problems in humns, other animals, and even many plants in the
Plant Kingdom. Smokers are not welcome in Iris gardens, because the
tobacco mosaic virus carried on their clothing and person can deadly to
Iris and can destroy an entire Iris garden by carrying the destructive
virus into the garden. So, please do not try to trivialize the problems
of tobacco and nicotine, because they can and do cause a wide range of
health problems for plants and animals which are not at all reasonably
comparable to caffeine or the assortment of other excuses smokers like to
use to trivialize the problems with tobacco use.

I am a non-smoker who had the misfortune of being raised within a
household of tobacco smokers. They smoked cigarettes, cigars, and pipes
with absolutely no regard whatsoever to the consequences for myself or
any other non-smoker, other than an occassional special guest. When I
went anywhere outside the home to school or elsewhere, my hair, clothes,
and other items from home reeked with foul smelling stale tobacco tar and
nicotine. Being smokers, they could no longer smell how bad their smoking
habits fouled everything their smoke permeated. I'm already well
acquainted with how smokers were treated in the past and are treated
today, having been treated as if I were a smoker bcause of the reeking
secondhand smoke that permeated my hair and clothing. To empathize with
non-smokers you should try quitting smoking long enough to experience
what it is like to be a non-smoker with a regained sense of smell
subjected to the tobacco smoke in most of the public places you must
frequent to pursue a normal life.

Do you mean you got kicked out of hotels, restaurants, bars, public
buildings, and people's houses to back porches and the street in winter
for *not* smoking? I don't think so.


Well, I happen to know so. A non-smoker's available choices are to either
inhale the secondhand smoke, leave the place to breathe the outdoor winter
air, or don't bother going to the event where the smokers are fouling the
air with secondhand smoke.

For example, I remember a classmate's wedding reception, where
non-participation would have been regarded as a rude snubbing of their
marriage ceremonies. It occurred in February, and the reception hall was so
choked with blue haze, even some of the smokers were making some mild
off-hand complaints to each other about the air becoming difficult to
breathe. Some of the non-smokers who were not members of the bridal party
left early, and the other non-smokers tried to take breaks outdoors to
breathe easier. Unfortunately, the temperature outdoors was -22 degrees
Fahrenheit with a wind chill and freezing rain producing a wind chill in the
minus thirties. Few of the non-smokers could endure such chilling conditions
for more than a minute or so. Schnapps served to warm the inside, but it did
nothing to reduce the risk of frostbite, even when we labored warmly to free
the autos from their pristine new prisons of snow and ice which immobilized
them in the parking lot. It was quite a night to remember.

In an other example, we were expected to attend a family gathering following
a funeral. Naturally, it would have been rude to not attend. Unfortunately,
this particular restaurant was a favorite hangout for smokers. The blue haze
permeated everything in the building. They had a a Kiwi lime cream pie which
would have tasted fabulous if it were not for the rancid and foul tasting
cigarette smoke in the whipped cream topping. It took months for the stench
of that smoke to dissipate from our clothing and the interior of our
automobile after that event, and we found it necessary to make excuses for
not attending any more family gatherings at that restaurant. So, it is fair
to say that the presence of that smoke constructively served to "kick" us
out of any family gatherings held at that restaurant.

Then there was the incident when I was a youth and I was barred from
visiting a patient in the hospital until I returned wearing clothing which
did not foul the air with the rancid cigarette smoke they were impregnated
with from the secondhand smoke at home.

Also as a youth, there were some occassions when I was not allowed to ride
to our team's baseball game in the auto of a teammate's non-smoking parents,
because my baseball uniform stank too much of secondhand tobacco smoke.

There is also the case of the university professor who could not smoke in
the building, so we students had to attend a few of his meetings at the
outdoor patio tables of the student center restaurant while the weather was
freezing.

These are just a few examples. There are many many more I can provide to
you. However, I am sure you can imagine or actually see countless examples
if you just look at everyday situations from the viewpoint of a non-smoker.
Better yet, imagine you are a person who suffers from a respiratory illness
like emphysema and other maladies resulting from childhood exposure to
secondhand smoke, and then put yourself in that person's position as they
try to conduct a normal everyday life. Pretend that exposure to secondhand
smoke triggers severe respiratory maladies and perhaps ultimately life
threatening consequences. Then see how difficult it can be to navigate the
hazards of secondhand smoke while trying to earn a living and participate in
ordinary social functions. Note how the enforcement of a total smoking ban
in some public places has benefited people who suffer from respiratory
illnesses, especially those related to causation by tobacco smoke.

No kidding, you get a lot of credit from me for not sucking up to peer
pressure to smoke. I did and try to keep the kids from taking up the
habit. My son doesn't smoke.


Good for him.

I particularly liked the smell of some of the pipe tobaccos, and I often
bought some of the good blends to give as a Christmas present. Nonetheless,
not adopting the habits of smoking tobacco or drinking coffee was a very
easy decision to make, after witnessing the health problems of the adults
and studying chemistry.

In later years on a visit to Rome, however, I was faced with a choice of
taking espresso with my breakfast or doing without any drink whatsoever.
They were out of stock with bottled water etc., so it was the espresso or do
without a drink. After drinking the espresso, I walked around Rome for the
next couple of hours feeling higher than a kite. My heart felt it was trying
to burst out of my ribcage like in the later movie Alien, and I was feeling
a bit worried about having a heart attack. No more espresso for me!
<chuckle>

The best argument against smoking is it is an addictive drug just like
every other addictive drug. No one likes to think of themselves as an
addict.

I still see no reason for there not to be free choice for establishments
and smokers. You can have bars and restaurants licensed for smokers and
smoke free ones. It is fairer and more just. -the Troll


It sounds nice, but the the practical reality always devolves into
unavoidably putting one of the conflicting parties into a situation of
disadvantage.

For example, look at the problem of passengers on a commercial airliner.
Some international airports have established special smoking rooms on the
concourses to the boarding gates. The smoking room is so crowded with
smokers and the smoke is so dense like an evil fog, the scene looks like the
Damned out of a scene from Dante's Inferno. The smoker finished his
cigarette, exits the smoking room, and sits down in te seating immediately
near the gate. The eyes and noses of the non-smokers sitting nearby are
irritated and may begin to run as the stench of the secondhand smoke on the
person and clothing of the smoker permeates the air around the smoker. The
non-smokers find it necessary to standup and try to find seating far enough
away from that smoker and all of the other smokers near the gate to escape
the effects of the secondhand smoke.

Passengers then board the aircraft, and the smoker or smokers are seated.
Non-smokers in the adjacent seats and rows are then exposed to the
contaminating fumes of secondhand tobacco smoke which is still strongly
emanating from the person and clothing of the smokers. The non-smokers would
like to change their seating and move away from the ill effects emanating
from the smokers, but the flight crew do not have enough seating on the
aircraft to do so. Trapped, the non-smokers are forced to endure the hours
long trip while swabbing runny noses and eyes irritated the by effects of
the secondhand tobacco smoke emanating from the smokers' persons and
clothing.

After arrival at the destination, the non-smoker must now run new gauntlets.
If you take the shuttle bus or taxi to the hotel, you can find yourself
surrounded by smokers who have just renewed their aura of seconhand smoke by
desperately smoking cigarettes after leaving the aircraft. Even if there are
no smokers on the shuttle bus or in the taxi, they may have left their aura
of smoke behind on every seat they occupied, where it can then contaminate
the clothing of the next occupant of the seat.

