Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

Re: Edmund Tudor a (Beaufort-) Plantagenet?

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 aug 2007 15:22:27

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

Gjest

Re: Edmund Tudor a (Beaufort-) Plantagenet?

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 aug 2007 15:22:28

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

Gjest

Re: Edmund Tudor a (Beaufort-) Plantagenet?

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 aug 2007 15:22:28

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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 12 aug 2007 16:34:34

"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."

Hilarious! "AN interest in an ancestor of mine" -- NOT "MY interest in an
ancestor of mine". HE has the interest in the ancestor NOT I.

"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."

NO. the Ancestor was 15 in 1800. Peter's childish interest came much
earlier -- and lingers still.

"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
-----------------------------------------------------

Hogwash!

"I have vanishingly little genealogical interest in anyone who lived
after around the mid-13th century."

"I have vanishingly little genealogical interest..."

How DELIGHTFULLY airy-fairy!

Only "PRECIOUS little interest" would be MORE airy-fairy.

Of COURSE Peter has an interest in folks who are linked to him. He's LYING
about that -- and has been for years.

He talks a QUITE different game in private....

For example, these are some of the POST 13th Century people he is VERY
interested in:

The man killed at Waterloo, whom Peter was fascinated with as a boy, was The
Honorable Frederick Howard (1785-1815), son of Frederick Howard, 5th Earl of
Carlisle and his wife, Lady Margaret Granville Leveson-Gower, daughter of
Granville Leveson-Gower, 1st Marquess of Stafford (1721-1803).

Frederick Howard (1785-1815), killed at Waterloo at age 29, about whom Peter
fantasizes, is his 4th Great-Grandfather.

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.

It makes him write and say quite stupid, but MOST amusing, things.

Peter also knew the precise details of his descent from THIS pair too -- in
2004.

They were ALSO born in the 18th Century:

360 William Cavendish, 4th Duke of Devonshire, b 1720, d 2 Oct 1764

361 Charlotte Elizabeth Boyle, Baroness Clifford, b 27 Oct 1731, d 8 Dec
1754

As you see, they are Peter's SIXTH Great-Grandparents [of 256 in this 9th
generation] with Ancestor Numbers of #360 and #361.

The 4th Duke of Devonshire and his wife, the Duchess, Baroness Clifford are
ALSO the THIRD Great-Grandparents of Queen Elizabeth, the wife of King
George VI -- Lady Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon [4 August 1900 -30
March 2002].

So, Peter is the FOURTH Cousin of Queen Elizabeth [the Queen Mother], three
times removed.

He is WELL AWARE of ALL these details of course.

WHO do you think TOLD ME?

The man Peter Stewart is a LIAR, pure and simple -- a PERNICIOUS, CONSUMMATE
LIAR.

Of COURSE he's interested in how he descends from British Nobility and
Royalty and how he relates to those in the PRESENT, as well as the PAST.

But he tries to HIDE it and LIE that he's only interested in how MEDIAEVAL
FOLKS relate to each other.

Hilarious!

....And DEEEELIGHTFUL!

Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Enjoy!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

CE Wood

Re: Isabella di Chiaramonte m 1444 Ferdinand I, King of Napl

Legg inn av CE Wood » 12 aug 2007 18:16:39

Don't leave out Nicola, the missing generation between Robert &
Raymond:

Robert Orsini, Count Palatine of Nola married 1330 Sueva de Baux de Soleto
/

Nicola Orsini, Count of Nola married 1352/1355 Giovanna (or Gorizia)
de Sabran
/
Raymond Orsini Balzo died 1406, married Marie d'Enghien, countess of Lecce

CE Wood


On Aug 11, 7:00 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
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" <don...@netactive.co.za
To: <gen-medie...@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-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Brad Verity

Re: Edmund Tudor a (Beaufort-) Plantagenet?

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 12 aug 2007 18:50:39

Some further thoughts.

On Aug 11, 10:24 pm, Brad Verity <royaldesc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

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.

If, when Edmund Tudor was created Earl of Richmond in November 1452,
it was because he had reached his majority (age 21), then he would
have been born in the autumn of 1431, which fits in nicely with Owen
Tudor making his first Parliament record in May 1432, trying to get
out of the penalties against Welshmen (and perhaps his pedigree being
submitted as a result of marriage to the queen).

However, per the CP bio of Jasper Tudor under 'Pembroke', it appears
the two Tudor brothers were created earls at the same time, and of
course, neither 'had' to be of age in order to be created earls by
their brother and sit in Parliament. It would be interesting to see
how Jasper was styled at the time to see if either brother was using
the surname 'Tudor'.

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.

If the extended royal family in 1428-31 is extended even further to
male descendants of Edward III, then more candidates for godfather to
the queen's new child appear. The two likeliest being Richard, Duke
of York, who, though still a minor (in his late teens) had several
ceremonial functions in the young king's court from 1429-31, and
Humphrey, Earl of Stafford (later Duke of Buckingham), who had been
appointed to the royal council in 1424. Either would have made a
perfectly suitable godfather to the queen's new son, but, like
Huntingdon, no study has been made yet if they had any kind of
visiting friendship with the queen that Cardinal Beaufort and his
nephew had.

Cheers, -------Brad

Adrian Whitaker

RE: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Adrian Whitaker » 12 aug 2007 20:19:17

Please, "Stewart", give us a big favor: kill yourself and disappear in a
tiny bad-smelling cloud....

That's will be a guarantee to restore civility, politeness and serenity
on this list (not only on the list, of course...)

You are a pathetic, pompous idiot




-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of D. Spencer Hines
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 5:35 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry


"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."

Hilarious! "AN interest in an ancestor of mine" -- NOT "MY interest in
an ancestor of mine". HE has the interest in the ancestor NOT I.

"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."

NO. the Ancestor was 15 in 1800. Peter's childish interest came much
earlier -- and lingers still.

"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
-----------------------------------------------------

Hogwash!

"I have vanishingly little genealogical interest in anyone who lived
after around the mid-13th century."

"I have vanishingly little genealogical interest..."

How DELIGHTFULLY airy-fairy!

Only "PRECIOUS little interest" would be MORE airy-fairy.

Of COURSE Peter has an interest in folks who are linked to him. He's
LYING about that -- and has been for years.

He talks a QUITE different game in private....

For example, these are some of the POST 13th Century people he is VERY
interested in:

The man killed at Waterloo, whom Peter was fascinated with as a boy, was
The Honorable Frederick Howard (1785-1815), son of Frederick Howard, 5th
Earl of Carlisle and his wife, Lady Margaret Granville Leveson-Gower,
daughter of Granville Leveson-Gower, 1st Marquess of Stafford
(1721-1803).

Frederick Howard (1785-1815), killed at Waterloo at age 29, about whom
Peter fantasizes, is his 4th Great-Grandfather.

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.

It makes him write and say quite stupid, but MOST amusing, things.

Peter also knew the precise details of his descent from THIS pair too --
in 2004.

They were ALSO born in the 18th Century:

360 William Cavendish, 4th Duke of Devonshire, b 1720, d 2 Oct 1764

361 Charlotte Elizabeth Boyle, Baroness Clifford, b 27 Oct 1731, d 8
Dec
1754

As you see, they are Peter's SIXTH Great-Grandparents [of 256 in this
9th generation] with Ancestor Numbers of #360 and #361.

The 4th Duke of Devonshire and his wife, the Duchess, Baroness Clifford
are ALSO the THIRD Great-Grandparents of Queen Elizabeth, the wife of
King George VI -- Lady Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon [4 August
1900 -30 March 2002].

So, Peter is the FOURTH Cousin of Queen Elizabeth [the Queen Mother],
three times removed.

He is WELL AWARE of ALL these details of course.

WHO do you think TOLD ME?

The man Peter Stewart is a LIAR, pure and simple -- a PERNICIOUS,
CONSUMMATE LIAR.

Of COURSE he's interested in how he descends from British Nobility and
Royalty and how he relates to those in the PRESENT, as well as the PAST.

But he tries to HIDE it and LIE that he's only interested in how
MEDIAEVAL FOLKS relate to each other.

Hilarious!

....And DEEEELIGHTFUL!

Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Enjoy!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum



-------------------------------
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: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12 aug 2007 23:10:11

O goodness, what a desperate fool.

As I've said before. Hines quizzed me about how I was related to the royal
family, and I obligingly looked up the exact details in order to tell him.
He wanted to know the precise degree, and I miscalculated it at first having
never previosuly worked this out.

The ancestor killed at Waterloo was remembered in my family _for that
reason_, and so I was told about him early on. I've never had a fantasy
about him in my life - Hines is clearly projecting his own proclivities. His
parants' given names, and his mother's family, were forgotten, but I'll take
his word for these (and nothing else).

The remote connection to the Cavendish family is still unremembered by me in
detail. The main interest of this to me is the link to 'Building Bess' of
Hardwick, but I couldn't say without checking how this reaches all the long
& winding way from her to myself - because the interest (a mild and
occasional one at that) is in HER, not a GENEALOGICAL one in her relatives
and/or descendants.

But in any case, Hines is barking. A "vanishingly little" interest is not
the same as no interest at all, and indeed any interest held in 2004 may not
be sustained in 2007. Someone resorting to absurd and misleading
technicalities about birthdates ought to realise this.

Hines is trying hard to raise his profile as a laughing stock, and in this
alone he is succeeding.

Peter Stewart


"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:8RFvi.89$wi6.1076@eagle.america.net...
"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."

Hilarious! "AN interest in an ancestor of mine" -- NOT "MY interest in an
ancestor of mine". HE has the interest in the ancestor NOT I.

"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."

NO. the Ancestor was 15 in 1800. Peter's childish interest came much
earlier -- and lingers still.

"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
-----------------------------------------------------

Hogwash!

"I have vanishingly little genealogical interest in anyone who lived
after around the mid-13th century."

"I have vanishingly little genealogical interest..."

How DELIGHTFULLY airy-fairy!

Only "PRECIOUS little interest" would be MORE airy-fairy.

Of COURSE Peter has an interest in folks who are linked to him. He's
LYING
about that -- and has been for years.

He talks a QUITE different game in private....

For example, these are some of the POST 13th Century people he is VERY
interested in:

The man killed at Waterloo, whom Peter was fascinated with as a boy, was
The
Honorable Frederick Howard (1785-1815), son of Frederick Howard, 5th Earl
of
Carlisle and his wife, Lady Margaret Granville Leveson-Gower, daughter of
Granville Leveson-Gower, 1st Marquess of Stafford (1721-1803).

Frederick Howard (1785-1815), killed at Waterloo at age 29, about whom
Peter
fantasizes, is his 4th Great-Grandfather.

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.

It makes him write and say quite stupid, but MOST amusing, things.

Peter also knew the precise details of his descent from THIS pair too --
in
2004.

They were ALSO born in the 18th Century:

360 William Cavendish, 4th Duke of Devonshire, b 1720, d 2 Oct 1764

361 Charlotte Elizabeth Boyle, Baroness Clifford, b 27 Oct 1731, d 8 Dec
1754

As you see, they are Peter's SIXTH Great-Grandparents [of 256 in this 9th
generation] with Ancestor Numbers of #360 and #361.

The 4th Duke of Devonshire and his wife, the Duchess, Baroness Clifford
are
ALSO the THIRD Great-Grandparents of Queen Elizabeth, the wife of King
George VI -- Lady Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon [4 August
1900 -30
March 2002].

So, Peter is the FOURTH Cousin of Queen Elizabeth [the Queen Mother],
three
times removed.

He is WELL AWARE of ALL these details of course.

WHO do you think TOLD ME?

The man Peter Stewart is a LIAR, pure and simple -- a PERNICIOUS,
CONSUMMATE
LIAR.

Of COURSE he's interested in how he descends from British Nobility and
Royalty and how he relates to those in the PRESENT, as well as the PAST.

But he tries to HIDE it and LIE that he's only interested in how MEDIAEVAL
FOLKS relate to each other.

Hilarious!

...And DEEEELIGHTFUL!

Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Enjoy!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 13 aug 2007 00:41:36

On Aug 13, 5:19 am, "Adrian Whitaker" <arsan...@katamail.com> wrote:
Please, "Stewart", give us a big favor: kill yourself and disappear in a
tiny bad-smelling cloud....

Ah, how happy my critics must be to find themselves in such
company....indecent even by the standards of Hines and Brandon,
foolish even compared to Richardson.

That's will be a guarantee to restore civility, politeness and serenity
on this list (not only on the list, of course...)

But I was absent from October 2005 to June 2006, around 7+ months, and
the level of civility during that time doesn't substantiate your
assertion at all. Needless to say, Richardson was still at the centre
of most of the trouble.

You are a pathetic, pompous idiot

Deary me, such a hissy fit. Did a (real) duke turn up in my ancestry
where there's a blank in yours, by any chance?

Peter Stewart

Francisco Tavares de Alme

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Francisco Tavares de Alme » 13 aug 2007 00:48:24

On 12 Ago, 20:19, "Adrian Whitaker" <arsan...@katamail.com> wrote:
Please, "Stewart", give us a big favor: kill yourself and disappear in a
tiny bad-smelling cloud....

That's will be a guarantee to restore civility, politeness and serenity
on this list (not only on the list, of course...)

You are a pathetic, pompous idiot



Your blatant dishonesty already deprived genealogists of the best

resource on italian nobility, except for those who know personnaly
Davide Shamà or can be sponsored by one of his trusted friends. As a
disservice to genealogy and genealogists I can hardly imagine worst.

Following your tune, why don't you get a refreshing dive in your much
beloved Mediterranean Sea with 50 pounds of lead tied to your feet? I
am sure that Sardimpex would become public again and the Mediterranean
Sea is already so polluted that it could hardly make any difference.

Francisco

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 13 aug 2007 00:54:51

On Aug 13, 1:34 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
"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."

Hilarious! "AN interest in an ancestor of mine" -- NOT "MY interest in an
ancestor of mine". HE has the interest in the ancestor NOT I.

"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."

NO. the Ancestor was 15 in 1800. Peter's childish interest came much
earlier -- and lingers still.

Since Hines wants to play at quibbles over every last word, the
ancestor in question TURNED 15 in 1800, near the end of that year, on
6 December to be precise. I looked it up. So he was 15 for only 26
days in 1800.

I wonder if even Hines can tell off the top of his head the birthdates
and exact ages of a single ancestor at the same remove. Given the
comparatively rapid reproductive cycle of swine, that would have been
around 1980....

Peter Stewart

Adrian Whitaker

RE: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Adrian Whitaker » 13 aug 2007 00:59:35

As I said:

A pompous idiot....



-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Peter Stewart
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 1:42 AM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry


On Aug 13, 5:19 am, "Adrian Whitaker" <arsan...@katamail.com> wrote:
Please, "Stewart", give us a big favor: kill yourself and disappear in

a tiny bad-smelling cloud....

Ah, how happy my critics must be to find themselves in such
company....indecent even by the standards of Hines and Brandon, foolish
even compared to Richardson.

That's will be a guarantee to restore civility, politeness and
serenity on this list (not only on the list, of course...)

But I was absent from October 2005 to June 2006, around 7+ months, and
the level of civility during that time doesn't substantiate your
assertion at all. Needless to say, Richardson was still at the centre of
most of the trouble.

You are a pathetic, pompous idiot

Deary me, such a hissy fit. Did a (real) duke turn up in my ancestry
where there's a blank in yours, by any chance?

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

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 13 aug 2007 01:21:41

On Aug 13, 9:48 am, Francisco Tavares de Almeida
<francisco.tavaresdealme...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12 Ago, 20:19, "Adrian Whitaker" <arsan...@katamail.com> wrote:> Please, "Stewart", give us a big favor: kill yourself and disappear in a
tiny bad-smelling cloud....

That's will be a guarantee to restore civility, politeness and serenity
on this list (not only on the list, of course...)

You are a pathetic, pompous idiot

Your blatant dishonesty already deprived genealogists of the best
resource on italian nobility, except for those who know personnaly
Davide Shamà or can be sponsored by one of his trusted friends. As a
disservice to genealogy and genealogists I can hardly imagine worst.

Following your tune, why don't you get a refreshing dive in your much
beloved Mediterranean Sea with 50 pounds of lead tied to your feet? I
am sure that Sardimpex would become public again and the Mediterranean
Sea is already so polluted that it could hardly make any difference.

Think of the poor fish, Francisco. If he does in the Mediterranean
what he claims to do over his own computer before deleting messages,
there would be some major environmental degradation, surely. Releasing
all those toxins of dishonesty and stupidity currently sloshing in the
ducal cesspit and on the furniture & carpet of the palace library...

Peter Stewart

Ray O\\'Hara

Re: Who Gives A Ruddy Damn?!

Legg inn av Ray O\\'Hara » 13 aug 2007 02:11:31

trying to reason with hinesquaters is a waste of time.

Ray O\\'Hara

Re: Who Gives A Ruddy Damn?!

Legg inn av Ray O\\'Hara » 13 aug 2007 02:11:31

trying to reason with hinesquaters is a waste of time.

Ray O\\'Hara

Re: Who Gives A Ruddy Damn?!

Legg inn av Ray O\\'Hara » 13 aug 2007 02:11:31

trying to reason with hinesquaters is a waste of time.

Ray O\\'Hara

Re: Who Gives A Ruddy Damn?!

Legg inn av Ray O\\'Hara » 13 aug 2007 02:11:31

trying to reason with hinesquaters is a waste of time.

Peter Stewart

Re: Who Gives A Ruddy Damn?!

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 13 aug 2007 03:00:12

On Aug 13, 11:11 am, "Ray O\\'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
trying to reason with hinesquaters is a waste of time.

Yes, but reason is meant for others like yourself rather than for him.

Hines will eventually twig from mere animal instinct of self-
preservation that his hyperventilating and the throbbing sensation in
his reptile brain are due to making himself a sitting target for
ridicule, and that the pointless stress this causes will go away when
he does. It has worked before in SGM.

He is tediously stubborn, but there are limits to how much even he is
willing to have his name blasted to smithereens in public and his
contorted self-image pocked with shot.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 13 aug 2007 04:33:37

Peter is also intensely interested in the Howard Connection he has through
Frederick Howard [1785-1815] who died in the Battle of Waterloo, on 18 June
1815.

The Honorable Frederick Howard is Peter's 4th Great-Grandfather -- as he is
well aware.

This links Peter, by a circuitous route, to Castle Howard and Evelyn Waugh's
best novel _Brideshead Revisited_, which was made into a superb PBS
television series.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brideshead_Revisited>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Howard>

Peter still has flights of fantasy about HIMSELF at the Battle of Waterloo,
in his febrile imagination...

....A Boy's Adventure, carried into crippled manhood.

Think Sebastian Flyte, in _Brideshead Revisited_, without the spirituality
and the aristocratic tastes -- but with the drunkenness and all the other
vices intact -- and you'll have an excellent picture of Peter Stewart.

His relationship to the Howards, _au contraire_ is complex.

Vide infra pro sapientia:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Howard%2C_5th_Earl_of_Carlisle>

This 5th Earl of Carlisle is the 5th Great-Grandfather of Peter Stewart, as
he is well aware.

