Blount-Ayala
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
WJhonson
Re: Sir Peter Vanlore (d.1627)'s Dutch ancestry
http://books.google.com/books?id=YYAHAA ... PXJgLQtq-k
Will Johnson
-----------------------------
In a message dated 08/09/07 17:41:39 Pacific Standard Time, hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us writes:
I'm researching descendants of Sir Peter Vanlore (c.1547-1627) and
wonder if anyone (especially Leo) might have information of use in
tracing Sir Peter's antecedents in the Netherlands. Excerpts from his
bio in _ODNB_:
"Vanlore, Sir Peter [formerly Pieter van Loor] (c.1547-1627), merchant
and moneylender, was born in Utrecht in the Netherlands, the third son
of Maurice van Loor and his wife, Stephania. He arrived in England about
1568. Before 19 July 1585, when he was living in the parish of St Benet
Sherehog, he had married Jacoba or Jacomina, daughter of Henry
Teighbott.
In the event, Vanlore remained in England until his death on 6
September 1627. His will of 29 June that year reveals strong ties both
to his native community and to the establishment of his adopted country.
Sir Paul Bayning was an overseer and Lord Keeper Sir Thomas Coventry
among special friends singled out; the Dutch church, his local parish,
and Christ's Hospital all received legacies. This bifurcation was
repeated in his children's marriages: those of Peter (bap. 1586) to
Susanna Becke of Antwerp and of Elizabeth to Hans van den Bernden; those
of Jacquemine (bap. 1587, d. 1606) to Johannes De Laet, newly arrived
immigrant, and of Anne to Sir Charles Caesar, master of chancery and
third generation immigrant; and those of Mary to Sir Edward Powell,
eventually master of requests, and Catherine to Sir Thomas Glemham.
Vanlore left each of his grandchildren £1000, but it is unclear to what
extent his estate was ever fully reimbursed for his loans: in July 1628
his widow, Jacoba, and her son-in-law Powell were still seeking £13,000
due from the crown. Peter the younger obtained a baronetcy on 6
September that year, but the estates so spectacularly built up were
dispersed when he died in 1645 leaving three daughters."
© Oxford University Press 2004-7
All rights reserved: see legal notice
Vivienne Larminie, 'Vanlore, Sir Peter (c.1547-1627)', Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004
[http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/66557, accessed 9 Aug 2007]
-------
Many thanks.
Tony
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-------------------------------
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
Will Johnson
-----------------------------
In a message dated 08/09/07 17:41:39 Pacific Standard Time, hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us writes:
I'm researching descendants of Sir Peter Vanlore (c.1547-1627) and
wonder if anyone (especially Leo) might have information of use in
tracing Sir Peter's antecedents in the Netherlands. Excerpts from his
bio in _ODNB_:
"Vanlore, Sir Peter [formerly Pieter van Loor] (c.1547-1627), merchant
and moneylender, was born in Utrecht in the Netherlands, the third son
of Maurice van Loor and his wife, Stephania. He arrived in England about
1568. Before 19 July 1585, when he was living in the parish of St Benet
Sherehog, he had married Jacoba or Jacomina, daughter of Henry
Teighbott.
In the event, Vanlore remained in England until his death on 6
September 1627. His will of 29 June that year reveals strong ties both
to his native community and to the establishment of his adopted country.
Sir Paul Bayning was an overseer and Lord Keeper Sir Thomas Coventry
among special friends singled out; the Dutch church, his local parish,
and Christ's Hospital all received legacies. This bifurcation was
repeated in his children's marriages: those of Peter (bap. 1586) to
Susanna Becke of Antwerp and of Elizabeth to Hans van den Bernden; those
of Jacquemine (bap. 1587, d. 1606) to Johannes De Laet, newly arrived
immigrant, and of Anne to Sir Charles Caesar, master of chancery and
third generation immigrant; and those of Mary to Sir Edward Powell,
eventually master of requests, and Catherine to Sir Thomas Glemham.
Vanlore left each of his grandchildren £1000, but it is unclear to what
extent his estate was ever fully reimbursed for his loans: in July 1628
his widow, Jacoba, and her son-in-law Powell were still seeking £13,000
due from the crown. Peter the younger obtained a baronetcy on 6
September that year, but the estates so spectacularly built up were
dispersed when he died in 1645 leaving three daughters."
© Oxford University Press 2004-7
All rights reserved: see legal notice
Vivienne Larminie, 'Vanlore, Sir Peter (c.1547-1627)', Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004
[http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/66557, accessed 9 Aug 2007]
-------
Many thanks.
Tony
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-------------------------------
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
-
Robert Peffers.
Re: Ynglingatal Was: Plantagenet Ancestry
"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:
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"
When we were training in unarmed combat with the RAF Regiment there was a
wee thin, shilpit looking young lady among the trainees. Some time later I
met the young lady at the West End of Prince's Street. She had joined the
Police Force and was now a constable.
At that time the Goon show was all the rage and one of their current catch
phrases was, "Good evening Consabule". I greeted her with this phrase.
She suddenly gripped me by the hand, (but with my thumb pressed tight onto
my palm by her grip). She then walked me, hand in hand, along the length of
Prince's Street. I was unable to resist. This did not work wonders for my
street cred in those days. Yon wee beesom aye haed a guid sense o eemor. Ah
micht hae mairit her bit fir her engagement tae a muckle big polis.
--
Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
news:1186681362.954219.174530@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 9, 10:43 am, The Highlander <mich...@shaw.ca> wrote:
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!
When we were training in unarmed combat with the RAF Regiment there was a
wee thin, shilpit looking young lady among the trainees. Some time later I
met the young lady at the West End of Prince's Street. She had joined the
Police Force and was now a constable.
At that time the Goon show was all the rage and one of their current catch
phrases was, "Good evening Consabule". I greeted her with this phrase.
She suddenly gripped me by the hand, (but with my thumb pressed tight onto
my palm by her grip). She then walked me, hand in hand, along the length of
Prince's Street. I was unable to resist. This did not work wonders for my
street cred in those days. Yon wee beesom aye haed a guid sense o eemor. Ah
micht hae mairit her bit fir her engagement tae a muckle big polis.
--
Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
-
WJhonson
Re: Sir Peter Vanlore (d.1627)'s Dutch ancestry
I see! duh
This
http://books.google.com/books?id=YYAHAA ... 1-PA307,M1
corrects Burkes
<a href = "http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?rank=0&gsfn=John&gsln=Croke&gskw=&prox=1&db=burkescommoners&ti=0&ti.si=0&gss=angs-d&ct=10118">Burke's Commoners, "Croke of Studley"</a>
that Sir Robert Croke d 1680 married Susan Vanlore not Susannah "Vasheer"
Will Johnson
-----------------------------------
In a message dated 08/09/07 17:41:39 Pacific Standard Time, hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us writes:
I'm researching descendants of Sir Peter Vanlore (c.1547-1627) and
wonder if anyone (especially Leo) might have information of use in
tracing Sir Peter's antecedents in the Netherlands. Excerpts from his
bio in _ODNB_:
"Vanlore, Sir Peter [formerly Pieter van Loor] (c.1547-1627), merchant
and moneylender, was born in Utrecht in the Netherlands, the third son
of Maurice van Loor and his wife, Stephania. He arrived in England about
1568. Before 19 July 1585, when he was living in the parish of St Benet
Sherehog, he had married Jacoba or Jacomina, daughter of Henry
Teighbott.
In the event, Vanlore remained in England until his death on 6
September 1627. His will of 29 June that year reveals strong ties both
to his native community and to the establishment of his adopted country.
Sir Paul Bayning was an overseer and Lord Keeper Sir Thomas Coventry
among special friends singled out; the Dutch church, his local parish,
and Christ's Hospital all received legacies. This bifurcation was
repeated in his children's marriages: those of Peter (bap. 1586) to
Susanna Becke of Antwerp and of Elizabeth to Hans van den Bernden; those
of Jacquemine (bap. 1587, d. 1606) to Johannes De Laet, newly arrived
immigrant, and of Anne to Sir Charles Caesar, master of chancery and
third generation immigrant; and those of Mary to Sir Edward Powell,
eventually master of requests, and Catherine to Sir Thomas Glemham.
Vanlore left each of his grandchildren £1000, but it is unclear to what
extent his estate was ever fully reimbursed for his loans: in July 1628
his widow, Jacoba, and her son-in-law Powell were still seeking £13,000
due from the crown. Peter the younger obtained a baronetcy on 6
September that year, but the estates so spectacularly built up were
dispersed when he died in 1645 leaving three daughters."
© Oxford University Press 2004-7
All rights reserved: see legal notice
Vivienne Larminie, 'Vanlore, Sir Peter (c.1547-1627)', Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004
[http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/66557, accessed 9 Aug 2007]
-------
Many thanks.
Tony
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-------------------------------
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
This
http://books.google.com/books?id=YYAHAA ... 1-PA307,M1
corrects Burkes
<a href = "http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?rank=0&gsfn=John&gsln=Croke&gskw=&prox=1&db=burkescommoners&ti=0&ti.si=0&gss=angs-d&ct=10118">Burke's Commoners, "Croke of Studley"</a>
that Sir Robert Croke d 1680 married Susan Vanlore not Susannah "Vasheer"
Will Johnson
-----------------------------------
In a message dated 08/09/07 17:41:39 Pacific Standard Time, hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us writes:
I'm researching descendants of Sir Peter Vanlore (c.1547-1627) and
wonder if anyone (especially Leo) might have information of use in
tracing Sir Peter's antecedents in the Netherlands. Excerpts from his
bio in _ODNB_:
"Vanlore, Sir Peter [formerly Pieter van Loor] (c.1547-1627), merchant
and moneylender, was born in Utrecht in the Netherlands, the third son
of Maurice van Loor and his wife, Stephania. He arrived in England about
1568. Before 19 July 1585, when he was living in the parish of St Benet
Sherehog, he had married Jacoba or Jacomina, daughter of Henry
Teighbott.
In the event, Vanlore remained in England until his death on 6
September 1627. His will of 29 June that year reveals strong ties both
to his native community and to the establishment of his adopted country.
Sir Paul Bayning was an overseer and Lord Keeper Sir Thomas Coventry
among special friends singled out; the Dutch church, his local parish,
and Christ's Hospital all received legacies. This bifurcation was
repeated in his children's marriages: those of Peter (bap. 1586) to
Susanna Becke of Antwerp and of Elizabeth to Hans van den Bernden; those
of Jacquemine (bap. 1587, d. 1606) to Johannes De Laet, newly arrived
immigrant, and of Anne to Sir Charles Caesar, master of chancery and
third generation immigrant; and those of Mary to Sir Edward Powell,
eventually master of requests, and Catherine to Sir Thomas Glemham.
Vanlore left each of his grandchildren £1000, but it is unclear to what
extent his estate was ever fully reimbursed for his loans: in July 1628
his widow, Jacoba, and her son-in-law Powell were still seeking £13,000
due from the crown. Peter the younger obtained a baronetcy on 6
September that year, but the estates so spectacularly built up were
dispersed when he died in 1645 leaving three daughters."
© Oxford University Press 2004-7
All rights reserved: see legal notice
Vivienne Larminie, 'Vanlore, Sir Peter (c.1547-1627)', Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004
[http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/66557, accessed 9 Aug 2007]
-------
Many thanks.
Tony
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-------------------------------
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 Peter Vanlore (d.1627)'s Dutch ancestry
Now we see why Paul Bayning...
Paul married Anne Glemham, Sir Thomas' sister.
Now it makes sense.
Will
Paul married Anne Glemham, Sir Thomas' sister.
Now it makes sense.
Will
-
Tony Ingham
Re: Douglas Richardson's ancestry
Gee Will, I thought it was Doris Day!!!
Regards,
Tony
WJhonson wrote:
Regards,
Tony
WJhonson wrote:
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
-------------------------------
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
N.B.
She doesn't tell us her height and weight.
Par for the course.
Hilarious!
DSH
"Jane Margaret Laight" <jml27515@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1186697757.660095.165470@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
She doesn't tell us her height and weight.
Par for the course.
Hilarious!
DSH
"Jane Margaret Laight" <jml27515@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1186697757.660095.165470@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 9, 2:36 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
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: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
<jimpup@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.230.1186704167.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
I hope so - I have been encouraging complainers for years to exert a single
finger and delete my messages rather than exert more fingers typing out
useless gripes about them.
If you insist on reading my messages and object to their alleged lack of
substance (compared to your own immense and weighty contributions here, I
suppose), why not tackle the specifics instead of the expression?
But of course Richardson and his supporters NEVER do this....almost as if
there is NEVER anything worthwhile to be said for him.
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.230.1186704167.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
-----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.
I hope so - I have been encouraging complainers for years to exert a single
finger and delete my messages rather than exert more fingers typing out
useless gripes about them.
If you insist on reading my messages and object to their alleged lack of
substance (compared to your own immense and weighty contributions here, I
suppose), why not tackle the specifics instead of the expression?
But of course Richardson and his supporters NEVER do this....almost as if
there is NEVER anything worthwhile to be said for him.
Peter Stewart
-
Jane Margaret Laight
Re: Plantagenet Ancestry
On Aug 9, 9:54 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
nor do I intend to--any gentleman would be satisfied with my answer.
Although having once served in the United States Navy as an officer,
Commander, it is apparent from your posts that you are no gentleman.
No man who claims any sense of morality or decent conduct would be so
rude as to ask such a question of someone he does not know.
Shameful!
JML
N.B.
She doesn't tell us her height and weight.
Par for the course.
Hilarious!
DSH
"Jane Margaret Laight" <jml27...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1186697757.660095.165470@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 9, 2:36 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
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!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
nor do I intend to--any gentleman would be satisfied with my answer.
Although having once served in the United States Navy as an officer,
Commander, it is apparent from your posts that you are no gentleman.
No man who claims any sense of morality or decent conduct would be so
rude as to ask such a question of someone he does not know.
Shameful!
JML
-
Alan Grey
Re: Fw: "Countess" as a given name: not just in France
Leo van de Pas wrote:
Yes, well in hindsight "frequent" was the wrong choice of words; it is
subjective and was only meant in reference to the "absence" of those
names and to demonstrate that there are precedents for the use of the
names. My only defense (such as it is) is that I had in mind all the
"titled" names that I had just been checking, rather than just the
Princesses and Countesses of this world. However, it is still "obvious"
that the names have been used in the past.
A simple check of registered births through Free BDM from 1837 to 1919
yields the following: 12 individuals named Countess, 7 named Count, 136
named Princess and nearly 600 named Prince. There are also some 340
Kings, 9,774 Queens (matches, at least ... I did not count them ...
there are 8 where Queen is the only name), and over 450 Barons (with two
Baronets thrown in for good measure).
That clearly establishes the use of the names, with (in totality) some
measure of frequency. As to rarity of the name and the Dutch press,
that may be more a reflection of the press, rather than the use of the
name, or it might be that the practice stopped after 1920 (though I
doubt it), so later usage did become unusual.
The issue of whether titles as given names were used in medieval times
is a little different. Clearly the practice of using titles for names
did not spring into existence in 1837 to coincide with civil
registration, so it must have existed prior to that date. As I
indicated last time, I do not know when the practice started, though I
doubt (opinion only) that it was before 1650. (I could easily be
proved wrong on that, and would not be surprised.)
Personally, though, I would be very surprised if it existed in medieval
times, mainly because of the role and importance of titles. Given that
certain classes were forbidden from wearing certain types of clothes
just because of their social status, I suspect that the gentry/nobility
etc were just as protective of their titles and would not tolerate
frivolous use. Also, there are the practicalities to consider The use
of titles among the gentry and above (in social status) seems unlikely.
Either they were entitled to the title in question, or they were not.
If they were, then its use as a name would be pointless. If they were
not entitled (so to speak), then I doubt that they would be called by
the name because it would imply the title, and so the name would not end
up in surviving records.
Alan R Grey
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.
Yes, well in hindsight "frequent" was the wrong choice of words; it is
subjective and was only meant in reference to the "absence" of those
names and to demonstrate that there are precedents for the use of the
names. My only defense (such as it is) is that I had in mind all the
"titled" names that I had just been checking, rather than just the
Princesses and Countesses of this world. However, it is still "obvious"
that the names have been used in the past.
A simple check of registered births through Free BDM from 1837 to 1919
yields the following: 12 individuals named Countess, 7 named Count, 136
named Princess and nearly 600 named Prince. There are also some 340
Kings, 9,774 Queens (matches, at least ... I did not count them ...
there are 8 where Queen is the only name), and over 450 Barons (with two
Baronets thrown in for good measure).
That clearly establishes the use of the names, with (in totality) some
measure of frequency. As to rarity of the name and the Dutch press,
that may be more a reflection of the press, rather than the use of the
name, or it might be that the practice stopped after 1920 (though I
doubt it), so later usage did become unusual.
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.
The issue of whether titles as given names were used in medieval times
is a little different. Clearly the practice of using titles for names
did not spring into existence in 1837 to coincide with civil
registration, so it must have existed prior to that date. As I
indicated last time, I do not know when the practice started, though I
doubt (opinion only) that it was before 1650. (I could easily be
proved wrong on that, and would not be surprised.)
Personally, though, I would be very surprised if it existed in medieval
times, mainly because of the role and importance of titles. Given that
certain classes were forbidden from wearing certain types of clothes
just because of their social status, I suspect that the gentry/nobility
etc were just as protective of their titles and would not tolerate
frivolous use. Also, there are the practicalities to consider The use
of titles among the gentry and above (in social status) seems unlikely.
Either they were entitled to the title in question, or they were not.
If they were, then its use as a name would be pointless. If they were
not entitled (so to speak), then I doubt that they would be called by
the name because it would imply the title, and so the name would not end
up in surviving records.
Alan R Grey
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Plantagenet Ancestry
So "she" CUTS & RUNS.
HILARIOUS!
DSH
"Jane Margaret Laight" <jml27515@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1186714014.551701.258780@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
HILARIOUS!
DSH
"Jane Margaret Laight" <jml27515@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1186714014.551701.258780@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 9, 9:54 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
N.B.
"She" doesn't tell us her height and weight.
Par for the course.
Hilarious!
DSH
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.217.1186699423.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Well said, Leo.
Medieval genealogy is a field of study that unfortunately attracts more than
its share of impostors, while the internet provides such shonks with a
platform to misrepresent themselves and their sub-standard wares to people
who know next-to-nothing about the subject but want ready access to
information from reliable authorities.
Roderick Stuart was and remains a menace in print, without the opportunity
for daily spruiking on SGM and other newsgroups. The Medieval Lands database
is another, but that too is relatively passive, and at least Charles Cawley
refrains from constant self-promotion.
Douglas Richardson is a different kind of nuisance, actively shilling his
phoney expertise to entrap clients and admireres who don't have - or will
not use - the critical wherewithal to see him for what he is. Some of these
people loudly resent being warned against their exploiter. Others do see
through him but choose to wink at his activities, either because they don't
care enough about medieval genealogy to find his charlatanry offensive, or
because they value harmony more than openness, or because they take a
self-satisfied, "heard-it-all-before-and-anyway-I'm-alright-Jack" attitude
and even enjoy seeing less knowledgable people misled.
A fourth motivation for keeping quiet does not occur to me, although I would
be interested to hear of any more.
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.217.1186699423.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
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.
Well said, Leo.
Medieval genealogy is a field of study that unfortunately attracts more than
its share of impostors, while the internet provides such shonks with a
platform to misrepresent themselves and their sub-standard wares to people
who know next-to-nothing about the subject but want ready access to
information from reliable authorities.
Roderick Stuart was and remains a menace in print, without the opportunity
for daily spruiking on SGM and other newsgroups. The Medieval Lands database
is another, but that too is relatively passive, and at least Charles Cawley
refrains from constant self-promotion.
Douglas Richardson is a different kind of nuisance, actively shilling his
phoney expertise to entrap clients and admireres who don't have - or will
not use - the critical wherewithal to see him for what he is. Some of these
people loudly resent being warned against their exploiter. Others do see
through him but choose to wink at his activities, either because they don't
care enough about medieval genealogy to find his charlatanry offensive, or
because they value harmony more than openness, or because they take a
self-satisfied, "heard-it-all-before-and-anyway-I'm-alright-Jack" attitude
and even enjoy seeing less knowledgable people misled.
A fourth motivation for keeping quiet does not occur to me, although I would
be interested to hear of any more.
Peter Stewart
-
Séimí mac Liam
Re: Plantagenet Ancestry
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in news:HvQui.22$wi6.121
@eagle.america.net:
Are you a total idiot? By her own statement she weighs between 169 and
175 pounds, +/-.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
@eagle.america.net:
So "she" CUTS & RUNS.
HILARIOUS!
DSH
"Jane Margaret Laight" <jml27515@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1186714014.551701.258780@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 9, 9:54 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
N.B.
"She" doesn't tell us her height and weight.
Par for the course.
Hilarious!
DSH
Are you a total idiot? By her own statement she weighs between 169 and
175 pounds, +/-.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
-
David Nelson
Re: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Fw: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
Date: Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 06:27 PM
Sadly I think that Richardson needs to be kept on his toes-----all the
time. If we in general, but Peter Stewart specifically, would relax, he
would continue with his grandstanding especially if he goes unchallenged.
THAT'S reason for the attacks? Grandstanding?
Peter uses vitriol, but why? Because Richardson takes little notice and
goes on on his merry way. Peter _reacts_ to the actions of Richardson. Take
away the reason for Peter to re-act, and everybody would benefit because
then Richardson is supplying acceptable information.
Sounds like a combination of the Twinkie Defense and an appeal to mitigate
spouse abuse based on the flirtatious ways of the victim. "But LOOK at what
she was wearing, your honor! I had to beat her!"
It is very sad. Richardson has been in a position which could have
galvanised gen-med into a group actively improving genealogical knowledge.
You can hardly hang the responsibility of a better world -- or simply a
better forum -- on Doug while simultaneously condemning his actions. I know
Doug is very well-meaning and friendly, but maybe others make attacks
because gentlemanly disagreement is impossible for them.
David Nelson
Salt Lake City
-
Leo van de Pas
Let's shoot the messenger Re: Restoring civility to this new
In 1248 St.Louis IX, king of France went on crusade and made his mother
regent to rule France for him. In 1250 news reached her that her son had
been captured. She rewarded the messengers by having them hanged.
It seems David Nelson and others are applauding this kind of behaviour and
would like to emulate this in regards to Peter Stewart.
What is Gen-Med all about? Are we a "nice" afternoon tea gathering? "If you
can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all"?
We are here to discuss medieval genealogy and history. To help each other,
not for the distribution of wrong information!!
People seem to say "Let's not point out the crap, especially if it is fed by
Douglas Richardson, he is such a nice man".
The danger of that attitude is that it allows erronous information to be
distributed, after all it was that nice Mr. Richardson who produced it.
On a regular basis, and I have been guilty of this, erronous information,
even fraudulent, from the late 1800s are repeated as facts. Remember Anneke
Jans? Remember Zaida of Seville and her bloodline to Mohammed?
In the Netherlands we very much believe that "If you remain silent, you
agree". In other words if Peter Stewart remains silent about the crap
produced by Douglas Richardson, he endorses it.
People seem to say let's do without the smell (Peter Stewart), but the most
effective way would be to do without the rotten corpse of wrong information
regularly produced by DR.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Nelson" <david.nelson22@att.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
regent to rule France for him. In 1250 news reached her that her son had
been captured. She rewarded the messengers by having them hanged.
It seems David Nelson and others are applauding this kind of behaviour and
would like to emulate this in regards to Peter Stewart.
What is Gen-Med all about? Are we a "nice" afternoon tea gathering? "If you
can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all"?
We are here to discuss medieval genealogy and history. To help each other,
not for the distribution of wrong information!!
People seem to say "Let's not point out the crap, especially if it is fed by
Douglas Richardson, he is such a nice man".
The danger of that attitude is that it allows erronous information to be
distributed, after all it was that nice Mr. Richardson who produced it.
On a regular basis, and I have been guilty of this, erronous information,
even fraudulent, from the late 1800s are repeated as facts. Remember Anneke
Jans? Remember Zaida of Seville and her bloodline to Mohammed?
In the Netherlands we very much believe that "If you remain silent, you
agree". In other words if Peter Stewart remains silent about the crap
produced by Douglas Richardson, he endorses it.
People seem to say let's do without the smell (Peter Stewart), but the most
effective way would be to do without the rotten corpse of wrong information
regularly produced by DR.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Nelson" <david.nelson22@att.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Fw: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
Date: Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 06:27 PM
Sadly I think that Richardson needs to be kept on his toes-----all the
time. If we in general, but Peter Stewart specifically, would relax, he
would continue with his grandstanding especially if he goes unchallenged.
THAT'S reason for the attacks? Grandstanding?
Peter uses vitriol, but why? Because Richardson takes little notice and
goes on on his merry way. Peter _reacts_ to the actions of Richardson.
Take
away the reason for Peter to re-act, and everybody would benefit because
then Richardson is supplying acceptable information.
Sounds like a combination of the Twinkie Defense and an appeal to mitigate
spouse abuse based on the flirtatious ways of the victim. "But LOOK at
what
she was wearing, your honor! I had to beat her!"
It is very sad. Richardson has been in a position which could have
galvanised gen-med into a group actively improving genealogical knowledge.
You can hardly hang the responsibility of a better world -- or simply a
better forum -- on Doug while simultaneously condemning his actions. I
know
Doug is very well-meaning and friendly, but maybe others make attacks
because gentlemanly disagreement is impossible for them.
David Nelson
Salt Lake City
-------------------------------
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: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
In a message dated 8/9/2007 9:11:08 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
david.nelson22@att.net writes:
You can hardly hang the responsibility of a better world -- or simply a
better forum -- on Doug while simultaneously condemning his actions. I know
Doug is very well-meaning and friendly, but maybe others make attacks
because gentlemanly disagreement is impossible for them.>>
--------------------------
Red herring argument.
Gentlemanly disagreement has nothing to do with this issue.
The issue was Douglas posted a long line without doing any of the most basic
checking of it. Some of that checking only merely involving verifying that
a mother was living at the time her child was born.
Pretty basic stuff. You can't disagree with that.
Will
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
david.nelson22@att.net writes:
You can hardly hang the responsibility of a better world -- or simply a
better forum -- on Doug while simultaneously condemning his actions. I know
Doug is very well-meaning and friendly, but maybe others make attacks
because gentlemanly disagreement is impossible for them.>>
--------------------------
Red herring argument.
Gentlemanly disagreement has nothing to do with this issue.
The issue was Douglas posted a long line without doing any of the most basic
checking of it. Some of that checking only merely involving verifying that
a mother was living at the time her child was born.
Pretty basic stuff. You can't disagree with that.
