Blount-Ayala
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
WJhonson
Re: John de Monte Alto/Montalt/Mohaute
<<In a message dated 08/06/07 00:40:52 Pacific Standard Time, nugget@bordernet.com.au writes:
This William was born Dec 1276 after Eudo and Millicent, his
wife, had livery of the moiety of the lands of her brother George de
Cantilupe on 30 May 1274. >>
--------------
Tony how do we know which such an exactitude when William le Zouche, 1st Lord Zouche was born?
Thanks
Will
This William was born Dec 1276 after Eudo and Millicent, his
wife, had livery of the moiety of the lands of her brother George de
Cantilupe on 30 May 1274. >>
--------------
Tony how do we know which such an exactitude when William le Zouche, 1st Lord Zouche was born?
Thanks
Will
-
Ian Wallace
Re: Second christian names.
On 6 Aug, 16:26, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Am I correct in thinking that there is no baptismal record for this
lady? Is it possible that 'Fortune' was a nickname acquired in life?
Incidentally, Mildred Fortune Manning was very distantly connected by
marriage to the George Killingworth Eglisfield I mentioned in an
earlier posting.
Ian.
There's my ancestress, Mildred-Fortune Manning, born a little before
the gent. you mentioned ...
http://books.google.com/books?id=xTIEAA ... =%22mild...
I assume the middle name was a commentary on the circumstances of her
birth, as her M.I. mentions she was "strangely afflicted" all her
life.
Am I correct in thinking that there is no baptismal record for this
lady? Is it possible that 'Fortune' was a nickname acquired in life?
Incidentally, Mildred Fortune Manning was very distantly connected by
marriage to the George Killingworth Eglisfield I mentioned in an
earlier posting.
Ian.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 39 (Chancery Proc., Bridg
On Aug 7, 9:01 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The kind of failure - constant, evidently demoralising - that leads to
risible declarations that such isolated & footling "successes" amount
to real achievement.
You seem to operate on the false principle that your latest excretions
of bile and slander are the only instances, all else forgotten, and
that consequently any reaction to your habitual abuse of this
newsgroup must be over the top.
Does it not strike you that your responses to criticism never provoke
ANY agreement, except for the occasional unction from Richardson on
the pathetic misequation of "ememy's enemy = friend"?
Peter Stewart
Unfortunately John Brandon is as incorrigible as he is malignant, and as his
once-middling intelligence is now corrupted & embittered by failure. His
toxic delinquency is not going to stop any time soon.
Anyone who might think of entering into private correspondence with this
nuisance, or even responding to him courteously on the newsgroup, has more
than enough warning by this time.
Peter Stewart
Incorrigible, malignant, corrupted, embittered, failure, toxic
delinquency!!
What failure? I just pointed out two notable successes of mine --
Gotherson and Willing.
The kind of failure - constant, evidently demoralising - that leads to
risible declarations that such isolated & footling "successes" amount
to real achievement.
I see you operate on the principle that bold enough slander will
always provoke a certain amount of agreement. What thunderous
foolishness. Get a life, old man.
You seem to operate on the false principle that your latest excretions
of bile and slander are the only instances, all else forgotten, and
that consequently any reaction to your habitual abuse of this
newsgroup must be over the top.
Does it not strike you that your responses to criticism never provoke
ANY agreement, except for the occasional unction from Richardson on
the pathetic misequation of "ememy's enemy = friend"?
Peter Stewart
-
Tony Ingham
Re: Mother of Roger de Clifford d. 1282
Will,
The lady in question was Roger the elder's last wife. She and Roger
married in March 1272 in Beaufort France.
Following is a brief summary of her life in England as per the Rolls.
Tony
WJhonson wrote:
The lady in question was Roger the elder's last wife. She and Roger
married in March 1272 in Beaufort France.
Following is a brief summary of her life in England as per the Rolls.
Raoul de Courtenay, Comte de Chieti en 1269 -- Seigneur d'Illiers,
Seigneur de Lorant en 1245 -- né en 1223 -- mort en 1271 à Naples
-- vers 1247 épouse Alix de Montfort, Comtesse de Bigorre en 1251 --
née en ? -- morte en 1255
Mahaut ou Mathilde de Courtenay, Comtesse de Chieti -- née en 1254 --
morte en 1303 à Naples
-- en 1284 époux Philippe de Flandre, Comte de Teano -- né vers 1263
-- mort en novembre 1308 en Sicile
1278 Calendar of Close Rolls 1272-1279 p. 450.
To Ralph de Sandwyco, the king's steward. Order to cause Contissa,
countess of Lorett[o], wife of Roger de Cliff[ord], to have twelve
oaks for timber, of the king's gift. Date: 12 Apr. 1278
1278/9 Calendar of Close Rolls 7 Edward I. p. 518
To John son of Philip, keeper of the forest of Kynefar. Order to
cause Contesse Loretti, wife of Roger de Clifford, to have in that
forest for ten oak-trunks for fuel, of the king's gift. Date: 8 Jan.
1278/9
1293 Calendar of Patent Rolls 21 Edward I. p. 120.
Protection with claus volumus for two years for the countess, late
the wife of Roger de Clifford the elder, going beyond seas. [7 Jun 1293]
1293/4 Calendar of Close Rolls 1288-1296 p. 381.
Philip de Shireburn came before the king, on Saturday after St.
Hilary, and sought to replevy his and his wife Margaret's land in
Spareham and Neketon, which was taken into the king's hands for their
default before the justices of the bench against Comitissa, late the
wife of Roger de Clifford, the elder. This is signified to the
justices. Eastry. [16 Jan. 1293/4]
1295 Calendar of Patent Rolls 23 Edward I. p. 140.
Protection for one year for the countess (comitissa), late wife of
Roger de Clifford, staying beyond seas. [18 Aug 1295]
1295/6 Calendar of Close Rolls 24 Edward I. p. 234.
To the treasurer and barons of the exchequer. Order, to cause to
be restored to Comitissa, late the wife of Roger de Clifford the
elder, her lands, goods and chattels, if they were taken into the
king's hands soley because she is an alien, as she has gone to parts
beyond the sea under the king's protection. Bury St. Edmunds. [20
Jan 1295/6]
1298 Calendar of Close Rolls 26 Edward I. p. 342.
Protection with clause volumus, until Michaelmas, for the countess
of Loreto, staying beyond seas.
Fulham. [15 April 1298]
1298 Calendar of Close Rolls 26 Edward I. p. 342.
Letters for the countess, late the wife of Roger de Clifford,
staying beyond seas, nominating Thomas de la Mare and Robert atte More
her attorneys for one year.
All the best,
Tony
WJhonson wrote:
Thank you Spencer for the reference to CP III, pg 290 "Clifford"
The part relevant to the querent's original query appears there in footnote c, part of which I quote:
"...This last named Roger's wife is described on the Fine Rolls as "Comitissa de Lerett", and as "Countess of Lauretania" by Dugdale, who quote's Glover's Collections to the effect that he had married her at "St George in France in 1 Edw 1" VG
Now 1E1 would be 1272/3 and yet this Roger is given there as the *grandfather* of that Robert who is said to have been born abt Easter 1274.
So this should tell all that either:
A) this account of Roger marrying the Countess of L... something is wrong OR
B) that this woman was a later wife to Robert's grandfather, thus was not Robert's grandmother.
Will Johnson
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
WJhonson
Re: Mother of Roger de Clifford d. 1282
<<In a message dated 08/06/07 18:49:28 Pacific Standard Time, nugget@bordernet.com.au writes:
Raoul de Courtenay, Comte de Chieti en 1269 – Seigneur d'Illiers, Seigneur de Lorant en 1245 – né en 1223 – mort en 1271 à Naples
– vers 1247 épouse Alix de Montfort, Comtesse de Bigorre en 1251 – née en ? – morte en 1255
Mahaut ou Mathilde de Courtenay, Comtesse de Chieti – née en 1254 – morte en 1303 à Naples
– en 1284 époux Philippe de Flandre, Comte de Teano – né vers 1263 – mort en novembre 1308 en Sicile>>
--------------
Not sure I understand the above.
Raoul de Courtenay, born in 1223, died in 1271 at Naples
about 1247 he married Alix de Montfort, Countess of Bigorre (in 1251), she died in 1255
Then is Mahaut his next wife and Philippa his third and last wife?
If so, how did he married Philippa in 1284 when he was already dead?
Thanks
Will
Raoul de Courtenay, Comte de Chieti en 1269 – Seigneur d'Illiers, Seigneur de Lorant en 1245 – né en 1223 – mort en 1271 à Naples
– vers 1247 épouse Alix de Montfort, Comtesse de Bigorre en 1251 – née en ? – morte en 1255
Mahaut ou Mathilde de Courtenay, Comtesse de Chieti – née en 1254 – morte en 1303 à Naples
– en 1284 époux Philippe de Flandre, Comte de Teano – né vers 1263 – mort en novembre 1308 en Sicile>>
--------------
Not sure I understand the above.
Raoul de Courtenay, born in 1223, died in 1271 at Naples
about 1247 he married Alix de Montfort, Countess of Bigorre (in 1251), she died in 1255
Then is Mahaut his next wife and Philippa his third and last wife?
If so, how did he married Philippa in 1284 when he was already dead?
Thanks
Will
-
WJhonson
Re: Mother of Roger de Clifford d. 1282
As a follow-up question, I'm not understanding how Contessa, Countess of Loretto is related to the other people you named, the Courtenay's, Dampierre's,etc.
I'm missing how they link together.
Will
I'm missing how they link together.
Will
-
Tony Ingham
Re: Mother of Roger de Clifford d. 1282
Will,
It's a bit cryptic n'est ce pas.
Mathilde is the daughter of Raoul and Alix. Her mother died the next
year after her birth.
The entry for Mathilde is, roughly:
Born 1254
She espoused Phillipe de Flandre (when she became Countess de Teano)
in 1284.
She died 1303 in Naples
He died 1308
The French don't seem to be aware of her first marriage to Roger
Clifford 1272-1284+. Roger's will was written on 26 Oct 1284. When he
died is anyone's guess. If the French entry is correct I suppose her
second marriage must have taken place late in 1284. If the French date
is incorrect Roger died closer to 1286 which is the usually accepted year.
Tony
WJhonson wrote:
It's a bit cryptic n'est ce pas.
Mathilde is the daughter of Raoul and Alix. Her mother died the next
year after her birth.
The entry for Mathilde is, roughly:
Born 1254
She espoused Phillipe de Flandre (when she became Countess de Teano)
in 1284.
She died 1303 in Naples
He died 1308
The French don't seem to be aware of her first marriage to Roger
Clifford 1272-1284+. Roger's will was written on 26 Oct 1284. When he
died is anyone's guess. If the French entry is correct I suppose her
second marriage must have taken place late in 1284. If the French date
is incorrect Roger died closer to 1286 which is the usually accepted year.
Tony
WJhonson wrote:
In a message dated 08/06/07 18:49:28 Pacific Standard Time,
nugget@bordernet.com.au writes:
Raoul de Courtenay, Comte de Chieti en 1269 – Seigneur d'Illiers,
Seigneur de Lorant en 1245 – né en 1223 – mort en 1271 à Naples
– vers 1247 épouse Alix de Montfort, Comtesse de Bigorre en 1251 –
née en ? – morte en 1255
Mahaut ou Mathilde de Courtenay, Comtesse de Chieti – née en 1254
– morte en 1303 à Naples
– en 1284 époux Philippe de Flandre, Comte de Teano – né vers 1263
– mort en novembre 1308 en Sicile
--------------
Not sure I understand the above.
Raoul de Courtenay, born in 1223, died in 1271 at Naples
about 1247 he married Alix de Montfort, Countess of Bigorre (in 1251),
she died in 1255
Then is Mahaut his next wife and Philippa his third and last wife?
If so, how did he married Philippa in 1284 when he was already dead?
Thanks
Will
-
WJhonson
Re: Corrections to "Plantagenet Ancestry" by Douglas Richard
<<In a message dated 08/04/07 12:44:32 Pacific Standard Time, patdenn@msn.com writes:
In reading over some old posts on GEN-MEDIEVAL from 2005 I am confused on the Edward Raynsford line.
I quote one such post:
The Winthrop papers state that Edward's master was Owen Roe of London.
The apprenticeship register for the Haberdashers Company of London shows that:
"Edrus Raynsford filius Robti Raynsford de Staverton in Com Northton Armiger poss Owen Rowe civi et haberds London pro termino octo Annor a festo Penticosti ult dat ix die" June 1626"
Contribution via a post to GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com 9/9/05
The following web site, http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... sford.html
states that the above item referring to Page 603 Raynsford (Plantagenet Ancestry" by Douglas Richardson) provides further proof of the parentage of Edward Rainsford of Massachusetts.
What does all this mean? Does this information prove or disprove a royal descent of Edward Raynsford from Henry III?
Thank you
Pat
Descendant of Edward Raynsford >>
--------------------
Pat the web page you cited
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... sford.html
has two different issues head-to-butt
The first issue is *solely* in regard to who the mother of Henry FitzLewis d 1480 was.
It has nothing to do with the surname Raynsford, except as relatives of this Henry FitzLewis.
The second issue submit by Leslie as you noted, is solely to confirm that Edward (Edrus) Raynsford's father was Robert Raynsford of Staverton, Northampton.
And that he possessed arms.
Hope that's more clear.
Will Johnson
In reading over some old posts on GEN-MEDIEVAL from 2005 I am confused on the Edward Raynsford line.
I quote one such post:
The Winthrop papers state that Edward's master was Owen Roe of London.
The apprenticeship register for the Haberdashers Company of London shows that:
"Edrus Raynsford filius Robti Raynsford de Staverton in Com Northton Armiger poss Owen Rowe civi et haberds London pro termino octo Annor a festo Penticosti ult dat ix die" June 1626"
Contribution via a post to GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com 9/9/05
The following web site, http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... sford.html
states that the above item referring to Page 603 Raynsford (Plantagenet Ancestry" by Douglas Richardson) provides further proof of the parentage of Edward Rainsford of Massachusetts.
What does all this mean? Does this information prove or disprove a royal descent of Edward Raynsford from Henry III?
Thank you
Pat
Descendant of Edward Raynsford >>
--------------------
Pat the web page you cited
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... sford.html
has two different issues head-to-butt
The first issue is *solely* in regard to who the mother of Henry FitzLewis d 1480 was.
It has nothing to do with the surname Raynsford, except as relatives of this Henry FitzLewis.
The second issue submit by Leslie as you noted, is solely to confirm that Edward (Edrus) Raynsford's father was Robert Raynsford of Staverton, Northampton.
And that he possessed arms.
Hope that's more clear.
Will Johnson
-
WJhonson
Re: Mother of Roger de Clifford d. 1282
Thanks Tony, and I did find in the archives, the message from DR back in 2004 stating that he thought these two women were the same person. So now your post makes sense 
Will
Will
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mother of Roger de Clifford d. 1282
"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.91.1186452040.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Mahaut is Raoul's daughter by Alix de Montfort. Philippe of Flanders, count
(NB not countess) of Teano, became her husband in 1284, thirteen years after
her father's death.
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.91.1186452040.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 08/06/07 18:49:28 Pacific Standard Time,
nugget@bordernet.com.au writes:
Raoul de Courtenay, Comte de Chieti en 1269 - Seigneur d'Illiers,
Seigneur de Lorant en 1245 - né en 1223 - mort en 1271 à Naples
- vers 1247 épouse Alix de Montfort, Comtesse de Bigorre en 1251
- née en ? - morte en 1255
Mahaut ou Mathilde de Courtenay, Comtesse de Chieti - née en 1254
- morte en 1303 à Naples - en 1284 époux Philippe de Flandre, Comte
de Teano - né vers 1263 - mort en novembre 1308 en Sicile
--------------
Not sure I understand the above.
Raoul de Courtenay, born in 1223, died in 1271 at Naples
about 1247 he married Alix de Montfort, Countess of Bigorre (in 1251),
she died in 1255
Then is Mahaut his next wife and Philippa his third and last wife?
If so, how did he married Philippa in 1284 when he was already dead?
Mahaut is Raoul's daughter by Alix de Montfort. Philippe of Flanders, count
(NB not countess) of Teano, became her husband in 1284, thirteen years after
her father's death.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mother of Roger de Clifford d. 1282
"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.92.1186452590.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
It is not known that she _was_ related to them, much less how. Try the
archive for this - Sir Roger Clifford's second wife, who was called countess
of Loretto, is a mystery.
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.92.1186452590.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
As a follow-up question, I'm not understanding how Contessa,
Countess of Loretto is related to the other people you named,
the Courtenay's, Dampierre's,etc.
I'm missing how they link together.
It is not known that she _was_ related to them, much less how. Try the
archive for this - Sir Roger Clifford's second wife, who was called countess
of Loretto, is a mystery.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mother of Roger de Clifford d. 1282
"Tony Ingham" <nugget@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.96.1186455240.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
This is incorrect, these were two different women - Sir Roger Clifford's
wife who was called countess of Loretto died in 1301 and was buried in
Worcester cathedral; Mahaut de Courtenay, countess of Chieti (in her own
right) & Teano (by marriage) died in Naples in 1303 and was buried there.
Mahaut's marriage to Philippe of Flanders in 1284 took place a year or so
before the death of Sir Roger Clifford, when he was married to his
mysterious countess of Loretto.
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.96.1186455240.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Will,
It's a bit cryptic n'est ce pas.
Mathilde is the daughter of Raoul and Alix. Her mother died the next year
after her birth.
The entry for Mathilde is, roughly:
Born 1254
She espoused Phillipe de Flandre (when she became Countess de Teano)
in 1284.
She died 1303 in Naples
He died 1308
The French don't seem to be aware of her first marriage to Roger Clifford
1272-1284+. Roger's will was written on 26 Oct 1284. When he died is
anyone's guess. If the French entry is correct I suppose her second
marriage must have taken place late in 1284. If the French date is
incorrect Roger died closer to 1286 which is the usually accepted year.
This is incorrect, these were two different women - Sir Roger Clifford's
wife who was called countess of Loretto died in 1301 and was buried in
Worcester cathedral; Mahaut de Courtenay, countess of Chieti (in her own
right) & Teano (by marriage) died in Naples in 1303 and was buried there.
Mahaut's marriage to Philippe of Flanders in 1284 took place a year or so
before the death of Sir Roger Clifford, when he was married to his
mysterious countess of Loretto.
Peter Stewart
-
WJhonson
Re: NEALE / ADAMS of Virginia Immigrants of Known Medieval P
<<In a message dated 08/06/07 20:15:27 Pacific Standard Time, joecook@gmail.com writes:
http://www.bythedrop.com/e107_plugins/t ... ee=Krieger >>
---------------
And it's unsourced.
Unsourced, family trees on the internet, should be ignored.
They provide no value whatsoever.
They just clog the airwaves.
Will Johnson
http://www.bythedrop.com/e107_plugins/t ... ee=Krieger >>
---------------
And it's unsourced.
Unsourced, family trees on the internet, should be ignored.
They provide no value whatsoever.
They just clog the airwaves.
Will Johnson
-
Denis Beauregard
Re: spam Publications: Genealogy and Family History Super Ce
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 02:16:41 -0000, Sarah <QPubs1@gmail.com> wrote in
soc.genealogy.medieval:
PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMERCIAL NOT WELCOME SPAM TO THE MARKETPLACE
groupe.
soc.genealogy.medieval:
PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMERCIAL NOT WELCOME SPAM TO THE MARKETPLACE
groupe.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mother of Roger de Clifford d. 1282
"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.98.1186455860.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Well, the "thought" of DR in 2004 did not make sense - I hope this isn't all
that you found in the archive. Copied below is a post of mine dated 19
December 2004, giving evidence refuting his mistaken idea, that may not have
come up in your archive search. The whole thread can be found at
http://groups.google.com.au/group/soc.g ... f5f1bc70be
Peter Stewart
Dec 19 2004, 3:29 pm
Comments interspersed:
<royalances...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1103162065.403880.130210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Neither of these proves that Sir Roger de Clifford's wife held any Italian
title: in "Contissa, countess of Lorett" the title "countess" in English
would be redundant unless her given name happened to be Contissa. Without
seeing the original document it is not clear exactly in what terms she was
described, but the "[o]" giving an Italian look to the locality seems to be
just an editorial presumption. The other mention, as "Contesse Loretti"
could mean simply "Conetsse [given name or title] of Lorett, again with
nothing to indicate that this was a place in Italy rather than France (or
elsewhere). The fine roll extract quoted by Brendan Wilson ("C'ss of
Lerett"), where the editor has glossed "Countess of Lauretania in France",
does not clarify this.
It was quite common at this time for girls of lesser rank to be given such
names as "Comitissa", "Marquisia", "Comtors", etc, that are otherwise higher
titles, so that in light of the ambiguous descriptions given above this is a
perfectly sensible suggestion. Again, that "Contissa" was even a title and
that this must have been Italian are mere conjectures, not proven.
She could not have been Pernel de Milly for the much more solid reason that
Pernel wasn't called "Contissa"and only became countess of Chieti & Loreto
on her marriage to Philippe de Dampierre after 1303 (ES III 665 misdates
this to 1302): before that the lady was twice married in Italy, having other
husbands throughout most of the duration of Roger de Clifford's mysterious
marriage, and as to tile was only signora of Pagliara by inheritance from
her mother.
Genealogy is rarely as simple as this; however, Douglas Richardson often is.
This was the place and date of the marriage contract, not the ceremony.
Philippe was also count of Teano; Matilda de Courtenay was indeed countess
of Chieti and this is the only title she seems to have identified herself by
in charters of her own, e.g. in 1297 "Mathildis de Courtenaio, comitissa
Theati, uxor nobilis domini Philippi de Flandria" (Matilda de Courtenay,
countess of Chieti, wife of the noble lord Philippe of Flanders), see Lucien
Merlet, 'Procès pour le possession du comté de Bigorre (1254-1503)',
_Bibliothèque de l'École des chartes_ 18 (1857), pièces justificatives, no.
12 p. 321. She was referred to by northern contemporaries under the same
sole title, e.g. "Philippum, qui uxorem habuit comitissam de Tyeta"
(Philippe, who had as wife the countess of Chieti) in 'Chronica monasterii
Sancti Bertini auctore Iohanne Longo', edited by Oswald Holder-Egger, MGH SS
XXV, p. 851.
In Flanders it was recognised that Philippe held two countships in Italy by
right of his wife, cf "Philippus...de Italia cum uxore sua, comitissa
duorum comitatuum (Philippe...from Italy together with his wife, countess of
two counties), _Annales Gandenses_ edited by Hilda Johnstone (London, 1951),
p. 48, and "Philippus...ad duos comitatus suos parvus ex parte uxoris in
Italiam reversus est" (Philippe...returned to the two small counties that he
held by right of his wife in Italy), ibid p. 84. I am not sure whether the
second countship here was Loreto or Teano - I haven't been able to get out
to a library, and I'm not sure which of these Matilda's father held along
with Chieti. For all I know, Philippe might have been awarded Loreto (or
Teano) in his own right, as his half-brother Henri was given the countship
of Lodi.
No it doesn't. Sir Roger is supposed to have courted this mysterious lady in
France and to have married her in 1272/3. However, Matilda de Courtenay was
plainly not married in December 1276 when her half-brother confirmed to her
the moiety of Bigorre, see Merlet, op cit, pièces justificatives, no. 10 p.
319: "dilecta soror mea Mathildis de Courtenayo, filia dictorum Radulfi et
Aalipdis" (my beloved sister Matilda de Courtenay, daughter of the said
Raoul and Alix). If she had an English husband of some years standing at the
time to assume this possession in her right, such an interesting & important
fact could hardly have passed completely unnoticed in her immediate family.
The half-brother later ceded the other moiety to her, and when he died in
1283 Matilda was a major claimant for Bigorre. The genealogy of her family
was carefully studied over the ensuing centuries: NO Clifford connection or
heir/ess is mentioned in the records. Moreover, when her marriage contract
of 1284 was negotiated - NB a year or two BEFORE Roger de Clifford died -
Matilda was evidently unmarried as she was described in a letter of 25 June
1284 as "damoiselle Mathilde de Courtenay, contesse de Chieti" according to
Patrick van Kerrebrouck, _Les Capétiens 987-1328_, (Villeneuve dAscq,
2000)', p. 481 note 15.
It isn't a bet I would care to risk, but this is beside the point as the
chronology and other circumstances rule it out anyway.
It hasn't yet had any conscientious study by Douglas Richardson, just a
flimsy con job based on the similarity of an uncertain name and/or title in
a few English records with a known place in Italy and a title from there
used by someone else whose wife plainly cannot be connected to this. Tricked
up with approximate but conflicting dates, all we are given is a walloping
load of hot air. Matilda de Courtenay was an important heiress in Naples,
where she lived, died ans was buried. She had nothing to do with a Clifford
lordling in England, with his children real or imagined, or with Worcester.
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.98.1186455860.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Thanks Tony, and I did find in the archives, the message from
DR back in 2004 stating that he thought these two women were
the same person. So now your post makes sense
Well, the "thought" of DR in 2004 did not make sense - I hope this isn't all
that you found in the archive. Copied below is a post of mine dated 19
December 2004, giving evidence refuting his mistaken idea, that may not have
come up in your archive search. The whole thread can be found at
http://groups.google.com.au/group/soc.g ... f5f1bc70be
Peter Stewart
Dec 19 2004, 3:29 pm
Comments interspersed:
<royalances...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1103162065.403880.130210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
As the new ancestry of Margaret de Brewes, wife of Sir Thomas de
Monthermer, is traced out, one interesting genealogical puzzle which is
immediately encountered is the identity of Margaret's maternal
grandmother, the mysterious Countess of Loretto, 2nd wife of Sir Roger
de Clifford (died 1285), of Tenbury, Worcestershire.