WHO do you think TOLD ME?

Interesting Family, The Howards.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 13 aug 2007 04:57:20

I have never stated or suggested that I am somehow not "aware" of my
ancestry - Hines is trying another false semantic track out of the trouble
of his own making.

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:IiQvi.97$wi6.1170@eagle.america.net...
Peter is also intensely interested in the Howard Connection he has through
Frederick Howard [1785-1815] who died in the Battle of Waterloo, on 18
June
1815.

The Honorable Frederick Howard is Peter's 4th Great-Grandfather -- as he
is
well aware.

This links Peter, by a circuitous route, to Castle Howard and Evelyn
Waugh's
best novel _Brideshead Revisited_, which was made into a superb PBS
television series.

Eh? The link from Frederick Howard (only a crazed snob would write out "The
Honourable") to Castle Howard is not circuitous but direct & immediate - his
father owned the place. And for that matter, in my view, ALL of Waugh's
other novels and their film off-shoots (as well as most other TV series ever
made) are better than the book and miniseries versions of the cloying
_Brideshead Revisited_.

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

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

Peter still has flights of fantasy about HIMSELF at the Battle of
Waterloo,
in his febrile imagination...

...A Boy's Adventure, carried into crippled manhood.

Think Sebastian Flyte, in _Brideshead Revisited_, without the spirituality
and the aristocratic tastes -- but with the drunkenness and all the other
vices intact -- and you'll have an excellent picture of Peter Stewart.

This could scarcely be less accurate. Sebastian Flyte is most notable for a
kind of vicious charm, and not even Hines can mean to attribute that to me.
I don't recall the last time I was drunk: it must have been many years, a
lustre or perhaps a decade, ago. A habit of this kind is maybe a bit less
creditable, or more discreditable, than an interest in early modern
genealogy would be, but I don't happen to indulge in either of these. I
can't imagine any good reason to disclaim either if I did - some people I
greatly respect pursue one or other as a daily pastime, or both.

His relationship to the Howards, _au contraire_ is complex.

It could hardly be much simpler - a plain biological descent from a Howard
great-grandparent.

Vide infra pro sapientia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_ ... f_Carlisle

This 5th Earl of Carlisle is the 5th Great-Grandfather of Peter Stewart,
as
he is well aware.

WHO do you think TOLD ME?

I did, when you asked. No-one has disputed that.

Interesting Family, The Howards.

Interesting orthography, The Dizzy Schoolgirl's.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 13 aug 2007 05:17:02

Hilarious!

There he goes again...

Backing & Filling.

....And STILL taking the wrong drug for TGN.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:AEQvi.19787$4A1.2004@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

I have never stated or suggested that I am somehow not "aware" of my
ancestry...

<baldersnip>

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 13 aug 2007 05:34:12

Perhaps Peter's proudest descent is from King Henry VII and Elizabeth of
York, his 15th Great-Grandparents.

Henry VII often turns out to be the Most Recent Royal Ancestor [MRRA] of
gaggles of down-at-the heels types of Fallen Descendents of Nobles [FDN's],
many of them Remittance Men of various stripes, shades, textures and degrees
of substance abuse -- reduced by Circumstance and their own Arrant, Errant
Folly.

In Peter's case it was horses [and porcine folly] that did him in. <g>

Today, he still has a Deep Hatred of Horses. <g>

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 13 aug 2007 06:51:31

On Aug 13, 2:34 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Perhaps Peter's proudest descent is from King Henry VII and Elizabeth of
York, his 15th Great-Grandparents.

Not a bit of it - unlike the craven Hines, who is now just trying to
eke out this ludicrous thread into a tangential argument less likely
to result in painful and embarrassing wallops for himself, I am not an
admirer of Henry VII. Also unlike him, I am not fool enough to be
"proud" of any mere accident of birth or ancestry.

Henry VII often turns out to be the Most Recent Royal Ancestor [MRRA] of
gaggles of down-at-the heels types of Fallen Descendents of Nobles [FDN's],
many of them Remittance Men of various stripes, shades, textures and degrees
of substance abuse -- reduced by Circumstance and their own Arrant, Errant
Folly.

But I am descended several times over from Charles II, so that Henry
VII is not only quite irrelevant to my imagined pride but also not the
most recent sovereign in my ancestry. There are probably as many
people with curly red hair or or who are 6' 5'' tall (or whatever
Brandon claimes to be) as are descended in the same degree as I am
from this king - so that one accidental condition from heredity is no
more distinctive than another.

In Peter's case it was horses [and porcine folly] that did him in.
g

Today, he still has a Deep Hatred of Horses. <g

Whatever Hines means by <g>, if this is not "I am telling another flat
lie" it is wrong - I have never had a hatred of any species much less
horses. Not even swine in Hawaii. Since Hines can know nothing at all
of the circumstances he is characterising, anyone still reading this
can take his statment above as yet another bout of his endless
flatulence.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 13 aug 2007 06:58:55

On Aug 13, 2:17 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Hilarious!

There he goes again...

Backing & Filling.

Then show us what I am allegedly "backing" from, where I claimed not
to be "aware" of my ancestry. This misrepresentation was of course
YOUR latest attempt to back and fill.

The bluff of Hines is so easy to call - and yet he goes on making a
spectacle of it. His persistence in this is every bit as ruinous to
his self-image as the absurd content of his posts, and the battering
he is suffering from them, yet he can't bring himself to stop. That is
past stupidity, it is mindless self-harm.

...And STILL taking the wrong drug for TGN.

The one that works, and has been prescribed by a leading expert in
clinical neurology. We know who and what is wrong here.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 13 aug 2007 08:14:07

1. His fascination with the HORSES did Peter in....he HIMSELF told me so.

2. It's a fact -- no matter how much he may try to deny it on USENET.

But I am descended several times over from Charles II, so that Henry
VII is not only quite irrelevant to my imagined pride but also not the
most recent sovereign in my ancestry. -- Peter Stewart

[N.B. This from the pogue who says he has no interest in such descents. "I
have vanishingly little genealogical interest in anyone who lived
after around the mid-13th century..." -- Peter Stewart.]

Hilarious!

Hoist With His Own Petar!

3. Of COURSE Peter has bastard descents from Charles II, that goes without
saying -- and follows as the night the day.

4. Charles II had a whole flock of bastards -- 14 or so and NO
legitimates -- and Peter can claim his fair share of said bastards sired by
the Merrie Restoration Monarch.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-----------------------------------------

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1186984291.191986.38490@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 13, 2:34 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

Perhaps Peter's proudest descent is from King Henry VII and Elizabeth of
York, his 15th Great-Grandparents.

Not a bit of it - unlike the craven Hines, who is now just trying to
eke out this ludicrous thread into a tangential argument less likely
to result in painful and embarrassing wallops for himself, I am not an
admirer of Henry VII. Also unlike him, I am not fool enough to be
"proud" of any mere accident of birth or ancestry.

Henry VII often turns out to be the Most Recent Royal Ancestor [MRRA] of
gaggles of down-at-the heels types of Fallen Descendents of Nobles
[FDN's], many of them Remittance Men of various stripes, shades, textures
and degrees of substance abuse -- reduced by Circumstance and their own
Arrant, Errant Folly.

But I am descended several times over from Charles II, so that Henry
VII is not only quite irrelevant to my imagined pride but also not the
most recent sovereign in my ancestry. There are probably as many
people with curly red hair or or who are 6' 5'' tall (or whatever
Brandon claimes [sic] to be) as are descended in the same degree as I am
from this king - so that one accidental condition from heredity is no
more distinctive than another.

In Peter's case it was horses [and porcine folly] that did him in.
g

Today, he still has a Deep Hatred of Horses. <g

Whatever Hines means by <g>, if this is not "I am telling another flat
lie" it is wrong - I have never had a hatred of any species much less
horses. Not even swine in Hawaii. Since Hines can know nothing at all
of the circumstances he is characterising, anyone still reading this
can take his statment [sic] above as yet another bout of his endless
flatulence.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 13 aug 2007 08:14:07

1. His fascination with the HORSES did Peter in....he HIMSELF told me so.

2. It's a fact -- no matter how much he may try to deny it on USENET.

But I am descended several times over from Charles II, so that Henry
VII is not only quite irrelevant to my imagined pride but also not the
most recent sovereign in my ancestry. -- Peter Stewart

[N.B. This from the pogue who says he has no interest in such descents. "I
have vanishingly little genealogical interest in anyone who lived
after around the mid-13th century..." -- Peter Stewart.]

Hilarious!

Hoist With His Own Petar!

3. Of COURSE Peter has bastard descents from Charles II, that goes without
saying -- and follows as the night the day.

4. Charles II had a whole flock of bastards -- 14 or so and NO
legitimates -- and Peter can claim his fair share of said bastards sired by
the Merrie Restoration Monarch.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-----------------------------------------

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1186984291.191986.38490@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 13, 2:34 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

Perhaps Peter's proudest descent is from King Henry VII and Elizabeth of
York, his 15th Great-Grandparents.

Not a bit of it - unlike the craven Hines, who is now just trying to
eke out this ludicrous thread into a tangential argument less likely
to result in painful and embarrassing wallops for himself, I am not an
admirer of Henry VII. Also unlike him, I am not fool enough to be
"proud" of any mere accident of birth or ancestry.

Henry VII often turns out to be the Most Recent Royal Ancestor [MRRA] of
gaggles of down-at-the heels types of Fallen Descendents of Nobles
[FDN's], many of them Remittance Men of various stripes, shades, textures
and degrees of substance abuse -- reduced by Circumstance and their own
Arrant, Errant Folly.

But I am descended several times over from Charles II, so that Henry
VII is not only quite irrelevant to my imagined pride but also not the
most recent sovereign in my ancestry. There are probably as many
people with curly red hair or or who are 6' 5'' tall (or whatever
Brandon claimes [sic] to be) as are descended in the same degree as I am
from this king - so that one accidental condition from heredity is no
more distinctive than another.

In Peter's case it was horses [and porcine folly] that did him in.
g

Today, he still has a Deep Hatred of Horses. <g

Whatever Hines means by <g>, if this is not "I am telling another flat
lie" it is wrong - I have never had a hatred of any species much less
horses. Not even swine in Hawaii. Since Hines can know nothing at all
of the circumstances he is characterising, anyone still reading this
can take his statment [sic] above as yet another bout of his endless
flatulence.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 13 aug 2007 08:14:07

1. His fascination with the HORSES did Peter in....he HIMSELF told me so.

2. It's a fact -- no matter how much he may try to deny it on USENET.

But I am descended several times over from Charles II, so that Henry
VII is not only quite irrelevant to my imagined pride but also not the
most recent sovereign in my ancestry. -- Peter Stewart

[N.B. This from the pogue who says he has no interest in such descents. "I
have vanishingly little genealogical interest in anyone who lived
after around the mid-13th century..." -- Peter Stewart.]

Hilarious!

Hoist With His Own Petar!

3. Of COURSE Peter has bastard descents from Charles II, that goes without
saying -- and follows as the night the day.

4. Charles II had a whole flock of bastards -- 14 or so and NO
legitimates -- and Peter can claim his fair share of said bastards sired by
the Merrie Restoration Monarch.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-----------------------------------------

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1186984291.191986.38490@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 13, 2:34 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

Perhaps Peter's proudest descent is from King Henry VII and Elizabeth of
York, his 15th Great-Grandparents.

Not a bit of it - unlike the craven Hines, who is now just trying to
eke out this ludicrous thread into a tangential argument less likely
to result in painful and embarrassing wallops for himself, I am not an
admirer of Henry VII. Also unlike him, I am not fool enough to be
"proud" of any mere accident of birth or ancestry.

Henry VII often turns out to be the Most Recent Royal Ancestor [MRRA] of
gaggles of down-at-the heels types of Fallen Descendents of Nobles
[FDN's], many of them Remittance Men of various stripes, shades, textures
and degrees of substance abuse -- reduced by Circumstance and their own
Arrant, Errant Folly.

But I am descended several times over from Charles II, so that Henry
VII is not only quite irrelevant to my imagined pride but also not the
most recent sovereign in my ancestry. There are probably as many
people with curly red hair or or who are 6' 5'' tall (or whatever
Brandon claimes [sic] to be) as are descended in the same degree as I am
from this king - so that one accidental condition from heredity is no
more distinctive than another.

In Peter's case it was horses [and porcine folly] that did him in.
g

Today, he still has a Deep Hatred of Horses. <g

Whatever Hines means by <g>, if this is not "I am telling another flat
lie" it is wrong - I have never had a hatred of any species much less
horses. Not even swine in Hawaii. Since Hines can know nothing at all
of the circumstances he is characterising, anyone still reading this
can take his statment [sic] above as yet another bout of his endless
flatulence.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 13 aug 2007 08:14:07

1. His fascination with the HORSES did Peter in....he HIMSELF told me so.

2. It's a fact -- no matter how much he may try to deny it on USENET.

But I am descended several times over from Charles II, so that Henry
VII is not only quite irrelevant to my imagined pride but also not the
most recent sovereign in my ancestry. -- Peter Stewart

[N.B. This from the pogue who says he has no interest in such descents. "I
have vanishingly little genealogical interest in anyone who lived
after around the mid-13th century..." -- Peter Stewart.]

Hilarious!

Hoist With His Own Petar!

3. Of COURSE Peter has bastard descents from Charles II, that goes without
saying -- and follows as the night the day.

4. Charles II had a whole flock of bastards -- 14 or so and NO
legitimates -- and Peter can claim his fair share of said bastards sired by
the Merrie Restoration Monarch.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-----------------------------------------

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1186984291.191986.38490@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 13, 2:34 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

Perhaps Peter's proudest descent is from King Henry VII and Elizabeth of
York, his 15th Great-Grandparents.

Not a bit of it - unlike the craven Hines, who is now just trying to
eke out this ludicrous thread into a tangential argument less likely
to result in painful and embarrassing wallops for himself, I am not an
admirer of Henry VII. Also unlike him, I am not fool enough to be
"proud" of any mere accident of birth or ancestry.

Henry VII often turns out to be the Most Recent Royal Ancestor [MRRA] of
gaggles of down-at-the heels types of Fallen Descendents of Nobles
[FDN's], many of them Remittance Men of various stripes, shades, textures
and degrees of substance abuse -- reduced by Circumstance and their own
Arrant, Errant Folly.

But I am descended several times over from Charles II, so that Henry
VII is not only quite irrelevant to my imagined pride but also not the
most recent sovereign in my ancestry. There are probably as many
people with curly red hair or or who are 6' 5'' tall (or whatever
Brandon claimes [sic] to be) as are descended in the same degree as I am
from this king - so that one accidental condition from heredity is no
more distinctive than another.

In Peter's case it was horses [and porcine folly] that did him in.
g

Today, he still has a Deep Hatred of Horses. <g

Whatever Hines means by <g>, if this is not "I am telling another flat
lie" it is wrong - I have never had a hatred of any species much less
horses. Not even swine in Hawaii. Since Hines can know nothing at all
of the circumstances he is characterising, anyone still reading this
can take his statment [sic] above as yet another bout of his endless
flatulence.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 13 aug 2007 08:30:53

Further, he so pig-ignorant he doesn't even know what his dosage is...

....And he has to look at the bottle to see it's called Carbamazepine -- the
generic name.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1186984735.313451.95040@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>> ...And STILL taking the wrong drug for TGN. -- DSH

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Eleanor of Aquitaine & Consanguinity?

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 13 aug 2007 08:41:17

_Aliénor d'Aquitaine_ is quite "CORRECT" and "ACCEPTABLE" TOO.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult
--------------------------------------------------------

"Jean" <jean.lenior@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:46bff175$0$5073$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...

You are correct The father of Aliénor d'Aquitaine
is not known as William

JL

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 13 aug 2007 09:10:13

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:gBTvi.103$wi6.671@eagle.america.net...
1. His fascination with the HORSES did Peter in....he HIMSELF told me so.

2. It's a fact -- no matter how much he may try to deny it on USENET.

But I have NOT tried to deny this - rather I denied that I have a hatred of
the animals. Anyone who knows me or about my life knows that I was a horse
breeder, and that I went broke doing it. No secret, no shame, and no rancour
about it. My own doing, my own fault, and my own business.

But I am descended several times over from Charles II, so that Henry
VII is not only quite irrelevant to my imagined pride but also not the
most recent sovereign in my ancestry. -- Peter Stewart

[N.B. This from the pogue who says he has no interest in such descents.
"I have vanishingly little genealogical interest in anyone who lived
after around the mid-13th century..." -- Peter Stewart.]

Hilarious!

Hoist With His Own Petar!

Rubbish - I have an ancestor study showing three lines to two of Charles
II's bastard sons. This is not extremely common for people of Engliush
descent by any means, & is of barely vestigial interest to me: certainly
less than some other 17th century ancestry that I am aware of.

3. Of COURSE Peter has bastard descents from Charles II, that goes
without
saying -- and follows as the night the day.

4. Charles II had a whole flock of bastards -- 14 or so and NO
legitimates -- and Peter can claim his fair share of said bastards sired
by the Merrie Restoration Monarch.

"Of COURSE ..." So why the boring and irrelevant rant about Henry VII last
time round?

Do you want to build up a record score of points you have lost? So far in
all these recent threads you have not answered a single point in contention
between us, and yet every one of yours has been dealt with summarily and
comprehensively. Nothing is shown except your own deepening foolishness with
every new post and your wilful failure to understand plain English.

If you want some affirmation from a reader, why not ask straightforwardly if
ANYONE thinks you are holding your end up? Maybe Adrian "f. Wit"haker will
endorse you.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 13 aug 2007 09:14:28

The Tegretol pills don't come in a bottle, Hines - these are dispensed in a
packet of 200, in 20 foil strips of 10 each. And yes I had to look for the
details, these too being of vanishingly little interest to me. All I care
about is that it works, despite your moronic wishful thinking to the
contrary.

Peter Stewart


"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:2NTvi.104$wi6.1223@eagle.america.net...
Further, he so pig-ignorant he doesn't even know what his dosage is...

...And he has to look at the bottle to see it's called Carbamazepine --
the generic name.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1186984735.313451.95040@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

...And STILL taking the wrong drug for TGN. -- DSH


Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 13 aug 2007 09:19:05

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:FlUvi.19858$4A1.17612@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

<snip>

Rubbish - I have an ancestor study showing three lines to two of Charles
II's bastard sons. This is not extremely common for people of Engliush
descent by any means, & is of barely vestigial interest to me: certainly
less than some other 17th century ancestry that I am aware of.

Two blatant errors on my part - the second sentence above should read "This
is not extremely uncommon for people of English descent by any means..."

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 13 aug 2007 09:25:10

Hilarious!

He's still quite confused about his Tegretol dosage and why he's taking it.

He's also pig-ignorant about the pharmacokinetics of something he puts in
his mouth every day.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:EpUvi.19860$4A1.4786@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

The Tegretol pills don't come in a bottle, Hines - these are dispensed in
a packet of 200, in 20 foil strips of 10 each. And yes I had to look for
the details, these too being of vanishingly little interest to me. All I
care about is that it works, despite your moronic wishful thinking to the
contrary.