Will
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
"David Nelson" <david.nelson22@att.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.252.1186719054.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
What an timely reappearance - for more (in fact, for all there is in Google
newsgroups) from the pistol-packing PA3 proof-reader David Nelson of Salt
Lake City, see the following:
Gay gunners in Utah rec.guns May 27 2004
Stonewall Shooting Sports of Utah alt.homosexual.lesbian May 24
2004
state allows CCW but businesses say NO: what to do now?? rec.guns
May 24 2004
"Plantagenet Ancestry," Richardson
soc.genealogy.medieval May 21 2004
"Plantagenet Ancestry," Richardson
soc.genealogy.medieval May 21 2004
"Plantagenet Ancestry," Richardson
soc.genealogy.medieval May 20 2004
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.252.1186719054.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Fw: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
Date: Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 06:27 PM
Sadly I think that Richardson needs to be kept on his toes-----all the
time. If we in general, but Peter Stewart specifically, would relax, he
would continue with his grandstanding especially if he goes unchallenged.
THAT'S reason for the attacks? Grandstanding?
Peter uses vitriol, but why? Because Richardson takes little notice and
goes on on his merry way. Peter _reacts_ to the actions of Richardson.
Take
away the reason for Peter to re-act, and everybody would benefit because
then Richardson is supplying acceptable information.
Sounds like a combination of the Twinkie Defense and an appeal to mitigate
spouse abuse based on the flirtatious ways of the victim. "But LOOK at
what
she was wearing, your honor! I had to beat her!"
It is very sad. Richardson has been in a position which could have
galvanised gen-med into a group actively improving genealogical knowledge.
You can hardly hang the responsibility of a better world -- or simply a
better forum -- on Doug while simultaneously condemning his actions. I
know
Doug is very well-meaning and friendly, but maybe others make attacks
because gentlemanly disagreement is impossible for them.
David Nelson
Salt Lake City
What an timely reappearance - for more (in fact, for all there is in Google
newsgroups) from the pistol-packing PA3 proof-reader David Nelson of Salt
Lake City, see the following:
Gay gunners in Utah rec.guns May 27 2004
Stonewall Shooting Sports of Utah alt.homosexual.lesbian May 24
2004
state allows CCW but businesses say NO: what to do now?? rec.guns
May 24 2004
"Plantagenet Ancestry," Richardson
soc.genealogy.medieval May 21 2004
"Plantagenet Ancestry," Richardson
soc.genealogy.medieval May 21 2004
"Plantagenet Ancestry," Richardson
soc.genealogy.medieval May 20 2004
Peter Stewart
-
Robert Peffers.
Re: Plantagenet Ancestry
"Jane Margaret Laight" <jml27515@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1186714014.551701.258780@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
numptie, didn't you?
--
Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
news:1186714014.551701.258780@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 9, 9:54 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
N.B.
She doesn't tell us her height and weight.
Par for the course.
Hilarious!
DSH
"Jane Margaret Laight" <jml27...@yahoo.com> wrote in
messagenews:1186697757.660095.165470@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 9, 2:36 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
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!-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
nor do I intend to--any gentleman would be satisfied with my answer.
Although having once served in the United States Navy as an officer,
Commander, it is apparent from your posts that you are no gentleman.
No man who claims any sense of morality or decent conduct would be so
rude as to ask such a question of someone he does not know.
Shameful!
JML
But then you knew that little fact long before you answered the silly
numptie, didn't you?
--
Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
-
Robert Peffers.
Re: Plantagenet Ancestry
"Séimí mac Liam" <gwyddon@comcast.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9987C5743AB33Sim@216.196.97.136...
idiotic post<G>.
--
Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
news:Xns9987C5743AB33Sim@216.196.97.136...
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in news:HvQui.22$wi6.121
@eagle.america.net:
So "she" CUTS & RUNS.
HILARIOUS!
DSH
"Jane Margaret Laight" <jml27515@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1186714014.551701.258780@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 9, 9:54 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
N.B.
"She" doesn't tell us her height and weight.
Par for the course.
Hilarious!
DSH
Are you a total idiot? By her own statement she weighs between 169 and
175 pounds, +/-.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
Aye! And YOU knew that he was a total idiot before you even read that last
idiotic post<G>.
--
Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
-
John Plant
Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Ermm, "my" premise.
There seems to have been some confusion in the discussion between: (a)
the generalities of Y-DNA testing; and, (b) *my* arguments in connection
with the Plant/Plantt family.
The matter of (a) has not anything in particular to do with me. It is
more a matter for the Pomery book and the GENEALOGY-DNA discussion list
for example. Nor has it anything to do with (b) which starts from the
first principles of finding a match between two Y-DNA haplotypes.
We seem only just to be moving on to (b).
Specifically, in connection with my Y-DNA evidence for the Plant/Plantt
family, the easiest way to see it is to look at Table 1 in my Nomina 28
paper:
http://cogprints.org/5462/01/nomina_eprint.pdf
The matching Plants (known up to that time) are those above the dividing
line. The argument is very simple. The matching Plants have lines going
back to times such as: Ct USA 1646-91; VA USA c1655; Cheshire England
c1565. Their common ancestor must be before 1646. It is not known who
was the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of these matching Plants; but
vaguely it must have been "quite early" (before 1646, assuming the line
genealogies are correct). Nor is it known who exactly was the founding
father(s) of the Plant/Plantt surname. Some of the 13th century
documentary evidence for the Plant/Plantt byname/surname is summarised
in Appendix A of the same paper and there will be more about this in
Appendix D of my Nomina 30 paper.
Perhaps you are arguing about whether the MRCA of the matching Plants is
the same as a single founding father of the entire Plant surname. I do
not deny that there is much room for uncertainty about this. I have
never said otherwise.
Perhaps you are arguing about whether Plant/Plantt is a "modal or single
ancestor" surname in totality. Certainly my available data is modal. The
argument then moves back more into the realms of (a). There is a rule of
thumb in the Pomery book that: if half or more match, the name can be
designated "modal or single ancestor". There are then arguments about
what is the required sample size and is it skewed? I have no reason to
think that it is skewed. I admit that my sample size isn't large (it is
creeping up slowly).
John
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
Ermm, "my" premise.
There seems to have been some confusion in the discussion between: (a)
the generalities of Y-DNA testing; and, (b) *my* arguments in connection
with the Plant/Plantt family.
The matter of (a) has not anything in particular to do with me. It is
more a matter for the Pomery book and the GENEALOGY-DNA discussion list
for example. Nor has it anything to do with (b) which starts from the
first principles of finding a match between two Y-DNA haplotypes.
We seem only just to be moving on to (b).
Specifically, in connection with my Y-DNA evidence for the Plant/Plantt
family, the easiest way to see it is to look at Table 1 in my Nomina 28
paper:
http://cogprints.org/5462/01/nomina_eprint.pdf
The matching Plants (known up to that time) are those above the dividing
line. The argument is very simple. The matching Plants have lines going
back to times such as: Ct USA 1646-91; VA USA c1655; Cheshire England
c1565. Their common ancestor must be before 1646. It is not known who
was the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of these matching Plants; but
vaguely it must have been "quite early" (before 1646, assuming the line
genealogies are correct). Nor is it known who exactly was the founding
father(s) of the Plant/Plantt surname. Some of the 13th century
documentary evidence for the Plant/Plantt byname/surname is summarised
in Appendix A of the same paper and there will be more about this in
Appendix D of my Nomina 30 paper.
Perhaps you are arguing about whether the MRCA of the matching Plants is
the same as a single founding father of the entire Plant surname. I do
not deny that there is much room for uncertainty about this. I have
never said otherwise.
Perhaps you are arguing about whether Plant/Plantt is a "modal or single
ancestor" surname in totality. Certainly my available data is modal. The
argument then moves back more into the realms of (a). There is a rule of
thumb in the Pomery book that: if half or more match, the name can be
designated "modal or single ancestor". There are then arguments about
what is the required sample size and is it skewed? I have no reason to
think that it is skewed. I admit that my sample size isn't large (it is
creeping up slowly).
John
-
Antony Andrra
RE: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
Every people in this list perfectly know that this VERY SMALL HUMAN
BEING hidden under the ridiculous nick name as "Peter Stewart" is a
pathetic, pompous, frustrated piece of ... Nothing.
I not only erase every "Peter Stewart" messages. Before do it, I piss on
them.
Regards
Antony Adrra
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Peter Stewart
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 10:42 AM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
"David Nelson" <david.nelson22@att.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.252.1186719054.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
What an timely reappearance - for more (in fact, for all there is in
Google
newsgroups) from the pistol-packing PA3 proof-reader David Nelson of
Salt
Lake City, see the following:
Gay gunners in Utah rec.guns May 27 2004
Stonewall Shooting Sports of Utah alt.homosexual.lesbian May
24
2004
state allows CCW but businesses say NO: what to do now??
rec.guns
May 24 2004
"Plantagenet Ancestry," Richardson
soc.genealogy.medieval May 21 2004
"Plantagenet Ancestry," Richardson
soc.genealogy.medieval May 21 2004
"Plantagenet Ancestry," Richardson
soc.genealogy.medieval May 20 2004
Peter Stewart
-------------------------------
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:
250 biglietti da visita Gratis + 42 modelli e Etichette per Indirizzo Gratis + Porta biglietti Gratis -Offerta limitata!
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6784&d=10-8
BEING hidden under the ridiculous nick name as "Peter Stewart" is a
pathetic, pompous, frustrated piece of ... Nothing.
I not only erase every "Peter Stewart" messages. Before do it, I piss on
them.
Regards
Antony Adrra
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Peter Stewart
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 10:42 AM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
"David Nelson" <david.nelson22@att.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.252.1186719054.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Fw: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
Date: Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 06:27 PM
Sadly I think that Richardson needs to be kept on his toes-----all the
time. If we in general, but Peter Stewart specifically, would relax,
he would continue with his grandstanding especially if he goes
unchallenged.
THAT'S reason for the attacks? Grandstanding?
Peter uses vitriol, but why? Because Richardson takes little notice
and goes on on his merry way. Peter _reacts_ to the actions of
Richardson. Take away the reason for Peter to re-act, and everybody
would benefit because then Richardson is supplying acceptable
information.
Sounds like a combination of the Twinkie Defense and an appeal to
mitigate spouse abuse based on the flirtatious ways of the victim.
"But LOOK at what she was wearing, your honor! I had to beat her!"
It is very sad. Richardson has been in a position which could have
galvanised gen-med into a group actively improving genealogical
knowledge.
You can hardly hang the responsibility of a better world -- or simply
a better forum -- on Doug while simultaneously condemning his actions.
I know Doug is very well-meaning and friendly, but maybe others make
attacks because gentlemanly disagreement is impossible for them.
David Nelson
Salt Lake City
What an timely reappearance - for more (in fact, for all there is in
newsgroups) from the pistol-packing PA3 proof-reader David Nelson of
Salt
Lake City, see the following:
Gay gunners in Utah rec.guns May 27 2004
Stonewall Shooting Sports of Utah alt.homosexual.lesbian May
24
2004
state allows CCW but businesses say NO: what to do now??
rec.guns
May 24 2004
"Plantagenet Ancestry," Richardson
soc.genealogy.medieval May 21 2004
"Plantagenet Ancestry," Richardson
soc.genealogy.medieval May 21 2004
"Plantagenet Ancestry," Richardson
soc.genealogy.medieval May 20 2004
Peter Stewart
-------------------------------
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:
250 biglietti da visita Gratis + 42 modelli e Etichette per Indirizzo Gratis + Porta biglietti Gratis -Offerta limitata!
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6784&d=10-8
-
John Plant
Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve
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
See my other reply, just sent.
no training in the social sciences
Fair cop, more or less. I did statistics as part of my first class
honours degree in Physics; but that was a long time ago. I also have
some more recent experience of statistical computer programmes.
let along the hard sciences.
I started my career as a research physicist. I have around a dozen
publications in "alpha rated" science journals about neutron
diffraction/scattering studies of solids; quantum chemistry of vitamin B6.
No-one's perfect! How about you?
John
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
"Antony Andrra" <andrra@email.it> wrote in message
news:mailman.259.1186740253.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
On your own computer? Then the IQ of my critics is going up, and the
maturity is improving....
I wonder if you have the same habit in all your "Saluzzo" personalities -
Antony Adrra (now, but last time round was Andrra), "Duke" Marco Antonio,
Jack Baschon, Adrian f. Withaker.
I may have forgotten some, maybe a female name or two. Are there any more
PC-wetters where they came from?
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.259.1186740253.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Every people in this list perfectly know that this VERY SMALL HUMAN
BEING hidden under the ridiculous nick name as "Peter Stewart" is a
pathetic, pompous, frustrated piece of ... Nothing.
I not only erase every "Peter Stewart" messages. Before do it, I piss on
them.
On your own computer? Then the IQ of my critics is going up, and the
maturity is improving....
Regards
Antony Adrra
I wonder if you have the same habit in all your "Saluzzo" personalities -
Antony Adrra (now, but last time round was Andrra), "Duke" Marco Antonio,
Jack Baschon, Adrian f. Withaker.
I may have forgotten some, maybe a female name or two. Are there any more
PC-wetters where they came from?
Peter Stewart
-
John Plant
Re: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project
taf wrote:
It would be a helpful step in the right direction if a Somerset Y-DNA
signature were determined for two lines that dated back to as early as
possible (perhaps starting with the more recent Somersets and working
backwards if necessary). When testing the more recent lines there might
be a particular need for confidentiality about the results to avoid any
potential worries on the part of the volunteers about infidelities.
Usually it is someone like me keeping identities confidential and just
revealing the earliest "known" male-line ancestor of each volunteer. The
Somersets might be more particular and want a double-blind study
particularly if someone wants to go as far as an infidelity study of the
Somersets. Having found *any* Somerset signature (ideally verified with
another line of descent to the earlier the better) this could then be
widened out to matches in "likely" areas of common paternal descent
which would then draw attention to likely areas to be investigated
further. The reality is often one of settling for whoever has/will agree
to take a Y-DNA test - i.e. more of a "striking it lucky" approach -
making the most of the available evidence and then pursuing matters further.
I have already got addresses for four living Somersets (found by
someone, partly with the help of Leo's web-site I think) and Leo has
offered to try to root out more for me when he has time. There may then
need to be a gently-softly approach to getting the idea of such a study
accepted by one or more of the Somerset family. That might be the
biggest limitation on what can be achieved.
When it turned out that the Y-DNA results for the Warenne surname were
multi-origin, they came up with a de Warenne line that was claimed to
have fled early overseas; but I haven't heard anything further about
that for a while.
John
On Aug 9, 2:33 am, James Dow Allen <jdallen2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
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
It would be a helpful step in the right direction if a Somerset Y-DNA
signature were determined for two lines that dated back to as early as
possible (perhaps starting with the more recent Somersets and working
backwards if necessary). When testing the more recent lines there might
be a particular need for confidentiality about the results to avoid any
potential worries on the part of the volunteers about infidelities.
Usually it is someone like me keeping identities confidential and just
revealing the earliest "known" male-line ancestor of each volunteer. The
Somersets might be more particular and want a double-blind study
particularly if someone wants to go as far as an infidelity study of the
Somersets. Having found *any* Somerset signature (ideally verified with
another line of descent to the earlier the better) this could then be
widened out to matches in "likely" areas of common paternal descent
which would then draw attention to likely areas to be investigated
further. The reality is often one of settling for whoever has/will agree
to take a Y-DNA test - i.e. more of a "striking it lucky" approach -
making the most of the available evidence and then pursuing matters further.
I have already got addresses for four living Somersets (found by
someone, partly with the help of Leo's web-site I think) and Leo has
offered to try to root out more for me when he has time. There may then
need to be a gently-softly approach to getting the idea of such a study
accepted by one or more of the Somerset family. That might be the
biggest limitation on what can be achieved.
When it turned out that the Y-DNA results for the Warenne surname were
multi-origin, they came up with a de Warenne line that was claimed to
have fled early overseas; but I haven't heard anything further about
that for a while.
John
-
Jane Margaret Laight
Re: Plantagenet Ancestry
On Aug 10, 4:49 am, "Robert Peffers." <peff...@btinternet.com> wrote:
aye, that I did; I do have to remember that when you poke the stick
between the bars of the troll's cage, sometimes, the troll will
actually grab it and bite the stick in two...
what it does show is that I am no longer something he can fantasize
over, so for that small fact, I should be grateful!
JML
sex object (retired)
"Jane Margaret Laight" <jml27...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1186714014.551701.258780@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 9, 9:54 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
N.B.
She doesn't tell us her height and weight.
Par for the course.
Hilarious!
DSH
"Jane Margaret Laight" <jml27...@yahoo.com> wrote in
messagenews:1186697757.660095.165470@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 9, 2:36 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
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!-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
nor do I intend to--any gentleman would be satisfied with my answer.
Although having once served in the United States Navy as an officer,
Commander, it is apparent from your posts that you are no gentleman.
No man who claims any sense of morality or decent conduct would be so
rude as to ask such a question of someone he does not know.
Shameful!
JML
But then you knew that little fact long before you answered the silly
numptie, didn't you?
aye, that I did; I do have to remember that when you poke the stick
between the bars of the troll's cage, sometimes, the troll will
actually grab it and bite the stick in two...
what it does show is that I am no longer something he can fantasize
over, so for that small fact, I should be grateful!
JML
sex object (retired)
-
joseph cook
Re: Douglas Richardson's ancestry
And my pst would seem to be confirmed by Douglas in his post of Nov
2001 (which has been deleted, but still in the indexer it seems)
"Douglas Richardson royalances...@msn.com soc genealogy medieval
Hi Edith ~ I descend in the male line from Mr. Amos-1 Richardson
(ca. ... Stephen Richardson,
married Abigail (_____) Pelham, widow. 4. David Richardson, married
his cousin,
Rachel-5 Richardson (Amos-4, Jonathan-3, Stephen-2, Amos-1). 5.
Capt. ...
Nov 10 2001 by Douglas Richardson - 14 messages - 9 authors"
2001 (which has been deleted, but still in the indexer it seems)
"Douglas Richardson royalances...@msn.com soc genealogy medieval
Hi Edith ~ I descend in the male line from Mr. Amos-1 Richardson
(ca. ... Stephen Richardson,
married Abigail (_____) Pelham, widow. 4. David Richardson, married
his cousin,
Rachel-5 Richardson (Amos-4, Jonathan-3, Stephen-2, Amos-1). 5.
Capt. ...
Nov 10 2001 by Douglas Richardson - 14 messages - 9 authors"
-
Gjest
Re: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
Hi all!
This proves my point!
This is but another example of an individual who is incapable of speaking to anyone in?civil manner.???As?I said before he might be able to be civil but chooses to do otherwise.? He would be well-served to look into a mirror.? Maybe he should not do this,?for breaking the mirror would bring him more bad luck.
He needs to realize that none of us has all the answers and that is why we are here.
Regards,
Jim Malone
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 9:07 pm
Subject: Re: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
<jimpup@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.230.1186704167.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
I hope so - I have been encouraging complainers for years to exert a single
finger and delete my messages rather than exert more fingers typing out
useless gripes about them.
If you insist on reading my messages and object to their alleged lack of
substance (compared to your own immense and weighty contributions here, I
suppose), why not tackle the specifics instead of the expression?
But of course Richardson and his supporters NEVER do this....almost as if
there is NEVER anything worthwhile to be said for him.
Peter Stewart
-------------------------------
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.
This proves my point!
This is but another example of an individual who is incapable of speaking to anyone in?civil manner.???As?I said before he might be able to be civil but chooses to do otherwise.? He would be well-served to look into a mirror.? Maybe he should not do this,?for breaking the mirror would bring him more bad luck.
He needs to realize that none of us has all the answers and that is why we are here.
Regards,
Jim Malone
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 9:07 pm
Subject: Re: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
<jimpup@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.230.1186704167.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
-----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.
I hope so - I have been encouraging complainers for years to exert a single
finger and delete my messages rather than exert more fingers typing out
useless gripes about them.
If you insist on reading my messages and object to their alleged lack of
substance (compared to your own immense and weighty contributions here, I
suppose), why not tackle the specifics instead of the expression?
But of course Richardson and his supporters NEVER do this....almost as if
there is NEVER anything worthwhile to be said for him.
Peter Stewart
-------------------------------
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.
-
John Brandon
Re: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
I hope so - I have been encouraging complainers for years to exert a single
finger and delete my messages rather than exert more fingers typing out
useless gripes about them.
If you were sensible, you'd realize that many others regard *your*
messages as mere "useless gripes" and pay little attention to them.
-
taf
Re: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project
On Aug 10, 5:09 am, John Plant <j.s.pl...@isc.keele.ac.uk> wrote:
Certainly - having a Somerset type gets us a step closer.
Which Warenne line is this? Unless they have a clear pedigree, it
doesn't help - take the Warennes of Ightfield, for example. They
descend from de Warennes who were holding under the Earls, but appear
not to connect to the main family until prior to the Conquest, if at
all. The one family known (as well as it can be known) to carry
Plantagenet descent beyond the medieval Warennes is Warren of
Poynton. It is on this family that the search should focus.
taf
It would be a helpful step in the right direction if a Somerset Y-DNA
signature were determined for two lines that dated back to as early as
possible (perhaps starting with the more recent Somersets and working
backwards if necessary).
Certainly - having a Somerset type gets us a step closer.
When it turned out that the Y-DNA results for the Warenne surname were
multi-origin, they came up with a de Warenne line that was claimed to
have fled early overseas; but I haven't heard anything further about
that for a while.
Which Warenne line is this? Unless they have a clear pedigree, it
doesn't help - take the Warennes of Ightfield, for example. They
descend from de Warennes who were holding under the Earls, but appear
not to connect to the main family until prior to the Conquest, if at
all. The one family known (as well as it can be known) to carry
Plantagenet descent beyond the medieval Warennes is Warren of
Poynton. It is on this family that the search should focus.
taf
-
Séimí mac Liam
Re: Plantagenet Ancestry
"Robert Peffers." <peffers@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:lvWdnf_uz9w8uiHbnZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com:
After she made the statement about fighting weight, a non-idiot would
have inquired as to her stature; a question much more likely to have been
answered. 5'10"-6'=sveldt, 5'7"-5'9"=a fine figure of a woman.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
news:lvWdnf_uz9w8uiHbnZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com:
"Séimí mac Liam" <gwyddon@comcast.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9987C5743AB33Sim@216.196.97.136...
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in
news:HvQui.22$wi6.121 @eagle.america.net:
So "she" CUTS & RUNS.
HILARIOUS!
DSH
"Jane Margaret Laight" <jml27515@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1186714014.551701.258780@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 9, 9:54 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com
wrote:
N.B.
"She" doesn't tell us her height and weight.
Par for the course.
Hilarious!
DSH
Are you a total idiot? By her own statement she weighs between 169
and 175 pounds, +/-.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
Aye! And YOU knew that he was a total idiot before you even read that
last idiotic post<G>.
After she made the statement about fighting weight, a non-idiot would
have inquired as to her stature; a question much more likely to have been
answered. 5'10"-6'=sveldt, 5'7"-5'9"=a fine figure of a woman.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
-
Séimí mac Liam
Re: Plantagenet Ancestry
Jane Margaret Laight <jml27515@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1186749876.705613.129990@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
From a fantasy point of view, is your hair still red? Just curious, mind
you.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
news:1186749876.705613.129990@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
On Aug 10, 4:49 am, "Robert Peffers." <peff...@btinternet.com> wrote:
"Jane Margaret Laight" <jml27...@yahoo.com> wrote in
messagenews:1186714014.551701.258780@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 9, 9:54 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com
wrote:
N.B.
She doesn't tell us her height and weight.
Par for the course.
Hilarious!
DSH
"Jane Margaret Laight" <jml27...@yahoo.com> wrote in
messagenews:1186697757.660095.165470@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 9, 2:36 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com
wrote:
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.co
m...
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!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
nor do I intend to--any gentleman would be satisfied with my
answer.
Although having once served in the United States Navy as an
officer, Commander, it is apparent from your posts that you are no
gentleman. No man who claims any sense of morality or decent
conduct would be so rude as to ask such a question of someone he
does not know.
Shameful!
JML
But then you knew that little fact long before you answered the
silly
numptie, didn't you?
aye, that I did; I do have to remember that when you poke the stick
between the bars of the troll's cage, sometimes, the troll will
actually grab it and bite the stick in two...
what it does show is that I am no longer something he can fantasize
over, so for that small fact, I should be grateful!
JML
sex object (retired)
From a fantasy point of view, is your hair still red? Just curious, mind
you.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
-
Gjest
Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve
In a message dated 8/10/2007 2:23:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:
There is a rule of
thumb in the Pomery book that: if half or more match, the name can be
designated "modal or single ancestor". There are then arguments about
what is the required sample size and is it skewed? I have no reason to
think that it is skewed.>>
------------------------------
Of course you have no reason to think it's skewed.
You have a particular point-of-view and no scientific methodology by golly
is going to derail it!!
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:
There is a rule of
thumb in the Pomery book that: if half or more match, the name can be
designated "modal or single ancestor". There are then arguments about
what is the required sample size and is it skewed? I have no reason to
think that it is skewed.>>
------------------------------
Of course you have no reason to think it's skewed.
You have a particular point-of-view and no scientific methodology by golly
is going to derail it!!
Will
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Plantagenet Ancestry
"Jane Margaret Laight"...
Just another frustrated blimp on USENET.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Just another frustrated blimp on USENET.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
Gjest
Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve
In a message dated 8/10/2007 2:36:38 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:
I started my career as a research physicist. I have around a dozen
publications in "alpha rated" science journals about neutron
diffraction/scattering studies of solids; quantum chemistry of vitamin B6.
No-one's perfect! How about you?>>
----------------
I started in Astrophysics, switched to Computer Science and Math.
Got my double-major in that field.
I have no publications in any field.
I don't need any to see the holes in your logic. You refuse to discuss the
sample set and it's problem as a set. That's a basic requirement for
analysis of the set. So far you have yet to do it.
You just keep arguing there's no need to do it. But there is a need to do
it.
The 2% to 5% is a made-up number. Based on *no* analysis showing the raw
data. It's a basic requirement that a claim can be verified and falsified. I
have a hard time believing your background if you don't think this major
underpinning of the scientific method.
Your claim cannot be verified or falsified can it?
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:
I started my career as a research physicist. I have around a dozen
publications in "alpha rated" science journals about neutron
diffraction/scattering studies of solids; quantum chemistry of vitamin B6.
No-one's perfect! How about you?>>
----------------
I started in Astrophysics, switched to Computer Science and Math.
Got my double-major in that field.
I have no publications in any field.
I don't need any to see the holes in your logic. You refuse to discuss the
sample set and it's problem as a set. That's a basic requirement for
analysis of the set. So far you have yet to do it.
You just keep arguing there's no need to do it. But there is a need to do
it.
The 2% to 5% is a made-up number. Based on *no* analysis showing the raw
data. It's a basic requirement that a claim can be verified and falsified. I
have a hard time believing your background if you don't think this major
underpinning of the scientific method.
Your claim cannot be verified or falsified can it?
Will
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-
Jane Margaret Laight
Re: Plantagenet Ancestry
On Aug 10, 1:12 pm, "Séimí mac Liam" <gwyd...@comcast.nospam.net>
wrote:
yes, my hair is still red, and yes, you are very close to correct on
your other queries!
JML
forever russet
wrote:
Jane Margaret Laight <jml27...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1186749876.705613.129990@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
On Aug 10, 4:49 am, "Robert Peffers." <peff...@btinternet.com> wrote:
"Jane Margaret Laight" <jml27...@yahoo.com> wrote in
messagenews:1186714014.551701.258780@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 9, 9:54 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com
wrote:
N.B.