According to published accounts, Roger de Clifford went to the Holy
Land with Prince Edward of England in 1271. On their return home two
years later in 1273, Roger was present with Philippe, Count of Savoy
and Burgundy, and others, when William, Lord of Toron on the Rhine, did
homage to King Edward I at the castle of St. Georges, near Beaufort in
France. Having lost his wife, Maud, Sir Roger de Clifford "now paid
his addresses" to the Countess of Loretto, "whom he met in this castle
of St. Georges, where he married her, with great solemnity, after
having settled upon her his manor of Weverham in Cheshire." [Reference:
Arthur Clifford, Collectanea Cliffordiana (1817): 176].
That Sir Roger de Clifford's wife held the Italian title of Countess of
Loretto is confirmed by several records, among them Calendar of Close
Rolls, 1272-1279, pp. 450, 518. In the former record she is styled
"Contissa, countess of Lorett[o]" and in the latter record she is
styled "Contesse Loretti."
Neither of these proves that Sir Roger de Clifford's wife held any Italian
title: in "Contissa, countess of Lorett" the title "countess" in English
would be redundant unless her given name happened to be Contissa. Without
seeing the original document it is not clear exactly in what terms she was
described, but the "[o]" giving an Italian look to the locality seems to be
just an editorial presumption. The other mention, as "Contesse Loretti"
could mean simply "Conetsse [given name or title] of Lorett, again with
nothing to indicate that this was a place in Italy rather than France (or
elsewhere). The fine roll extract quoted by Brendan Wilson ("C'ss of
Lerett"), where the editor has glossed "Countess of Lauretania in France",
does not clarify this.
Hugh Clifford includes a long and somewhat rambling discussion
regarding the Countess of Loretto in his book, House of Clifford:
"At about this time Roger Clifford himself married in France as his
second wife, a mysterious lady variously described as the Countess of
Loretto, Lorette or Lauretania, whom he is said to have married at
Saint-Georges near the castle of Beaufort. There are two possible
theories concerning this lady's identity. She may have been the Dame
de Lorette-sur-Loire, though there is nothing to identify her as such
beyond the fact that the marriage took lace at St. Georges-du-Bois,
near Beaufort-en-Vallee (Maine-et-Loire) not far from Angers. A more
probable candidate is a member of the noble family of
Milly-en-Gatinois. Perenelle de Milly, Countess of Loretto in Italy,
in the early 14th century, was the daughter of Geoffrey de Milly,
Seneschal of the Kingdom of Naples during the last couple of decades of
the 13th century. The family had been prominent in Outremer and with
the Templars from the 12th century, and was closely related by blood
and marriage to the families of Joinville and Dampierre. It will be
remembered that Geoffrey de Joinville, Comte de Vaucouleurs, had
married the Cliffords' neighbor Maud de Lacy, and their daughter,
Jeanne de Joinville was the wife of Roger de Mortimer, while two of her
sisters were nuns at Aconbury. Guy de Dampierre, Count of Flanders,
Marquis of Namur, had taken part in the crusade to Tunis in 1270, and
was present at the deathbed of St. Louis. He had 19 children by two
wives, and his third son, Philip de Dampierre, was created Count of
Chieti in the kingdom of Naples. It is probable that Roger de
Clifford's wife was a member of one of these families, and that his
marriage would have strengthened the already existing bonds between the
Cliffords and these powerful French nobles. As to the place of
marriage, Sir Iain Moncreiffe suggests St.-Georges-de-Reneins (Rhone)
not far from Villefranche-sur-Saone, where Edward I and a thousand
picked men fought a strange mele with the Count of Chalons, in response
to the count's challenge received while the crusaders had passed
through Italy. This would certainly be closer to the Milly, Joinvlle
and Dampierre estates that Saint-Georges-du-Bois." END OF QUOTE.
[Reference: Hugh Clifford, The House of Clifford, pp. 47-48].
Regarding Mr. Clifford's first theory regarding the Countess of
Loretto's identity, it is impossible to think that a woman holding the
French manor of de Lorette-sur-Loire would derive an Italian title such
Countess of Loretto from this possession. Why Mr. Clifford would
suggest such a silly notion is beyond me.
It was quite common at this time for girls of lesser rank to be given such
names as "Comitissa", "Marquisia", "Comtors", etc, that are otherwise higher
titles, so that in light of the ambiguous descriptions given above this is a
perfectly sensible suggestion. Again, that "Contissa" was even a title and
that this must have been Italian are mere conjectures, not proven.
As to his second theory, Mr.
Clifford is on more solid ground. He notes that there was a certain
Pernel de Milly who was Countess of Loretto in the early 1300's. So,
he has the correct title. He supposes that this woman might have been
Roger de Clifford's 2nd wife. However, his own book shows that Roger
de Clifford's 2nd wife and surviving widow, the Countess of Loretto,
died in 1301. As such, she could hardly be the same woman as Pernel de
Milly who occurs after this date. So then who was Roger de Clifford's
wife?
She could not have been Pernel de Milly for the much more solid reason that
Pernel wasn't called "Contissa"and only became countess of Chieti & Loreto
on her marriage to Philippe de Dampierre after 1303 (ES III 665 misdates
this to 1302): before that the lady was twice married in Italy, having other
husbands throughout most of the duration of Roger de Clifford's mysterious
marriage, and as to tile was only signora of Pagliara by inheritance from
her mother.
The solution to this puzzle is actually somewhat simple.
Genealogy is rarely as simple as this; however, Douglas Richardson often is.
Pernel de
Milly's husband, Sir Philippe de Dampierre, was Count of Chieti in
Italy just as Hugh Clifford states. I've found evidence that he was
also known as Count of Loretto. This is proven by four records in the
period, 1304-1305, recorded in the Calendar of Close Rolls, 1302-1307,
pp. 162, 167, 209, 260. Mr. Clifford tells us that Philippe de
Dampierre "was created Count of Chieti in the kingdom of Naples."
However, this is not true. What took place is that Philippe de
Dampierre had an earlier marriage to a woman who was Countess of Chieti
in her own right. Her name was Mahaut (or Maud) de Courtenay, and she
was the daughter and sole heiress of Raoul de Courtenay, Count of
Chieti (died 1271). According to Detlev Schwennicke, Mahaut de
Courtenay was born c. 1254. Her marriage to Philippe de Dampierre
allegedly took place c. 1284 at Wynendale, South Flanders, in modern
Belgium.
This was the place and date of the marriage contract, not the ceremony.
Philippe was also count of Teano; Matilda de Courtenay was indeed countess
of Chieti and this is the only title she seems to have identified herself by
in charters of her own, e.g. in 1297 "Mathildis de Courtenaio, comitissa
Theati, uxor nobilis domini Philippi de Flandria" (Matilda de Courtenay,
countess of Chieti, wife of the noble lord Philippe of Flanders), see Lucien
Merlet, 'Procès pour le possession du comté de Bigorre (1254-1503)',
_Bibliothèque de l'École des chartes_ 18 (1857), pièces justificatives, no.
12 p. 321. She was referred to by northern contemporaries under the same
sole title, e.g. "Philippum, qui uxorem habuit comitissam de Tyeta"
(Philippe, who had as wife the countess of Chieti) in 'Chronica monasterii
Sancti Bertini auctore Iohanne Longo', edited by Oswald Holder-Egger, MGH SS
XXV, p. 851.
In Flanders it was recognised that Philippe held two countships in Italy by
right of his wife, cf "Philippus...de Italia cum uxore sua, comitissa
duorum comitatuum (Philippe...from Italy together with his wife, countess of
two counties), _Annales Gandenses_ edited by Hilda Johnstone (London, 1951),
p. 48, and "Philippus...ad duos comitatus suos parvus ex parte uxoris in
Italiam reversus est" (Philippe...returned to the two small counties that he
held by right of his wife in Italy), ibid p. 84. I am not sure whether the
second countship here was Loreto or Teano - I haven't been able to get out
to a library, and I'm not sure which of these Matilda's father held along
with Chieti. For all I know, Philippe might have been awarded Loreto (or
Teano) in his own right, as his half-brother Henri was given the countship
of Lodi.
From the dates, it seems that Mahaut de Courtenay was nearly 30 at her
marriage to Philippe de Dampierre. This age at marriage is highly
unlikely given that she was an heiress and a member of the important
Courtenay family. If so, it would seem probable that Mahaut de
Courtenay had an earlier marriage than her known marriage to Sir
Philippe de Dampierre. Who then was Mahaut's first husband? It
appears he was Sir Roger de Clifford, of Tenbury, Worcestershire.
No it doesn't. Sir Roger is supposed to have courted this mysterious lady in
France and to have married her in 1272/3. However, Matilda de Courtenay was
plainly not married in December 1276 when her half-brother confirmed to her
the moiety of Bigorre, see Merlet, op cit, pièces justificatives, no. 10 p.
319: "dilecta soror mea Mathildis de Courtenayo, filia dictorum Radulfi et
Aalipdis" (my beloved sister Matilda de Courtenay, daughter of the said
Raoul and Alix). If she had an English husband of some years standing at the
time to assume this possession in her right, such an interesting & important
fact could hardly have passed completely unnoticed in her immediate family.
The half-brother later ceded the other moiety to her, and when he died in
1283 Matilda was a major claimant for Bigorre. The genealogy of her family
was carefully studied over the ensuing centuries: NO Clifford connection or
heir/ess is mentioned in the records. Moreover, when her marriage contract
of 1284 was negotiated - NB a year or two BEFORE Roger de Clifford died -
Matilda was evidently unmarried as she was described in a letter of 25 June
1284 as "damoiselle Mathilde de Courtenay, contesse de Chieti" according to
Patrick van Kerrebrouck, _Les Capétiens 987-1328_, (Villeneuve dAscq,
2000)', p. 481 note 15.
While conclusive evidence is still lacking, we know from Detlev
Schwennicke that Mahaut de Courtenay was Countess of Chieti in her own
right. If so, then it seems a good bet that she was also known as
Countess of Loretto, just we know her husband, Philippe de Dampierre,
was known as both Count of Chieti and Count of Loretto.
It isn't a bet I would care to risk, but this is beside the point as the
chronology and other circumstances rule it out anyway.
We are told by
Hugh Clifford that Roger de Clifford's wife died in 1301. Detlev
Schwennicke states that Mahaut de Courtenay, wife of Sir Philippe de
Dampierre, died in 1303. The dates are very close. Following Mahaut
de Courtenay's death, Sir Philippe de Dampierre married (2nd) Pernel de
Milly, who Clifford notes was known as Countess of Loretto. Next, we
know that Sir Roger de Clifford died in or about 1285 [Reference: Hugh
Clifford, House of Clifford, pg. 49]. Schwennicke states that Mahaut
de Courtenay married c. 1284 to Philippe de Dampierre. Again, the
dates are very close. Lastly, we know that Roger de Clifford's widow,
the Countess of Loretto, was living abroad from 1293 to at least 1296
[Reference: Ibid.]. If she was re-married to a foreigner, this would
readily account for her absence from England.
So, was Mahaut de Courtenay the 2nd wife of Sir Roger de Clifford? As
best I can tell, yes, she was. However, this matter deserves further
study to make a final determination.
It hasn't yet had any conscientious study by Douglas Richardson, just a
flimsy con job based on the similarity of an uncertain name and/or title in
a few English records with a known place in Italy and a title from there
used by someone else whose wife plainly cannot be connected to this. Tricked
up with approximate but conflicting dates, all we are given is a walloping
load of hot air. Matilda de Courtenay was an important heiress in Naples,
where she lived, died ans was buried. She had nothing to do with a Clifford
lordling in England, with his children real or imagined, or with Worcester.
Peter Stewart
-
WJhonson
Re: Mother of Roger de Clifford d. 1282
<<In a message dated 08/06/07 23:27:59 Pacific Standard Time, royalancestry@msn.com writes:
Countess is a female given name
in this time period.>>
-----------------
I'm skeptical that you can supply other examples of a woman whose given name is Countess
Can you?
Will Johnson
Countess is a female given name
in this time period.>>
-----------------
I'm skeptical that you can supply other examples of a woman whose given name is Countess
Can you?
Will Johnson
-
John Plant
Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve
WJhonson wrote:
You might be interested in the earlier discussion about this in the thread:
http://www.genforum.genealogy.com/plant ... /1477.html
John
In a message dated 08/06/07 02:15:08 Pacific Standard Time, leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
containing all living Somersets
descending from the Plantagenets? With Burke's Peerage and at least one
other book we should be able to find addresses for a number. You then make
one covering letter, and change the heading for each one and see what
reaction you will get. You only need to get a few yesses I suppose?
If such a thing actually occurred, and you actually get positive responses which lead to actual laboratory results, I think it could be a paper.
It certainly seems as if a number of people would be interested in such a project.
You might be interested in the earlier discussion about this in the thread:
http://www.genforum.genealogy.com/plant ... /1477.html
John
-
John Plant
Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Will,
Perhaps a social scientist looking towards future developments might say
that. However, geneticists use the rule of parsimony. OK, I'll spell out
the details of what a scientist would say:
Applying the rule of parsimony, the simplest model of the available
experimental data is a modal or single-ancestor surname with quite a low
fpe rate.
Perhaps you are saying that science isn't reasonable at all?
John
In a message dated 8/4/2007 1:06:25 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:
The fact remains that finding that 50% or more of those with an English
surname match is a reasonable basis for describing the surname as
`modal'
or `single ancestor'. This experimental result requires quite a low FPE
rate and a `single family' name.
--------------------------------
No it isn't reasonable at all.
Mainly because you have not surveyed the entire population of people
named Plant (and Variants). What you have is some sort of voluntary or
targeted group who has submitted their DNA. Unless the full details of
the results and full details of the claimed lineages are published
ALONGSIDE the full details of the population-set of Plants now living,
you cannot make this sort of claim.
Will
Will,
Perhaps a social scientist looking towards future developments might say
that. However, geneticists use the rule of parsimony. OK, I'll spell out
the details of what a scientist would say:
Applying the rule of parsimony, the simplest model of the available
experimental data is a modal or single-ancestor surname with quite a low
fpe rate.
Perhaps you are saying that science isn't reasonable at all?
John
-
Charani
Re: Quintin Publications: Genealogy and Family History Super
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 02:16:41 -0000, Sarah wrote:
To avoid such a label, please use the correct newsgroup:
soc.genealogy.marketplace.
However, can a commercial organisation which uses a gmail address
really be taken seriously as a reliable and responsible outlet?
Hello this is to let everyone know that Quintin Publications ....
is a spammer.
To avoid such a label, please use the correct newsgroup:
soc.genealogy.marketplace.
However, can a commercial organisation which uses a gmail address
really be taken seriously as a reliable and responsible outlet?
-
John Plant
Re: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Will,
OK, but isn't the metaphor wrong? Isn't this a young foal not a dead
horse? There is enough experimental data already for some initial,
albeit simple *scientific* models and I should have thought the promise
of better to come.
John
Mr Plant, *statements* even by authorities *not* backed up by raw data
are... wait for it.. .here it comes... meaningless.
Yes that's right, they are meaningless.
Do you have any raw data?
I note a Swedish study you claim shows less than 1% which could mean
zero percent for all we know. At any rate, until you can present a
*scientific* study, not a statement by some supposed-authority, than
there's no point to keep beating on the dead horse. Is there.
Will,
OK, but isn't the metaphor wrong? Isn't this a young foal not a dead
horse? There is enough experimental data already for some initial,
albeit simple *scientific* models and I should have thought the promise
of better to come.
John
-
John Plant
Re: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project
John Plant wrote:
Will,
Perhaps I should summarize:
(a) there are simple science-based models about modal vs multiorgin
surnames; there can be expected to be further advances and refinements
of these models, presumably through such methods as that of the Swiss
study which I might find time to look into further;
(b) there are sound, scientific methods for comparing the Y-DNA
haplotypes of two individuals; this has many applications, not just
progress with item (a) above;
(c) it would be very useful to have `a' Y-DNA haplotype for the
Plantagenets (?a single male line family as is often, though not always,
assumed) but so far this has proved to be elusive;
(d) with the objective of (c), it would be good to have the Y-DNA
haplotypes of several, well-documented living male-line descendants of
the Plantagenet family; and,
(e) for the purposes of (d), the best bet at the moment seems to be that
of trying to get some of the documented Somerset family to take a Y-DNA
test.
John
--
..
.. John S Plant BSc PhD MBCS CITP MInstP MIDI
Keele University, England, ST5 5BG.
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Mr Plant, *statements* even by authorities *not* backed up by raw data
are... wait for it.. .here it comes... meaningless.
Yes that's right, they are meaningless.
Do you have any raw data?
I note a Swedish study you claim shows less than 1% which could mean
zero percent for all we know. At any rate, until you can present a
*scientific* study, not a statement by some supposed-authority, than
there's no point to keep beating on the dead horse. Is there.
Will,
Perhaps I should summarize:
(a) there are simple science-based models about modal vs multiorgin
surnames; there can be expected to be further advances and refinements
of these models, presumably through such methods as that of the Swiss
study which I might find time to look into further;
(b) there are sound, scientific methods for comparing the Y-DNA
haplotypes of two individuals; this has many applications, not just
progress with item (a) above;
(c) it would be very useful to have `a' Y-DNA haplotype for the
Plantagenets (?a single male line family as is often, though not always,
assumed) but so far this has proved to be elusive;
(d) with the objective of (c), it would be good to have the Y-DNA
haplotypes of several, well-documented living male-line descendants of
the Plantagenet family; and,
(e) for the purposes of (d), the best bet at the moment seems to be that
of trying to get some of the documented Somerset family to take a Y-DNA
test.
John
--
..
.. John S Plant BSc PhD MBCS CITP MInstP MIDI
Keele University, England, ST5 5BG.
-
John Brandon
Re: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 39 (Chancery Proc., Bridg
The kind of failure - constant, evidently demoralising - that leads to
risible declarations that such isolated & footling "successes" amount
to real achievement.
I don't know what you're carrying on about, but I'm positive a number
of FASGs would have given their eye teeth to have stumbled across
1) proof of the royal descent of Dorothea Scott Gotherson.
2) the likelihood of gentry ancestry for the Willings of
Pennsylvania.
3) corroborating details of the Hasilrige connection for Henley of
Massachusetts and Tennessee.
4) the gentry ancestry of Mrs. Jane (Greene) Poole of Massachusetts.
5) the Hawtrey and Ward connection of the Rawsons of Massachusetts
(Leslie Mahler was so impressed with this item that he told me he was
writing an article for TAG on it).
So I have actually discovered a quite large number of good things (of
course, no lines of descent from Charlotte of Cumberland; but then,
most Americans simply do not have these sorts of lines).
So you really *do not* know what you're talking about in terms of the
value of my findings to Americans.
You seem to operate on the false principle that your latest excretions
of bile and slander are the only instances, all else forgotten, and
that consequently any reaction to your habitual abuse of this
newsgroup must be over the top.
It was over-the-top and quite silly.
Does it not strike you that your responses to criticism never provoke
ANY agreement, except for the occasional unction from Richardson on
the pathetic misequation of "ememy's enemy = friend"?
People here never show much enthusiam at all, except for lines they
themselves share. I would actually prefer dead silence to the quite
cheesy and off putting accolades you constantly receive from your
fellow Auzzies. Methinks they protest too much. Maybe you're their
one claim to respectability. Sad thought.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 39 (Chancery Proc., Bridg
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186494667.902114.259790@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
If you seriously propose that this meagre record gives you a right to
slander Leslie Mahler and others, who have earned respect from the
genealogical community in the USA and beyond, you are pitifully deceived.
No, my remarks were accurate and measured, backed up by specific &
unanswered criticism of your behaviour over years. The few people who have
indulged you with misguided humour in the past are not rushing to speak up
again now. Why is that, do you suppose?
Not nearly as sad as your accolades for yourself. I don't recall anything
remotely "cheesy" about me from fellow Australians, and I have certainly
never blown my own trumpet as you, like Richardson, are reduced to doing
here so frequently.
It has evidently not crossed the noisome mess of your mind that many more
people here share medieval lines than early modern ones.
Peter Stewart
news:1186494667.902114.259790@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
The kind of failure - constant, evidently demoralising - that leads to
risible declarations that such isolated & footling "successes" amount
to real achievement.
I don't know what you're carrying on about, but I'm positive a number
of FASGs would have given their eye teeth to have stumbled across
1) proof of the royal descent of Dorothea Scott Gotherson.
2) the likelihood of gentry ancestry for the Willings of
Pennsylvania.
3) corroborating details of the Hasilrige connection for Henley of
Massachusetts and Tennessee.
4) the gentry ancestry of Mrs. Jane (Greene) Poole of Massachusetts.
5) the Hawtrey and Ward connection of the Rawsons of Massachusetts
(Leslie Mahler was so impressed with this item that he told me he was
writing an article for TAG on it).
So I have actually discovered a quite large number of good things (of
course, no lines of descent from Charlotte of Cumberland; but then,
most Americans simply do not have these sorts of lines).
So you really *do not* know what you're talking about in terms of the
value of my findings to Americans.
If you seriously propose that this meagre record gives you a right to
slander Leslie Mahler and others, who have earned respect from the
genealogical community in the USA and beyond, you are pitifully deceived.
You seem to operate on the false principle that your latest excretions
of bile and slander are the only instances, all else forgotten, and
that consequently any reaction to your habitual abuse of this
newsgroup must be over the top.
It was over-the-top and quite silly.
No, my remarks were accurate and measured, backed up by specific &
unanswered criticism of your behaviour over years. The few people who have
indulged you with misguided humour in the past are not rushing to speak up
again now. Why is that, do you suppose?
Does it not strike you that your responses to criticism never provoke
ANY agreement, except for the occasional unction from Richardson on
the pathetic misequation of "ememy's enemy = friend"?
People here never show much enthusiam at all, except for lines they
themselves share. I would actually prefer dead silence to the quite
cheesy and off putting accolades you constantly receive from your
fellow Auzzies. Methinks they protest too much. Maybe you're their
one claim to respectability. Sad thought.
Not nearly as sad as your accolades for yourself. I don't recall anything
remotely "cheesy" about me from fellow Australians, and I have certainly
never blown my own trumpet as you, like Richardson, are reduced to doing
here so frequently.
It has evidently not crossed the noisome mess of your mind that many more
people here share medieval lines than early modern ones.
Peter Stewart
-
pj.evans
Re: Quintin Publications: Genealogy and Family History Super
On Aug 7, 3:25 am, Charani <SGBNOSPAM@ mail2genes.invalid> wrote:
They aren't selling a particular publication, so it isn't
'advertising' in the sense of some of the other stuff that shows up.
Thay aren't being obnoxious about it; this looks more like a simple
announcement.
BTW, they have a fairly interesting collection of books on CD,
although it's mostly not in the time period here. But if you're
interested in later periods and looking for something that's out of
print or hard to find, it's worth checking their site.
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 02:16:41 -0000, Sarah wrote:
Hello this is to let everyone know that Quintin Publications ....
is a spammer.
To avoid such a label, please use the correct newsgroup:
soc.genealogy.marketplace.
However, can a commercial organisation which uses a gmail address
really be taken seriously as a reliable and responsible outlet?
They aren't selling a particular publication, so it isn't
'advertising' in the sense of some of the other stuff that shows up.
Thay aren't being obnoxious about it; this looks more like a simple
announcement.
BTW, they have a fairly interesting collection of books on CD,
although it's mostly not in the time period here. But if you're
interested in later periods and looking for something that's out of
print or hard to find, it's worth checking their site.
-
Gjest
Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve
In a message dated 8/7/2007 2:03:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:
Applying the rule of parsimony, the simplest model of the available
experimental data is a modal or single-ancestor surname with quite a low
fpe rate.
Perhaps you are saying that science isn't reasonable at all?>>
----------------
A scientist would start by describing their set and how they were obtained.
Have you done that part?
And then a scientist would discuss the errors that can come up when you have
a non-randomized set, a non-double-blind study, and a chief scientist who
has a particular point-of-view at the outset.
That would be a good start.
The simplest model is not a single-ancestor, the simplest model is that
there is nothing that can be said about the data. Nothing is always simpler than
something.
Stepping up from that, you could say "of the people who have submitted their
DNA we can say..."
But you keep trying to describe the entire population set, and you simply
cannot from this type of study.
Will Johnson
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:
Applying the rule of parsimony, the simplest model of the available
experimental data is a modal or single-ancestor surname with quite a low
fpe rate.
Perhaps you are saying that science isn't reasonable at all?>>
----------------
A scientist would start by describing their set and how they were obtained.
Have you done that part?
And then a scientist would discuss the errors that can come up when you have
a non-randomized set, a non-double-blind study, and a chief scientist who
has a particular point-of-view at the outset.
That would be a good start.
The simplest model is not a single-ancestor, the simplest model is that
there is nothing that can be said about the data. Nothing is always simpler than
something.
Stepping up from that, you could say "of the people who have submitted their
DNA we can say..."
But you keep trying to describe the entire population set, and you simply
cannot from this type of study.
Will Johnson
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-
taf
Re: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project
On Aug 7, 5:10 am, John Plant <j.s.pl...@isc.keele.ac.uk> wrote:
.. . . .
Eh, Swedish, . . . . Swiss, . . . . Swahili, . . . it's all the
same.
I would not be at all confident of testing a single lineage, which
passes through two illegitimacies - or for that matter of any one
lineage. As I have said elsewhere, one should pursue all of the
possibilities. If you just get the one, you still won't know what you
really have.
taf BSc PhD LMNOP XYZ PDQ LoL
.. . . .
Perhaps I should summarize:
(a) there are simple science-based models about modal vs multiorgin
surnames; there can be expected to be further advances and refinements
of these models, presumably through such methods as that of the Swiss
study which I might find time to look into further;
Eh, Swedish, . . . . Swiss, . . . . Swahili, . . . it's all the
same.
(c) it would be very useful to have `a' Y-DNA haplotype for the
Plantagenets (?a single male line family as is often, though not always,
assumed) but so far this has proved to be elusive;
(d) with the objective of (c), it would be good to have the Y-DNA
haplotypes of several, well-documented living male-line descendants of
the Plantagenet family; and,
(e) for the purposes of (d), the best bet at the moment seems to be that
of trying to get some of the documented Somerset family to take a Y-DNA
test.
I would not be at all confident of testing a single lineage, which
passes through two illegitimacies - or for that matter of any one
lineage. As I have said elsewhere, one should pursue all of the
possibilities. If you just get the one, you still won't know what you
really have.
John
--
.
. John S Plant BSc PhD MBCS CITP MInstP MIDI
Keele University, England, ST5 5BG.
taf BSc PhD LMNOP XYZ PDQ LoL
-
Gjest
Re: Quintin Publications: Genealogy and Family History Super
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:09:49 -0700, "pj.evans" <pj.evans.gen@usa.net>
wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
They resell on CD books for which they have no rights. The authors
still living for example. Quintin was known for that : making
money by reselling stolen material.
And the fact they don't advertise a specific product doesn't change
the point. IT IS SPAM and it is not welcome here.
--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1721 - http://www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
/ | Maintenant sur cédérom, début à 1765
oo oo Now on CD-ROM, beginnings to 1765
wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
BTW, they have a fairly interesting collection of books on CD,
although it's mostly not in the time period here. But if you're
interested in later periods and looking for something that's out of
print or hard to find, it's worth checking their site.
They resell on CD books for which they have no rights. The authors
still living for example. Quintin was known for that : making
money by reselling stolen material.
And the fact they don't advertise a specific product doesn't change
the point. IT IS SPAM and it is not welcome here.
--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1721 - http://www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
/ | Maintenant sur cédérom, début à 1765
oo oo Now on CD-ROM, beginnings to 1765
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Second christian names
"Henry Algernon Percy was born January 14, 1477/8."
Another one, 100 years later:
Frederick Philip Bourchier, brother of Henry, (last) Earl of Bath
(c.1587- 1654).
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
Another one, 100 years later:
Frederick Philip Bourchier, brother of Henry, (last) Earl of Bath
(c.1587- 1654).
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
-
WJhonson
Re: Byron-Bernake connection
<In a message dated 08/07/07 13:25:49 Pacific Standard Time, a.grey@niwa.co.nz writes:
Perhaps the marriage is taken only from a Visitation record
(but which one?). >
-------------------------
<a href = "http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03978924&id=vPYMAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA100&lpg=RA2-PA100&dq=cavendish+spence">Visitation of Sussex, 1530, pg 100</a>
By the way on my jump page there is a link to a Visitation Index, supposedly indexing ALL visitations, where you can find all the pages with this surname.
Perhaps the marriage is taken only from a Visitation record
(but which one?). >
-------------------------
<a href = "http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03978924&id=vPYMAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA100&lpg=RA2-PA100&dq=cavendish+spence">Visitation of Sussex, 1530, pg 100</a>
By the way on my jump page there is a link to a Visitation Index, supposedly indexing ALL visitations, where you can find all the pages with this surname.
-
WJhonson
Re: Humphrey KENT
<<In a message dated 08/07/07 13:38:34 Pacific Standard Time, LeBateman@att.net writes:
He married Joane ARUNDEL. They had two sons
William & Henry. I have no idea when these sons were born, but they died
1680 and 1665. Info was given to me by John Kent. I have no idea how
accurate it is. I assume it is fairly accurate. >>
----------------------
Possibly a bad assumption.
First do a google search just to see if anyone else has this couple whatsoever.
This does not prove they existed, it only proves that someone thinks it.
Second run the couple on the Ancestral File at http://www.familysearch.org just to see if they have them, or not. If they don't it could be a red flag.
Third run them on WorldConnect at http://www.rootsweb.com. See if anyone has any useful source on their existence, children, dates, etc. See especially if people give wildly conflicting dates, that's a flag that perhaps means "no one knows".
These things are all free to try. It's a good way to "test" whether something is believed or not. (Not whether its accurate or proven of course.)
I.E. it's a negative test, not a positive one.
-----------------
Name combinations like Kent with Arundel are a bit suspicious, they might easily lead to false connections.
Try the couple *as* a couple in google books by the example
"Humphrey Kent" "Joan Arundel"
with the quotation marks (which means *this exact phrase*)
Tell us your results.
Will
He married Joane ARUNDEL. They had two sons
William & Henry. I have no idea when these sons were born, but they died
1680 and 1665. Info was given to me by John Kent. I have no idea how
accurate it is. I assume it is fairly accurate. >>
----------------------
Possibly a bad assumption.
First do a google search just to see if anyone else has this couple whatsoever.
This does not prove they existed, it only proves that someone thinks it.
Second run the couple on the Ancestral File at http://www.familysearch.org just to see if they have them, or not. If they don't it could be a red flag.
Third run them on WorldConnect at http://www.rootsweb.com. See if anyone has any useful source on their existence, children, dates, etc. See especially if people give wildly conflicting dates, that's a flag that perhaps means "no one knows".
These things are all free to try. It's a good way to "test" whether something is believed or not. (Not whether its accurate or proven of course.)
I.E. it's a negative test, not a positive one.
-----------------
Name combinations like Kent with Arundel are a bit suspicious, they might easily lead to false connections.
Try the couple *as* a couple in google books by the example
"Humphrey Kent" "Joan Arundel"
with the quotation marks (which means *this exact phrase*)
Tell us your results.
Will
-
WJhonson
Re: Humphrey KENT
http://books.google.com/books?id=gYteTh ... CmJNgG4-E0
"admitted to Christs Hospital age 5 [in 1608]", "1617 sent to his mother in Virginia"
Was 5 a normal age to be apprenticed? Or does the above mean he was an orphan ?
"admitted to Christs Hospital age 5 [in 1608]", "1617 sent to his mother in Virginia"
Was 5 a normal age to be apprenticed? Or does the above mean he was an orphan ?
-
John Plant
Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
The method of applying genetics to a single surname was pioneered by
Bryan Sykes. A Google Scholar search on "non paternity events" is a
quick and easy place to start. Btw, I seem to remember that "non
paternity events" was originally thought to be the better term because
"non" means "negative result" from a genetic test. To that extent,
"false paternity event" is a genealogist's fudge.
(a) not I, sir; (b) depends what you mean by "this type of study"; it
seems there are various approaches to estimating "fpe rates" for various
popluations, perhaps not all of them very "scientific". Perhaps looking
up what the mother said might be one of them
Perhaps the thread should be changed to "Estimating/evaluating fpe rates
for various populations"; but, unfortunately, I do not have the time to
get into that, at least not just at the moment.
John
In a message dated 8/7/2007 2:03:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:
Applying the rule of parsimony, the simplest model of the available
experimental data is a modal or single-ancestor surname with quite a
low
fpe rate.
Perhaps you are saying that science isn't reasonable at all?
----------------
A scientist would start by describing their set and how they were obtained.
Have you done that part?
The method of applying genetics to a single surname was pioneered by
Bryan Sykes. A Google Scholar search on "non paternity events" is a
quick and easy place to start. Btw, I seem to remember that "non
paternity events" was originally thought to be the better term because
"non" means "negative result" from a genetic test. To that extent,
"false paternity event" is a genealogist's fudge.
And then a scientist would discuss the errors that can come up when you
have a non-randomized set, a non-double-blind study, and a chief
scientist who has a particular point-of-view at the outset.
That would be a good start.
The simplest model is not a single-ancestor, the simplest model is that
there is nothing that can be said about the data. Nothing is always
simpler than something.
Stepping up from that, you could say "of the people who have submitted
their DNA we can say..."
But you keep trying to describe the entire population set, and you
simply cannot from this type of study.
(a) not I, sir; (b) depends what you mean by "this type of study"; it
seems there are various approaches to estimating "fpe rates" for various
popluations, perhaps not all of them very "scientific". Perhaps looking
up what the mother said might be one of them
Perhaps the thread should be changed to "Estimating/evaluating fpe rates
for various populations"; but, unfortunately, I do not have the time to
get into that, at least not just at the moment.
Will Johnson
John
-
The Highlander
Re: Ynglingatal Was: Plantagenet Ancestry
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:53:53 GMT, "Alan Crozier"
<name1.name2@telia.com> wrote:
Absolutely not! In fact I don't go to the bathroom at all. Instead, as
befits a direct descendant of the God Freyr, I have everything removed
by caesarean section in early Spring and donate my offering to the
Chelsea Flower Show, where elderly tradition bearers from Raumarike
hand-model it into three-quarter life-sized garden gnomes, or trolls
as we call them before a rapt audience of onlookers, while I stroll
around in my Viking helmet making witty remarks like "Kan du snakke
gammel Norsk?". (Do you speak old Norse?) and "Du ha bra bryster - bli
med meg!" (You have nice tits - follow me!) Needless to say, the crowd
laps it up.
The trolls are hardened by a special expoxy gel squeezed from rare
Lappland seagulls found only in coastal Lapland, surprisingly, painted
in bold colours and sold to members of the English middleclass who
proudly position them in their gardens, next to the obligatory
mini-pond with the withered lily pads and the two sickly-looking
goldfish. For another £5, a revolving flashing light can be installed
to keep cats and the homeless away from the goldfish.
There was tremendous excitement two years ago when Her Majesty paused
by the exhibit and examined one of the trolls with avid interest. It
was rumoured that a loyal retainer from her entourage slipped back
later and purchased two for the gardens at Sandringham, but as I
always refuse to involve myself with the horror of commerce, I cannot
confirm or deny the rumour.
However, it would be a wonderful boost for my social standing if I
were able to display a small plaque affixed to my colostomy at dinner
parties, proudly announcing, "By Royal Appointment"!
And, indeed, regarding your enquiry about the Eysteinian complaint, I
have been known to attatch a small Norwegian bagpipe to the wonder
baggie during the more lively parties and entertain the guests with
medieval tunes from Tromso, always a popular item, apart from the
unfortunate smell that seems to accompany anything played in A flat,
or as Prince Charles remarked, "A Flatulence" - dutiful laughter all
round, bless his elephantine jug-like ears.
Currently. a small, discreet stamp on the underside of each troll
warrants it as a genuine Raumarike hand-shaped artifact, and indeed in
recent years there has been more demand than I can supply.
This is why I have been hanging around soc.culture.medieval in the
hope of picking up a partner who can help me meet demand. In
particular I am hoping to persuade Mr. Hines to join me in this
cultural venture as all those I have discreetly contacted have assured
me that he is an unlimited source of the required building material.
The Highlander
Tilgibh smucaid air do làmhan,
togaibh a' bhratach dhubh agus
toisichibh a' geàrradh na sgòrnanan!
<name1.name2@telia.com> wrote:
"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:5t1hb3lf5s2v1ltmf13suls1krp3jbs9ma@4ax.com...
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:42:45 GMT, "Alan Crozier"
name1.name2@telia.com> wrote:
"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:i7vdb3pib22qv5ch9uipjkoddm1pul7q5i@4ax.com...
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 20:15:49 GMT, "Alan Crozier"
name1.name2@telia.com> wrote:
"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:ikh9b39ksaehb07eqqbci78btupoqiigl4@4ax.com...
On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 10:31:18 +0200, "Soren Larsen"
Wagnijo@yahoo.youknowwhere> wrote:
The Highlander wrote:
Here's Rolf "the Ganger"'s lineage:
King Ingiald "Ill-Ruler" 7th C, Uppsala, Sweden
Olaf "Tree-Hewer", King of Wermaland, Norway, ?710
Halfdan "Whiteleg", King of the Norway Upplanders, early 8th
C.
Eystein "The Fart" King in Raumarike, Norway, 8th C.
(Raumarike
still
exists as a village, about 15 km south of Oslo).
Halfdan "The Stingy", King in Vestfold, 8th C.
(The tree continues with Godfrey, "The Proud, King in
Vestfold,
Raumarike, Vestmarar, k. 810. etc. but Halfdan the Stingy's
younger
son Ivarr, Jarl of the Upplanders had a son, Eystein, Jarl of
the
Upplanders and his son, Ranald "The Wise" Jarl of Möre,
murdered
894
was the father of Rolf "the Ganger", Count of Rouen, d. 927,
who
was
the ancestor of the Dukes of Normandy and the Kings of
England.
I think I've got all that right - hope it helps!
The worst blunder seems to be your acceptance of the
connection in Ynglingatal between the Swedish Ynglingar
and the Norwegian "Ynglingar". Then there is the matter
of which area was the heartland of the norwegian"ynglingar";½
Vestfold or Oppland?.
Finally there is the matter of Ynglingatal's dating and
context,
allthough the prevailing opinion indeed seems to be that it
is a norwegian work from the late 9th c and not an
icelandic work from the 12th c.
Soren Larsen
Unfortunately the Scottish herald who prepared the above is now
dead,
or I would advise him of your comments as it purports to record
my
father's ancestry.
The Scottish herald simply took this geneaology from Ynglinga
Saga,
the
first section of Snorri Sturluson's Heimskringla.
I have been thinking for some days about your comments and would
like
to raise a couple of points about them.
Ynglingatal is attributed to the Norwegian 9th century skald
Þjóðólfr
of Hvinir. As you know of course, it's the original saga of how the
gods arrived in Scandinavia and how Freyr founded the Swedish
Yngling
dynasty at Uppsala.
Snorri wrote his version in the 12th c as that was the period of
his
lifetime, and if saga and myth of the Scandinavians are anything
like
the sagas and myths of the Irish and Scottish Gaels and the Nishga
people of British Columbia, then he would have copied them
accurately
as they would have probably still existed in folk memory in their
original form as far as the salient details were concerned.
Like just about any medieval writer, Snorri was capable of inventing
things. Most scholars accept for example that his account of the
immigration from Asia is his own invention, based on a learned pun,
the
similarity of the name Asia and the word As meaning a god.
So, given the above, what are your grounds for implying that the
first
section of Snorri Sturluson's Heimskringla is not a reliable
source?
Even if Snorri passed on the stories faithfully, it does not mean
that
the stories are reliable historical accounts. I don't believe, for
instance, that the early kings of Norway were really descended from a
god called Freyr.
It seems to me that unless you have an alternative source which
contradicts the Ynglinga Saga, you cannot dismiss (by implication)
Snorri Sturluson's account? and thefrom, the Scottish herald's use
of
them, in particular because the herald was honest enough to
describe
Snorri's version as "conjectural".
I bring this up because in my opinion, the herald was a man of
unimpeachable probity, and if Ynglingatal and Snorri's version were
the only two references available; implying that he simply "lifted"
them is in effect an ad hominem attack on his integrity; a matter
of
considerable importance in the culture in which I was brought up.
It seems to me that he follows Snorri's version very closely, with
the
addition of some dates and geographical info. I said that the herald
"took" the genealogy from Snorri. The more negative sounding word
"lifted" is yours. There's nothing wrong with using primary sources.
I
just pointed out what the herald's ultimate primary source was.
My immediate reaction to your comments was that I was being brushed
off as someone unworthy to be treated with other than
condescension,
Sorry, that's one of the dangers of the Usenet medium. My brevity was
not intended as hostility.
which I felt was unfair, as in fact as I happen to be an
intelligent
person who has been led to understand by various people in the
field
of intelligence testing that if I do not understand something, the
only possible reason is that it has either been improperly
explained
to me or obfuscated for the source's personal reasons.
I realize that Snorri lived some three hundred years after the
original Ynglingatal was written down, but I am dubious about the
implication that Snorri's account may be inaccurate, imaginary or
invented?
I am dubious about all ancient and medieval genealogies that trace
dynasties or tribes back to legendary or divine ancestors, to heroes
of
the Trojan War or sons of Noah.
The fact that "prevailing opinion" is that Ynglingatal's dating and
context seems to be that it is a Norwegian work from the late 9th c
and not an Icelandic work from the 12th c. obviolusly suggest that
as
it is closer to the original events, and unless Snorri Sturluson
was
known to reinvent events, the reference to the possibility of it
having been an Icelandic work created 300 years later seems to be
immaterial in terms of certifying or denying its authenticity;
given
of course that Snorri did not add his own thoughts or speculations
and
portray them as amended fact.
I am writing this post at close to 5.00 am as my time seems to have
been eaten up by other matters, so if I have not been clear in my
review of your facts, I apologize on the grounds that I have worked
a
long day and have another ahead of me.
Hope you've had a good sleep by the time you read this.
Alan
A good four hours! Thank you for your courtesy and please forgive for
my peremptory tone.
No problem. I must have sounded just as peremptory.
Incidentally, one of the kings in the genealogy above is Eystein Fart.
An Internet search reveals that lots of people claim him as an ancestor.
There are also people who explain the epithet as the Norwegian word
"fart" meaning speed. E.g.
http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bi ... &id=I16165
and under F in this list of royal nicknames:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mo ... nickname#F
These are just some examples of the copious misinformation you can find
on the net. This euphemistic explanation is impossible for two reasons.
First, the word Norwegian "fart" is a much later loan from German.
Second, the oldest source, I think, where this name appears is the
interpolated Prologue to Íslendingabók, where he is called Eysteinn
fretr, which indeed suggests that he let rip a lot. Snorri does not give
him this flatulent epithet.
Have you inherited the complaint?
Alan
Absolutely not! In fact I don't go to the bathroom at all. Instead, as
befits a direct descendant of the God Freyr, I have everything removed
by caesarean section in early Spring and donate my offering to the
Chelsea Flower Show, where elderly tradition bearers from Raumarike
hand-model it into three-quarter life-sized garden gnomes, or trolls
as we call them before a rapt audience of onlookers, while I stroll
around in my Viking helmet making witty remarks like "Kan du snakke
gammel Norsk?". (Do you speak old Norse?) and "Du ha bra bryster - bli
med meg!" (You have nice tits - follow me!) Needless to say, the crowd
laps it up.
The trolls are hardened by a special expoxy gel squeezed from rare
Lappland seagulls found only in coastal Lapland, surprisingly, painted
in bold colours and sold to members of the English middleclass who
proudly position them in their gardens, next to the obligatory
mini-pond with the withered lily pads and the two sickly-looking
goldfish. For another £5, a revolving flashing light can be installed
to keep cats and the homeless away from the goldfish.
There was tremendous excitement two years ago when Her Majesty paused
by the exhibit and examined one of the trolls with avid interest. It
was rumoured that a loyal retainer from her entourage slipped back
later and purchased two for the gardens at Sandringham, but as I
always refuse to involve myself with the horror of commerce, I cannot
confirm or deny the rumour.
However, it would be a wonderful boost for my social standing if I
were able to display a small plaque affixed to my colostomy at dinner
parties, proudly announcing, "By Royal Appointment"!
And, indeed, regarding your enquiry about the Eysteinian complaint, I
have been known to attatch a small Norwegian bagpipe to the wonder
baggie during the more lively parties and entertain the guests with
medieval tunes from Tromso, always a popular item, apart from the
unfortunate smell that seems to accompany anything played in A flat,
or as Prince Charles remarked, "A Flatulence" - dutiful laughter all
round, bless his elephantine jug-like ears.
Currently. a small, discreet stamp on the underside of each troll
warrants it as a genuine Raumarike hand-shaped artifact, and indeed in
recent years there has been more demand than I can supply.
This is why I have been hanging around soc.culture.medieval in the
hope of picking up a partner who can help me meet demand. In
particular I am hoping to persuade Mr. Hines to join me in this
cultural venture as all those I have discreetly contacted have assured
me that he is an unlimited source of the required building material.
The Highlander
Tilgibh smucaid air do làmhan,
togaibh a' bhratach dhubh agus
toisichibh a' geàrradh na sgòrnanan!
-
Alan Crozier
Re: Ynglingatal Was: Plantagenet Ancestry
"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:puejb3p0dfjcokkf1ge685lshtojr751pr@4ax.com...
I'm not sure how much of that I should believe...
That last bit is true. He's been in my killfile for a long time, but
here in shm I see plenty of his manure at nth hand.
Alan
news:puejb3p0dfjcokkf1ge685lshtojr751pr@4ax.com...
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:53:53 GMT, "Alan Crozier"
name1.name2@telia.com> wrote:
"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:5t1hb3lf5s2v1ltmf13suls1krp3jbs9ma@4ax.com...
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:42:45 GMT, "Alan Crozier"
name1.name2@telia.com> wrote:
"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:i7vdb3pib22qv5ch9uipjkoddm1pul7q5i@4ax.com...
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 20:15:49 GMT, "Alan Crozier"
name1.name2@telia.com> wrote:
"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:ikh9b39ksaehb07eqqbci78btupoqiigl4@4ax.com...
On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 10:31:18 +0200, "Soren Larsen"
Wagnijo@yahoo.youknowwhere> wrote:
The Highlander wrote:
Here's Rolf "the Ganger"'s lineage:
King Ingiald "Ill-Ruler" 7th C, Uppsala, Sweden
Olaf "Tree-Hewer", King of Wermaland, Norway, ?710
Halfdan "Whiteleg", King of the Norway Upplanders, early
8th
C.
Eystein "The Fart" King in Raumarike, Norway, 8th C.
(Raumarike
still
exists as a village, about 15 km south of Oslo).
Halfdan "The Stingy", King in Vestfold, 8th C.
(The tree continues with Godfrey, "The Proud, King in
Vestfold,
Raumarike, Vestmarar, k. 810. etc. but Halfdan the
Stingy's
younger
son Ivarr, Jarl of the Upplanders had a son, Eystein, Jarl
of
the
Upplanders and his son, Ranald "The Wise" Jarl of Möre,
murdered
894
was the father of Rolf "the Ganger", Count of Rouen, d.
927,
who
was
the ancestor of the Dukes of Normandy and the Kings of
England.
I think I've got all that right - hope it helps!
The worst blunder seems to be your acceptance of the
connection in Ynglingatal between the Swedish Ynglingar
and the Norwegian "Ynglingar". Then there is the matter
of which area was the heartland of the
norwegian"ynglingar";½
Vestfold or Oppland?.
Finally there is the matter of Ynglingatal's dating and
context,
allthough the prevailing opinion indeed seems to be that it
is a norwegian work from the late 9th c and not an
icelandic work from the 12th c.
Soren Larsen
Unfortunately the Scottish herald who prepared the above is
now
dead,
or I would advise him of your comments as it purports to
record
my
father's ancestry.
The Scottish herald simply took this geneaology from Ynglinga
Saga,
the
first section of Snorri Sturluson's Heimskringla.
I have been thinking for some days about your comments and would
like
to raise a couple of points about them.
Ynglingatal is attributed to the Norwegian 9th century skald
Þjóðólfr
of Hvinir. As you know of course, it's the original saga of how
the
gods arrived in Scandinavia and how Freyr founded the Swedish
Yngling
dynasty at Uppsala.
Snorri wrote his version in the 12th c as that was the period of
his
lifetime, and if saga and myth of the Scandinavians are anything
like
the sagas and myths of the Irish and Scottish Gaels and the
Nishga
people of British Columbia, then he would have copied them
accurately
as they would have probably still existed in folk memory in
their
original form as far as the salient details were concerned.
Like just about any medieval writer, Snorri was capable of
inventing
things. Most scholars accept for example that his account of the
immigration from Asia is his own invention, based on a learned
pun,
the
similarity of the name Asia and the word As meaning a god.
So, given the above, what are your grounds for implying that the
first
section of Snorri Sturluson's Heimskringla is not a reliable
source?
Even if Snorri passed on the stories faithfully, it does not mean
that
the stories are reliable historical accounts. I don't believe, for
instance, that the early kings of Norway were really descended
from a
god called Freyr.
It seems to me that unless you have an alternative source which
contradicts the Ynglinga Saga, you cannot dismiss (by
implication)
Snorri Sturluson's account? and thefrom, the Scottish herald's
use
of
them, in particular because the herald was honest enough to
describe
Snorri's version as "conjectural".
I bring this up because in my opinion, the herald was a man of
unimpeachable probity, and if Ynglingatal and Snorri's version
were
the only two references available; implying that he simply
"lifted"
them is in effect an ad hominem attack on his integrity; a
matter
of
considerable importance in the culture in which I was brought
up.
It seems to me that he follows Snorri's version very closely, with
the
addition of some dates and geographical info. I said that the
herald
"took" the genealogy from Snorri. The more negative sounding word
"lifted" is yours. There's nothing wrong with using primary
sources.
I
just pointed out what the herald's ultimate primary source was.
My immediate reaction to your comments was that I was being
brushed
off as someone unworthy to be treated with other than
condescension,
Sorry, that's one of the dangers of the Usenet medium. My brevity
was
not intended as hostility.
which I felt was unfair, as in fact as I happen to be an
intelligent
person who has been led to understand by various people in the
field
of intelligence testing that if I do not understand something,
the
only possible reason is that it has either been improperly
explained
to me or obfuscated for the source's personal reasons.
I realize that Snorri lived some three hundred years after the
original Ynglingatal was written down, but I am dubious about
the
implication that Snorri's account may be inaccurate, imaginary
or
invented?
I am dubious about all ancient and medieval genealogies that trace
dynasties or tribes back to legendary or divine ancestors, to
heroes
of
the Trojan War or sons of Noah.
The fact that "prevailing opinion" is that Ynglingatal's dating
and
context seems to be that it is a Norwegian work from the late
9th c
and not an Icelandic work from the 12th c. obviolusly suggest
that
as
it is closer to the original events, and unless Snorri Sturluson
was
known to reinvent events, the reference to the possibility of it
having been an Icelandic work created 300 years later seems to
be
immaterial in terms of certifying or denying its authenticity;
given
of course that Snorri did not add his own thoughts or
speculations
and
portray them as amended fact.
I am writing this post at close to 5.00 am as my time seems to
have
been eaten up by other matters, so if I have not been clear in
my
review of your facts, I apologize on the grounds that I have
worked
a
long day and have another ahead of me.
Hope you've had a good sleep by the time you read this.
Alan
A good four hours! Thank you for your courtesy and please forgive
for
my peremptory tone.
No problem. I must have sounded just as peremptory.
Incidentally, one of the kings in the genealogy above is Eystein
Fart.
An Internet search reveals that lots of people claim him as an
ancestor.
There are also people who explain the epithet as the Norwegian word
"fart" meaning speed. E.g.
http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bi ... v4is&id=I1
6165
and under F in this list of royal nicknames:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mo ... nickname#F
These are just some examples of the copious misinformation you can
find
on the net. This euphemistic explanation is impossible for two
reasons.
First, the word Norwegian "fart" is a much later loan from German.
Second, the oldest source, I think, where this name appears is the
interpolated Prologue to Íslendingabók, where he is called Eysteinn
fretr, which indeed suggests that he let rip a lot. Snorri does not
give
him this flatulent epithet.
Have you inherited the complaint?
Alan
Absolutely not! In fact I don't go to the bathroom at all. Instead, as
befits a direct descendant of the God Freyr, I have everything removed
by caesarean section in early Spring and donate my offering to the
Chelsea Flower Show, where elderly tradition bearers from Raumarike
hand-model it into three-quarter life-sized garden gnomes, or trolls
as we call them before a rapt audience of onlookers, while I stroll
around in my Viking helmet making witty remarks like "Kan du snakke
gammel Norsk?". (Do you speak old Norse?) and "Du ha bra bryster - bli
med meg!" (You have nice tits - follow me!) Needless to say, the crowd
laps it up.
The trolls are hardened by a special expoxy gel squeezed from rare
Lappland seagulls found only in coastal Lapland, surprisingly, painted
in bold colours and sold to members of the English middleclass who
proudly position them in their gardens, next to the obligatory
mini-pond with the withered lily pads and the two sickly-looking
goldfish. For another £5, a revolving flashing light can be installed
to keep cats and the homeless away from the goldfish.
There was tremendous excitement two years ago when Her Majesty paused
by the exhibit and examined one of the trolls with avid interest. It
was rumoured that a loyal retainer from her entourage slipped back
later and purchased two for the gardens at Sandringham, but as I
always refuse to involve myself with the horror of commerce, I cannot
confirm or deny the rumour.
However, it would be a wonderful boost for my social standing if I
were able to display a small plaque affixed to my colostomy at dinner
parties, proudly announcing, "By Royal Appointment"!
And, indeed, regarding your enquiry about the Eysteinian complaint, I
have been known to attatch a small Norwegian bagpipe to the wonder
baggie during the more lively parties and entertain the guests with
medieval tunes from Tromso, always a popular item, apart from the
unfortunate smell that seems to accompany anything played in A flat,
or as Prince Charles remarked, "A Flatulence" - dutiful laughter all
round, bless his elephantine jug-like ears.
Currently. a small, discreet stamp on the underside of each troll
warrants it as a genuine Raumarike hand-shaped artifact, and indeed in
recent years there has been more demand than I can supply.
I'm not sure how much of that I should believe...
This is why I have been hanging around soc.culture.medieval in the
hope of picking up a partner who can help me meet demand. In
particular I am hoping to persuade Mr. Hines to join me in this
cultural venture as all those I have discreetly contacted have assured
me that he is an unlimited source of the required building material.
That last bit is true. He's been in my killfile for a long time, but
here in shm I see plenty of his manure at nth hand.
Alan
-
The Highlander
Re: Ynglingatal Was: Plantagenet Ancestry
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:14:08 GMT, "Inger E"
<inger_e.johansson@telia.com> wrote:
and all that sort of thing. That's what makes it such a pleasure to
read Cicero et al - solid, factual details, confirmed by history and
the archeological record.
We're still trying to discover what Celts were doing in China in the
6th c BCE. The Chinese records mention that we introduced them to the
war chariot; undertones of the Assyrians.
The Scottish Declaration of Arbroath, drawn up in Arbroath Abbey on
the 6th April 1320, mentions that we came from "Upper Scythia" (around
the Dnestr River which runs through Moldova and thence to Odessa on
the Black Sea) and records from other cultures suggest that we were
the Hell's Angels of the time and rented ourselves out as mercenaries
- a tradition that existed into the 18th century.
We definitely occupied the area around modern Ankara at a later stage
and were probably the ancestors of the Galatians to whom St. Paul sent
a letter, vide the New Testament. A recent US expedition decided that
they had found the grave of King Midas and that the burial was Celtic.
Given the Scots reputation for being canny with a buck or two, the
evidence does seem overwhelming!
As a general rule, names with "Gal" in them are frequently Celtic,
like Galata (Ankara's province) in Turkey - there is still a Galata
district in Istanbul - Galicia in Spain, Galitza in Poland and of
course Portugal, which translates easily from Scots Gaelic as "Haven
of Gaels". Finally of course there is Gaul in France and the Pays de
Galles (Land of foreigners, which is what the French call Wales today.
The only places not so called are the regions in Germany and Austria
occupied by Celts - Hallstatt and the Latene Culture, including a
large settlement close to Linz; and the tiny Italian enclave of Val
d'Aosta which is without doubt a Celtic settlement that still
maintains some Celtic traditions.
Returning to the Chinese, the best guess is that they were beset by
wandering Mongol tribes and wanted them driven away from Ulumqi,an
attractive fertile region bordering the Gobi desert. The Celts did
what they were paid for, but then may have decided that they liked
Ulumqi so much that they settled there, no doubt to the chagrin of the
Chinese!
Eventually of course, much of Ireland, part of northern Scotland and
the Hebridean island chain became part of the Viking Empire for 400
years until the 1200s BCE, but to this day the place names are clearly
Norse, as are the local clan and personal names, like Torquil (Torkel)
MacNeil (Nilssen), MacAuliffe (Olafssen), MacAnders (Anderssen) etc.
The people of the Isle of Lewis, the most northerly island, still
speak Gaelic with what is (to my ear at least) clearly a Norwegian
accent, including the umlauted sounds, like "whü are yü?, also
commonly heard in Glasgow.
There's even a mountain on my home island called Trollaval. To date,
no trolls have yet revealed themselves...
The Highlander
Tilgibh smucaid air do làmhan,
togaibh a' bhratach dhubh agus
toisichibh a' geàrradh na sgòrnanan!
<inger_e.johansson@telia.com> wrote:
The Highlander <micheil@shaw.ca> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:5t1hb3lf5s2v1ltmf13suls1krp3jbs9ma@4ax.com...
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:42:45 GMT, "Alan Crozier"
name1.name2@telia.com> wrote:
"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:i7vdb3pib22qv5ch9uipjkoddm1pul7q5i@4ax.com...
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 20:15:49 GMT, "Alan Crozier"
name1.name2@telia.com> wrote:
"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:ikh9b39ksaehb07eqqbci78btupoqiigl4@4ax.com...
On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 10:31:18 +0200, "Soren Larsen"
Wagnijo@yahoo.youknowwhere> wrote:
The Highlander wrote:
Here's Rolf "the Ganger"'s lineage:
King Ingiald "Ill-Ruler" 7th C, Uppsala, Sweden
Olaf "Tree-Hewer", King of Wermaland, Norway, ?710
Halfdan "Whiteleg", King of the Norway Upplanders, early 8th C.
Eystein "The Fart" King in Raumarike, Norway, 8th C. (Raumarike
still
exists as a village, about 15 km south of Oslo).
Halfdan "The Stingy", King in Vestfold, 8th C.
(The tree continues with Godfrey, "The Proud, King in Vestfold,
Raumarike, Vestmarar, k. 810. etc. but Halfdan the Stingy's
younger
son Ivarr, Jarl of the Upplanders had a son, Eystein, Jarl of
the
Upplanders and his son, Ranald "The Wise" Jarl of Möre, murdered
894
was the father of Rolf "the Ganger", Count of Rouen, d. 927, who
was
the ancestor of the Dukes of Normandy and the Kings of England.
I think I've got all that right - hope it helps!
The worst blunder seems to be your acceptance of the
connection in Ynglingatal between the Swedish Ynglingar
and the Norwegian "Ynglingar". Then there is the matter
of which area was the heartland of the norwegian"ynglingar";½
Vestfold or Oppland?.
Finally there is the matter of Ynglingatal's dating and context,
allthough the prevailing opinion indeed seems to be that it
is a norwegian work from the late 9th c and not an
icelandic work from the 12th c.
Soren Larsen
Unfortunately the Scottish herald who prepared the above is now
dead,
or I would advise him of your comments as it purports to record my
father's ancestry.
The Scottish herald simply took this geneaology from Ynglinga Saga,
the
first section of Snorri Sturluson's Heimskringla.
I have been thinking for some days about your comments and would like
to raise a couple of points about them.
Ynglingatal is attributed to the Norwegian 9th century skald Þjóðólfr
of Hvinir. As you know of course, it's the original saga of how the
gods arrived in Scandinavia and how Freyr founded the Swedish Yngling
dynasty at Uppsala.
Snorri wrote his version in the 12th c as that was the period of his
lifetime, and if saga and myth of the Scandinavians are anything like
the sagas and myths of the Irish and Scottish Gaels and the Nishga
people of British Columbia, then he would have copied them accurately
as they would have probably still existed in folk memory in their
original form as far as the salient details were concerned.
Like just about any medieval writer, Snorri was capable of inventing
things. Most scholars accept for example that his account of the
immigration from Asia is his own invention, based on a learned pun, the
similarity of the name Asia and the word As meaning a god.
So, given the above, what are your grounds for implying that the first
section of Snorri Sturluson's Heimskringla is not a reliable source?
Even if Snorri passed on the stories faithfully, it does not mean that
the stories are reliable historical accounts. I don't believe, for
instance, that the early kings of Norway were really descended from a
god called Freyr.
It seems to me that unless you have an alternative source which
contradicts the Ynglinga Saga, you cannot dismiss (by implication)
Snorri Sturluson's account? and thefrom, the Scottish herald's use of
them, in particular because the herald was honest enough to describe
Snorri's version as "conjectural".
I bring this up because in my opinion, the herald was a man of
unimpeachable probity, and if Ynglingatal and Snorri's version were
the only two references available; implying that he simply "lifted"
them is in effect an ad hominem attack on his integrity; a matter of
considerable importance in the culture in which I was brought up.
It seems to me that he follows Snorri's version very closely, with the
addition of some dates and geographical info. I said that the herald
"took" the genealogy from Snorri. The more negative sounding word
"lifted" is yours. There's nothing wrong with using primary sources. I
just pointed out what the herald's ultimate primary source was.
Snorri isn't trustworthy when it comes to persons living more than 100 years
before his own time. However more than what's been told in these groups when
it comes to Scandinavian 8th-10th century history can be traced piece by
piece in sources from 875 AD up to 1000 AD.
More than told can also be traced back in history to 650 AD.... however
there IS a gap in contemporary documents between late 6th century up to 654
AD. Of course most of the information been lost over the centuries. But
there are over 80 still remaining annals, monestry books and others from
King Alfred the Great's Alfred's Orosius up to 1100 AD. (some older)
The best works about those days are to be found in Arabic language where
several books about the World and the persons living was written in
geographic works from 7th century. Alone they give small but essential
pieces of information due to confirming information written more than 50
years after events in different parts of Europe. Some of them give good
information for Scandinvia, Baltics and northern Russia of today.
My immediate reaction to your comments was that I was being brushed
off as someone unworthy to be treated with other than condescension,
Sorry, that's one of the dangers of the Usenet medium. My brevity was
not intended as hostility.
which I felt was unfair, as in fact as I happen to be an intelligent
person who has been led to understand by various people in the field
of intelligence testing that if I do not understand something, the
only possible reason is that it has either been improperly explained
to me or obfuscated for the source's personal reasons.
I realize that Snorri lived some three hundred years after the
original Ynglingatal was written down, but I am dubious about the
implication that Snorri's account may be inaccurate, imaginary or
invented?
I am dubious about all ancient and medieval genealogies that trace
dynasties or tribes back to legendary or divine ancestors, to heroes of
the Trojan War or sons of Noah.
The fact that "prevailing opinion" is that Ynglingatal's dating and
context seems to be that it is a Norwegian work from the late 9th c
and not an Icelandic work from the 12th c. obviolusly suggest that as
it is closer to the original events, and unless Snorri Sturluson was
known to reinvent events, the reference to the possibility of it
having been an Icelandic work created 300 years later seems to be
immaterial in terms of certifying or denying its authenticity; given
of course that Snorri did not add his own thoughts or speculations and
portray them as amended fact.
That A -> B doesn't necessarily mean that all B comes from A.
One of the logic problems involved in Snorri's work. Now the Norwegian work
was put together in 1180's with parts of it going back to early 1000's. For
information re. Norway north of Bergen it's hard to find good documentation
for persons and events before 900 AD.
Inger E
Yes, we have the same problem with Gaelic culture - the mists of time
and all that sort of thing. That's what makes it such a pleasure to
read Cicero et al - solid, factual details, confirmed by history and
the archeological record.
We're still trying to discover what Celts were doing in China in the
6th c BCE. The Chinese records mention that we introduced them to the
war chariot; undertones of the Assyrians.
The Scottish Declaration of Arbroath, drawn up in Arbroath Abbey on
the 6th April 1320, mentions that we came from "Upper Scythia" (around
the Dnestr River which runs through Moldova and thence to Odessa on
the Black Sea) and records from other cultures suggest that we were
the Hell's Angels of the time and rented ourselves out as mercenaries
- a tradition that existed into the 18th century.
We definitely occupied the area around modern Ankara at a later stage
and were probably the ancestors of the Galatians to whom St. Paul sent
a letter, vide the New Testament. A recent US expedition decided that
they had found the grave of King Midas and that the burial was Celtic.
Given the Scots reputation for being canny with a buck or two, the
evidence does seem overwhelming!
As a general rule, names with "Gal" in them are frequently Celtic,
like Galata (Ankara's province) in Turkey - there is still a Galata
district in Istanbul - Galicia in Spain, Galitza in Poland and of
course Portugal, which translates easily from Scots Gaelic as "Haven
of Gaels". Finally of course there is Gaul in France and the Pays de
Galles (Land of foreigners, which is what the French call Wales today.
The only places not so called are the regions in Germany and Austria
occupied by Celts - Hallstatt and the Latene Culture, including a
large settlement close to Linz; and the tiny Italian enclave of Val
d'Aosta which is without doubt a Celtic settlement that still
maintains some Celtic traditions.
Returning to the Chinese, the best guess is that they were beset by
wandering Mongol tribes and wanted them driven away from Ulumqi,an
attractive fertile region bordering the Gobi desert. The Celts did
what they were paid for, but then may have decided that they liked
Ulumqi so much that they settled there, no doubt to the chagrin of the
Chinese!
Eventually of course, much of Ireland, part of northern Scotland and
the Hebridean island chain became part of the Viking Empire for 400
years until the 1200s BCE, but to this day the place names are clearly
Norse, as are the local clan and personal names, like Torquil (Torkel)
MacNeil (Nilssen), MacAuliffe (Olafssen), MacAnders (Anderssen) etc.
The people of the Isle of Lewis, the most northerly island, still
speak Gaelic with what is (to my ear at least) clearly a Norwegian
accent, including the umlauted sounds, like "whü are yü?, also
commonly heard in Glasgow.
There's even a mountain on my home island called Trollaval. To date,
no trolls have yet revealed themselves...
The Highlander
Tilgibh smucaid air do làmhan,
togaibh a' bhratach dhubh agus
toisichibh a' geàrradh na sgòrnanan!
-
Charani
Re: Quintin Publications: Genealogy and Family History Super
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:09:49 -0700, pj.evans wrote:
Advertising is advertising is advertising, no matter how it's done.
It makes no difference if it isn't a "particular publication" or not.
It's still spam.
It also doesn't matter whether they are being "obnoxious" or not.
It's still spam.
All advertising is "a simple announcement". It's also still spam and
this is not the place for it.
A rose is a weed if it's growing where it isn't wanted.
They aren't selling a particular publication, so it isn't
'advertising' in the sense of some of the other stuff that shows up.
Thay aren't being obnoxious about it; this looks more like a simple
announcement.
Advertising is advertising is advertising, no matter how it's done.
It makes no difference if it isn't a "particular publication" or not.
It's still spam.
It also doesn't matter whether they are being "obnoxious" or not.
It's still spam.
All advertising is "a simple announcement". It's also still spam and
this is not the place for it.
A rose is a weed if it's growing where it isn't wanted.
-
Alan Crozier
Re: Ynglingatal Was: Plantagenet Ancestry
"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:shkjb31u3dg6hjtemlomne9t8ivmsllli2@4ax.com...
<big snips>
Does anyone know the earliest evidence for the identification of Scots
and Scythians? And when did Andrew, the apostle of the Scythians, become
adopted as the patron saint of the Scots?
They're all here on the Isle of Usenet now.
Alan
news:shkjb31u3dg6hjtemlomne9t8ivmsllli2@4ax.com...
<big snips>
The Scottish Declaration of Arbroath, drawn up in Arbroath Abbey on
the 6th April 1320, mentions that we came from "Upper Scythia" (around
the Dnestr River which runs through Moldova and thence to Odessa on
the Black Sea) and records from other cultures suggest that we were
the Hell's Angels of the time and rented ourselves out as mercenaries
- a tradition that existed into the 18th century.
Does anyone know the earliest evidence for the identification of Scots
and Scythians? And when did Andrew, the apostle of the Scythians, become
adopted as the patron saint of the Scots?
There's even a mountain on my home island called Trollaval. To date,
no trolls have yet revealed themselves...
They're all here on the Isle of Usenet now.
Alan
-
Gjest
Re: Ynglingatal Was: Plantagenet Ancestry
In a message dated 8/8/2007 8:20:29 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
micheil@shaw.ca writes:
We're still trying to discover what Celts were doing in China in the
6th c BCE. The Chinese records mention that we introduced them to the
war chariot; undertones of the Assyrians. >>
-------------------------
It won't help your case to drift from fantasy into utter lunacy.
Will "the Cop" Johnson
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
micheil@shaw.ca writes:
We're still trying to discover what Celts were doing in China in the
6th c BCE. The Chinese records mention that we introduced them to the
war chariot; undertones of the Assyrians. >>
-------------------------
It won't help your case to drift from fantasy into utter lunacy.
Will "the Cop" Johnson
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-
Gjest
Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve
My main point remains the same.
You can make statement about your dataset, but until you're ready to
meta-discuss the data set itself, you cannot make statements about the general
population of Plants.
That's a fairly widely followed scientific method. (Which allows me
wiggle-room in case in the off-chance you're able to find a *scientist* who doesn't
discuss their dataset in relation to how it was obtained, who it represents,
and more importantly who it potentially does not.)
Will Johnson
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
You can make statement about your dataset, but until you're ready to
meta-discuss the data set itself, you cannot make statements about the general
population of Plants.
That's a fairly widely followed scientific method. (Which allows me
wiggle-room in case in the off-chance you're able to find a *scientist* who doesn't
discuss their dataset in relation to how it was obtained, who it represents,
and more importantly who it potentially does not.)
Will Johnson
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-
WJhonson
Re: Stephen Goodyear's alleged royal descent
<<In a message dated 08/08/07 09:05:41 Pacific Standard Time, mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
married Margaret Fitzgerald [here quaintly called
'de Windsor'] and had a younger son, Thomas, who was killed in 1532
during his father's feud with the Earl of Kildare - see ODNB, sub
Piers Butler. >>
---------------
I wandered too far in my last post. I meant to remark that the DNB(1922) calls the article "PIERCE Butler" just in case someone else is trying to find it.
Will
married Margaret Fitzgerald [here quaintly called
'de Windsor'] and had a younger son, Thomas, who was killed in 1532
during his father's feud with the Earl of Kildare - see ODNB, sub
Piers Butler. >>
---------------
I wandered too far in my last post. I meant to remark that the DNB(1922) calls the article "PIERCE Butler" just in case someone else is trying to find it.
Will
-
Saluzzo
RE: Italian site for research
Wrong. The site you indicated below is no longer available.
Regards
Adrian f. Withaker
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Finn Josef Skeel
Holbek
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 8:47 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Italian site for research
"Adrian Whitaker" <arsandri@katamail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:mailman.143.1186593827.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Hmm.., the original pages are here; http://www.sardimpex.com/index.htm
Regards Finn
http://finnholbek.dk/genealogy/
-------------------------------
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
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor:
Comunicazione NON verbale: impara il linguaggio del corpo e ottieni successo nella vita e negli affari
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6931&d=8-8
Regards
Adrian f. Withaker
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Finn Josef Skeel
Holbek
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 8:47 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Italian site for research
"Adrian Whitaker" <arsandri@katamail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:mailman.143.1186593827.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
http://www.genmarenostrum.com/> http://www.genmarenostrum.com
This is a good site for Italian Research
Adrian f. Withaker
Hmm.., the original pages are here; http://www.sardimpex.com/index.htm
Regards Finn
http://finnholbek.dk/genealogy/
-------------------------------
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
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor:
Comunicazione NON verbale: impara il linguaggio del corpo e ottieni successo nella vita e negli affari
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6931&d=8-8
-
WJhonson
Re: Stephen Goodyear's alleged royal descent
<<<> +Maltilda (Maud) de Montgomery (b. 1039 Normandy, France)
William did not die IN 1140.
Rather he was living in 1140
He died as a monk, at Bermondsey *some time AFTER* 1140
How long after? We don't know.
Will Johnson
William de Montaigne (b. 1062 Cornwall, England; d. 1140)
+Isabel FitzRichard De Clare (b. 1080)
Aldhelm de Montigne (b. 1085)
---------------------
William did not die IN 1140.
Rather he was living in 1140
He died as a monk, at Bermondsey *some time AFTER* 1140
How long after? We don't know.
Will Johnson
-
Finn Josef Skeel Holbek
Re: Italian site for research
"Saluzzo" <saluzzos@email.it> skrev i en meddelelse
news:mailman.157.1186604116.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Yes it is, if you create a login:
http://www.sardimpex.com/registrazione/login.asp
Regards Finn
http://finnholbek.dk/genealogy/
news:mailman.157.1186604116.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Wrong. The site you indicated below is no longer available.
Regards
Adrian f. Withaker
Yes it is, if you create a login:
http://www.sardimpex.com/registrazione/login.asp
Regards Finn
http://finnholbek.dk/genealogy/
-
Adrian Whitaker
RE: Italian site for research
No is not. I tried many times and got ... no reply. Some as a lot of
peoples I known. No one got a single access. No login available. It's a
crap.
Regards
Adrian f. Withaker
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Finn Josef Skeel
Holbek
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 10:38 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Italian site for research
"Saluzzo" <saluzzos@email.it> skrev i en meddelelse
news:mailman.157.1186604116.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Yes it is, if you create a login:
http://www.sardimpex.com/registrazione/login.asp
Regards Finn
http://finnholbek.dk/genealogy/
-------------------------------
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
peoples I known. No one got a single access. No login available. It's a
crap.
Regards
Adrian f. Withaker
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Finn Josef Skeel
Holbek
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 10:38 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Italian site for research
"Saluzzo" <saluzzos@email.it> skrev i en meddelelse
news:mailman.157.1186604116.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Wrong. The site you indicated below is no longer available. Regards
Adrian f. Withaker
Yes it is, if you create a login:
http://www.sardimpex.com/registrazione/login.asp
Regards Finn
http://finnholbek.dk/genealogy/
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Italian site for research
"Saluzzo" <saluzzos@email.it> wrote in message
news:mailman.157.1186604116.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Another alias for the poster "Saluzzo" - of course, the only genuine part of
this name is "f. Wit".
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.157.1186604116.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Wrong. The site you indicated below is no longer available.
Regards
Adrian f. Withaker
Another alias for the poster "Saluzzo" - of course, the only genuine part of
this name is "f. Wit".
Peter Stewart
-
Cesare Patrignani
Re: Italian site for research
You are wrong...I registered ant the site works perfectly....
Cesare patrignani
"Adrian Whitaker" <arsandri@katamail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:mailman.159.1186606936.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Cesare patrignani
"Adrian Whitaker" <arsandri@katamail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:mailman.159.1186606936.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
No is not. I tried many times and got ... no reply. Some as a lot of
peoples I known. No one got a single access. No login available. It's a
crap.
Regards
Adrian f. Withaker
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Finn Josef Skeel
Holbek
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 10:38 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Italian site for research
"Saluzzo" <saluzzos@email.it> skrev i en meddelelse
news:mailman.157.1186604116.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Wrong. The site you indicated below is no longer available. Regards
Adrian f. Withaker
Yes it is, if you create a login:
http://www.sardimpex.com/registrazione/login.asp
Regards Finn
http://finnholbek.dk/genealogy/
-------------------------------
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
-
Silvia Denis
RE: Italian site for research
I like the site http://www.genmarenostrum.com. I found it very useful in many
occasions for genealogical researches.
Silvia Denis
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Adrian Whitaker
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 7:23 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Italian site for research
<http://www.genmarenostrum.com/> http://www.genmarenostrum.com
This is a good site for Italian Research
Adrian f. Withaker
-------------------------------
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
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor:
In REGALO 'Meravigliosa Creatura' la super hit di GIANNA NANNINI
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6615&d=9-8
occasions for genealogical researches.