Peter Stewart

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:2NTvi.104$wi6.1223@eagle.america.net...

Further, he so pig-ignorant he doesn't even know what his dosage is...

...And he has to look at the bottle to see it's called Carbamazepine --
the generic name.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1186984735.313451.95040@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

...And STILL taking the wrong drug for TGN. -- DSH

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 13 aug 2007 09:33:25

Hilarious!

Now he's in his cups.

We all know Peter has a full mattress of bastard descents from Royalty...

....From Royals WELL after the mid-13th century.

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

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ZtUvi.19863$4A1.8624@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:FlUvi.19858$4A1.17612@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

snip

Rubbish - I have an ancestor study showing three lines to two of Charles
II's bastard sons. This is not extremely common for people of Engliush
[sic] descent by any means, & is of barely vestigial interest to me:
certainly less than some other 17th century ancestry that I am aware of.

Two blatant errors on my part - the second sentence above should read
"This is not extremely uncommon for people of English descent by any
means..."

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 13 aug 2007 09:39:03

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:8AUvi.106$wi6.1263@eagle.america.net...
Hilarious!

He's still quite confused about his Tegretol dosage and why he's taking
it.

What CAN this mean, even to a confused cretin? The dose is one tablet per
day and I'm taking it to control trigeminal neuralgia. How could this be
made any plainer for the poor sap?

He's also pig-ignorant about the pharmacokinetics of something he puts in
his mouth every day.

I am quite ignorant about this, and happy to remain so. The word
"Carbamazepine" tells me nothing I need to know. If the beginning of wisdom
is to realise the extent of one's own ignorance, the next step is not to
waste time on worthless and empty information. But clearly Hines hasn't got
anywhere near to stage one.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 13 aug 2007 09:46:37

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:KHUvi.107$wi6.1191@eagle.america.net...
Hilarious!

Now he's in his cups.

We all know Peter has a full mattress of bastard descents from Royalty...

Now Hines has forgotten his own post from a short while back, where he wrote
that Charles II had "14 or so" bastards - I am descended from just two of
these, so not a "full mattress" even where that one progenitor is concerned.

Can this driveller get ANYTHING right?

In a thread that came back to light recently, I wrote that Douglas
Richardson seemed to have studied history and genealogy at the Jethro
Clampett academy. Hines announced that he had tutored Richardson for some
years.

Now we know.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 13 aug 2007 09:46:57

But I am descended several times over from Charles II, so that Henry
VII is not only quite irrelevant to my imagined pride but also not the
most recent sovereign in my ancestry. -- Peter Stewart

N.B. This from the rampant pogue who says he has no interest in such
descents. "I have vanishingly little genealogical interest in anyone who
lived after around the mid-13th century..." -- Peter Stewart.

Hilarious!

Hoist With His Own Petar!...

....Then Impaled On His Own Sword...

Of COURSE Peter has bastard descents from Charles II, that goes without
saying -- and follows as the night the day.

Charles II had a whole flock of bastards -- 14 or so and NO
legitimates -- and Peter can claim his fair share of said bastards sired by
the Merrie Restoration Monarch -- as his treasured ancestors.

Diana also had such descents from Charles II's bastards.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 13 aug 2007 10:22:58

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:0VUvi.108$wi6.1135@eagle.america.net...
But I am descended several times over from Charles II, so that Henry
VII is not only quite irrelevant to my imagined pride but also not the
most recent sovereign in my ancestry. -- Peter Stewart

N.B. This from the rampant pogue who says he has no interest in such
descents. "I have vanishingly little genealogical interest in anyone who
lived after around the mid-13th century..." -- Peter Stewart.

Hilarious!

Hoist With His Own Petar!...

...Then Impaled On His Own Sword...

For the umpteenth time, I have in my possession a study of my ancestors by
someone else. This is the result of a life's work dedicated to the subject,
by someone acclaimed as an expert (though not always perfectly scholarly),
and it contains very full details and elaborate tables. I got it out and
looked up details when Hines was grilling me in 2004, and did so again this
morning _when I posted this fact_ ("Since Hines wants to play at quibbles
over every last word, the ancestor in question TURNED 15 in 1800, near the
end of that year, on 6 December to be precise. I looked it up").

And of course I never said I had "no interest in such descents", but rather
that I have "vanishingly little" (i.e. not quite nil) interest in the
subject. I have, and had from childhood, a good deal of interest in the
oldest relatives I knew, and in the oldest known by them respectively. But
there it dwindled, partly because I could not hear first-hand accounts of
anyone farther back. That I suppose may have shaped my lack of interest
since.

At any rate, I cannot conceive of a plausible reason why I should ever
disclaim such an interest if I held it, especially in a forum where most of
the participants have a strong interest in the period that I was writing of
(mid-13th to 19th centuries).

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 39 (Chancery Proc., Bridg

Legg inn av John Brandon » 13 aug 2007 16:22:07

Pelhams & Waldegraves already have medieval descents.
What help is that lawsuit?

What harm is it? It never hurts to know more, rather than less, does
it?

Oh, I forgot, you only publish _brand new_ things. Some dribs and
drabs of a "new" two-generation peasant line is generally about the
norm for you.

How about posting some junk about John Gifford or Edmund Hawes?

Leslie

How about getting that ridiculous top knot cut out of your hair? Or
trying to have the surgically-enhanced lips deflated to a normal
level? Sheesh. Talk about your homely freaks ...

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 13 aug 2007 19:30:08

"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

So, that's clearly a bald-faced LIE.

He's known the details of how he descends from this man, Frederick
Howard ---- born in the 18th Century [1785] and killed at the Battle of
Waterloo [1815] ---- since childhood and could recite them from memory -- a
memory that is NOW badly damaged, bruised and bollixed by the Anti-Seizure
Drug Tegretol.

He also knows the precise details of his descent from THIS pair of nobles,
ALSO born in the 18th Century:

360 William Cavendish, 4th Duke of Devonshire, b 1720, d 2 Oct 1764

361 Charlotte Elizabeth Boyle, Baroness Clifford, b 27 Oct 1731, d 8 Dec
1754

As you see, they are Peter's SIXTH Great-Grandparents [of 256 in this 9th
generation] with Ancestor Numbers of #360 and #361.

The 4th Duke of Devonshire and his wife, the Duchess, Baroness Clifford are
ALSO the THIRD Great-Grandparents of Queen Elizabeth, the wife of King
George VI -- Lady Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon [4 August 1900 -30
March 2002].

So, Peter is the FOURTH Cousin of Queen Elizabeth [the Queen Mother], three
times removed -- a SEVENTH cousin to Princes William and Harry -- whom he
dotes on -- and a FIFTH cousin, twice removed, of The Queen herself.

He is WELL AWARE of ALL these details of course.

WHO do you think TOLD ME?

The man Peter Stewart is a LIAR, pure and simple -- a PERNICIOUS, CONSUMMATE
LIAR.

Of COURSE he's interested in how he descends from British Nobility and
Royalty and how he relates to those in the PRESENT, as well as the PAST.

But he tries to HIDE it and LIE that he's only interested in how MEDIAEVAL
FOLKS relate to each other.

Hilarious!

....And DEEEELIGHTFUL!

Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Enjoy!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Richard Smyth at Road Run

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Richard Smyth at Road Run » 13 aug 2007 21:18:48

Hines:

I have two observations about this controvery with Stewart.

First, you say of his interest in his own family history that "he tries to HIDE it and LIE that he's only interested in how MEDIAEVAL FOLKS relate to each other." But that is not at all what he said. He said that his interest in his own genealogy is slight or, as you yourself quote him, it is "vanishingly little". This controversy is taking place in a context which supplies a great deal of evidence that what he has said is true. The archives of this list contain postings by Stewart which show a remarkably broad acquaintance with scholarly literature on medieval topics in a variety of languages, a fact which would be inexplicable if his interests were other than those he describes.

My second point, Hines, concerns an attitude you have expressed several times in this debate and many times in past disputes on this list. You say that you are delighted by the pain that you imagine Stewart is experiencing. Anyone who takes pleasure in the pain of another human being is evil. If you mean what you have been saying, you are evil.

If anyone disagrees with the major premise, I certainly am willing to debate the point. Hines can, of course, rebut the minor premise by repudiating the sentiment that I have attributed to him.

Sincerely,
Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com or
smyth@email.unc.edu

John Brandon

Re: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 39 (Chancery Proc., Bridg

Legg inn av John Brandon » 13 aug 2007 22:08:58

p. 142
--Swanne, James
--Abney, Dannett
--1658; Middlesex; money

p. 144
--Savage, Douglas
--Whitbread, Elizabeth, and others
--1664; Cardington, Bedfordshire

p. 151
--Savage, Douglas
--Whitbread, Elizabeth, and others
--1664; Cardington, Bedfordshire

p. 157
--Sheafe, Thomas, Martha and Elizabeth
--Vivian, Isaac, and Mary his wife
--[no date]; Charing Cross [Middlesex] (answer)

p. 164
--Smith, George, and others
--Pelham, Herbert
--1673; money (answer)

--Smyth, John
--Webb, Henry
--1667; Waltham, Southampton

--Smith, Nathaniel
--Batt, Samuel
--1674; Devizes, Wilts.

p. 184
--Sheringham, William
--Tookie, Job, and others
--1665; Norfolk; money

p. 199
--Townly, Nicholas
--Pagett, Richard, and John
--1664; Westminster, 'The George,' King Street

p. 200
--Townley, William
--Townley, Nicholas
--1671; Littleton manor, Middlesex

p. 216
--Tipping, Bartholomew, and others
--Hippisley, John, and others
--1692; Berks., money

There was an immigrant to New England named Bartholomew Tipping.

http://books.google.com/books?id=AmTJUS ... ew+tipping

http://books.google.com/books?id=R21TuZ ... ew+tipping

p. 221
--Thornedick, Herbert, clerk, and John
--Allington, Hugh, and Anne his wife
--1665; Great Carlton [Lincs.] rectory

p. 224
--Townley, Nicholas
--Peacocke, Mary, widow, and another
--1646; Clerkenwell [Middlesex], St. John Street

p. 231
--Thomas, Edward
--Dobbins, Daniel
--1651; Martley, Worcs.

p. 241
--Towneley, Nicholas, Jane his wife, and others
--Pelham, Sir John, bart. and others
--1672; Eastbourne, etc., Sussex

--Towneley, Nicholas, Jane his wife, and others
--Pelham, Sir John, bart.
--1673; Eastbourne [Sussex]; personal estate of Nicholas Gildridge

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 13 aug 2007 23:38:51

Someone has kindly written to me off list trying to explain why Hines so
persistently makes a total fool of himself repeating his weird falsehoods
long after these have already exploded in his face.

He not only wishes to bathe his unduly common, subterranean nature in what
he sees as the air and sunshine of talk about nobility and royalty - a kind
of snob-ridden Caliban - but he also fantasises that he is an effective
provocateur. Of course he has no talent for this whatsoever, as making
yourself apprear more stupid than anyone else is not a part of the
repertoire, but he also suffers from the fatal flaw of an irredeemably petit
bourgeois mindset: in other words, he is himself the target he wishes to get
a clear shot at.

It is just a self-destructive urge. He adores the British royal family,
altogether and each individual, and can't help himself taking any
opportunity, no matter how irrational and bizarre, to bring up their names.
In the manner of most other pests and morons on the Internet, he projects
his own thoughts as belinging to others, and tries to attack what he hates
without realising it is his own image. Some of the more aggressive lower
mammals, including especially backward feral pigs, behave like this when
confronted with mirrors.

Ah well, the archive is enriched with material for next time, and for the
use of anyone else in whom he should be deluded enough to see himself in
future.

Peter Stewart



"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:1r1wi.112$wi6.1144@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

So, that's clearly a bald-faced LIE.

He's known the details of how he descends from this man, Frederick
Howard ---- born in the 18th Century [1785] and killed at the Battle of
Waterloo [1815] ---- since childhood and could recite them from memory --
a memory that is NOW badly damaged, bruised and bollixed by the
Anti-Seizure Drug Tegretol.

He also knows the precise details of his descent from THIS pair of nobles,
ALSO born in the 18th Century:

360 William Cavendish, 4th Duke of Devonshire, b 1720, d 2 Oct 1764

361 Charlotte Elizabeth Boyle, Baroness Clifford, b 27 Oct 1731, d 8 Dec
1754

As you see, they are Peter's SIXTH Great-Grandparents [of 256 in this 9th
generation] with Ancestor Numbers of #360 and #361.

The 4th Duke of Devonshire and his wife, the Duchess, Baroness Clifford
are
ALSO the THIRD Great-Grandparents of Queen Elizabeth, the wife of King
George VI -- Lady Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon [4 August
1900 -30
March 2002].

So, Peter is the FOURTH Cousin of Queen Elizabeth [the Queen Mother],
three
times removed -- a SEVENTH cousin to Princes William and Harry -- whom he
dotes on -- and a FIFTH cousin, twice removed, of The Queen herself.

He is WELL AWARE of ALL these details of course.

WHO do you think TOLD ME?

The man Peter Stewart is a LIAR, pure and simple -- a PERNICIOUS,
CONSUMMATE
LIAR.

Of COURSE he's interested in how he descends from British Nobility and
Royalty and how he relates to those in the PRESENT, as well as the PAST.

But he tries to HIDE it and LIE that he's only interested in how MEDIAEVAL
FOLKS relate to each other.

Hilarious!

...And DEEEELIGHTFUL!

Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Enjoy!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Steven Loyd

RE: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Steven Loyd » 14 aug 2007 00:05:37

Richard,
I appreciate the "style" whit whom you wrote your post about what you
call a "controversy with Stewart".
But apparently you seems to have forget the main raison of this
"controversy", or the "origin" of the "controversy".
The "controversy" was originated by the absolutely UNACCEPTABLE behavior
whit whom this man, "Stewart" is used to contribute to this list, and I
mean his AGGRESSIVITY, POMPOSITY an INCIVILITY and IMPOLITENESS.
The large majority of the contributors are REALLY TIRED of him.

That's the point you lost, in my humble opinion
Regards






-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Richard Smyth at
Road Runner
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 10:19 PM
To: gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry


Hines:

I have two observations about this .

First, you say of his interest in his own family history that "he tries
to HIDE it and LIE that he's only interested in how MEDIAEVAL FOLKS
relate to each other." But that is not at all what he said. He said
that his interest in his own genealogy is slight or, as you yourself
quote him, it is "vanishingly little". This controversy is taking place
in a context which supplies a great deal of evidence that what he has
said is true. The archives of this list contain postings by Stewart
which show a remarkably broad acquaintance with scholarly literature on
medieval topics in a variety of languages, a fact which would be
inexplicable if his interests were other than those he describes.

My second point, Hines, concerns an attitude you have expressed several
times in this debate and many times in past disputes on this list. You
say that you are delighted by the pain that you imagine Stewart is
experiencing. Anyone who takes pleasure in the pain of another human
being is evil. If you mean what you have been saying, you are evil.

If anyone disagrees with the major premise, I certainly am willing to
debate the point. Hines can, of course, rebut the minor premise by
repudiating the sentiment that I have attributed to him.

Sincerely,
Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com or
smyth@email.unc.edu

-------------------------------
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:
Prestiti da 1.500 a 30.000 Euro. Clicca qui per un preventivo immediato, richiedi subito l’importo e la rata che desideri, con Prometeo basta un clic!
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6918&d=14-8

Steven Loyd

RE: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Steven Loyd » 14 aug 2007 00:24:14

Richard,
I appreciate the "style" whit whom you wrote your post about what you
call a "controversy with Stewart". But apparently you seems to have
forget the main raison of this "controversy", or the "origin" of the
"controversy". The "controversy" was originated by the absolutely
UNACCEPTABLE behavior whit whom this man, "Stewart" is used to
contribute to this list, and I mean his AGGRESSIVITY, POMPOSITY an
INCIVILITY and IMPOLITENESS. The large majority of the contributors are
REALLY TIRED of him.

That's the point you lost, in my humble opinion
Regards






-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Richard Smyth at
Road Runner
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 10:19 PM
To: gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry


Hines:

I have two observations about this .

First, you say of his interest in his own family history that "he tries
to HIDE it and LIE that he's only interested in how MEDIAEVAL FOLKS
relate to each other." But that is not at all what he said. He said
that his interest in his own genealogy is slight or, as you yourself
quote him, it is "vanishingly little". This controversy is taking place
in a context which supplies a great deal of evidence that what he has
said is true. The archives of this list contain postings by Stewart
which show a remarkably broad acquaintance with scholarly literature on
medieval topics in a variety of languages, a fact which would be
inexplicable if his interests were other than those he describes.

My second point, Hines, concerns an attitude you have expressed several
times in this debate and many times in past disputes on this list. You
say that you are delighted by the pain that you imagine Stewart is
experiencing. Anyone who takes pleasure in the pain of another human
being is evil. If you mean what you have been saying, you are evil.

If anyone disagrees with the major premise, I certainly am willing to
debate the point. Hines can, of course, rebut the minor premise by
repudiating the sentiment that I have attributed to him.

Sincerely,
Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com or
smyth@email.unc.edu

-------------------------------
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:
Scegli ciò che stai cercando tra migliaia di annunci, prova con Email.it Annunci, l’inserzione è gratuita!
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6891&d=14-8

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 14 aug 2007 00:52:31

Peter has known the salient details of how he descends from this man,
Frederick Howard [his 4th Great-Grandfather of childish, fantasized
memory] ---- born in the 18th Century [1785] and killed at the Battle of
Waterloo [1815] ---- since childhood and could recite them from memory in
childhood -- memories that are NOW badly damaged, bruised and bollixed by
the Anti-Seizure Drug Tegretol.

He GLORIES in his connection to Queen Elizabeth [the deceased Queen Mother
([2002)] and gossips about his conversations with her -- as he clings to the
Gilded Past and tries to forget his fallen, sharply reduced circumstances --
financial, occupational, physical, material, sexual, and spiritual -- at
present.

The substance abuse doesn't help either...

Poor Blaggard...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

WJhonson

Re: Isabella di Chiaramonte m 1444 Ferdinand I, King of Napl

Legg inn av WJhonson » 14 aug 2007 01:00:26

<<In a message dated 08/12/07 10:20:33 Pacific Standard Time, wood_ce@msn.com writes:
Robert Orsini, Count Palatine of Nola married 1330 Sueva de Baux de Soleto
/

Nicola Orsini, Count of Nola married 1352/1355 Giovanna (or Gorizia)
de Sabran
/
Raymond Orsini Balzo died 1406, married Marie d'Enghien, countess of Lecce

------------------------
What is the source that makes Raymond a son of Jeanne Sabran ?
The chronology looks a bit tight.
Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Maiden name of Joan Champernoun, wife of Robert Gamage,

Legg inn av WJhonson » 14 aug 2007 01:16:05

As Leo suggests, I also have Joan Champernowne married twice, firstly to Robert Gamage of Coity by whom a son John born sometime between 1526 and 1538.

Secondly Joan married Sir Anthony Denny, Knt. Anthony is buried at Cheshunt and died in 1549.