She doesn't tell us her height and weight.
Par for the course.
Hilarious!
DSH
"Jane Margaret Laight" <jml27...@yahoo.com> wrote in
messagenews:1186697757.660095.165470@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 9, 2:36 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com
wrote:
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.co
m...
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!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
nor do I intend to--any gentleman would be satisfied with my
answer.
Although having once served in the United States Navy as an
officer, Commander, it is apparent from your posts that you are no
gentleman. No man who claims any sense of morality or decent
conduct would be so rude as to ask such a question of someone he
does not know.
Shameful!
JML
But then you knew that little fact long before you answered the
silly
numptie, didn't you?
aye, that I did; I do have to remember that when you poke the stick
between the bars of the troll's cage, sometimes, the troll will
actually grab it and bite the stick in two...
what it does show is that I am no longer something he can fantasize
over, so for that small fact, I should be grateful!
JML
sex object (retired)
From a fantasy point of view, is your hair still red? Just curious, mind
you.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
yes, my hair is still red, and yes, you are very close to correct on
your other queries!
JML
forever russet
-
Séimí mac Liam
Re: Plantagenet Ancestry
Jane Margaret Laight <jml27515@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1186770952.882995.269070@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
Excuse me while go 'phantasize'.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam (connoiseur of mature Amazons)
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
news:1186770952.882995.269070@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
On Aug 10, 1:12 pm, "Séimí mac Liam" <gwyd...@comcast.nospam.net
wrote:
Jane Margaret Laight <jml27...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1186749876.705613.
129990@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
On Aug 10, 4:49 am, "Robert Peffers." <peff...@btinternet.com
wrote:
"Jane Margaret Laight" <jml27...@yahoo.com> wrote in
messagenews:1186714014.551701.258780@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 9, 9:54 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com
wrote:
N.B.
She doesn't tell us her height and weight.
Par for the course.
Hilarious!
DSH
"Jane Margaret Laight" <jml27...@yahoo.com> wrote in
messagenews:1186697757.660095.165470@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com
...
On Aug 9, 2:36 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com
wrote:
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
.co m...
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!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
nor do I intend to--any gentleman would be satisfied with my
answer.
Although having once served in the United States Navy as an
officer, Commander, it is apparent from your posts that you are
no gentleman. No man who claims any sense of morality or decent
conduct would be so rude as to ask such a question of someone he
does not know.
Shameful!
JML
But then you knew that little fact long before you answered the
silly
numptie, didn't you?
aye, that I did; I do have to remember that when you poke the stick
between the bars of the troll's cage, sometimes, the troll will
actually grab it and bite the stick in two...
what it does show is that I am no longer something he can fantasize
over, so for that small fact, I should be grateful!
JML
sex object (retired)
From a fantasy point of view, is your hair still red? Just curious,
mind you.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
yes, my hair is still red, and yes, you are very close to correct on
your other queries!
JML
forever russet
Excuse me while go 'phantasize'.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam (connoiseur of mature Amazons)
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
-
Adrian Whitaker
RE: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
You wrote:
"If you were sensible, you'd realize that many others regard *your*
messages as mere "useless gripes" and pay little attention to them."
Instead of "useless gripes" I would say "useless crap"!
Antony Andrra
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of John Brandon
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 5:34 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
If you were sensible, you'd realize that many others regard *your*
messages as mere "useless gripes" and pay little attention to them.
-------------------------------
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
"If you were sensible, you'd realize that many others regard *your*
messages as mere "useless gripes" and pay little attention to them."
Instead of "useless gripes" I would say "useless crap"!
Antony Andrra
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of John Brandon
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 5:34 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
I hope so - I have been encouraging complainers for years to exert a
single finger and delete my messages rather than exert more fingers
typing out useless gripes about them.
If you were sensible, you'd realize that many others regard *your*
messages as mere "useless gripes" and pay little attention to them.
-------------------------------
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
I would like to take this opportunity to pass out knives to the more active and poison to the more passive. Have at it! Last person standing wins!
Sort of a lonely victory though.
Will
Sort of a lonely victory though.
Will
-
WJhonson
Re: Genealogics: a royal line for Dorothy Ferrers dau of Joh
Will you insufferable bore, what's your source for all this nonsense?
Do you expect us to think you're an authority??
Will
Do you expect us to think you're an authority??
Will
-
WJhonson
Re: Genealogics: a royal line for Dorothy Ferrers dau of Joh
Quite right you obnoxious twit.
Here is my source
http://books.google.com/books?id=ASIIAA ... A2-PR13,M1
Have a nice day and die. Thank you.
Will
Here is my source
http://books.google.com/books?id=ASIIAA ... A2-PR13,M1
Have a nice day and die. Thank you.
Will
-
WJhonson
Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve
<<In a message dated 08/10/07 02:23:34 Pacific Standard Time, j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:
The matter of (a) has not anything in particular to do with me. It is
more a matter for the Pomery book and the GENEALOGY-DNA discussion list
for example. >>
---------------------------------------
You're a trained scientist.
And yet from the above we see something akin to, "they said it, it must be true".
It's odd how far apart physics is from genealogy I suppose. One would think a physicist would know that you trust data not authorities, and especially not self-proclaimed authorities.
It's not *true* that the FPE rate is thus and so, it's reported by person xyz. That does not make it a fact. If you're re-reporting their statements you need to make that more clear, and express some *healthy* skepticism about any statements make *off the cuff* with no data to back them up.
Don't you think?
Will "I don't think, I just AM" Johnson
The matter of (a) has not anything in particular to do with me. It is
more a matter for the Pomery book and the GENEALOGY-DNA discussion list
for example. >>
---------------------------------------
You're a trained scientist.
And yet from the above we see something akin to, "they said it, it must be true".
It's odd how far apart physics is from genealogy I suppose. One would think a physicist would know that you trust data not authorities, and especially not self-proclaimed authorities.
It's not *true* that the FPE rate is thus and so, it's reported by person xyz. That does not make it a fact. If you're re-reporting their statements you need to make that more clear, and express some *healthy* skepticism about any statements make *off the cuff* with no data to back them up.
Don't you think?
Will "I don't think, I just AM" Johnson
-
Dolores C. Phifer
Re: I am looking for additional sources of old WHITE Family
Hello Will. Thanks, I will try to be careful of how I select my words in the future.
I do know where his bones are said to be resting.
Let me re-state what I do know to be true... This is where I believe my COBB Family connects to the WHITE family...
Ann (nee WHITE) and Ambrose COBBS... are my/our 9th gr-grandparents. This info comes from the COBBS/COBB's research website where grandpop's family is now listed.
Ann WHITE is the daughter of Robert and Susanna (nee BOULDEN) COBBS.
[9669] At the time of her marriage, her parents were both deceased and she was living in Willesborough, under the government of Thomas Cobbs, the brother of her groom Ambrose. Thomas had married her sister SusanWhite in 1619. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... .html#I281
Mike tries very hard to present what he sees as fact and adjusts when presented with contrary and reliable facts. Mike works very hard at this project and I commend his efforts and those of the other COBB lines. What ever I find.. I send to him for review... after all, we are in the same family group.
As far as the Alice and Agnes thing... another cousin sent that info from something that they found along the way. I am not sure personally which is correct or if at all. And, as far as I have seen... I have seen different dates for Robert, as well as, the others. This is why I, who live here in the USA are asking those on this list for more accurate/more reliable sources for this branch of the WHITE family on my COBB side.
When I googled... I found a few sources for "Richard WHITE", "Alice RICH"
http://www.geocities.com/oso_beartodd/aqwg76.htm
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz= ... ce+RICH%22
Thanks Will for Dale's link.
Thanks.
Dolores Cobb Phifer
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: I am looking for additional sources of old WHITE Family going back from Richard WHITE and Helen KIRTON
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: I am looking for additional sources of old WHITE Family goingback from Richard WHITE and Helen KIRTON
.... the peerage.com does indeed report this line or part of it here http://www.thepeerage.com/p17359.htm#i173583
And their excellent source is "Dale Parker Anderson, email message..." Will
I do know where his bones are said to be resting.
Let me re-state what I do know to be true... This is where I believe my COBB Family connects to the WHITE family...
Ann (nee WHITE) and Ambrose COBBS... are my/our 9th gr-grandparents. This info comes from the COBBS/COBB's research website where grandpop's family is now listed.
Ann WHITE is the daughter of Robert and Susanna (nee BOULDEN) COBBS.
[9669] At the time of her marriage, her parents were both deceased and she was living in Willesborough, under the government of Thomas Cobbs, the brother of her groom Ambrose. Thomas had married her sister SusanWhite in 1619. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... .html#I281
Mike tries very hard to present what he sees as fact and adjusts when presented with contrary and reliable facts. Mike works very hard at this project and I commend his efforts and those of the other COBB lines. What ever I find.. I send to him for review... after all, we are in the same family group.
As far as the Alice and Agnes thing... another cousin sent that info from something that they found along the way. I am not sure personally which is correct or if at all. And, as far as I have seen... I have seen different dates for Robert, as well as, the others. This is why I, who live here in the USA are asking those on this list for more accurate/more reliable sources for this branch of the WHITE family on my COBB side.
When I googled... I found a few sources for "Richard WHITE", "Alice RICH"
http://www.geocities.com/oso_beartodd/aqwg76.htm
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz= ... ce+RICH%22
Thanks Will for Dale's link.
Thanks.
Dolores Cobb Phifer
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: I am looking for additional sources of old WHITE Family going back from Richard WHITE and Helen KIRTON
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: I am looking for additional sources of old WHITE Family goingback from Richard WHITE and Helen KIRTON
.... the peerage.com does indeed report this line or part of it here http://www.thepeerage.com/p17359.htm#i173583
And their excellent source is "Dale Parker Anderson, email message..." Will
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186760065.815383.116970@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
As Homer Simpson would say, Duh. That is my point, the very thing I
encourage objectors to do - though not paying "little" attention, but
preferably none at all.
This may be the first time you have actually twigged to something thought by
another, but as usual you suppose you thought of it afresh and project it
back as a new angle.
Peter Stewart
news:1186760065.815383.116970@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
I hope so - I have been encouraging complainers for years to exert a
single
finger and delete my messages rather than exert more fingers typing out
useless gripes about them.
If you were sensible, you'd realize that many others regard *your*
messages as mere "useless gripes" and pay little attention to them.
As Homer Simpson would say, Duh. That is my point, the very thing I
encourage objectors to do - though not paying "little" attention, but
preferably none at all.
This may be the first time you have actually twigged to something thought by
another, but as usual you suppose you thought of it afresh and project it
back as a new angle.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 39 (Chancery Proc., Bridg
Wow, more 'clues' that are probably of little value,
from the National Archives catalog:
p. 323
--Pelham, Herbert, and Waldegrave
--Crane, Robert, and another
--1650; Essex; lands, etc. not specified (answer)
Pelhams & Waldegraves already have medieval descents.
What help is that lawsuit?
--Pemble, Walter
--Oxenbridge, John, and others
--1666; Stone, Kent
-- The New England Oxenbridge people were from
co. Northampton. So this is not relevant. But keep trying.
p. 6
--Rayner, John, and Anthony
--Launce, Darcy
--1657; Middlesex; apprenticeship
---------- The Darcy & Launce ancestry goes into the middle
ages. But why not post another item that wont add anything
useful?
p. 9
--Rodd, James
--Cogan, Philibert, Elizabeth his wife, and another
--1690; Thorncombe, Devon
------ The Philobert Cogan whose daughters went to New England
died about 1640.
I know, youre not good with chronology.
--Patricke, Rowland
--Cleypoole, Adam, and another
--1656; money (answer)
--- Same for this one, Claypooles have a royal descent.
What good is the lawsuit?
I could go on, but really, youre better than most FASGs, right?
How about posting some junk about John Gifford or Edmund Hawes?
Leslie
from the National Archives catalog:
p. 323
--Pelham, Herbert, and Waldegrave
--Crane, Robert, and another
--1650; Essex; lands, etc. not specified (answer)
Pelhams & Waldegraves already have medieval descents.
What help is that lawsuit?
--Pemble, Walter
--Oxenbridge, John, and others
--1666; Stone, Kent
-- The New England Oxenbridge people were from
co. Northampton. So this is not relevant. But keep trying.
p. 6
--Rayner, John, and Anthony
--Launce, Darcy
--1657; Middlesex; apprenticeship
---------- The Darcy & Launce ancestry goes into the middle
ages. But why not post another item that wont add anything
useful?
p. 9
--Rodd, James
--Cogan, Philibert, Elizabeth his wife, and another
--1690; Thorncombe, Devon
------ The Philobert Cogan whose daughters went to New England
died about 1640.
I know, youre not good with chronology.
--Patricke, Rowland
--Cleypoole, Adam, and another
--1656; money (answer)
--- Same for this one, Claypooles have a royal descent.
What good is the lawsuit?
I could go on, but really, youre better than most FASGs, right?
How about posting some junk about John Gifford or Edmund Hawes?
Leslie
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
<jimpup@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.265.1186759192.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Triple Duh - and the third is even more fatuous than the others.
If you want examples, look in the archive where you can find _thousands_ of
civil posts from me (but not from you) answering questions. That is why I
came here in the first place.
The chore of pointing out deficiencies in the honesty, expertise or logic of
other posters is far behind in frequency, but also a legitimate
contribution, though far from my preference for spending my own time.
Since your judgement is so wildly askew from a present disagreement, maybe
it's you who need to do some self-reflecting.
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.265.1186759192.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Hi all!
This proves my point!
This is but another example of an individual who is incapable of speaking
to anyone in?civil manner.???As?I said before he might be able to be civil
but chooses to do otherwise.? He would be well-served to look into a
mirror.? Maybe he should not do this,?for breaking the mirror would bring
him more bad luck.
He needs to realize that none of us has all the answers and that is why we
are here.
Triple Duh - and the third is even more fatuous than the others.
If you want examples, look in the archive where you can find _thousands_ of
civil posts from me (but not from you) answering questions. That is why I
came here in the first place.
The chore of pointing out deficiencies in the honesty, expertise or logic of
other posters is far behind in frequency, but also a legitimate
contribution, though far from my preference for spending my own time.
Since your judgement is so wildly askew from a present disagreement, maybe
it's you who need to do some self-reflecting.
Peter Stewart
-
Adrian Whitaker
RE: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
You wrote:
"If you were sensible, you'd realize that many others regard *your*
messages as mere "useless gripes" and pay little attention to them."
Instead of "useless gripes" I would say "useless crap"!
Antony Andrra
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of John Brandon
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 5:34 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
If you were sensible, you'd realize that many others regard *your*
messages as mere "useless gripes" and pay little attention to them.
-------------------------------
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
"If you were sensible, you'd realize that many others regard *your*
messages as mere "useless gripes" and pay little attention to them."
Instead of "useless gripes" I would say "useless crap"!
Antony Andrra
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of John Brandon
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 5:34 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
I hope so - I have been encouraging complainers for years to exert a
single finger and delete my messages rather than exert more fingers
typing out useless gripes about them.
If you were sensible, you'd realize that many others regard *your*
messages as mere "useless gripes" and pay little attention to them.
-------------------------------
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: Restoring civility to this newsgroup
"Adrian Whitaker" <arsandri@katamail.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.273.1186773144.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Ah, you have remembered the "n" in this phoney name of yours. But you have
overlooked that the post purposts to come from another, not "Antony Andrra"
this time but "Adrian Whitaker". And last time out you got this name wrong
too, as "Adrian f. Withaker" - remember?
You are propbably safer pretending to be a duke who can't do genealogy than
a crowd who can't spell their own names.
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.273.1186773144.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
You wrote:
"If you were sensible, you'd realize that many others regard *your*
messages as mere "useless gripes" and pay little attention to them."
Instead of "useless gripes" I would say "useless crap"!
Antony Andrra
Ah, you have remembered the "n" in this phoney name of yours. But you have
overlooked that the post purposts to come from another, not "Antony Andrra"
this time but "Adrian Whitaker". And last time out you got this name wrong
too, as "Adrian f. Withaker" - remember?
You are propbably safer pretending to be a duke who can't do genealogy than
a crowd who can't spell their own names.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:Tv9vi.52$wi6.167@eagle.america.net...
No, Hines is lying: and he knows this perfectly well. Just to ensure that
his bluff is called, he has my full permission to post any and all private
emails that he has ever received from me on this or any other topic.
The truth is that Hines obsessively questioned me about my ancestry and
relationships, and in order to answer him I had to compute for the first
time the precise degree of my connection to some living and dead
individuals - indeed, the subject was so alien to me that I got this wrong
at least once.
I have vanishingly little genealogical interest in anyone who lived after
around the mid-13th century, and couldn't tell anything about my own
ancestry from the 15th to 19th centuries from memory without checking - and
not my own research at that, because I simply haven't had the interest to do
it.
Peter Stewart
news:Tv9vi.52$wi6.167@eagle.america.net...
Peter Stewart is lying about me and my Ancestry and about himself, what he
has done, and his own Ancestry.
He has told me about his Ancestry in several detailed emails -- and is
quite
obsessively focused on it.
That's why he does Genealogy.
He's NOT just interested in Mediaeval Genealogy & History, but not the
links
to Moderns, including himself -- as he pretends to be.
But I gave him my word I would not reveal the details, which involve both
sides of his family -- so I won't -- even though he has broken his word to
me repeatedly and lies about me.
Other People would be sorely hurt -- and I don't want that to happen.
No, Hines is lying: and he knows this perfectly well. Just to ensure that
his bluff is called, he has my full permission to post any and all private
emails that he has ever received from me on this or any other topic.
The truth is that Hines obsessively questioned me about my ancestry and
relationships, and in order to answer him I had to compute for the first
time the precise degree of my connection to some living and dead
individuals - indeed, the subject was so alien to me that I got this wrong
at least once.
I have vanishingly little genealogical interest in anyone who lived after
around the mid-13th century, and couldn't tell anything about my own
ancestry from the 15th to 19th centuries from memory without checking - and
not my own research at that, because I simply haven't had the interest to do
it.
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
I stand by what I previously posted, which is repeated below.
Peter Stewart is seriously unbalanced and unhinged -- as well as being a
consummate liar.
Were I to post those emails it would hurt too many people, people about whom
Peter Stewart apparently no longer cares.
But I do...
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
------------------------------------------
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message news:...
Peter Stewart is seriously unbalanced and unhinged -- as well as being a
consummate liar.
Were I to post those emails it would hurt too many people, people about whom
Peter Stewart apparently no longer cares.
But I do...
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
------------------------------------------
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message news:...
Peter Stewart is lying about me and my Ancestry and about himself, what he
has done, and his own Ancestry.
He has told me about his Ancestry in several detailed emails -- and is
quite obsessively focused on it.
That's why he does Genealogy.
He's NOT just interested in Mediaeval Genealogy & History, but not the
links to Moderns, including himself -- as he pretends to be.
But I gave him my word I would not reveal the details, which involve both
sides of his family -- so I won't -- even though he has broken his word to
me repeatedly and lies about me.
Other People would be sorely hurt -- and I don't want that to happen.
Bad Character...
That's Peter Stewart's problem.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
What patent, medacious rubbish - obviously you could simply delete the names
of these people you so care about.
But there is no need. I give unconditional permission for you to post
whatever I have written about anyone or anything.
You don't have to worry about consequences. The only person who could be
hurt is yourself, by the undeniable proof that you are lying.
Any undertakings of mine to third parties are my concern, not yours.
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:z5avi.53$wi6.99@eagle.america.net...
of these people you so care about.
But there is no need. I give unconditional permission for you to post
whatever I have written about anyone or anything.
You don't have to worry about consequences. The only person who could be
hurt is yourself, by the undeniable proof that you are lying.
Any undertakings of mine to third parties are my concern, not yours.
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:z5avi.53$wi6.99@eagle.america.net...
I stand by what I previously posted, which is repeated below.
Peter Stewart is seriously unbalanced and unhinged -- as well as being a
consummate liar.
Were I to post those emails it would hurt too many people, people about
whom
Peter Stewart apparently no longer cares.
But I do...
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
------------------------------------------
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message news:...
Peter Stewart is lying about me and my Ancestry and about himself, what
he
has done, and his own Ancestry.
He has told me about his Ancestry in several detailed emails -- and is
quite obsessively focused on it.
That's why he does Genealogy.
He's NOT just interested in Mediaeval Genealogy & History, but not the
links to Moderns, including himself -- as he pretends to be.
But I gave him my word I would not reveal the details, which involve both
sides of his family -- so I won't -- even though he has broken his word
to
me repeatedly and lies about me.
Other People would be sorely hurt -- and I don't want that to happen.
Bad Character...
That's Peter Stewart's problem.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
I stand by what I previously posted, which is repeated below.
Peter Stewart is seriously unbalanced and unhinged -- as well as being a
consummate liar.
Were I to post those emails it would hurt too many people, people about whom
Peter Stewart apparently no longer cares.
But I do...
'Nuff Said.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
------------------------------------------
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message news:...
Peter Stewart is seriously unbalanced and unhinged -- as well as being a
consummate liar.
Were I to post those emails it would hurt too many people, people about whom
Peter Stewart apparently no longer cares.
But I do...
'Nuff Said.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
------------------------------------------
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message news:...
Peter Stewart is lying about me and my Ancestry and about himself, what he
has done, and his own Ancestry.
He has told me about his Ancestry in several detailed emails -- and is
quite obsessively focused on it.
That's why he does Genealogy.
He's NOT just interested in Mediaeval Genealogy & History, but not the
links to Moderns, including himself -- as he pretends to be.
But I gave him my word I would not reveal the details, which involve both
sides of his family -- so I won't -- even though he has broken his word to
me repeatedly and lies about me.
Other People would be sorely hurt -- and I don't want that to happen.
Bad Character...
That's Peter Stewart's problem.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
There's no point posting this twice in the hope that I won't answer it each
& every time.
You are lying, and making false allegations.
It is up to you to substantiate the claims, and you have been given a full
release to do so if you can. Asserting "I stand by...." does nothing for
your case, and it is _not_ enough said.
You don't get a free ride here, remember? Or have you completely forgotten
how you & your absurd pretensions came unstuck before?
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:wFavi.55$wi6.184@eagle.america.net...
& every time.
You are lying, and making false allegations.
It is up to you to substantiate the claims, and you have been given a full
release to do so if you can. Asserting "I stand by...." does nothing for
your case, and it is _not_ enough said.
You don't get a free ride here, remember? Or have you completely forgotten
how you & your absurd pretensions came unstuck before?
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:wFavi.55$wi6.184@eagle.america.net...
I stand by what I previously posted, which is repeated below.
Peter Stewart is seriously unbalanced and unhinged -- as well as being a
consummate liar.
Were I to post those emails it would hurt too many people, people about
whom
Peter Stewart apparently no longer cares.
But I do...
'Nuff Said.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
------------------------------------------
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message news:...
Peter Stewart is lying about me and my Ancestry and about himself, what
he
has done, and his own Ancestry.
He has told me about his Ancestry in several detailed emails -- and is
quite obsessively focused on it.
That's why he does Genealogy.
He's NOT just interested in Mediaeval Genealogy & History, but not the
links to Moderns, including himself -- as he pretends to be.
But I gave him my word I would not reveal the details, which involve both
sides of his family -- so I won't -- even though he has broken his word
to
me repeatedly and lies about me.
Other People would be sorely hurt -- and I don't want that to happen.
Bad Character...
That's Peter Stewart's problem.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
I stand by what I have previously posted.
Peter Stewart is seriously unbalanced, unhinged and in poor health -- as
well as being a consummate liar.
Were I to post those emails it would hurt too many people, on both sides of
his Family, people about whom Peter Stewart apparently no longer cares --
although in 2004 he certainly did and was quite concerned about them and any
embarrassing revelations.
But I still care about them and am looking out for their best interests,
even though Peter Stewart has abandoned them.
He has "issues", including financial ones, with them...and blames others for
his troubles.
'Nuff Said.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
Peter Stewart is seriously unbalanced, unhinged and in poor health -- as
well as being a consummate liar.
Were I to post those emails it would hurt too many people, on both sides of
his Family, people about whom Peter Stewart apparently no longer cares --
although in 2004 he certainly did and was quite concerned about them and any
embarrassing revelations.
But I still care about them and am looking out for their best interests,
even though Peter Stewart has abandoned them.
He has "issues", including financial ones, with them...and blames others for
his troubles.
'Nuff Said.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:J1bvi.56$wi6.31@eagle.america.net...
Not nearly enough - this is a twisted evasion route that will lead nowhere.
What Hines claims he will "stand by" is of no credibility here without
proof. This is purportedly available to him, and he has been cleared to
publicise it. Why the shilly-shallying?
There is no earthly way he could "care about" my family members, to all of
whom Hines is blissfully unknown.
No doubt he is alluding, in a warped way that is to be expected of him, to
some sensational but quite false allegations about one of my grandparents
that appeared in the gutter press more than 80 years ago, and/or to an
embarrassment that another of my deceased grandparents experienced when a
cousin printed some revelations about a common ancestor just at the time
that a public memorial to that person was about to be unveiled. Big deal.
Sensitivites over matters of this kind, hardly unique to my family, are
between me and my relatives - and whether or not these "issues" have been
resolved since 2004 must be absolutely unknown to Hines.
My financial affairs are not secret, or shameful in any way. I have never
shirked responsibility for anything I have said or done. My losses were of
the commonest kind - some bad luck, but more bad judgement on my own part.
Nothing "to wail or knock the breast" over; nothing for Hines to make
insinutations about that he won't back up with facts.
I repeat: he has my full permission to post anything he chooses from the
brief private correspondence between us years ago.
If he won't do this, it can only be becasue it won't help him out of the new
hole he is busily digging for any shred of credibility he imagines he has
left.
Peter Stewart
news:J1bvi.56$wi6.31@eagle.america.net...
I stand by what I have previously posted.
Peter Stewart is seriously unbalanced, unhinged and in poor health -- as
well as being a consummate liar.
Were I to post those emails it would hurt too many people, on both sides
of
his Family, people about whom Peter Stewart apparently no longer cares --
although in 2004 he certainly did and was quite concerned about them and
any
embarrassing revelations.
But I still care about them and am looking out for their best interests,
even though Peter Stewart has abandoned them.
He has "issues", including financial ones, with them...and blames others
for his troubles.
'Nuff Said.
Not nearly enough - this is a twisted evasion route that will lead nowhere.
What Hines claims he will "stand by" is of no credibility here without
proof. This is purportedly available to him, and he has been cleared to
publicise it. Why the shilly-shallying?
There is no earthly way he could "care about" my family members, to all of
whom Hines is blissfully unknown.
No doubt he is alluding, in a warped way that is to be expected of him, to
some sensational but quite false allegations about one of my grandparents
that appeared in the gutter press more than 80 years ago, and/or to an
embarrassment that another of my deceased grandparents experienced when a
cousin printed some revelations about a common ancestor just at the time
that a public memorial to that person was about to be unveiled. Big deal.
Sensitivites over matters of this kind, hardly unique to my family, are
between me and my relatives - and whether or not these "issues" have been
resolved since 2004 must be absolutely unknown to Hines.