Silvia Denis
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Adrian Whitaker
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 7:23 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Italian site for research
<http://www.genmarenostrum.com/> http://www.genmarenostrum.com
This is a good site for Italian Research
Adrian f. Withaker
-------------------------------
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
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor:
In REGALO 'Meravigliosa Creatura' la super hit di GIANNA NANNINI
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6615&d=9-8
-
WJhonson
Re: The Visitation of Shropshire, Taken in the Year 1623 by
<<In a message dated 08/08/07 16:03:44 Pacific Standard Time, jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:
The 1623 visitation of Shropshire was published as vols. 28-29 of the
Harleian Society's visitation series and is now available now on CD - and
apparently also on Google Books, although I haven't checked that. See the
list of visitations online at the Medieval English Genealogy website for
links to the two volumes.
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/sou ... ions.shtml >>
---------------------
Thanks John I've now updated the link to that Vis
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=cAJX_DXyiDIC
on my page
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... es#England
Will Johnson
The 1623 visitation of Shropshire was published as vols. 28-29 of the
Harleian Society's visitation series and is now available now on CD - and
apparently also on Google Books, although I haven't checked that. See the
list of visitations online at the Medieval English Genealogy website for
links to the two volumes.
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/sou ... ions.shtml >>
---------------------
Thanks John I've now updated the link to that Vis
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=cAJX_DXyiDIC
on my page
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... es#England
Will Johnson
-
WJhonson
Re: The Visitation of Shropshire, Taken in the Year 1623 by
<<In a message dated 08/08/07 16:03:44 Pacific Standard Time, jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:
The 1623 visitation of Shropshire was published as vols. 28-29 of the
Harleian Society's visitation series and is now available now on CD - and
apparently also on Google Books, although I haven't checked that. See the
list of visitations online at the Medieval English Genealogy website for
links to the two volumes.
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/sou ... ions.shtml >>
---------------------
Thanks John I've now updated the link to that Vis
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=cAJX_DXyiDIC
on my page
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... es#England
Will Johnson
The 1623 visitation of Shropshire was published as vols. 28-29 of the
Harleian Society's visitation series and is now available now on CD - and
apparently also on Google Books, although I haven't checked that. See the
list of visitations online at the Medieval English Genealogy website for
links to the two volumes.
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/sou ... ions.shtml >>
---------------------
Thanks John I've now updated the link to that Vis
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=cAJX_DXyiDIC
on my page
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... es#England
Will Johnson
-
John Higgins
Re: The Visitation of Shropshire, Taken in the Year 1623 by
Almost, but not quite....
There are two volumes in that Visitation - see the Medieval English
Genealogy website. Your link only references one of the two.
Google Books has its usual poor citations for both volumes - I originally
typed "Goofle Books", which is probably more apt.
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: The Visitation of Shropshire,Taken in the Year 1623 by Robert
Tresswell
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
There are two volumes in that Visitation - see the Medieval English
Genealogy website. Your link only references one of the two.
Google Books has its usual poor citations for both volumes - I originally
typed "Goofle Books", which is probably more apt.
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: The Visitation of Shropshire,Taken in the Year 1623 by Robert
Tresswell
In a message dated 08/08/07 16:03:44 Pacific Standard Time,
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:
The 1623 visitation of Shropshire was published as vols. 28-29 of the
Harleian Society's visitation series and is now available now on CD - and
apparently also on Google Books, although I haven't checked that. See the
list of visitations online at the Medieval English Genealogy website for
links to the two volumes.
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/sou ... ions.shtml
---------------------
Thanks John I've now updated the link to that Vis
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=cAJX_DXyiDIC
on my page
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... es#England
Will Johnson
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Tony Ingham
Re: Mother of Roger de Clifford d. 1282
Peter,
As a result of further research I grudgingly concede that :
1. Roger de Clifford did die before 3 Apr 1286.
2. Domina de Clifford called 'comitissa' was buried at Worcester
Cathedral on tertio Kal. Decembris 1301.
I haven't yet thrown the towel in.
If you could respond with the dates of Mahaut's marriage to Philippe of
Flanders and her burial in Naples perhaps they might help me resolve the
situation.
Tony Ingham
Peter Stewart wrote:
As a result of further research I grudgingly concede that :
1. Roger de Clifford did die before 3 Apr 1286.
2. Domina de Clifford called 'comitissa' was buried at Worcester
Cathedral on tertio Kal. Decembris 1301.
I haven't yet thrown the towel in.
If you could respond with the dates of Mahaut's marriage to Philippe of
Flanders and her burial in Naples perhaps they might help me resolve the
situation.
Tony Ingham
Peter Stewart wrote:
"Tony Ingham" <nugget@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.96.1186455240.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Will,
It's a bit cryptic n'est ce pas.
Mathilde is the daughter of Raoul and Alix. Her mother died the next
year after her birth.
The entry for Mathilde is, roughly:
Born 1254
She espoused Phillipe de Flandre (when she became Countess de Teano)
in 1284.
She died 1303 in Naples
He died 1308
The French don't seem to be aware of her first marriage to Roger
Clifford 1272-1284+. Roger's will was written on 26 Oct 1284. When
he died is anyone's guess. If the French entry is correct I suppose
her second marriage must have taken place late in 1284. If the French
date is incorrect Roger died closer to 1286 which is the usually
accepted year.
This is incorrect, these were two different women - Sir Roger
Clifford's wife who was called countess of Loretto died in 1301 and
was buried in Worcester cathedral; Mahaut de Courtenay, countess of
Chieti (in her own right) & Teano (by marriage) died in Naples in 1303
and was buried there. Mahaut's marriage to Philippe of Flanders in
1284 took place a year or so before the death of Sir Roger Clifford,
when he was married to his mysterious countess of Loretto.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: John de Monte Alto/Montalt/Mohaute
Dear Tony, Will, John and All,
Millicent Cantilupe, we know, was the daughter of William de Cantilupe and Eve de Braose.
Tony mentions that on the death of William de Cantilupe in 1255, Eve (Braose) his widow was “assigned her dower on 24 June 1255: in part,
1/3 of Lubbestorp' [Lubbesthorpe] co. Leicester
1/3 of Oselburg' co. Warwick
1/3 of Ayton' [Eaton] co. Bedford.
These manors were, at that time, in the hands of Millicent, daughter of William de Cantilupe, and her husband John de Monte Alto. (Ref: Calendar of Close Rolls 39 Henry III. p.105)”
William de Kalna died 1255 leaving a son George his heir and lands in Wilts., Warwick, Bedford and Bucks...Eyton, fees in Mentmore town held by....Roger de Argentem.....7 hides held of Hugh de Gurnay for 1/4 fee. All the rents of 19 hides were assigned to (by) Sir William de Cantilupe to John de Montealto, with his daughter, and the rents of their mills were assigned for life to Lady Agnes de Verdun.( Cal. Of Inq. Post Mortem. PRO. Vol. I. Hen III. 1904, p.92)
According to a post by Rosie Bevan “1223, when William de Cantilupe is recorded as paying 6m for the heir of Hugo de Insula.[Yeatman, p.191]” Subject: Re: La Zouche and Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics. -- A Constable Connection? Wed, Jun 25, 2003. She also adds that the gift of Lubbesthorpe was made by Milicent in 1268 and indicates this was probably a marriage portion and not inheritance.
If the Close Rolls specifically name John Monte Alto as holding Lubesthorpe, he must have had no claim since Milicent Monte Alto Zouche gave a portion of Lubbesthorpe to William la Zouche, father of Roger in 1268 ( date which is approximately the birth date of Roger.).
This then brings me back to the question of which John Monte Alto Milicent had married. Taking a sketchy Cheshire Visitation the children of Roger Montealto, Seneschal of Chester and (m.by 1245), Cecelia D’Aubigny, sister of Hug,o were John, Robert and Blanche.
The seal affixed to a convention between John de Montalt and his wife, Eleanor de Stokeport and Richard de Stokeport is the same as that identified as Montalts of Hawarden with holdings at Prestbury. It does not seem that this John fits as husband to Milicent since he is alive in 1274+. However, who might the following be? DBW/A/A/A/9 1202-29 GRANT by John de Montalt to Walter de Lavuleye of 1 messuage with toft in vill of STAPELFORD with 2 butts called Berecroft and Linde [? Luide] at rent of 4d. p.a. Consideration: 24/-.Witnesses: Philip de Orrebi then Justiciar of Chester, Roger de Montalt, Robert de Hokenhul, Richard Brun, Henry s. of William s. of Henry, Richard s. of William. N/D. Seal, white. Parchment.
Since the Cheshire Visitation states John de Montalts sister, Blanche, married Philip Orreby junior, was this the father of Blanche’s husband and the John just preceding a brother to the Roger who married Cecelia?
According to The Record of the House of Gournay in 1265 Sir John de Gournay was holding South Wooten of lord Montalt his superior lord, John Lord Montalt. Millicent Cantilupo’s grandmother was Milicent de Gournay. Was this the husband of Milicent? Milicent seems to have had a protracted dispute with the prior of Dunstable concerning his “right of commonage at Houghton.” (Annales Monastici)
And although this has been discussed, the use of the Monte Alto name long after Milicent Cantilupe was married to Eudo la Zouche and, indeed, her IPM is Monte Alto puzzles me.
Thank you for all thoughts. Pat
Millicent Cantilupe, we know, was the daughter of William de Cantilupe and Eve de Braose.
Tony mentions that on the death of William de Cantilupe in 1255, Eve (Braose) his widow was “assigned her dower on 24 June 1255: in part,
1/3 of Lubbestorp' [Lubbesthorpe] co. Leicester
1/3 of Oselburg' co. Warwick
1/3 of Ayton' [Eaton] co. Bedford.
These manors were, at that time, in the hands of Millicent, daughter of William de Cantilupe, and her husband John de Monte Alto. (Ref: Calendar of Close Rolls 39 Henry III. p.105)”
William de Kalna died 1255 leaving a son George his heir and lands in Wilts., Warwick, Bedford and Bucks...Eyton, fees in Mentmore town held by....Roger de Argentem.....7 hides held of Hugh de Gurnay for 1/4 fee. All the rents of 19 hides were assigned to (by) Sir William de Cantilupe to John de Montealto, with his daughter, and the rents of their mills were assigned for life to Lady Agnes de Verdun.( Cal. Of Inq. Post Mortem. PRO. Vol. I. Hen III. 1904, p.92)
According to a post by Rosie Bevan “1223, when William de Cantilupe is recorded as paying 6m for the heir of Hugo de Insula.[Yeatman, p.191]” Subject: Re: La Zouche and Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics. -- A Constable Connection? Wed, Jun 25, 2003. She also adds that the gift of Lubbesthorpe was made by Milicent in 1268 and indicates this was probably a marriage portion and not inheritance.
If the Close Rolls specifically name John Monte Alto as holding Lubesthorpe, he must have had no claim since Milicent Monte Alto Zouche gave a portion of Lubbesthorpe to William la Zouche, father of Roger in 1268 ( date which is approximately the birth date of Roger.).
This then brings me back to the question of which John Monte Alto Milicent had married. Taking a sketchy Cheshire Visitation the children of Roger Montealto, Seneschal of Chester and (m.by 1245), Cecelia D’Aubigny, sister of Hug,o were John, Robert and Blanche.
The seal affixed to a convention between John de Montalt and his wife, Eleanor de Stokeport and Richard de Stokeport is the same as that identified as Montalts of Hawarden with holdings at Prestbury. It does not seem that this John fits as husband to Milicent since he is alive in 1274+. However, who might the following be? DBW/A/A/A/9 1202-29 GRANT by John de Montalt to Walter de Lavuleye of 1 messuage with toft in vill of STAPELFORD with 2 butts called Berecroft and Linde [? Luide] at rent of 4d. p.a. Consideration: 24/-.Witnesses: Philip de Orrebi then Justiciar of Chester, Roger de Montalt, Robert de Hokenhul, Richard Brun, Henry s. of William s. of Henry, Richard s. of William. N/D. Seal, white. Parchment.
Since the Cheshire Visitation states John de Montalts sister, Blanche, married Philip Orreby junior, was this the father of Blanche’s husband and the John just preceding a brother to the Roger who married Cecelia?
According to The Record of the House of Gournay in 1265 Sir John de Gournay was holding South Wooten of lord Montalt his superior lord, John Lord Montalt. Millicent Cantilupo’s grandmother was Milicent de Gournay. Was this the husband of Milicent? Milicent seems to have had a protracted dispute with the prior of Dunstable concerning his “right of commonage at Houghton.” (Annales Monastici)
And although this has been discussed, the use of the Monte Alto name long after Milicent Cantilupe was married to Eudo la Zouche and, indeed, her IPM is Monte Alto puzzles me.
Thank you for all thoughts. Pat
From: Tony Ingham <nugget@bordernet.com.au
Date: 2007/08/06 Mon AM 03:13:07 EDT
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Subject: John de Monte Alto/Montalt/Mohaute
For Pat Junkin,
On checking which lands were given to Millicent and John de Monte Alto
by her father William de Cantilupe the younger I found that William's
wife Eva was assigned her dower on 24 June 1255.
She was awarded, in part,
1/3 of Lubbestorp' [Lubbesthorpe] co. Leicester
1/3 of Oselburg' co. Warwick
1/3 of Ayton' [Eaton] co. Bedford.
These manors were, at that time, in the hands of Millicent, daughter of
William de Cantelupe, and her husband John de Monte Alto. (Ref:
Calendar of Close Rolls 39 Henry III. p.105)
Ex. 'Knights of Edward I.'
ZOUCHE, Sir William la, Kt.
He is overlord of Lobesthorp Manor, Leic., 28 Aug. 1303, etc. (Inq.)
The above indicates to me that John de Monte Alto had control of
Lubbesthorpe in 1255. In lieu of any proof to the contrary we must
assume that there was no heir of the bodies of John and Millicent alive
when Millicent died, else Lubbesthorp would have gone to him/her, rather
than the named heir of Millicent, who was William son of Eudo la Zouche
holder of Lubbesthorpe in 1303.
That's it, plain and simple. No matter what may arise, as a matter of
conjecture, from the 1270/90's, as to who was who's father, uncle, etc. etc.
Thus we have Millicent married to (1) John de Monte Alto, who assumedly
died s.p., (2) Eudo la Zouche, father of Millicent's heir William la
Zouche. This William was born Dec 1276 after Eudo and Millicent, his
wife, had livery of the moiety of the lands of her brother George de
Cantilupe on 30 May 1274.
If you read between the lines, Millicent could not have granted
Lubbesthorpe to Roger la Zouche in 52 Henry III (1267/8) if she was
still married to John de Monte Alto.
Therefore we must assume that (a) John was dead or (b) that he and
Millicent had been legally separated.
The likelihood is that Millicent and Eudo la Zouche were married at the
time of the grant. This would bring their marriage date forward about 6
years.
All the best,
Tony Ingham
-------------------------------
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 Edmund Pelham, Lord Chief Baron of the Exhequer (d 1
Thanks to Leo for spotting my typo.
Herbert the son of Sir Edmund was born "abt 1587"
This date by the way is highly likely to be one calculated from when he was granted his livery which was in 1609 and 1610 as the below documents show
Will Johnson
---------------------
East Sussex Record Office: The Danny Archives
THE DANNY ARCHIVES
Catalogue Ref. DAN
Creator(s): Dacre family of Danny Park, Hurstpierpoint, Sussex
Goring family of Wiston, Sussex
Campion family of Danny Park, Hurstpierpoint, Sussex
Courthope family of Danny Park, Hurstpierpoint, Sussex
ESTATE ARCHIVES
TITLE DEEDS: KENT
Goudhurst: Manor of Chingley and land called Shernfold
FILE - Grant of General Livery - ref. DAN/1453 - date: 11 Nov. 1609
[from Scope and Content] From (a) [Robert Cecil, 1st] Earl of Salisbury, Lord High Treasurer and Master of the King's Majesty's Court of Wards and Liveries, Sir Roger Wilbraham, kt., Surveyor of the same liveries on behalf of the King, to (b) Herbert Pelham, esq., s. and heir of Sir Edmund.
FILE - Grant of General Livery from James I to Herbert Pelham, esq. - ref. DAN/1455 - date: 28 Apr. 1610
Herbert the son of Sir Edmund was born "abt 1587"
This date by the way is highly likely to be one calculated from when he was granted his livery which was in 1609 and 1610 as the below documents show
Will Johnson
---------------------
East Sussex Record Office: The Danny Archives
THE DANNY ARCHIVES
Catalogue Ref. DAN
Creator(s): Dacre family of Danny Park, Hurstpierpoint, Sussex
Goring family of Wiston, Sussex
Campion family of Danny Park, Hurstpierpoint, Sussex
Courthope family of Danny Park, Hurstpierpoint, Sussex
ESTATE ARCHIVES
TITLE DEEDS: KENT
Goudhurst: Manor of Chingley and land called Shernfold
FILE - Grant of General Livery - ref. DAN/1453 - date: 11 Nov. 1609
[from Scope and Content] From (a) [Robert Cecil, 1st] Earl of Salisbury, Lord High Treasurer and Master of the King's Majesty's Court of Wards and Liveries, Sir Roger Wilbraham, kt., Surveyor of the same liveries on behalf of the King, to (b) Herbert Pelham, esq., s. and heir of Sir Edmund.
FILE - Grant of General Livery from James I to Herbert Pelham, esq. - ref. DAN/1455 - date: 28 Apr. 1610
-
wjhonson
Re: Sir Edmund Pelham, Lord Chief Baron of the Exhequer (d 1
Will thank you for that excellent post.
Please direct your attention to
http://books.google.com/books?id=dVkJAA ... eld&pgis=1
Sussex Archaeological Collections...
snippet view, but we learn that "Mistress Ellen Pelham, wife of Edward
Pelham" at Catsfield, was in trouble in 1593 for "not frequenting the
churche."
And later in 1609 at Catsfield "Dame Ellen Pelham, Ellen Pelham her
daughter and George Tindall her servant for being popishe..."
And later still in 1619 at Catsfield "Herbert Pelham, arm "for not
receiving the communion..."
A right naughty bunch!
Will Johnson
Please direct your attention to
http://books.google.com/books?id=dVkJAA ... eld&pgis=1
Sussex Archaeological Collections...
snippet view, but we learn that "Mistress Ellen Pelham, wife of Edward
Pelham" at Catsfield, was in trouble in 1593 for "not frequenting the
churche."
And later in 1609 at Catsfield "Dame Ellen Pelham, Ellen Pelham her
daughter and George Tindall her servant for being popishe..."
And later still in 1619 at Catsfield "Herbert Pelham, arm "for not
receiving the communion..."
A right naughty bunch!
From which we get that Ellen was married by 1593 which makes it more
likely that Herbert is her son, and that by 1609 she had a daughter.
Will Johnson
-
WJhonson
Re: John de Monte Alto/Montalt/Mohaute
<<In a message dated 08/08/07 19:14:14 Pacific Standard Time, pajunkin@bellsouth.net writes:
However, who might the following be? DBW/A/A/A/9 1202-29 GRANT by John de Montalt to Walter de Lavuleye of 1 messuage with toft in vill of STAPELFORD with 2 butts called Berecroft and Linde [? Luide] at rent of 4d. p.a. Consideration: 24/-.Witnesses: Philip de Orrebi then Justiciar of Chester, Roger de Montalt, Robert de Hokenhul, Richard Brun, Henry s. of William s. of Henry, Richard s. of William. N/D. Seal, white. Parchment. >>
-------------------
Provided the dating is firm, imho this cannot be that John Monte Alto who married in 1255 to Millicent Cantilupe unless we want to presume he was *at least* thirty years older than his young bride.
I'm not ready to accept that based just on this one document. It's much more likely this is his father or uncle.
Will Johnson
However, who might the following be? DBW/A/A/A/9 1202-29 GRANT by John de Montalt to Walter de Lavuleye of 1 messuage with toft in vill of STAPELFORD with 2 butts called Berecroft and Linde [? Luide] at rent of 4d. p.a. Consideration: 24/-.Witnesses: Philip de Orrebi then Justiciar of Chester, Roger de Montalt, Robert de Hokenhul, Richard Brun, Henry s. of William s. of Henry, Richard s. of William. N/D. Seal, white. Parchment. >>
-------------------
Provided the dating is firm, imho this cannot be that John Monte Alto who married in 1255 to Millicent Cantilupe unless we want to presume he was *at least* thirty years older than his young bride.
I'm not ready to accept that based just on this one document. It's much more likely this is his father or uncle.
Will Johnson
-
WJhonson
Re: Stephen Goodyear's alleged royal descent
Joan open your mouth wider when you speak.
When Richardson posts a long descent which contradicts HIS OWN PUBLICATIONS, we don't have to accept it as a valid attempt to request correction.
First perhaps using what he himself wrote to correct it would be a more productive approach.
Don't you think?
Will Johnson
In a message dated 08/08/07 23:50:25 Pacific Standard Time, Joan.E.Richardson@gmail.com writes:
As clearly stated in Mr. Richardson's post today on Governor
Goodyear's ALLEGED royal ancestry, the information was offered without
ANY correction or modification. The alleged royal descents were taken
from UNSOURCED, UNATTRIBUTED, and likely UNRELIEABLE material The
purpose of the post was to solicit helpful followup responses like
those which were subsequently posted by Mr. Brandon. Kudos to John
Brandon.
-------------------------------
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
When Richardson posts a long descent which contradicts HIS OWN PUBLICATIONS, we don't have to accept it as a valid attempt to request correction.
First perhaps using what he himself wrote to correct it would be a more productive approach.
Don't you think?
Will Johnson
In a message dated 08/08/07 23:50:25 Pacific Standard Time, Joan.E.Richardson@gmail.com writes:
As clearly stated in Mr. Richardson's post today on Governor
Goodyear's ALLEGED royal ancestry, the information was offered without
ANY correction or modification. The alleged royal descents were taken
from UNSOURCED, UNATTRIBUTED, and likely UNRELIEABLE material The
purpose of the post was to solicit helpful followup responses like
those which were subsequently posted by Mr. Brandon. Kudos to John
Brandon.
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mother of Roger de Clifford d. 1282
You only need to go through the thread from December 2004 that I posted a
link to - there you will find that Mahaut died in 1303 (exact date unknown
as far as I'm aware) in Naples where she was buried, that her marriage to
Philippe de Dampierre was contracted in the lifetime of Roger de Clifford,
that she was not married to anyone else before Philippe, and that Mahaut was
married to him during the time that Roger's widow was referred to in
official records in terms proving she had not remarried.
The towel is in, whether or not you threw it. In future you would be well
advised NEVER to take anything on Richardson's unsupported say-so.
Peter Stewart
"Tony Ingham" <nugget@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.173.1186631301.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
link to - there you will find that Mahaut died in 1303 (exact date unknown
as far as I'm aware) in Naples where she was buried, that her marriage to
Philippe de Dampierre was contracted in the lifetime of Roger de Clifford,
that she was not married to anyone else before Philippe, and that Mahaut was
married to him during the time that Roger's widow was referred to in
official records in terms proving she had not remarried.
The towel is in, whether or not you threw it. In future you would be well
advised NEVER to take anything on Richardson's unsupported say-so.
Peter Stewart
"Tony Ingham" <nugget@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.173.1186631301.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Peter,
As a result of further research I grudgingly concede that :
1. Roger de Clifford did die before 3 Apr 1286.
2. Domina de Clifford called 'comitissa' was buried at Worcester
Cathedral on tertio Kal. Decembris 1301.
I haven't yet thrown the towel in.
If you could respond with the dates of Mahaut's marriage to Philippe of
Flanders and her burial in Naples perhaps they might help me resolve the
situation.
Tony Ingham
Peter Stewart wrote:
"Tony Ingham" <nugget@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.96.1186455240.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Will,
It's a bit cryptic n'est ce pas.
Mathilde is the daughter of Raoul and Alix. Her mother died the next
year after her birth.
The entry for Mathilde is, roughly:
Born 1254
She espoused Phillipe de Flandre (when she became Countess de Teano)
in 1284.
She died 1303 in Naples
He died 1308
The French don't seem to be aware of her first marriage to Roger
Clifford 1272-1284+. Roger's will was written on 26 Oct 1284. When he
died is anyone's guess. If the French entry is correct I suppose her
second marriage must have taken place late in 1284. If the French date
is incorrect Roger died closer to 1286 which is the usually accepted
year.
This is incorrect, these were two different women - Sir Roger Clifford's
wife who was called countess of Loretto died in 1301 and was buried in
Worcester cathedral; Mahaut de Courtenay, countess of Chieti (in her own
right) & Teano (by marriage) died in Naples in 1303 and was buried there.
Mahaut's marriage to Philippe of Flanders in 1284 took place a year or so
before the death of Sir Roger Clifford, when he was married to his
mysterious countess of Loretto.
Peter Stewart
-
James Dow Allen
Re: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project
On Aug 7, 7:10 pm, John Plant <j.s.pl...@isc.keele.ac.uk> wrote:
According to Leo's wonderful site, the Anjevin Y-chromosome
survives only among descendants of
Charles Noel Somerset (1709-1756), 4th Duke Beaufort
so study might have little use, unless you're investigating
modern Somerset infidelity
There are some medieval mysteries that could be addressed
with Y-chromosome study. For example the Guirey family claims
agnatic descent from Juchi Khan. Has their chromosome
been compared with the famous "Genghis" chromosome?
This *might* shed light on the mystery of Juchi's father.
Again from Leo's site, several branches of Rurikids survive
(descendants of Ryurik, d. 879, Grand Prince of Novgorod).
Has anyone compared their Y-chromosomes?
James Allen
(d) with the objective of (c), it would be good to have the Y-DNA
haplotypes of several, well-documented living male-line descendants of
the Plantagenet family...
According to Leo's wonderful site, the Anjevin Y-chromosome
survives only among descendants of
Charles Noel Somerset (1709-1756), 4th Duke Beaufort
so study might have little use, unless you're investigating
modern Somerset infidelity
There are some medieval mysteries that could be addressed
with Y-chromosome study. For example the Guirey family claims
agnatic descent from Juchi Khan. Has their chromosome
been compared with the famous "Genghis" chromosome?