Anthony has a DNB entry, he was knighted in 1544

Anthony and Joan had at least or exactly two children: Honora Denny m Thomas Wingfield of Kimbolton Castle; and Henry Denny, Dean of Chester "eldest son" m Honora Grey of Wilton and had at least six children one of whom was Edward Denny Earl of Norwich.

On another note I have Joan's sister *Elizabeth* married firstly to Otho (or Otis) Gilbert Esq of Compton, Devon by whom at least three sons all knights and *secondly* To Walter Rawleigh Esq of Fardell, Devon by whom Sir Carew and Sir Walter Rawleigh the famous one beheaded in 1618 at the Tower of London

Finally the sister Katherine "Kat" Champernowne who m Sir John Ashley. This sister was the caretaker or governess if you will of the future Queen Bess from the time Bess was four until she was about fourteen, citing Alison Weir "The Children of Henry VIII"

Kat lived into Bess' reign, not dying until 1565 Her husband Sir John Ashley is so-far a complete cypher to me. A very annoying bugger, hard to find.

Will Johnson

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 14 aug 2007 01:21:24

On Aug 14, 9:52 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Peter has known the salient details of how he descends from this man,
Frederick Howard [his 4th Great-Grandfather of childish, fantasized
memory] ---- born in the 18th Century [1785] and killed at the Battle of
Waterloo [1815] ---- since childhood and could recite them from memory in
childhood -- memories that are NOW badly damaged, bruised and bollixed by
the Anti-Seizure Drug Tegretol.

I said and repeat: I have known about this ancestor since learning of
him, as a child, at the same time as learning about the generations
between him and me that were not already known from infancy. His death
a Waterloo did then and does now interest me. When hines wanted to
know about this I had no difficulty in telling him, from memory. There
are no fantasies involved on my part. The memory is not degraded now
by any factor, medical or alcoholic, and was not in 2004. I have not
dissembled about this in any way, and there is nothing I could
possibly wish to hide: there is no conceivable disgrace in having an
ancestor who fought and died at Waterloo, or in remembering details
about this and about his descendants.

He GLORIES in his connection to Queen Elizabeth [the deceased Queen Mother
([2002)] and gossips about his conversations with her -- as he clings to the
Gilded Past and tries to forget his fallen, sharply reduced circumstances --
financial, occupational, physical, material, sexual, and spiritual -- at
present.

My past is no more "Gilded" in my memory than it was in reality. Queen
Elizabeth was never glorious - it is only the reigning monarch who is
supposed to be "happy and glorious". She was certainly happy on most
occasions, especially after lunch, and told many fascinating anecdotes
about her very interesting life, friends and acquaintances. Hines was
told a very few of these, most notably about Joe Kennedy and his hasty
removal from the United Kingdom in 1940. Nothing remotely glorious in
that, for anyone concerned, except maybe gloriously funny in the
telling by one of the participants in the immediate drama.

As for trying to "forget" my present life circumstances, that is more
patent nonsense, as is the notion that Hines could know (as opposed to
fantasise sickly) anything about my sexual and spiritual existence at
any time.

The substance abuse doesn't help either...

This kind of self-abuse by Hines clearly doesn't help him.

Note that he deleted the entire post of mine that he was responding
to: for anyone who is reading this and missed his disastrous Freudian
slip at the very start of this thread, it is copied below.

Peter Stewart

"D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
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.

Here's the proof - Hines wrote "Peter Stewart is lying about me and
my
Ancestry": I had said NOTHING whatsoever about his ancestry, but he
was
obviously fantasising that my ancestors were somehow his own. That's
what he
is up to, trying be endless repetition to familiarise himself with a
few
individuals, with titles shinging bright in the miserable darkness of
social
wish-thinking that he inhabits, and hoping to co-opt them to his cause
if
not to his bloodline.

Not tragic, but grimly farcical.

Peter Stewart

WJhonson

Re: Bewsfield, Kent and the early de Badlesmere family

Legg inn av WJhonson » 14 aug 2007 01:26:07

John I wasn't clear from your post, but can we not connect Joan de Badlesmere, wife of John de Northwode, as a daughter to Gunselm (Gunceline) de Badlesmere, Justiciar of Kent, by his wife JOAN FitzBarnard ?

I don't see a chronologic problem and it would tie her into this same family that produced a Guncelin Badlesmere

Will Johnson

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 14 aug 2007 01:33:10

On Aug 14, 6:18 am, "Richard Smyth at Road Runner" <sm...@nc.rr.com>
wrote:
Hines:

I have two observations about this controvery with Stewart.

First, you say of his interest in his own family history that "he tries to HIDE
it and LIE that he's only interested in how MEDIAEVAL FOLKS relate to
each other." But that is not at all what he said. He said that his interest in
his own genealogy is slight or, as you yourself quote him, it is "vanishingly
little". This controversy is taking place in a context which supplies a great
deal of evidence that what he has said is true. The archives of this list
contain postings by Stewart which show a remarkably broad acquaintance
with scholarly literature on medieval topics in a variety of languages, a fact
which would be inexplicable if his interests were other than those he
describes.

Thank you, Richard. The archive has countless posts from me discussing
genealogical questions relating to people who lived between, roughly,
750 and 1250. There are some, but comparatively very few and those
mainly biographical or historiograhic rather than genealogical,
relating to people who lived between, say, ca 1300 and the end of the
medieval era as defined in the newsgroup FAQ.

Once again, I cannot conceive of any reason why a person would
dissemble about this, even if it could not be demonstrated from an
archive available to everyone reading the thread. Hines on the other
hand dissembles his stupid allegation just to give himself a brief
moment in the oxygen of speaking about nobility and royalty.

This Caliban lives in Hawaii and for him "the isle is full of noises,
Sounds and sweet airs that give delight and hurt not" - these sounds,
of course, being to his demented hearing "Queen", "Prince", "Duke",
"Marquess", "Earl", "The Honourable"....could his motives and his
prissy capitalisations BE any more pathetic?

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 14 aug 2007 01:33:10

On Aug 14, 6:18 am, "Richard Smyth at Road Runner" <sm...@nc.rr.com>
wrote:
Hines:

I have two observations about this controvery with Stewart.

First, you say of his interest in his own family history that "he tries to HIDE
it and LIE that he's only interested in how MEDIAEVAL FOLKS relate to
each other." But that is not at all what he said. He said that his interest in
his own genealogy is slight or, as you yourself quote him, it is "vanishingly
little". This controversy is taking place in a context which supplies a great
deal of evidence that what he has said is true. The archives of this list
contain postings by Stewart which show a remarkably broad acquaintance
with scholarly literature on medieval topics in a variety of languages, a fact
which would be inexplicable if his interests were other than those he
describes.

Thank you, Richard. The archive has countless posts from me discussing
genealogical questions relating to people who lived between, roughly,
750 and 1250. There are some, but comparatively very few and those
mainly biographical or historiograhic rather than genealogical,
relating to people who lived between, say, ca 1300 and the end of the
medieval era as defined in the newsgroup FAQ.

Once again, I cannot conceive of any reason why a person would
dissemble about this, even if it could not be demonstrated from an
archive available to everyone reading the thread. Hines on the other
hand dissembles his stupid allegation just to give himself a brief
moment in the oxygen of speaking about nobility and royalty.

This Caliban lives in Hawaii and for him "the isle is full of noises,
Sounds and sweet airs that give delight and hurt not" - these sounds,
of course, being to his demented hearing "Queen", "Prince", "Duke",
"Marquess", "Earl", "The Honourable"....could his motives and his
prissy capitalisations BE any more pathetic?

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 14 aug 2007 01:33:10

On Aug 14, 6:18 am, "Richard Smyth at Road Runner" <sm...@nc.rr.com>
wrote:
Hines:

I have two observations about this controvery with Stewart.

First, you say of his interest in his own family history that "he tries to HIDE
it and LIE that he's only interested in how MEDIAEVAL FOLKS relate to
each other." But that is not at all what he said. He said that his interest in
his own genealogy is slight or, as you yourself quote him, it is "vanishingly
little". This controversy is taking place in a context which supplies a great
deal of evidence that what he has said is true. The archives of this list
contain postings by Stewart which show a remarkably broad acquaintance
with scholarly literature on medieval topics in a variety of languages, a fact
which would be inexplicable if his interests were other than those he
describes.

Thank you, Richard. The archive has countless posts from me discussing
genealogical questions relating to people who lived between, roughly,
750 and 1250. There are some, but comparatively very few and those
mainly biographical or historiograhic rather than genealogical,
relating to people who lived between, say, ca 1300 and the end of the
medieval era as defined in the newsgroup FAQ.

Once again, I cannot conceive of any reason why a person would
dissemble about this, even if it could not be demonstrated from an
archive available to everyone reading the thread. Hines on the other
hand dissembles his stupid allegation just to give himself a brief
moment in the oxygen of speaking about nobility and royalty.

This Caliban lives in Hawaii and for him "the isle is full of noises,
Sounds and sweet airs that give delight and hurt not" - these sounds,
of course, being to his demented hearing "Queen", "Prince", "Duke",
"Marquess", "Earl", "The Honourable"....could his motives and his
prissy capitalisations BE any more pathetic?

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 14 aug 2007 01:33:10

On Aug 14, 6:18 am, "Richard Smyth at Road Runner" <sm...@nc.rr.com>
wrote:
Hines:

I have two observations about this controvery with Stewart.

First, you say of his interest in his own family history that "he tries to HIDE
it and LIE that he's only interested in how MEDIAEVAL FOLKS relate to
each other." But that is not at all what he said. He said that his interest in
his own genealogy is slight or, as you yourself quote him, it is "vanishingly
little". This controversy is taking place in a context which supplies a great
deal of evidence that what he has said is true. The archives of this list
contain postings by Stewart which show a remarkably broad acquaintance
with scholarly literature on medieval topics in a variety of languages, a fact
which would be inexplicable if his interests were other than those he
describes.

Thank you, Richard. The archive has countless posts from me discussing
genealogical questions relating to people who lived between, roughly,
750 and 1250. There are some, but comparatively very few and those
mainly biographical or historiograhic rather than genealogical,
relating to people who lived between, say, ca 1300 and the end of the
medieval era as defined in the newsgroup FAQ.

Once again, I cannot conceive of any reason why a person would
dissemble about this, even if it could not be demonstrated from an
archive available to everyone reading the thread. Hines on the other
hand dissembles his stupid allegation just to give himself a brief
moment in the oxygen of speaking about nobility and royalty.

This Caliban lives in Hawaii and for him "the isle is full of noises,
Sounds and sweet airs that give delight and hurt not" - these sounds,
of course, being to his demented hearing "Queen", "Prince", "Duke",
"Marquess", "Earl", "The Honourable"....could his motives and his
prissy capitalisations BE any more pathetic?

Peter Stewart

WJhonson

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av WJhonson » 14 aug 2007 01:55:25

<<In a message dated 08/12/07 02:24:41 Pacific Standard Time, leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
Very little is known about the immediate family of Lady Godiva.Godgifu of Backnall died in 1080, I don't know her parents, but about 1030 she married Leofric, Ealdorman of Mercia. It appears there was at least one son, Alfgar, the Saxon, Ealdorman of Mercia.

Alfgar (died about 1059/1062) married Elfgifu and they had four children
1. Ealdgyth married (I) Gruffydd ap Llewelyn (2) King Harold II-----by her 1st husband ancestress of many
2. Edwin
3. Morcar
4. an unnamed son >>

---------------------------
A chronologic problem may be present if we can believe
Living Descendents of Blood Royal, Vol 2,
Count d'Angerville; World Nobility, London. 1962
"Landrum", pg 503-508

Which states that this Nesta died in 1058. They state she was wife to Trahaern, Prince of North Wales (d 1081) and secondly Osbern, son of Richard FitzScrub. They also state that she was daughter of Griffith ap Llewellyn, Prince of North Wales who d 5 Aug 1063 and Editha, dau of Elgar, d 1059, Earl of Mercia.

They cite DNB. 2, 376
I do not know what article that is, my only viewable copy of DNB (1922) refuses to state the volume number :( (This time you can blame Ancestry not Google Books.)

At any rate, if true that Nest died in 1058 then she, in order to be mother to at least two children, must have been born *by* 1043 at the latest. Her mother Ealdgyth (Edith) must have then been born by 1029 and Edith's father Elgar (or Alfgar) by 1011 at the latest.

So this line shows us that either
A) the marriage date of "about 1030" for Lady Godiva is horribly wrong by at least two decades OR
B) Lady Godiva is *not* the ancestor of this line at all.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Sir Edward Duke

Legg inn av WJhonson » 14 aug 2007 02:45:26

Burke's Extinct Baronetcies says that only four children survived Sir Edward Duke

To wit

John, his successor
Robert d unmarried
Elizabeth m Nathaniel Bacon of Friston
Alathea m first Offley Jenny, second Ralph Snelling, third William Foster

http://books.google.com/books?id=DjIGAA ... %22+panton

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: who is Alice Alecia (born about 1373 in Of Swanborne, Ha

Legg inn av WJhonson » 14 aug 2007 03:16:13

Dolores there is/was no such person. Completely made up from nothing.
There is no documentation to show that this line holds together, its just idle speculation and wishful thinking.
Will Johnson



In a message dated 08/11/07 00:27:14 Pacific Standard Time, doloresc.phifer@comcast.net writes:
http://www.geocities.com/oso_beartodd/aqwg73.htm (one of many sources found)

Alice Alecia 1, 2 was born about 1373 in Of Swanborne, Hampshire, England. She married Robert White on 1421 in Swanborne, Hmpshr, , Eng

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 14 aug 2007 05:02:43

"Steven Loyd" <andrra@email.it> wrote in message
news:mailman.437.1187062759.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Richard,
I appreciate the "style" whit whom you wrote your post about what you
call a "controversy with Stewart". But apparently you seems to have
forget the main raison of this "controversy", or the "origin" of the
"controversy". The "controversy" was originated by the absolutely
UNACCEPTABLE behavior whit whom this man, "Stewart" is used to
contribute to this list, and I mean his AGGRESSIVITY, POMPOSITY an
INCIVILITY and IMPOLITENESS. The large majority of the contributors are
REALLY TIRED of him.

That's the point you lost, in my humble opinion

And how did you ascertain that "The large majority of the contributors are
REALLY TIRED" of me?

Did you ask them to vote? Or did they all discover and write to you at the
email address that you (masquerading now as "Steven Loyd" that is) strangely
share with "Antony Andrra" and his multiple personalities?

Does Duke Marco keep you all in a cupboard of the library in his palace? If
so, beware of his erratic urinary habit when he receives this email.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: who is Alice Alecia (born about 1373 in Of Swanborne, Ha

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 aug 2007 06:24:23

On Aug 13, 7:16 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Dolores there is/was no such person. Completely made up from nothing.
There is no documentation to show that this line holds together, its just idle speculation and wishful thinking.
Will Johnson

In a message dated 08/11/07 00:27:14 Pacific Standard Time, doloresc.phi...@comcast.net writes:http://www.geocities.com/oso_beartodd/aqwg73.htm (one of many sources found)

Alice Alecia 1, 2 was born about 1373 in Of Swanborne, Hampshire, England. She married Robert White on 1421 in Swanborne, Hmpshr, , Eng

Will, if you feel "there is/was no such person" and it's "completely
made up from nothing" and it's "just idle speculation and wishful
thinking", you might want to so advise Douglas Richardson, who
published this line in NEHGR as well as in his recent books.

What IS certainly speculation is the assignment in the AF of various
dates to Robert White and his wife Alicia [unknown surname]. But
that's a well-known problem in the AF, and to jump from that known
flaw to discrediting the line as a whole is pretty irresponsible -
especially without checking further.

WJhonson

Re: who is Alice Alecia (born about 1373 in Of Swanborne, Ha

Legg inn av WJhonson » 14 aug 2007 06:51:11

Do you have an exact citation?



In a message dated 08/13/07 22:25:29 Pacific Standard Time, jhigginsgen@yahoo.com writes:
you might want to so advise Douglas Richardson, who
published this line in NEHGR as well as in his recent books.

Leo van de Pas

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 14 aug 2007 06:54:09

Dear Steven Lloyd, who comes with the Andrra e-mail address,

You totally and UNACCEPTABLY place all the messages of Peter Stewart under
the same heading.

I challenge you to find as many supportive messages from Spencer Hines as
Peter Stewart has produced over the last years. I doubt you can find many,
if any at all. Remember only a day or so ago Hines proclaimed a specific
relationship for Eleanor of Aquitaine and when asked to explain how, his
reply was basically "sort it out yourself and why have Peter Stewart or Leo
van de Pas not given the answer?" How pompous and uncivilised is that?

I can see that Peter Stewart's messages in regards to Spencer Hines and
Douglas Richardson appear to be unacceptable to many. But what "many" must
not forget is that in both cases Peter Stewart initially did reply/react to
both in a civil manner, but both spat in Peter's face.

Have you forgotten that at one stage Richardson maintained there was no such
person as Peter Stewart, it was just another name and e-mail for Spencer
Hines-----how ironic in hindsight. And when he had to realise that Hines in
Hawaii was not Peter Stewart in Melbourne, suddenly Richardson maintained
Peter Stewart was a homosexual........what that has to do with medieval
history or genealogy I do not know.

I think, in my humble opinion, most are sick and tired of Spencer Hines who
has the sick need always to have the last word, when even his first words
usually are unacceptable and useless.

You POMPOUSLY attack Peter Stewart, and now I would like to ask you
politely, prove your words and show us that Spencer Hines has outdone Peter
Stewart with supportive, knowledgeable messages. If you can't, I suggest you
POMPOUSLY have been attacking the wrong person.

Do not forget Gen-Med is for history and genealogy. How big a percentage of
Hines's messages are "genealogy" and of those how many give "support or
advice let alone a source"? Also, even though I am Dutch and English is
only my second language, I would suggest to you that you should use a
spell-checker for your messages.

With best wishes.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia



----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Loyd" <andrra@email.it>
To: <gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:05 AM
Subject: RE: Peter Stewart's Ancestry


Richard,
I appreciate the "style" whit whom you wrote your post about what you
call a "controversy with Stewart".
But apparently you seems to have forget the main raison of this
"controversy", or the "origin" of the "controversy".
The "controversy" was originated by the absolutely UNACCEPTABLE behavior
whit whom this man, "Stewart" is used to contribute to this list, and I
mean his AGGRESSIVITY, POMPOSITY an INCIVILITY and IMPOLITENESS.
The large majority of the contributors are REALLY TIRED of him.

That's the point you lost, in my humble opinion
Regards






-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Richard Smyth at
Road Runner
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 10:19 PM
To: gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry


Hines:

I have two observations about this .

First, you say of his interest in his own family history that "he tries
to HIDE it and LIE that he's only interested in how MEDIAEVAL FOLKS
relate to each other." But that is not at all what he said. He said
that his interest in his own genealogy is slight or, as you yourself
quote him, it is "vanishingly little". This controversy is taking place
in a context which supplies a great deal of evidence that what he has
said is true. The archives of this list contain postings by Stewart
which show a remarkably broad acquaintance with scholarly literature on
medieval topics in a variety of languages, a fact which would be
inexplicable if his interests were other than those he describes.