My financial affairs are not secret, or shameful in any way. I have never
shirked responsibility for anything I have said or done. My losses were of
the commonest kind - some bad luck, but more bad judgement on my own part.
Nothing "to wail or knock the breast" over; nothing for Hines to make
insinutations about that he won't back up with facts.
I repeat: he has my full permission to post anything he chooses from the
brief private correspondence between us years ago.
If he won't do this, it can only be becasue it won't help him out of the new
hole he is busily digging for any shred of credibility he imagines he has
left.
Peter Stewart
-
Sarah
Re: Quintin Publications: Genealogy and Family History Super
I apologize for the uproar.
If for any reason you find a publication to be under copy please let
us know, we do research to the best of our ability copyright.
We do have live authors that do research from various places, and we
do (along with the author) hold the copyrights to those publications.
But If i am not mistaken (please correct me if I am wrong) public
domain publications hold no copyright. The copyright office has
records from 1978 to present, any records between 1924 to 1940ish to
about 1950ish require more research. Also because at one point in time
publications did not require the copyright notice to be placed within
it.
Also anyone laying claim to such an infrigement needs to show proof of
their rightfull ownership of the copyright for such a publication.
Again I mean no disrespect to anyone. And did not know I was
announcing in the wrong group.
~Sarah
On Aug 7, 2:00 pm, nightm...@fr.invalid wrote:
If for any reason you find a publication to be under copy please let
us know, we do research to the best of our ability copyright.
We do have live authors that do research from various places, and we
do (along with the author) hold the copyrights to those publications.
But If i am not mistaken (please correct me if I am wrong) public
domain publications hold no copyright. The copyright office has
records from 1978 to present, any records between 1924 to 1940ish to
about 1950ish require more research. Also because at one point in time
publications did not require the copyright notice to be placed within
it.
Also anyone laying claim to such an infrigement needs to show proof of
their rightfull ownership of the copyright for such a publication.
Again I mean no disrespect to anyone. And did not know I was
announcing in the wrong group.
~Sarah
On Aug 7, 2:00 pm, nightm...@fr.invalid wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:09:49 -0700, "pj.evans" <pj.evans....@usa.net
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 -www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1721 -www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
/ | Maintenant sur cédérom, début à 1765
oo oo Now on CD-ROM, beginnings to 1765
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
"My father is equally sensitive on the matter, and the two of them had
bagged my interest in genealogy from the start. My father would be utterly
horrified to know I kept a copy of _______'s ancestor study."
Peter Stewart -- 2 February 2004
"On my mother's side, the wounds are much deeper & closer to the present..."
Peter Stewart -- 2 February 2004
"I have vanishingly little genealogical interest in anyone who lived after
around the mid-13th century, and couldn't tell anything about my own
ancestry from the 15th to 19th centuries from memory without checking - and
not my own research at that, because I simply haven't had the interest to do
it."
Peter Stewart -- 11 August 2007
Hilarious! He's lying through his teeth, of course.
"Apologies for the delay in replying - I had to stay overnight in hospital
after my regular check-up yeaterday, [sic] until my blood pressure
stabilised (I think Richardson & his groupies upset it)."
Peter Stewart -- 2 February 2004
Peter has an absolute fixation, obsession and vendetta with Douglas
Richardson -- which drives up his BP and further unhinges and unbalances
him.
---------------------------------------------------
As I have been saying...
Peter Stewart is seriously unbalanced, unhinged and in poor health [high
blood pressure, heart and trigeminal neuralgia] -- as well as being a
consummate liar -- but one whose veil is, in practice, easily pierced.
But I still care about his relatives and am looking out for their best
interests, even though Peter Stewart has abandoned them -- like the feral,
abject coward he is.
Understand:
He has "issues", including major financial ones, with them...and blames
others for his troubles -- although he now pretends not to.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
bagged my interest in genealogy from the start. My father would be utterly
horrified to know I kept a copy of _______'s ancestor study."
Peter Stewart -- 2 February 2004
"On my mother's side, the wounds are much deeper & closer to the present..."
Peter Stewart -- 2 February 2004
"I have vanishingly little genealogical interest in anyone who lived after
around the mid-13th century, and couldn't tell anything about my own
ancestry from the 15th to 19th centuries from memory without checking - and
not my own research at that, because I simply haven't had the interest to do
it."
Peter Stewart -- 11 August 2007
Hilarious! He's lying through his teeth, of course.
"Apologies for the delay in replying - I had to stay overnight in hospital
after my regular check-up yeaterday, [sic] until my blood pressure
stabilised (I think Richardson & his groupies upset it)."
Peter Stewart -- 2 February 2004
Peter has an absolute fixation, obsession and vendetta with Douglas
Richardson -- which drives up his BP and further unhinges and unbalances
him.
---------------------------------------------------
As I have been saying...
Peter Stewart is seriously unbalanced, unhinged and in poor health [high
blood pressure, heart and trigeminal neuralgia] -- as well as being a
consummate liar -- but one whose veil is, in practice, easily pierced.
But I still care about his relatives and am looking out for their best
interests, even though Peter Stewart has abandoned them -- like the feral,
abject coward he is.
Understand:
He has "issues", including major financial ones, with them...and blames
others for his troubles -- although he now pretends not to.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
"My father is equally sensitive on the matter, and the two of them had
bagged my interest in genealogy from the start. My father would be utterly
horrified to know I kept a copy of _______'s ancestor study."
Peter Stewart -- 2 February 2004
"On my mother's side, the wounds are much deeper & closer to the present..."
Peter Stewart -- 2 February 2004
"I have vanishingly little genealogical interest in anyone who lived after
around the mid-13th century, and couldn't tell anything about my own
ancestry from the 15th to 19th centuries from memory without checking - and
not my own research at that, because I simply haven't had the interest to do
it."
Peter Stewart -- 11 August 2007
Hilarious! He's lying through his teeth, of course.
"Apologies for the delay in replying - I had to stay overnight in hospital
after my regular check-up yeaterday, [sic] until my blood pressure
stabilised (I think Richardson & his groupies upset it)."
Peter Stewart -- 2 February 2004
Peter has an absolute fixation, obsession and vendetta with Douglas
Richardson -- which drives up his BP and further unhinges and unbalances
him.
---------------------------------------------------
As I have been saying...
Peter Stewart is seriously unbalanced, unhinged and in poor health [high
blood pressure, heart and trigeminal neuralgia] -- as well as being a
consummate liar -- but one whose veil is, in practice, easily pierced.
But I still care about his relatives and am looking out for their best
interests, even though Peter Stewart has abandoned them -- like the feral,
abject coward he is.
Understand:
He has "issues", including major financial ones, with them...and blames
others for his troubles and reduced circumstances -- although he now
pretends not to.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
bagged my interest in genealogy from the start. My father would be utterly
horrified to know I kept a copy of _______'s ancestor study."
Peter Stewart -- 2 February 2004
"On my mother's side, the wounds are much deeper & closer to the present..."
Peter Stewart -- 2 February 2004
"I have vanishingly little genealogical interest in anyone who lived after
around the mid-13th century, and couldn't tell anything about my own
ancestry from the 15th to 19th centuries from memory without checking - and
not my own research at that, because I simply haven't had the interest to do
it."
Peter Stewart -- 11 August 2007
Hilarious! He's lying through his teeth, of course.
"Apologies for the delay in replying - I had to stay overnight in hospital
after my regular check-up yeaterday, [sic] until my blood pressure
stabilised (I think Richardson & his groupies upset it)."
Peter Stewart -- 2 February 2004
Peter has an absolute fixation, obsession and vendetta with Douglas
Richardson -- which drives up his BP and further unhinges and unbalances
him.
---------------------------------------------------
As I have been saying...
Peter Stewart is seriously unbalanced, unhinged and in poor health [high
blood pressure, heart and trigeminal neuralgia] -- as well as being a
consummate liar -- but one whose veil is, in practice, easily pierced.
But I still care about his relatives and am looking out for their best
interests, even though Peter Stewart has abandoned them -- like the feral,
abject coward he is.
Understand:
He has "issues", including major financial ones, with them...and blames
others for his troubles and reduced circumstances -- although he now
pretends not to.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Restoring Civility
Hilarious!
Leo van de Pas, doing his best to Restore Civility...
Not.
DSH
-------------------------------------------------
"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.292.1186815198.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Leo van de Pas, doing his best to Restore Civility...
Not.
DSH
-------------------------------------------------
"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.292.1186815198.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Just because we are of the same opinion does not mean there is an alliance
between myself and Peter Stewart, I cannot remember the last time I have
been in touch with him off list. Don't forget I also have the private
e-mail address of Spencer Hines, this does not mean I am in alliance with
him either.
The root of discord is crap produced and too many people willing to accept
it, and let Peter Stewart and Leo van de Pas not spoil our little game of
mutual admiration, never mind that the quality of genealogy suffers.
What do you want from Gen-Med? "Nice" afternoon tea parties, or the
genealogical discussions the group was set up for?
We know for years the main contribution of Spencer Whines has been
attempts to display himself as the big know all, but who only gripes and
belittles other people. Genealogy, do you still know what the word means?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 5:57 AM
Subject: Re: Restoring Civility
The "New Look" here, the Big Change from more Civil Times, is the strong
alliance between Peter Stewart and Leo van de Pas, which is dedicated to
bashing Douglas Richardson at every pass.
That's what lies at the root of the discord.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:KFcvi.57$wi6.266@eagle.america.net...
You had better read through this again - it fails utterly to back up your
allegations. The sensitivities of my parents were acknowledged by me
already, unprompted by these extracts, and the ancestor study in question is
not my own. Keeping a copy scarcely amounts to an "obsessive" focus on my
ancestry.
All you have proved is my point, that you have a warped interest in me and a
twisted view of someone else's ancestry that you clearly envy.
The discussion of this between us started from an interest in an ancestor of
mine who was killed at Waterloo - i.e. in the 19th century. He is as far
back as I can go from memory, any further and I need to check the details
that, in the form of an elaborate study now in my possession, were compiled
by someone else. When this gets to the medieval period that interests me, ca
750-ca 1250, it is only reliable on well-known lines and individuals - it
was written by an incurable romantic who preferred any good story to a dry
set of facts. I have very little idea how much the same inclination of his
colours the accounts of early modern ancestors, and very little interest in
finding out. I haven't even looked at it since I don't know when, probably
2004.
So the case for your outlandish allegations is still to be made.
Peter Stewart
news:KFcvi.57$wi6.266@eagle.america.net...
"My father is equally sensitive on the matter, and the two of them had
bagged my interest in genealogy from the start. My father would be
utterly
horrified to know I kept a copy of _______'s ancestor study."
Peter Stewart -- 2 February 2004
"On my mother's side, the wounds are much deeper & closer to the
present..."
Peter Stewart -- 2 February 2004
"I have vanishingly little genealogical interest in anyone who lived after
around the mid-13th century, and couldn't tell anything about my own
ancestry from the 15th to 19th centuries from memory without checking -
and
not my own research at that, because I simply haven't had the interest to
do
it."
Peter Stewart -- 11 August 2007
Hilarious! He's lying through his teeth, of course.
"Apologies for the delay in replying - I had to stay overnight in hospital
after my regular check-up yeaterday, [sic] until my blood pressure
stabilised (I think Richardson & his groupies upset it)."
Peter Stewart -- 2 February 2004
Peter has an absolute fixation, obsession and vendetta with Douglas
Richardson -- which drives up his BP and further unhinges and unbalances
him.
---------------------------------------------------
As I have been saying...
Peter Stewart is seriously unbalanced, unhinged and in poor health [high
blood pressure, heart and trigeminal neuralgia] -- as well as being a
consummate liar -- but one whose veil is, in practice, easily pierced.
But I still care about his relatives and am looking out for their best
interests, even though Peter Stewart has abandoned them -- like the feral,
abject coward he is.
Understand:
He has "issues", including major financial ones, with them...and blames
others for his troubles -- although he now pretends not to.
You had better read through this again - it fails utterly to back up your
allegations. The sensitivities of my parents were acknowledged by me
already, unprompted by these extracts, and the ancestor study in question is
not my own. Keeping a copy scarcely amounts to an "obsessive" focus on my
ancestry.
All you have proved is my point, that you have a warped interest in me and a
twisted view of someone else's ancestry that you clearly envy.
The discussion of this between us started from an interest in an ancestor of
mine who was killed at Waterloo - i.e. in the 19th century. He is as far
back as I can go from memory, any further and I need to check the details
that, in the form of an elaborate study now in my possession, were compiled
by someone else. When this gets to the medieval period that interests me, ca
750-ca 1250, it is only reliable on well-known lines and individuals - it
was written by an incurable romantic who preferred any good story to a dry
set of facts. I have very little idea how much the same inclination of his
colours the accounts of early modern ancestors, and very little interest in
finding out. I haven't even looked at it since I don't know when, probably
2004.
So the case for your outlandish allegations is still to be made.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
I don't know if this is an exact copy of the previous post by Hines - anyway
I note a couple of points that I had not responded to before:
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:mTcvi.58$wi6.199@eagle.america.net...
<snip>
This was clearly an off-hand joke at the time, I suppose the archive would
show what was going on just then. My health problems were not due to high
blood pressure, this was incidental.
Again, high blood pressure was a one-off three years ago. My heart is
perfectly healthy, as far as I am aware.
Abandoned them my foot - whay could Hines know about this? Just another of
his lies, to cover up the fact that he can't find a legitimate means of
attack. I last spoke with my mother by phone today.
Nonsense. As I said before, my own bad judgement is the primary cause -
including, as it happens, sometimes wrong assessment of people (such as
Hines in 2004).
Peter Stewart
I note a couple of points that I had not responded to before:
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:mTcvi.58$wi6.199@eagle.america.net...
<snip>
"Apologies for the delay in replying - I had to stay overnight in hospital
after my regular check-up yeaterday, [sic] until my blood pressure
stabilised (I think Richardson & his groupies upset it)."
Peter Stewart -- 2 February 2004
Peter has an absolute fixation, obsession and vendetta with Douglas
Richardson -- which drives up his BP and further unhinges and unbalances
him.
This was clearly an off-hand joke at the time, I suppose the archive would
show what was going on just then. My health problems were not due to high
blood pressure, this was incidental.
---------------------------------------------------
As I have been saying...
Peter Stewart is seriously unbalanced, unhinged and in poor health [high
blood pressure, heart and trigeminal neuralgia] -- as well as being a
consummate liar -- but one whose veil is, in practice, easily pierced.
Again, high blood pressure was a one-off three years ago. My heart is
perfectly healthy, as far as I am aware.
But I still care about his relatives and am looking out for their best
interests, even though Peter Stewart has abandoned them -- like the feral,
abject coward he is.
Abandoned them my foot - whay could Hines know about this? Just another of
his lies, to cover up the fact that he can't find a legitimate means of
attack. I last spoke with my mother by phone today.
Understand:
He has "issues", including major financial ones, with them...and blames
others for his troubles and reduced circumstances -- although he now
pretends not to.
Nonsense. As I said before, my own bad judgement is the primary cause -
including, as it happens, sometimes wrong assessment of people (such as
Hines in 2004).
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:mTcvi.58$wi6.199@eagle.america.net...
<snip>
On second thoughts, this was probably about a much-loved young relative of
my mother's who died in Hawaii, causing a great deal of grief at the time
and puzzlement later that has now been cleared up. If so, once again,
nothing for Hines to get into a fit of hysterics about. The person who would
have been most hurt about this matter then is no longer living. Thats is one
of the ways in which families move on. But not Hines....
Peter Stewart
news:mTcvi.58$wi6.199@eagle.america.net...
<snip>
"On my mother's side, the wounds are much deeper & closer to the
present..."
Peter Stewart -- 2 February 2004
On second thoughts, this was probably about a much-loved young relative of
my mother's who died in Hawaii, causing a great deal of grief at the time
and puzzlement later that has now been cleared up. If so, once again,
nothing for Hines to get into a fit of hysterics about. The person who would
have been most hurt about this matter then is no longer living. Thats is one
of the ways in which families move on. But not Hines....
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: I am looking for additional sources of old WHITE Family
In a message dated 8/10/2007 11:22:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
doloresc.phifer@comcast.net writes:
http://www.geocities.com/oso_beartodd/aqwg76.htm
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz= ... hard+WHITE
%22%2C+%22Alice+RICH%22
--------------
The first link is to an absolutely unsourced GEDCOM in html format.
His sources are... are you ready... get set... other's peoples Gedcoms.
In other words, no sources. Worthless.
The second link is a google search results page showing how many people can
copy and paste other peoples gedcoms without thinking.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's get some sources.
Will Johnson
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
doloresc.phifer@comcast.net writes:
http://www.geocities.com/oso_beartodd/aqwg76.htm
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz= ... hard+WHITE
%22%2C+%22Alice+RICH%22
--------------
The first link is to an absolutely unsourced GEDCOM in html format.
His sources are... are you ready... get set... other's peoples Gedcoms.
In other words, no sources. Worthless.
The second link is a google search results page showing how many people can
copy and paste other peoples gedcoms without thinking.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's get some sources.
Will Johnson
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
"My father is equally sensitive on the matter, and the two of them had
bagged my interest in genealogy from the start. My father would be utterly
horrified to know I kept a copy of _______'s ancestor study."
Peter Stewart -- 2 February 2004
"On my mother's side, the wounds are much deeper & closer to the present..."
Peter Stewart -- 2 February 2004
"I have vanishingly little genealogical interest in anyone who lived after
around the mid-13th century, and couldn't tell anything about my own
ancestry from the 15th to 19th centuries from memory without checking - and
not my own research at that, because I simply haven't had the interest to do
it."
Peter Stewart -- 11 August 2007
Hilarious! He's lying through his teeth, of course, as we see here:
"The discussion of this between us started from an interest in an ancestor
of mine who was killed at Waterloo - i.e. in the 19th century."
Peter Stewart -- 11 August 2007
"Apologies for the delay in replying - I had to stay overnight in hospital
after my regular check-up yeaterday, [sic] until my blood pressure
stabilised (I think Richardson & his groupies upset it)."
Peter Stewart -- 2 February 2004
Peter has an absolute fixation, obsession and vendetta with Douglas
Richardson -- which drives up his BP and further unhinges and unbalances
him.
He's also quite proud of his mother's and his own friendship with the late
Queen Elizabeth [the wife of King George VI] and dotes on his relationship
to her -- something on the order of fourth cousins.
God Rest Her Soul.
---------------------------------------------------
As I have been saying...
Peter Stewart is seriously unbalanced, unhinged and in poor health [high
blood pressure, heart and trigeminal neuralgia] -- as well as being a
consummate liar -- but one whose veil is, in practice, easily pierced.
The hypertension [high blood pressure] is, of course, what led to the
trigeminal neuralgia -- involving excruciatingly painful, lancinating
paroxysms, in the right cheek and naso-maxillary area. It has been referred
to as "The Suicide Disease" and demands the use of powerful drugs which
affect the Central Nervous System and can bring on irrational behavior,
disorientation and acute reactions, often hostile, to personal interactions
with others as well as to rapid mood changes. Gamma knife surgery is often
the next step or micro-vascular decompression -- if the drugs are no longer
effective.
We see all these symptoms in Peter Stewart.
But I still care about his relatives and am looking out for their best
interests, even though Peter Stewart has abandoned them and their best
interests -- like the feral, abject coward he is.
Understand:
He has "issues", including major financial ones, with them...and blames
others for his troubles and reduced circumstances -- although he NOW
pretends not to.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
bagged my interest in genealogy from the start. My father would be utterly
horrified to know I kept a copy of _______'s ancestor study."
Peter Stewart -- 2 February 2004
"On my mother's side, the wounds are much deeper & closer to the present..."
Peter Stewart -- 2 February 2004
"I have vanishingly little genealogical interest in anyone who lived after
around the mid-13th century, and couldn't tell anything about my own
ancestry from the 15th to 19th centuries from memory without checking - and
not my own research at that, because I simply haven't had the interest to do
it."
Peter Stewart -- 11 August 2007
Hilarious! He's lying through his teeth, of course, as we see here:
"The discussion of this between us started from an interest in an ancestor
of mine who was killed at Waterloo - i.e. in the 19th century."
Peter Stewart -- 11 August 2007
"Apologies for the delay in replying - I had to stay overnight in hospital
after my regular check-up yeaterday, [sic] until my blood pressure
stabilised (I think Richardson & his groupies upset it)."
Peter Stewart -- 2 February 2004
Peter has an absolute fixation, obsession and vendetta with Douglas
Richardson -- which drives up his BP and further unhinges and unbalances
him.
He's also quite proud of his mother's and his own friendship with the late
Queen Elizabeth [the wife of King George VI] and dotes on his relationship
to her -- something on the order of fourth cousins.
God Rest Her Soul.
---------------------------------------------------
As I have been saying...
Peter Stewart is seriously unbalanced, unhinged and in poor health [high
blood pressure, heart and trigeminal neuralgia] -- as well as being a
consummate liar -- but one whose veil is, in practice, easily pierced.
The hypertension [high blood pressure] is, of course, what led to the
trigeminal neuralgia -- involving excruciatingly painful, lancinating
paroxysms, in the right cheek and naso-maxillary area. It has been referred
to as "The Suicide Disease" and demands the use of powerful drugs which
affect the Central Nervous System and can bring on irrational behavior,
disorientation and acute reactions, often hostile, to personal interactions
with others as well as to rapid mood changes. Gamma knife surgery is often
the next step or micro-vascular decompression -- if the drugs are no longer
effective.
We see all these symptoms in Peter Stewart.
But I still care about his relatives and am looking out for their best
interests, even though Peter Stewart has abandoned them and their best
interests -- like the feral, abject coward he is.
Understand:
He has "issues", including major financial ones, with them...and blames
others for his troubles and reduced circumstances -- although he NOW
pretends not to.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
-
Gjest
Re: I am looking for additional sources of old WHITE Family
In a message dated 8/10/2007 11:22:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
doloresc.phifer@comcast.net writes:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... .html#I281
------------------
On the linked site I see an awful lots of *statements* but no *sources*.
Can you tell us what the *sources* are for the statements?
Thanks
Will
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
doloresc.phifer@comcast.net writes:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... .html#I281
------------------
On the linked site I see an awful lots of *statements* but no *sources*.
Can you tell us what the *sources* are for the statements?
Thanks
Will
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
Ho hum - Hines keeps reposting these dishes of stuffed tripe with paragraphs
added:
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:kQdvi.60$wi6.235@eagle.america.net...
<snip>
Hardly - she had very many friends, it was not a particular distinction. The
subject came up between us due to my sharing some highly fascinating
information about Joe Kennedy and his speedy return to the USA from his
ambassadorship in the UK that could only have come from this one person,
hence the need to explain how I heard it.
Now he is into diagnosis, and just as wrong. Trigeminal neuralgia is indeed
excruciating, but has no specifin known cause. The drug that controls it in
my case is Tegretol (carbamazepine according to the packet), that is taken
by countless people with convulsive disorders, such as epilepsy apart from
my condition. Mood changes are not a recognised side-effect as far as I
know - I have read through the information provided with the pills and can't
recall anything about this, and have never experienced it. The surgical
intervention is usually thermo-coagulation of the trigeminal nerve, but I am
not a candidate for this procedure. So much for Dr Hines.
Peter Stewart
added:
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:kQdvi.60$wi6.235@eagle.america.net...
<snip>
He's also quite proud of his mother's and his own friendship with the late
Queen Elizabeth [the wife of King George VI] and dotes on his relationship
to her -- something on the order of fourth cousins.
God Rest Her Soul.
Hardly - she had very many friends, it was not a particular distinction. The
subject came up between us due to my sharing some highly fascinating
information about Joe Kennedy and his speedy return to the USA from his
ambassadorship in the UK that could only have come from this one person,
hence the need to explain how I heard it.
---------------------------------------------------
As I have been saying...
Peter Stewart is seriously unbalanced, unhinged and in poor health [high
blood pressure, heart and trigeminal neuralgia] -- as well as being a
consummate liar -- but one whose veil is, in practice, easily pierced.
The hypertension [high blood pressure] is, of course, what led to the
trigeminal neuralgia -- involving excruciatingly painful, lancinating
paroxysms, in the right cheek and naso-maxillary area. It has been
referred to as "The Suicide Disease" and demands the use of powerful drugs
which affect the Central Nervous System and can bring on irrational
behavior, disorientation and acute reactions, often hostile, to personal
interactions with others as well as to rapid mood changes. Gamma knife
surgery is often the next step or micro-vascular decompression -- if the
drugs are no longer effective.
Now he is into diagnosis, and just as wrong. Trigeminal neuralgia is indeed
excruciating, but has no specifin known cause. The drug that controls it in
my case is Tegretol (carbamazepine according to the packet), that is taken
by countless people with convulsive disorders, such as epilepsy apart from
my condition. Mood changes are not a recognised side-effect as far as I
know - I have read through the information provided with the pills and can't
recall anything about this, and have never experienced it. The surgical
intervention is usually thermo-coagulation of the trigeminal nerve, but I am
not a candidate for this procedure. So much for Dr Hines.
Peter Stewart
-
Merilyn Pedrick
Re: Fw: Restoring Civility
I believe there *should* be an alliance between those who seek excellence
in medieval genealogy.
Those who want to muddy the waters with mediocre nonsense should expect to
be lampooned.
It is certainly permissible for those of us with little knowledge to ask
questions and pose our ideas about those we are trying to research, but when
we are corrected by those with more knowledge we should take it on the chin
and not take the correction as a personal insult.
I am very happy to be corrected, but I'm not happy to be insulted. Please
take note John Brandon. And it's perfectly OK to defend those who won't put
up with the nonsense, like Peter Stewart the intrepid warrior with so much
knowledge, and Leo van de Pas whose Genealogics site has contributed so much
So, those mean spirited little twerps who can only contribute nonsense, go
back to your caves and leave the rest of us to enjoy our medieval genealogy
in peace.
Merilyn Pedrick
-------Original Message-------
From: Leo van de Pas
Date: 08/11/07 16:26:02
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Fw: Restoring Civility
Just because we are of the same opinion does not mean there is an alliance
between myself and Peter Stewart, I cannot remember the last time I have
been in touch with him off list. Don't forget I also have the private
e-mail
address of Spencer Hines, this does not mean I am in alliance with him
either.
The root of discord is crap produced and too many people willing to accept
it, and let Peter Stewart and Leo van de Pas not spoil our little game of
mutual admiration, never mind that the quality of genealogy suffers.
What do you want from Gen-Med? "Nice" afternoon tea parties, or the
genealogical discussions the group was set up for?
We know for years the main contribution of Spencer Whines has been attempts
to display himself as the big know all, but who only gripes and belittles
other people. Genealogy, do you still know what the word means?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
in medieval genealogy.
Those who want to muddy the waters with mediocre nonsense should expect to
be lampooned.
It is certainly permissible for those of us with little knowledge to ask
questions and pose our ideas about those we are trying to research, but when
we are corrected by those with more knowledge we should take it on the chin
and not take the correction as a personal insult.