This *might* shed light on the mystery of Juchi's father.
Again from Leo's site, several branches of Rurikids survive
(descendants of Ryurik, d. 879, Grand Prince of Novgorod).
Has anyone compared their Y-chromosomes?
James Allen
-
John Plant
Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
The main error, I think, for determining an fpe rate from my dataset for
the Plants is that the dataset isn't big enough even allowing that the
calculation would involve a simplistic model. Also, the "single
ancestor" of the "main Plant family" of my data (so far) may not date
back all the way to an initial founder of the Plant surname though those
tested are scattered (including apparently quite early
emigrants/immigrants to America). The MRCA (most recent common ancestor)
of the "main Plant family" of my data seems to be "quite early".
Such vagueness is why I wasn't too fussed about whether "about 50%" is
not quite the same as the "sixty-something percent" of a more precise
calculation. That is not to say that the more precise calculation isn't
illuminating for slightly higher fpe rates in connection with what
exactly is meant by "multi-origin".
However, the rather (dare I say it) `surprising' finding of my Nomina 28
paper (in the view of David Hey, who is a leading authority on English
surnames and much else in local and family history) is that "even a
widely distributed surname can belong to a single family". His (and
others') methodology had been to consider only surnames with a few
members mainly in a single location to be a single family. Plant is a
widely dispersed surname which Hey had mentioned in a paper and
concluded, from the name-distribution evidence, that it was
multi-origin. Also, the full Plant family is quite large and that also
went against Hey's methodology.
So much for the serious bit. The shocking s-b words have been mentioned
(scattered bastards) but that is pure *fanstasy* and would quite rightly
be laughed out of court by scientists and genealogists alike!!! That's
why I haven't mentioned them!!!! The Plants are scattered and there is
an indication of illegitimacy in their blazon but there is more than
enough room to laugh at the idea that s-b might be a defining
characteristic of the full Plant family. Not least, to whom exactly did
the Plant blazon apply.?
Why am I talking about the Plantagenets? Simply, people `always' have.
If you are interested, see: http://www.plant-fhg.org.uk/plantagenet.html
The nineteenth-century discussion is not just ridiculous, it is ludicrous!
What do I say? For what it is worth, I have mentioned an opinion that
there may have been a cultural influence from the Plante Genest nickname
but there is no evidence of a genetic connection. Who cares? That is not
what my two Nomina papers are mainly about.
There, I have lit the blue touch paper. Big mistake!!!! Or, is it that
everyone will now turn off. That's enough about the bastards. The DNA
evidence will sort them out! Well, perhaps.
If you want the Plant heraldry from a commercial site, it comes under
Plantagenet. Though, recently, some of them have dropped the three lions
for the Plants. Perhaps that's some small victory for my web site. At
least, the nonsense will not go on and on and on here!!!
John
My main point remains the same.
You can make statement about your dataset, but until you're ready to
meta-discuss the data set itself, you cannot make statements about the
general population of Plants.
That's a fairly widely followed scientific method. (Which allows me
wiggle-room in case in the off-chance you're able to find a *scientist*
who doesn't discuss their dataset in relation to how it was obtained,
who it represents, and more importantly who it potentially does not.)
Will Johnson
The main error, I think, for determining an fpe rate from my dataset for
the Plants is that the dataset isn't big enough even allowing that the
calculation would involve a simplistic model. Also, the "single
ancestor" of the "main Plant family" of my data (so far) may not date
back all the way to an initial founder of the Plant surname though those
tested are scattered (including apparently quite early
emigrants/immigrants to America). The MRCA (most recent common ancestor)
of the "main Plant family" of my data seems to be "quite early".
Such vagueness is why I wasn't too fussed about whether "about 50%" is
not quite the same as the "sixty-something percent" of a more precise
calculation. That is not to say that the more precise calculation isn't
illuminating for slightly higher fpe rates in connection with what
exactly is meant by "multi-origin".
However, the rather (dare I say it) `surprising' finding of my Nomina 28
paper (in the view of David Hey, who is a leading authority on English
surnames and much else in local and family history) is that "even a
widely distributed surname can belong to a single family". His (and
others') methodology had been to consider only surnames with a few
members mainly in a single location to be a single family. Plant is a
widely dispersed surname which Hey had mentioned in a paper and
concluded, from the name-distribution evidence, that it was
multi-origin. Also, the full Plant family is quite large and that also
went against Hey's methodology.
So much for the serious bit. The shocking s-b words have been mentioned
(scattered bastards) but that is pure *fanstasy* and would quite rightly
be laughed out of court by scientists and genealogists alike!!! That's
why I haven't mentioned them!!!! The Plants are scattered and there is
an indication of illegitimacy in their blazon but there is more than
enough room to laugh at the idea that s-b might be a defining
characteristic of the full Plant family. Not least, to whom exactly did
the Plant blazon apply.?
Why am I talking about the Plantagenets? Simply, people `always' have.
If you are interested, see: http://www.plant-fhg.org.uk/plantagenet.html
The nineteenth-century discussion is not just ridiculous, it is ludicrous!
What do I say? For what it is worth, I have mentioned an opinion that
there may have been a cultural influence from the Plante Genest nickname
but there is no evidence of a genetic connection. Who cares? That is not
what my two Nomina papers are mainly about.
There, I have lit the blue touch paper. Big mistake!!!! Or, is it that
everyone will now turn off. That's enough about the bastards. The DNA
evidence will sort them out! Well, perhaps.
If you want the Plant heraldry from a commercial site, it comes under
Plantagenet. Though, recently, some of them have dropped the three lions
for the Plants. Perhaps that's some small victory for my web site. At
least, the nonsense will not go on and on and on here!!!
John
-
John Plant
Re: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project
James Dow Allen wrote:
Shush! I didn't want to mention that.
For early DNA studies, there has been more progress with mt-DNA which is
useful for purely-female lines, since mt-DNA can sometimes be recovered
from skeletal remains. To get a feel for the current state of play, see:
http://www.isogg.org/famousdna.htm
On the quieter sider, the Y-DNA is no doubt better at revealing that
common paternity is not in fact intact. I don't want to get anyone's
hopes up too high; but, you are the best people to come up with lines of
investigation.
John
On Aug 7, 7:10 pm, John Plant <j.s.pl...@isc.keele.ac.uk> wrote:
(d) with the objective of (c), it would be good to have the Y-DNA
haplotypes of several, well-documented living male-line descendants of
the Plantagenet family...
According to Leo's wonderful site, the Anjevin Y-chromosome
survives only among descendants of
Charles Noel Somerset (1709-1756), 4th Duke Beaufort
so study might have little use, unless you're investigating
modern Somerset infidelity
Shush! I didn't want to mention that.
There are some medieval mysteries that could be addressed
with Y-chromosome study. For example the Guirey family claims
agnatic descent from Juchi Khan. Has their chromosome
been compared with the famous "Genghis" chromosome?
This *might* shed light on the mystery of Juchi's father.
Again from Leo's site, several branches of Rurikids survive
(descendants of Ryurik, d. 879, Grand Prince of Novgorod).
Has anyone compared their Y-chromosomes?
James Allen
For early DNA studies, there has been more progress with mt-DNA which is
useful for purely-female lines, since mt-DNA can sometimes be recovered
from skeletal remains. To get a feel for the current state of play, see:
http://www.isogg.org/famousdna.htm
On the quieter sider, the Y-DNA is no doubt better at revealing that
common paternity is not in fact intact. I don't want to get anyone's
hopes up too high; but, you are the best people to come up with lines of
investigation.
John
-
Tony Ingham
Re: Mother of Roger de Clifford d. 1282
This was posted to p_m_stewart@msn.com and resulted in a failure notice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter,
I strenuously object to ' you would be well advised NEVER to take
anything on Richardson's unsupported say-so.'
Firstly the research was mine. It wasn't until my data gathering was
nearly finished that I discovered the Close Roll cuttings on the
previous thread. They were the only part of Richardson's contribution
that I used.
The fact that you are inferring that I would take ANYTHING on
Richardson's say-so, be it supported or unsupported, leaves me
flabbergasted.
If you would care to go through the Archives you will find that I have,
for years been a trenchant and strident critic, of Richardson. As well
see I've always been an advocate for using primary sources and following
the trail of land ownership/occupation as the ONLY means of achieving a
satisfactory outcome in Medieval research.
I put a tremendous amount of time and effort into my research, as anyone
that I've worked in collaboration with will attest. Therefore I take it
as a personal affront when you make such a statement on this forum.
No, I won't be reading your posting on the December 2004 thread. I've
suddenly lost interest in the topic and in you personally.
Tony Ingham
Peter Stewart wrote:
You only need to go through the thread from December 2004 that I posted
a link to - there you will find that Mahaut died in 1303 (exact date
unknown as far as I'm aware) in Naples where she was buried, that her
marriage to Philippe de Dampierre was contracted in the lifetime of
Roger de Clifford, that she was not married to anyone else before
Philippe, and that Mahaut was married to him during the time that
Roger's widow was referred to in official records in terms proving she
had not remarried.
The towel is in, whether or not you threw it. In future you would be
well advised NEVER to take anything on Richardson's unsupported say-so.
Peter Stewart
"Tony Ingham" <nugget@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.173.1186631301.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Peter,
As a result of further research I grudgingly concede that :
1. Roger de Clifford did die before 3 Apr 1286.
2. Domina de Clifford called 'comitissa' was buried at Worcester
Cathedral on tertio Kal. Decembris 1301.
I haven't yet thrown the towel in.
If you could respond with the dates of Mahaut's marriage to Philippe of
Flanders and her burial in Naples perhaps they might help me resolve the
situation.
Tony Ingham
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter,
I strenuously object to ' you would be well advised NEVER to take
anything on Richardson's unsupported say-so.'
Firstly the research was mine. It wasn't until my data gathering was
nearly finished that I discovered the Close Roll cuttings on the
previous thread. They were the only part of Richardson's contribution
that I used.
The fact that you are inferring that I would take ANYTHING on
Richardson's say-so, be it supported or unsupported, leaves me
flabbergasted.
If you would care to go through the Archives you will find that I have,
for years been a trenchant and strident critic, of Richardson. As well
see I've always been an advocate for using primary sources and following
the trail of land ownership/occupation as the ONLY means of achieving a
satisfactory outcome in Medieval research.
I put a tremendous amount of time and effort into my research, as anyone
that I've worked in collaboration with will attest. Therefore I take it
as a personal affront when you make such a statement on this forum.
No, I won't be reading your posting on the December 2004 thread. I've
suddenly lost interest in the topic and in you personally.
Tony Ingham
Peter Stewart wrote:
You only need to go through the thread from December 2004 that I posted
a link to - there you will find that Mahaut died in 1303 (exact date
unknown as far as I'm aware) in Naples where she was buried, that her
marriage to Philippe de Dampierre was contracted in the lifetime of
Roger de Clifford, that she was not married to anyone else before
Philippe, and that Mahaut was married to him during the time that
Roger's widow was referred to in official records in terms proving she
had not remarried.
The towel is in, whether or not you threw it. In future you would be
well advised NEVER to take anything on Richardson's unsupported say-so.
Peter Stewart
"Tony Ingham" <nugget@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.173.1186631301.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Peter,
As a result of further research I grudgingly concede that :
1. Roger de Clifford did die before 3 Apr 1286.
2. Domina de Clifford called 'comitissa' was buried at Worcester
Cathedral on tertio Kal. Decembris 1301.
I haven't yet thrown the towel in.
If you could respond with the dates of Mahaut's marriage to Philippe of
Flanders and her burial in Naples perhaps they might help me resolve the
situation.
Tony Ingham
-
The Highlander
Re: Ynglingatal Was: Plantagenet Ancestry
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 02:17:32 -0700, Jane Margaret Laight
<jml27515@yahoo.com> wrote:
I strongly suspect that Hines is sexually disfunctional.
Anything he posts about women reeks of frustrated wish fulfillment.
The Highlander
Tilgibh smucaid air do làmhan,
togaibh a' bhratach dhubh agus
toisichibh a' geàrradh na sgòrnanan!
<jml27515@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 8, 4:03 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Hmmmmmmmmm...
How much do you weigh?
DSH
Why? Worried you may want to sweep a woman off her feet only to find
out you can't lift her?
JML
snip
I strongly suspect that Hines is sexually disfunctional.
Anything he posts about women reeks of frustrated wish fulfillment.
The Highlander
Tilgibh smucaid air do làmhan,
togaibh a' bhratach dhubh agus
toisichibh a' geàrradh na sgòrnanan!
-
Gjest
Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve
In a message dated 8/9/2007 3:12:28 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:
The main error, I think, for determining an fpe rate from my dataset for
the Plants is that the dataset isn't big enough even allowing that the
calculation would involve a simplistic model.>>
-----------------
The main error, as before, is that your set is not randomly selected and yet
you want to make generalized statements about the universe of Plants.
Leaving aside the large glaring problem that you had a pre-conceived notion of
what you expected when you started.
That along tells me you have no training in the social sciences let along
the hard sciences.
Will
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:
The main error, I think, for determining an fpe rate from my dataset for
the Plants is that the dataset isn't big enough even allowing that the
calculation would involve a simplistic model.>>
-----------------
The main error, as before, is that your set is not randomly selected and yet
you want to make generalized statements about the universe of Plants.
Leaving aside the large glaring problem that you had a pre-conceived notion of
what you expected when you started.
That along tells me you have no training in the social sciences let along
the hard sciences.
Will
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-
Gjest
Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve
In a message dated 8/9/2007 3:12:28 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:
Such vagueness is why I wasn't too fussed about whether "about 50%" is
not quite the same as the "sixty-something percent" of a more precise
calculation.>>
-----------------------
And again this is false. The "sixty-something" was based on your premise,
which is false.
It has nothing to do with being more precise, it has to do with
*being-more-precise-starting-from-that-premise* which we now know was created from thin
air.
Will
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:
Such vagueness is why I wasn't too fussed about whether "about 50%" is
not quite the same as the "sixty-something percent" of a more precise
calculation.>>
-----------------------
And again this is false. The "sixty-something" was based on your premise,
which is false.
It has nothing to do with being more precise, it has to do with
*being-more-precise-starting-from-that-premise* which we now know was created from thin
air.
Will
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-
Jane Margaret Laight
Re: Ynglingatal Was: Plantagenet Ancestry
On Aug 9, 10:43 am, The Highlander <mich...@shaw.ca> wrote:
och weel, it's nae ma problem--I find it interesting that when I
mentioned I was once employed for a time as a "chucker-out" in a dance
hall, the first thing that come to his mind was my weight. It reminds
me of a college party I went to with a cadre of my friends where we
encountered this sign on the front door:
NO FAT CHICKS
This did not apply to me or anyone else in the crowd, but being
liberated young women dedicated to the acceptance of all women
regardless of size, shape or shade, in all social situations, we took
umbrage at such a sign, and made our displeasure known to the host of
the party. When he begged to differ, and suggested that we may have
had ulterior motives in protesting such a sign, we expressed outrage
and meted out punishment deemed appropriate to resolve the situation.
The next time we attended a party at that address we brought some of
our friends who could have been considered as "fat"--our host meekly
acquiesced (with some help from the rest of us), and all had a good
time.
This is for the Commander--I have no doubt he would probably agree
with this:
http://funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/1671/No+Fat+Chicks/
JML
alias "The Scarlet Avenger"
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 02:17:32 -0700, Jane Margaret Laight
jml27...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 8, 4:03 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Hmmmmmmmmm...
How much do you weigh?
DSH
Why? Worried you may want to sweep a woman off her feet only to find
out you can't lift her?
JML
snip
I strongly suspect that Hines is sexually disfunctional.
Anything he posts about women reeks of frustrated wish fulfillment.
och weel, it's nae ma problem--I find it interesting that when I
mentioned I was once employed for a time as a "chucker-out" in a dance
hall, the first thing that come to his mind was my weight. It reminds
me of a college party I went to with a cadre of my friends where we
encountered this sign on the front door:
NO FAT CHICKS
This did not apply to me or anyone else in the crowd, but being
liberated young women dedicated to the acceptance of all women
regardless of size, shape or shade, in all social situations, we took
umbrage at such a sign, and made our displeasure known to the host of
the party. When he begged to differ, and suggested that we may have
had ulterior motives in protesting such a sign, we expressed outrage
and meted out punishment deemed appropriate to resolve the situation.
The next time we attended a party at that address we brought some of
our friends who could have been considered as "fat"--our host meekly
acquiesced (with some help from the rest of us), and all had a good
time.
This is for the Commander--I have no doubt he would probably agree
with this:
http://funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/1671/No+Fat+Chicks/
JML
alias "The Scarlet Avenger"
The Highlander
Tilgibh smucaid air do làmhan,
togaibh a' bhratach dhubh agus
toisichibh a' geàrradh na sgòrnanan!
-
taf
Re: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project
On Aug 9, 2:33 am, James Dow Allen <jdallen2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think even Leo would admit that his site is not a complete
accounting of the entire human population. I don't know how seriously
the Warenne or Cornwall descents have been pursued for potential
younger lines that may survive.
taf
On Aug 7, 7:10 pm, John Plant <j.s.pl...@isc.keele.ac.uk> wrote:
(d) with the objective of (c), it would be good to have the Y-DNA
haplotypes of several, well-documented living male-line descendants of
the Plantagenet family...
According to Leo's wonderful site, the Anjevin Y-chromosome
survives only among descendants of
Charles Noel Somerset (1709-1756), 4th Duke Beaufort
so study might have little use, unless you're investigating
modern Somerset infidelity
I think even Leo would admit that his site is not a complete
accounting of the entire human population. I don't know how seriously
the Warenne or Cornwall descents have been pursued for potential
younger lines that may survive.
taf
-
WJhonson
[OT] Transvestites was Re: Stephen Goodyear's alleged royal
Perhaps we should take up a subscription to pay for Douglas to complete his sex change. There is a claim that not all transvestites really want a sex change, but I'm not sure it's scientific. I wonder how tall Douglas is? I've never really felt that transsexuals over 6'2" were able to pass.
And then there's the matter of how large his hands are. A really good transvestite needs small hands, otherwise it's too obvious.
Will
--------------------------------
In a message dated 08/09/07 10:45:31 Pacific Standard Time, farmerie@interfold.com writes:
On Aug 8, 11:45 pm, Joan.E.Richard...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, quite. Why would that be? posting a line with obvious blatant
errors, without the least indication of the nature of these problems.
Not a very helpful.
Indeed. To solicit helpful responses, without himself being helpful.
Looks a bit like a one-way street, taking but not giving (well, that
or treating the group as nothing but an acting troupe, with no other
role than to perform for him).
By the way, Google Groups shows just one other post to
soc.genealogy.medieval coming from this Joan E. Richardson, on April
29 (thread "Lady Joan Pleche . . ."). That post, from this very same
gmail account was signed "DR". It's text was identical, word for word,
to a second post in that thread coming from "Douglas Richardson".
However, here we read of "Mr. Richardson", as if he were entirely
unknown to the poster - curious that, "Joan".
All in all, not a good way to make friends.
taf
-------------------------------
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
And then there's the matter of how large his hands are. A really good transvestite needs small hands, otherwise it's too obvious.
Will
--------------------------------
In a message dated 08/09/07 10:45:31 Pacific Standard Time, farmerie@interfold.com writes:
On Aug 8, 11:45 pm, Joan.E.Richard...@gmail.com wrote:
As clearly stated in Mr. Richardson's post today on Governor
Goodyear's ALLEGED royal ancestry, the information was offered without
ANY correction or modification.
Yes, quite. Why would that be? posting a line with obvious blatant
errors, without the least indication of the nature of these problems.
Not a very helpful.
The alleged royal descents were taken
from UNSOURCED, UNATTRIBUTED, and likely UNRELIEABLE material The
purpose of the post was to solicit helpful followup responses like
those which were subsequently posted by Mr. Brandon.
Indeed. To solicit helpful responses, without himself being helpful.
Looks a bit like a one-way street, taking but not giving (well, that
or treating the group as nothing but an acting troupe, with no other
role than to perform for him).
By the way, Google Groups shows just one other post to
soc.genealogy.medieval coming from this Joan E. Richardson, on April
29 (thread "Lady Joan Pleche . . ."). That post, from this very same
gmail account was signed "DR". It's text was identical, word for word,
to a second post in that thread coming from "Douglas Richardson".
However, here we read of "Mr. Richardson", as if he were entirely
unknown to the poster - curious that, "Joan".
All in all, not a good way to make friends.
taf
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Plantagenet Ancestry
By all accounts, Jane Margaret Laight, is indeed a Fat Chick at present.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-------------------------------------------
"Jane Margaret Laight" <jml27515@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1186681362.954219.174530@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 9, 10:43 am, The Highlander <mich...@shaw.ca> wrote:
[...]
NO FAT CHICKS
This did not apply to me or anyone else in the crowd...
[...]
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-------------------------------------------
"Jane Margaret Laight" <jml27515@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1186681362.954219.174530@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 9, 10:43 am, The Highlander <mich...@shaw.ca> wrote:
[...]
NO FAT CHICKS
This did not apply to me or anyone else in the crowd...
[...]
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
WJhonson
Re: Transvestites was Re: Stephen Goodyear's alleged royal d
I don't understand how Douglas can possibly find time to write these large books with six children. How old is Douglas anyway?
Will
Will
-
WJhonson
Re: Transvestites was Re: Stephen Goodyear's alleged royal d
I am thirty thirteen and have no children.
I always find it interesting that very obscure people with living descendents get more thorough write-ups then long-dead people with no descendents. It's a skew that my Cecil project should rectify, at least for the Tudor period, as I'm attempting to build a comprehensive web of all people connected to each other within a certain degree.
And then a hundred years after I'm dead maybe someone will write a biography about me.
---------------------------------
In a message dated 08/09/07 13:21:16 Pacific Standard Time, starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
But how old are you, Will, and how many children do you have?
I always find it interesting that very obscure people with living descendents get more thorough write-ups then long-dead people with no descendents. It's a skew that my Cecil project should rectify, at least for the Tudor period, as I'm attempting to build a comprehensive web of all people connected to each other within a certain degree.
And then a hundred years after I'm dead maybe someone will write a biography about me.
---------------------------------
In a message dated 08/09/07 13:21:16 Pacific Standard Time, starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
But how old are you, Will, and how many children do you have?
-
WJhonson
Re: Transvestites was Re: Stephen Goodyear's alleged royal d
But enough about me, back to DR.
Avyette Richardson is a really odd name.
I ran it through ancestry and it says there was someone of this name born 1892 died 1934 born in Byron, Contra Costa County, California
Parents Alpheus Richardson and Avyette Taylor
Seems likely DR might be related here ?
Avyette Richardson is a really odd name.
I ran it through ancestry and it says there was someone of this name born 1892 died 1934 born in Byron, Contra Costa County, California
Parents Alpheus Richardson and Avyette Taylor
Seems likely DR might be related here ?
-
WJhonson
Re: Transvestites was Re: Stephen Goodyear's alleged royal d
<<In a message dated 08/09/07 14:01:32 Pacific Standard Time, WJhonson writes:
Avyette Richardson is a really odd name.
I ran it through ancestry and it says there was someone of this name born 1892 died 1934 born in Byron, Contra Costa County, California >>
-----------------------
Will it's interesting you mention Contra Costa County, because in an old posting here, DR's father was identified as Wayne Richardson. His mother as Joan Kercheval.
Joan herself shows up in the CADI with dates 1917-91 died in Sacramento County, so let's presume his father Wayne was born sometime between 1900 and 1920
Running him we find a Wayne Richardson son of Arthur and Lola living in 1930, age 15, in Antioch, Contra Costa County. What are the odds?
Will Johnson
Avyette Richardson is a really odd name.
I ran it through ancestry and it says there was someone of this name born 1892 died 1934 born in Byron, Contra Costa County, California >>
-----------------------
Will it's interesting you mention Contra Costa County, because in an old posting here, DR's father was identified as Wayne Richardson. His mother as Joan Kercheval.
Joan herself shows up in the CADI with dates 1917-91 died in Sacramento County, so let's presume his father Wayne was born sometime between 1900 and 1920
Running him we find a Wayne Richardson son of Arthur and Lola living in 1930, age 15, in Antioch, Contra Costa County. What are the odds?
Will Johnson
-
WJhonson
Re: Transvestites was Re: Stephen Goodyear's alleged royal d
<<In a message dated 08/09/07 14:09:49 Pacific Standard Time, WJhonson writes:
Will it's interesting you mention Contra Costa County, because in an old posting here, DR's father was identified as Wayne Richardson. His mother as Joan Kercheval.
Joan herself shows up in the CADI with dates 1917-91 died in Sacramento County, so let's presume his father Wayne was born sometime between 1900 and 1920
Running him we find a Wayne Richardson son of Arthur and Lola living in 1930, age 15, in Antioch, Contra Costa County. What are the odds? >>
-----------------
Will that's good, but I want you to also note in the SSDI
Wayne H Richardson with dates 29 Dec 1917 - 3 Jul 2003
last residence Carmichael, Sacramento County, California
SSN issued by California
This might be a better match for DR's father.
Will Johnson
Will it's interesting you mention Contra Costa County, because in an old posting here, DR's father was identified as Wayne Richardson. His mother as Joan Kercheval.
Joan herself shows up in the CADI with dates 1917-91 died in Sacramento County, so let's presume his father Wayne was born sometime between 1900 and 1920
Running him we find a Wayne Richardson son of Arthur and Lola living in 1930, age 15, in Antioch, Contra Costa County. What are the odds? >>
-----------------
Will that's good, but I want you to also note in the SSDI
Wayne H Richardson with dates 29 Dec 1917 - 3 Jul 2003
last residence Carmichael, Sacramento County, California
SSN issued by California
This might be a better match for DR's father.
Will Johnson
-
WJhonson
Re: Stephen Goodyear's alleged royal descent
Interesting possibility but wouldn't "Lady Joan" have at least checked PA or AR first? I'm sure all of DR's children have their own complimentary copies.
Will
Will
-
WJhonson
Re: The Visitation of Shropshire, Taken in the Year 1623 by
I'm talking about what he did publish.
In a message dated 08/09/07 14:46:13 Pacific Standard Time, Jwc1870 writes:
Yes, She probably does, but Joan knows Daddy didn`t cover all
lines in his books and some may have been discovered since their publication.
In a message dated 08/09/07 14:46:13 Pacific Standard Time, Jwc1870 writes:
Yes, She probably does, but Joan knows Daddy didn`t cover all
lines in his books and some may have been discovered since their publication.
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
Ditto, big-time. I'm with Jim.
Tony
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
Tony
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
Ditto, big-time. I'm with Jim.
Tony
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
Tony
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
WJhonson
Re: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
Oh come on!
Just when I was able to unveil the shocking and scandalous connections I've found by tracing DR's Shearer line backward....
Will
In a message dated 08/09/07 15:10:56 Pacific Standard Time, hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us writes:
Ditto, big-time. I'm with Jim.
Tony
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Just when I was able to unveil the shocking and scandalous connections I've found by tracing DR's Shearer line backward....
Will
In a message dated 08/09/07 15:10:56 Pacific Standard Time, hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us writes:
Ditto, big-time. I'm with Jim.
Tony
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Jane Margaret Laight
Re: Plantagenet Ancestry
On Aug 9, 2:36 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
nice try, Commander.
let me assuage your curiosity in my own fashion:
for a time in my undergraduate years, I held the state Women's
Intercollegiate Middleweight Boxing Championship. Although not a star
athlete, I did play soccer/"English football" and basketball in
school. In my younger days I hunted and fished with my dad, uncle and
other male relatives, and would go on long jaunts throughout the
countryside of three continents, at times being prepared to sleep
under the stars. Currently,when back home, I hold a gym membership and
work out regularly. I am probably about fifteen pounds above my
fighting weight.
If it means anything, I'm probably in better physical shape than you
are.
The Scarlet Avenger
who says: "How do you get a redhead to argue with you? Say something!"
By all accounts, Jane Margaret Laight, is indeed a Fat Chick at present.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-------------------------------------------
"Jane Margaret Laight" <jml27...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1186681362.954219.174530@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 9, 10:43 am, The Highlander <mich...@shaw.ca> wrote:
[...]
NO FAT CHICKS
This did not apply to me or anyone else in the crowd...
[...]
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
nice try, Commander.
let me assuage your curiosity in my own fashion:
for a time in my undergraduate years, I held the state Women's
Intercollegiate Middleweight Boxing Championship. Although not a star
athlete, I did play soccer/"English football" and basketball in
school. In my younger days I hunted and fished with my dad, uncle and
other male relatives, and would go on long jaunts throughout the
countryside of three continents, at times being prepared to sleep
under the stars. Currently,when back home, I hold a gym membership and
work out regularly. I am probably about fifteen pounds above my
fighting weight.
If it means anything, I'm probably in better physical shape than you
are.
The Scarlet Avenger
who says: "How do you get a redhead to argue with you? Say something!"
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Mother of Roger de Clifford d. 1282
"Tony Ingham" <nugget@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.188.1186667636.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
The email address on my posts is not functioning, it is used only to deflect
spam.
If you undertook research only to come up with the same drastically
ill-informed error as Richardson after 15 years work in 2004, the
embarrassing coincidence is not something to boast about in public.
This inference was likely to be drawn by anyone who read the post from Will
Johnson pointing out Richardson's post in 2004 with no such disclaimer of
having read it coming from you. It is an odd kind of research you as a
participant in this forum do if checking the SGM archive is no part of it.
So why did you not seek any primary sources for Mahaut de Courtenay before
coming to a wrong conclusion about her?
So your interest is in getting at the truth, but you won't now read through
a thread (I didn't say just my post) on a subject of interest because you
have taken umbrage about an irrelevant and imagined slight.....If that's
your idea of a tremendous effort in research, go to it.
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.188.1186667636.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
This was posted to p_m_stewart@msn.com and resulted in a failure notice.
The email address on my posts is not functioning, it is used only to deflect
spam.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter,
I strenuously object to ' you would be well advised NEVER to take anything
on Richardson's unsupported say-so.'
Firstly the research was mine. It wasn't until my data gathering was
nearly finished that I discovered the Close Roll cuttings on the previous
thread. They were the only part of Richardson's contribution that I used.
If you undertook research only to come up with the same drastically
ill-informed error as Richardson after 15 years work in 2004, the
embarrassing coincidence is not something to boast about in public.
The fact that you are inferring that I would take ANYTHING on Richardson's
say-so, be it supported or unsupported, leaves me flabbergasted.
This inference was likely to be drawn by anyone who read the post from Will
Johnson pointing out Richardson's post in 2004 with no such disclaimer of
having read it coming from you. It is an odd kind of research you as a
participant in this forum do if checking the SGM archive is no part of it.
If you would care to go through the Archives you will find that I have,
for years been a trenchant and strident critic, of Richardson. As well
see I've always been an advocate for using primary sources and following
the trail of land ownership/occupation as the ONLY means of achieving a
satisfactory outcome in Medieval research.
So why did you not seek any primary sources for Mahaut de Courtenay before
coming to a wrong conclusion about her?
I put a tremendous amount of time and effort into my research, as anyone
that I've worked in collaboration with will attest. Therefore I take it as
a personal affront when you make such a statement on this forum.
No, I won't be reading your posting on the December 2004 thread. I've
suddenly lost interest in the topic and in you personally.
So your interest is in getting at the truth, but you won't now read through
a thread (I didn't say just my post) on a subject of interest because you
have taken umbrage about an irrelevant and imagined slight.....If that's
your idea of a tremendous effort in research, go to it.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart wrote:
You only need to go through the thread from December 2004 that I posted a
link to - there you will find that Mahaut died in 1303 (exact date unknown
as far as I'm aware) in Naples where she was buried, that her marriage to
Philippe de Dampierre was contracted in the lifetime of Roger de Clifford,
that she was not married to anyone else before Philippe, and that Mahaut
was married to him during the time that Roger's widow was referred to in
official records in terms proving she had not remarried.
The towel is in, whether or not you threw it. In future you would be well
advised NEVER to take anything on Richardson's unsupported say-so.
Peter Stewart
"Tony Ingham" <nugget@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.173.1186631301.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Peter,
As a result of further research I grudgingly concede that :
1. Roger de Clifford did die before 3 Apr 1286.
2. Domina de Clifford called 'comitissa' was buried at Worcester
Cathedral on tertio Kal. Decembris 1301.
I haven't yet thrown the towel in.
If you could respond with the dates of Mahaut's marriage to Philippe of
Flanders and her burial in Naples perhaps they might help me resolve the
situation.
Tony Ingham
-
Gjest
Re: Stephen Goodyear's alleged royal descent
Dear Peter and others,
Given the mention made elsewhere that this
selfsame line was sent to another group by Lady Joan Peche and that Douglas
has a daughter Joan, mightn`t She have e-mailed this sagacious group and
signed D R in the hope of not yet another brouhaha but simply of an answer ? I
have no children but would not rule it out as a possibility.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
Given the mention made elsewhere that this
selfsame line was sent to another group by Lady Joan Peche and that Douglas
has a daughter Joan, mightn`t She have e-mailed this sagacious group and
signed D R in the hope of not yet another brouhaha but simply of an answer ? I
have no children but would not rule it out as a possibility.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Stephen Goodyear's alleged royal descent
<Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.204.1186694484.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
So you are suggesting that Richardson posted about a 5-year-old girl giving
birth to a son, for instance, in order to learn if this stood up to the
group's scrutiny without exposing himself to direct ridicule?
If he wanted an answer, on several points it was available to him - as Will
pointed out - from his own published work.
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.204.1186694484.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Dear Peter and others,
Given the mention made elsewhere that
this
selfsame line was sent to another group by Lady Joan Peche and that
Douglas
has a daughter Joan, mightn`t She have e-mailed this sagacious group and
signed D R in the hope of not yet another brouhaha but simply of an answer
? I
have no children but would not rule it out as a possibility.
So you are suggesting that Richardson posted about a 5-year-old girl giving
birth to a son, for instance, in order to learn if this stood up to the
group's scrutiny without exposing himself to direct ridicule?
If he wanted an answer, on several points it was available to him - as Will
pointed out - from his own published work.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Stephen Goodyear's alleged royal descent
Dear Peter and others,
Given the mention made elsewhere that this
selfsame line was sent to another group by Lady Joan Peche and that Douglas
has a daughter Joan, mightn`t She have e-mailed this sagacious group and
signed D R in the hope of not yet another brouhaha but simply of an answer ? I
have no children but would not rule it out as a possibility.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
Given the mention made elsewhere that this
selfsame line was sent to another group by Lady Joan Peche and that Douglas
has a daughter Joan, mightn`t She have e-mailed this sagacious group and
signed D R in the hope of not yet another brouhaha but simply of an answer ? I
have no children but would not rule it out as a possibility.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
Dear Jim,
Most of the time discussions work better if they are conducted in a civil
manner, but that is not always possible.
Often it is important to see _who_ posts the "specious data". If someone
does it in all innocence, I am sure no one will seriously attack that
person, only the information. However it is a different matter when that
person for years has put himself on a pedestal, claiming to be the all round
expert. If I were an expert, I would be ashamed to display information so
obviously wrong. If I had received it from someone, I would check it and
then return it to the person who sent it to me with the explanation what is
wrong.
It is a terrible thing to make public a genealogical line riddled with
errors, as there will always be another innocent person taking for granted
it is correct as the "great so-and-so" says so. And once errors are passed
on they can be perpetuated for a long time.
Also I think it is bad when people make public statements (especially while
standing on their pedestal) and when challenged ignore the invitation to
produce a sample. For instance Richardson maintained that "Countess" is a
historic given name. Just because in France and in French there has been a
woman with the given name "Comtesse" does not make "Countess" a given name.
I think the Anglos-Saxon desire to translate everything into English is
terrible.
You say that "If you have a dispute, treat it with respect and work out the
details". But how do you do that when the person making an erronous
statement refuses to engage "in a respectful conversation"? Sometimes it
makes people maintain that a spade is a shovel, just to get their message
and frustration across.
Most unkind/impolite/rude messages are not actions but re-actions in
frustration, who do you blame? It has nothing to do with "kicks" of the kind
you refer to. Also do not bring in the list administrators, their position
has been explained over and over again.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <jimpup@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 7:42 AM
Subject: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
Most of the time discussions work better if they are conducted in a civil
manner, but that is not always possible.
Often it is important to see _who_ posts the "specious data". If someone
does it in all innocence, I am sure no one will seriously attack that
person, only the information. However it is a different matter when that
person for years has put himself on a pedestal, claiming to be the all round
expert. If I were an expert, I would be ashamed to display information so
obviously wrong. If I had received it from someone, I would check it and
then return it to the person who sent it to me with the explanation what is
wrong.
It is a terrible thing to make public a genealogical line riddled with
errors, as there will always be another innocent person taking for granted
it is correct as the "great so-and-so" says so. And once errors are passed
on they can be perpetuated for a long time.
Also I think it is bad when people make public statements (especially while
standing on their pedestal) and when challenged ignore the invitation to
produce a sample. For instance Richardson maintained that "Countess" is a
historic given name. Just because in France and in French there has been a
woman with the given name "Comtesse" does not make "Countess" a given name.
I think the Anglos-Saxon desire to translate everything into English is
terrible.
You say that "If you have a dispute, treat it with respect and work out the
details". But how do you do that when the person making an erronous
statement refuses to engage "in a respectful conversation"? Sometimes it
makes people maintain that a spade is a shovel, just to get their message
and frustration across.
Most unkind/impolite/rude messages are not actions but re-actions in
frustration, who do you blame? It has nothing to do with "kicks" of the kind
you refer to. Also do not bring in the list administrators, their position
has been explained over and over again.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <jimpup@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 7:42 AM
Subject: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
Hi all!
Let us please return to civility in this group.? Name calling is
childish.?? Bullying is an elementary tactic.
We are primarily into research but lately his has been burdened by?some
very strong?responses as some people posture to strut their "stuff."
Some of the people on this group have found tremendous information and
placed it here for many of us to use.?
When someone posts specious data, rather than pointing out the difficient
elements some people choose to attack.? Some people post 6-8 or more
messages on the same topic.? With a little effort they could be condensed
into fewer messages.
If you have a dispute, treat it with respect and work out the details.??
It seems to me that the list administrators could do something about this
problem.??
Some of us have had errant data and have received helpful notes.??At
thesame time?others have been attacked.?? Maybe this is the only way some
posters can get their "kicks."
?
Looking forward to seeing cicility restored to this group.
Jim Malone
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
from AOL at AOL.com.
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Gjest
Re: The Visitation of Shropshire, Taken in the Year 1623 by
Dear Will,
Yes, She probably does, but Joan knows Daddy didn`t cover all
lines in his books and some may have been discovered since their publication.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
Yes, She probably does, but Joan knows Daddy didn`t cover all
lines in his books and some may have been discovered since their publication.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: "Countess" as a given name: not just in France
Dear Tony,
Contessina is Italian. I am waiting for an English/Scottish/Irish even Welsh
woman with the name "Countess" as a given name.
It is similar to translating a continental counts title as Earl, it does not
hold.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 9:12 AM
Subject: "Countess" as a given name: not just in France
Contessina is Italian. I am waiting for an English/Scottish/Irish even Welsh
woman with the name "Countess" as a given name.
It is similar to translating a continental counts title as Earl, it does not
hold.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 9:12 AM
Subject: "Countess" as a given name: not just in France
Having not read the entire thread, forgive me if this has already been
pointed out:
Leo wrote: "Just because in France and in French there has been a
woman with the given name "Comtesse" does not make "Countess" a given
name."
But, I can cite at least one non-French case:
Contessina de' Bardi (say 1396-aft 1464) [wife of Cosimo 'Pater Patrie'
de' Medici], daughter of Giovanni de' Bardi, count of Vernio.
Perhaps it might be argued that she was called by the *title* "Little
Countess" (her father being a count), having perhaps another "real"
given name. But, the fact remains that she was called Contessina, as
though it were a given name.
Tony
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Stephen Goodyear's alleged royal descent
On Aug 10, 8:40 am, Jwc1...@aol.com wrote:
I don't follow you, James - when you said this "self-same line" was
posted by Joan Richardson I thought you meant that she was the
Goodyear descendant for whomt Douglas Richardson was acting as a self-
interested proxy. If so, he is hardly excused for posting genealogical
ordure by the fact that he had let his own daughter wallow in it.
But if you meant that his daughter Joan had independently posted the
feeble defense of her father, what kind of upbringing has she had that
she did not disclose a family relationship while pretending to
distance herself by speaking about "Mr Richardson"?
O what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to make excuses
for this miscreant....
Peter Stewart
Dear Peter,
I goofed. Todd noted that a Joan Richardson posted this
line which includes a Lady Joan Peche elsewhere. Now I realize you and He do not
relate well with one another and I am inclined myself to take what anyone
says with caution as far as to it`s being gospel. I believe his daughter
genuinely sent the message and He himself has little to do with it. Children do
possess their own curiousities, agreed ?
I don't follow you, James - when you said this "self-same line" was
posted by Joan Richardson I thought you meant that she was the
Goodyear descendant for whomt Douglas Richardson was acting as a self-
interested proxy. If so, he is hardly excused for posting genealogical
ordure by the fact that he had let his own daughter wallow in it.
But if you meant that his daughter Joan had independently posted the
feeble defense of her father, what kind of upbringing has she had that
she did not disclose a family relationship while pretending to
distance herself by speaking about "Mr Richardson"?
O what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to make excuses
for this miscreant....
Peter Stewart
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: "Countess" as a given name: not just in France
I see. The point then was that *in Britain* this never occurred (didn't
read the entire thread, so missed the context.)
Actually, my aunt (by marriage) - Janet (Churchill) Shields - had a
stepmother whose given name was in fact "Countess" (always thought that
was so funny - Countess Churchill of Winter Park, FL!), but then I
believe she came originally from one of the US's southern states, so
that, I thought, explained it: Southerners being the same folks who
brought us the given name "Ova" for a girl (!). The endless vagaries and
eccentricities of Dixieland's naming patterns!
All best, Leo.
T.
Contessina is Italian. I am waiting for an English/Scottish/Irish even
Welsh
woman with the name "Countess" as a given name.
It is similar to translating a continental counts title as Earl, it
does not
hold.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 9:12 AM
Subject: "Countess" as a given name: not just in France
read the entire thread, so missed the context.)
Actually, my aunt (by marriage) - Janet (Churchill) Shields - had a
stepmother whose given name was in fact "Countess" (always thought that
was so funny - Countess Churchill of Winter Park, FL!), but then I
believe she came originally from one of the US's southern states, so
that, I thought, explained it: Southerners being the same folks who
brought us the given name "Ova" for a girl (!). The endless vagaries and
eccentricities of Dixieland's naming patterns!
All best, Leo.
T.
"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> 08/09/07 04:20PM
Dear Tony,
Contessina is Italian. I am waiting for an English/Scottish/Irish even
Welsh
woman with the name "Countess" as a given name.
It is similar to translating a continental counts title as Earl, it
does not
hold.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 9:12 AM
Subject: "Countess" as a given name: not just in France
Having not read the entire thread, forgive me if this has already
been
pointed out:
Leo wrote: "Just because in France and in French there has been a
woman with the given name "Comtesse" does not make "Countess" a
given
name."
But, I can cite at least one non-French case:
Contessina de' Bardi (say 1396-aft 1464) [wife of Cosimo 'Pater
Patrie'
de' Medici], daughter of Giovanni de' Bardi, count of Vernio.
Perhaps it might be argued that she was called by the *title*
"Little
Countess" (her father being a count), having perhaps another "real"
given name. But, the fact remains that she was called Contessina, as
though it were a given name.
Tony
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Gjest
Re: Stephen Goodyear's alleged royal descent
Dear Peter,
I goofed. Todd noted that a Joan Richardson posted this
line which includes a Lady Joan Peche elsewhere. Now I realize you and He do not
relate well with one another and I am inclined myself to take what anyone
says with caution as far as to it`s being gospel. I believe his daughter
genuinely sent the message and He himself has little to do with it. Children do
possess their own curiousities, agreed ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
I goofed. Todd noted that a Joan Richardson posted this
line which includes a Lady Joan Peche elsewhere. Now I realize you and He do not
relate well with one another and I am inclined myself to take what anyone
says with caution as far as to it`s being gospel. I believe his daughter
genuinely sent the message and He himself has little to do with it. Children do
possess their own curiousities, agreed ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-
taf
Re: Stephen Goodyear's alleged royal descent
On Aug 9, 2:13 pm, Jwc1...@aol.com wrote:
No. This is not what I said. The identical post ABOUT Lady Joan Peche
was sent to this group twice, once from the email address of Joan E.
Richardson, but signed DR, and then again from Douglas Richardson,
also signed DR. There can be little doubt who was the originator of
that post. Given that the only previous post to this group from the
address in question came from Douglas Richardson, it is oddly
disingenuous for a post to be made from the same address defending the
intentions of "Mr. Richardson" as if he were a complete stranger. This
is the case whether the poster was Mr. Richardson's daughter or
someone even more familiar to him.
(Or was "Mr. Richardson" just trying to be ironic in referring to
himself in the third person, and forgot to sign his post?)
taf
Dear Peter and others,
Given the mention made elsewhere that this
selfsame line was sent to another group by Lady Joan Peche and that Douglas
has a daughter Joan, mightn`t She have e-mailed this sagacious group and
signed D R in the hope of not yet another brouhaha but simply of an answer ? I
have no children but would not rule it out as a possibility.
No. This is not what I said. The identical post ABOUT Lady Joan Peche
was sent to this group twice, once from the email address of Joan E.
Richardson, but signed DR, and then again from Douglas Richardson,
also signed DR. There can be little doubt who was the originator of
that post. Given that the only previous post to this group from the
address in question came from Douglas Richardson, it is oddly
disingenuous for a post to be made from the same address defending the
intentions of "Mr. Richardson" as if he were a complete stranger. This
is the case whether the poster was Mr. Richardson's daughter or
someone even more familiar to him.
(Or was "Mr. Richardson" just trying to be ironic in referring to
himself in the third person, and forgot to sign his post?)
taf
-
norenxaq
Re: "Countess" as a given name: not just in France
Tony Hoskins wrote:
I have two cousins named Ova. both male and both born in the north...
I see. The point then was that *in Britain* this never occurred (didn't
read the entire thread, so missed the context.)
Actually, my aunt (by marriage) - Janet (Churchill) Shields - had a
stepmother whose given name was in fact "Countess" (always thought that
was so funny - Countess Churchill of Winter Park, FL!), but then I
believe she came originally from one of the US's southern states, so
that, I thought, explained it: Southerners being the same folks who
brought us the given name "Ova" for a girl (!). The endless vagaries and
eccentricities of Dixieland's naming patterns!
All best, Leo.
T.
I have two cousins named Ova. both male and both born in the north...
-
Gjest
Fwd: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
-----Original Message-----
From: jimpup@aol.com
To: leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
Sent: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 6:59 pm
Subject: Re: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
Leo,
What does it profit anyone to keep pounding the point about DR or anyone else???
Peter still uses vitriol in abundant supply.?? It would benefit all of us if Peter would post something of substance?without his ascerbic comments interspersed.
Perhaps we should delete Peter's postings without reading them!
I imagine many people in this group do that anyway.
Jim Malone
-----Original Message-----
From: Leo van de Pas <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com; jimpup@aol.com
Sent: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 5:43 pm
Subject: Re: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
Dear Jim,?
?
Most of the time discussions work better if they are conducted in a civil manner, but that is not always possible.?
?
Often it is important to see _who_ posts the "specious data". If someone does it in all innocence, I am sure no one will seriously attack that person, only the information. However it is a different matter when that person for years has put himself on a pedestal, claiming to be the all round expert. If I were an expert, I would be ashamed to display information so obviously wrong. If I had received it from someone, I would check it and then return it to the person who sent it to me with the explanation what is wrong.?
?
It is a terrible thing to make public a genealogical line riddled with errors, as there will always be another innocent person taking for granted it is correct as the "great so-and-so" says so. And once errors are passed on they can be perpetuated for a long time.?
?
Also I think it is bad when people make public statements (especially while standing on their pedestal) and when challenged ignore the invitation to produce a sample. For instance Richardson maintained that "Countess" is a historic given name. Just because in France and in French there has been a woman with the given name "Comtesse" does not make "Countess" a given name. I think the Anglos-Saxon desire to translate everything into English is terrible.?
?
You say that "If you have a dispute, treat it with respect and work out the details". But how do you do that when the person making an erronous statement refuses to engage "in a respectful conversation"? Sometimes it makes people maintain that a spade is a shovel, just to get their message and frustration across.?
?
Most unkind/impolite/rude messages are not actions but re-actions in frustration, who do you blame? It has nothing to do with "kicks" of the kind you refer to. Also do not bring in the list administrators, their position has been explained over and over again.?
?
With best wishes?
Leo van de Pas?
Canberra, Australia?
?
?
----- Original Message ----- From: <jimpup@aol.com>?
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>?
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 7:42 AM?
Subject: Restoring civility to this newsgroup?
?
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
From: jimpup@aol.com
To: leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
Sent: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 6:59 pm
Subject: Re: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
Leo,
What does it profit anyone to keep pounding the point about DR or anyone else???
Peter still uses vitriol in abundant supply.?? It would benefit all of us if Peter would post something of substance?without his ascerbic comments interspersed.
Perhaps we should delete Peter's postings without reading them!
I imagine many people in this group do that anyway.
Jim Malone
-----Original Message-----
From: Leo van de Pas <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com; jimpup@aol.com
Sent: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 5:43 pm
Subject: Re: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
Dear Jim,?
?
Most of the time discussions work better if they are conducted in a civil manner, but that is not always possible.?
?
Often it is important to see _who_ posts the "specious data". If someone does it in all innocence, I am sure no one will seriously attack that person, only the information. However it is a different matter when that person for years has put himself on a pedestal, claiming to be the all round expert. If I were an expert, I would be ashamed to display information so obviously wrong. If I had received it from someone, I would check it and then return it to the person who sent it to me with the explanation what is wrong.?
?
It is a terrible thing to make public a genealogical line riddled with errors, as there will always be another innocent person taking for granted it is correct as the "great so-and-so" says so. And once errors are passed on they can be perpetuated for a long time.?
?
Also I think it is bad when people make public statements (especially while standing on their pedestal) and when challenged ignore the invitation to produce a sample. For instance Richardson maintained that "Countess" is a historic given name. Just because in France and in French there has been a woman with the given name "Comtesse" does not make "Countess" a given name. I think the Anglos-Saxon desire to translate everything into English is terrible.?
?
You say that "If you have a dispute, treat it with respect and work out the details". But how do you do that when the person making an erronous statement refuses to engage "in a respectful conversation"? Sometimes it makes people maintain that a spade is a shovel, just to get their message and frustration across.?
?
Most unkind/impolite/rude messages are not actions but re-actions in frustration, who do you blame? It has nothing to do with "kicks" of the kind you refer to. Also do not bring in the list administrators, their position has been explained over and over again.?
?
With best wishes?
Leo van de Pas?
Canberra, Australia?
?
?
----- Original Message ----- From: <jimpup@aol.com>?
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>?
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 7:42 AM?
Subject: Restoring civility to this newsgroup?
?
Hi all!?
?
Let us please return to civility in this group.? Name calling is > childish.?? Bullying is an elementary tactic.?
?
We are primarily into research but lately his has been burdened by?some > very strong?responses as some people posture to strut their "stuff."?
?
Some of the people on this group have found tremendous information and > placed it here for many of us to use.??
?
When someone posts specious data, rather than pointing out the difficient > elements some people choose to attack.? Some people post 6-8 or more > messages on the same topic.? With a little effort they could be condensed > into fewer messages.?
?
If you have a dispute, treat it with respect and work out the details.???
?
It seems to me that the list administrators could do something about this > problem.???
?
Some of us have had errant data and have received helpful notes.??At > thesame time?others have been attacked.?? Maybe this is the only way some > posters can get their "kicks."?
??
Looking forward to seeing cicility restored to this group.?
?
Jim Malone?
?
?
________________________________________________________________________?
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free > from AOL at 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?
?
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Douglas Richardson's ancestry
Dear Will,
Do you hope to create his genealogy for us? I hope you succeed. Both Douglas
Richardson and Spencer Hines have indicated they have medieval royalty for
ancestors but both "only say so" no information is ever supplied. I think
people who expose ancestry of other people should be open about their own.
Are you starting a series of ancestry lists for people involved in
genealogy?
Geoffrey of Anjou of Plantagenet fame is an ancestor of the following people
involved in genealogy
Michael Andrews-Reading - Gordon Banks - Arturo Beeche Bravo - Brice
Clagett - James Cummings - Ian Fettes - John Steele Gordon - Gordon R. Hale
Jr. - Tony Hoskins - Will Johnson - Malinda Jones - Peter de Loriol - Andrew
MacEwen - Amaury de Maere d'Aertrycke - Bernard Mayaud - Doug McDonald -
Grant Menzies - Sir Iain Moncreiffe - George Andrews Moriarty - Brom Nichol
Jr - Ernst von Oidtman - Merilyn Pedrick - Tim Powys-Lybbe - John
Ravilious - William Addams Reitwiesner - Gary Boyd Roberts - Marie-Line
Rousset - Walter Lee Sheppard Jr - Sam Sloan - Louise Staley - Don Stone -
Gilbert von Studnitz - Nat Taylor - Michel Teillard d'Eyry - Hansa Vogels -
Robert Leigh Ward - Mike Welch - Kelsey Williams - Henry Mosle West Winter
Have fun
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 9:39 AM
Subject: Douglas Richardson's ancestry
Do you hope to create his genealogy for us? I hope you succeed. Both Douglas
Richardson and Spencer Hines have indicated they have medieval royalty for
ancestors but both "only say so" no information is ever supplied. I think
people who expose ancestry of other people should be open about their own.
Are you starting a series of ancestry lists for people involved in
genealogy?
Geoffrey of Anjou of Plantagenet fame is an ancestor of the following people
involved in genealogy
Michael Andrews-Reading - Gordon Banks - Arturo Beeche Bravo - Brice
Clagett - James Cummings - Ian Fettes - John Steele Gordon - Gordon R. Hale
Jr. - Tony Hoskins - Will Johnson - Malinda Jones - Peter de Loriol - Andrew
MacEwen - Amaury de Maere d'Aertrycke - Bernard Mayaud - Doug McDonald -
Grant Menzies - Sir Iain Moncreiffe - George Andrews Moriarty - Brom Nichol
Jr - Ernst von Oidtman - Merilyn Pedrick - Tim Powys-Lybbe - John
Ravilious - William Addams Reitwiesner - Gary Boyd Roberts - Marie-Line
Rousset - Walter Lee Sheppard Jr - Sam Sloan - Louise Staley - Don Stone -
Gilbert von Studnitz - Nat Taylor - Michel Teillard d'Eyry - Hansa Vogels -
Robert Leigh Ward - Mike Welch - Kelsey Williams - Henry Mosle West Winter
Have fun
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 9:39 AM
Subject: Douglas Richardson's ancestry
I've started the page here
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... Richardson
so far it has no substance, just a skeleton. I'll be adding the details
over the next week or so.
I have found a number of lines that are medieval but haven't qualified
them yet.
Will Johnson
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
WJhonson
Re: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
Jim, Peter is one of the handful of people who can be guarenteed to post detailed and useful information.
Peter has a sharp tongue as well. As do I.
If you remember Jim, DR is also one to degrade the efforts of past and current genealogists, including list members. I fondly remember him chiding me for being a sort of vampire, sucking up everyone else's work and contributing nothing. I forget the exact phrase he used, but it wasn't very pleasant.
So there's no use calling one kettle black and the other one pewter. It simply isn't the case.
Will Johnson
Peter has a sharp tongue as well. As do I.
If you remember Jim, DR is also one to degrade the efforts of past and current genealogists, including list members. I fondly remember him chiding me for being a sort of vampire, sucking up everyone else's work and contributing nothing. I forget the exact phrase he used, but it wasn't very pleasant.
So there's no use calling one kettle black and the other one pewter. It simply isn't the case.
Will Johnson
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Fwd: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
Having observed periodic outbursts of bad behavior here, it's my view
that ignoring the miscreants is the best remedy. "Trolls" die (or at
least retreat grumbling and frustrated to their caves) when they can't
"feed" off people's reactions, attention (albeit negative). "Emotional
vampirism".
There are so many excellent, interesting, and constructive people here.
*They* should be recognized and responded to, not the "others".
Tony
Tony
that ignoring the miscreants is the best remedy. "Trolls" die (or at
least retreat grumbling and frustrated to their caves) when they can't
"feed" off people's reactions, attention (albeit negative). "Emotional
vampirism".
From "Field of Dreams" - reverse-paraphrasis - "If you ignore them,
they will go away."
There are so many excellent, interesting, and constructive people here.
*They* should be recognized and responded to, not the "others".
Tony
Tony
-
WJhonson
Re: Douglas Richardson's ancestry
What I've found interesting so far, is there there are people in DR's recent past who actually were *names* in their town at least, and yet when I run them I get almost nothing.
I would have thought DR would have broadcast them. But hey.
My own ancestry is posted in WorldConnect and online in a few other gedcoms with which I was toying. Sans the living people of course. I had to go back and scrub a few because I keep getting people looking up my home address and then calling me at HOME to ask about their own relatives.
Very annoying. I always advise people now to *not* put your address not even your city into your GEDCOM information. Just put your email addr or something.
I get about two calls per week at home still so its floating around out there still.
At any rate, I was actually supposed to be working on the ancestry of Rock Hudson's first lover "Kenneth G Hodge" and got side-tracked
Will Johnson
I would have thought DR would have broadcast them. But hey.
My own ancestry is posted in WorldConnect and online in a few other gedcoms with which I was toying. Sans the living people of course. I had to go back and scrub a few because I keep getting people looking up my home address and then calling me at HOME to ask about their own relatives.
Very annoying. I always advise people now to *not* put your address not even your city into your GEDCOM information. Just put your email addr or something.
I get about two calls per week at home still so its floating around out there still.
At any rate, I was actually supposed to be working on the ancestry of Rock Hudson's first lover "Kenneth G Hodge" and got side-tracked
Will Johnson
-
Alan Grey
Re: Fw: "Countess" as a given name: not just in France
Leo van de Pas wrote:
It is obvious that "Princess" and "Countess" have frequently been used
as given names in Great Britain, though I do not know when this practice
started. Examples are,
Countess Anderton (1844), dau. John and Ann Anderton. She appears to
have married John Bollen in 1868.
Countess Bianchi of South Stoneham (1858)
Countess Tonge of Upholland (1874)
etc etc
Princess Jane Brooks of Tetbury (1853), who appears (as Princess Jessie
Brooks) to have married William Wilkins in 1875.
Princess Helena Holliday of Bradford (1864)
etc etc
This is not really a surprise. After all, Earl is a rather common given
name, and King, Queen, Prince and Baron are (have been) also used with
some frequency.
As an aside, the Pacific Islands community sometimes gives unusual
English names to their children (usually because of lack of familiarity
with English, whereby they have taken names from any words they saw
written somewhere). I knew of a "Popcorn" and "Typewriter", but I heard
of the sisters "Syphilis" and "Gonorrhoea" (pronounced Syphe'lius and
Gono'rea respectively [emphasis on the second syllable]), which either
is an urban myth or it really takes out first prize.
Alan R Grey
I also heard in Britain in the 1960s there was a new father so proud of his
new born daughter she was called "Princess Diana", this was well before
Lady
Diana Spencer appeared on the world stage. Also I seem to recall a child in
Poland was given the name Electricity. It can be cruel what parents can
inflict on their children. I recall Winston Churchill saying that parents
should also be aware of the initials they create for their children.
It is obvious that "Princess" and "Countess" have frequently been used
as given names in Great Britain, though I do not know when this practice
started. Examples are,
Countess Anderton (1844), dau. John and Ann Anderton. She appears to
have married John Bollen in 1868.
Countess Bianchi of South Stoneham (1858)
Countess Tonge of Upholland (1874)
etc etc
Princess Jane Brooks of Tetbury (1853), who appears (as Princess Jessie
Brooks) to have married William Wilkins in 1875.
Princess Helena Holliday of Bradford (1864)
etc etc
This is not really a surprise. After all, Earl is a rather common given
name, and King, Queen, Prince and Baron are (have been) also used with
some frequency.
As an aside, the Pacific Islands community sometimes gives unusual
English names to their children (usually because of lack of familiarity
with English, whereby they have taken names from any words they saw
written somewhere). I knew of a "Popcorn" and "Typewriter", but I heard
of the sisters "Syphilis" and "Gonorrhoea" (pronounced Syphe'lius and
Gono'rea respectively [emphasis on the second syllable]), which either
is an urban myth or it really takes out first prize.
Alan R Grey
-
Tony Hoskins
RE: Tudors were Plantagenets? Henry Carey, Lord Hunsdon
"Do you have an opinion about who Henry Carey, Lord Hunsdon's father
is?"
Dear Mr. Coache:
On this subject, you might be interested in an article of mine,
originally published 10 years ago in London, recently re-published
online:
http://www.genealogymagazine.com/boleyn.html
Many leading Tudor historians now believe that Katherine and Henry
Carey were probably Henry VIII's children. See the below entry from the
_Oxford Dictionary of National Biography_:
"Knollys [née Carey], Katherine, Lady Knollys (c.1523-1569), courtier,
was undoubtedly the daughter of Mary Boleyn [see Stafford, Mary,
(c.1499-1543)], but although she and her brother Henry Carey (later
first Baron Hunsdon) were recognized as the children of Mary's first
husband William Carey (c.1500-1528), their mother's affair with Henry
VIII, between about 1522 and 1525, has always raised questions about the
paternity of her children. Henry Carey's date of birth (4 March 1526)
suggests that his conception may have postdated the affair; but
Katherine was probably the elder of the two and the king's daughter. Her
surviving portrait, which was painted early in 1562 and records her age
as thirty-eight, suggests a birth date of 1523/4, and this is in keeping
with the known facts of her early adulthood. In November 1539 she was
appointed a maid of honour to Anne of Cleves, and on 26 April 1540 she
married Francis Knollys (1511/12-1596). According to a note in Francis's
Latin dictionary their first child, Henry, was born 'the Tuesday before
Easter Day [12 April] 1541'. Since maids to an adult queen were usually
aged sixteen or more, and marriage at thirteen or less did not usually
involve cohabitation, this evidence, too, suggests that Katherine was
older than her brother and born before 1525.
In 1540 an act of parliament assured the newly-weds of their right to
inherit the Knollys family manor of Rotherfield Greys, Oxfordshire. In
the following thirteen years, while Francis rose steadily at court (he
was knighted in 1547), Katherine bore the first ten of their sixteen
children and evidently maintained a close friendship-one probably begun
in childhood-with Princess Elizabeth, who sent her a farewell letter
signed cor rotto ('broken heart') when she and her husband went abroad.
Their departure, among the more prominent Marian exiles, has
traditionally been dated to 1553 but is more likely to have occurred in
spring 1556, possibly as a result of the discovery of the Dudley
conspiracy. The following winter Sir Francis, at least, was recorded in
Basel, and by June 1557 Katherine and five of their children were with
him in Frankfurt am Main. The date of their return to England is
uncertain. The initial privy seal warrant of 3 January 1559 appointing
Katherine one of the four waged ladies of the bedchamber may have
anticipated her arrival, but they were certainly back by 14 January.
Although the cor rotto letter may be the only firm surviving evidence of
Katherine's earlier relations with Elizabeth, from 1559 it was often
noted that Katherine was, in the words of Thomas Newton's verse epitaph
on her, 'In favour with our noble queen, above the common sort',
possibly reflecting the inadmissible fact that they were half-sisters.
Lady Knollys retained her post in the bedchamber until she died,
despite the needs of her many children and Elizabeth's demanding nature,
which made Katherine 'often weep for unkindness' (Knollys, 'Papers',
65). There were compensations. Her children, notably Lettice Dudley,
gained places in the household, and her eldest son's wedding in 1565 was
honoured with a court tournament. But the queen remained exigent. When
Katherine died at Hampton Court Palace Sir Francis was at Bolton Castle
supervising the captivity of Mary, queen of Scots. He had repeatedly
asked both Elizabeth and Sir William Cecil to let him return, and he
fumed at the queen's 'ungrateful denial of my coming to the court this
Christmas' (ibid., 60), particularly as Katherine had been ill with a
fever. A letter from Cecil assuring him that Katherine was 'well
amended' prompted Sir Francis to write to her at the end of December,
pouring out his frustrations and suggesting they retire from court and
live 'a country poor life' (ibid., 65). But Katherine's recovery was
short-lived, for she died barely a fortnight later, on 15 January 1569,
'lying in a princes court * very often visited by her majesty's own
comfortable presence' (Salisbury MSS, 1.400). The queen was so
grief-stricken that she became 'forgetful of her own health' (ibid.),
and she spent £640 2s. 11d. on a lavish funeral ceremony for Katherine,
complete with interment in Westminster Abbey. It was considerably more
than Elizabeth paid towards the exequies of the duchess of Suffolk (d.
1559) and the countess of Lennox (d. 1578), two cousins who shared her
descent from Henry VII; and Katherine's funeral furniture was valuable
enough to cause a dispute between the abbey and the college of
heralds".
Sally Varlow
Sources LP Henry VIII, 3, 4, 8, 14, 15, 17 · Sir Francis' Latin
dictionary, 1555-62, priv. coll. · S. Varlow, 'Sir Francis Knolly's
Latin dictionary', HJ, 80 [forthcoming] · Calendar of the manuscripts of
the most hon. the marquis of Salisbury, 1, HMC, 9 (1883) · W. Knollys,
'Papers relating to Mary, Queen of Scots', Philobiblon Society
Miscellanies, 14 (1872-6), 14-69 · W. Dugdale, The baronage of England,
2 (1676), 397, 413 ff. · A. Hoskins, 'Mary Boleyn's Carey children:
offspring of King Henry VIII?', The Genealogist's Magazine, 25 (March
1997), 345-52 · F. J. Malpas, 'Sir Francis Knollys and family', 1993,
Berkshire County Library · C. Merton, 'The women who served Queen Mary
and Queen Elizabeth: ladies, gentlewomen and maids of the privy chamber,
1553-1603', PhD diss., U. Cam., 1992 · Westminster Abbey Muniment Room,
London, 6414, 6415, 6416, 6417; index of monuments and inscriptions · T.
Newton, An epitaphe upon the worthy and honorable lady, the Lady Knowles
(1569) · P. Croft and K. Hearn, 'Only matrimony maketh children to be
certain: two Elizabethan pregnancy portraits', British Art Journal, 3
(2002), 19 · CSP dom.
© Oxford University Press 2004-7
All rights reserved: see legal notice
Sally Varlow, 'Knollys , Katherine, Lady Knollys (c.1523-1569)', Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography, online edn, Oxford University Press,
Oct 2006 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/69747, accessed 9 Aug
2007]
---
Best wishes,
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
is?"
Dear Mr. Coache:
On this subject, you might be interested in an article of mine,
originally published 10 years ago in London, recently re-published
online:
http://www.genealogymagazine.com/boleyn.html
Many leading Tudor historians now believe that Katherine and Henry
Carey were probably Henry VIII's children. See the below entry from the
_Oxford Dictionary of National Biography_:
"Knollys [née Carey], Katherine, Lady Knollys (c.1523-1569), courtier,
was undoubtedly the daughter of Mary Boleyn [see Stafford, Mary,
(c.1499-1543)], but although she and her brother Henry Carey (later
first Baron Hunsdon) were recognized as the children of Mary's first
husband William Carey (c.1500-1528), their mother's affair with Henry
VIII, between about 1522 and 1525, has always raised questions about the
paternity of her children. Henry Carey's date of birth (4 March 1526)
suggests that his conception may have postdated the affair; but
Katherine was probably the elder of the two and the king's daughter. Her
surviving portrait, which was painted early in 1562 and records her age
as thirty-eight, suggests a birth date of 1523/4, and this is in keeping
with the known facts of her early adulthood. In November 1539 she was
appointed a maid of honour to Anne of Cleves, and on 26 April 1540 she
married Francis Knollys (1511/12-1596). According to a note in Francis's
Latin dictionary their first child, Henry, was born 'the Tuesday before
Easter Day [12 April] 1541'. Since maids to an adult queen were usually
aged sixteen or more, and marriage at thirteen or less did not usually
involve cohabitation, this evidence, too, suggests that Katherine was
older than her brother and born before 1525.
In 1540 an act of parliament assured the newly-weds of their right to
inherit the Knollys family manor of Rotherfield Greys, Oxfordshire. In
the following thirteen years, while Francis rose steadily at court (he
was knighted in 1547), Katherine bore the first ten of their sixteen
children and evidently maintained a close friendship-one probably begun
in childhood-with Princess Elizabeth, who sent her a farewell letter
signed cor rotto ('broken heart') when she and her husband went abroad.
Their departure, among the more prominent Marian exiles, has
traditionally been dated to 1553 but is more likely to have occurred in
spring 1556, possibly as a result of the discovery of the Dudley
conspiracy. The following winter Sir Francis, at least, was recorded in
Basel, and by June 1557 Katherine and five of their children were with
him in Frankfurt am Main. The date of their return to England is
uncertain. The initial privy seal warrant of 3 January 1559 appointing
Katherine one of the four waged ladies of the bedchamber may have
anticipated her arrival, but they were certainly back by 14 January.
Although the cor rotto letter may be the only firm surviving evidence of
Katherine's earlier relations with Elizabeth, from 1559 it was often
noted that Katherine was, in the words of Thomas Newton's verse epitaph
on her, 'In favour with our noble queen, above the common sort',
possibly reflecting the inadmissible fact that they were half-sisters.
Lady Knollys retained her post in the bedchamber until she died,
despite the needs of her many children and Elizabeth's demanding nature,
which made Katherine 'often weep for unkindness' (Knollys, 'Papers',
65). There were compensations. Her children, notably Lettice Dudley,
gained places in the household, and her eldest son's wedding in 1565 was
honoured with a court tournament. But the queen remained exigent. When
Katherine died at Hampton Court Palace Sir Francis was at Bolton Castle
supervising the captivity of Mary, queen of Scots. He had repeatedly
asked both Elizabeth and Sir William Cecil to let him return, and he
fumed at the queen's 'ungrateful denial of my coming to the court this
Christmas' (ibid., 60), particularly as Katherine had been ill with a
fever. A letter from Cecil assuring him that Katherine was 'well
amended' prompted Sir Francis to write to her at the end of December,
pouring out his frustrations and suggesting they retire from court and
live 'a country poor life' (ibid., 65). But Katherine's recovery was
short-lived, for she died barely a fortnight later, on 15 January 1569,
'lying in a princes court * very often visited by her majesty's own
comfortable presence' (Salisbury MSS, 1.400). The queen was so
grief-stricken that she became 'forgetful of her own health' (ibid.),
and she spent £640 2s. 11d. on a lavish funeral ceremony for Katherine,
complete with interment in Westminster Abbey. It was considerably more
than Elizabeth paid towards the exequies of the duchess of Suffolk (d.
1559) and the countess of Lennox (d. 1578), two cousins who shared her
descent from Henry VII; and Katherine's funeral furniture was valuable
enough to cause a dispute between the abbey and the college of
heralds".
Sally Varlow
Sources LP Henry VIII, 3, 4, 8, 14, 15, 17 · Sir Francis' Latin
dictionary, 1555-62, priv. coll. · S. Varlow, 'Sir Francis Knolly's
Latin dictionary', HJ, 80 [forthcoming] · Calendar of the manuscripts of
the most hon. the marquis of Salisbury, 1, HMC, 9 (1883) · W. Knollys,
'Papers relating to Mary, Queen of Scots', Philobiblon Society
Miscellanies, 14 (1872-6), 14-69 · W. Dugdale, The baronage of England,
2 (1676), 397, 413 ff. · A. Hoskins, 'Mary Boleyn's Carey children:
offspring of King Henry VIII?', The Genealogist's Magazine, 25 (March
1997), 345-52 · F. J. Malpas, 'Sir Francis Knollys and family', 1993,
Berkshire County Library · C. Merton, 'The women who served Queen Mary
and Queen Elizabeth: ladies, gentlewomen and maids of the privy chamber,
1553-1603', PhD diss., U. Cam., 1992 · Westminster Abbey Muniment Room,
London, 6414, 6415, 6416, 6417; index of monuments and inscriptions · T.
Newton, An epitaphe upon the worthy and honorable lady, the Lady Knowles
(1569) · P. Croft and K. Hearn, 'Only matrimony maketh children to be
certain: two Elizabethan pregnancy portraits', British Art Journal, 3
(2002), 19 · CSP dom.
© Oxford University Press 2004-7
All rights reserved: see legal notice
Sally Varlow, 'Knollys , Katherine, Lady Knollys (c.1523-1569)', Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography, online edn, Oxford University Press,
Oct 2006 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/69747, accessed 9 Aug
2007]
---
Best wishes,
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
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Fw: "Countess" as a given name: not just in France
I am grateful for these samples, but Tony Hoskins relative in the USA and
Countess Anderton (1844) (where did she live?) etc. does not make a given
name of Countess in medieval England, Scotland, Ireland or Wales.
You say "it is obvious that "Princess" and "Countess" have frequently been
used" the one use for Princess Diana was so rare it was reported in the
Dutch press. You say "frequent" but on my data base, at the moment some
509,970 people have been entered, not one person, medieval times nor last
century, are recorded with Countess as a given name. I think it is not
"frequent" but an exception.
Richardson said it was an accepted name,( and as we deal with medieval
times, that is the time frame we are concerned with ) if it was accepted, he
should be able to provide an example. Comtesse and Contessina will not do.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Grey" <a.grey@niwa.co.nz>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: "Countess" as a given name: not just in France
Countess Anderton (1844) (where did she live?) etc. does not make a given
name of Countess in medieval England, Scotland, Ireland or Wales.
You say "it is obvious that "Princess" and "Countess" have frequently been
used" the one use for Princess Diana was so rare it was reported in the
Dutch press. You say "frequent" but on my data base, at the moment some
509,970 people have been entered, not one person, medieval times nor last
century, are recorded with Countess as a given name. I think it is not
"frequent" but an exception.
Richardson said it was an accepted name,( and as we deal with medieval
times, that is the time frame we are concerned with ) if it was accepted, he
should be able to provide an example. Comtesse and Contessina will not do.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Grey" <a.grey@niwa.co.nz>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: "Countess" as a given name: not just in France
Leo van de Pas wrote:
I also heard in Britain in the 1960s there was a new father so proud of
his
new born daughter she was called "Princess Diana", this was well before
Lady
Diana Spencer appeared on the world stage. Also I seem to recall a child
in
Poland was given the name Electricity. It can be cruel what parents can
inflict on their children. I recall Winston Churchill saying that
parents
should also be aware of the initials they create for their children.
It is obvious that "Princess" and "Countess" have frequently been used
as given names in Great Britain, though I do not know when this practice
started. Examples are,
Countess Anderton (1844), dau. John and Ann Anderton. She appears to
have married John Bollen in 1868.
Countess Bianchi of South Stoneham (1858)
Countess Tonge of Upholland (1874)
etc etc
Princess Jane Brooks of Tetbury (1853), who appears (as Princess Jessie
Brooks) to have married William Wilkins in 1875.
Princess Helena Holliday of Bradford (1864)
etc etc
This is not really a surprise. After all, Earl is a rather common given
name, and King, Queen, Prince and Baron are (have been) also used with
some frequency.
As an aside, the Pacific Islands community sometimes gives unusual
English names to their children (usually because of lack of familiarity
with English, whereby they have taken names from any words they saw
written somewhere). I knew of a "Popcorn" and "Typewriter", but I heard
of the sisters "Syphilis" and "Gonorrhoea" (pronounced Syphe'lius and
Gono'rea respectively [emphasis on the second syllable]), which either
is an urban myth or it really takes out first prize.
Alan R Grey
-------------------------------
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
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Fwd: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
Having observed periodic outbursts of bad behavior here, it's my view
that ignoring the miscreants is the best remedy. "Trolls" die (or at
least retreat grumbling and frustrated to their caves) when they can't
"feed" off people's reactions, attention (albeit negative). "Emotional
vampirism".
There are so many excellent, interesting, and constructive people here.
*They* should be recognized and responded to, not the "others".
Tony
that ignoring the miscreants is the best remedy. "Trolls" die (or at
least retreat grumbling and frustrated to their caves) when they can't
"feed" off people's reactions, attention (albeit negative). "Emotional
vampirism".
From "Field of Dreams" - reverse-paraphrasis - "If you ignore them,
they will go away."
There are so many excellent, interesting, and constructive people here.
*They* should be recognized and responded to, not the "others".
Tony