My second point, Hines, concerns an attitude you have expressed several
times in this debate and many times in past disputes on this list. You
say that you are delighted by the pain that you imagine Stewart is
experiencing. Anyone who takes pleasure in the pain of another human
being is evil. If you mean what you have been saying, you are evil.

If anyone disagrees with the major premise, I certainly am willing to
debate the point. Hines can, of course, rebut the minor premise by
repudiating the sentiment that I have attributed to him.

Sincerely,
Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com or
smyth@email.unc.edu

-------------------------------
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:
Prestiti da 1.500 a 30.000 Euro. Clicca qui per un preventivo immediato,
richiedi subito l'importo e la rata che desideri, con Prometeo basta un
clic!
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6918&d=14-8



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


-------------------------------
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: who is Alice Alecia (born about 1373 in Of Swanborne, Ha

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 aug 2007 07:05:13

On Aug 13, 10:51 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Do you have an exact citation?

In a message dated 08/13/07 22:25:29 Pacific Standard Time, jhiggins...@yahoo.com writes:
you might want to so advise Douglas Richardson, who
published this line in NEHGR as well as in his recent books.

For a full citation, check for "Robert White of Farnham" in Google
Books which has RPA available. [I'm surprised - you usually rely
heavily on Google Books....must have overlooked it this time....]

[Hint: it's page 603 of RPA]

WJhonson

Re: who is Alice Alecia (born about 1373 in Of Swanborne, Ha

Legg inn av WJhonson » 14 aug 2007 07:28:18

There isn't much and nothing to link the poster's White line to anybody further up or downstream.

Its under Raynsford in PA here
http://books.google.com/books?id=p_yzpu ... _2I7_UApeQ

We get this line of Whites

Robert White of Farnham, Surrey, merchant of the Staple of Calais
married some Alice and had a son and heir

John White, Gent of South Warnborough and other places
who married Eleanor Hungerford before 1456
they had a son and heir

Robert White of South Warnborough and other places
who married Margaret Gainsford and he died 1512

then the line drifts to a daughter and no more Whites.

The original long line of Whites however has the problem that there's no adequate documentation linking the above Whites to the further continuation of Whites.

That issue should be resolved first before someone creates more fantasy descents

IMHO !!!

Will Johnson

Steven Loyd

RE: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Steven Loyd » 14 aug 2007 08:37:57

Dear Leo,
I don't think the "problem" must seen like a "Stewart-Hines" fight.

The BIG "Stewart" problem must be searched into his "attitude" to reply
whit such a "DELICATESSE":

" ... beware of his erratic urinary habit ...".

I remember you that ALL THIS "Circus" started from a post titled:
"Restoring civility to this list"...
And that's exactly the point: CIVILITY MUST BE RESTORED TO THIS LIST.
And I'm afraid this "goal" could not be reached until "Stewart" write on
it.

Regards

A friend (of Stewart, btw)





-----Original Message-----
From: Leo van de Pas [mailto:leovdpas@netspeed.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:54 AM
To: andrra@email.it; gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry


Dear Steven Lloyd, who comes with the Andrra e-mail address,

You totally and UNACCEPTABLY place all the messages of Peter Stewart
under
the same heading.

I challenge you to find as many supportive messages from Spencer Hines
as
Peter Stewart has produced over the last years. I doubt you can find
many,
if any at all. Remember only a day or so ago Hines proclaimed a specific

relationship for Eleanor of Aquitaine and when asked to explain how, his

reply was basically "sort it out yourself and why have Peter Stewart or
Leo
van de Pas not given the answer?" How pompous and uncivilised is that?

I can see that Peter Stewart's messages in regards to Spencer Hines and
Douglas Richardson appear to be unacceptable to many. But what "many"
must
not forget is that in both cases Peter Stewart initially did reply/react
to
both in a civil manner, but both spat in Peter's face.

Have you forgotten that at one stage Richardson maintained there was no
such
person as Peter Stewart, it was just another name and e-mail for
Spencer
Hines-----how ironic in hindsight. And when he had to realise that Hines
in
Hawaii was not Peter Stewart in Melbourne, suddenly Richardson
maintained
Peter Stewart was a homosexual........what that has to do with medieval
history or genealogy I do not know.

I think, in my humble opinion, most are sick and tired of Spencer Hines
who
has the sick need always to have the last word, when even his first
words
usually are unacceptable and useless.

You POMPOUSLY attack Peter Stewart, and now I would like to ask you
politely, prove your words and show us that Spencer Hines has outdone
Peter
Stewart with supportive, knowledgeable messages. If you can't, I suggest
you
POMPOUSLY have been attacking the wrong person.

Do not forget Gen-Med is for history and genealogy. How big a percentage
of
Hines's messages are "genealogy" and of those how many give "support or
advice let alone a source"? Also, even though I am Dutch and English is

only my second language, I would suggest to you that you should use a
spell-checker for your messages.

With best wishes.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia



----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Loyd" <andrra@email.it>
To: <gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:05 AM
Subject: RE: Peter Stewart's Ancestry


Richard,
I appreciate the "style" whit whom you wrote your post about what you
call a "controversy with Stewart". But apparently you seems to have
forget the main raison of this "controversy", or the "origin" of the
"controversy". The "controversy" was originated by the absolutely
UNACCEPTABLE behavior whit whom this man, "Stewart" is used to
contribute to this list, and I mean his AGGRESSIVITY, POMPOSITY an
INCIVILITY and IMPOLITENESS. The large majority of the contributors
are REALLY TIRED of him.

That's the point you lost, in my humble opinion
Regards






-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Richard Smyth
at Road Runner
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 10:19 PM
To: gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry


Hines:

I have two observations about this .

First, you say of his interest in his own family history that "he
tries to HIDE it and LIE that he's only interested in how MEDIAEVAL
FOLKS relate to each other." But that is not at all what he said. He

said that his interest in his own genealogy is slight or, as you
yourself quote him, it is "vanishingly little". This controversy is
taking place in a context which supplies a great deal of evidence that

what he has said is true. The archives of this list contain postings
by Stewart which show a remarkably broad acquaintance with scholarly
literature on medieval topics in a variety of languages, a fact which
would be inexplicable if his interests were other than those he
describes.

My second point, Hines, concerns an attitude you have expressed
several times in this debate and many times in past disputes on this
list. You say that you are delighted by the pain that you imagine
Stewart is experiencing. Anyone who takes pleasure in the pain of
another human being is evil. If you mean what you have been saying,
you are evil.

If anyone disagrees with the major premise, I certainly am willing to
debate the point. Hines can, of course, rebut the minor premise by
repudiating the sentiment that I have attributed to him.

Sincerely,
Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com or
smyth@email.unc.edu

-------------------------------
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:
Prestiti da 1.500 a 30.000 Euro. Clicca qui per un preventivo
immediato,
richiedi subito l'importo e la rata che desideri, con Prometeo basta
un
clic!
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6918&d=14-8



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


-------------------------------
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:
Viaggi, voli, soggiorni...cattura l'offerta e parti con Mondolastminute
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6850&d=14-8

M. de la Fayette

RE: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av M. de la Fayette » 14 aug 2007 08:50:54

Dear Member of this list,

Such a rude guy like this mr. Stewart cannot be acceptable here.

Salutations

La Fayette

-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Steven Loyd
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:38 AM
To: gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com
Subject: RE: Peter Stewart's Ancestry


Dear Leo,
I don't think the "problem" must seen like a "Stewart-Hines" fight.

The BIG "Stewart" problem must be searched into his "attitude" to reply
whit such a "DELICATESSE":

" ... beware of his erratic urinary habit ...".

I remember you that ALL THIS "Circus" started from a post titled:
"Restoring civility to this list"... And that's exactly the point:
CIVILITY MUST BE RESTORED TO THIS LIST. And I'm afraid this "goal" could
not be reached until "Stewart" write on it.

Regards

A friend (of Stewart, btw)





-----Original Message-----
From: Leo van de Pas [mailto:leovdpas@netspeed.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:54 AM
To: andrra@email.it; gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry


Dear Steven Lloyd, who comes with the Andrra e-mail address,

You totally and UNACCEPTABLY place all the messages of Peter Stewart
under
the same heading.

I challenge you to find as many supportive messages from Spencer Hines
as
Peter Stewart has produced over the last years. I doubt you can find
many,
if any at all. Remember only a day or so ago Hines proclaimed a specific

relationship for Eleanor of Aquitaine and when asked to explain how, his

reply was basically "sort it out yourself and why have Peter Stewart or
Leo
van de Pas not given the answer?" How pompous and uncivilised is that?

I can see that Peter Stewart's messages in regards to Spencer Hines and
Douglas Richardson appear to be unacceptable to many. But what "many"
must
not forget is that in both cases Peter Stewart initially did reply/react
to
both in a civil manner, but both spat in Peter's face.

Have you forgotten that at one stage Richardson maintained there was no
such
person as Peter Stewart, it was just another name and e-mail for
Spencer
Hines-----how ironic in hindsight. And when he had to realise that Hines
in
Hawaii was not Peter Stewart in Melbourne, suddenly Richardson
maintained
Peter Stewart was a homosexual........what that has to do with medieval
history or genealogy I do not know.

I think, in my humble opinion, most are sick and tired of Spencer Hines
who
has the sick need always to have the last word, when even his first
words
usually are unacceptable and useless.

You POMPOUSLY attack Peter Stewart, and now I would like to ask you
politely, prove your words and show us that Spencer Hines has outdone
Peter
Stewart with supportive, knowledgeable messages. If you can't, I suggest
you
POMPOUSLY have been attacking the wrong person.

Do not forget Gen-Med is for history and genealogy. How big a percentage
of
Hines's messages are "genealogy" and of those how many give "support or
advice let alone a source"? Also, even though I am Dutch and English is

only my second language, I would suggest to you that you should use a
spell-checker for your messages.

With best wishes.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia



----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Loyd" <andrra@email.it>
To: <gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:05 AM
Subject: RE: Peter Stewart's Ancestry


Richard,
I appreciate the "style" whit whom you wrote your post about what you
call a "controversy with Stewart". But apparently you seems to have
forget the main raison of this "controversy", or the "origin" of the
"controversy". The "controversy" was originated by the absolutely
UNACCEPTABLE behavior whit whom this man, "Stewart" is used to
contribute to this list, and I mean his AGGRESSIVITY, POMPOSITY an
INCIVILITY and IMPOLITENESS. The large majority of the contributors
are REALLY TIRED of him.

That's the point you lost, in my humble opinion
Regards






-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Richard Smyth
at Road Runner
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 10:19 PM
To: gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry


Hines:

I have two observations about this .

First, you say of his interest in his own family history that "he
tries to HIDE it and LIE that he's only interested in how MEDIAEVAL
FOLKS relate to each other." But that is not at all what he said. He

said that his interest in his own genealogy is slight or, as you
yourself quote him, it is "vanishingly little". This controversy is
taking place in a context which supplies a great deal of evidence that

what he has said is true. The archives of this list contain postings
by Stewart which show a remarkably broad acquaintance with scholarly
literature on medieval topics in a variety of languages, a fact which
would be inexplicable if his interests were other than those he
describes.

My second point, Hines, concerns an attitude you have expressed
several times in this debate and many times in past disputes on this
list. You say that you are delighted by the pain that you imagine
Stewart is experiencing. Anyone who takes pleasure in the pain of
another human being is evil. If you mean what you have been saying,
you are evil.

If anyone disagrees with the major premise, I certainly am willing to
debate the point. Hines can, of course, rebut the minor premise by
repudiating the sentiment that I have attributed to him.

Sincerely,
Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com or
smyth@email.unc.edu

-------------------------------
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:
Prestiti da 1.500 a 30.000 Euro. Clicca qui per un preventivo
immediato,
richiedi subito l'importo e la rata che desideri, con Prometeo basta
un
clic!
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6918&d=14-8



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


-------------------------------
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:
Viaggi, voli, soggiorni...cattura l'offerta e parti con Mondolastminute
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6850&d=14-8

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

Leo van de Pas

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 14 aug 2007 09:01:42

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Loyd" <andrra@email.it>
To: <gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 5:37 PM
Subject: RE: Peter Stewart's Ancestry


Dear Leo,
I don't think the "problem" must (*be*).seen like a "Stewart-Hines"
fight.------------you do need a spell or grammar checker......

===== I agree in a way. There is more than one problem. But let us stay with
Hines. I sincerely believe that when a person is attacked, any person, it
should be possible to find a defense for that person, and when everybody
attacks one person, I start to wonder. The pack is out, and packs usually
are a collection of cowards. And then, foolish person I am, I come to the
support of that victim. I wonder whether Hines has started to recognise
himself? Perhaps, if he is capable of remembering a few years back..

Several years ago, the "pack" were attacking Hines and I came to his
defense, I was the only one, and in hindsight I should not have bothered.

Hines changes his attitude towards people, first they are either dirt and
then they become the best thing since sliced bread only to revert again to
dirt. I wonder where Richardson at the moment is in this process.
The BIG "Stewart" problem must be searched into his "attitude" to reply
whit such a "DELICATESSE":

" ... beware of his erratic urinary habit ...".
========== Are you suprised by this remark? Remember one idiot (it wasn't

you was it?) who said he urinated on the e-mail messages of Peter Stewart.
Well how sane is that? Surely Peter Stewart is allowed to make sure people
won't forget?
I remember you that ALL THIS "Circus" started from a post titled:
"Restoring civility to this list"...
And that's exactly the point: CIVILITY MUST BE RESTORED TO THIS LIST.
And I'm afraid this "goal" could not be reached until "Stewart" write on
it.
========== You think that civility can be restored once Peter Stewart "write

on it".......write on what? The subject? What do you think he has been
doing?

You say your name is Steven Loyd (isn't Loyd spelled with two letters L? I
know there are a few, but still, do you know?) but the feel of your messages
is that English is not your first language. And if that is the case, it
seems you may not have followed what is going on, and you only see the
headlines. No wonder you are blinded, how can you grasp what is going on?

You still haven't justified your previous message. Good trick, change the
subject. Your attack on Peter Stewart can only be seen as a support for
Hines (or do you have your own axe to grind in regards to Peter Stewart?)
and so again I ask you, how much more helpful has Hines been over the last
few years in comparison with Peter Stewart? And if Hines comes wanting, and
he does, you have been POMPOUSLY attacking the wrong person.

Get a word, grammar checker, as perhaps your message may not come across
they way you intend.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

Regards

A friend (of Stewart, btw)





-----Original Message-----
From: Leo van de Pas [mailto:leovdpas@netspeed.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:54 AM
To: andrra@email.it; gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry


Dear Steven Lloyd, who comes with the Andrra e-mail address,

You totally and UNACCEPTABLY place all the messages of Peter Stewart
under
the same heading.

I challenge you to find as many supportive messages from Spencer Hines
as
Peter Stewart has produced over the last years. I doubt you can find
many,
if any at all. Remember only a day or so ago Hines proclaimed a specific

relationship for Eleanor of Aquitaine and when asked to explain how, his

reply was basically "sort it out yourself and why have Peter Stewart or
Leo
van de Pas not given the answer?" How pompous and uncivilised is that?

I can see that Peter Stewart's messages in regards to Spencer Hines and
Douglas Richardson appear to be unacceptable to many. But what "many"
must
not forget is that in both cases Peter Stewart initially did reply/react
to
both in a civil manner, but both spat in Peter's face.

Have you forgotten that at one stage Richardson maintained there was no
such
person as Peter Stewart, it was just another name and e-mail for
Spencer
Hines-----how ironic in hindsight. And when he had to realise that Hines
in
Hawaii was not Peter Stewart in Melbourne, suddenly Richardson
maintained
Peter Stewart was a homosexual........what that has to do with medieval
history or genealogy I do not know.

I think, in my humble opinion, most are sick and tired of Spencer Hines
who
has the sick need always to have the last word, when even his first
words
usually are unacceptable and useless.

You POMPOUSLY attack Peter Stewart, and now I would like to ask you
politely, prove your words and show us that Spencer Hines has outdone
Peter
Stewart with supportive, knowledgeable messages. If you can't, I suggest
you
POMPOUSLY have been attacking the wrong person.

Do not forget Gen-Med is for history and genealogy. How big a percentage
of
Hines's messages are "genealogy" and of those how many give "support or
advice let alone a source"? Also, even though I am Dutch and English is

only my second language, I would suggest to you that you should use a
spell-checker for your messages.

With best wishes.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia



----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Loyd" <andrra@email.it
To: <gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:05 AM
Subject: RE: Peter Stewart's Ancestry



Richard,
I appreciate the "style" whit whom you wrote your post about what you
call a "controversy with Stewart". But apparently you seems to have
forget the main raison of this "controversy", or the "origin" of the
"controversy". The "controversy" was originated by the absolutely
UNACCEPTABLE behavior whit whom this man, "Stewart" is used to
contribute to this list, and I mean his AGGRESSIVITY, POMPOSITY an
INCIVILITY and IMPOLITENESS. The large majority of the contributors
are REALLY TIRED of him.

That's the point you lost, in my humble opinion
Regards






-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Richard Smyth
at Road Runner
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 10:19 PM
To: gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry


Hines:

I have two observations about this .

First, you say of his interest in his own family history that "he
tries to HIDE it and LIE that he's only interested in how MEDIAEVAL
FOLKS relate to each other." But that is not at all what he said. He

said that his interest in his own genealogy is slight or, as you
yourself quote him, it is "vanishingly little". This controversy is
taking place in a context which supplies a great deal of evidence that

what he has said is true. The archives of this list contain postings
by Stewart which show a remarkably broad acquaintance with scholarly
literature on medieval topics in a variety of languages, a fact which
would be inexplicable if his interests were other than those he
describes.

My second point, Hines, concerns an attitude you have expressed
several times in this debate and many times in past disputes on this
list. You say that you are delighted by the pain that you imagine
Stewart is experiencing. Anyone who takes pleasure in the pain of
another human being is evil. If you mean what you have been saying,
you are evil.

If anyone disagrees with the major premise, I certainly am willing to
debate the point. Hines can, of course, rebut the minor premise by
repudiating the sentiment that I have attributed to him.

Sincerely,
Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com or
smyth@email.unc.edu

-------------------------------
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:
Prestiti da 1.500 a 30.000 Euro. Clicca qui per un preventivo
immediato,
richiedi subito l'importo e la rata che desideri, con Prometeo basta
un
clic!
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6918&d=14-8



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



-------------------------------
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:
Viaggi, voli, soggiorni...cattura l'offerta e parti con Mondolastminute
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6850&d=14-8

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

Leo van de Pas

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 14 aug 2007 09:05:50

To use a Hinesian expression HILARIOUS. I would rather have good genealogy
dished out with RUDE language, than questionable material supplied in a
swarmy language. Just because this Steven Loyd (who himself is questionable)
says so, you blindly accept that? You are gullible.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "M. de la Fayette" <Fayette@hotmail.com>
To: <gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 5:50 PM
Subject: RE: Peter Stewart's Ancestry


Dear Member of this list,

Such a rude guy like this mr. Stewart cannot be acceptable here.