I am very happy to be corrected, but I'm not happy to be insulted. Please
take note John Brandon. And it's perfectly OK to defend those who won't put
up with the nonsense, like Peter Stewart the intrepid warrior with so much
knowledge, and Leo van de Pas whose Genealogics site has contributed so much
So, those mean spirited little twerps who can only contribute nonsense, go
back to your caves and leave the rest of us to enjoy our medieval genealogy
in peace.
Merilyn Pedrick
-------Original Message-------
From: Leo van de Pas
Date: 08/11/07 16:26:02
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Fw: Restoring Civility
Just because we are of the same opinion does not mean there is an alliance
between myself and Peter Stewart, I cannot remember the last time I have
been in touch with him off list. Don't forget I also have the private
address of Spencer Hines, this does not mean I am in alliance with him
either.
The root of discord is crap produced and too many people willing to accept
it, and let Peter Stewart and Leo van de Pas not spoil our little game of
mutual admiration, never mind that the quality of genealogy suffers.
What do you want from Gen-Med? "Nice" afternoon tea parties, or the
genealogical discussions the group was set up for?
We know for years the main contribution of Spencer Whines has been attempts
to display himself as the big know all, but who only gripes and belittles
other people. Genealogy, do you still know what the word means?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 5:57 AM
Subject: Re: Restoring Civility
The "New Look" here, the Big Change from more Civil Times, is the strong
alliance between Peter Stewart and Leo van de Pas, which is dedicated to
bashing Douglas Richardson at every pass.
That's what lies at the root of the discord.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
------------------------------------------
"Wanda Thacker" <wanda_t36@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.275.1186773452.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
I have just been reading this list for awhile now because there is
actually some useful info that slips through. But, until now, I have
not posted to it, because I got shot out of the water before I realized
there was a war, the first time I posted.
What would be the harm in making posts that were to the point?
Who you are researching
What sources you have found so far
When you are researching, because multi generational families had
similar/same names
And of course When
Then
the replies could be pretty much the same, no opinions added. Just
quote your source and leave the opinion forming to the readers.
I always believe if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the
problem.
Wanda Thacker
Use what talents you possess; the woods would be verysilent if no birds
sang except those that sang best.
- Henry Van Dyke, 1852 - 1933
Birds sing after a storm; why shouldn't people feel asfree to delight in
whatever sunlight remains to them?
- Rose FitzgeraldKennedy, 1890 - 1995
Be as a bird perched on a frail branch that she feelsbending beneath her,
still she sings away all the same,knowing she has wings.
- Victor Hugo, 1802 - 1885
My Scrap Journaling Blog: http://lascorpia64.wordpress.com/ Check it out
for journaling prompts RECENTLY UPDATED, A LOT OF QUOTES
MY LAYOUT BLOG http://introspectivescrapping.blogspot.com/
http://wandasscrappingfreebies.blogspot.com/
POLITICAL OPINIONShttp://www.myspace.com/politica ... rrectrants
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
"I have vanishingly little genealogical interest in anyone who lived after
around the mid-13th century, and couldn't tell anything about my own
ancestry from the 15th to 19th centuries from memory without checking - and
not my own research at that, because I simply haven't had the interest to do
it."
Peter Stewart -- 11 August 2007
Hilarious! He's lying through his teeth, of course, as we see here:
"The discussion of this between us started from an interest in an ancestor
of mine who was killed at Waterloo - i.e. in the 19th century."
Peter Stewart -- 11 August 2007
Said ancestor was killed at Waterloo in 1815.
Clearly that ancestor was born in the 18th Century, which puts the lie to
his assertion supra.
Peter is slipping as a liar -- his talent is unraveling -- the Tegretol
[Carbamazepine] Anti-Seizure Drug, which he takes, adds a kicker -- and some
disabling memory loss as well as the expected mood changes, disorientation,
ataxia [loss of coordination and equilibrium], an uneven, lurching gait
somnolence and acute reactions, often hostile, to personal interactions with
others.
He seems to be on a large dose.
It's also often used by Epileptics.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
around the mid-13th century, and couldn't tell anything about my own
ancestry from the 15th to 19th centuries from memory without checking - and
not my own research at that, because I simply haven't had the interest to do
it."
Peter Stewart -- 11 August 2007
Hilarious! He's lying through his teeth, of course, as we see here:
"The discussion of this between us started from an interest in an ancestor
of mine who was killed at Waterloo - i.e. in the 19th century."
Peter Stewart -- 11 August 2007
Said ancestor was killed at Waterloo in 1815.
Clearly that ancestor was born in the 18th Century, which puts the lie to
his assertion supra.
Peter is slipping as a liar -- his talent is unraveling -- the Tegretol
[Carbamazepine] Anti-Seizure Drug, which he takes, adds a kicker -- and some
disabling memory loss as well as the expected mood changes, disorientation,
ataxia [loss of coordination and equilibrium], an uneven, lurching gait
somnolence and acute reactions, often hostile, to personal interactions with
others.
He seems to be on a large dose.
It's also often used by Epileptics.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
"I have vanishingly little genealogical interest in anyone who lived after
around the mid-13th century, and couldn't tell anything about my own
ancestry from the 15th to 19th centuries from memory without checking - and
not my own research at that, because I simply haven't had the interest to do
it."
Peter Stewart -- 11 August 2007
Hilarious! He's lying through his teeth, of course, as we see here:
"The discussion of this between us started from an interest in an ancestor
of mine who was killed at Waterloo - i.e. in the 19th century."
Peter Stewart -- 11 August 2007
Said ancestor was killed at Waterloo in 1815.
Clearly that ancestor was born in the 18th Century, which puts the lie to
his assertion supra.
Peter is slipping as a liar -- his talent is unraveling -- the Tegretol
[Carbamazepine] Anti-Seizure Drug, which he takes, adds a kicker -- and some
disabling memory loss as well as the expected mood changes, disorientation,
ataxia [loss of coordination and equilibrium], an uneven, lurching gait
somnolence and acute reactions, often hostile, to personal interactions with
others.
He seems to be on a high dose.
It's also often used by Epileptics.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
around the mid-13th century, and couldn't tell anything about my own
ancestry from the 15th to 19th centuries from memory without checking - and
not my own research at that, because I simply haven't had the interest to do
it."
Peter Stewart -- 11 August 2007
Hilarious! He's lying through his teeth, of course, as we see here:
"The discussion of this between us started from an interest in an ancestor
of mine who was killed at Waterloo - i.e. in the 19th century."
Peter Stewart -- 11 August 2007
Said ancestor was killed at Waterloo in 1815.
Clearly that ancestor was born in the 18th Century, which puts the lie to
his assertion supra.
Peter is slipping as a liar -- his talent is unraveling -- the Tegretol
[Carbamazepine] Anti-Seizure Drug, which he takes, adds a kicker -- and some
disabling memory loss as well as the expected mood changes, disorientation,
ataxia [loss of coordination and equilibrium], an uneven, lurching gait
somnolence and acute reactions, often hostile, to personal interactions with
others.
He seems to be on a high dose.
It's also often used by Epileptics.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:9Devi.63$wi6.226@eagle.america.net...
Lie? Are you even seriously trying to fool yourself any more? I couldn't
tell you the given names of the man's parents without looking them up,
though I think they lived well into the 19th century. That's when the battle
of Waterloo took place, pure and simple. This is the most remote ancestor I
know about in any detail with the ability to recite off the top of my head
by name all the linking persons between him and me. I have known these
details since childhood - probably since about the age he would have
attained at the turn of the 18th/19th centuries. So convict me.
You are now repeating information from my posts as somehow discreditable
news - this is about as pathetic as a controversialist can get. Tegretol can
cause problems in alertness - others can judge for themselves if I seem to
be suffering from this - and co-ordination. But I still hold a driving
license, this does not happen to me. Like Hines (in this alone I hope) I
have no idea if I take a large dose (one tablet, 100 mg, per day normally),
I have never asked what a small one would be.
Peter Stewart
news:9Devi.63$wi6.226@eagle.america.net...
"I have vanishingly little genealogical interest in anyone who lived after
around the mid-13th century, and couldn't tell anything about my own
ancestry from the 15th to 19th centuries from memory without checking -
and
not my own research at that, because I simply haven't had the interest to
do
it."
Peter Stewart -- 11 August 2007
Hilarious! He's lying through his teeth, of course, as we see here:
"The discussion of this between us started from an interest in an ancestor
of mine who was killed at Waterloo - i.e. in the 19th century."
Peter Stewart -- 11 August 2007
Said ancestor was killed at Waterloo in 1815.
Clearly that ancestor was born in the 18th Century, which puts the lie to
his assertion supra.
Lie? Are you even seriously trying to fool yourself any more? I couldn't
tell you the given names of the man's parents without looking them up,
though I think they lived well into the 19th century. That's when the battle
of Waterloo took place, pure and simple. This is the most remote ancestor I
know about in any detail with the ability to recite off the top of my head
by name all the linking persons between him and me. I have known these
details since childhood - probably since about the age he would have
attained at the turn of the 18th/19th centuries. So convict me.
Peter is slipping as a liar -- his talent is unraveling -- the Tegretol
[Carbamazepine] Anti-Seizure Drug, which he takes, adds a kicker -- and
some
disabling memory loss as well as the expected mood changes,
disorientation,
ataxia [loss of coordination and equilibrium], an uneven, lurching gait
somnolence and acute reactions, often hostile, to personal interactions
with
others.
He seems to be on a large dose.
It's also often used by Epileptics.
You are now repeating information from my posts as somehow discreditable
news - this is about as pathetic as a controversialist can get. Tegretol can
cause problems in alertness - others can judge for themselves if I seem to
be suffering from this - and co-ordination. But I still hold a driving
license, this does not happen to me. Like Hines (in this alone I hope) I
have no idea if I take a large dose (one tablet, 100 mg, per day normally),
I have never asked what a small one would be.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
Nothing new here, all refuted before.
Why does the cretin keep posting duplicates while making allegations about
the mental competence of others?
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:rMevi.64$wi6.257@eagle.america.net...
Why does the cretin keep posting duplicates while making allegations about
the mental competence of others?
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:rMevi.64$wi6.257@eagle.america.net...
"I have vanishingly little genealogical interest in anyone who lived after
around the mid-13th century, and couldn't tell anything about my own
ancestry from the 15th to 19th centuries from memory without checking -
and
not my own research at that, because I simply haven't had the interest to
do
it."
Peter Stewart -- 11 August 2007
Hilarious! He's lying through his teeth, of course, as we see here:
"The discussion of this between us started from an interest in an ancestor
of mine who was killed at Waterloo - i.e. in the 19th century."
Peter Stewart -- 11 August 2007
Said ancestor was killed at Waterloo in 1815.
Clearly that ancestor was born in the 18th Century, which puts the lie to
his assertion supra.
Peter is slipping as a liar -- his talent is unraveling -- the Tegretol
[Carbamazepine] Anti-Seizure Drug, which he takes, adds a kicker -- and
some
disabling memory loss as well as the expected mood changes,
disorientation,
ataxia [loss of coordination and equilibrium], an uneven, lurching gait
somnolence and acute reactions, often hostile, to personal interactions
with
others.
He seems to be on a high dose.
It's also often used by Epileptics.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
Gjest
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
On Aug 11, 10:50 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Even by his own abysmal standards DSH is plumbing new depths here (an
appropriate expression for a failed jack-tar)
"I have vanishingly little genealogical interest in anyone who lived after
around the mid-13th century, and couldn't tell anything about my own
ancestry from the 15th to 19th centuries from memory without checking - and
not my own research at that, because I simply haven't had the interest to do
it."
Peter Stewart -- 11 August 2007
Hilarious! He's lying through his teeth, of course, as we see here:
"The discussion of this between us started from an interest in an ancestor
of mine who was killed at Waterloo - i.e. in the 19th century."
Peter Stewart -- 11 August 2007
Said ancestor was killed at Waterloo in 1815.
Clearly that ancestor was born in the 18th Century, which puts the lie to
his assertion supra.
Peter is slipping as a liar -- his talent is unraveling -- the Tegretol
[Carbamazepine] Anti-Seizure Drug, which he takes, adds a kicker -- and some
disabling memory loss as well as the expected mood changes, disorientation,
ataxia [loss of coordination and equilibrium], an uneven, lurching gait
somnolence and acute reactions, often hostile, to personal interactions with
others.
He seems to be on a high dose.
It's also often used by Epileptics.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Even by his own abysmal standards DSH is plumbing new depths here (an
appropriate expression for a failed jack-tar)
-
norenxaq
Re: Plus ça change plus que c'est l a même chose
In a message dated 8/11/2007 12:20:55 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us writes:
Can we please stop now??!!
complaining about certain people has never resulted in them stopping
their arguing, and is pointless. they stop only when they are ready to,
not when they are told to.
that is the nature of this group
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
I couldn't tell you the given names of the man's parents without looking
them up, though I think they lived well into the 19th century.
Of COURSE he can't remember the details. That's the effect of the TEGRETOL
[Carbamazepine] DRUG he takes.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbamazepine>
Peter is slipping as a liar -- his talent is unraveling -- the Tegretol
[Carbamazepine] Anti Epileptic Drug [AED], which he takes, adds a kicker --
and some disabling memory loss as well as the expected mood changes,
disorientation, ataxia [loss of coordination and equilibrium], an uneven,
lurching gait somnolence and acute reactions, often hostile, to personal
interactions with others.
Tegretol is what is known as an AED, an Anti Epileptic Drug, Peter Stewart
is taking it.
"There are also reports of a bizarre auditory side effect, whereby patients
perceive musical notes about a semitone lower than their actual pitch (so
middle C would be heard as the note B3 just below it, etc)."
Yes, Peter is OFTEN off-tone.
That's when the battle of Waterloo took place, pure and simple.
He has also forgotten the date of the Battle of Waterloo!
Hilarious!
Peter Stewart is NO Historian. June 1815, of course. 18 June, to be
precise. The End of Napoleon I's 100 Days.
This is the most remote ancestor I know about in any detail with the
ability to recite off the top of my head by name all the linking persons
between him and me. I have known these details since childhood - probably
since about the age he would have attained at the turn of the 18th/19th
centuries.
"I have vanishingly little genealogical interest in anyone who lived
after around the mid-13th century, and couldn't tell anything about my
own ancestry from the 15th to 19th centuries from memory without
checking - and not my own research at that, because I simply haven't
had the interest to do it."
Peter Stewart -- 11 August 2007
The man is a LIAR, pure and simple -- a PERNICIOUS, CONSUMMATE LIAR.
Hilarious! He's lying through his teeth, of course, as we see here:
"The discussion of this between us started from an interest in an
ancestor of mine who was killed at Waterloo - i.e. in the 19th
century."
Peter Stewart -- 11 August 2007
Said ancestor was killed at Waterloo in 1815
So that's clearly a bald-faced LIE. He's known the details of how he
descends from this man, born in the 18th Century, since childhood and could
recite them from memory -- a memory that is NOW badly damaged by the
Tegretol -- an Anti Epileptic Drug [AED].
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Exitus Acta Probat
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
-
Gjest
Re: Plus ça change plus que c'est la même chose
In a message dated 8/11/2007 12:20:55 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us writes:
Can we please stop now??!!>>
---------------------
Has any great contributor unsubscribed yet?
If not we must escalate to nuclear bombardment!!
Will
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us writes:
Can we please stop now??!!>>
---------------------
Has any great contributor unsubscribed yet?
If not we must escalate to nuclear bombardment!!
Will
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-
Thomas Benjamin Hertzel
Re: Maiden name of Joan Champernoun, wife of Robert Gamage,
Douglas,
Interesting and informative post. Thanks.... and two questions:
Do you have the name of John Gamage's wife?
Is the lineage of the Raleighs known beyond Sir Walter's parents? If so,
where would one find records on that family?
Thank you.
Benjamin
Interesting and informative post. Thanks.... and two questions:
There has been some confusion regarding the maiden name of Joan, wife
of Robert Gamage, Esq., of Coity, Glamorgan, and Rogiet,
Monmouthshire, Wales, which couple were married shortly before 1531.
John Gamage, died young, leaving behind him Barbara, an only
daughter, the heiress of all his estates.
Do you have the name of John Gamage's wife?
Barbara Gamage, the
granddaughter and heiress of Robert and Joan Gamage, is known to have
been near related to Sir Walter Raleigh, whose mother Katherine was a
daughter of Sir Philip Champernoun, of Modbury, Devon.
Is the lineage of the Raleighs known beyond Sir Walter's parents? If so,
where would one find records on that family?
Thank you.
Benjamin
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Eleanor of Aquitaine & Consanguinity?
Eleanor and Louis VII were reportedly THIRD cousins, once removed.
Eleanor and Henry II were reportedly half THIRD cousins and also half THIRD
cousins once removed.
So, if that's true, she was more closely related to Henry than to Louis.
<g>
Slightly...
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Eleanor and Henry II were reportedly half THIRD cousins and also half THIRD
cousins once removed.
So, if that's true, she was more closely related to Henry than to Louis.
<g>
Slightly...
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Edmund Tudor a (Beaufort-) Plantagenet?
Hello Michael,
Jones did, as you point out, having first cited the reasons for
suspecting Edmund Beaufort might be Edmund Tudor's father then make the
"seems improbable" disclaimer. I find this comment to be careless, if
not disingenuous. The case is much more serious than that and does not
warrant such an offhanded dismissal.
I also agree with you that "morganatic" is the incorrect word. Also, it
is not impossible - though I this time would use the word "improbable"-
that the perhaps about 20-22 year old Edmund Beaufort (b.c.1406) may
have been Edmund Tudor's godfather. And, undeniably, Edmund Beaufort was
also a serious contender for Queen Catherine's hand, aged about 20. A
bit young to be a godfather for the child of a Queen - especially a
Queen with whom the young man in question may have been romantically
involved, and who certainly sought her hand in marriage.
Further, also in _Oxford DNB_:
"1427 was also the year of the only blot upon a hitherto copybook
career: Edmund [Beaufort]'s affair with the widow of Henry V, Catherine
of Valois (1401–1437). Almost everything is obscure about a liaison
that resulted in a parliamentary statute regulating the remarriage of
queens of England, but it is just possible that another of its
consequences was Edmund Tudor. It is all a question of when Catherine,
to avoid the penalties of breaking the statute of 1427–8, secretly
married Owen Tudor, and of when the association with Edmund Beaufort
came to an end. Neither of these dates, as might be expected, is known;
nor is the date of birth of Edmund Tudor.
As Gerald Harriss has written:
By its very nature the evidence for Edmund ‘Tudor's’ parentage is
less than conclusive, but such facts as can be assembled permit the
agreeable possibility that Edmund ‘Tudor’ and Margaret Beaufort were
first cousins and that the royal house of ‘Tudor’ sprang in fact
from Beauforts on both sides. (Harriss, 178 n.34)
It seems unlikely that Edmund Beaufort would have taken so great a
political risk as getting the queen dowager with child, but he was a
dashing young man (recently released from prison) as well as a Beaufort,
and Catherine, who had fulfilled the only role open to her by
immediately producing a son for the Lancastrian dynasty, was a lonely
Frenchwoman in England, and at thirty or thereabouts was, the rumour
ran, oversexed. Many stranger things have happened, and the idea of
renaming sixteenth-century England is an appealing one.
Colin Richmond, 'Beaufort, Edmund, first duke of Somerset
(c.1406-1455)', Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford
University Press, Sept 2004; online edn, May 2006
[http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/1855, accessed 11 Aug 2007]
The case for Edmund Tudor being Edmund Beaufort's son is plausible on
many levels.
Coincidentally, I cannot but note that certain characteristics and
dynamics of this case are reminiscent of another case 100 years later,
involving other Beaufort-Plantagenet descendants.
Best wishes,
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
Jones did, as you point out, having first cited the reasons for
suspecting Edmund Beaufort might be Edmund Tudor's father then make the
"seems improbable" disclaimer. I find this comment to be careless, if
not disingenuous. The case is much more serious than that and does not
warrant such an offhanded dismissal.
I also agree with you that "morganatic" is the incorrect word. Also, it
is not impossible - though I this time would use the word "improbable"-
that the perhaps about 20-22 year old Edmund Beaufort (b.c.1406) may
have been Edmund Tudor's godfather. And, undeniably, Edmund Beaufort was
also a serious contender for Queen Catherine's hand, aged about 20. A
bit young to be a godfather for the child of a Queen - especially a
Queen with whom the young man in question may have been romantically
involved, and who certainly sought her hand in marriage.
Further, also in _Oxford DNB_:
"1427 was also the year of the only blot upon a hitherto copybook
career: Edmund [Beaufort]'s affair with the widow of Henry V, Catherine
of Valois (1401–1437). Almost everything is obscure about a liaison
that resulted in a parliamentary statute regulating the remarriage of
queens of England, but it is just possible that another of its
consequences was Edmund Tudor. It is all a question of when Catherine,
to avoid the penalties of breaking the statute of 1427–8, secretly
married Owen Tudor, and of when the association with Edmund Beaufort
came to an end. Neither of these dates, as might be expected, is known;
nor is the date of birth of Edmund Tudor.
As Gerald Harriss has written:
By its very nature the evidence for Edmund ‘Tudor's’ parentage is
less than conclusive, but such facts as can be assembled permit the
agreeable possibility that Edmund ‘Tudor’ and Margaret Beaufort were
first cousins and that the royal house of ‘Tudor’ sprang in fact
from Beauforts on both sides. (Harriss, 178 n.34)
It seems unlikely that Edmund Beaufort would have taken so great a
political risk as getting the queen dowager with child, but he was a
dashing young man (recently released from prison) as well as a Beaufort,
and Catherine, who had fulfilled the only role open to her by
immediately producing a son for the Lancastrian dynasty, was a lonely
Frenchwoman in England, and at thirty or thereabouts was, the rumour
ran, oversexed. Many stranger things have happened, and the idea of
renaming sixteenth-century England is an appealing one.
Colin Richmond, 'Beaufort, Edmund, first duke of Somerset
(c.1406-1455)', Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford
University Press, Sept 2004; online edn, May 2006
[http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/1855, accessed 11 Aug 2007]
The case for Edmund Tudor being Edmund Beaufort's son is plausible on
many levels.
Coincidentally, I cannot but note that certain characteristics and
dynamics of this case are reminiscent of another case 100 years later,
involving other Beaufort-Plantagenet descendants.
Best wishes,
Tony
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Gjest
Re: Edmund Tudor a (Beaufort-) Plantagenet?
On 11 Aug., 19:38, "Tony Hoskins" <hosk...@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote:
Are we sure this is the case? For instance, the future Queen Mary I,
then considered an illegitimate member of the royal family, was
godmother to her brother, afterwards Edward VI, at his christening in
October 1537, when she was 21.
Cheers, Michael
Hello Michael,
Jones did, as you point out, having first cited the reasons for
suspecting Edmund Beaufort might be Edmund Tudor's father then make the
"seems improbable" disclaimer. I find this comment to be careless, if
not disingenuous. The case is much more serious than that and does not
warrant such an offhanded dismissal.
I also agree with you that "morganatic" is the incorrect word. Also, it
is not impossible - though I this time would use the word "improbable"-
that the perhaps about 20-22 year old Edmund Beaufort (b.c.1406) may
have been Edmund Tudor's godfather. And, undeniably, Edmund Beaufort was
also a serious contender for Queen Catherine's hand, aged about 20. A
bit young to be a godfather for the child of a Queen...
Are we sure this is the case? For instance, the future Queen Mary I,
then considered an illegitimate member of the royal family, was
godmother to her brother, afterwards Edward VI, at his christening in
October 1537, when she was 21.
Cheers, Michael
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Edmund Tudor a (Beaufort-) Plantagenet?
"the future Queen Mary I,then considered an illegitimate member of the
royal family, was godmother to her brother, afterwards Edward VI, at his
christening in October 1537, when she was 21."
But, Michael, I think the two cases differ substantially. Mary was Baby
Edward's half-sister. Familial proximity if you will, could be argued
for the choice. But young just-out-of-prison (and reputedly very
handsome) Edmund Beaufort, aged about 20, godfather to Queen's son? His
having currently or very recently sought the Queen's hand in marriage?
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
royal family, was godmother to her brother, afterwards Edward VI, at his
christening in October 1537, when she was 21."
But, Michael, I think the two cases differ substantially. Mary was Baby
Edward's half-sister. Familial proximity if you will, could be argued
for the choice. But young just-out-of-prison (and reputedly very
handsome) Edmund Beaufort, aged about 20, godfather to Queen's son? His
having currently or very recently sought the Queen's hand in marriage?
Tony
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Eleanor of Aquitaine & Consanguinity?
I'm quite aware of the details.
I leave them as an exercise for the reader.
Leo and Peter can surely thrash it out -- playing the genealogical leapfrog
they so delight in.
There's more:
Eleanor and Louis VII were reportedly THIRD cousins, once removed.
Eleanor and Henry II were reportedly half THIRD cousins and also half THIRD
cousins once removed.
So, if that's true, she was more closely related to Henry than to Louis.
<g>
Slightly...
All Best Wishes,
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Exitus Acta Probat
"Leticia Cluff" <leticia.cluff@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lk5sb3dgvtoc50v36ocpv3dquk93ob7a31@4ax.com...
<baldersnip>
I leave them as an exercise for the reader.
Leo and Peter can surely thrash it out -- playing the genealogical leapfrog
they so delight in.
There's more:
Eleanor and Louis VII were reportedly THIRD cousins, once removed.
Eleanor and Henry II were reportedly half THIRD cousins and also half THIRD
cousins once removed.
So, if that's true, she was more closely related to Henry than to Louis.
<g>
Slightly...
All Best Wishes,
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Exitus Acta Probat
"Leticia Cluff" <leticia.cluff@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lk5sb3dgvtoc50v36ocpv3dquk93ob7a31@4ax.com...
<baldersnip>
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Edmund Tudor a (Beaufort-) Plantagenet?
Greetings, Brad.
"Which one was that?"
A case you might be familiar with that flew in the face of received
history. Sometimes *some* of these turn out to be true. This one is only
at the beginning stages. Much never-before-attempted, extremely highly-
focused research needs to be undertaken. If the results of the next
stage of research corroborate the hypothesis, then on to the next, and
so on. Again, at this stage it is highly tentative - but *not*
dismissable on its face.
All best,
Tony
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
"Which one was that?"
A case you might be familiar with that flew in the face of received
history. Sometimes *some* of these turn out to be true. This one is only
at the beginning stages. Much never-before-attempted, extremely highly-
focused research needs to be undertaken. If the results of the next
stage of research corroborate the hypothesis, then on to the next, and
so on. Again, at this stage it is highly tentative - but *not*
dismissable on its face.
All best,
Tony
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
-
Ray O\\'Hara
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:wFavi.55$wi6.184@eagle.america.net...
and stewart has called your bluff.
either post what you claim you have or be branded a liar{again}
news:wFavi.55$wi6.184@eagle.america.net...
I stand by what I previously posted, which is repeated below.
and stewart has called your bluff.
either post what you claim you have or be branded a liar{again}
-
Gjest
Re: Edmund Tudor a (Beaufort-) Plantagenet?