Likewise, renting an automobile can be probelmatic as well. Having reserved
a non-smoking vehicle, you discover upon arrival at your destination that no
non-smoking car is available, notwithstanding your reservation. Even though
you succeed in renting a non-smoking vehicle, you discover the uphosltery is
badly contaminated by smoking residue, because one of the previous
passengers in the vehicle was a smoker with smoking residue on their person
and clothing.

Upon arrival at the hotel, the hotel asks the non-smoker whether he/she
wants a smoking or non-smoking room. Safe at last? No, not at all. Smokers
smoke in their room, and the seconhand smoke permeates their hair and
clothing. Then they visit the public areas of the hotel and sometimes the
non-smoking rooms, and everywhere they go the secondhand tobacco smoke on
their person and clothing permeates the air, the textiles in the upholstery
and draperies, the seating, and other facilities of the hotel. In best case
circumstances, the effect of the transfer of the secondhand smoke
contaminants may be only mildly irritating to the non-smokers. More often,
however, the smokers' secondhand smoke residues contaminate the hair,
clothing, and possessions of the non-smokers.

In the days before there was a general ban upon smoking on domestic
commercial flights, I experienced some similar problems with hotel rooms on
occasion. There were some hotels who especially catered to the airlines and
their flight crews. Sometimes the only hotel rooms available were located at
one of these hotels. They rented a non-smoking room for the night, but it
still made little difference. The room stank very badly of rancid cigarette
smoke. When queried, the hotel staff apologized and explained they were
aware of the problem and had done all it was in their power to do towards
mitigating the conditions. They explained how the non-smoking flight crews
could not avoid having themselves, their clothing, and their luggage exposed
to the secondhand smoke in the aircraft cabin, and it was this secondhand
smoke residue which was contaminating the non-smoking hotel rooms, despite
the hotel's efforts to mitigate the problem with more frequent cleaning of
the rugs, draperies, and so forth.

In the case of bars and restaurants you mentioned, you also have the problem
of a smoker continuing to contaminate the surroundings long after they have
departed from a smoking venue. You also still have the problems caused by
segregation of smokers and non-smokers for commercial, social, and other
activities. You have to ask which is more fair: requiring a non-smoker to
sacrifice either their health or their opportunity to participate in
activities occurirng only at a smokers' venue, or requiring a smoker to
sacrifice the smoking of tobacco and keep their health in exchange for the
opportunity to participate in activities occurirng only at a non-smokers'
venue?

I can see no -- effective -- means of segregating smokers and non-smokers
well enough to keep smokers' tobacco residues from causing discomfort and
serious health problems for non-smokers. Until and unless such an effective
means ever occurs, you have to ask the question of who should fairly bear
the burden of disadvantages, the smokers who contaminate the air we breathe
with discomforting and harmful substances or the non-smokers who do not
contaminate the air with discomforting and harmful substances?

allan connochie

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av allan connochie » 30 jun 2007 23:28:14

"Julian Richards" <julian@spam-me-not.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bnbd83ta8jgl6jdh8bq17q5qaihjkilnhb@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:17:50 -0700, "D. Patterson"
proamer@legypt.net> wrote:

You cannot control the distribution and sale of deadly narcotics or
alcohol,
so it appears rather absurd and disingenuous of you to suggest an
impossible
regulatory task as an alternative to ordinary commonsense means.

The thing is that if tobacco was to arrive in the UK for the first
time now, it would be a Class C drug.

There is a legal challenge being brought against the ban. With all
that is going on on the world, I would have thought that such people
would have had better things to bring court cases about.

There are very few court cases, if any, in Scotland over the issue.
Basically everyone has accepted it and the rules are generally obeyed. The
vast majority of people seem to accept it as a good idea. No-one is telling
smokers that they can't smoke. Only that they can't smoke in certain places.
No-one would expect to go into for instance a public library and pop open a
bottle of bubbly and pull some sandwiches out! No one would see rules
against that as a restriction on liberties. In a few years people will
probably find it incredible that up until recently we let smokers happily
blow poison into the midst of crowds of people.


Allan

Renia

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av Renia » 30 jun 2007 23:39:42

allan connochie wrote:

"Julian Richards" <julian@spam-me-not.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bnbd83ta8jgl6jdh8bq17q5qaihjkilnhb@4ax.com...

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:17:50 -0700, "D. Patterson"
proamer@legypt.net> wrote:


You cannot control the distribution and sale of deadly narcotics or
alcohol,
so it appears rather absurd and disingenuous of you to suggest an
impossible
regulatory task as an alternative to ordinary commonsense means.

The thing is that if tobacco was to arrive in the UK for the first
time now, it would be a Class C drug.

There is a legal challenge being brought against the ban. With all
that is going on on the world, I would have thought that such people
would have had better things to bring court cases about.


There are very few court cases, if any, in Scotland over the issue.
Basically everyone has accepted it and the rules are generally obeyed. The
vast majority of people seem to accept it as a good idea. No-one is telling
smokers that they can't smoke. Only that they can't smoke in certain places.
No-one would expect to go into for instance a public library and pop open a
bottle of bubbly and pull some sandwiches out! No one would see rules
against that as a restriction on liberties. In a few years people will
probably find it incredible that up until recently we let smokers happily
blow poison into the midst of crowds of people.

I've just been out to a restaurant here in Greece. The chef had a fag in
his mouth while he was cooking. My butcher chops his meat with a fag in
his mouth. The supermarkets are full of smokers, on the other side of
the check-out, admittedly, but I've been in many shops where people are
smoking.

As a smoker, I find this all incomprehensible, for such things were
banned in England a generation ago.

But I still think the anti-smoking police have gone too far.

Kerryn Offord

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av Kerryn Offord » 01 jul 2007 01:05:24

Renia wrote:
<SNIP>
But I still think the anti-smoking police have gone too far.

As a non-smoker.. I think they haven't gone far enough.. :)

Have you ever spring cleaned your house and looked at the nice yellow water?

Or had condensation run down the walls leaving yellow trails (Both my
parents smoked..)

That stuff gets into peoples lungs.. Now it's not my problem what you
put into your lungs.. But what you put into my lungs..I object to that...

And that's the difference between smoking and say, alcohol.. I don't
have too much trouble with the smell of alcohol.. and I don't see any
research suggesting the vapours are hazardous to my health...

And then there is the cost to society of smokers... reduced
productivity, medical care, ...

Gjest

Re: Sir Thomas WOOD/WODE B 1450??

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 jul 2007 01:21:03

There are a few web sites about this family:

_http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~kristin/fambly/Wood/ThomasWood.html_
(http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~kristin/fa ... sWood.html)

_http://xenia.media.mit.edu/~kristin/fambly/delaMare/delaMareRegisterReport.pd
f_
(http://xenia.media.mit.edu/~kristin/fam ... Report.pdf)

Both sites only list one.

Margaret Sypniewski

<<I n a message dated 6/30/2007 5:06:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
tappets@clear.net.nz writes:

Hello Listers
Can anyone help here please??

Sir Thomas WOOD/WODE B 1450??
m/d 1475??
Margaret (Lenham) de la Mare - B 1465?? Berkshire, England

They had a daughter
Anne WOOD / WODE - B 1475??