Salutations

La Fayette

-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Steven Loyd
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:38 AM
To: gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com
Subject: RE: Peter Stewart's Ancestry


Dear Leo,
I don't think the "problem" must seen like a "Stewart-Hines" fight.

The BIG "Stewart" problem must be searched into his "attitude" to reply
whit such a "DELICATESSE":

" ... beware of his erratic urinary habit ...".

I remember you that ALL THIS "Circus" started from a post titled:
"Restoring civility to this list"... And that's exactly the point:
CIVILITY MUST BE RESTORED TO THIS LIST. And I'm afraid this "goal" could
not be reached until "Stewart" write on it.

Regards

A friend (of Stewart, btw)





-----Original Message-----
From: Leo van de Pas [mailto:leovdpas@netspeed.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:54 AM
To: andrra@email.it; gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry


Dear Steven Lloyd, who comes with the Andrra e-mail address,

You totally and UNACCEPTABLY place all the messages of Peter Stewart
under
the same heading.

I challenge you to find as many supportive messages from Spencer Hines
as
Peter Stewart has produced over the last years. I doubt you can find
many,
if any at all. Remember only a day or so ago Hines proclaimed a specific

relationship for Eleanor of Aquitaine and when asked to explain how, his

reply was basically "sort it out yourself and why have Peter Stewart or
Leo
van de Pas not given the answer?" How pompous and uncivilised is that?

I can see that Peter Stewart's messages in regards to Spencer Hines and
Douglas Richardson appear to be unacceptable to many. But what "many"
must
not forget is that in both cases Peter Stewart initially did reply/react
to
both in a civil manner, but both spat in Peter's face.

Have you forgotten that at one stage Richardson maintained there was no
such
person as Peter Stewart, it was just another name and e-mail for
Spencer
Hines-----how ironic in hindsight. And when he had to realise that Hines
in
Hawaii was not Peter Stewart in Melbourne, suddenly Richardson
maintained
Peter Stewart was a homosexual........what that has to do with medieval
history or genealogy I do not know.

I think, in my humble opinion, most are sick and tired of Spencer Hines
who
has the sick need always to have the last word, when even his first
words
usually are unacceptable and useless.

You POMPOUSLY attack Peter Stewart, and now I would like to ask you
politely, prove your words and show us that Spencer Hines has outdone
Peter
Stewart with supportive, knowledgeable messages. If you can't, I suggest
you
POMPOUSLY have been attacking the wrong person.

Do not forget Gen-Med is for history and genealogy. How big a percentage
of
Hines's messages are "genealogy" and of those how many give "support or
advice let alone a source"? Also, even though I am Dutch and English is

only my second language, I would suggest to you that you should use a
spell-checker for your messages.

With best wishes.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia



----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Loyd" <andrra@email.it
To: <gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:05 AM
Subject: RE: Peter Stewart's Ancestry



Richard,
I appreciate the "style" whit whom you wrote your post about what you
call a "controversy with Stewart". But apparently you seems to have
forget the main raison of this "controversy", or the "origin" of the
"controversy". The "controversy" was originated by the absolutely
UNACCEPTABLE behavior whit whom this man, "Stewart" is used to
contribute to this list, and I mean his AGGRESSIVITY, POMPOSITY an
INCIVILITY and IMPOLITENESS. The large majority of the contributors
are REALLY TIRED of him.

That's the point you lost, in my humble opinion
Regards






-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Richard Smyth
at Road Runner
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 10:19 PM
To: gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry


Hines:

I have two observations about this .

First, you say of his interest in his own family history that "he
tries to HIDE it and LIE that he's only interested in how MEDIAEVAL
FOLKS relate to each other." But that is not at all what he said. He

said that his interest in his own genealogy is slight or, as you
yourself quote him, it is "vanishingly little". This controversy is
taking place in a context which supplies a great deal of evidence that

what he has said is true. The archives of this list contain postings
by Stewart which show a remarkably broad acquaintance with scholarly
literature on medieval topics in a variety of languages, a fact which
would be inexplicable if his interests were other than those he
describes.

My second point, Hines, concerns an attitude you have expressed
several times in this debate and many times in past disputes on this
list. You say that you are delighted by the pain that you imagine
Stewart is experiencing. Anyone who takes pleasure in the pain of
another human being is evil. If you mean what you have been saying,
you are evil.

If anyone disagrees with the major premise, I certainly am willing to
debate the point. Hines can, of course, rebut the minor premise by
repudiating the sentiment that I have attributed to him.

Sincerely,
Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com or
smyth@email.unc.edu

-------------------------------
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:
Prestiti da 1.500 a 30.000 Euro. Clicca qui per un preventivo
immediato,
richiedi subito l'importo e la rata che desideri, con Prometeo basta
un
clic!
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6918&d=14-8



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



-------------------------------
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:
Viaggi, voli, soggiorni...cattura l'offerta e parti con Mondolastminute
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6850&d=14-8

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

Gjest

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 aug 2007 09:15:44

On 14 Aug., 08:50, "M. de la Fayette" <Faye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dear Member of this list,

Such a rude guy like this mr. Stewart cannot be acceptable here.

Salutations

La Fayette

Dear Boring Nym-Shifter

Actually, Peter Stewart is entirely acceptable here. His expert
genealogical contributions are of considerable value and his
principled stand against charlatans and idiots is admirable.

What is not acceptable is gutter-sniping, and pretending to be a
someone you're not. You are very dull and completely out of touch.
There's nothing to admire about you, and plenty to despise. If you
have any mediaeval genealogy to contribute for a change (which I
doubt), kindly do so; otherwise slink back into your toilet-bowl and
stay there.

As for "Mr" Hines, what can I say? An officer, perhaps, but certainly
no gentleman. You seem to think you are very clever and funny, but it
is painfully obvious every time you post that you are a fool. It is
beyond me why anyone would be so utterly determined to broadcast to
the world that he is an idiot. With respect to Peter, Hines does a
much better job of this himself than anyone else could on his behalf.
It is very sad to think that his children will be able to do a google
search on their father and see his embarrassing stupidity blazoned
abroad. Whatever meds you're supposed to be taking, Hines, go back
onto them, please.

Could we all go back to mediaeval genealogy now please? (Except you,
Hines; you have nothing to offer on that score, so you can go back
into your cess-pit too, thanks.) Let the trolls micturate into the
wind.

MAR

John Plant

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av John Plant » 14 aug 2007 09:30:02

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
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


Will,

These are not holes in "my" logic. It was not me who set off on this
line of reasoning. I agree that 2% to 5% is *rather* arbitrary. I have
said all along that it is just a "ball park" figure. It comes from the
GENEALOGY-DNA discussion list where they have a better feel for the
current "state of the art". As more data becomes available, there will
presumably be improved estimates of what are typical rates for various
populations. This is not an exact science, however, and it is you more
than me who is trying to discuss it as though it were one.

John

John Plant

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av John Plant » 14 aug 2007 09:36:45

WJhonson wrote:
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


Will,

Here we are more or less on the same wavelength. However, I am not
saying: "they said it, it must be true". What I am saying is: this is
the current rule of thumb for the current state of the art.

This rule of thumb has to be seem in the context of the previous
methodology for name distribution data: "only small families in a single
area can be regarded as a single family". At least the DNA evidence
provides an advance on this. If you look at my Nomina 28 paper, you will
see that I discuss the Y-DNA evidence *in conjunction with* the name
distribution data.

John

John Plant

Re: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project

Legg inn av John Plant » 14 aug 2007 09:57:57

taf wrote:

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?

This was posted at:

http://www.genforum.genealogy.com/plant ... /1213.html

There didn't seem to be enough detail for it to be very convincing; but
perhaps it means more to you than to me.

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.

There was a female link in the descent when Hamlin "Plantagenet" married
into the Warenne family in 1164.

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


I have taken some interest in the early Warenne family of Poynton (since
that became the main Plant homeland, as in Figure 1 of my Nomina 28
paper). Btw, they did not use Warren as a surname. However, I have not
looked into the more recent descent of this family (though I believe the
main line became extinct - I can't remember exactly when - perhaps a
century or so ago as far as I remember.

John

Richard Smyth at Road Run

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Richard Smyth at Road Run » 14 aug 2007 15:15:03

Steven:
I take your point. Nobody likes to be whacked. Stewart has whacked me
more than once---for example, if I remember correctly, when I called
attention to the fact that Richardson's work had received favorable reviews
in respectable journals. But there are one or two considerations that you
need to keep in mind.

In the first place, what you and I see as aggressiveness, incivility and
impoliteness is near the norm for behavior among intellectuals who have
lived in Australia. In my area of competence (which is not, I grant,
genealogy) some of the best work in the world is being done by Australians,
many of whom I have observed. "Lacking aggressiveness", "civil" and
"polite" are not terms I would use to describe the norm in that group.

There is a second, more important, point to be made here. The fact that
someone causes me pain is not,. for me, a reason to condemn that person.
The individuals who caused me the most physical pain were my Marine Corps
drill instructors. They whacked me around and one of them knocked me out.
(I have a funny story about that, but I suppose it is not really apposite
here.) They did it because they believed they needed to do it to get my
attention, not because they enjoyed causing pain. The one who knocked me
out taught me that I was not as smart as I thought I was. That is something
that neither a Magna degree from Yale nor a year listening to Heidegger at
Freiburg had managed to bring to my attention. If it were not for Paris
Island, I might never have seen the truth of fallibilism.

To the extent that Stewart's behavior is anything more than an acquired
Australian style of discussion, I have no reason to suppose that his motives
are any different from the motives of my drill instructors.

Regards,

Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com

I appreciate the "style" whit whom you wrote your post about what you
call a "controversy with Stewart". But apparently you seems to have
forget the main raison of this "controversy", or the "origin" of the
"controversy". The "controversy" was originated by the absolutely
UNACCEPTABLE behavior whit whom this man, "Stewart" is used to
contribute to this list, and I mean his AGGRESSIVITY, POMPOSITY an
INCIVILITY and IMPOLITENESS.

Doug McDonald

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 14 aug 2007 15:23:02

WJhonson wrote:
In a message dated 08/12/07 02:24:41 Pacific Standard Time, leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
Very little is known about the immediate family of Lady Godiva.Godgifu of Backnall died in 1080, I don't know her parents, but about 1030 she married Leofric, Ealdorman of Mercia. It appears there was at least one son, Alfgar, the Saxon, Ealdorman of Mercia.

Alfgar (died about 1059/1062) married Elfgifu and they had four children
1. Ealdgyth married (I) Gruffydd ap Llewelyn (2) King Harold II-----by her 1st husband ancestress of many
2. Edwin
3. Morcar
4. an unnamed son

---------------------------
A chronologic problem may be present if we can believe
Living Descendents of Blood Royal, Vol 2,
Count d'Angerville; World Nobility, London. 1962
"Landrum", pg 503-508

Which states that this Nesta died in 1058.

Every source I have states that she was BORN about 1058, not DIED. This fits fine.

Doug McDonald

Gjest

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 aug 2007 15:36:08

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].

Poor old thing, seems he really messed himself up in that spill from
the motorcycle. I once flew off of a bicycle when I was fifteen and
slammed into a tree, knocking myself out for a few seconds, and
"acquiring" double vision for about twenty minutes, but fortunately it
didn't do any permanent damage. At least nothing like epilepsy,
acquired brain injury, and trigeminal neuralgia.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 14 aug 2007 17:16:43

He GLORIES in his connection to Queen Elizabeth [the deceased Queen Mother
([2002)] and gossips about his conversations with her -- as he clings to the
Gilded Past and tries to forget his fallen, sharply reduced circumstances --
financial, occupational, physical, material, sexual, and spiritual -- at
present.

The substance abuse doesn't help either...

Poor Blaggard...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

John Higgins

Re: who is Alice Alecia (born about 1373 in Of Swanborne, Ha

Legg inn av John Higgins » 14 aug 2007 17:18:46

If you took the time to follow up on some of the references in RPA, you'd
find that the line does in fact continue, with at least some reasonable
documentation, for at least a few more generations beyond what you've listed
below. Thus it's pretty broad and unsupported to say that the entire line
is "just idle speculation and wishful thinking". And there is no foundation
for the claim that Alicia, whom the original post addressed, is "completely
made up from nothing". There may indeed be some (or many) specific problems
with the line, but the broad assertions made in the original response are
inappropriate and inaccurate.

This line in itself is of little interest to me, and I don't propose to go
into further detail pursuing it - those who are interested can do this. But
I do feel that unsupported assertions, either for or against a line, made
without sufficeint (or even any) research are unwarranted here and should be
challenged.

I will now step down from my soapbox....

----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: who is Alice Alecia (born about 1373 in Of Swanborne,
Hampshire,England), wife of Robert White, married on 1421


There isn't much and nothing to link the poster's White line to anybody
further up or downstream.

Its under Raynsford in PA here

http://books.google.com/books?id=p_yzpu ... a87&dq=Rob

ert+White+Swanborne&sig=zbLL2MmU62GbKdJvg_2I7_UApeQ
We get this line of Whites

Robert White of Farnham, Surrey, merchant of the Staple of Calais
married some Alice and had a son and heir

John White, Gent of South Warnborough and other places
who married Eleanor Hungerford before 1456
they had a son and heir

Robert White of South Warnborough and other places
who married Margaret Gainsford and he died 1512

then the line drifts to a daughter and no more Whites.

The original long line of Whites however has the problem that there's no
adequate documentation linking the above Whites to the further continuation

of Whites.
That issue should be resolved first before someone creates more fantasy
descents

IMHO !!!

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: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 14 aug 2007 17:24:45

Recte:

He GLORIES in his connection to Queen Elizabeth [the deceased Queen Mother
(2002)] and gossips about his conversations with her -- as he clings to the
Gilded Past and tries to forget his fallen, sharply reduced circumstances --
financial, occupational, physical, material, sexual, and spiritual -- at
present.

The substance abuse doesn't help either...

Poor Blaggard...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

Dolores C. Phifer

Re: who is Alice Alecia (born about 1373 in Of Swanborne, Ha

Legg inn av Dolores C. Phifer » 14 aug 2007 17:31:36

Good Morning all.

Well, that may be one way of looking at it Will ... or that Robert WHITE's
wife's first name may have been Alice or Alecia with her surname lost.

From what has been discovered of my earliest COBBS/COBB (aka
COBBES/COBBE/COB) line there are several lines where only the males COBBS

were listed, not the wives. It was listed that one "the Black Death". I do
not know enough about the early history of Hope St. Mary, New Romney; Romney
Marshes; Herne; Reculver; Chilham, Newchurch, and Aldington, England between
the 1200s and 1300s to explain the lack of documentation of the wives in our
family... perhaps the constant invasion of the French, etc may have had
something to do with it. I am not bashing the French... cause I have a few
early on French ancestors as well. From what I've learned about the early
WHITE family... we are missing a lot from those years as well... including
this Robert WHITE and his wife Alice/Alecia.

I've learned a lot about the early history of our family from this book on

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... ntents.htm
T H E C O B B S O F K E N T ,1260 - 1910

by R. S. Cobb, M.C., F.R.I.B.A.



Can any of you history buffs recommend any other books to read that would
discuss the early years of Kent and the areas around Kent? We have the
red/auburn hair that pops up in the COBB side of the family once in a
while... must have been from one or two of old Jute invasions that I read
about in that part of ole England. That would be interesting as well to
learn more about.

Thanks for your help
Dolores Cobb Phifer


----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 10:16 PM
Subject: Re: who is Alice Alecia (born about 1373 in Of Swanborne,
Hampshire,England), wife of Robert White, married on 1421


Dolores there is/was no such person. Completely made up from nothing.
There is no documentation to show that this line holds together, its just
idle speculation and wishful thinking.
Will Johnson



In a message dated 08/11/07 00:27:14 Pacific Standard Time,
doloresc.phifer@comcast.net writes:
http://www.geocities.com/oso_beartodd/aqwg73.htm (one of many sources
found)

Alice Alecia 1, 2 was born about 1373 in Of Swanborne, Hampshire, England.
She married Robert White on 1421 in Swanborne, Hmpshr, , Eng

John Brandon

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av John Brandon » 14 aug 2007 17:36:30

To use a Hinesian expression HILARIOUS. I would rather have good genealogy
dished out with RUDE language, than questionable material supplied in a

And yet he killfiles me. Go figure.

Dolores C. Phifer

Re: who is Alice Alecia (born about 1373 in Of Swanborne, Ha

Legg inn av Dolores C. Phifer » 14 aug 2007 17:41:50

Hello JH. Thanks for giving me someplace to research. I'd like to help
solve if possible some of the missing puzzles in the family history. There
are plenty of sources out there yet to be found. For a period in time, some
of my ancestors bore the title of Esquire and served positions in the towns
where they lived...there must be records somewhere. Perhaps in time they
will be discovered. Perhaps... some of the early lines where we do know who
the females are perhaps they may have some information that will help fill
in the voids. Time will tell... or not.

Thanks again.
Dolores Cobb Phifer

----- Original Message -----
From: <jhigginsgen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 1:24 AM
Subject: Re: who is Alice Alecia (born about 1373 in Of Swanborne,
Hampshire,England), wife of Robert White, married on 1421


In a message dated 08/11/07 00:27:14 Pacific Standard Time,
doloresc.phi...@comcast.net
writes:http://www.geocities.com/oso_beartodd/aqwg73.htm (one of many
sources found)

Alice Alecia 1, 2 was born about 1373 in Of Swanborne, Hampshire,
England. She married Robert White on 1421 in Swanborne, Hmpshr, , Eng

you might want to so advise Douglas Richardson, who
published this line in NEHGR as well as in his recent books.

What IS certainly speculation is the assignment in the AF of various
dates to Robert White and his wife Alicia [unknown surname]. But
that's a well-known problem in the AF, ...

Dolores C. Phifer

Re: who is Alice Alecia (born about 1373 in Of Swanborne, Ha

Legg inn av Dolores C. Phifer » 14 aug 2007 17:52:24

Thanks again.
Dolores Cobb Phifer

----- Original Message -----
From: <jhigginsgen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 2:05 AM
Subject: Re: who is Alice Alecia (born about 1373 in Of Swanborne,
Hampshire,England), wife of Robert White, married on 1421

In a message dated 08/13/07 22:25:29 Pacific Standard Time,
jhiggins...@yahoo.com writes:
you might want to so advise Douglas Richardson, who
published this line in NEHGR as well as in his recent books.

For a full citation, check for "Robert White of Farnham" in Google
Books which has RPA available. [I'm surprised - you usually rely
heavily on Google Books....must have overlooked it this time....]
[Hint: it's page 603 of RPA]

Dolores C. Phifer

Re: who is Alice Alecia (born about 1373 in Of Swanborne, Ha

Legg inn av Dolores C. Phifer » 14 aug 2007 17:56:42

Thanks Will, I'll check this out as well.
Dolores Cobb Phifer

----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 2:28 AM
Subject: Re: who is Alice Alecia (born about 1373 in Of Swanborne,
Hampshire,England), wife of Robert White, married on 1421


There isn't much and nothing to link the poster's White line to anybody
further up or downstream.