Dear Tony,
The Beauforts were indeed coming up in the world, Edmund`s
sister Joan was married to James I, King of Scots at about the same time.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
The Beauforts were indeed coming up in the world, Edmund`s
sister Joan was married to James I, King of Scots at about the same time.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Eleanor of Aquitaine & Consanguinity?
I'm quite aware of the details.
I leave them as an exercise for the reader.
Leo and Peter can surely thrash it out -- playing the genealogical leapfrog
they so delight in.
They delight in being able to smell each other as they leapfrog...
Like dogs.
There's more:
Eleanor and Louis VII were reportedly THIRD cousins, once removed.
Eleanor and Henry II were reportedly half THIRD cousins and also half THIRD
cousins once removed.
So, if that's true, she was more closely related to Henry than to Louis.
<g>
Slightly...
All Best Wishes,
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Exitus Acta Probat
"Leticia Cluff" <leticia.cluff@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lk5sb3dgvtoc50v36ocpv3dquk93ob7a31@4ax.com...
<baldersnip>
I leave them as an exercise for the reader.
Leo and Peter can surely thrash it out -- playing the genealogical leapfrog
they so delight in.
They delight in being able to smell each other as they leapfrog...
Like dogs.
There's more:
Eleanor and Louis VII were reportedly THIRD cousins, once removed.
Eleanor and Henry II were reportedly half THIRD cousins and also half THIRD
cousins once removed.
So, if that's true, she was more closely related to Henry than to Louis.
<g>
Slightly...
All Best Wishes,
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Exitus Acta Probat
"Leticia Cluff" <leticia.cluff@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lk5sb3dgvtoc50v36ocpv3dquk93ob7a31@4ax.com...
<baldersnip>
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Edmund Tudor a (Beaufort-) Plantagenet?
Among the fine points needing to be established is just when Owen Tudor
is first documented "on the scene". Jones implies 1432:
"Within court circles Catherine's second marriage was known by May 1432
when Owen Tudor was given the rights of an Englishman, to protect him
from earlier anti-alien legislation; in March 1434 Catherine openly
granted him various favours on her Flintshire lands. She also gave birth
to two other children whose paternity is certain: Jasper Tudor, later
earl of Pembroke (d. 1495), and a daughter, Margaret, who died young."
[_ODNB_, "Catherine", Michael Jones].
It is crucial to gain a tighter grasp on just when Edmund Tudor was
born. To do so, I wonder if Jasper - certainly Edmund's younger brother
- could be "dated" a bit tighter. (Irrelevant, but I agree with Brad
that Jasper as a given name is (so far) inexplicable.)
Brad wrote:
"And who else in the royal family should stand as godfather to a son
borne by the queen as a result of a marriage to a man of lesser social
standing that was not known to the public, or even to the royal
council?"
Conceivably a number of others. Why Edmund Beaufort?
Brad: "If their relationship was indeed intimate (which doesn't have to
also mean sexual), then Edmund Beaufort was someone the queen could
trust to maintain discretion and who could also support the future of
the boy as a godfather."
Edmund Beaufort was a younger brother, only recently Count of Mortain
(in France, with all the economic challenges that implied).
Brad: "The only one of that status whom she could turn to at the
time."
The *only one*??
Brad said: "The alternative is that Queen Catherine named her bastard
son Edmund because that was his father's name, which seems the best way
of any of trumpeting the child's true paternity - a stupid decision if
the point was to hide the fact."
What if Edmund Tudor was born to Queen Catherine in say 1427, before in
1428 Parliament passed the statute directed specifically against her
marriage to Edmund Beaufort. It is reasonable to imagine the anxious
limbo the Queen might have existed in - with baby Edmund and no husband
- until Parliament rendered their union impossible, follwed fortuitously
by the arrival on the scene of the available and utterly serviceable
Owen Tudor in say about 1431/2.
By the way, Leo states (don't have the CP entry) that Edmund Beaufort
married in about 1431. A date where - due to (following this hypothesis)
the recent marriage of Owen Tudor to the Queen - he realized his
candidacy as her husband was well and truly off?
Brad said: "This argument also makes the Queen a rather stupid woman.
She falls in love with a young man (Edmund Beaufort) who is a member of
the extended royal family and indeed whose mother and stepfather had
been a heartbeat away from being king and queen of England while he was
growing up. So appropriate on a social level, but not a political one,
as their marriage would give the Beaufort even more power, and many deem
them to have too much already. The royal council takes steps to prevent
such a marriage by issuing the statute."
Need she have been "stupid"? Love and passion are not unknown to trump
intelligence (trust me on this). A corollary to this point would be that
she would patently not have been thinking strategically. Although
*Edmund* probably was.
Brad said: "Then the Queen gets pregnant by Edmund, but, rather than
marrying him and approaching the council with the fait accompli and the
pregnancy to make the marriage undissolvable..,"
You think she would have had the temerity to do so? And that the
Council would have approved?
[Brad continues]: "the Queen secretly marries a low- level chump
instead in order to prevent the real man she loves from losing his
lands? All because of a statute that could be challenged in Parliament,
or modified by her son the king once he assumed majority?"
And, how soon might *that* have been, Henry VI being about 7 years old
the year Parliament dissuaded Queen Catherine from marrying Edmund
Beaufort?! It must be realized how the magnates would have hated and
feared the Queen Dowager's - mother of the child King - marriage to one
of their own. And, in due course make no mistake one of the reasons the
Queen was allowed to marry and keep Owen Tudor was the very fact of his
being an utter nonentity. He would have had to have been a nobody. Just
conjure with any other alternatives.
Brad: "A similar line of argument, with a similar line of making little
sense. Edmund Beaufort has impregnated the mother of the king of
England and is now going to allow..."
Allow? He would have had a choice?
[Brad continues]: "his unborn child to be passed off as a result of a
secret marriage to her Welsh household squire? Rather than fighting
tooth and nail to secure his position as husband of the queen mother,
stepfather to the young king and father of the king's half-brother?"
Swashbuckling images, utterly impossible in that setting. Political and
cultural forces of immense and insurmountable proportions.
Brad: "Instead, when Edmund Tudor was created Earl of Richmond by the
king at that time, he was referred to as Edmund of Hadham, not as Edmund
Tudor, ...
But, think about that. Not called by the name of Tudor? Do these
documents mention - anywhere - Owen Tudor (I am unsure)? That Edmund of
Hadham was established therein as the Queen's legal son is not
questioned, just how specific was the "who" of his paternity?
I agree with Brad that Colin Richmond got a bit carried away: "the idea
of renaming sixteenth-century England is an appealing one."
Brad: "However, all evidence (secret marriage, lower social status)
points to the Queen's relationship with Owen Tudor being hot and heavy
and passionate."
Evidence of the "hot and heavy" relationship with Owen, Brad? I know of
none, save the abundant mythology surrounding Catherine and Owen. There
*is* on the other hand documentation of the Queen's passion for Edmund
Beaufort.
Perhaps the "secret marriage" to Owen Tudor was kept purposely murky as
to specifics because it covered up the fact that her son Edmund was born
illegitimately to the Queen and Edmund Beaufort, and that the
clandestine nature of her subsequent marriage to Owen - after the fact
of Edmund "Tudor's" birth - allowed for cover.
Brad: "the fact that she kept it well hidden."
Again, the fact that is was "hidden" (or seems so from our vantage
point) says nothing. If hidden, it might have been hidden for a wide
range of reasons, among them those inherent in this hypothesis.
Brad: "The case for Edmund Tudor being Edmund Beaufort's son is
plausible on many levels.
Those being:
A) The Queen named her son 'Edmund'
B) The Queen was a slut
C) The Queen and Edmund Beaufort would not dare defy the 1428 statute"
Only in part. The hypothesis for the case of Edmund Tudor *possibly*
being Queen Catherine's son by Edmund Beaufort rests mainly on the
following:
a) Queen Catherine wished to marry Edmund Beaufort in 1427/8.
b) The Queen had a son born perhaps as early as 1428, probably no later
than 1430, named Edmund.
c) Parliament passed a statute in 1428 specifically aimed at forbidding
the Queen's marriage to Edmund Beaufort.
d) Queen Catherine would not have been allowed to marry Edmund Beaufort
- a semi-royal magnate. Parliament's effective proscription of this
eventuality makes the point.
e) Owen Tudor first on the scene in 1432 (thias needs to be checked).
e) Queen Catherine could only have been allowed to marry a nonentity.
Thanks Brad and Michael for this interesting discussion today. This is
what gen-medieval is meant to be!
Best regards,
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
is first documented "on the scene". Jones implies 1432:
"Within court circles Catherine's second marriage was known by May 1432
when Owen Tudor was given the rights of an Englishman, to protect him
from earlier anti-alien legislation; in March 1434 Catherine openly
granted him various favours on her Flintshire lands. She also gave birth
to two other children whose paternity is certain: Jasper Tudor, later
earl of Pembroke (d. 1495), and a daughter, Margaret, who died young."
[_ODNB_, "Catherine", Michael Jones].
It is crucial to gain a tighter grasp on just when Edmund Tudor was
born. To do so, I wonder if Jasper - certainly Edmund's younger brother
- could be "dated" a bit tighter. (Irrelevant, but I agree with Brad
that Jasper as a given name is (so far) inexplicable.)
Brad wrote:
"And who else in the royal family should stand as godfather to a son
borne by the queen as a result of a marriage to a man of lesser social
standing that was not known to the public, or even to the royal
council?"
Conceivably a number of others. Why Edmund Beaufort?
Brad: "If their relationship was indeed intimate (which doesn't have to
also mean sexual), then Edmund Beaufort was someone the queen could
trust to maintain discretion and who could also support the future of
the boy as a godfather."
Edmund Beaufort was a younger brother, only recently Count of Mortain
(in France, with all the economic challenges that implied).
Brad: "The only one of that status whom she could turn to at the
time."
The *only one*??
Brad said: "The alternative is that Queen Catherine named her bastard
son Edmund because that was his father's name, which seems the best way
of any of trumpeting the child's true paternity - a stupid decision if
the point was to hide the fact."
What if Edmund Tudor was born to Queen Catherine in say 1427, before in
1428 Parliament passed the statute directed specifically against her
marriage to Edmund Beaufort. It is reasonable to imagine the anxious
limbo the Queen might have existed in - with baby Edmund and no husband
- until Parliament rendered their union impossible, follwed fortuitously
by the arrival on the scene of the available and utterly serviceable
Owen Tudor in say about 1431/2.
By the way, Leo states (don't have the CP entry) that Edmund Beaufort
married in about 1431. A date where - due to (following this hypothesis)
the recent marriage of Owen Tudor to the Queen - he realized his
candidacy as her husband was well and truly off?
Brad said: "This argument also makes the Queen a rather stupid woman.
She falls in love with a young man (Edmund Beaufort) who is a member of
the extended royal family and indeed whose mother and stepfather had
been a heartbeat away from being king and queen of England while he was
growing up. So appropriate on a social level, but not a political one,
as their marriage would give the Beaufort even more power, and many deem
them to have too much already. The royal council takes steps to prevent
such a marriage by issuing the statute."
Need she have been "stupid"? Love and passion are not unknown to trump
intelligence (trust me on this). A corollary to this point would be that
she would patently not have been thinking strategically. Although
*Edmund* probably was.
Brad said: "Then the Queen gets pregnant by Edmund, but, rather than
marrying him and approaching the council with the fait accompli and the
pregnancy to make the marriage undissolvable..,"
You think she would have had the temerity to do so? And that the
Council would have approved?
[Brad continues]: "the Queen secretly marries a low- level chump
instead in order to prevent the real man she loves from losing his
lands? All because of a statute that could be challenged in Parliament,
or modified by her son the king once he assumed majority?"
And, how soon might *that* have been, Henry VI being about 7 years old
the year Parliament dissuaded Queen Catherine from marrying Edmund
Beaufort?! It must be realized how the magnates would have hated and
feared the Queen Dowager's - mother of the child King - marriage to one
of their own. And, in due course make no mistake one of the reasons the
Queen was allowed to marry and keep Owen Tudor was the very fact of his
being an utter nonentity. He would have had to have been a nobody. Just
conjure with any other alternatives.
Brad: "A similar line of argument, with a similar line of making little
sense. Edmund Beaufort has impregnated the mother of the king of
England and is now going to allow..."
Allow? He would have had a choice?
[Brad continues]: "his unborn child to be passed off as a result of a
secret marriage to her Welsh household squire? Rather than fighting
tooth and nail to secure his position as husband of the queen mother,
stepfather to the young king and father of the king's half-brother?"
Swashbuckling images, utterly impossible in that setting. Political and
cultural forces of immense and insurmountable proportions.
Brad: "Instead, when Edmund Tudor was created Earl of Richmond by the
king at that time, he was referred to as Edmund of Hadham, not as Edmund
Tudor, ...
But, think about that. Not called by the name of Tudor? Do these
documents mention - anywhere - Owen Tudor (I am unsure)? That Edmund of
Hadham was established therein as the Queen's legal son is not
questioned, just how specific was the "who" of his paternity?
I agree with Brad that Colin Richmond got a bit carried away: "the idea
of renaming sixteenth-century England is an appealing one."
Brad: "However, all evidence (secret marriage, lower social status)
points to the Queen's relationship with Owen Tudor being hot and heavy
and passionate."
Evidence of the "hot and heavy" relationship with Owen, Brad? I know of
none, save the abundant mythology surrounding Catherine and Owen. There
*is* on the other hand documentation of the Queen's passion for Edmund
Beaufort.
Perhaps the "secret marriage" to Owen Tudor was kept purposely murky as
to specifics because it covered up the fact that her son Edmund was born
illegitimately to the Queen and Edmund Beaufort, and that the
clandestine nature of her subsequent marriage to Owen - after the fact
of Edmund "Tudor's" birth - allowed for cover.
Brad: "the fact that she kept it well hidden."
Again, the fact that is was "hidden" (or seems so from our vantage
point) says nothing. If hidden, it might have been hidden for a wide
range of reasons, among them those inherent in this hypothesis.
Brad: "The case for Edmund Tudor being Edmund Beaufort's son is
plausible on many levels.
Those being:
A) The Queen named her son 'Edmund'
B) The Queen was a slut
C) The Queen and Edmund Beaufort would not dare defy the 1428 statute"
Only in part. The hypothesis for the case of Edmund Tudor *possibly*
being Queen Catherine's son by Edmund Beaufort rests mainly on the
following:
a) Queen Catherine wished to marry Edmund Beaufort in 1427/8.
b) The Queen had a son born perhaps as early as 1428, probably no later
than 1430, named Edmund.
c) Parliament passed a statute in 1428 specifically aimed at forbidding
the Queen's marriage to Edmund Beaufort.
d) Queen Catherine would not have been allowed to marry Edmund Beaufort
- a semi-royal magnate. Parliament's effective proscription of this
eventuality makes the point.
e) Owen Tudor first on the scene in 1432 (thias needs to be checked).
e) Queen Catherine could only have been allowed to marry a nonentity.
Thanks Brad and Michael for this interesting discussion today. This is
what gen-medieval is meant to be!
Best regards,
Tony
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Edmund Tudor a (Beaufort-) Plantagenet?
Desperate, Rampant Speculation.
Amusing...
DSH
----------------------------------------
"Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:mailman.337.1186875034.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Amusing...
DSH
----------------------------------------
"Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:mailman.337.1186875034.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Among the fine points needing to be established is just when Owen Tudor
is first documented "on the scene". Jones implies 1432:
"Within court circles Catherine's second marriage was known by May 1432
when Owen Tudor was given the rights of an Englishman, to protect him
from earlier anti-alien legislation; in March 1434 Catherine openly
granted him various favours on her Flintshire lands. She also gave birth
to two other children whose paternity is certain: Jasper Tudor, later
earl of Pembroke (d. 1495), and a daughter, Margaret, who died young."
[_ODNB_, "Catherine", Michael Jones].
It is crucial to gain a tighter grasp on just when Edmund Tudor was
born. To do so, I wonder if Jasper - certainly Edmund's younger brother
- could be "dated" a bit tighter. (Irrelevant, but I agree with Brad
that Jasper as a given name is (so far) inexplicable.)
Brad wrote:
"And who else in the royal family should stand as godfather to a son
borne by the queen as a result of a marriage to a man of lesser social
standing that was not known to the public, or even to the royal
council?"
Conceivably a number of others. Why Edmund Beaufort?
Brad: "If their relationship was indeed intimate (which doesn't have to
also mean sexual), then Edmund Beaufort was someone the queen could
trust to maintain discretion and who could also support the future of
the boy as a godfather."
Edmund Beaufort was a younger brother, only recently Count of Mortain
(in France, with all the economic challenges that implied).
Brad: "The only one of that status whom she could turn to at the
time."
The *only one*??
Brad said: "The alternative is that Queen Catherine named her bastard
son Edmund because that was his father's name, which seems the best way
of any of trumpeting the child's true paternity - a stupid decision if
the point was to hide the fact."
What if Edmund Tudor was born to Queen Catherine in say 1427, before in
1428 Parliament passed the statute directed specifically against her
marriage to Edmund Beaufort. It is reasonable to imagine the anxious
limbo the Queen might have existed in - with baby Edmund and no husband
- until Parliament rendered their union impossible, follwed fortuitously
by the arrival on the scene of the available and utterly serviceable
Owen Tudor in say about 1431/2.
By the way, Leo states (don't have the CP entry) that Edmund Beaufort
married in about 1431. A date where - due to (following this hypothesis)
the recent marriage of Owen Tudor to the Queen - he realized his
candidacy as her husband was well and truly off?
Brad said: "This argument also makes the Queen a rather stupid woman.
She falls in love with a young man (Edmund Beaufort) who is a member of
the extended royal family and indeed whose mother and stepfather had
been a heartbeat away from being king and queen of England while he was
growing up. So appropriate on a social level, but not a political one,
as their marriage would give the Beaufort even more power, and many deem
them to have too much already. The royal council takes steps to prevent
such a marriage by issuing the statute."
Need she have been "stupid"? Love and passion are not unknown to trump
intelligence (trust me on this). A corollary to this point would be that
she would patently not have been thinking strategically. Although
*Edmund* probably was.
Brad said: "Then the Queen gets pregnant by Edmund, but, rather than
marrying him and approaching the council with the fait accompli and the
pregnancy to make the marriage undissolvable..,"
You think she would have had the temerity to do so? And that the
Council would have approved?
[Brad continues]: "the Queen secretly marries a low- level chump
instead in order to prevent the real man she loves from losing his
lands? All because of a statute that could be challenged in Parliament,
or modified by her son the king once he assumed majority?"
And, how soon might *that* have been, Henry VI being about 7 years old
the year Parliament dissuaded Queen Catherine from marrying Edmund
Beaufort?! It must be realized how the magnates would have hated and
feared the Queen Dowager's - mother of the child King - marriage to one
of their own. And, in due course make no mistake one of the reasons the
Queen was allowed to marry and keep Owen Tudor was the very fact of his
being an utter nonentity. He would have had to have been a nobody. Just
conjure with any other alternatives.
Brad: "A similar line of argument, with a similar line of making little
sense. Edmund Beaufort has impregnated the mother of the king of
England and is now going to allow..."
Allow? He would have had a choice?
[Brad continues]: "his unborn child to be passed off as a result of a
secret marriage to her Welsh household squire? Rather than fighting
tooth and nail to secure his position as husband of the queen mother,
stepfather to the young king and father of the king's half-brother?"
Swashbuckling images, utterly impossible in that setting. Political and
cultural forces of immense and insurmountable proportions.
Brad: "Instead, when Edmund Tudor was created Earl of Richmond by the
king at that time, he was referred to as Edmund of Hadham, not as Edmund
Tudor, ...
But, think about that. Not called by the name of Tudor? Do these
documents mention - anywhere - Owen Tudor (I am unsure)? That Edmund of
Hadham was established therein as the Queen's legal son is not
questioned, just how specific was the "who" of his paternity?
I agree with Brad that Colin Richmond got a bit carried away: "the idea
of renaming sixteenth-century England is an appealing one."
Brad: "However, all evidence (secret marriage, lower social status)
points to the Queen's relationship with Owen Tudor being hot and heavy
and passionate."
Evidence of the "hot and heavy" relationship with Owen, Brad? I know of
none, save the abundant mythology surrounding Catherine and Owen. There
*is* on the other hand documentation of the Queen's passion for Edmund
Beaufort.
Perhaps the "secret marriage" to Owen Tudor was kept purposely murky as
to specifics because it covered up the fact that her son Edmund was born
illegitimately to the Queen and Edmund Beaufort, and that the
clandestine nature of her subsequent marriage to Owen - after the fact
of Edmund "Tudor's" birth - allowed for cover.
Brad: "the fact that she kept it well hidden."
Again, the fact that is was "hidden" (or seems so from our vantage
point) says nothing. If hidden, it might have been hidden for a wide
range of reasons, among them those inherent in this hypothesis.
Brad: "The case for Edmund Tudor being Edmund Beaufort's son is
plausible on many levels.
Those being:
A) The Queen named her son 'Edmund'
B) The Queen was a slut
C) The Queen and Edmund Beaufort would not dare defy the 1428 statute"
Only in part. The hypothesis for the case of Edmund Tudor *possibly*
being Queen Catherine's son by Edmund Beaufort rests mainly on the
following:
a) Queen Catherine wished to marry Edmund Beaufort in 1427/8.
b) The Queen had a son born perhaps as early as 1428, probably no later
than 1430, named Edmund.
c) Parliament passed a statute in 1428 specifically aimed at forbidding
the Queen's marriage to Edmund Beaufort.
d) Queen Catherine would not have been allowed to marry Edmund Beaufort
- a semi-royal magnate. Parliament's effective proscription of this
eventuality makes the point.
e) Owen Tudor first on the scene in 1432 (thias needs to be checked).
e) Queen Catherine could only have been allowed to marry a nonentity.
Thanks Brad and Michael for this interesting discussion today. This is
what gen-medieval is meant to be!
Best regards,
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
-
Thomas Benjamin Hertzel
Re: Eleanor of Aquitaine & Consanguinity?
Dana,
on 8/11/07 1:45 PM, Dana S. Leslie at dsleslie@alumni.princeton.edu wrote:
How's this:
1. Robert Capet, King of France
2. Henry I
3. Philip I
4. Louis VI
5. Louis VII, married to Eleanor of Aquitaine
2. Robert, Duke of Burgundy
3. Hildegarde
4. William, Duc d'Aquitaine
5. William, Duc d'Aquitaine
6. Eleanor of Aquitaine, married to Louis VII
Third cousins, once removed.
Benjamin
on 8/11/07 1:45 PM, Dana S. Leslie at dsleslie@alumni.princeton.edu wrote:
Michael provided details on the 3rd half-cousins relationship. Can you give
details on the 3rd cousins once removed relationship? Thanks.
How's this:
1. Robert Capet, King of France
2. Henry I
3. Philip I
4. Louis VI
5. Louis VII, married to Eleanor of Aquitaine
2. Robert, Duke of Burgundy
3. Hildegarde
4. William, Duc d'Aquitaine
5. William, Duc d'Aquitaine
6. Eleanor of Aquitaine, married to Louis VII
Third cousins, once removed.
Benjamin
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
How much lower can he get?
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:zumvi.66$wi6.299@eagle.america.net...
Did Hines actually read this material? There is nothing in the section
"Adverse effects" about memory loss or hostility. It would be an
anstonishing drug that could leave intact definite memories to an arbitrary
cut-off point six generations back, while erasing precise detail of further
ancestry. I should think a great deal of scientific progress might come from
studying such a weird phenomenon, quite apart form the bizarre aspect of
imaginary mood control. If only the experts knew as much as Laureate
Professor Hines....
Hines apparently doesn't know the meaning of "auditory" - this is about
hearing, not opinion or expression. And luckily it has never happened to me
anyway.
Eh? I said it took place in the 19th century, then Hines gives a
19th-century date claiming this proves I had forgotten. And crossposts this
to several newsgroups where he parades himself as intellectually superior.
And my brain is supposed to be impaired....
Hines has every opportunity to prove this from the private correspondence
that alone can be the basis for his allegations about me - yet he has
failed. Why is that? Hoist with his own petar.
Um, no - I can still recite the details from the man killed at Waterloo to
myself - that was my point. If this memory should degrade, with time or from
any other cause, then I will have to look up the ancestor study, as I had to
do in 2004 when Hines was quizzing me about how closely I am related to the
British royal family.
Since he has failed to produce any evidence to back up his version of our
correspondence from my side, if he goes on we may have to inspect some of
his side to elucidate this.
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:zumvi.66$wi6.299@eagle.america.net...
I couldn't tell you the given names of the man's parents without looking
them up, though I think they lived well into the 19th century.
Of COURSE he can't remember the details. That's the effect of the
TEGRETOL
[Carbamazepine] DRUG he takes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbamazepine
Peter is slipping as a liar -- his talent is unraveling -- the Tegretol
[Carbamazepine] Anti Epileptic Drug [AED], which he takes, adds a
kicker --
and some disabling memory loss as well as the expected mood changes,
disorientation, ataxia [loss of coordination and equilibrium], an uneven,
lurching gait somnolence and acute reactions, often hostile, to personal
interactions with others.
Did Hines actually read this material? There is nothing in the section
"Adverse effects" about memory loss or hostility. It would be an
anstonishing drug that could leave intact definite memories to an arbitrary
cut-off point six generations back, while erasing precise detail of further
ancestry. I should think a great deal of scientific progress might come from
studying such a weird phenomenon, quite apart form the bizarre aspect of
imaginary mood control. If only the experts knew as much as Laureate
Professor Hines....
Tegretol is what is known as an AED, an Anti Epileptic Drug, Peter Stewart
is taking it.
"There are also reports of a bizarre auditory side effect, whereby
patients
perceive musical notes about a semitone lower than their actual pitch (so
middle C would be heard as the note B3 just below it, etc)."
Yes, Peter is OFTEN off-tone.
Hines apparently doesn't know the meaning of "auditory" - this is about
hearing, not opinion or expression. And luckily it has never happened to me
anyway.
That's when the battle of Waterloo took place, pure and simple.
He has also forgotten the date of the Battle of Waterloo!
Hilarious!
Peter Stewart is NO Historian. June 1815, of course. 18 June, to be
precise. The End of Napoleon I's 100 Days.
Eh? I said it took place in the 19th century, then Hines gives a
19th-century date claiming this proves I had forgotten. And crossposts this
to several newsgroups where he parades himself as intellectually superior.
And my brain is supposed to be impaired....
This is the most remote ancestor I know about in any detail with the
ability to recite off the top of my head by name all the linking persons
between him and me. I have known these details since childhood - probably
since about the age he would have attained at the turn of the 18th/19th
centuries.
"I have vanishingly little genealogical interest in anyone who lived
after around the mid-13th century, and couldn't tell anything about my
own ancestry from the 15th to 19th centuries from memory without
checking - and not my own research at that, because I simply haven't
had the interest to do it."
Peter Stewart -- 11 August 2007
The man is a LIAR, pure and simple -- a PERNICIOUS, CONSUMMATE LIAR.
Hines has every opportunity to prove this from the private correspondence
that alone can be the basis for his allegations about me - yet he has
failed. Why is that? Hoist with his own petar.