Were there any other children??

Margaret Dd December 1499.

What became of Sir Thomas WOOD??

Regards from Maree S. Gordon, New Zealand







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

Gjest

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 jul 2007 03:15:05

In a message dated 6/30/07 7:10:53 PM Central Daylight Time,
kao16@ext.canterbury.ac.nz writes:

But I still think the anti-smoking police have gone too far.

As a non-smoker.. I think they haven't gone far enough.. :)

What does this BS have to do with genealogy???????

Jno



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

a.spencer3

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 01 jul 2007 10:49:16

"Julian Richards" <julian@spam-me-not.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bnbd83ta8jgl6jdh8bq17q5qaihjkilnhb@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:17:50 -0700, "D. Patterson"
proamer@legypt.net> wrote:

You cannot control the distribution and sale of deadly narcotics or
alcohol,
so it appears rather absurd and disingenuous of you to suggest an
impossible
regulatory task as an alternative to ordinary commonsense means.

The thing is that if tobacco was to arrive in the UK for the first
time now, it would be a Class C drug.

There is a legal challenge being brought against the ban. With all
that is going on on the world, I would have thought that such people
would have had better things to bring court cases about.
--


We're talking about some choice being allowed to a third of the affected
population!
I don't remember many attacks being made on UK foxhunters' massive protests
(a distinctly lesser proportion of the population).
It's called democracy and the best of luck to 'em, irrespective of the
matter under discussion.

Surreyman

a.spencer3

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 01 jul 2007 10:51:19

"Kerryn Offord" <kao16@ext.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:4686efd0@clear.net.nz...
Renia wrote:
SNIP

But I still think the anti-smoking police have gone too far.

As a non-smoker.. I think they haven't gone far enough.. :)

Have you ever spring cleaned your house and looked at the nice yellow
water?

Or had condensation run down the walls leaving yellow trails (Both my
parents smoked..)

That stuff gets into peoples lungs.. Now it's not my problem what you
put into your lungs.. But what you put into my lungs..I object to that...

And that's the difference between smoking and say, alcohol.. I don't
have too much trouble with the smell of alcohol.. and I don't see any
research suggesting the vapours are hazardous to my health...

And then there is the cost to society of smokers... reduced
productivity, medical care, ...

Smokers more than pay their way into the NHS through taxes.
Alcohol costs the NHS immeasurably more than nicotine.

Surreyman

Renia

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av Renia » 01 jul 2007 17:17:54

Kerryn Offord wrote:

Renia wrote:
SNIP


But I still think the anti-smoking police have gone too far.


As a non-smoker.. I think they haven't gone far enough.. :)

Have you ever spring cleaned your house and looked at the nice yellow
water?

Or had condensation run down the walls leaving yellow trails (Both my
parents smoked..)

That stuff gets into peoples lungs.. Now it's not my problem what you
put into your lungs.. But what you put into my lungs..I object to that...

And that's the difference between smoking and say, alcohol.. I don't
have too much trouble with the smell of alcohol.. and I don't see any
research suggesting the vapours are hazardous to my health...

And then there is the cost to society of smokers... reduced
productivity, medical care, ...


The tax on smoking in the UK goes a long way towards funding the
National Health Service. Really.

As to alcoholism, I call it the hidden disease.

Most/many of us overdo it from time to time and wake up the next
morning, covering our heads and thinking: Gawd, did I really say that.

That's not the problem.

The problem is the misery among the families of alcoholics. Abuse,
starvation, battering. Some alcoholics are obvious: they swagger about,
drooling and drawling their speech. Others are more subtle. They look
"normal", but behind the scenes, they are battering their children and
abusing them.

My son says most of the crime he deals with is alcohol-related.

The cost of alcohol abuse to governments is in the millions but the cost
to society is much more fundamental: broken marriages; imprisoned
fathers and mothers; broken children; broken schools; broken society.

Why do all the sanctimonious gits blether on and on about cigarettes
when their friends, and, who knows, even perhaps they themselves, are
doing untold damage through alchol? Could it be guilt?

Renia

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av Renia » 01 jul 2007 17:19:26

a.spencer3 wrote:

"Kerryn Offord" <kao16@ext.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:4686efd0@clear.net.nz...

Renia wrote:
SNIP

But I still think the anti-smoking police have gone too far.

As a non-smoker.. I think they haven't gone far enough.. :)

Have you ever spring cleaned your house and looked at the nice yellow

water?

Or had condensation run down the walls leaving yellow trails (Both my
parents smoked..)

That stuff gets into peoples lungs.. Now it's not my problem what you
put into your lungs.. But what you put into my lungs..I object to that...

And that's the difference between smoking and say, alcohol.. I don't
have too much trouble with the smell of alcohol.. and I don't see any
research suggesting the vapours are hazardous to my health...

And then there is the cost to society of smokers... reduced
productivity, medical care, ...


Smokers more than pay their way into the NHS through taxes.
Alcohol costs the NHS immeasurably more than nicotine.

Snap!

La N

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av La N » 01 jul 2007 17:20:21

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:f68k3f$s7c$1@mouse.otenet.gr...
Kerryn Offord wrote:

Renia wrote:
SNIP


But I still think the anti-smoking police have gone too far.


As a non-smoker.. I think they haven't gone far enough.. :)

Have you ever spring cleaned your house and looked at the nice yellow
water?

Or had condensation run down the walls leaving yellow trails (Both my
parents smoked..)

That stuff gets into peoples lungs.. Now it's not my problem what you put
into your lungs.. But what you put into my lungs..I object to that...

And that's the difference between smoking and say, alcohol.. I don't have
too much trouble with the smell of alcohol.. and I don't see any research
suggesting the vapours are hazardous to my health...

And then there is the cost to society of smokers... reduced productivity,
medical care, ...


The tax on smoking in the UK goes a long way towards funding the National
Health Service. Really.

As to alcoholism, I call it the hidden disease.

Most/many of us overdo it from time to time and wake up the next morning,
covering our heads and thinking: Gawd, did I really say that.

That's not the problem.

The problem is the misery among the families of alcoholics. Abuse,
starvation, battering. Some alcoholics are obvious: they swagger about,
drooling and drawling their speech. Others are more subtle. They look
"normal", but behind the scenes, they are battering their children and
abusing them.

My son says most of the crime he deals with is alcohol-related.

The cost of alcohol abuse to governments is in the millions but the cost
to society is much more fundamental: broken marriages; imprisoned fathers
and mothers; broken children; broken schools; broken society.

Why do all the sanctimonious gits blether on and on about cigarettes when
their friends, and, who knows, even perhaps they themselves, are doing
untold damage through alchol? Could it be guilt?



Don't count me among those. I am equally adamant about the damage caused by
cigarette smoking *and* alcoholism/drug addiction.

- nilita

Renia

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av Renia » 01 jul 2007 17:42:40

La N wrote:
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:f68k3f$s7c$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

Kerryn Offord wrote:


Renia wrote:
SNIP

But I still think the anti-smoking police have gone too far.


As a non-smoker.. I think they haven't gone far enough.. :)

Have you ever spring cleaned your house and looked at the nice yellow
water?

Or had condensation run down the walls leaving yellow trails (Both my
parents smoked..)

That stuff gets into peoples lungs.. Now it's not my problem what you put
into your lungs.. But what you put into my lungs..I object to that...

And that's the difference between smoking and say, alcohol.. I don't have
too much trouble with the smell of alcohol.. and I don't see any research
suggesting the vapours are hazardous to my health...

And then there is the cost to society of smokers... reduced productivity,
medical care, ...


The tax on smoking in the UK goes a long way towards funding the National
Health Service. Really.

As to alcoholism, I call it the hidden disease.

Most/many of us overdo it from time to time and wake up the next morning,
covering our heads and thinking: Gawd, did I really say that.

That's not the problem.

The problem is the misery among the families of alcoholics. Abuse,
starvation, battering. Some alcoholics are obvious: they swagger about,
drooling and drawling their speech. Others are more subtle. They look
"normal", but behind the scenes, they are battering their children and
abusing them.

My son says most of the crime he deals with is alcohol-related.

The cost of alcohol abuse to governments is in the millions but the cost
to society is much more fundamental: broken marriages; imprisoned fathers
and mothers; broken children; broken schools; broken society.

Why do all the sanctimonious gits blether on and on about cigarettes when
their friends, and, who knows, even perhaps they themselves, are doing
untold damage through alchol? Could it be guilt?




Don't count me among those. I am equally adamant about the damage caused by
cigarette smoking *and* alcoholism/drug addiction.

Don't get me wrong. I fully appreciate how revolting the smell and
atmosphere from smoking is to non-smokers (and smokers, too!). My place
of work was non-smoking from 1993, and I spent almost a decade out in
the snow, puffing away till I came to Greece. Didn't mind. In 1975
(1975) in Poland, I fully understood why we couldn't smoke in trains,
cinemas or why restaurants had non-smoking rooms. (How advanced Poland
was then!) Half-way through The Godfather, about 200 people vanished out
into the foyer for a quick drag. Talk about stinking fog. Auditorium was
empty. Twenty years ago, I voted not to smoke inside my brother's house,
only the conservatory, because it didn't help his asthma and he was a
non-smoker. He always followed me out, though!

Many years ago, Gatwick Airport decided to have smoking cages.
Air-conditioned an all that. To me, a smoker, I could actually smell it
as I came out from arrivals. What it was like for non-smokers, I can
only imagine. Disgusting. But that's my point. Gatwick stank far less of
fags when there were various smoking points around the building and the
air-conditioning filtered it away.

And as for planes, "they" do say, that the air-conditioning is on much
lower now that smoking is not allowed. "They" also say that is why more
people are ill on planes, because the aircon is on TOO low.

Can't please all of the people.

Matthew Connolly

Re: Sir Richard Baskerville and his wife Isabel, and other C

Legg inn av Matthew Connolly » 01 jul 2007 18:02:31

On Jun 25, 8:39 pm, Millerfairfi...@aol.com wrote:
[edit]
The identification of the various Richard Baskervilles, and their wives, has
been hopelessly confused by the work of Watkins. As an example, his
identification of Joan Everingham as the wife of RB(4) can be mentioned: he gives
this Richard Baskerville, d. 1396, as her husband, even though we know that this
Joan was already married by 1349, 20 years before the birth of RB(4)! She
may or may not have been his mother, but she was certainly not his wife. (I
have seen no reliable evidence as to the identity of his wife).


His [RB(4)'s] wife seems to have been named Margaret- see Rosie
Bevan's work on Sir Nicholas Montgomery (I) of Cubley (c.1357-1424),
at number 11 here

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... 5c?lnk=gst
where she writes:

"Nicholas was married subsequently to Margaret, widow of Richard
Baskerville (1370-1394), and mother of John Baskerville, probably by
1403 when he was ordered by Henry IV to fortify Eardisley castle, a
Baskerville possession, against the Welsh. [Pedigrees of the Plea
Rolls, The Genealogist, v.16 p.86 ; M.Salter, The Castles of
Herefordshire and Worcestershire, 1992. p.19]. [...] Margaret and
Nicholas were involved in a suit over the manor of Chabnor,
Herefordshire
with Richard de la Bere in 1413 [The Genealogist v.16 p.86]. Nicholas
died
in 1424 and Margaret was still living in 1436 when she was assessed at
£26
income in Derbyshire [English Historical Review 49:631-2]"

From the above, The Genealogist reference in particular should be
worth looking at.

The Highlander

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av The Highlander » 01 jul 2007 18:38:45

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 09:51:19 GMT, "a.spencer3"
<a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Kerryn Offord" <kao16@ext.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:4686efd0@clear.net.nz...
Renia wrote:
SNIP

But I still think the anti-smoking police have gone too far.

As a non-smoker.. I think they haven't gone far enough.. :)

Have you ever spring cleaned your house and looked at the nice yellow
water?

Or had condensation run down the walls leaving yellow trails (Both my
parents smoked..)

That stuff gets into peoples lungs.. Now it's not my problem what you
put into your lungs.. But what you put into my lungs..I object to that...

And that's the difference between smoking and say, alcohol.. I don't
have too much trouble with the smell of alcohol.. and I don't see any
research suggesting the vapours are hazardous to my health...

And then there is the cost to society of smokers... reduced
productivity, medical care, ...

Smokers more than pay their way into the NHS through taxes.
Alcohol costs the NHS immeasurably more than nicotine.

Surreyman

Come on Surreyman! Don't destroy a perfectly good rant by introducing

facts!

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

Monica Kanellis

Waters' _Genealogical Gleanings in England_ online

Legg inn av Monica Kanellis » 01 jul 2007 18:54:05

I have same problem, tried using proxy.org, and get links that look as if
they will work but don't.

mk



On 7/1/07, WJhonson@aol.com <WJhonson@aol.com> wrote:

In a message dated 7/1/2007 6:05:48 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
darwin@spamcop.net writes:



http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC7 ... +sheafe%22

It may be my fault, but it doesn't seems to me to be online.
I can only see a list of the sections of the book.


Make sure the URL you are on is the entire URL above and not just the
first
line of it.
So the URL in your browser should end with %22 and not with RA1-

If that doesn't work just go this URL
_http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC71370178&id=yWdTXEEhTSMC_
(http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC7 ... dTXEEhTSMC)

and click on the read this book link

Thirdly perhaps your local country (whatever that is) is suppressing the
contents due to some copyright issue? Then you'll have to use a
service that
masks what country you're in.

Will Johnson



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

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

Chris Dickinson

Re: Sir Thomas WOOD/WODE B 1450??

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 01 jul 2007 18:58:11

Margaret Sypniewski wrote:

There are a few web sites about this family:

_http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~kristin/fambly/Wood/ThomasWood.html_ > Both
sites only list one.

Margaret Sypniewski


I'm surprised they managed even one child , as Sir Thomas Wood appears to
have married Sir Thomas de la Mare :-)

Chris

Gjest

Re: Waters' _Genealogical Gleanings in England_ online

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 jul 2007 19:10:03

<<In a message dated 7/1/2007 6:05:48 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
darwin@spamcop.net writes:



It may be my fault, but it doesn't seems to me to be online.
I can only see a list of the sections of the book.>>


Make sure the URL you are on is the entire URL above and not just the first
line of it.
So the URL in your browser should end with %22 and not with RA1-

If that doesn't work just go this URL
_http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC71370178&id=yWdTXEEhTSMC_
(http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC7 ... dTXEEhTSMC)

and click on the read this book link

Thirdly perhaps your local country (whatever that is) is suppressing the
contents due to some copyright issue? Then you'll have to use a service that
masks what country you're in.

Will Johnson



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

Kerryn Offord

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av Kerryn Offord » 02 jul 2007 00:16:14

a.spencer3 wrote:
"Kerryn Offord" <kao16@ext.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:4686efd0@clear.net.nz...
Renia wrote:
SNIP
But I still think the anti-smoking police have gone too far.
As a non-smoker.. I think they haven't gone far enough.. :)

Have you ever spring cleaned your house and looked at the nice yellow
water?
Or had condensation run down the walls leaving yellow trails (Both my
parents smoked..)

That stuff gets into peoples lungs.. Now it's not my problem what you
put into your lungs.. But what you put into my lungs..I object to that...

And that's the difference between smoking and say, alcohol.. I don't
have too much trouble with the smell of alcohol.. and I don't see any
research suggesting the vapours are hazardous to my health...

And then there is the cost to society of smokers... reduced
productivity, medical care, ...

Smokers more than pay their way into the NHS through taxes.
Alcohol costs the NHS immeasurably more than nicotine.

Surreyman



And the non-smokers who get smoker related respiratory problems through
second hand smoke?

Kerryn Offord

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av Kerryn Offord » 02 jul 2007 00:20:46

Renia wrote:
Kerryn Offord wrote:

Renia wrote:
SNIP


But I still think the anti-smoking police have gone too far.


As a non-smoker.. I think they haven't gone far enough.. :)

Have you ever spring cleaned your house and looked at the nice yellow
water?

Or had condensation run down the walls leaving yellow trails (Both my
parents smoked..)

That stuff gets into peoples lungs.. Now it's not my problem what you
put into your lungs.. But what you put into my lungs..I object to that...

And that's the difference between smoking and say, alcohol.. I don't
have too much trouble with the smell of alcohol.. and I don't see any
research suggesting the vapours are hazardous to my health...

And then there is the cost to society of smokers... reduced
productivity, medical care, ...


The tax on smoking in the UK goes a long way towards funding the
National Health Service. Really.

As to alcoholism, I call it the hidden disease.

Most/many of us overdo it from time to time and wake up the next
morning, covering our heads and thinking: Gawd, did I really say that.

That's not the problem.

The problem is the misery among the families of alcoholics. Abuse,
starvation, battering. Some alcoholics are obvious: they swagger about,
drooling and drawling their speech. Others are more subtle. They look
"normal", but behind the scenes, they are battering their children and
abusing them.

My son says most of the crime he deals with is alcohol-related.

The cost of alcohol abuse to governments is in the millions but the cost
to society is much more fundamental: broken marriages; imprisoned
fathers and mothers; broken children; broken schools; broken society.

Why do all the sanctimonious gits blether on and on about cigarettes
when their friends, and, who knows, even perhaps they themselves, are
doing untold damage through alchol? Could it be guilt?




In NZ the MPs voted to allow 18 year olds to buy alcohol... (down from 20)

result.. Decrease in the age of our drunks... more teenagers drinking
and driving... more wild out of control parties fuelled by alcohol...

There seems to be a gross lack of responsibility take re alcohol...

Now if they imposed punishments like that US case where a couple put on
a party got their 16 yo (?? IIRC) and his friends.. Providing alcohol...

Monica Kanellis

Re: Waters' _Genealogical Gleanings in England_ online

Legg inn av Monica Kanellis » 02 jul 2007 01:50:36

that option doesn't appear for me, must be the copyright thing. Anyone else
in Canada?

mk

On 7/1/07, Gordon Banks <geb@gordonbanks.com> wrote:
I downloaded the whole book with no problems just by clicking the
download link on the google page.

On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 13:54 -0400, Monica Kanellis wrote:
I have same problem, tried using proxy.org, and get links that look as
if
they will work but don't.

mk



On 7/1/07, WJhonson@aol.com <WJhonson@aol.com> wrote:


In a message dated 7/1/2007 6:05:48 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
darwin@spamcop.net writes:




http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC7 ... +sheafe%22

It may be my fault, but it doesn't seems to me to be online.
I can only see a list of the sections of the book.


Make sure the URL you are on is the entire URL above and not just the
first
line of it.
So the URL in your browser should end with %22 and not with RA1-

If that doesn't work just go this URL
_http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC71370178&id=yWdTXEEhTSMC_
(http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC7 ... dTXEEhTSMC)

and click on the read this book link

Thirdly perhaps your local country (whatever that is) is suppressing
the
contents due to some copyright issue? Then you'll have to use a
service that
masks what country you're in.

Will Johnson



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

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


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


CE Wood

Re: Waters' _Genealogical Gleanings in England_ online

Legg inn av CE Wood » 02 jul 2007 02:28:36

On Jul 1, 10:06 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/1/2007 6:05:48 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
If that doesn't work just go this URL
_http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC71370178&id=yWdTXEEhTSMC_
(http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC7 ... dTXEEhTSMC)

I had no luck until I clicked on the parenthetical URL of the link.
Clicking on the link itself didn't work

CE Wood

dar...@spamcop.net writes:

http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC7 ... C&pg=RA1...

It may be my fault, but it doesn't seems to me to be online.
I can only see a list of the sections of the book.

Make sure the URL you are on is the entire URL above and not just the first
line of it.
So the URL in your browser should end with %22 and not with RA1-

If that doesn't work just go this URL
_http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC71370178&id=yWdTXEEhTSMC_
(http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC7 ... dTXEEhTSMC)

and click on the read this book link

Thirdly perhaps your local country (whatever that is) is suppressing the
contents due to some copyright issue? Then you'll have to use a service that
masks what country you're in.

Will Johnson

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

hippo

Re: Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of

Legg inn av hippo » 02 jul 2007 18:47:07

"D. Patterson" wrote in message

[.]

I still see no reason for there not to be free choice for establishments
and smokers. You can have bars and restaurants licensed for smokers and
smoke free ones. It is fairer and more just. -the Troll


It sounds nice, but the the practical reality always devolves into
unavoidably putting one of the conflicting parties into a situation of
disadvantage.

For example, look at the problem of passengers on a commercial airliner.
Some international airports have established special smoking rooms on the
concourses to the boarding gates. The smoking room is so crowded with
smokers and the smoke is so dense like an evil fog, the scene looks like
the Damned out of a scene from Dante's Inferno. The smoker finished his
cigarette, exits the smoking room, and sits down in te seating immediately
near the gate. The eyes and noses of the non-smokers sitting nearby are
irritated and may begin to run as the stench of the secondhand smoke on
the person and clothing of the smoker permeates the air around the smoker.
The non-smokers find it necessary to standup and try to find seating far
enough away from that smoker and all of the other smokers near the gate to
escape the effects of the secondhand smoke.

Passengers then board the aircraft, and the smoker or smokers are seated.
Non-smokers in the adjacent seats and rows are then exposed to the
contaminating fumes of secondhand tobacco smoke which is still strongly
emanating from the person and clothing of the smokers. The non-smokers
would like to change their seating and move away from the ill effects
emanating from the smokers, but the flight crew do not have enough seating
on the aircraft to do so. Trapped, the non-smokers are forced to endure
the hours long trip while swabbing runny noses and eyes irritated the by
effects of the secondhand tobacco smoke emanating from the smokers'
persons and clothing.