Its under Raynsford in PA here
http://books.google.com/books?id=p_yzpu ... _2I7_UApeQ

We get this line of Whites

Robert White of Farnham, Surrey, merchant of the Staple of Calais
married some Alice and had a son and heir

John White, Gent of South Warnborough and other places
who married Eleanor Hungerford before 1456
they had a son and heir

Robert White of South Warnborough and other places
who married Margaret Gainsford and he died 1512

then the line drifts to a daughter and no more Whites.

The original long line of Whites however has the problem that there's no
adequate documentation linking the above Whites to the further
continuation of Whites.

That issue should be resolved first before someone creates more fantasy
descents

IMHO !!!

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

TJ Booth

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av TJ Booth » 14 aug 2007 17:58:31

Will,

The 'Living Descents' information is indeed wrong, since Nesta didn't d. in
1058, she was b. abt then. Her mother Ealdgyth/Editha (still living at the
time of the 1086 Domesday census) was m. just a year or 2 before then.

You are nevertheless right that there is a chronology squeeze - all due to
Godgifu's traditional "b. 1010, m. 1030" dates. Perhaps Leo (who shows an
even later "b. 1020" on his website) is hoping some discussion/consensus can
move her dates back.

Wikipedia shows her "b. 990? - d. 10 Sep 1067", which almost makes sense. AR
notes her husband was thegn in 1005 (i.e. b. bef 985) and that he d. 31 Aug
1057, so he would have been at least 45 if he m. in 1030 and at least 82
when he d. The 1030 marriage date is probably calculated back from her son
Aelfgar being of age in 1051 - a dubious calculation if the other chronology
doesn't fit.

If one instead assumes Godgifu was b. say 1000, the chronology makes far
better sense and still fits the facts. Godgifu would still be 15 years
younger than her husband, but a more reasonable difference than 25 years. A
marriage date abt 1020 is then reasonable, allowing Aelfgar to be b. say
1022 (still of age in 1051). Ealdgyth/Editha could then be b. say 1040, so
her "abt 1057" Fitz Richard wedding becomes reasonable. The
Ealdgyth/Trahearn marriage you noted is unproven and doubtful so should be
excluded.

Leo has two descents on his website via Ealdgyth and Fitz Richard's
children. The traditional one he shows can be found well documented in AR
8th edition, lines 176A and 177 (there is also a line 176B which starts with
Trahearn, but no wife is shown nor is Ealfgyth mentioned). Leo also shows a
different line through Ealdgyth and Fitz Richard developed by John Ravilious
& Rosie Bevan in 2002.

Hopefully you and others can improve on these dates or document other lines.
Some have suggested a descent from daughter Erminhild, but apparently there
is little evidence.

Terry Booth

Chicago

----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: Lady Godiva


In a message dated 08/12/07 02:24:41 Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
Very little is known about the immediate family of Lady Godiva.Godgifu of
Backnall died in 1080, I don't know her parents, but about 1030 she
married Leofric, Ealdorman of Mercia. It appears there was at least one
son, Alfgar, the Saxon, Ealdorman of Mercia.

Alfgar (died about 1059/1062) married Elfgifu and they had four children
1. Ealdgyth married (I) Gruffydd ap Llewelyn (2) King Harold II-----by her
1st husband ancestress of many
2. Edwin
3. Morcar
4. an unnamed son

---------------------------
A chronologic problem may be present if we can believe
Living Descendents of Blood Royal, Vol 2,
Count d'Angerville; World Nobility, London. 1962
"Landrum", pg 503-508

Which states that this Nesta died in 1058. They state she was wife to
Trahaern, Prince of North Wales (d 1081) and secondly Osbern, son of
Richard FitzScrub. They also state that she was daughter of Griffith ap
Llewellyn, Prince of North Wales who d 5 Aug 1063 and Editha, dau of
Elgar, d 1059, Earl of Mercia.

They cite DNB. 2, 376
I do not know what article that is, my only viewable copy of DNB (1922)
refuses to state the volume number :( (This time you can blame Ancestry
not Google Books.)

At any rate, if true that Nest died in 1058 then she, in order to be
mother to at least two children, must have been born *by* 1043 at the
latest. Her mother Ealdgyth (Edith) must have then been born by 1029 and
Edith's father Elgar (or Alfgar) by 1011 at the latest.

So this line shows us that either
A) the marriage date of "about 1030" for Lady Godiva is horribly wrong by
at least two decades OR
B) Lady Godiva is *not* the ancestor of this line at all.

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

Dolores C. Phifer

Re: who is Alice Alecia (born about 1373 in Of Swanborne, Ha

Legg inn av Dolores C. Phifer » 14 aug 2007 18:18:21

Good Afternoon John. Thanks for your thoughts and references. Thanks for
taking your most valuable time to look up a few things for me. I will
follow up on those you listed as well as those of the others. As I unpack
and find my books I will post a list any of my older reference books in case
they may be of interest to anyone. I don't have many, but will share what I
do have. I moved and still have stuff that needs uncrating.
Thanks again,
Dolores Cobb Phifer

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: who is Alice Alecia (born about 1373 in Of Swanborne,
Hampshire,England), wife of Robert White, married on 1421


If you took the time to follow up on some of the references in RPA, you'd
find that the line does in fact continue, with at least some reasonable
documentation, for at least a few more generations beyond what you've
listed
below. Thus it's pretty broad and unsupported to say that the entire line
is "just idle speculation and wishful thinking". And there is no
foundation
for the claim that Alicia, whom the original post addressed, is
"completely
made up from nothing". There may indeed be some (or many) specific
problems
with the line, but the broad assertions made in the original response are
inappropriate and inaccurate.

This line in itself is of little interest to me, and I don't propose to go
into further detail pursuing it - those who are interested can do this.
But
I do feel that unsupported assertions, either for or against a line, made
without sufficeint (or even any) research are unwarranted here and should
be
challenged.

I will now step down from my soapbox....

----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: who is Alice Alecia (born about 1373 in Of Swanborne,
Hampshire,England), wife of Robert White, married on 1421

Gjest

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 aug 2007 19:22:09

In a message dated 8/14/2007 2:06:49 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:

It was not me who set off on this
line of reasoning. I agree that 2% to 5% is *rather* arbitrary. I have
said all along that it is just a "ball park" figure.>>
-----------------
It's not "ball park" it's "made up". Quite a different thing.
It's an off-the-cuff figure based on nothing. A big pile of nonsense.




************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Gjest

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 aug 2007 19:24:07

In a message dated 8/14/2007 2:06:56 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:

How would I know how the dataset is skewed? The usual method of finding
out how sample data *might be* skewed is to increase the sample size>>
-------------------

Or maybe just review the primary data itself? That might be an option.



************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Gjest

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 aug 2007 19:25:13

In a message dated 8/14/2007 2:06:49 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:

Here we are more or less on the same wavelength. However, I am not
saying: "they said it, it must be true". What I am saying is: this is
the current rule of thumb for the current state of the art.>>
-----------
Rules of thumb are for people who have no fingers.
People who have fingers can see that if one person makes up a figure, no one
else has to believe it without viewing the raw data on which it's based.

So where is it.





************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Simon de Montforts?

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 14 aug 2007 19:27:33

Check this site...

<http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/genealogy/royal/catalog.html>

Many of your questions will be answered -- but not all.

CP sourcing is often given and can be checked -- for the Brits.

It's stronger on British nobility and royalty.

However it lacks recent updating...

Even so, it's an excellent place to START -- not FINISH.

Cues to other useful sites.

You are a Princeton graduate -- a tigress?

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

"Dana S. Leslie" <dsleslie@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:212wi.77819$g86.32188@newsfe14.lga...

Can anyone give me birth and death dates for the first three Simon de
Montforts? Also, is Simon II the son of Simon I and Agnes d'Eveux?

Thank you.
--


Blessed Be,

Dana

D. S. Leslie, née C. R. Guttman
Email: DSLeslie@alumni.princeton.edu
Skype: dsleslie
Web: ÞE OL' PHILOSOPHIE SHOPPE
Your Source for Discounted Ideas
http://members.cox.net/dsleslie2/

Hal Bradley

RE: Bewsfield, Kent and the early de Badlesmere family

Legg inn av Hal Bradley » 14 aug 2007 19:34:28

Will,

Joan was not a Fitz Bernard. (CP XIV: 57)

Hal Bradley

-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of WJhonson
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 5:26 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Bewsfield, Kent and the early de Badlesmere family


John I wasn't clear from your post, but can we not connect
Joan de Badlesmere, wife of John de Northwode, as a daughter
to Gunselm (Gunceline) de Badlesmere, Justiciar of Kent, by
his wife JOAN FitzBarnard ?

I don't see a chronologic problem and it would tie her into
this same family that produced a Guncelin Badlesmere

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

Doug McDonald

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 14 aug 2007 19:36:29

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/14/2007 7:26:49 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:

Every source I have states that she was BORN about 1058, not DIED. This fits
fine.

Doug McDonald



--------------
Can you name one of these sources?



The sources I list are Ancestral Roots 7th edition, which I don't have
current access to, and the following post to this newsgroup,
which does not give that date, but does support the date:

******************

See Walter Lee Sheppard, "Are you a descendant of Lady Godiva", *National Genealogical Society
Quarterly*, vol. 50, no. 2 [June 1962], pp. 74-78, for details on the following:
1. Godgifu (Godiva) d. mid 1080s m. Leofric Earl of Mercia, d. 1057. Their son:

2. AElfgar Earl of Mercia m. AElfgifu. They had three sons and a daughter:

3. Aldgyth m1. Gruffudd ap Llywelyn, King of the Welsh, d. 1063. Their daughter:

4. Nest m. 1081 Osbern fitz Richard, of Richard's Castle. Their son Hugh was ancestor of the Says,
later Mortimers, later Talbots, of Richards Castle [CP IX:256-266, etc]. Nest and Osbern had a daughter:

5. Nest m. Bernard de Neufmarche.

William Addams Reitwiesner
wrei@erols.com


***************************************

Doug McDonald

Tiglath

Re: False Premises, Hoary Fool-Traps & Glittering Generaliti

Legg inn av Tiglath » 14 aug 2007 19:55:07

On Aug 14, 2:20 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Nonsense...

False Premise.


That seems to be the case. Thomas More, England's Torquemada, put on
a defense based on the premise that silence, if anything, betokens
assent, not disagreement; when he was accused of treason by remaining
silent and not supporting explicitly Henry's Act of Succession.

Yet, his accuser correctly inferred that his silence was silent
disapproval. As he confirmed on the scaffold, "I die the King's good
servant and [but?] God's first."



DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
---------------------------------------

"Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote in messagenews:mailman.486.1187114027.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

You overlook my repeated remark "He who remains silent, agrees".

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 14 aug 2007 19:56:17

Doug is quoting part of that post.

Here is the entire exchange.

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

From: "William Addams Reitwiesner" <reitwiesner@stop.mail-abuse.org>

Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval

Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 12:26 AM

Subject: Re: Lady Godiva dissected

| JKent10581@aol.com wrote:

| >There seems to be a lot of folks going around in circles on this Godiva
| >bit.

| >Who are the children and grandchildren of Godiva that make all these
| >wonderful connections to Margaret de Braose and Hymphrey de Bohan?

| See Walter Lee Sheppard, "Are you a descendant of Lady Godiva", *National

| Genealogical Society Quarterly*, vol. 50, no. 2 [June 1962], pp. 74-78,
| for details on the following:

| 1. Godgifu (Godiva) d. mid 1080s m. Leofric Earl of Mercia, d. 1057. Their
| son:

| 2. AElfgar Earl of Mercia m. AElfgifu. They had three sons and a daughter:

| 3. Aldgyth m1. Gruffudd ap Llywelyn, King of the Welsh, d. 1063. Their
| daughter:

| 4. Nest m. 1081 Osbern fitz Richard, of Richard's Castle. Their son Hugh
| was ancestor of the Says, later Mortimers, later Talbots, of Richards
| Castle [CP IX:256-266, etc]. Nest and Osbern had a daughter:

| 5. Nest m. Bernard de Neufmarche. Their daughter:

| 6. Sibyl m. Miles fitz Richard, Constable of Gloucester, Earl of Hereford,
| d. 1143. Their daughter:

| 7. Bertha m. William de Braose.

| From there the lines are easy to trace.

| William Addams Reitwiesner

| wrei@erols.com

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:f9ssmm$87o$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 8/14/2007 7:26:49 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:

Every source I have states that she was BORN about 1058, not DIED. This
fits fine.

Doug McDonald
--------------
Can you name one of these sources?

The sources I list are Ancestral Roots 7th edition, which I don't have
current access to, and the following post to this newsgroup,
which does not give that date, but does support the date:

******************

See Walter Lee Sheppard, "Are you a descendant of Lady Godiva", *National
Genealogical Society Quarterly*, vol. 50, no. 2 [June 1962], pp. 74-78,
for details on the following:
1. Godgifu (Godiva) d. mid 1080s m. Leofric Earl of Mercia, d. 1057.
Their son:

2. AElfgar Earl of Mercia m. AElfgifu. They had three sons and a
daughter:

3. Aldgyth m1. Gruffudd ap Llywelyn, King of the Welsh, d. 1063. Their
daughter:

4. Nest m. 1081 Osbern fitz Richard, of Richard's Castle. Their son Hugh
was ancestor of the Says, later Mortimers, later Talbots, of Richards
Castle [CP IX:256-266, etc]. Nest and Osbern had a daughter:

5. Nest m. Bernard de Neufmarche.

William Addams Reitwiesner
wrei@erols.com
***************************************

Doug McDonald

Tony Hoskins

Re: Isabella di Chiaramonte m 1444 Ferdinand I, King of Napl

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 14 aug 2007 20:02:37

"What is the source that makes Raymond a son of Jeanne Sabran ? The
chronology looks a bit tight."

All I have for that identificaiton is (was) Shama's online _Genealogie
Delle Dinastie Nobili_. Frequently, I find Litta was Shama's best
source.

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: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 aug 2007 20:27:03

In a message dated 8/14/2007 10:06:53 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
terryjbooth@sbcglobal.net writes:

Wikipedia shows her "b. 990? - d. 10 Sep 1067",


-------
Thanks Terry. Neither of these dates has standing.
EB1985 is tenuous merely stating fl c 1040-80

If they have a problem with the firm dating, I'm not sure that we can do
better than that without quoting primary sources. Leofric appears in the ASC so
I'll pull that out and have a look later today.

Will



************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Gjest

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 aug 2007 20:28:02

In a message dated 8/14/2007 10:06:53 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
terryjbooth@sbcglobal.net writes:

Wikipedia shows her "b. 990? - d. 10 Sep 1067", which almost makes sense.


--------------
This is suspicious. Others claim that her exact death date is unknown.



************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Douglas Richardson

Re: Alice [de] Perrers, mistress of King Edward III, and her

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 14 aug 2007 20:40:34

Dear Newsgroup ~

Due to the excessive length of this post, the material has been broken
up into three parts. This is the second part of a three-part post.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Alice [de] Perrers, mistress of King Edward III, and her children:
Part II

References:

Ayloffe, Cals. of the Ancient Charters (1774): lxv-lxvii. Clarke,
Parochial Topography of the Hundred of Wanting (1824): 111. Nicolas,
Testamenta Vetusta 1 (1826): 116-117 (will of Sir William de
Wyndesore, Knt.), 152-153 (will of Alice, widow of William Wyndesor,
Knt.). Banks, The Dormant & Extinct Baronage of England 4 (1837):
Additions & Emendations, 39-40. Gyll, Hist. of Wraysbury (1862): 203-
204 ("Dame Alice Perrers ... was not ignobly born, and was either
daughter or granddaughter of Richard Perrers of Essex, Sheriff of
Essex and Herts ... this lady was the Helen of her time ... her fault was
too great amiability ... she was friendly to many, but all were not
friendly to her ... Entertainments were made for her at great cost-
above all a tournament held in Smithfield gave great umbrage, where
Alice Perrers, to whom the King gave the name 'the Lady of the Sun'
appeared by his side in a triumphant chariot, and attended by many
ladies of quality, each leading a knight by his horse's bridle").
Hardy Cal. of Feet of Fines for London & Middlesex 1 (1892): 149.
C.P.R. 1377-1381 (1895): 343, 503. Genealogist n.s. 13 (1896): 249;
n.s. 14 (1897): 100. C.P.R. 1385-1389 (1900): 204-205. McKinnon, The
Hist. of Edward III (1900): 570-572, 579-580 ("... The death of Queen
Philippa in 1369 left him [Edward III] under the spell of a Court
beauty, Alice Perrers, of whose masculine force of character,
rapacious greed, and shameless effrontery, he became the abject
slave. Her enemies represent her as a most debased adventuress ...").
Trevelyan, England in the Age of Wycliffe (1904): 28-29 ("Very little
is known of this lady. She appears to have been of gentle birth,
although her enemies tried to prove the opposite. Ever since 1366 she
had been receiving grants of land and money from her royal lover, till
at least in 1373 the King gave her his own and his late wife's jewels,
to the general scandal of decent people ... She was in the habit of
attending the law courts to support her friends and overawe the judges
like any other great noble, and she possessed herself of money and
lands by fair means or foul."). Sharpe, Cal. of Letters-Books of the
City of London: H (1907): 71-86. VCH Hampshire 3 (1908): 254-257.
VCH Hertford 2 (1908): 179-186, 297-309; 3 (1912): 3-12. D.N.B. 15
(1909): 898-900 (biog. of Alice Perrers or de Windsor); 21 (1909): 177-
179 (biog. of William de Windsor, Baron Windsor). Bickley King's
Favourites (1910): 62. C.P.R. 1361-1364 (1912): 278. C.P.R. 1364-
1367 (1912): 321, 396-397, 418. VCH Surrey 4 (1912): 17-24. C.P.R.
1367-1370 (1913): 125, 146-147, 183, 292, 376, 379, 437. Desc. Cat.
of Ancient Deeds, 6 (1915): 350. C.P.R. 1374-1377 (1916): 191, 463.
Recs. Rel. to the Barony of Kendale 1 (1923): 214-221. VCH Berkshire,
4 (1924): 269-270, 287-288, 321-322. C.C.R. 1392-1396 (1925): 48-49.
VCH Buckingham, 3 (1925): 20-31. Thomas, Cal. of the Plea & Memoranda
Rolls of the City of London 2 (1929): 11, 34, 232; 3 (1932): 148-169.
C.F.R. 12 (1931): 84. English Hist. Rev. 47 (1932): 272-276; 66
(1951): 242-246. Curtis, Hist. of Medieval Ireland (1938): 248, 252
("[William] De Windsor's period of office [as Deputy of Ireland] is
epoch-making. 'He is the true founder of the Irish parliament,' who
trained it in spirit and procedure by holding no less than eight
parliaments and two Great Councils in less than five years."). PMLA
58 (1943): 566-572. Stokes et al., Warwickshire Feet of Fines 3
(Dugdale Soc. 18) (1943): 76. Speculum, 21 (1946): 222-228; 52
(1977): 906-911. C.P. 12(2) (1959): 877-880 (sub Wyndesore). VCH
Essex, 6 (1966): 267-281; 7 (1978): 143-153. VCH Middlesex, 4 (1971):
134-137; 7 (1982): 123-128. Gardner, Life & Times of Chaucer (1977):
187-189. VCH Warwick, 5 (1949): 58-59. Holmes, The Good Parliament
(1975). Keene & Harding, Hist. Gazetteer of London before the Great
Fire (1987): 220-226, 244-251. VCH Cambridge, 9 (1989): 212-213; 10
(2002): 427-437. Hicks, Who's Who in Late Medieval England (1991):
119-120 (biog. of Alice Perrers: "Although not beautiful, she was
apparently Edward's mistress well before the queen's death in 1369 and
enjoyed his unwavering fidelity thereafter. She bore him at least two
children: a son John Southerey born about 1364-5 and knighted in 1377,
who died obscurely, and a daughter Joan. The height of her influence
in the 1370s coincided with the king's galloping senility. He treated
her with chivalric honor, holding tournaments for her benefit, heaped
her with gifts including royal jewelry formerly belonging to Queen
Philippa, and allowed her to exercise authority within his household
like a queen ... She ... involved herself in court intrigue and
distribution of patronage ... Certainly she pursued her own advantage
single-mindedly and with a shrewd business sense ... She accumulated 22
manors, lands in 17 counties, and a London house ... Alice's political
influence and greedy self-interest help explain her impeachment in the
Good Parliament of 1376 and resultant forfeiture, sentences rapidly
revoked by Edward III, but repeated next year after his death.
Although the latter sentence too was set aside, partly because she was
tried as single when actually married, Alice did not recover all her
wealth despite extensive litigation."). Leese, Blood Royal (1996):
182. Warren, Spiritual Economies: Female Monasticism in Later
Medieval England (2001): 83-84 ("In addition to being the mistress to
Edward III, Alice was very shrewd in acquiring and managing property,
and, not surprisingly, attacks on Perrers were directed at what were
characterized as her linked sexual and economic transgressions. In
his Historia Anglicana, Thomas Walsingham describes Perrers as
'foemina procacissima' [most shameless woman] and a
'meretricula' [little harlot]."). Smith, Human Biology & Hist. (Soc.
for the Study of Human Biology Ser.: 42) (2002): 66. VCH Northampton,
5 (2002): 245-289, 289-345. Chaucer Review, 40 (2006): 219-229. PRO
Documents, E 210/10019 (Alice Periers and William Mulsho and John
Freton, clerks, to John Mory of Stratford and John Badell of
Colchester: Demise, indented, for 4 years, of the manor called
'Veisies' in Stratford, Suffolk; Date: 47 Edward III [1373-1374])
(abstract of document available online at); SC 8/95/4741 (petition
dated ?c.1377 from John Birche, carpenter to the Lords of Parliament,
requesting payment of a sum of money due to him from when he worked as
carpenter for Lady Alice de Wyndesore, both at her house in London and
at Bourne Hall (in Bushey), Hertfordshire); SC 8/95/4745 (petition
dated ?c.1377 from Joan Burstall, daughter and heir of John Burstall
to king and council, who states that her father, John Burstall, and
Cecily his wife purchased the manor of East Hall, Kent, for themselves
and John's heirs, but that after John's death, Alice Pereres forced
Cecily to sell the manor to her, and never paid her the full price.
She asks to be reinstated in this manor); SC 8/95/4747A (petition
dated c.1377 from Amerigot (Aymer, Aimeric) de Bort (Borc), Knt. to
king, council and parliament, who complains that certain wines
belonging to the lord of Lesparre and the lord of La Lande were stolen
by Alice Perrers in 1376, and in their name requests restitution of
the wines or of their value); SC 8/96/4751 (petition dated c.1377 from
Edmund de Brook and Margery his wife to king and council who complain
that they were forcibly disseised of their manor of Bourne Hall (in
Bushey), Hertfordshire by a large number of armed men under the
command of Alice Perers, and that the manor was afterwards given to
various people for her use. Alice then had Edmund imprisoned, and
tried to get Margery to divorce him. They request the Margery's right
might be inquired into, and justice done on the basis of this, and
that in the meantime that Edmund might have the manor at farm, for a
sufficient security, as Alice's power was so great with the late king
that they have not dared to sue until now); SC 8/101/5030 (petition
dated c.1377 from Jerenarth Child to the king's council, who complains
that he is impoverished by the non-payment of a certain sum and seeks
a mandate from the present parliament to recover £25 13s. 4d. from
Lady Alice Perrers, as it has been ineffective to pursue her through
the common law. He shows that her bailiffs bought 220 sheep at his
manor of Wendover four years since to her use for the aforesaid sum,
to be paid in the months following, which sum has not been paid or
satisfied to the petitioner); SC 8/104/5165 (petition dated c. 1377
from John de Cobham, son of the Countess Marshal, to the king and
council, who seeks recovery of various debts owed him by Alice
Perrers: 1) He complains that Middleton (his attorney), leased the
manor of Ardington, Berkshire to Alice at farm for £80 in 1364, and
sold her all the corn, goods and chattels for a certain sum of silver,
of which there are arrears of £19 3s., as shown in an indenture made
between them; 2) He complains that Alice held the manor at the said
farm for twelve years, which amounts to £960, which sum is still
withheld from him; 3) He complains that the late king was held to him
in 1000 marks, from which sum Alice granted 20 marks to Salisbury
without the petitioner's warrant, as shown in the receipt of the said
king; 4) He also complains that Alice granted Gresley 40 marks from
the said sum without his warrant, as also appears in the said receipt,
of which £40 the petitioner is charged in the receipt and which he has
still not recovered); SC 8/105/5216 (petition dated c.1380 from
Elizabeth, widow of Gilbert de Ellesfeld to [illegible], who seeks
restoration of her property in the manor of Drayton, Berkshire;
petition names Alice Perrers); SC 8/119/5917 (petition dated 1377-1384
from John de Kendale of London, tailor to king and council, who seeks
recovery of £4 15s. owed to him by William Windsor and his wife Alice
for cloth bought from him on 24 June 1360, for which he has not been
paid and which he has been unable to recover); SC 8/119/5932 (petition
dated c.1377 from John Kendale to king and council, requesting payment
of £4 15s. 7d. owed to him by Alice Perers for various parcels of
cloth sold to Janyn Perers, Alice's former husband, in 34 Edward III
[1360-1]); SC 8/146/7267 (petition dated c.1385 from Alice, widow of
William de Wyndesore (Windsor) to the king and lords of Parliament,
who states that her husband enfeoffed six people with his manors,
lands and tenements in England and Wales, and that two of these,
contrary to his intentions, enfeoffed one John de Wyndesore, not of
his blood, so that the other feoffees are kept out of these lands and
tenements, and cannot perform William's will, and to the
disinheritance of Alice and his true heirs. She requests that justice
be ordained for her in the present parliament); SC 8/148/7363
(petition dated 1377-1380 from John Wilyeth, clerk, William Berton,
and others to king and council, who state that they were seised of a
hostel called 'Battesyn' in the parish of St Martin in Oxford, but
that Alice Perrers, wishing to disinherit them, procured an inquest of
office held by the Escheator, which found, falsely, that it had been
given to various people for the use of Merton College, and to bar them
from the traverse allowed to them by statute, had Edward III make
enfeoffment of the hostel to various people, by his letters patent,
with the intention of receiving the profits, and of having feoffment
for herself and her heirs when she wanted. The petitioners have been
told to sue a scire facias, and ask that these letters patent might be
repealed, so that they can have their traverse); SC 8/185/9250
(petition dated 1377 from John Freton, clerk, Robert Brom of Warwick
and Hugh Cotyngham, clerk, requesting that they be granted the
reversion of all lands held for life by James de Audeley of Heighley,
which ought to revert to the king on Audeley's death) (abstract of
documents available online at http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp).
Canterbury Cathedral Archives: Dean and Chaper Archive, Chartae
Antiquae Z - ref. CCA-DCc-ChAnt/Z (Inquisition taken at Canterbury,
Kent 24 Sept. 1378 before John Brede, the king's escheator for Kent.
The jurors say that William Salesby and Christina his wife, Joan,
William's mother, Alice Perrers and John Hanney, chaplain purchased a
messuage called the Fleur de Lis ('Flourdelys') in the city of
Canterbury, to be held by them for the term of their lives. Seven
years ago [i.e., 1371] Joan and Alice released their right in the
messuage to William by a deed made at Pallingswick [in Fulham],
Middlesex. The jurors do not know about the seal of Alice and Joan,
but they believe that the release was made and that the messuage is
worth 53s. 4d. a year) (abstract of document available online at
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp).

Gjest

Re: Bewsfield, Kent and the early de Badlesmere family

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 aug 2007 20:43:04

In a message dated 8/14/2007 11:34:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
hw.bradley@verizon.net writes:


Joan was not a Fitz Bernard. (CP XIV: 57)

---------
I don't have access to CP 14 so I can't see what it says.



**************************************
Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Douglas Richardson

Re: Alice [de] Perrers, mistress of King Edward III, and her

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 14 aug 2007 20:43:48

Dear Newsgroup ~

Due to the excessive length of this post, the material has been broken
up into three parts. This is the third part of a three-part post.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Alice [de] Perrers, mistress of King Edward III, and her children:
Part III

Child of Alice de Perrers, probably by her husband, Janyn de Perrers:

i. JOAN, elder daughter. She married (1st) before 15 July 1401 (date
of grant) RICHARD NORTHLAND, Knt. He was indentured to serve in
Portugal in 1373-1374. About 1377 Ralph de Wolverton and Thomas
Haket, collectors, were ordered to pay him 100 marks for his costs in
safe-keeping the Isle of Wight from enemies with 100 men-at-arms. His
wife, Joan, inherited various properties in London and the manor and
advowson of Compton Murdak (later known as Compton Verney),
Warwickshire in 1401 from her mother. SIR RICHARD NORTHLAND was
living 4 October 1402. His widow, Joan, married (2nd) before 1405
ROBERT SKERNE, of Kingston-upon-Thames, Thames Ditton, Downhall (in
Guilford), and Freemantles, Surrey, and, in right of his wife, of
Philiberts (in East Hanney), Berkshire and Compton Murdak,
Warwickshire, lawyer, Knight of the Shire for Surrey, 1402, 1422,
justice of the peace for Surrey, 1417-1431. They had no issue. In
1405 he obtained a quitclaim to the manor of Compton Murdak,
Warwickshire from Arnold Murdak. Sometime in or after 1406, Ralph
Symond, nephew of William Calseby (former trustee for Joan's step-
father, William de Windsor, Knt.) conveyed the manor of Philiberts (in
Hanney), Berkshire to Robert Skerne, husband of Joan. In 1418 he
established his claim to the manor of Philiberts (in East Hanney),
Berkshire against Sir John Cornwall and his wife, Elizabeth. He
served as a tax collector for Surrey in 1420. In 1423 he was
arraigned on an assize of novel disseisin at Guilford, Surrey by
Walter Gawtron. His wife, Joan, died before Jan. 1431. In 1431 he
was admitted into the fraternity of Osney Abbey, and arrangements were
made for prayers to be said in the memory of his late wife. ROBERT
SKERNE died 9 April 1437. He and his wife, Joan, were buried at
Kingston upon Thames, Surrey. Following his death, on 21 July 1437,
his feoffees had license to convey the manor of Philiberts (in East
Hanney), Berkshire to John Golofre, Esq., and others. Banks, The
Dormant & Extinct Baronage of England 4 (1837): Additions &
Emendations, 39-40 (citing Dugdale, Antiq. Warwickshire, pg. 435).
Fairholt, Costume in England (1860): 145. Surrey Arch. Colls., 8
(1883): 61-63; 29 (1906): 103-105; 70 (1975): 103-105. C.P.R. 1436-
1441 (1907): 73. Salzman, Feet of Fines Rel. Sussex 3 (Sussex Rec.
Soc. 23) (1916): 240-241. VCH Berkshire 4 (1924): 287-288. C.C.R.
1402-1405 (1929): 384. Speculum, 21 (1946): 222-228. VCH Warwick, 5
(1949): 58-59. English Hist. Rev. 95 (1980): 514-532. Given-Wilson,
Royal Bastards of Medieval England (1984): 136-137. Roskell et al.,
House of Commons 1386-1421 4 (1992): 382-384 (biog. of Robert
Skerne). Leese, Blood Royal (1996): 182. West Sussex Record Office:
The Goodwood Estate Archives [Estate Papers 1], Reference: GOODWOOD/
E274 (grant dated 2 March 1432/3 from Henry Percy, Earl of
Northumberland, Robert Ponynggys [Poynings], Knt., Robert Skerne, and
others to Maud, widow of Thomas Ponynggys [Poynings], Knt. the manors
of Halfnakede and Walberton; the foundation or patronage of Boxgrove
priory; the manor of Newbury, co. Kent, and the advowson of the church
there with remainders); Lincolnshire Archives: Manuscripts of the Earl
of Ancaster, Reference: 1ANC2/A/18/10 (Notification of a grant dated
15 July 1401 from Ralf Symonds, kinsman and heir of William Calceby,
clerk to John [recte Joan] Northland, Hugh Byseley, Robert Skyme
[recte Skerne] and William Symonds, clerk of the manor of Philbordes
in East Hanney, Berkshire, previously held by John Hanney, Nicholas
Rounhey, William Calceby, my kinsman, all clerks and Henry Hatheve of
Hanney, held of William Wyndesore, Knt.) (abstract of documents
available online at http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp). PRO
Document, E 101/68/6/132 (Parties to Indenture: Richard Northland, kt.
Nature of Service: War-service in Portugal. Date: 47 Edward III [1373-
1374]) (abstract of document available online at
http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp).

Illegitimate children of Alice de Perrers, probably by King Edward III
of England:

ii. JOHN DE SURREY (or SOUTHEREY), Knt. In 1374 the king granted him
£100 annually for his maintenance. In 1375 a number of properties
were made over to him. In April 1377 he was knighted with the future
Kings Richard II and Henry IV. In May 1377, in response to his
petition to the king, he was granted the manor of Lowestoft and the
hundred of Lothingland, Suffolk, together with the reversion of
several other manors in Cumberland, Wiltshire, etc. In Dec. 1377 he
was reportedly living with Thomas Brantingham, Bishop of Exeter, the
king's treasurer, when the king ordered restition of "all his harness,
goods and things" which were arrested among the goods of his mother,
Alice. The same month, the king, acting on advise of his Council,
revoked the grant of the reversion of the manor of Bolton (in
Allerdale), Cumberland which had previously been made to him. In 1382
he appears to have joined an English force in Portugal under Edmund of
Langley, Duke of York. In or before 1383 he sued Ralph Basyng, Esq.,
in London for a debt of 10 marks 6s. 8d. His subsequent history is
unknown. He appears to have predeceased his mother before 1400
without issue. Banks, The Dormant & Extinct Baronage of England 4
(1837): Additions & Emendations, 39-40. Beltz, Memorials of the Most
Noble Order of the Garter (1841): 270. Notes & Queries, 7th ser. 11
(1891): 433-434 (citing Froissart, ii, cap. 120 and 124). C.P.R. 1377-
1381 (1895): 76-77. C.P.R. 1370-1374 (1914): 338. C.P.R. 1374-1377
(1916): 462. C.C.R. 1381-1385 (1920): 299. C.F.R. 9 (1926): 62.
English Hist. Rev., 66 (1951): 242-246. Holmes, The Good Parliament
(1975): 193-194. Given-Wilson, Royal Bastards of Medieval England
(1984): 136-142 (cites Froissart, a contemporary historian, who calls
him a "bastard brother [recte uncle] of the king of England.").
Leese, Blood Royal (1996): 182. PRO Documents, E 154/6/17 (List of
goods of John Southerey arrested among those of Alice Perrers); SC
8/228/11354 (petition dated 1377 from John de Surrey, Knt. to the
king, requesting a grant of the manor of Lowestoft, Suffolk and of
other manors and lands throughout the country to him and his heirs of
his body) (abstract of documents available online at
http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp).

iii. JOAN DE SURREY (or SOUTHEREY), younger daughter. About 1394 as
"Joan, daughter of Alice Wyndesor," she petitioned the king and
Parliament in an effort to recover to recover 2,000 marks from John de
Windsor, which was due to her from the sale of the marriage of the
Earl of Nottingham. She married before 14 May 1406 _____ DESPAIGNE
(or DESPAYNE). She inherited the manor of Gaynes (in Upminster),
Essex from her mother in 1401. She was living in 1406, when as "Joan
Despaigne otherwise Southerey," she surrendered her interest in the
manor of Gaynes (in Upminster), and lands in Upminster and Havering,
Essex, in exchange for a life rent of 100 shillings. Her subsequent
history is unknown. Feet of Fines for Essex 3 (1929-1949): 247.
C.C.R. 1405-1409 (1931): 39-40, 167-168, 227. VCH Essex, 7 (1978):
143-153. Given-Wilson, Royal Bastards of Medieval England (1984): 136-
137. PRO Document SC 8/22/1060 (petition dated c.1394 from Joan,
daughter of Alice Wyndesor [Windsor] to the king and lords of
Parliament, who states that her suit against John de Wyndesore to
recover 2000 marks, due to her from the sale of the marriage of the
Earl of Nottingham, which was granted to her by Edward III, has been
obstructed by Thomas Colrede, under-sheriff and judge of London,
Richard Forster, John de Wyndesore's attorney, and John, his clerk,
who have altered the record of an inquisition held into the matter.
She requests a remedy, and that she might be able to have her goods
from John de Wyndesore, or from the three people who fraudulently
altered the record, as people learned in the law have told her would
be just and reasonable) (abstract of document available online at
http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp).

TJ Booth

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av TJ Booth » 14 aug 2007 21:29:13

Will,

Source is AR 8th Edtn Line 176A-4. References shown are Natl Gen Soc Quartly Vol 50 pp 74-78 + citations, Schwennicke ES Vol II,78. The line reads "Edith (or Aldgyth), seen at 'Doomsday' 1086, death date unknown; m (1) abt 1057, Gruffydd I Ap LLywelyn (176-2), slain 5 Aug 1063; m (2) prob 1064 Harold II (1B-23). By Gruffydd she had a dau NESTA (176-3), 177-2). By Harold she had a son Harold, seen at Doomsday 1086, later life unknown, and possibly King Harold's son Ulf.

Line 176-2 is Gruffydd I Ap Llywelyn which contains additional references including Dict of Welsh Biog, cit., p.312. CP VI, pp 451-453 are also noted.

I'm not up to disputing AR at present, but it is clearly a secondary not primary source.

Terry Booth
Chicago
----- Original Message -----
From: WJhonson@aol.com
To: terryjbooth@sbcglobal.net ; gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: Lady Godiva


In a message dated 8/14/2007 10:06:53 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, terryjbooth@sbcglobal.net writes:
Her mother Ealdgyth/Editha (still living at the
time of the 1086 Domesday census) was m. just a year or 2 before then
How is this known? There was only one woman mentioned as a landowner in Domesday wasn't there?





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»