Hilarious! He's lying through his teeth, of course, as we see here:
"The discussion of this between us started from an interest in an
ancestor of mine who was killed at Waterloo - i.e. in the 19th
century."
Peter Stewart -- 11 August 2007
Said ancestor was killed at Waterloo in 1815
So that's clearly a bald-faced LIE. He's known the details of how he
descends from this man, born in the 18th Century, since childhood and
could
recite them from memory -- a memory that is NOW badly damaged by the
Tegretol -- an Anti Epileptic Drug [AED].
Um, no - I can still recite the details from the man killed at Waterloo to
myself - that was my point. If this memory should degrade, with time or from
any other cause, then I will have to look up the ancestor study, as I had to
do in 2004 when Hines was quizzing me about how closely I am related to the
British royal family.
Since he has failed to produce any evidence to back up his version of our
correspondence from my side, if he goes on we may have to inspect some of
his side to elucidate this.
Peter Stewart
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Isabella di Chiaramonte m 1444 Ferdinand I, King of Napl
ES (Isenburg) volume II Tafel 48
calls her Isabella von Clermont, died 1465, no parents given
ES (Schwennicke) Volume II Tafel 67
calls her Isabel de Clermont died 1465, daughter of Tristan, Conte di
Cupertino, and Catarina Orsini di Tarente
Cahiers de Saint Louis, Page 693
Isabelle de Clermont, heiress of Tarente, daughter of Tristan, Conte de
Cupertino, and Catherine Orsini, heiress of Tarente
The confusion with Baux / Balzo may have originiated with Catherine Orsini,
she is also recorded as Catherine Orsini del Balzo, she is daughter of
Raimondello Orsini del Balzo, Prince of Taranto and Maria d'Enghien
In Gustave Noblemaire's "Histoire de la Maison des Baux" on page 219 is a
small family tree.
The line you want is
Robert Orsini, Count Palatine of Nola
married 1330 Sueva de Baux de Soleto
/
Raymond Orsini Balzo died 1406
married Marie d'Enghien, countess of Lecce
/
Catherine Orsini Balzo
married Tristan de Chiaramonte, Conte de Copertino
/
Isabelle de Chiaramonte
married Ferrante I, King of Naples
Hope this helps?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don McArthur" <donmac@netactive.co.za>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 7:48 AM
Subject: Isabella di Chiaramonte m 1444 Ferdinand I, King of Naples
I'm trying to place this Isabella.
She seems to be either the daughter of Tristan de Clermont-Lodève [c 1380 -
1432] by Caterina Orsini
http://www.genmarenostrun.com <http://www.genmarenostrun.com/> under Orsini has
the following M3. Caterina, Nobile Romana. = Bartolomeo (detto Tristano) di
Chiaramonte (de Clermont) Conte di Copertino (* 1380 ca. + 1432).
Or daughter of Tristan de Clermont-Lodève [b c 1400, son of Barthelmi c 1380
- 1432 by Caterina Orsini] m 1423 Sybille des Baux des Ursines.
Dates would make the second option more probable, but the confusion of names
is, well confusing.
Any ideas?
Regards,
Don McArthur.
-------------------------------
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
calls her Isabella von Clermont, died 1465, no parents given
ES (Schwennicke) Volume II Tafel 67
calls her Isabel de Clermont died 1465, daughter of Tristan, Conte di
Cupertino, and Catarina Orsini di Tarente
Cahiers de Saint Louis, Page 693
Isabelle de Clermont, heiress of Tarente, daughter of Tristan, Conte de
Cupertino, and Catherine Orsini, heiress of Tarente
The confusion with Baux / Balzo may have originiated with Catherine Orsini,
she is also recorded as Catherine Orsini del Balzo, she is daughter of
Raimondello Orsini del Balzo, Prince of Taranto and Maria d'Enghien
In Gustave Noblemaire's "Histoire de la Maison des Baux" on page 219 is a
small family tree.
The line you want is
Robert Orsini, Count Palatine of Nola
married 1330 Sueva de Baux de Soleto
/
Raymond Orsini Balzo died 1406
married Marie d'Enghien, countess of Lecce
/
Catherine Orsini Balzo
married Tristan de Chiaramonte, Conte de Copertino
/
Isabelle de Chiaramonte
married Ferrante I, King of Naples
Hope this helps?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don McArthur" <donmac@netactive.co.za>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 7:48 AM
Subject: Isabella di Chiaramonte m 1444 Ferdinand I, King of Naples
I'm trying to place this Isabella.
She seems to be either the daughter of Tristan de Clermont-Lodève [c 1380 -
1432] by Caterina Orsini
http://www.genmarenostrun.com <http://www.genmarenostrun.com/> under Orsini has
the following M3. Caterina, Nobile Romana. = Bartolomeo (detto Tristano) di
Chiaramonte (de Clermont) Conte di Copertino (* 1380 ca. + 1432).
Or daughter of Tristan de Clermont-Lodève [b c 1400, son of Barthelmi c 1380
- 1432 by Caterina Orsini] m 1423 Sybille des Baux des Ursines.
Dates would make the second option more probable, but the confusion of names
is, well confusing.
Any ideas?
Regards,
Don McArthur.
-------------------------------
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
-
Adrian Whitaker
RE: Isabella di Chiaramonte m 1444 Ferdinand I, King of Napl
Just to be precise, the correct site address is not "genmarenostruN" but
http://www.genmarenostrum.com.
The genealogy you are refering to is at
http://www.genmarenostrum.com/pagine-le ... orsini.htm
Regards
Adrian Whitaker
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Don McArthur
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 11:48 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Isabella di Chiaramonte m 1444 Ferdinand I, King of Naples
I’m trying to place this Isabella.
She seems to be either the daughter of Tristan de Clermont-Lodève [c
1380 – 1432] by Caterina Orsini
http://www.genmarenostrun.com <http://www.genmarenostrun.com/> under Orsini
has the following M3. Caterina, Nobile Romana. = Bartolomeo (detto
Tristano) di Chiaramonte (de Clermont) Conte di Copertino (* 1380 ca. +
1432).
Or daughter of Tristan de Clermont-Lodève [b c 1400, son of Barthelmi c
1380 – 1432 by Caterina Orsini] m 1423 Sybille des Baux des Ursines.
Dates would make the second option more probable, but the confusion of
names is, well confusing.
Any ideas?
Regards,
Don McArthur.
-------------------------------
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
http://www.genmarenostrum.com.
The genealogy you are refering to is at
http://www.genmarenostrum.com/pagine-le ... orsini.htm
Regards
Adrian Whitaker
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Don McArthur
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 11:48 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Isabella di Chiaramonte m 1444 Ferdinand I, King of Naples
I’m trying to place this Isabella.
She seems to be either the daughter of Tristan de Clermont-Lodève [c
1380 – 1432] by Caterina Orsini
http://www.genmarenostrun.com <http://www.genmarenostrun.com/> under Orsini
has the following M3. Caterina, Nobile Romana. = Bartolomeo (detto
Tristano) di Chiaramonte (de Clermont) Conte di Copertino (* 1380 ca. +
1432).
Or daughter of Tristan de Clermont-Lodève [b c 1400, son of Barthelmi c
1380 – 1432 by Caterina Orsini] m 1423 Sybille des Baux des Ursines.
Dates would make the second option more probable, but the confusion of
names is, well confusing.
Any ideas?
Regards,
Don McArthur.
-------------------------------
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
-
Adrian Whitaker
RE: Isabella di Chiaramonte m 1444 Ferdinand I, King of Napl
Just to be precise, the correct site address is not "genmarenostruN" but
http://www.genmarenostrum.com.
The genealogy you are refering to is at
http://www.genmarenostrum.com/pagine-le ... orsini.htm
Regards
Adrian Whitaker
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Don McArthur
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 11:48 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Isabella di Chiaramonte m 1444 Ferdinand I, King of Naples
I’m trying to place this Isabella.
She seems to be either the daughter of Tristan de Clermont-Lodève [c
1380 – 1432] by Caterina Orsini
http://www.genmarenostrun.com <http://www.genmarenostrun.com/> under Orsini
has the following M3. Caterina, Nobile Romana. = Bartolomeo (detto
Tristano) di Chiaramonte (de Clermont) Conte di Copertino (* 1380 ca. +
1432).
Or daughter of Tristan de Clermont-Lodève [b c 1400, son of Barthelmi c
1380 – 1432 by Caterina Orsini] m 1423 Sybille des Baux des Ursines.
Dates would make the second option more probable, but the confusion of
names is, well confusing.
Any ideas?
Regards,
Don McArthur.
-------------------------------
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
http://www.genmarenostrum.com.
The genealogy you are refering to is at
http://www.genmarenostrum.com/pagine-le ... orsini.htm
Regards
Adrian Whitaker
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Don McArthur
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 11:48 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Isabella di Chiaramonte m 1444 Ferdinand I, King of Naples
I’m trying to place this Isabella.
She seems to be either the daughter of Tristan de Clermont-Lodève [c
1380 – 1432] by Caterina Orsini
http://www.genmarenostrun.com <http://www.genmarenostrun.com/> under Orsini
has the following M3. Caterina, Nobile Romana. = Bartolomeo (detto
Tristano) di Chiaramonte (de Clermont) Conte di Copertino (* 1380 ca. +
1432).
Or daughter of Tristan de Clermont-Lodève [b c 1400, son of Barthelmi c
1380 – 1432 by Caterina Orsini] m 1423 Sybille des Baux des Ursines.
Dates would make the second option more probable, but the confusion of
names is, well confusing.
Any ideas?
Regards,
Don McArthur.
-------------------------------
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
-
Adrian Whitaker
RE: Isabella di Chiaramonte m 1444 Ferdinand I, King of Napl
Just to be precise, the correct site address is not "genmarenostruN" but
http://www.genmarenostrum.com.
The genealogy you are refering to is at
http://www.genmarenostrum.com/pagine-le ... orsini.htm
Regards
Adrian Whitaker
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Don McArthur
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 11:48 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Isabella di Chiaramonte m 1444 Ferdinand I, King of Naples
I’m trying to place this Isabella.
She seems to be either the daughter of Tristan de Clermont-Lodève [c
1380 – 1432] by Caterina Orsini
http://www.genmarenostrun.com <http://www.genmarenostrun.com/> under Orsini
has the following M3. Caterina, Nobile Romana. = Bartolomeo (detto
Tristano) di Chiaramonte (de Clermont) Conte di Copertino (* 1380 ca. +
1432).
Or daughter of Tristan de Clermont-Lodève [b c 1400, son of Barthelmi c
1380 – 1432 by Caterina Orsini] m 1423 Sybille des Baux des Ursines.
Dates would make the second option more probable, but the confusion of
names is, well confusing.
Any ideas?
Regards,
Don McArthur.
-------------------------------
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
http://www.genmarenostrum.com.
The genealogy you are refering to is at
http://www.genmarenostrum.com/pagine-le ... orsini.htm
Regards
Adrian Whitaker
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Don McArthur
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 11:48 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Isabella di Chiaramonte m 1444 Ferdinand I, King of Naples
I’m trying to place this Isabella.
She seems to be either the daughter of Tristan de Clermont-Lodève [c
1380 – 1432] by Caterina Orsini
http://www.genmarenostrun.com <http://www.genmarenostrun.com/> under Orsini
has the following M3. Caterina, Nobile Romana. = Bartolomeo (detto
Tristano) di Chiaramonte (de Clermont) Conte di Copertino (* 1380 ca. +
1432).
Or daughter of Tristan de Clermont-Lodève [b c 1400, son of Barthelmi c
1380 – 1432 by Caterina Orsini] m 1423 Sybille des Baux des Ursines.
Dates would make the second option more probable, but the confusion of
names is, well confusing.
Any ideas?
Regards,
Don McArthur.
-------------------------------
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: Eleanor of Aquitaine & Consanguinity?
Dear Listers,
I notice that none of the other posters( to my
knowledge) have given the following:
1 Robert II, King of France married 3 )
Constance of Arles
2 Adele of France married Baldwin V,
Count of Flanders
3 Maud of Flanders married William I,
King of England
4 Henry I, King of England married
Eadgyth (renamed Maud) of the Scots
5 Maud of England married 2nd Geoffrey
V, Count of Anjou and Maine
6 Henry II , King of England
1 Robert II, King of France married 3rd
Constance of Arles
2 Robert I, Duke of Burgundy married 2nd
Ermengarde of Anjou
3 Hildegarde of Burgundy married Guy
Geoffrey ( renamed on ascension) William VI and VIII, Count of Poitou and Duke of
Aquitaine
4 William VII and IX, Count of Poitou,
Duke of Aquitaine by wife Maud of Toulouse
5 William VIII and X, Count of Poitou,
Duke of Aquitaine married Aenor of Chastellerault
6 Eleanor of Aquitaine married 1st Louis
VII,King of France, 2nd Henry II, King of England
1 Robert II, King of France married 3rd
Constance of Arles
2 Henry I, King of France married Anne of
Kiev
3 Philip I, King of France married Bertha
of Holland
4 Louis VI, King of France married
Adelaide of Maurienne
5 Louis VII, King of France
Apparently Louis VII was a 3rd cousin
to Eleanor`s father and She a fourth cousin of Henry II
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont, Maine
USA
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
I notice that none of the other posters( to my
knowledge) have given the following:
1 Robert II, King of France married 3 )
Constance of Arles
2 Adele of France married Baldwin V,
Count of Flanders
3 Maud of Flanders married William I,
King of England
4 Henry I, King of England married
Eadgyth (renamed Maud) of the Scots
5 Maud of England married 2nd Geoffrey
V, Count of Anjou and Maine
6 Henry II , King of England
1 Robert II, King of France married 3rd
Constance of Arles
2 Robert I, Duke of Burgundy married 2nd
Ermengarde of Anjou
3 Hildegarde of Burgundy married Guy
Geoffrey ( renamed on ascension) William VI and VIII, Count of Poitou and Duke of
Aquitaine
4 William VII and IX, Count of Poitou,
Duke of Aquitaine by wife Maud of Toulouse
5 William VIII and X, Count of Poitou,
Duke of Aquitaine married Aenor of Chastellerault
6 Eleanor of Aquitaine married 1st Louis
VII,King of France, 2nd Henry II, King of England
1 Robert II, King of France married 3rd
Constance of Arles
2 Henry I, King of France married Anne of
Kiev
3 Philip I, King of France married Bertha
of Holland
4 Louis VI, King of France married
Adelaide of Maurienne
5 Louis VII, King of France
Apparently Louis VII was a 3rd cousin
to Eleanor`s father and She a fourth cousin of Henry II
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont, Maine
USA
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-
Gjest
Re: Fallen Brits & Hateful Prose & Rhetoric
Dear Spencer,
I`ve just posted on this , the information is from
Leo`s Genealogics site. You`ve been going on for hours to no purpose about how
Great Britain is a failed nation because everyone hangs out in pubs and drinks
beer. What do many People do here in the USA then go to bars and drink beer ? If
You need to insult someone insult al- Qaeda yet perhaps we do when We forget
their existence. No Country among our various allies has aided us more
steadfastly than has Great Britain and her servicemen deserve better from an American
Serviceman than You`ve been dishing out.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
I`ve just posted on this , the information is from
Leo`s Genealogics site. You`ve been going on for hours to no purpose about how
Great Britain is a failed nation because everyone hangs out in pubs and drinks
beer. What do many People do here in the USA then go to bars and drink beer ? If
You need to insult someone insult al- Qaeda yet perhaps we do when We forget
their existence. No Country among our various allies has aided us more
steadfastly than has Great Britain and her servicemen deserve better from an American
Serviceman than You`ve been dishing out.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Eleanor of Aquitaine & Consanguinity?
Nope.
It's an even closer relationship.
DSH
<Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.341.1186884602.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
It's an even closer relationship.
DSH
<Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.341.1186884602.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Dear Listers,
I notice that none of the other posters( to my
knowledge) have given the following:
1 Robert II, King of France married
3 )
Constance of Arles
2 Adele of France married Baldwin V,
Count of Flanders
3 Maud of Flanders married William I,
King of England
4 Henry I, King of England married
Eadgyth (renamed Maud) of the Scots
5 Maud of England married 2nd Geoffrey
V, Count of Anjou and Maine
6 Henry II , King of England
1 Robert II, King of France married 3rd
Constance of Arles
2 Robert I, Duke of Burgundy married
2nd
Ermengarde of Anjou
3 Hildegarde of Burgundy married Guy
Geoffrey ( renamed on ascension) William VI and VIII, Count of Poitou and
Duke of
Aquitaine
4 William VII and IX, Count of Poitou,
Duke of Aquitaine by wife Maud of Toulouse
5 William VIII and X, Count of Poitou,
Duke of Aquitaine married Aenor of Chastellerault
6 Eleanor of Aquitaine married 1st
Louis
VII,King of France, 2nd Henry II, King of England
1 Robert II, King of France married 3rd
Constance of Arles
2 Henry I, King of France married Anne
of
Kiev
3 Philip I, King of France married
Bertha
of Holland
4 Louis VI, King of France married
Adelaide of Maurienne
5 Louis VII, King of France
Apparently Louis VII was a 3rd
cousin
to Eleanor`s father and She a fourth cousin of Henry II
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine
USA
-
Brad Verity
Re: Edmund Tudor a (Beaufort-) Plantagenet?
On Aug 11, 4:29 pm, "Tony Hoskins" <hosk...@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote:
Jones's source for this was likely the article "Queen Katherine of
Valois and a Missing Statute of the Realm" by historian Ralph A.
Griffiths in the April 1977 'The Law Quarterly Review', Vol. 93, pp.
248-258. Griffiths states:
"It may be that as soon as Katherine's marriage to Owen became known
to the Council (and such an event, still less her pregnancies, could
hardly be kept secret), the need for the statute evaporated. This
had, perhaps, happened by the time that Parliament met on May 12,
1432, when (or soon afterwards) Owen publicly and formally received
letters of denizenship to protect him from the consequences of Henry
IV's legislation against Welshmen. [footnote: 'Rot. Parl.', Vol. IV,
p. 415. Was this the occasion when Katherine presented Owen's
pedigree before the lords in Parliament, "the which thing was then
approbate and taken for excuse of her marriage," as John Leland
claimed in the early 16th century? 'The Itinerary of John
Leland' (L.T. Smith, ed., 6 vols., 1906-10), Vol. I, pp. 307-308; and
Thomas, "Jasper Tudor," p. 18 and n. 2, who is inclined to accept the
authenticity of this declaration.]"
It was Michael who pointed out about the name 'Jasper'. The Thomas
referred to in Griffiths's footnote above is "The Political Career,
Estates and 'Connection' of Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke and Duke of
Bedford (d. 1495)" by R.S. Thomas (unpublished University of Wales
Ph.D. thesis, 1971). Theses are expensive to obtain and difficult to
track down for non-academics, but there may be more information to
help pinpoint Jasper's birth in that.
Queen Catherine couldn't turn to the Dukes of Bedford or Gloucester
and ask them to stand sponsor to a child she bore with a Welsh
squire. Gloucester, especially, was the force behind the 1428 statute
in the first place. They were it for male members of the royal family
in 1428-30. That left the Hollands and Beauforts for extended royal
family. In 1428-30 the only Beauforts available to be godfather to
the queen's child were Cardinal Henry Beaufort and his nephew Edmund,
for Edmund's two elder brothers, John and Thomas, had been prisoners
in France since 1421. In his 1988 biography of Cardinal Beaufort,
Gerald Harriss states (p. 178 n. 34): "It is clear that in the course
of 1428-31 she [Queen Catherine] had a number of meetings with
Cardinal Beaufort, a period in which Edmund was apparently in his
household: 'Amundesham, Annales', i. 28, 33-4, 56."
John Holland, then Earl of Huntingdon, had returned to England in
December 1425/early 1426 after several years as a French prisoner, and
was appointed to the royal council in March 1426. Other than the
Cardinal and Edmund, Huntingdon was the only high-level male in the
extended royal family available in 1428-31. Whether he had any kind
of visiting or friendly relationship to Queen Catherine has not been
studied, but he gave the Duke of Gloucester his personal support on
the council during 1427-8 when the statute was passed. So of the
three extended royal family males, it certainly seems the two
Beauforts were the ones the queen was close enough to ask to be a
godfather to her newborn child.
This of course is speculation - there is no record as to who stood
sponsor to young Edmund Tudor. But I think - unlike your claim that
it was highly improbable Edmund Beaufort would have been chosen as a
godfather - he is one of the two strongest candidates, if the queen
was looking for a member of the extended royal family to be given such
a role in the baby's life.
Exactly. He had no lands of his own until granted the county of
Mortain by the Duke of Bedford in April 1427. Harriss (p. 168): "At
the beginning of the century it had been worth some 3,000 li. tournois
a year, but as a border county it had suffered depredations and it was
only with the conquest of Maine in 1424 that it can again have become
profitable." Other than that economically challenging income, Edmund
in 1428-31 was important only as a potential heir to the Beaufort
family estates should his two elder brothers die childless as
prisoners in France.
So its not clear to me what Edmund would have to lose by marrying the
queen. Harriss states (p. 178 n. 34): "Her choice of his [Edmund
Beaufort's] name for her first-born may have been mere sentiment, but
it must raise the suspicion that the father was Edmund Beaufort and
that she contracted her disparaging marriage to Owen Tudor to save her
lover the penalties of the statute of 1427. Indeed the chronicler
explains her choice of Owen on the grounds that these would fall less
harshly on a penniless esquire; 'Chron. Angl.' 17."
Edmund was a penniless nobleman in 1427-31. Harriss's argument that
he had enough to lose by marrying the queen against the council's
wishes that it was decided she marry a Welsh squire instead is pretty
weak. Griffiths (pp. 252-253):
"Secondly, although it was provided that he who married a dowager-
queen without the King's permission should suffer forfeiture of his
lands and other possessions during his lifetime, this relatively mild
punishment reflected an awareness that there might be children of an
illicit marriage who would in some sense be members of the royal
family and merit treatment as such ... Certainly, there was no
question of regarding such a union as treasonable or rendering it null
and void. [footnote: The chronicler, Giles, op. cit. p. 17, erred in
stating that execution as a traitor would accompany forfeiture.]"
Too strong a statement on my part. One of the two likeliest - the
other being Cardinal Beaufort. Edmund, of course, though, was younger
than his uncle and likelier to live longer to support a godson.
The statute was not directed specifically against her marriage to
Edmund Beaufort. Here is the text of the actual statute, from
Griffiths (pp. 257-258):
"Item ordine est et estabbliez par auctorite de cest parlement pur la
saluacion del honour dez tresnoblez estates dez Roynes Dengleterre que
nulle home de quiconque estate ou condicion qil soit ne fait contract
dez espouselx ou matrimonie de soy marie a Royne Dengleterre saunz
especialle licence et assent du Roi mesmes celuy esteantz dez anz de
discrecion et celuy qui ferra le contrarie et ent soit duement convict
forface pur terme de sa vie toutz sez terres et tenementz si bien ceux
que sount ou serrount en ses mayns propres come ceux que sount ou
serrount es mayns dautres a sone oeps et auxi toutz sez biens et
chateux en qi mayns qils soient consideres que par la desparagement du
Royne lestate et honour du Roi serroient tresgraundement emblemes et
donera le greindre comfort et ensample as autres dames dastate queux
sont de sanke roialle pur lour le (interlineated) pluis ligerement
desparager etc."
I don't know French well enough to translate, but I do know it well
enough to note that at no point is there mention of Edmund Beaufort
specifically.
It would also be reasonable to imagine that if the queen had gotten
pregnant by Edmund in 1426-27 (before the statute), she would have
married him to make her baby legitimate, and then dealt with whatever
wrath from the council there would be to face. Even if Edmund were to
suffer imprisonment, their baby would be legitimate in the eyes of God
and the law of the land, and not even the council could render it
null.
It did not render their union impossible - it made it clear that the
queen could not marry someone of her own choice. Permission from her
son the king was required. Actually, it couldn't even make such a
marriage illegal - it merely punished the queen's new husband with
forfeiture of his lands.
So the queen had a bastard baby for 4-5 years with no one noticing?
No other squire could be found as a surrogate father until Owen Tudor
in 1431-2?
Edmund Beaufort married Eleanor Beauchamp, the widow of Lord Ros,
between July 1433 (when Eleanor, Lady Ros borrowed money from her
father the earl of Warwick) and November 1434 (when Edmund, earl of
Mortain and Eleanor his wife received several indults from the Pope).
She appears to have acted as strategically as possible: she asked the
council for permission to marry whom she would, and when that was
denied, had the Commons introduce the proposal in the Parliament of
1426 that recent refusals by chancellors of England to license her
remarriage should cease. She was taking logical steps to assume
control over her own remarriage.
They couldn't overturn her marriage - it would be legal in the eyes of
God and in the law of the land. Her child would be legitimate. The
fact that she was acting since at least 1426 (if not earlier) to get
the council to approve her remarrying doesn't indicate she was acting
in any kind of haste, such as a head-over-heels affair or unexpected
pregnancy would warrant.
Griffiths (p. 256): "The next occasion when a dowager-queen remarried
after a king's death occurred in strikingly similar circumstances.
Sometime in May 1547, within a few months of Henry VIII's death, Queen
Katherine Parr married Thomas, Lord Seymour of Sudeley. They dreaded
to reveal the fact to the Protector of England, Lord Seymour's elder
brother, the Duke of Somerset, or to the council of the young monarch,
Edward VI ... Moreover, despite Somerset's anger at the match, there
was as little to be done about it after the event in 1547 as there was
on the earlier occasion [Catherine of Valois's secret marriage to Owen
Tudor]. In both cases, the Council eventually acquiesced in the fait
accompli."
A handful of years at the most. Once the council became aware of the
queen's marriage to Owen Tudor, supposedly by 1432 when the king was
age 10, nothing was done to punish the queen or Tudor, presumably
because she was pregnant or already had borne his child, and it would
not please the young king.
Not all of them - Cardinal Beaufort and the widowed Duchess of
Clarence (Edmund's mother) - can be assumed to have supported such a
marriage, and they were very wealthy and powerful. The Duke of
Gloucester and his political allies on the council would be furious,
but, again, powerless to overturn it.
No - it was because the marriage could not be overturned - it was
binding, and because there were children who were siblings of the
king.
He was a nobody - that's undisputed. But he certainly didn't have to
have been one. If the queen and the Earl of Huntingdon, for instance,
had married and had issue, the most that would happen is that his
Holland family inheritance would be forfeit - until at some future
time the king deemed it fine to restore it.
Per Harriss (pp. 178-179 n. 34): "The secret of the boy Edmund's
parenthood would be safe while the queen lived and the official
tolerance of her marriage to Owen and subsequent birth of their
children, and the protection afforded to Owen, suggests that this was
a solution which, for different reasons, was agreeable to both
Gloucester and Cardinal Beaufort."
This is an argument that a conspiracy between Cardinal Beaufort and
the Duke of Gloucester (political opponents, by the way) was
undertaken with the queen to keep her new son's Beaufort paternity a
secret. How could the Beaufort father himself not have been a part of
it?
The only force that would be insurmountable in keeping his and the
queen's child from being born legitimate would be if the queen refused
to marry him.
Nope.