After arrival at the destination, the non-smoker must now run new
gauntlets. If you take the shuttle bus or taxi to the hotel, you can find
yourself surrounded by smokers who have just renewed their aura of
seconhand smoke by desperately smoking cigarettes after leaving the
aircraft. Even if there are no smokers on the shuttle bus or in the taxi,
they may have left their aura of smoke behind on every seat they occupied,
where it can then contaminate the clothing of the next occupant of the
seat.

Likewise, renting an automobile can be probelmatic as well. Having
reserved a non-smoking vehicle, you discover upon arrival at your
destination that no non-smoking car is available, notwithstanding your
reservation. Even though you succeed in renting a non-smoking vehicle, you
discover the uphosltery is badly contaminated by smoking residue, because
one of the previous passengers in the vehicle was a smoker with smoking
residue on their person and clothing.

Upon arrival at the hotel, the hotel asks the non-smoker whether he/she
wants a smoking or non-smoking room. Safe at last? No, not at all. Smokers
smoke in their room, and the seconhand smoke permeates their hair and
clothing. Then they visit the public areas of the hotel and sometimes the
non-smoking rooms, and everywhere they go the secondhand tobacco smoke on
their person and clothing permeates the air, the textiles in the
upholstery and draperies, the seating, and other facilities of the hotel.
In best case circumstances, the effect of the transfer of the secondhand
smoke contaminants may be only mildly irritating to the non-smokers. More
often, however, the smokers' secondhand smoke residues contaminate the
hair, clothing, and possessions of the non-smokers.

In the days before there was a general ban upon smoking on domestic
commercial flights, I experienced some similar problems with hotel rooms
on occasion. There were some hotels who especially catered to the airlines
and their flight crews. Sometimes the only hotel rooms available were
located at one of these hotels. They rented a non-smoking room for the
night, but it still made little difference. The room stank very badly of
rancid cigarette smoke. When queried, the hotel staff apologized and
explained they were aware of the problem and had done all it was in their
power to do towards mitigating the conditions. They explained how the
non-smoking flight crews could not avoid having themselves, their
clothing, and their luggage exposed to the secondhand smoke in the
aircraft cabin, and it was this secondhand smoke residue which was
contaminating the non-smoking hotel rooms, despite the hotel's efforts to
mitigate the problem with more frequent cleaning of the rugs, draperies,
and so forth.

In the case of bars and restaurants you mentioned, you also have the
problem of a smoker continuing to contaminate the surroundings long after
they have departed from a smoking venue. You also still have the problems
caused by segregation of smokers and non-smokers for commercial, social,
and other activities. You have to ask which is more fair: requiring a
non-smoker to sacrifice either their health or their opportunity to
participate in activities occurirng only at a smokers' venue, or requiring
a smoker to sacrifice the smoking of tobacco and keep their health in
exchange for the opportunity to participate in activities occurirng only
at a non-smokers' venue?

I can see no -- effective -- means of segregating smokers and non-smokers
well enough to keep smokers' tobacco residues from causing discomfort and
serious health problems for non-smokers. Until and unless such an
effective means ever occurs, you have to ask the question of who should
fairly bear the burden of disadvantages, the smokers who contaminate the
air we breathe with discomforting and harmful substances or the
non-smokers who do not contaminate the air with discomforting and harmful
substances?

I know those little rooms well. It's the first thing I look for when my
plane lands from a long flight. Most of them are improperly ventilated
having been added as an afterthought. Atlanta, I seem to remember, added
theirs for the Olympics. If they would filter and re-circulate the air
properly, they wouldn't be as much of a problem.

We smokers often forget we smell differently from others and that people
don't like it. I never smoke inside anyone else's home, or car as a matter
of simple politeness, but not being able to smoke in a bar or restaurant
ruins the experience for me. I'd rather stay home. You have convinced me to
pay a lot of attention to air filtration in my new house.

You guys are in the majority now and can vote us out of existence. I suppose
in the long run it is a good idea. I won't have to put up with it much
longer anyway. -the Troll

Douglas Richardson

Re: Sir Richard Baskerville and his wife Isabel, and other C

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 02 jul 2007 22:00:18

Dear Doug ~

I've copied below an abstact of the marriage record of Eustace Whitney
and Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Alexander de Freville:

Source: Register of Bishop Godfrey Giffard, Part 3 (Episcopal Regs.,
Dioc. of Worc.) (1900), pg. 546:

Date: 1301 - "Agreement made on 5 June, 29 Edward I. [1301], before
the bishop, between Sir Alexander de Frevylle and Eustace de Wyteneye,
touching
the marriage between the said Eustace and Elizabeth, daughter of the
said Alexander. Various settlements of lands, &c. Witnesses: Sir
Robert de Chaundos, the lady Joan de Friville, mother of the lady, and
John de Stan', parson of Rippel'."

Date: 1301: "Memorandum of a bond by the bishop for 66l. 13s. 4d., to
Eustace de Whyteneye, husband of Elizabeth de Frevyll, upon his
marriage."). END OF QUOTE.

The above record shows that Eustace de Whitney was married about 5
June 1301 to Elizabeth de Freville, daughter of Sir Alexander de
Freville (died 1328), of Tarrington, Herefordshire [by his wife, Joan
de Cromwell]. Bishop Giffard was evidently interested in Elizabeth de
Freville's marriage, as he was the maternal uncle of Elizabeth's
father, Sir Alexander de Freville.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Gjest

Re: Sir Richard Baskerville and his wife Isabel, and other C

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 jul 2007 22:30:04

Matthew Connolly writes (citing earlier posts of Rosie Bevan):-

<Nicholas [Montgomery of Cubley] was married subsequently to Margaret, widow
of Richard
<Baskerville (1370-1394), and mother of John Baskerville.

Thank you very much, Matthew, for the helpful reference to Rosie Bevans's
earlier work. I noticed that Rosie did not give a maiden name for this Margaret.
Does anybody have a clue as to who her parents might have been? I suppose
she may have been a "king's widow", since the remarriage of Richard's mother
Joan to Giles de Malore was treated as requiring the king's licence in 1375.
But that may have been because the chief lords of Eardisley (at the death of
Richard's father), namely William Ferrers of Groby and Eleanor and Mary de
Bohun (later the wife of Henry, Earl of Richmond, who became Henry IV, were
all infant wards of the crown: see Cal.Pat.Rot. Edw III, v16,57.
I am not sure whether any of the Baskerville lands in Herefordshire were
held in chief.
MM

Don McArthur

RE: Jeanne (Joan) de Vivonne and Aimery X de Rochechouart

Legg inn av Don McArthur » 03 jul 2007 07:24:40

This throws a spanner in the works regarding Jeanne's position in the
ROCHECHOUART family. It sorts out the date problem of her marrying in
c1290. But it's difficult because of the two known wives of Joan de
VIVONNE.

Here's hoping this group can sort it out!

Don McArthur.

-----Original Message-----
From: Margaret [mailto:marschball@wanadoo.fr]
Sent: 02 July 2007 05:03 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Jeanne (Joan) de Vivonne and Aimery X de Rochechouart

Hello
I've just found an easy to read family tree that shows the French
version with Jeanne de Vivonne mother of Aimery XI and Jeanne de
Rochechouart m. Pons de Mortagne. It's in pdf and is at

http://racineshistoire.free.fr/LGN/PDF/ ... temart.pdf

I can't find any sources mentioned. And I think there's a lot of
flaws. But I'm sure the de Vivonne bit is as valid as any other
version given the sources mentioned by Duguet in his article.
yours
Margaret

WJhonson

Re: Edmund de Lacy marriage

Legg inn av WJhonson » 04 jul 2007 00:51:07

Is it known whether Margaret de Quincy outlived her son Edmund de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln ?

My notes do not make it clear, in fact they make it muddy only saying that she died sometime between 1253 and 1266. Perhaps she died in that very year in which Edmund is suddenly called "Earl of Lincoln" ? I.E. in 1255

Will Johnson

Alan Grey

Re: Edmund de Lacy marriage

Legg inn av Alan Grey » 04 jul 2007 04:16:32

WJhonson wrote:
Is it known whether Margaret de Quincy outlived her son Edmund de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln ?

My notes do not make it clear, in fact they make it muddy only saying that she died sometime between 1253 and 1266. Perhaps she died in that very year in which Edmund is suddenly called "Earl of Lincoln" ? I.E. in 1255


I have not seen an exact death date for Margaret.

She survived her son Edmund, since letters patent of 4 August 1258
commit the lands of Edmund de Lacy to the hands of Margaret, countess of
Lincoln, and Alesia late wife of Edmund de Lacy [CPR, 42 Henry III, m.8
(Vol. 4, p.649)].

She died before 30 March 1266, when letters patent were issued to grant
the wardship of the lands "late of Margaret sometime countess of Lincoln
of the inheritance of Henry de Lacy" to queen Eleanor [CPR, 50 Henry
III, m.22 (Vol. 5, p.574)].

The implication of other records is that she died toward the end of
1265, as outlined in letters patent of 10 December 1267 [CPR, m.34 (Vol.
6, p.172)]: "Whereas after the death of Edmund de Lacy, constable of
Chester, the wardship of the lands and heir, ... namely, Henry de Lacy
his son and heir, came to the king's hands, Margaret, sometime countess
of Lincoln, his grandmother still surviving, and the king ... granted to
him 300 l. a year ... during his minority; the king promises to him that
.... he will let him have the 600 l. which are in arrear ... since the
death of his grandmother." This shows that the 300 l./year were in
arrears by two years since Margaret's death, indicating that she died
sometime toward the end of 1265 at the earliest.

Incidentally, the two patent records (Vol. 4, p.649 and Vol. 6, p.172)
are stark evidence that Edmund was not formally accorded the title of
"earl", being simply called either Edmund de Lacy only, or holding the
title "constable of Chester". Presumably this is because Margaret had
the title countess of Lincoln, as the records show, and why the title of
earl is inconsistently applied to Edmund (and thus why it is said that
the few references to him as "earl" were by way of courtesy only).

Alan R Grey

WJhonson

Re: Edmund de Lacy marriage

Legg inn av WJhonson » 04 jul 2007 07:28:14

Thanks Alan. Your information and argument are very helpful for clearing up for me exactly when Margaret de Quincy, Countess of Lincoln died.

Will Johnson

Robert Forrest

Re: Edmund de Lacy marriage--another CP Correction

Legg inn av Robert Forrest » 04 jul 2007 16:43:40

On the death of Margaret de Quincy, wife of (1) John de Lascy, Earl of
Lincoln, (2) Walter (Marshall), Earl of Pembroke, (3) Richard de Wiltshire--
CP 7:680 has this:
"...She appears to have been living early in Mar. 1265/6, (e) but d. before
30 Mar. 1266, (f)...
.. . .
"(e) Cal. Patent Rolls, 1258-66, p. 564. In June 1263 the King promised that
her executors should have free administration of her goods (Idem, p. 263).
(f) Idem, p. 584; Ann. Mon. (Winchester, vol. ii, p. 104. At Easter 1268 it
was reckoned that 2 years of the annuity of Henry de Lacy, since his
grandmother's death, would be due (Cal. Patent Rolls, 1266-72, p. 172)."

If note (e) is correct, the statement that Margaret "appears to be living
early in Mar. 1265/6" does not follow. In fact, no matter what date the king
made his promise to her executors, it would not establish when she was
living, only that she was already dead.
Robert Forrest

Alan Grey

Re: Edmund de Lacy marriage--another CP Correction

Legg inn av Alan Grey » 04 jul 2007 19:45:00

Robert Forrest wrote:
On the death of Margaret de Quincy, wife of (1) John de Lascy, Earl of
Lincoln, (2) Walter (Marshall), Earl of Pembroke, (3) Richard de Wiltshire--
CP 7:680 has this:
"...She appears to have been living early in Mar. 1265/6, (e) but d. before
30 Mar. 1266, (f)...
. . .
"(e) Cal. Patent Rolls, 1258-66, p. 564. In June 1263 the King promised that
her executors should have free administration of her goods (Idem, p. 263).
(f) Idem, p. 584; Ann. Mon. (Winchester, vol. ii, p. 104. At Easter 1268 it
was reckoned that 2 years of the annuity of Henry de Lacy, since his
grandmother's death, would be due (Cal. Patent Rolls, 1266-72, p. 172)."

If note (e) is correct, the statement that Margaret "appears to be living
early in Mar. 1265/6" does not follow. In fact, no matter what date the king
made his promise to her executors, it would not establish when she was
living, only that she was already dead.
Robert Forrest


CP implies that Margaret died in March 1266. I think that the evidence
is otherwise.

CP's comment that she was living early March 1265/6 is based on the CPR
reference as stated in note (e), which is dated 3 March 1266 (1265/6).
That entry refers to when the king "was in the keeping" of Simon de
Montfort", at which time he had made a grant to John de Haveringes. He
later revoked the the grant but reinstated it by this entry, and said
that he did this "at the instance of Margery countess of Lincoln, and
others".

Henry III was in the keeping of Simon from 14 May 1264, when he was
captured at the battle of Lewes. The original grant was made on 8
December 1264 [see CPR, 49 Hen. III, m.27 (Vol. 5, p.392)] and revoked
on 12 August 1265 [CPR, 50 Hen. III, m.11 (Vol. 6, p.437)], after the
battle of Evesham when Montfort was killed and Henry triumphant.
Although he reinstated the grant on 3 March 1265/6, we do not actually
know when he decided to reinstate it, and especially do not know when
Margaret made her petition (though it would have been sometime before 3
March, and probably weeks or months before, given that 6 months had
elapsed since the revocation of the grant before it was reinstated).

Thus, all we know for sure is that Margaret was alive post-12 August
1265 (after which date she petitioned the king) and dead by 30 March
1266 (when the custody of her lands was given to queen Eleanor).

As shown in my last post, she probably died toward the end of 1265,
because on 10 December 1267 an annuity of 300 l. to Henry de Lacy was
stated then to be in arrears to the tune of 600 l. (CPR Vol. 6, p.172)
.. The entry specifically states that at that time (i.e., in December
1267) the 600 l. is "... in arrear ... since the death of his
grandmother" (named as "Margaret, sometime countess of Lincoln"). In
other words, it benchmarks the arrears against Margaret's death, and
values the arrears at 600 l. (two years' worth). CP's note (f) as
quoted above refers to Easter 1268, but this I think misses the point of
the CPR entry, which identifies the arrears at that point in time, not
at a point several months into the future. The reference to Easter is
part of a literal promise as to when the payment would be made ("... the
king promises to him that, within a month after Easter he will let him
have the 600 l. which are in arrear") It clearly does not say or imply
that the annuity would be due then, and note that it is worded in
present tense (i.e., that the 600 l. are currently [in December 1267] in
arrears). Also, Easter Sunday in 1268 was on 8 April, and a month later
8 May, so clearly that date was not related to Margaret's actual death
(which was before 30 March 1266) ... it was simply promising a payment
by a certain time (i.e., before 8 May).

In summary, I think that there is good evidence that Margaret died late
1265. It is possible that further light may be shed on the issue by
finding out when the grant of the 300l. annuity was made. It does not
appear to be on the patent rolls, so I suggest that it may be found on
the close rolls between 1258 and 1265.

Alan R Grey

WJhonson

Re: Edmund de Lacy marriage

Legg inn av WJhonson » 04 jul 2007 21:04:01

To assist in the documentation of the issue of Margaret de Quincy, Countess of Lincoln's death date, here are the exact URL's to a few of the relevant CPR entries that have been discussed.


http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h ... ge0263.pdf
CPR, 47H3, Part I, page 263
"1263 Membrane 8, June 12, at St Paul's, London
"Grant to Margaret, countess of Lincoln, that her executors may have free administration of her goods, so that no escheator or other, by reason of debts to the king, if any, may lay hand on them or intermeddle therein; provided that they give security by their own hands for the payment of such debts."
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h ... ge0297.pdf
CPR, 48H3, Part I, page 297
"1263 Membrane 21, Nov 6 at Oxford
"Pardon to Philip Basset of 125 marks of 100L, which he mainprised to pay at the Exchequer for Margaret, countess of Lincoln, whereof the king has betaken himself to the said Philip; and acquittance to the countess and him in full.
"Mandate to the barons of the Exchequer to acquit them."
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h ... ge0312.pdf
CPR, H3, vol 5 page 312
"1264 Membrane 15, April 15 at Nottingham
"Simple protection without clause until Michaelmas for the following:
....Margaret, countess of Lincoln..."
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h ... ge0564.pdf
CPR, H3, vol 5, page 564
"...at the instance of Margery countess of Lincoln, and others has granted..."
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h ... ge0574.pdf
CPR, H3v5 page 574
"1266 Membrane 22, March 30 at Westminster
"Grant to queen Eleanor of the wardship of all lands late of Margaret, sometime countess of Lincoln, who held in chief, to wit, as well the lands of her inheritence as those which she held in dower of the lands which belong by inheritence to Henry de Lascy, the king's ward; to hold to her or her assigns, with knights' fees, advowsons of churches, wards, reliefs, escheats, and other things that fall in, during the minority of the said Henry"


Will Johnson

Linda Jack

Re: Edmund de Lacy marriage (WJhonson

Legg inn av Linda Jack » 04 jul 2007 21:22:39

Dear Will,
I recommend to you a 2007 book by Louise J. Wilkinson, Women in
Thirteenth-Century Lincolnshire (Boydell Press), which has short
biographies of three noble women: Nicholaa de la Haye, Hawise de
Quency, and Margaret de Lacy. On page 65 Wilkinson has Margaret's
death between March 3 and March 30, 1266 at Hampstead Marshall. She
cites two sources: Annlaes monastici ii, 104,373; iv, 456 and
Calendar of the Patent Rolls, 1258-66, 564, London, ed. H. R. Luard
(RS, 1864-9).

Wilkinson goes on to say "that a monk at the Lacy foundation of
Norton Priory in Cheshire recorded that she was buried in London, in
a final expression of loyalty and identification with her father's
memory, 'extra chorum hospitalariorum de Clerckenwell, juxta Robertum
patrem suum.' " For this she cites W, Dugdale, Monasticon anglicanum,
vi, 316, no. iii.

Best, Linda



From: WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com>
Date: July 3, 2007 4:51:07 PM PDT
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Edmund de Lacy marriage


Is it known whether Margaret de Quincy outlived her son Edmund de
Lacy, Earl of Lincoln ?

My notes do not make it clear, in fact they make it muddy only saying
that she died sometime between 1253 and 1266. Perhaps she died in
that very year in which Edmund is suddenly called "Earl of Lincoln" ?
I.E. in 1255

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Edmund de Lacy marriage (WJhonson

Legg inn av WJhonson » 04 jul 2007 22:20:12

<<In a message dated 07/04/07 13:23:23 Pacific Standard Time, linda_jack@earthlink.net writes:
On page 65 Wilkinson has Margaret's
death between March 3 and March 30, 1266 at Hampstead Marshall.>>


Thanks Linda but I think it's likely that this secondary source is merely making the same assumption that's already been pointed out. Namely that when H3 said that he was re-instating "...at the instance of Margery, countess of Lincoln..." that she was alive at the time he said it.

It's true he does not say "the late" or "sometime countess of Lincoln" or something similar, so perhaps the argument holds water. At any rate, it's likely your source is using this same argument.

Will Johnson

Alan Grey

Re: Edmund de Lacy marriage (WJhonson

Legg inn av Alan Grey » 04 jul 2007 22:38:36

Linda Jack wrote:
Dear Will,
I recommend to you a 2007 book by Louise J. Wilkinson, Women in
Thirteenth-Century Lincolnshire (Boydell Press), which has short
biographies of three noble women: Nicholaa de la Haye, Hawise de
Quency, and Margaret de Lacy. On page 65 Wilkinson has Margaret's
death between March 3 and March 30, 1266 at Hampstead Marshall. She
cites two sources: Annlaes monastici ii, 104,373; iv, 456 and
Calendar of the Patent Rolls, 1258-66, 564, London, ed. H. R. Luard
(RS, 1864-9).

Wilkinson goes on to say "that a monk at the Lacy foundation of
Norton Priory in Cheshire recorded that she was buried in London, in
a final expression of loyalty and identification with her father's
memory, 'extra chorum hospitalariorum de Clerckenwell, juxta Robertum
patrem suum.' " For this she cites W, Dugdale, Monasticon anglicanum,
vi, 316, no. iii.


The fuller version of this is "Mater vero Ejusdem Edmunde sepulta est
Lundoniae, extra chorum ..." While the Norton record does have the
death dates of Edmund and his father, it fails to specify when Margaret
died. Will Johnson's comment that the record of 3 March did not specify
that Margaret was "sometime" countess of Lincoln (as it would be
expected to do had she died) is a good point.

As an aside, the Norton record provides further confirmation that Edmund
never held the title earl, since it only describes him as constable of
Chester, and records:

"... Edmundum de Lacy constabularium Cestriae, qui post mortem patris
sui Johannis praedicti comitis etiam obiit ante matrem suam, postquam
generat Henricum de Lacy comitem Lincolniae secundum ..." (trans:
"Edmund de Lacy, constable of Chester, who died after his father, the
said earl John, and died before his mother, afterward begat Henry de
Lacy, second earl of Lincoln".)

A few lines down the record states that John was "primus comes
Lincolniae"" (first earl of Lincoln).

Alan R Grey

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»