His father is not mentioned by name. It is made clear that he was
borne of the queen's lawful marriage, so Tudor as the father is
implied since there was never any known marriage between Edmund
Beaufort and the queen.
1) He was of a much lower social status, so monetary or political
reasons were not what motivated the queen into his bed. By default,
it would be passion.
2) The marriage was performed in secret and against the statute of
1427, which indicates a strong motivation to seal her union with Tudor
in the eyes of God. Since, as above, there were no monetary or
political advantages to such a marriage (indeed extreme political
disadvantages and harm to reputation), it must have been, by default,
either passion (love strong enough to defy the council) or necessity
(an unexpected pregnancy), or both, which motivated the queen.
No, there is documentation of rumors that the couple would marry.
Griffiths (p. 250); "The Bishop [Cardinal Beaufort] spent Christmas
1430 with the Queen at her manor of Waltham, and one contemporary
chronicler suggests a strong attachment between Katherine and
Beaufort's nephew, Edmund Beaufort, Count of Mortain; sometime in the
1420s there were rumours that the couple would marry. [footnote: John
Amundesham's chronicle in 'Annales monasterii S. Albani, 1421-40 (H.T.
Riley, ed., 2 vols., 1870-71), Vol. I, p. 56; Giles, op. cit., p.
17.]"
Giles is 'Incerti Scriptoris Chronicon Angliae de regnis ... Henrici
IV, Henrici V et Henrici VI' (J.A. Giles, ed., 1848), Part IV.
Then wouldn't it make more sense to find and marry the surrogate
father before the child was born, if it was decided by the queen and
Edmund Beaufort that they wouldn't marry?
I was wrong to state the queen kept the marriage well hidden. As
Griffiths points out, such a marriage and children would be impossible
to keep secret from the council and household of the king. It was
merely not made known to the general public until after the queen's
death.
By the way, the only contemporary source for the queen's being "unable
to curb her carnal passions" is the 'Chronicon Angliae' edited by J.A.
Giles.
She wished to remarry - at what exact point is not known - and had the
Commons petition for her right to do so in 1426. It was rumored that
Edmund Beaufort was the man she wanted to marry.
The Queen gave birth at Hadham to a son named Edmund, at some point at
least 4 years before her 1437 death, who was acknowledged by the royal
family to be the son of the queen's second husband Owen Tudor.
The statute aimed to discourage the queen remarrying without consent
of the king (her son) by making the husband's estates forfeit if she
did so. It did not, and could not, expressly forbid such a marriage.
She obviously was not encouraged to embark on any marriage of her own
free will without the seal of official approval, but could not be
forbidden from doing so.
First in Parliament record in May 1432.
Nope. She, however, did marry a nonentity.
Thank you, too. It was a great way for me to jump back into the
newsgroup after my long, work-related hiatus.
Cheers, -------Brad
Among the fine points needing to be established is just when Owen Tudor
is first documented "on the scene". Jones implies 1432:
"Within court circles Catherine's second marriage was known by May 1432
when Owen Tudor was given the rights of an Englishman, to protect him
from earlier anti-alien legislation; in March 1434 Catherine openly
granted him various favours on her Flintshire lands. She also gave birth
to two other children whose paternity is certain: Jasper Tudor, later
earl of Pembroke (d. 1495), and a daughter, Margaret, who died young."
[_ODNB_, "Catherine", Michael Jones].
Jones's source for this was likely the article "Queen Katherine of
Valois and a Missing Statute of the Realm" by historian Ralph A.
Griffiths in the April 1977 'The Law Quarterly Review', Vol. 93, pp.
248-258. Griffiths states:
"It may be that as soon as Katherine's marriage to Owen became known
to the Council (and such an event, still less her pregnancies, could
hardly be kept secret), the need for the statute evaporated. This
had, perhaps, happened by the time that Parliament met on May 12,
1432, when (or soon afterwards) Owen publicly and formally received
letters of denizenship to protect him from the consequences of Henry
IV's legislation against Welshmen. [footnote: 'Rot. Parl.', Vol. IV,
p. 415. Was this the occasion when Katherine presented Owen's
pedigree before the lords in Parliament, "the which thing was then
approbate and taken for excuse of her marriage," as John Leland
claimed in the early 16th century? 'The Itinerary of John
Leland' (L.T. Smith, ed., 6 vols., 1906-10), Vol. I, pp. 307-308; and
Thomas, "Jasper Tudor," p. 18 and n. 2, who is inclined to accept the
authenticity of this declaration.]"
It is crucial to gain a tighter grasp on just when Edmund Tudor was
born. To do so, I wonder if Jasper - certainly Edmund's younger brother
- could be "dated" a bit tighter. (Irrelevant, but I agree with Brad
that Jasper as a given name is (so far) inexplicable.)
It was Michael who pointed out about the name 'Jasper'. The Thomas
referred to in Griffiths's footnote above is "The Political Career,
Estates and 'Connection' of Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke and Duke of
Bedford (d. 1495)" by R.S. Thomas (unpublished University of Wales
Ph.D. thesis, 1971). Theses are expensive to obtain and difficult to
track down for non-academics, but there may be more information to
help pinpoint Jasper's birth in that.
Brad wrote:
"And who else in the royal family should stand as godfather to a son
borne by the queen as a result of a marriage to a man of lesser social
standing that was not known to the public, or even to the royal
council?"
Conceivably a number of others. Why Edmund Beaufort?
Queen Catherine couldn't turn to the Dukes of Bedford or Gloucester
and ask them to stand sponsor to a child she bore with a Welsh
squire. Gloucester, especially, was the force behind the 1428 statute
in the first place. They were it for male members of the royal family
in 1428-30. That left the Hollands and Beauforts for extended royal
family. In 1428-30 the only Beauforts available to be godfather to
the queen's child were Cardinal Henry Beaufort and his nephew Edmund,
for Edmund's two elder brothers, John and Thomas, had been prisoners
in France since 1421. In his 1988 biography of Cardinal Beaufort,
Gerald Harriss states (p. 178 n. 34): "It is clear that in the course
of 1428-31 she [Queen Catherine] had a number of meetings with
Cardinal Beaufort, a period in which Edmund was apparently in his
household: 'Amundesham, Annales', i. 28, 33-4, 56."
John Holland, then Earl of Huntingdon, had returned to England in
December 1425/early 1426 after several years as a French prisoner, and
was appointed to the royal council in March 1426. Other than the
Cardinal and Edmund, Huntingdon was the only high-level male in the
extended royal family available in 1428-31. Whether he had any kind
of visiting or friendly relationship to Queen Catherine has not been
studied, but he gave the Duke of Gloucester his personal support on
the council during 1427-8 when the statute was passed. So of the
three extended royal family males, it certainly seems the two
Beauforts were the ones the queen was close enough to ask to be a
godfather to her newborn child.
This of course is speculation - there is no record as to who stood
sponsor to young Edmund Tudor. But I think - unlike your claim that
it was highly improbable Edmund Beaufort would have been chosen as a
godfather - he is one of the two strongest candidates, if the queen
was looking for a member of the extended royal family to be given such
a role in the baby's life.
Brad: "If their relationship was indeed intimate (which doesn't have to
also mean sexual), then Edmund Beaufort was someone the queen could
trust to maintain discretion and who could also support the future of
the boy as a godfather."
Edmund Beaufort was a younger brother, only recently Count of Mortain
(in France, with all the economic challenges that implied).
Exactly. He had no lands of his own until granted the county of
Mortain by the Duke of Bedford in April 1427. Harriss (p. 168): "At
the beginning of the century it had been worth some 3,000 li. tournois
a year, but as a border county it had suffered depredations and it was
only with the conquest of Maine in 1424 that it can again have become
profitable." Other than that economically challenging income, Edmund
in 1428-31 was important only as a potential heir to the Beaufort
family estates should his two elder brothers die childless as
prisoners in France.
So its not clear to me what Edmund would have to lose by marrying the
queen. Harriss states (p. 178 n. 34): "Her choice of his [Edmund
Beaufort's] name for her first-born may have been mere sentiment, but
it must raise the suspicion that the father was Edmund Beaufort and
that she contracted her disparaging marriage to Owen Tudor to save her
lover the penalties of the statute of 1427. Indeed the chronicler
explains her choice of Owen on the grounds that these would fall less
harshly on a penniless esquire; 'Chron. Angl.' 17."
Edmund was a penniless nobleman in 1427-31. Harriss's argument that
he had enough to lose by marrying the queen against the council's
wishes that it was decided she marry a Welsh squire instead is pretty
weak. Griffiths (pp. 252-253):
"Secondly, although it was provided that he who married a dowager-
queen without the King's permission should suffer forfeiture of his
lands and other possessions during his lifetime, this relatively mild
punishment reflected an awareness that there might be children of an
illicit marriage who would in some sense be members of the royal
family and merit treatment as such ... Certainly, there was no
question of regarding such a union as treasonable or rendering it null
and void. [footnote: The chronicler, Giles, op. cit. p. 17, erred in
stating that execution as a traitor would accompany forfeiture.]"
Brad: "The only one of that status whom she could turn to at the
time."
The *only one*??
Too strong a statement on my part. One of the two likeliest - the
other being Cardinal Beaufort. Edmund, of course, though, was younger
than his uncle and likelier to live longer to support a godson.
Brad said: "The alternative is that Queen Catherine named her bastard
son Edmund because that was his father's name, which seems the best way
of any of trumpeting the child's true paternity - a stupid decision if
the point was to hide the fact."
What if Edmund Tudor was born to Queen Catherine in say 1427, before in
1428 Parliament passed the statute directed specifically against her
marriage to Edmund Beaufort.
The statute was not directed specifically against her marriage to
Edmund Beaufort. Here is the text of the actual statute, from
Griffiths (pp. 257-258):
"Item ordine est et estabbliez par auctorite de cest parlement pur la
saluacion del honour dez tresnoblez estates dez Roynes Dengleterre que
nulle home de quiconque estate ou condicion qil soit ne fait contract
dez espouselx ou matrimonie de soy marie a Royne Dengleterre saunz
especialle licence et assent du Roi mesmes celuy esteantz dez anz de
discrecion et celuy qui ferra le contrarie et ent soit duement convict
forface pur terme de sa vie toutz sez terres et tenementz si bien ceux
que sount ou serrount en ses mayns propres come ceux que sount ou
serrount es mayns dautres a sone oeps et auxi toutz sez biens et
chateux en qi mayns qils soient consideres que par la desparagement du
Royne lestate et honour du Roi serroient tresgraundement emblemes et
donera le greindre comfort et ensample as autres dames dastate queux
sont de sanke roialle pur lour le (interlineated) pluis ligerement
desparager etc."
I don't know French well enough to translate, but I do know it well
enough to note that at no point is there mention of Edmund Beaufort
specifically.
It is reasonable to imagine the anxious
limbo the Queen might have existed in - with baby Edmund and no husband
It would also be reasonable to imagine that if the queen had gotten
pregnant by Edmund in 1426-27 (before the statute), she would have
married him to make her baby legitimate, and then dealt with whatever
wrath from the council there would be to face. Even if Edmund were to
suffer imprisonment, their baby would be legitimate in the eyes of God
and the law of the land, and not even the council could render it
null.
- until Parliament rendered their union impossible,
It did not render their union impossible - it made it clear that the
queen could not marry someone of her own choice. Permission from her
son the king was required. Actually, it couldn't even make such a
marriage illegal - it merely punished the queen's new husband with
forfeiture of his lands.
follwed fortuitously
by the arrival on the scene of the available and utterly serviceable
Owen Tudor in say about 1431/2.
So the queen had a bastard baby for 4-5 years with no one noticing?
No other squire could be found as a surrogate father until Owen Tudor
in 1431-2?
By the way, Leo states (don't have the CP entry) that Edmund Beaufort
married in about 1431. A date where - due to (following this hypothesis)
the recent marriage of Owen Tudor to the Queen - he realized his
candidacy as her husband was well and truly off?
Edmund Beaufort married Eleanor Beauchamp, the widow of Lord Ros,
between July 1433 (when Eleanor, Lady Ros borrowed money from her
father the earl of Warwick) and November 1434 (when Edmund, earl of
Mortain and Eleanor his wife received several indults from the Pope).
Brad said: "This argument also makes the Queen a rather stupid woman.
She falls in love with a young man (Edmund Beaufort) who is a member of
the extended royal family and indeed whose mother and stepfather had
been a heartbeat away from being king and queen of England while he was
growing up. So appropriate on a social level, but not a political one,
as their marriage would give the Beaufort even more power, and many deem
them to have too much already. The royal council takes steps to prevent
such a marriage by issuing the statute."
Need she have been "stupid"? Love and passion are not unknown to trump
intelligence (trust me on this). A corollary to this point would be that
she would patently not have been thinking strategically. Although
*Edmund* probably was.
She appears to have acted as strategically as possible: she asked the
council for permission to marry whom she would, and when that was
denied, had the Commons introduce the proposal in the Parliament of
1426 that recent refusals by chancellors of England to license her
remarriage should cease. She was taking logical steps to assume
control over her own remarriage.
Brad said: "Then the Queen gets pregnant by Edmund, but, rather than
marrying him and approaching the council with the fait accompli and the
pregnancy to make the marriage undissolvable..,"
You think she would have had the temerity to do so? And that the
Council would have approved?
They couldn't overturn her marriage - it would be legal in the eyes of
God and in the law of the land. Her child would be legitimate. The
fact that she was acting since at least 1426 (if not earlier) to get
the council to approve her remarrying doesn't indicate she was acting
in any kind of haste, such as a head-over-heels affair or unexpected
pregnancy would warrant.
Griffiths (p. 256): "The next occasion when a dowager-queen remarried
after a king's death occurred in strikingly similar circumstances.
Sometime in May 1547, within a few months of Henry VIII's death, Queen
Katherine Parr married Thomas, Lord Seymour of Sudeley. They dreaded
to reveal the fact to the Protector of England, Lord Seymour's elder
brother, the Duke of Somerset, or to the council of the young monarch,
Edward VI ... Moreover, despite Somerset's anger at the match, there
was as little to be done about it after the event in 1547 as there was
on the earlier occasion [Catherine of Valois's secret marriage to Owen
Tudor]. In both cases, the Council eventually acquiesced in the fait
accompli."
[Brad continues]: "the Queen secretly marries a low- level chump
instead in order to prevent the real man she loves from losing his
lands? All because of a statute that could be challenged in Parliament,
or modified by her son the king once he assumed majority?"
And, how soon might *that* have been, Henry VI being about 7 years old
the year Parliament dissuaded Queen Catherine from marrying Edmund
Beaufort?!
A handful of years at the most. Once the council became aware of the
queen's marriage to Owen Tudor, supposedly by 1432 when the king was
age 10, nothing was done to punish the queen or Tudor, presumably
because she was pregnant or already had borne his child, and it would
not please the young king.
It must be realized how the magnates would have hated and
feared the Queen Dowager's - mother of the child King - marriage to one
of their own.
Not all of them - Cardinal Beaufort and the widowed Duchess of
Clarence (Edmund's mother) - can be assumed to have supported such a
marriage, and they were very wealthy and powerful. The Duke of
Gloucester and his political allies on the council would be furious,
but, again, powerless to overturn it.
And, in due course make no mistake one of the reasons the
Queen was allowed to marry and keep Owen Tudor was the very fact of his
being an utter nonentity.
No - it was because the marriage could not be overturned - it was
binding, and because there were children who were siblings of the
king.
He would have had to have been a nobody. Just
conjure with any other alternatives.
He was a nobody - that's undisputed. But he certainly didn't have to
have been one. If the queen and the Earl of Huntingdon, for instance,
had married and had issue, the most that would happen is that his
Holland family inheritance would be forfeit - until at some future
time the king deemed it fine to restore it.
Brad: "A similar line of argument, with a similar line of making little
sense. Edmund Beaufort has impregnated the mother of the king of
England and is now going to allow..."
Allow? He would have had a choice?
Per Harriss (pp. 178-179 n. 34): "The secret of the boy Edmund's
parenthood would be safe while the queen lived and the official
tolerance of her marriage to Owen and subsequent birth of their
children, and the protection afforded to Owen, suggests that this was
a solution which, for different reasons, was agreeable to both
Gloucester and Cardinal Beaufort."
This is an argument that a conspiracy between Cardinal Beaufort and
the Duke of Gloucester (political opponents, by the way) was
undertaken with the queen to keep her new son's Beaufort paternity a
secret. How could the Beaufort father himself not have been a part of
it?
[Brad continues]: "his unborn child to be passed off as a result of a
secret marriage to her Welsh household squire? Rather than fighting
tooth and nail to secure his position as husband of the queen mother,
stepfather to the young king and father of the king's half-brother?"
Swashbuckling images, utterly impossible in that setting. Political and
cultural forces of immense and insurmountable proportions.
The only force that would be insurmountable in keeping his and the
queen's child from being born legitimate would be if the queen refused
to marry him.
Brad: "Instead, when Edmund Tudor was created Earl of Richmond by the
king at that time, he was referred to as Edmund of Hadham, not as Edmund
Tudor, ...
But, think about that. Not called by the name of Tudor? Do these
documents mention - anywhere - Owen Tudor (I am unsure)?
Nope.
That Edmund of
Hadham was established therein as the Queen's legal son is not
questioned, just how specific was the "who" of his paternity?
His father is not mentioned by name. It is made clear that he was
borne of the queen's lawful marriage, so Tudor as the father is
implied since there was never any known marriage between Edmund
Beaufort and the queen.
I agree with Brad that Colin Richmond got a bit carried away: "the idea
of renaming sixteenth-century England is an appealing one."
Brad: "However, all evidence (secret marriage, lower social status)
points to the Queen's relationship with Owen Tudor being hot and heavy
and passionate."
Evidence of the "hot and heavy" relationship with Owen, Brad?
1) He was of a much lower social status, so monetary or political
reasons were not what motivated the queen into his bed. By default,
it would be passion.
2) The marriage was performed in secret and against the statute of
1427, which indicates a strong motivation to seal her union with Tudor
in the eyes of God. Since, as above, there were no monetary or
political advantages to such a marriage (indeed extreme political
disadvantages and harm to reputation), it must have been, by default,
either passion (love strong enough to defy the council) or necessity
(an unexpected pregnancy), or both, which motivated the queen.
I know of
none, save the abundant mythology surrounding Catherine and Owen. There
*is* on the other hand documentation of the Queen's passion for Edmund
Beaufort.
No, there is documentation of rumors that the couple would marry.
Griffiths (p. 250); "The Bishop [Cardinal Beaufort] spent Christmas
1430 with the Queen at her manor of Waltham, and one contemporary
chronicler suggests a strong attachment between Katherine and
Beaufort's nephew, Edmund Beaufort, Count of Mortain; sometime in the
1420s there were rumours that the couple would marry. [footnote: John
Amundesham's chronicle in 'Annales monasterii S. Albani, 1421-40 (H.T.
Riley, ed., 2 vols., 1870-71), Vol. I, p. 56; Giles, op. cit., p.
17.]"
Giles is 'Incerti Scriptoris Chronicon Angliae de regnis ... Henrici
IV, Henrici V et Henrici VI' (J.A. Giles, ed., 1848), Part IV.
Perhaps the "secret marriage" to Owen Tudor was kept purposely murky as
to specifics because it covered up the fact that her son Edmund was born
illegitimately to the Queen and Edmund Beaufort, and that the
clandestine nature of her subsequent marriage to Owen - after the fact
of Edmund "Tudor's" birth - allowed for cover.
Then wouldn't it make more sense to find and marry the surrogate
father before the child was born, if it was decided by the queen and
Edmund Beaufort that they wouldn't marry?
Brad: "the fact that she kept it well hidden."
Again, the fact that is was "hidden" (or seems so from our vantage
point) says nothing. If hidden, it might have been hidden for a wide
range of reasons, among them those inherent in this hypothesis.
I was wrong to state the queen kept the marriage well hidden. As
Griffiths points out, such a marriage and children would be impossible
to keep secret from the council and household of the king. It was
merely not made known to the general public until after the queen's
death.
Brad: "The case for Edmund Tudor being Edmund Beaufort's son is
plausible on many levels.
Those being:
A) The Queen named her son 'Edmund'
B) The Queen was a slut
By the way, the only contemporary source for the queen's being "unable
to curb her carnal passions" is the 'Chronicon Angliae' edited by J.A.
Giles.
C) The Queen and Edmund Beaufort would not dare defy the 1428 statute"
Only in part. The hypothesis for the case of Edmund Tudor *possibly*
being Queen Catherine's son by Edmund Beaufort rests mainly on the
following:
a) Queen Catherine wished to marry Edmund Beaufort in 1427/8.
She wished to remarry - at what exact point is not known - and had the
Commons petition for her right to do so in 1426. It was rumored that
Edmund Beaufort was the man she wanted to marry.
b) The Queen had a son born perhaps as early as 1428, probably no later
than 1430, named Edmund.
The Queen gave birth at Hadham to a son named Edmund, at some point at
least 4 years before her 1437 death, who was acknowledged by the royal
family to be the son of the queen's second husband Owen Tudor.
c) Parliament passed a statute in 1428 specifically aimed at forbidding
the Queen's marriage to Edmund Beaufort.
The statute aimed to discourage the queen remarrying without consent
of the king (her son) by making the husband's estates forfeit if she
did so. It did not, and could not, expressly forbid such a marriage.
d) Queen Catherine would not have been allowed to marry Edmund Beaufort
- a semi-royal magnate. Parliament's effective proscription of this
eventuality makes the point.
She obviously was not encouraged to embark on any marriage of her own
free will without the seal of official approval, but could not be
forbidden from doing so.
e) Owen Tudor first on the scene in 1432 (thias needs to be checked).
First in Parliament record in May 1432.
e) Queen Catherine could only have been allowed to marry a nonentity.
Nope. She, however, did marry a nonentity.
Thanks Brad and Michael for this interesting discussion today. This is
what gen-medieval is meant to be!
Thank you, too. It was a great way for me to jump back into the
newsgroup after my long, work-related hiatus.
Cheers, -------Brad
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Fallen Brits & Hateful Prose & Rhetoric
Balderdash!
I never said, or wrote any such thing.
Nor do I have any bias against beer drinkers....
....Although I prefer single-malt Scotch myself.
DSH
-----------------------------------------------------------------
<Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.344.1186886143.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
I never said, or wrote any such thing.
Nor do I have any bias against beer drinkers....
....Although I prefer single-malt Scotch myself.
DSH
-----------------------------------------------------------------
<Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.344.1186886143.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Dear Spencer,
I`ve just posted on this , the information is from
Leo`s Genealogics site. You`ve been going on for hours to no purpose about
how Great Britain is a failed nation because everyone hangs out in pubs
and drinks beer.
-
Gjest
Re: Edmund Tudor a (Beaufort-) Plantagenet?
In a message dated 8/11/2007 10:56:29 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us writes:
"Nevertheless, in spite of the council's precautions, some time between
1428 and 1432 Catherine did contract a morganatic marriage, though this
only became known after her death>>
-----------------------------------
So during her life, everyone just thought she was a whore ?
I'm sure somebody must have writen about her having children without the
need for a marriage ?
Will
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us writes:
"Nevertheless, in spite of the council's precautions, some time between
1428 and 1432 Catherine did contract a morganatic marriage, though this
only became known after her death>>
-----------------------------------
So during her life, everyone just thought she was a whore ?
I'm sure somebody must have writen about her having children without the
need for a marriage ?
Will
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Who Gives A Ruddy Damn?!
Dumb as a sack of hammers...
Peter obviously does NOT understand the etiology of his Trigeminal
Neuralgia.
Par for the course.
His Pain -- No Gain.
He's also not taking the right drug...
But we'll just let him simmer in the fetid broth of his own ignorance.
Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.
Enjoy!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:35yvi.19518$4A1.8767@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Peter obviously does NOT understand the etiology of his Trigeminal
Neuralgia.
Par for the course.
His Pain -- No Gain.
He's also not taking the right drug...
But we'll just let him simmer in the fetid broth of his own ignorance.
Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.
Enjoy!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:35yvi.19518$4A1.8767@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:x3xvi.86$wi6.607@eagle.america.net...
Hmmmmmmm...
Peter's blood pressure is going up again ...
...Which will aggravate and complicate his Trigeminal Neuralgia.
No it wouldn't - I've had an episode of hypertension before, remeber,
[sic] that predictably had no effect at all on the neuralgia.
Mark My Words...
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Who Gives A Ruddy Damn?!
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:3Xyvi.88$wi6.656@eagle.america.net...
Hines, of course, has a total misunderstanding of both the condition and the
medication - Tegretol works, hence there is NO pain. Zip, nada. And there's
no question of its being the wrong drug in my case: a brief experiment last
year proved this beyond doubt.
Perhaps Hines is punch-drunk from his abject failure to hold a single point
in other threads. He has evidently forgotten the lesson hard won before he
slunk off last time & cowered away from SGM for so long, that he doesn't get
to take free shots in this newsgroup, not now and not ever, not at me and
not at anyone else here worth defending.
Usenet can be a place of pain, indeed - just as much as he wants for just as
long as he wants - but, galling as it must be to him, I am not the one who
is afflicted & hurting.
Peter Stewart
news:3Xyvi.88$wi6.656@eagle.america.net...
Dumb as a sack of hammers...
Peter obviously does NOT understand the etiology of his Trigeminal
Neuralgia.
Par for the course.
His Pain -- No Gain.
He's also not taking the right drug...
But we'll just let him simmer in the fetid broth of his own ignorance.
Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.
Hines, of course, has a total misunderstanding of both the condition and the
medication - Tegretol works, hence there is NO pain. Zip, nada. And there's
no question of its being the wrong drug in my case: a brief experiment last
year proved this beyond doubt.
Perhaps Hines is punch-drunk from his abject failure to hold a single point
in other threads. He has evidently forgotten the lesson hard won before he
slunk off last time & cowered away from SGM for so long, that he doesn't get
to take free shots in this newsgroup, not now and not ever, not at me and
not at anyone else here worth defending.
Usenet can be a place of pain, indeed - just as much as he wants for just as
long as he wants - but, galling as it must be to him, I am not the one who
is afflicted & hurting.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Edmund Tudor a (Beaufort-) Plantagenet?
Dear Doug and others,
Queen Katherine of Valois and Owen Tudor
may have simply named their elfdest son Edmund to indicate that He would be a
good royal servant and not stir up mischief. The 1st Lancaster, Earl Edmund was
faithful to his alleigence to such an extent the other nobles when trying to
gain the royal power from King Edward II, killed him. Duke Edmund of York had
been similarly faithful to his nephew King Richard II, though He didn`t lose
his life. Edmund Stafford, Earl of Stafford who was killed in the Battle of
Shrewsbury in 1403.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
Queen Katherine of Valois and Owen Tudor
may have simply named their elfdest son Edmund to indicate that He would be a
good royal servant and not stir up mischief. The 1st Lancaster, Earl Edmund was
faithful to his alleigence to such an extent the other nobles when trying to
gain the royal power from King Edward II, killed him. Duke Edmund of York had
been similarly faithful to his nephew King Richard II, though He didn`t lose
his life. Edmund Stafford, Earl of Stafford who was killed in the Battle of
Shrewsbury in 1403.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour