Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Steven Loyd

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

Legg inn av Steven Loyd » 14 aug 2007 21:38:17

Sources for the marriage between Nicola Orsini, Count of Nola and
Giovanna (or Gorizia)
de Sabran in the genealogy at
http://www.genmarenostrum.com/pagine-le ... orsini.htm
are:

- count Pompeo Litta, "Famiglie Celebri Italiane", vol. 6, fasc. 80
"Orsini di Roma", 1819-1883
- Leon Robert Menager, "Inventaire des familles normandes et franques
emigrées en Italie Méridionale et en Sicile (XI-XII siécles)", in "Atti
delle Prime giornate normanno-sveve". Bari, 1973.
Reprint Bari, 1991; (Università degli Studi di Bari, Centro di studi
normanno-svevi.)

Regards

-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of WJhonson
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 2:00 AM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Isabella di Chiaramonte m 1444 Ferdinand I, King of Naples


<<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

-------------------------------
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:
Vuoi giocare?In REGALO x te GPBikes 3D,Bubble Boom,Rock City Empire
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?midg31&d-8

Vince

Re: False Premises, Hoary Fool-Traps & Glittering Generaliti

Legg inn av Vince » 14 aug 2007 21:49:03

Tiglath wrote:
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."


You are incorrect on both the law, and the History

The legal maxim is

Qui tacet consentire videtur


"Videtur" is critical to the phrase. It has nothing to do with what
the person wants or believes but alolows the law in some cases to
"construe" consent when a person has a legal duty to speak.


More claimed correctly that the act put on him no such duty.

he was convicted due to the blatant perjury of Richard Rich


Vince

D. Spencer Hines

Re: False Premises, Hoary Fool-Traps & Glittering Generaliti

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 14 aug 2007 22:00:24

Folks in this group -- SGM -- are allegedly descended from Richard Rich.

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

"Vince" <firelaw@firelaw.us> wrote in message
news:af6dnWy1Zr7diF_bnZ2dnUVZ_qCgnZ2d@comcast.com...

Tiglath wrote:

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."


You are incorrect on both the law, and the History

The legal maxim is

Qui tacet consentire videtur


"Videtur" is critical to the phrase. It has nothing to do with what the
person wants or believes but alolows the law in some cases to "construe"
consent when a person has a legal duty to speak.


More claimed correctly that the act put on him no such duty.

he was convicted due to the blatant perjury of Richard Rich


Vince

Gjest

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 aug 2007 22:33:04

Thanks Doug, AR7 is available online, I'll take a look later today.

Meanwhile I've downgraded a few of the glaring statement on the Lady Godiva
page at Wikipedia.

The source for her exact death date, is just a single webpage which does not
adequately quote and cite it's own underlying source. Regardless of whether
that webpage may be viewed as a reliable source for some bits of data, it's
not a reliable source for something so specific without a source.

Perhaps another editor will come by and firm it up. I've also stated a page
to see if maybe I can detail the actual sources for her life. It seems like
they're a bit sparse.

I'm also a little unsure about the aleged Domesday reference. Some
commentators say it proves she was alive, and some say it proves she was dead. So
evidently its worded in some odd way.

Will Johnson



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

WJhonson

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

Legg inn av WJhonson » 14 aug 2007 23:04:07

<<In a message dated 08/14/07 13:39:34 Pacific Standard Time, andrra@email.it writes:
http://www.genmarenostrum.com/pagine-le ... orsini.htm >>

----------------
Thanks for this link Steven.
Interesting that it only calls Maria Countess of Lecce without mentioning that she was also Queen of /Naples/ and titular Queen of Sicily, Jerusalem and Hungary.

Her full list of titles even if only titular or based-on-her-later-forced-marriage make her stand out far more and alert the reader that there is something very significant about her ancestry.

This page also addresses one chronological problem in placing Raymondo with a birth of "about 1361", after giving his parents a marriage date of "between 1352 and 1355"

Will Johnson

Tiglath

Re: False Premises, Hoary Fool-Traps & Glittering Generaliti

Legg inn av Tiglath » 14 aug 2007 23:24:51

On Aug 14, 4:49 pm, Vince <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote:
Tiglath wrote:
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."

You are incorrect on both the law, and the History

The legal maxim is

Qui tacet consentire videtur

"Videtur" is critical to the phrase. It has nothing to do with what
the person wants or believes but alolows the law in some cases to
"construe" consent when a person has a legal duty to speak.

More claimed correctly that the act put on him no such duty.

he was convicted due to the blatant perjury of Richard Rich

Vince

Again. Your absolute assertions do you no favors.

You maybe a lawyer and the law may interpret things as it wishes, as
when it takes that The People means the National Guard, but this boils
down to making something out of nothing.

Silence is NO DATA.

Now when you have NO DATA, you have no meaning.

All you can do is make a judgment call based on context. Sometimes
context will point to assent, others to dissent.

Therefore the rule that silence betokens assent, exist as it may, it
is incorrect.

Richard Rich's perjury is irrelevant. WE KNOW that More didn't
approve of having the King above the pope, as he well confirmed in his
defense and final statement. Therefore his silence clearly meant
dissent. He hoped to avoid a charge of treason because he thought
that only explicit dissent would constitute evidence.

The fact that Cromwell had no evidence and fabricated it doesn't mean
the More was giving his assent with his silence. If he
wholeheartedly assented, why not say so? The answer is, to mute his
dissent.

If feel sick, this is almost on-topic.

Tiglath

Re: False Premises, Hoary Fool-Traps & Glittering Generaliti

Legg inn av Tiglath » 14 aug 2007 23:25:51

On Aug 14, 5:00 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Folks in this group -- SGM -- are allegedly descended from Richard Rich.


Bad genes.

Tony Hoskins

Re: Fw: Alice [de] Perrers, mistress of King Edward III, and

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 14 aug 2007 23:45:58

"why would she (and why would the king allow her) to marry William de
Wyndsore between 19 December 1374 and April 1376?"

There are a number of examples of royal mistresses married off in such
a fashion. THese marriages provided good cover for any children born to
her during that time, should the king not wish to acknowledge them.

Tony Hoskins

Leo van de Pas

Re: Fw: Alice [de] Perrers, mistress of King Edward III, and

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 14 aug 2007 23:56:38

I understood it was because the king (or whoever) did not want to be seen to
have despoiled a young girl and ruin her chances of marriage. In the case of
Edward III, he was over 57 and Alice was a widow which makes it a little
different. What I was referring to, like Henry VIII and Mary Boleyn, would
Edward III be willing to share his mistress? Even with her own husband?

Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us>
To: <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>; <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Alice [de] Perrers, mistress of King Edward III, andher
children


"why would she (and why would the king allow her) to marry William de
Wyndsore between 19 December 1374 and April 1376?"

There are a number of examples of royal mistresses married off in such
a fashion. THese marriages provided good cover for any children born to
her during that time, should the king not wish to acknowledge them.

Tony Hoskins

Tony Hoskins

Re: Fw: Alice [de] Perrers, mistress of King Edward III, and

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 15 aug 2007 00:14:17

"would Edward III be willing to share his mistress? Even with her own
husband?"

Interesting speculative point. I would say it all depended on just how
alert and compos mentis Edward III was at the time. Were he well and
truly alert, I doubt it very much. However, if as is thought Edward was
in (or headed into) his dotage Alice may have been able to "slip one
past Edward III" in ways Mary Boleyn Carey most definitely would not
have been able to do with Henry VIII. Monarchs (like the rest of us)
differed greatly one from the other. As regards easy-going standards and
requirements, perhaps Charles II was the loosest. But then, anyone
involved with Barbara Villiers would have to be tolerant of straying.

Tony

WJhonson

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

Legg inn av WJhonson » 15 aug 2007 00:16:35

<<In a message dated 08/14/07 09:35:26 Pacific Standard Time, doloresc.phifer@comcast.net writes:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... ntents.htm >>

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

But Dolores, what is the proof that any of these Cobbs are related at all to that Ambrose Cobbs who was of Chesterfield County, Virginia and who married an Ann said-to-be White ?

That's the issue. It's not really going to do any good to go Cobbs hunting in Kent unless you have very firm proof that Ambrose Cobbs comes from that very family.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Fw: Alice [de] Perrers, mistress of King Edward III, and

Legg inn av WJhonson » 15 aug 2007 00:20:52

<<In a message dated 08/14/07 16:15:42 Pacific Standard Time, hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us writes:
However, if as is thought Edward was
in (or headed into) his dotage Alice may have been able to "slip one
past Edward III" in ways Mary Boleyn Carey>>

-------------------------
I'm not sure we can call it that. Remembering that Edward was born in 1312, in 1365 he would have been only 53.

Unless we have some indication that medieval folk became senile at a much younger age than we do today, it must rather be that either:
A) he was going insane not senile OR
B) that his mental issues were made up to explain why he favored Alice so much.

Will Johnson

Vince

Re: False Premises, Hoary Fool-Traps & Glittering Generaliti

Legg inn av Vince » 15 aug 2007 00:49:27

Tiglath wrote:
On Aug 14, 4:49 pm, Vince <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote:
Tiglath wrote:
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."
You are incorrect on both the law, and the History

The legal maxim is

Qui tacet consentire videtur

"Videtur" is critical to the phrase. It has nothing to do with
what the person wants or believes but alolows the law in some cases
to "construe" consent when a person has a legal duty to speak.

More claimed correctly that the act put on him no such duty.

he was convicted due to the blatant perjury of Richard Rich

Vince

Again. Your absolute assertions do you no favors.

You maybe a lawyer and the law may interpret things as it wishes, as
when it takes that The People means the National Guard, but this
boils down to making something out of nothing.

Silence is NO DATA.

Now when you have NO DATA, you have no meaning.

All you can do is make a judgment call based on context. Sometimes
context will point to assent, others to dissent.

Therefore the rule that silence betokens assent, exist as it may, it
is incorrect.

Richard Rich's perjury is irrelevant. WE KNOW that More didn't
approve of having the King above the pope, as he well confirmed in
his defense and final statement. Therefore his silence clearly
meant dissent. He hoped to avoid a charge of treason because he
thought that only explicit dissent would constitute evidence.

The fact that Cromwell had no evidence and fabricated it doesn't mean
the More was giving his assent with his silence. If he
wholeheartedly assented, why not say so? The answer is, to mute
his dissent.

If feel sick, this is almost on-topic.


You simply do not understand the law and the role of a "trial".

More was a lawyer and this was a trial. His silence was not even an
issue was the perjured testimony was admitted. The context for a trial
is supplied by the "burden of proof". It is simply legaly wrong to
claim "when you have NO DATA, you have no meaning." When you have no
data, the side with the Burden of proof LOSES

Got that ?

The structure of the trial provides meaning for lack of evidence.

At that time the method for convicting a person without evidence or
trial was by "bill of attainder" You passed a law declaring them guilty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder


Having chosen the form of a trial they were stuck with the rules

Vince

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 15 aug 2007 01:04:00

Most of us here couldn't even intelligently READ the true "PRIMARY SOURCES"
for this one.

DSH

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

"TJ Booth" <terryjbooth@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.507.1187126986.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Fw: Alice [de] Perrers, mistress of King Edward III,andh

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 15 aug 2007 01:06:45

It's grossly naive to think that he wouldn't.

DSH

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

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.513.1187132221.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

What I was referring to, like Henry VIII and Mary Boleyn, would Edward III
be willing to share his mistress? Even with her own husband?

Leo van de Pas

WJhonson

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av WJhonson » 15 aug 2007 01:31:32

I'm slowly transcribing the ASC entries for Leofric here

http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... ry_sources

I've just found why they were not married "about 1030"
It's in ASC (E) 1051 when Harold was outlawed and Aelfgar, son of Leofric is given the Earldom of East Anglia.

I hope we can all agree that a 20 year old boy would not be given an earldom of this size. So Godgifu, if she is his mother, had to be married prior to 1030.

Will Johnson

wjhonson

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av wjhonson » 15 aug 2007 01:44:06

On Aug 13, 5:55 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
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.)


Will Johnson

--------------------------
Correcting my above to read
Living Descendents of Blood Royal, Vol 2,
Count d'Angerville; World Nobility, London. 1962
"Koehler", pg 500

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 aug 2007 01:56:04

My Fellow Posters,
Civility on this List ? You would have as good a
degree of success in finding it amongst Drivers of automobiles during rush
hour traffic. This List is devoted persumably to the finding and translation of
records, hoary with age from the Medieval period of Europe with occasional
sidetrips to Africa and Asia Minor along with the factual if not endorsed
flights to the American continents, Oceania and even the present day. We discuss
and debate with some heat the versacity of certain Persons` lineages. To Debate
is to argue not the most civil of pursuits.
With the Utmost
Sincerity,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



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

WJhonson

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av WJhonson » 15 aug 2007 02:19:36

How bizarre.....

Now that we've begun to lay out the actual primaries, look at what AR8 is claiming for the statement that Gruffydd (slain 5 Aug 1063) married Edith dau of Aelfgar...

They cite ASC no less than six times. But as you can plainly see for yourself
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... ady_Godiva

ASC in no way supports that anyone named Edith married Gruffydd.
All it shows is that Aelfgar and Gruffydd had an alliance.

I wasn't expecting that at all. There's certainly no need in line 176 to prove that someone named Aelfgar *existed*, the whole point is to prove that Edith was his daughter and this, so far, they fail to do in such an odd way, while citing authorities for that very fact, that it makes me very suspicious about what we'll find next !

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av WJhonson » 15 aug 2007 02:35:09

Living descendents, cites as part of this line the obscure reference DNB 2, 376 without naming what the article is. I had thought, since ancestry allows searching by name, that there wasn't any easy way to find it. But I was wrong.

By going to the main page for this work on ancestry, if you scroll down, you will see the odd statement to "click on the volume" and then proceed to list a bunch of *names* not volumes. Each of these is actually one of the volumes, if you could them, there are 20.

So you can click on the second entry and then slowly find your way to page 376, on which page we find an article for "Bernard (fl 1093) of Neufmarche" which I'll go ahead and add to my Godiva page so we can all see what it says and more importantly what it doesn't.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av WJhonson » 15 aug 2007 02:53:21

<<In a message dated 08/14/07 11:11:53 Pacific Standard Time, farmerie@interfold.com writes:
Setting aside the chronological issue, is there direct attestation
that Nesta was daughter of Griffith ap Llewellyn by Eadgyth? What is
the earliest source that contains this linkage. Given the unique
Welsh culture of marriage and concubinage, these things cannot be
assumed. >>

---------------------------------------------
To answer you Todd, I repost a posting by Clive West from 2005

Subj: Re: Nest wife of Osbert of Richard's Castle
Date: 6/10/05 10:41:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: clivewest@ukonline.co.uk (Clive West)
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Shinjinee wrote:
The databases in http://www.stirnet.com have this lady, daughter of Gruffyd ap Llywelyn (d 1063) by his wife, later queen of Harold II, married to Osbert of Richard's Castle (b ca 1066), whose father Richard a Norman settler in Hertfordshire is said to be the founder of the Scrope family. Is this correct? [I understand based on reading sgm archive that her other marriage is probably fictional, although it would be through that marriage that Llywelyn Fawr would be able to very conveniently claim a descent from the only man to (briefly) rule all of Wales].

If so, descendants of Leofric, earl of Mercia and his wife Godgifu and of Gruffyd ap Llywelyn can be traced among the many descendants of the Scrope baronial family.

Osbert fitzRichard of Richard's Castle certainly had a wife named Nest. Evidence for this is in charters 148 and 165 of the Worcester Cartulary (Pipe Roll Soc) where Osbert's son Hugo refers to his mother as Nest. The claim that Osbert's wife was the daughter of Gruffydd is based on a statement by Florence of Worcester that Bernard de Neufmarche was the son-in-law of Osbert and a statement by Gerald Cambriensis that Neufmarche married a granddaughter (also called Nest) of Gruffydd. The claim that Gruffydd married Aldgyth, the daughter of Aelfgar, son of Leofric and that she later married King Harold is reported (I think) only by Orderic Vitalis.

C N West
Osbern fitz Richard (fl. c.1066–1088), landowner, Richard's son, owned an estate abutting his father's during the latter's lifetime, including a large tract on the border probably reconquered from the Welsh by Earl Harold in 1063–4. Osbern added greatly to it under Norman rule: by inheritance from his father; by gift from King William, especially in Worcestershire and Warwickshire; by marriage to Nest, daughter of Gruffudd ap Llywelyn and Ealdgyth, Earl Ælfgar of Mercia's daughter, which seems to have brought him five valuable Mercian manors; and by taking manors as a tenant of the bishop of Worcester, the sheriff of Gloucester, and the earl of Shrewsbury.. The last connection, with Roger de Montgomery, was perhaps the key to his success: it is striking that an apparently independent and wealthy baron was in 1085 in the earl's household.
By 1086 Osbern's manors straggled from the Welsh border as far as Worcester and Warwick, with outliers in Nottinghamshire and Bedfordshire; they were worth over £100 a year, more than three times his and his father's combined value in 1066. He was especially important in Worcestershire, where in the 1080s he was a judge alongside the sheriff and Geoffrey, bishop of Coutances, in a case between the bishop of Worcester and Evesham Abbey. He was also a benefactor of Worcester.
Osbern joined the Welsh marcher rebellion of 1088, but was not one of those whose calculations were complicated by property in Normandy and he was later loyal to William II, his honour of Richard's Castle passing on his death at an unknown date intact to his descendants.
C. P. Lewis
Sources
A. Farley, ed., Domesday Book, 2 vols. (1783) · John of Worcester, Chron. · F. E. Harmer, ed., Anglo-Saxon writs (1952), nos. 50, 116–17 · Reg. RAN, 1.10, 221, 230, 282 · C. P. Lewis, ‘The French in England before the Norman conquest’, Anglo-Norman Studies, 17 (1994), 123–44 · K. L. Maund, ‘The Welsh alliances of Earl Ælfgar of Mercia and his family in the mid-eleventh century’, Anglo-Norman Studies, 11 (1988), 181–90 · V. H. Galbraith, ‘An episcopal land-grant of 1085’, EngHR, 44 (1929), 353–72 · F. Barlow, William Rufus (1983) · F. Barlow, St Wulfstan of Worcester, c.1008–1095 (1990)
© Oxford University Press 2004–6
All rights reserved: see legal notice Oxford University Press
C. P. Lewis, ‘Richard Scrob (fl. 1052–1066)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [http://www..oxforddnb.com/view/article/23505, accessed 14 March 2006]
Richard Scrob (fl. 1052–1066): doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/23505
Osbern fitz Richard (fl. c.1066–1088): doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/45588

WJhonson

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av WJhonson » 15 aug 2007 03:03:23

Nest is said-to-have-been-called in English "Annise" or Agnes by the DNB article I mentioned earlier.

At any rate, they relate a very interesting and scandalous story. Nest, wife or widow of Bernard de Neufmarche, Lord of Brecon, disinherited her son Mahel in this way:

It turns out that Mahel caught her lover coming from her, and beat and mutilated him. In revenge Nest went to King Henry declaring that Mahel was *not* the son of her husband Bernard, thus causing King Henry to make her other child Sybil the heiress of all Bernard's wealth.

He then married Sybil to Miles FitzWalter, Constable of Gloucester who was afterward made Earl of Hereford (cr 1141).

I have at least 6 lines from myself back to this firebrand.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Fw: Alice [de] Perrers, mistress of King Edward III, and

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 aug 2007 04:30:43

Dear Tony,
As I recall Charles II had his many mistresses yet would
brook no disrespect toward his Queen, Catherine of Braganza, though She could
have no children. Perhaps this Idea of precedence precluded him from declaring
his son James Scott, Duke of Monmouth his heir to the throne. If He had, Great
Britain would still be ruled by the House of Stuart.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA



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

Tiglath

Re: False Premises, Hoary Fool-Traps & Glittering Generaliti

Legg inn av Tiglath » 15 aug 2007 04:54:29

On Aug 14, 7:49 pm, Vince <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote:
Tiglath wrote:
On Aug 14, 4:49 pm, Vince <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote:
Tiglath wrote:
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."
You are incorrect on both the law, and the History

The legal maxim is

Qui tacet consentire videtur

"Videtur" is critical to the phrase. It has nothing to do with
what the person wants or believes but alolows the law in some cases
to "construe" consent when a person has a legal duty to speak.

More claimed correctly that the act put on him no such duty.

he was convicted due to the blatant perjury of Richard Rich

Vince

Again. Your absolute assertions do you no favors.

You maybe a lawyer and the law may interpret things as it wishes, as
when it takes that The People means the National Guard, but this
boils down to making something out of nothing.

Silence is NO DATA.

Now when you have NO DATA, you have no meaning.

All you can do is make a judgment call based on context. Sometimes
context will point to assent, others to dissent.

Therefore the rule that silence betokens assent, exist as it may, it
is incorrect.

Richard Rich's perjury is irrelevant. WE KNOW that More didn't
approve of having the King above the pope, as he well confirmed in
his defense and final statement. Therefore his silence clearly
meant dissent. He hoped to avoid a charge of treason because he
thought that only explicit dissent would constitute evidence.

The fact that Cromwell had no evidence and fabricated it doesn't mean
the More was giving his assent with his silence. If he
wholeheartedly assented, why not say so? The answer is, to mute
his dissent.

If feel sick, this is almost on-topic.

You simply do not understand the law and the role of a "trial".

I begun my reply by saying the the law can do whatever it pleases with
"silence."

It is STILL, pulling something out of nothing.


More was a lawyer and this was a trial. His silence was not even an
issue was the perjured testimony was admitted.

I told you that More's trial is irrelevant. It was a kangaroo court,
and that's it.

The POINT, again, is that whether you are a lawyer, a doctor, or a bum
in the street, silence tells you nothing, so what you make of it is
EITHER arbitrary, or inferred from the context surrounding the
silence.



The context for a trial
is supplied by the "burden of proof". It is simply legaly wrong to
claim "when you have NO DATA, you have no meaning." When you have no
data, the side with the Burden of proof LOSES

Got that ?

You are the one who are not getting it, despite the fact that you are
writing it. If the side with the burden of proof loses in case of
silence, then it CLEARLY means that silence does not betoken assent.

I'll spoon feed it to you.

Prosecutor: "Did you murder John F. Kennedy?"

Defendant: <silence>

If no other evidence inculpates the defendant, he walks.

Therefore, <silence> != "yes"

Capisce?

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 aug 2007 04:56:59

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:wHkwi.138$wi6.1327@eagle.america.net...
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.

Since Hines is so pernickety that he needs to repost his drivel just to
correct the mess he made of parentheses, I will take this opportunity to
state that I do _not_ glory in the memory of Queen Elizabeth or any other
royal personage.

I support the Australian republican movement, and since schooldays when I
first thought about this for myself I have considered hereditary monarchy a
particularly stupid arrangement: in the United Kingdom, you have only to
imagine the consequences if the present queen's half-witted uncle Henry,
duke of Gloucester, had happened to be born before her father. (That addled
prince actually fantasised that he was Charlie Chaplin rather than the Great
Dictator, but I'm sure readers will get the point as no doubt Hitler &
others would have done: a similar accident of birth will naturally happen to
the succession one day.) At least next time the British parliament will have
the sense not to elect another branch of the clan to take over.

The ludicrous honours and meaningless deference paid by many British
subjects to their queen, who is treated in some ways as a demi-godess,
existing in a bubble or reverence & illustrious style that is wildly out of
proportion to the way any of her subjects nowadays can live, or to the
importance of her duties, is to me a very backward way of exalting the State
through virtual worship of its head.

Any observer can admit that she is personally ordinary, though admirable for
her dedication to service in the role she never sought. But only the
dedication is remarkable, whereas the service she renders is much overrated.
An elected or appointed president could do every bit as much, every bit as
well if not better, without the family baggage and discarding the obsolete
claim to "Majesty".

Queen Elizabeth did not object to such views in her guests - as a commoner
from birth, she was quite capable of seeing a pattern of royal spouses being
literally the better half of their marital unions, at least from the Prince
Consort onwards, whether or not she might have admitted she belonged in this
tradition herself.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 15 aug 2007 05:08:40

As I have been saying:

Peter 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
------------------------------------------------------------

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:fQuwi.20516$4A1.8206@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

The ludicrous honours and meaningless deference paid by many British
subjects to their queen, who is treated in some ways as a demi-godess,
existing in a bubble or [sic] reverence & illustrious style that is wildly
out of proportion to the way any of her subjects nowadays can live, or to
the importance of her duties, is to me a very backward way of exalting the
State through virtual worship of its head.

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 aug 2007 07:03:57

What can this mean? Is Hines, a supposedly loyal citizen of the United
States, trying to say that republicanism is a sign of mental decay and/
or only for down-&-outs?

He has followed his usual coward's practice of deleting what he can't
answer, but the one sentence of mine that he was willing to quote
should have read:

The ludicrous honours and meaningless deference paid by many British
subjects to their queen, who is treated in some ways as a demi-godess,
existing in a bubble of reverence & illustrious style that is wildly
out of proportion to the way any of her subjects nowadays can live, or
to the importance of her duties, is to me a very backward way of
exalting the State through virtual worship of its head.

Doe Hines have an actual point to make in reference to this? Or is he
still just trying without skill to turn himself into a comic
monstrosity for readers to laugh at?

Hurricane Flossie is about to deliver more wild hot air to Hawaii, so
that Hines will be outdone and done over by nature yet again....

Peter Stewart

On Aug 15, 2:08 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
As I have been saying:

Peter 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
------------------------------------------------------------

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote in message

news:fQuwi.20516$4A1.8206@news-server.bigpond.net.au...



The ludicrous honours and meaningless deference paid by many British
subjects to their queen, who is treated in some ways as a demi-godess,
existing in a bubble or [sic] reverence & illustrious style that is wildly
out of proportion to the way any of her subjects nowadays can live, or to
the importance of her duties, is to me a very backward way of exalting the
State through virtual worship of its head.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

John Plant

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av John Plant » 15 aug 2007 09:44:23

It is you who introduced calculating precise fpe rates into the
discussion. I never did believe that was appropriate since my
experimental data is simply not good enough for that! That is not how I
have used the data (incidentally what I used was a combination of the
Y-DNA data *and* some extra name-distribution data). Calculating fpe
rates is not what my discussion is about.

You want to talk about a *precise* calculation: I said "about 50%"; you
said sixty something percent. I still say "about 50%" because it would
be scientifically dishonest to discuss this as though it has anything to
do with anything other than a "rough round-figure estimate" for the
purposes of a simple illustrative model of roughly how much fpe there
might be. I repeat that I was not myself discussing fpe rates at all.
Then someone else made a comment that seemed to confuse "fpe rate per
generation" with "fpe rate per ancestral line". It was only then that I
gave a very simple illustrative calculation, to show how the two
inter-related and included an indication of the levels of uncertainty in
the calcultion, for practical purposes, by saying "about 50%" rather
than "sixty something" percent. Since then there has been endless futile
discussion as though I said "50%" when, for good reason, I did not!

Beyond the uncertainties that I have already mentioned, there is a
further uncertainty in connection with estimates involving an "fpe rate
per ancestral line". We do not know how many generations there have been
for each ancestral line for each living individual since a surname was
founded. That is another reason why flying off at a tangent into a
discussion of something more precise than "about 50%" is entirely
misleading. A good scientist always has an eye on the accuracy of his
numbers when he quotes them. I have consistently talked about "ball park
figures" and "rules of thumb".

For the first set of Y-DNA results, I had six out of seven matching.
That is not even as accurate as "about 50%". By the time of my Nomina 28
paper, I had nine out of fourteen matching. That's getting broadly close
to "about 50%". I now have eleven out of twenty matching. That's pretty
accurately "about 50%". When I get some more results, it might diverge
again making it still grossly inappropriate to talk about anything more
accurate than "about 50%"?

Note that, right from the outset, I did not say "50%". I said "about
50%". I did not "bollix the math" as you put it. It is not I who is
"bollixing the science"!

John



D. Spencer Hines wrote:
BINGO!

Then, after picking a "made-up" figure he bollixed the math for his own
calculation.

Sound & Fury Told By An Idiot -- Signifying Nothing.

Zip Point Zero...

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

WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.480.1187112097.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
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.



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

--
..
.. John S Plant BSc PhD MBCS CITP MInstP MIDI KLUO
Computing, Finance & IT Directorate, Keele University, England, ST5 5BG.

John Plant

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av John Plant » 15 aug 2007 09:52:41

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
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.


That's pretty much what *I* was saying in the first place. However, 2%
to 5% is not entirely nonsense. It is surely not 0%. Going much above 5%
becomes insulting to the integrity of most women. Btw, the Swiss study
did not give 0% - it just gave a small value. The <1% quoted for the
Swiss study was not an upper limit. It was just an acknowledgment than
talking in figures any more precise than "under one percent" was not
justified.

John

Gjest

Re: Fw: who is Alice/Alecia (nee unkown) (born about 1373 in

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 aug 2007 10:08:03

Okay now turn all those mights and maybes and probablys into something we
all can verify by getting sources.

Mike would not be the first amateur or even professional genealogist to make
the wrong assumptions and create fictitious lines that people like Dolores
spend years researching only to have them shown to be spurious.

Mike does not cite his sources, that is a big giant significant red flag
Dolores.
It may mean that somewhere in Mike's sources is a big fat assumption that
simply isn't true, or can't be proven.

Faith has no business in genealogy. Leaps of faith are for people who have
a strange desire to plunge into a bottemless abyss.

Will Johnson



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

bevanddale

Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 854

Legg inn av bevanddale » 15 aug 2007 10:13:00

unsubscribe
----- Original Message -----
From: <gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:26 PM
Subject: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 854




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


Today's Topics:

1. Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry (John Brandon)
2. Re: who is Alice Alecia (born about 1373 in Of Swanborne,
Hampshire, England), wife of Robert White, married on 1421
(Dolores C. Phifer)
3. No Permanent Enemies & No Permanent Allies -- National
Interests Paramount (D. Spencer Hines)
4. Re: who is Alice Alecia (born about 1373 in Of Swanborne,
Hampshire, England), wife of Robert White, married on 1421
(Dolores C. Phifer)
5. Re: who is Alice Alecia (born about 1373 in Of Swanborne,
Hampshire, England), wife of Robert White, married on 1421
(Dolores C. Phifer)
6. Re: Lady Godiva (TJ Booth)
7. Re: who is Alice Alecia (born about 1373 in Of Swanborne,
Hampshire, England), wife of Robert White, married on 1421
(Dolores C. Phifer)
8. Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity
Events [FPE] (WJhonson@aol.com)
9. Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity
Events [FPE] (WJhonson@aol.com)
10. Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity
Events [FPE] (WJhonson@aol.com)
11. Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity
Events [FPE] (WJhonson@aol.com)

John Plant

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av John Plant » 15 aug 2007 10:25:32

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/14/2007 2:07:20 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:

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.

----------------
You don't discuss it at the proper level. You launch into the data as
if it shows facts without discussing the data in the wider context of
how the volunteers were recruited, how that might affect what dataset
has been gathered, etc. You don't discuss that aspect because it would
show immediately that the set is skewed.


How would it show that the data is skewed? The volunteers were not
recruited. They just became aware of Y-DNA testing and volunteered. OK,
they *might be* a bit more affluent than the average Plant but no-one
really knows, so it is not really worth mentioning, particularly as we
do not know how that might skew the results.


At the risk of repeating myself, the developments go something like this:

(1) David Hey published that the Plant surname was "multi-origin" mostly
on the basis of the data in Figure 1(b) of my Nomina 28 paper;

(2) on the basis of the further name distribution data in Figure 1(a)
and the Y-DNA data in Table 1, I have argued that Plant surname could be
"single ancestor".

David Hey, after seeing the extra data, accepted this. The Nomina
journal published it. What more is worth saying?

There could have been a lengthy discussion of how the data *might be*
skewed, not least because there may be "missing data" from the name
distribution data. However, Nomina readers already understand that and I
doubt that the editor would have accepted such a discussion. There is
nothing to "show immediately that the set is skewed" as you put it. Is
there?

OK, this does not *prove* as much as we would like. In the Nomina paper,
I use terms such as "likely, though not proven". This is the usual
currency of Nomina discussions. No-one is saying that the world would
not be much simpler if we had definite "black and white" proofs of
everything. However, like it or not, that is not the real world that we
live in. Scientists know it. Nomina readers know it. What more can I say?

John

Gjest

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 aug 2007 10:41:05

The marriage between Gruffydd and Aelfgar's daughter has been found repeated
in Aelfgar's DNB (1922) entry as well. They have scant authorities, but one
I've not read is Florence of Worcester's Chronicle.

It turns out there is a Google Books entry here
_http://books.google.com/books?id=gpR0iz5GjYgC&dq=florence+of+worcester+chroni
cle&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=w8oeIPDK6X&sig=neyQXj1xQtaUj5pY_q8TIjoU
SAs#PPP9,M1_
(http://books.google.com/books?id=gpR0iz ... eyQXj1xQta
Uj5pY_q8TIjoUSAs#PPP9,M1)
a translation by Thomas Forester

So either the statements of the marriage are in *there* or one more source
bites the dust.

Will Johnson



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

John Plant

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av John Plant » 15 aug 2007 10:47:03

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
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.


I do not know how the ball park figure of 2% to 5% arose on the
GENEALOGY-DNA list. Being a skeptic myself, I have tried to look into it
further, and I have already passed on to you what it says in the
*scientific* book "Human Evolutionary Genetics". There, they refer to
various studies and state values of <1% to 30% for fpe rates in various
populations. As I have stated elsewhere, it is not me who wanted to get
into this discussion of fpe rates as *I* do not believe that there is
enough data to talk of precise figures for any given population. I have
not relied on precise fpe rates in any of my reasoning.

When the discussion turned to fpe rates on this discussion list
(presumably because this is a matter of some particular interest for
this discussion list), all I have mentioned is that, for what it is
worth, "my" available data can be adequately represented by a simple
model of a single family with an fpe rate of "about 2%". I have
steadfastly refused to be drawn into precise numbers and precise
calculations because "my" data does not justify that.

OK, "my" data does not have much in the way of fingers. I have mentioned
the book "Human Evolutionary Genetics" which has a few more fingers.
However, it should most particularly be borne in mind that this is a
developing field for which most people would like to see more fingers:
not necessarily, just two.

John

Steven Loyd

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

Legg inn av Steven Loyd » 15 aug 2007 11:48:35

Thanks for notes, Will, but I'm sorry I can't see any problems on that:

- you wrote: "it only calls Maria Countess of Lecce without mentioning
that she was also Queen of /Naples/ and titular Queen of Sicily,
Jerusalem and Hungary."

But at the time she married Raimondo Orsini she "simply" became countess
of Lecce.
Only LATER she became queen, getting married to Ladislao I, as it is
correctly stated in the genealogy of the Angevins here
http://www.genmarenostrum.com/pagine-le ... gioini.htm

- you also wrote: "This page also addresses one chronological problem in
placing Raymondo with a birth of "about 1361", after giving his parents
a marriage date of "between 1352 and 1355"
Once again I can't see a problem.... Seems to you "chronological
impossible" that a couple got there fourth son several years after there
marriage?
Maybe you can be drove in some sort of "confusion" by the fact that the
genealogy state that Maria "+ testamento: 1357" but it's not mean that
she died on 1357; it mean that she made her will ("testamento" in
Italian) on 1357



-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of WJhonson
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 12:04 AM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Isabella di Chiaramonte m 1444 Ferdinand I, King of Naples


<<In a message dated 08/14/07 13:39:34 Pacific Standard Time,
andrra@email.it writes:
http://www.genmarenostrum.com/pagine-le ... orsini.htm

----------------
Thanks for this link Steven.
Interesting that it only calls Maria Countess of Lecce without
mentioning that she was also Queen of /Naples/ and titular Queen of
Sicily, Jerusalem and Hungary.

Her full list of titles even if only titular or
based-on-her-later-forced-marriage make her stand out far more and alert
the reader that there is something very significant about her ancestry.

This page also addresses one chronological problem in placing Raymondo
with a birth of "about 1361", after giving his parents a marriage date
of "between 1352 and 1355"

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



--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Conto Arancio: fino a marzo 2008 4,50%. Aprilo ora!
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6744&d=15-8

Peter Stewart

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

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 aug 2007 12:29:02

"Steven Loyd" <andrra@email.it> wrote in message
news:mailman.541.1187174983.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Thanks for notes, Will, but I'm sorry I can't see any problems on that:

- you wrote: "it only calls Maria Countess of Lecce without mentioning
that she was also Queen of /Naples/ and titular Queen of Sicily,
Jerusalem and Hungary."

But at the time she married Raimondo Orsini she "simply" became countess
of Lecce.
Only LATER she became queen, getting married to Ladislao I, as it is
correctly stated in the genealogy of the Angevins here
http://www.genmarenostrum.com/pagine-le ... gioini.htm

- you also wrote: "This page also addresses one chronological problem in
placing Raymondo with a birth of "about 1361", after giving his parents
a marriage date of "between 1352 and 1355"
Once again I can't see a problem.... Seems to you "chronological
impossible" that a couple got there fourth son several years after there
marriage?
Maybe you can be drove in some sort of "confusion" by the fact that the
genealogy state that Maria "+ testamento: 1357" but it's not mean that
she died on 1357; it mean that she made her will ("testamento" in
Italian) on 1357

This is mistaken - Maria was not yet born in 1357 (she died in 1446). It was
her first mother-in-law, Raimondo's mother Jeanne (aka Gorizia) de Sabran,
whose testament was written in 1357. Litta's account (itself also confused
in some respects) of this branch of the Orsini family was discussed here
once before, when Douglas Richardson was demanding information from me that
he wouldn't bother to look up for himself.

Peter Stewart

Steven Loyd

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

Legg inn av Steven Loyd » 15 aug 2007 12:50:35

Yes I'm sorry it's been my mistake.

Thinking Jeanne de Sabran I wrote ....Maria!

BTW was Jeanne (aka Gorizia) de Sabran that wrote her "testamento" on
1357 (as stated on the cited genealogy)

-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Peter Stewart
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 1:29 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Isabella di Chiaramonte m 1444 Ferdinand I, King of Naples



"Steven Loyd" <andrra@email.it> wrote in message
news:mailman.541.1187174983.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Thanks for notes, Will, but I'm sorry I can't see any problems on
that:

- you wrote: "it only calls Maria Countess of Lecce without mentioning

that she was also Queen of /Naples/ and titular Queen of Sicily,
Jerusalem and Hungary."

But at the time she married Raimondo Orsini she "simply" became
countess of Lecce. Only LATER she became queen, getting married to
Ladislao I, as it is correctly stated in the genealogy of the Angevins

here
http://www.genmarenostrum.com/pagine-le ... gioini.htm

- you also wrote: "This page also addresses one chronological problem
in placing Raymondo with a birth of "about 1361", after giving his
parents a marriage date of "between 1352 and 1355" Once again I can't
see a problem.... Seems to you "chronological impossible" that a
couple got there fourth son several years after there marriage?
Maybe you can be drove in some sort of "confusion" by the fact that
the
genealogy state that Maria "+ testamento: 1357" but it's not mean
that
she died on 1357; it mean that she made her will ("testamento" in
Italian) on 1357

This is mistaken - Maria was not yet born in 1357 (she died in 1446). It
was
her first mother-in-law, Raimondo's mother Jeanne (aka Gorizia) de
Sabran,
whose testament was written in 1357. Litta's account (itself also
confused
in some respects) of this branch of the Orsini family was discussed here

once before, when Douglas Richardson was demanding information from me
that
he wouldn't bother to look up for himself.

Peter Stewart



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



--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
In REGALO 'Meravigliosa Creatura' la super hit di GIANNA NANNINI
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6615&d=15-8

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 aug 2007 13:49:17

<starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187102168.727374.141620@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
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.

As usual, you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick that you are
poking yourself with: I do not suffer from epilepsy at all; any injury can
only be acquired not congenital - you mean impairment; and there is no
reason to suppose that trigeminal neuralgia is a result of the motorbike
accident that happened twenty-two years before this condition first
occurred.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av John Brandon » 15 aug 2007 15:57:21

As usual, you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick that you are
poking yourself with: I do not suffer from epilepsy at all; any injury can

I was not poking at anybody: not at myself, and certainly not at you
in your delapidated state. I was merely stating the facts as I know
of them, ma'am.

TJ Booth

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av TJ Booth » 15 aug 2007 16:31:20

Will,

There was an extended discussion of this general topic in 2002.

Especially relevant is the following post by taf, which states ' AElfgar was
already witnessing charters in 1044, setting a limit
on his birthdate, and hence on his mother's age.'

See http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/ge ... 1030517870

No primary source is noted, but I don't doubt the post, which would seem to
set Aelfgar's birthdate bef 1024 and thus Godiva's marriage bef 1023.

Terry Booth
Chicago

----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: Lady Godiva


I'm slowly transcribing the ASC entries for Leofric here

http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... ry_sources

I've just found why they were not married "about 1030"
It's in ASC (E) 1051 when Harold was outlawed and Aelfgar, son of Leofric
is given the Earldom of East Anglia.

I hope we can all agree that a 20 year old boy would not be given an
earldom of this size. So Godgifu, if she is his mother, had to be married
prior to 1030.

Will Johnson

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

Tony Hoskins

Re: Red Faces as Dispenser Hines faces the truth.

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 15 aug 2007 17:01:11

Continuing this OT thread.

In re: F 9/11: facts you'll never get "mainstream":

The Nine Lies of Fahrenheit 9/11
RNC ^ | July 12, 2004

Posted on 07/12/2004 3:07:49 PM PDT by RWR8189

Fahrenheit Lie #1

National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice is depicted in the movie
telling a reporter, "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what
happened on 9/11."
The scene deceptively shows the Administration directly blaming Saddam
and his regime for the attacks on 9/11 by taking her comments out of
context. Now read the entire statement made by Ms. Rice to the reporter:

"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It's
not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in
9/11. But if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of
ideologies of hatred that led people to drive airplanes into buildings
in New York." (CBS News, November 28, 2003 Interview)

Fahrenheit Lie #2

In the film, Moore leads viewers to believe that members of bin Laden's
family were allowed to exit the country after the attacks without
questioning by authorities. o The September 11th commission, on the
other hand, reported that 22 of the 26 people on the flight that took
most of the bin Laden family out of the country were interviewed and
found to be innocent of suspicion. (Sumana Chatterjee and David
Golstein, "Analyzing 'Fahrenheit 9/11': It's Accurate To A Degree,"
Seattle Times, 07/05/04)

The commission reported that "each of the flights we have studied was
investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to
its departure."

Fahrenheit Lie #3

Moore claims that James Bath, a friend of President Bush from his time
with the Texas Air National Guard, might have funneled bin Laden money
to an unsuccessful Bush oil-drilling firm called Arbusto Energy.

Bill Allison, managing editor for the Center for Public Integrity (an
independent watchdog group in Washington, D.C.), on the other hand,
said, "We looked into bin Laden money going to Arbusto, and we never
found anything to back that up," (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein,
"Analyzing 'Fahrenheit 9/11': It's Accurate To A Degree," Seattle Times,
07/05/04)

Fahrenheit Lie #4

The movie claims that the Bush administration "supported closing
veterans hospitals." o "The Department of Veterans Affairs did propose
closing seven hospitals in areas with declining populations where the
hospitals were underutilized, and whose veterans could be served by
other hospitals" (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, "Fifty-nine
Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11," http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)

But Moore's film fails to mention that the Department also proposed
building new hospitals in areas where needs were growing, and also
proposed building blind rehabilitation centers and spinal cord injury
centers (News Release, Department of Veterans Affairs, http://www.va.gov,
10/24/03)

Fahrenheit Lie #5

Conspiracy theories abound about the reasons for the War on Terror, but
none is more outlandish than the one propagandized in Moore's film: that
the Afghan war was fought solely to enable the Unocal company to build
an oil pipeline (the plan for which was abandoned by the company in
1998).

Moore "suggests that one of the first official acts of Afghan President
Hamid Karzai … was to help seal a deal for … Unocal to build an oil
pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean.
It alleges that Karzai had been a Unocal consultant." (emphasis added)
(Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, "Analyzing 'Fahrenheit 9/11':
It's Accurate To A Degree," Seattle Times, 07/05/04)

Unocal spokesman, Barry Lane, says unequivocally, "Karzai was never, in
any capacity, an employee, consultant or a consultant of a consultant,"
and Unocal never had a plan to build a Caspian Sea pipeline. (Sumana
Chatterjee and David Golstein, "Analyzing 'Fahrenheit 9/11': It's
Accurate To A Degree," Seattle Times, 07/05/04)

Moore mentions that the Taliban visited Texas while President Bush was
governor to discuss a potential project with Unocal.

While Moore implies that then-Governor Bush met with the Taliban, no
such meeting occurred. The Taliban delegation did, however, meet with
the Clinton Administration on this visit. (Matt Labash, "Un-Moored From
Reality; Fahrenheit 9/11 Connects Dots That Aren't There," Weekly
Standard, July 5-July 12 Issue)

Fahrenheit Lie #6

Even readily available figures are exaggerated for effect in Fahrenheit
9/11. The claims have a basis in reality, making them believable, but
are false nonetheless. * In the film, Moore asks Craig Unger, author of
House of Bush, House of Saud, "How much money do the Saudis have
invested in America, roughly?" to which Unger responds, "Uh, I've heard
figures as high as $860 billion."

The Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy reports that
worldwide Saudi investment approximated $700 billion - a figure much
lower than Unger alleges the Saudi government to have invested in the
U.S. (Tanya C. Hsu, Institute For Research: Middle Eastern Policy, "The
United States Must Not Neglect Saudi Arabian Investment," http://www.irmep.org,
Accessed 07/11/04)

The Institute reports that 60 percent of that $700 billion - roughly
$420 billion, less than half of what Unger "heard" - was actually
invested in the United States by the Saudi government.

Fahrenheit Lie #7

"Moore's film suggests that [President] Bush has close family ties to
the bin Laden family - principally through [President] Bush's father's
relationship with the Carlyle Group, a private investment firm. The
president's father, George H.W. Bush, was a senior adviser to the
Carlyle Group's Asian affiliate until recently; members of the bin Laden
family - who own one of Saudi Arabia's biggest construction firms - had
invested $2 million in a Carlyle Group fund. Bush Sr. and the bin Ladens
have since severed ties with the Carlyle Group, which in any case has a
bipartisan roster of partners, including Bill Clinton's former SEC
chairman Arthur Levitt. The movie quotes author Dan Briody claiming that
the Carlyle Group 'gained' from September 11 because it owned United
Defense, a military contractor. Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman
notes that United Defense holds a special distinction among U.S. defense
contractors that is not mentioned in Moore's movie: the firm's $11
billion Crusader artillery rocket system developed for the U.S. Army is
one of the only weapons systems canceled by the Bush administration."
(Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, "Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit
9/11," http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)

"There is another famous investor in Carlyle whom Moore does not
reveal: George Soros. But the fact that the anti-Bush billionaire
[Soros] has invested in Carlyle would detract from Moore's simplistic
conspiracy theory." (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, "Fifty-nine
Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11," http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)

Fahrenheit Lie #8

Not revealing relevant facts is dishonest enough. But to paint the Bush
Administration as sympathetic and friendly to the Taliban prior to
September 11, is not only dishonest, but maliciously so. * Moore shows
film of a March 2001 visit to the United States by a Taliban delegation,
claiming that the Administration "welcomed" the Taliban official, Sayed
Hashemi, "to tour the United States to help improve the image of the
Taliban."

But the Administration did not welcome the Taliban with open arms. In
fact, the State Department rejected the Taliban's claim that it had
complied with U.S. requests to isolate bin Laden.

To demonstrate even further the Administration's contempt for the
Taliban and its illegitimacy, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher
- on the day of the terrorist regime's visit - said, "We don't recognize
any government in Afghanistan."

Fahrenheit Lie #9

Moore does more than simply downplay the threat posed to the U.S. by
the former Hussein regime in Iraq. He goes so far as to assert that
Saddam "never threatened to attack the United States."

If by "attack the United States" one interprets this claim to mean that
Saddam never threatened to send troops to the United States, then Mr.
Moore has a point. * But Saddam Hussein clearly sought to attack the
United States within his own sphere of influence, even though he didn't
have the resources to attack U.S. soil from his side of the world:

On November 15, 1997, "the main propaganda organ for the Saddam regime,
the newspaper Babel (which was run by Saddam Hussein's son Uday),
ordered: 'American and British interests, embassies, and naval ships in
the Arab region should be the targets of military operations and
commando attacks by Arab political forces.'" (Dave Kopel, Independence
Institute, "Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11," http://i2i.org/
Accessed, 07/11/04)

In addition, "Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the
aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide
in the north and south of the country," (Source: New York Times,
12/1/03).

Saddam Hussein also provided safe haven to terrorists who killed
Americans, like Abu Nidal; funded suicide bombers in Israel who
certainly killed Americans; and ran the Iraqi police, which plotted to
assassinate former President George Bush.

CRITICISM OF FAHRENHEIT 9/11

Newsweek Columnists Isikoff & Hosenball: Moore "Twists and Bends" The
Facts. "But for all the reasonable points he makes, on more than a few
occasions in the movie Moore twists and bends the available facts and
makes glaring omissions in ways that end up clouding the serious
political debate he wants to provoke." (By Michael Isikoff and Mark
Hosenball, "More Distortions From Michael Moore," Newsweek Online,
6/30/04)

Christopher Hitchens: Fahrenheit 9/11 "Sinister Exercise In Moral
Frivolity." "To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would
almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To
describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a
discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe
it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely
disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of
abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of
'dissenting' bravery." (Christopher Hitchens, "Unfairenheit 9/11; The
Lies Of Michael Moore," Slate, 6/21/04)

Former NY Mayor Ed Koch: Fahrenheit 9/11 "Propaganda" And "Screed." "I
am a movie critic, so I went to see "Fahrenheit 9/11." The movie is a
well-done propaganda piece and screed as has been reported by most
critics. It is not a documentary which seeks to present the facts
truthfully. The most significant offense that movie commits is to
cheapen the political debate by dehumanizing the President and
presenting him as a cartoon. … Now that no WMDs have yet been found, was
the invasion to end the reign of Saddam Hussein, who had killed and
tortured hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, still supportable?
Moore thinks not. I think, yes. The movie's diatribes, sometimes amusing
and sometimes manifestly unfair, will not change any views. They will
simply cheapen the national debate and reinforce the opinions on both
sides." (Ed Koch, Op/Ed, "Koch: Moore's Propaganda Film Cheapens Debate,
Polarizes Nation," World Tribune, 6/29/04)

Washington Post Columnist Richard Cohen: Fahrenheit 9/11 "Silly" And
"Incomprehensible." "I brought a notebook with me when I went to see
Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11' and in the dark made notes before I
gave up, defeated by the utter stupidity of the movie. … 'Fahrenheit
9/11' is not, as proclaimed, a sure sign that Bush is on his way out but
is instead a warning to the Democrats to keep the loony left at a safe
distance. … Moore's depiction of why Bush went to war is so silly and so
incomprehensible that it is easily dismissed. As far as I can tell, it
is a farrago of conspiracy theories. … It is so juvenile in its
approach, so awful in its journalism, such an inside joke for people who
already hate Bush, that I found myself feeling a bit sorry for a
president who is depicted mostly as a befuddled dope. I fear how it will
play to the undecided." (Richard Cohen, "Baloney, Moore Or Less," The
Washington Post, 7/1/04)

Douglas Richardson

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

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 15 aug 2007 17:20:18

Dear Steven ~

The following is a transcript of a medieval document relating to the
Orsini family of Italy found in the "Lettres Communes" of Pope Urbain
V. This
document traces the ancestry of Sir Niccolò Orsini (died 1399), Count
of Nola, back to his great-grandfather, Guy de Montfort, Count of
Nola, which Guy was a younger son of the well known Simon de Montfort,
Earl of Leicester in England.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: Urbain V (1362-1370): Lettres Communes, 2 (1964): 55-56.

Date: 15 April 1363.

5408. "Venerabili fratri Petro, archiepiscopo Neapolitan., salutem
etc. Exhibita nobis per dilectum filium Nicolaum de Filiis Ursi,
comitem Nolanum, petitio continebat quod dudum clare mem. Carolus,
primus rex Sicilie, qd. Guidoni de Monteforti civitatem Nolanam cum
casalibus, hominibus, feudatariis, vassallis atque aliis juribus et
pertinentiis civitatis ejusdem necnon castra Montisfortis, Acripaldi
et
Forini cum territoriis ac juribus et pertinenciis eorumdem sub titulo
comitatus et certo feudali servicio donavit illaque idem Guido longo
tempore tenuit et possedit pacifice et quiete. Sed postmodum ex eo
quod dicebatur dictum Guidonem in persona clare memorie Henrici in
regem Romanorum electi deliquisse, idem rex Carolus seu ejus curis
regis comitatum Nolanum et alia supradicta tanquam sibi commissa
posuit
ad manum suam et per aliqua tempora tenuit et aliqua loca et bona ad
ipsum comitatum spectantia quibusdam personis sub certis novis
serviciis et titulo feudali concessit quodque deinde, prefato Guidone
reducto ad gratiam dicti regis et demum in ejus servitiis viam
universe
carnis ingresso, qd. Anastasia, ejusdem Guidonis filia, per clare
mem. Carolum, secundum regem Sicilie, ad dictum comitatum per eum et
successores suos tenendum perpetuo extitit restituta et quamdiu vixit
integrum feudale servicium persolvit et fecit curie curie memorate et
tandem, dicta Anastasia a rebus humanis exempta, idem Nicolaus, comes,
nepos et legitimus heres Anastasie prefate, eidem legitime successit
in
comitatu predicto ac idem servicium similiter solvit et fecit curie
supradicte licet persone quibus quedam loca et bona dicti comitatus
per
dictam curiam tempore quo dictum comitatum tenebat ad manum suam
fuerunt in feudum concessa sub novis serviciis, ut prefertur,
recusaverint et recusent dicto Nicolao de dictis serviciis respondere
dicentes quod ea exhibent curie sepedicte. Continebat etiam petitio
supradicta quod quamvis ipse comes nonnulla ex bonis et locis
hujusmodi dicti comitatus per prefatam curiam, ut prefertur, concessis
de novo
acquisiverit et reuniverit comitatui supradicto, tamen curia ipsa,
quamvis idem comes integrum servicium pro comitatu prefacto eidem
curie
exhibeat, ut prefertur, eadem nova servicia dicens ea prescripsisse
pro ipsis locis et bonis reacquisitis et reunitis exigere nititur ab
eodem
quodque prefata regina de hiis informata, consideratis fide ac gratis
serviciis dicti comitis eidem impensis, hujusmodi loca et bona a
prefato comitatu divisa ad ipsum reduceret eundemque comitatum
reintegraret de ipsis ac eidem comiti servicia eadem libenter
remitteret si pacta olim inter Romanam ecclesiam ac dictum Carolum in
concessione dicti regni, in quo regina ipsa eidem Carolo succedit et
quod a nobis et prefata ecclesia tenet in feudum, de non alienandis
bonis demanialibus dicti regni habita non obstarent. Unde comes
prefatus nobis humiliter supplicavit ut memorate regine loca et bona
hujusmodi a prefato comitatu divisa ad ipsum reducendi secundum statum
primevum eundemque comitatum reintegrandi de ipsis ac dicto comiti et
suis successoribus hujusmodi nova servicia totaliter remittendi, non
obstantibus commissione seu confiscatione dicti comitatus ac
prescriptione quacunque necnon pactis et conventionibus inter prefatam
Romanam ecclesiam et dictum Carolum primum in concessione prefati
regni habitis seu factis de non aliendis bonis demanialibus ipsius
regni,
necnon constitutionibus apostolicis et juramento dicte regine
contrariis, dignaremur licenciam impartiri. Nos autem de premissis
noticiam non habentes ac de ipsorum veritate et circunstanciis
volentes plenius informari, fraternitati tue de qua in hiis et aliis
plenam in
Domino fiduciam obtinemus presentium tenore committimus et mandamus
quatinus de premissis et eorum circunstanciis universis, persertim de
jure dicte regine et interesse Romane ecclesie prelibate et aliorum
quorum interest te simpliciter et de plano et sine strepitu et figura
judiciis informare ac informationem quam inde receperis nobis sub
forma publica vel sub tuo sigillo destinare procures,
contradictores ..
Datum Avinione, xvii kal. maii anno primo." (A. 154, f. 515 [dans la
marge: De Camera]; V. 252, f. 54').

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 15 aug 2007 17:28:41

Nope...

He bollixed the MATH.

His method of calculating an FPE rate for a Line Of Descent [LOD] is fatally
flawed -- both mathematically and conceptually.

He simply multiplied the SWAG FPE rate for ONE generation [2%] by the
postulated NUMBER of generations [25] in the LOD and got 50%.

Hilarious!

That's bollixed math for a genealogical model -- proving he doesn't know
what he is are doing.

He doesn't understand the Mathematics of Joint Probabilities.

Plant is a barefoot empiricist at loose in the jungle -- web-spinning and
thumb-sucking as he goes.

His models have no intellectual or conceptual integrity and are Doomed To
Perdition and to the Garbage Can.

'Nuff Said.

John 5:14

Matthew 7:6

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

"John Plant" <j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:mailman.535.1187167363.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Note that, right from the outset, I did not say "50%". I said "about 50%".
I did not "bollix the math" as you put it. It is not I who is "bollixing
the science"!

John

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

BINGO!

Then, after picking a "made-up" figure he bollixed the math for his own
calculation.

Sound & Fury Told By An Idiot -- Signifying Nothing.

Zip Point Zero...

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

WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.480.1187112097.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
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.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 15 aug 2007 17:30:51

Hilarious!

So he admits he has just posted a big pile of nonsense.

Game Over.

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

"John Plant" <j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:mailman.536.1187167861.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
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.


That's pretty much what *I* was saying in the first place.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 15 aug 2007 17:35:56

Plant's looniest and most amusing SWAG is his envious, pathetic and bathetic
contention that folks named PLANT are somehow ipso facto genealogiclly
connected to the PLANTAGENETS.

Hilarious!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

John Brandon

Re: Usefulness of Chancery Proceedings in the _Lists & Index

Legg inn av John Brandon » 15 aug 2007 17:42:50

So in addition to your work causing me to churn the list, it's also driving
me to bankruptcy.
So that's another useful purpose :) ~~~~

Well, all I can say is try to control yourself. =)~

Gjest

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 aug 2007 17:46:03

<<In a message dated 8/15/2007 1:42:54 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:

You want to talk about a *precise* calculation: I said "about 50%"; you
said sixty something percent. I still say "about 50%">>
--------------
50 is made-up, 60 is made-up, 2 to 5 is made-up

Is that clear yet? These figures have no basis in reality whatsoever.
Present the raw data.





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

taf

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av taf » 15 aug 2007 17:49:29

On Aug 14, 5:31 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
I'm slowly transcribing the ASC entries for Leofric here

http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... #Primary...

I've just found why they were not married "about 1030"
It's in ASC (E) 1051 when Harold was outlawed and Aelfgar, son of Leofric is given the Earldom of East Anglia.

I hope we can all agree that a 20 year old boy would not be given an earldom of this size. So Godgifu, if she is his mother, had to be married prior to 1030.


We cannot. AElfgar's sons were both given large earldoms at younger
ages. In naming AElfgar, he would have been appeasing the entire
family and their allies, and so the age of the earl himself is less
important that the political influence.

taf

Gjest

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 aug 2007 18:00:05

In a message dated 8/15/2007 2:24:33 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:

There could have been a lengthy discussion of how the data *might be*
skewed, not least because there may be "missing data" from the name
distribution data. However, Nomina readers already understand that and I
doubt that the editor would have accepted such a discussion. There is
nothing to "show immediately that the set is skewed" as you put it. Is
there?


-----------------
Yes, the number one piece of evidence I present, your honor and members of
the jury, is this long long long argument the author is presenting against
using well-established scientific methods.

Should be pretty clear by now.

Will



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

Gjest

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 aug 2007 18:01:04

In a message dated 8/15/2007 2:24:33 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, j.s.pla
nt@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:

How would it show that the data is skewed? The volunteers were not
recruited. They just became aware of Y-DNA testing and volunteered. OK,
they *might be* a bit more affluent than the average Plant but no-one
really knows, so it is not really worth mentioning, particularly as we
do not know how that might skew the results.


----------------
A typical response from someone who simply refuses to do the work necessary
to put their paper on a level with other sociological or anthropological
studies (which this is).

You refuse to discuss *how* the volunteers "became aware" of the testing.
By now, everyone should be well aware of exactly what is hiding under that
refusal.

Will



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

Gjest

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 aug 2007 18:02:03

In a message dated 8/15/2007 1:50:50 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:

That's pretty much what *I* was saying in the first place. However, 2%
to 5% is not entirely nonsense. It is surely not 0%. Going much above 5%
becomes insulting to the integrity of most women.


------------------
None of the above is scientific.
Next?

Will



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

John Plant

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av John Plant » 15 aug 2007 18:02:08

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/15/2007 1:42:54 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:

You want to talk about a *precise* calculation: I said "about 50%"; you
said sixty something percent. I still say "about 50%"

--------------
50 is made-up, 60 is made-up, 2 to 5 is made-up

Is that clear yet? These figures have no basis in reality whatsoever.
Present the raw data.


Close.

Except that the "about 50%" comes from my Y-DNA study, with a small
sample set. This has to be contrasted with one of these, one of those,
one of another, one of something else, with hardly anything (if anything
at all) matching, which is what comes out more typically from a surname
Y-DNA study, until eventually one or two are found that match.

My modal Y-DNA results can be explained by a single family with "quite a
low" (about 2%) fpe rate. The *science* book "Human Evolutionary
Genetics" gives rates for various populations of <1% to 30%, with an
"urban myth" amongst geneticists of around 10% - that is my basis for
claiming that "about 2%" is "quite low". I have mentioned a model that
is meaningful in as far as I have sample data from volunteers (which I
have *already* presented in raw form at
http://www.plant-fhg.org.uk/dna.html) which has a modal, single-family
lump and a random other "one of this, one of that, etc." remnant. Both
of these features - the lump and the random remnant - are what is to be
expected from the simple "single family with quite low fpe" model that I
have mentioned.

My name distribution data accumulated with some effort and the efforts
of others (for more details, see
http://www.plant-fhg.org.uk/distrib.html ignoring the pictures there for
the benefit of others) is consistent with this, as I have summarized in
my Nomina 28 paper.

On the other hand, when none (or hardly any) of a sample set of
volunteers for a surname match, this can be explained by a higher fpe
rate or by "multiple surname origins". The latter is a term used by the
traditional surname gurus. I suspect that a lower-end supposition to the
fpe rates (the quoted 2% to 5% ball park figure, not of my making) may
come partly out of surname holders simply preferring to believe that
their name was "multi-origin" rather than believing that there has been
a lot of fpe. More properly however, they should be assessing also the
historical "name distribution" data for their surname which is
relatively hard work and which is ignored by most people, especially
overseas where "their perceived origins" often do not go back as far as
documentary medieval evidence in England unless they are claiming a line
of descent from the royal family, with absolutely no interest in we
lesser mortals.

Any closer?

taf

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av taf » 15 aug 2007 18:02:53

On Aug 14, 6:53 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 08/14/07 11:11:53 Pacific Standard Time, farme...@interfold.com writes:
Setting aside the chronological issue, is there direct attestation
that Nesta was daughter of Griffith ap Llewellyn by Eadgyth? What is
the earliest source that contains this linkage. Given the unique
Welsh culture of marriage and concubinage, these things cannot be
assumed.

---------------------------------------------
To answer you Todd, I repost a posting by Clive West from 2005

Subj: Re: Nest wife of Osbert of Richard's Castle
Date: 6/10/05 10:41:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: clivew...@ukonline.co.uk (Clive West)
To: GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.comShinjinee wrote:
The databases inwww.stirnet.comhave this lady, daughter of Gruffyd ap Llywelyn (d 1063) by his wife, later queen of Harold II, married to Osbert of Richard's Castle (b ca 1066), whose father Richard a Norman settler in Hertfordshire is said to be the founder of the Scrope family. Is this correct? [I understand based on reading sgm archive that her other marriage is probably fictional, although it would be through that marriage that Llywelyn Fawr would be able to very conveniently claim a descent from the only man to (briefly) rule all of Wales].

If so, descendants of Leofric, earl of Mercia and his wife Godgifu and of Gruffyd ap Llywelyn can be traced among the many descendants of the Scrope baronial family.

Osbert fitzRichard of Richard's Castle certainly had a wife named Nest. Evidence for this is in charters 148 and 165 of the Worcester Cartulary (Pipe Roll Soc) where Osbert's son Hugo refers to his mother as Nest. The claim that Osbert's wife was the daughter of Gruffydd is based on a statement by Florence of Worcester that Bernard de Neufmarche was the son-in-law of Osbert and a statement by Gerald Cambriensis that Neufmarche married a granddaughter (also called Nest) of Gruffydd. The claim that Gruffydd married Aldgyth, the daughter of Aelfgar, son of Leofric and that she later married King Harold is reported (I think) only by Orderic Vitalis.


This is the crux - in Wales at this time, it cannot be automatically
assumed that the wife of a king is necessarily mother of the children
of that king. The Welsh were, effectively, polygamous.

As to the various secondary sources, I have no doubt that they show
this relationship without qualification, but we all know how this kind
of material gets propagated. Again, I would like to know the earliest
source that suggests this was the case - so far, we have the DNB,
which is a bit far removed from the time period in question.

taf

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 aug 2007 18:05:05

In a message dated 8/15/2007 3:50:08 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
andrra@email.it writes:

- you also wrote: "This page also addresses one chronological problem in
placing Raymondo with a birth of "about 1361", after giving his parents
a marriage date of "between 1352 and 1355"
Once again I can't see a problem....


------------------------
I said it addresses (i.e. Corrects) one problem, because other sources (who
are listening) have dating which conflicts and makes more suspect the
connection. The page you cite makes it much more reasonable that this line is true.

Will



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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 15 aug 2007 18:07:29

Hilarious!

"Two-fingered Genealogy".

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

"John Plant" <j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:mailman.539.1187171130.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

OK, "my" data does not have much in the way of fingers. I have mentioned
the book "Human Evolutionary Genetics" which has a few more fingers.
However, it should most particularly be borne in mind that this is a
developing field for which most people would like to see more fingers: not
necessarily, just two.

John

Gjest

Re: Red Faces as Dispenser Hines faces the truth.

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 aug 2007 18:11:48

On 15 Aug., 17:01, "Tony Hoskins" <hosk...@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote:
Continuing this OT thread.


You of all people, Tony!!!

John Plant

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av John Plant » 15 aug 2007 18:18:05

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/15/2007 9:40:28 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
panther@excelsior.com writes:

Plant's looniest and most amusing SWAG is his envious, pathetic and bathetic

contention that folks named PLANT are somehow ipso facto genealogiclly
connected to the PLANTAGENETS.


--------------------
Oh come on, everyone knows the Plants and Plantagenets, and Plantards are
all related and all descend from Mary Magdalene the original.... get ready....
"plant".

Will "tongue in cheek" Johnson



Non-Plants who claimed a genealogical link between Plant and Plantagenet
in the nineteenth century were indeed loony. Commercial companies who
perpetuate the myth are economical with the truth (to state it at it
politest). Authors of books like "the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" and
"the Da Vinci Code" are similalry economical with the truth (to remain
polite). Medieval genealogists who have no interest in rectifying these
lunacies are as guilty as the loony.

Some Plants are loony. However, they are often more interested in
putting the record straight, in the midst of this lunacy which is not of
their making! You have moved on to discussing the lunacy. Are you not
interested in the evidence?

Have you been following any of this?

John "ripping his hair out in frustration" Plant

Tony Hoskins

Re: Red Faces as Dispenser Hines faces the truth.

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 15 aug 2007 18:18:42

Michael,
But F 9/11 is an utter joke and fraud. Only Moore's Kool-Aid drinking
fans should swallow that one. I especially liked Hitchens on it!
All best,
T.

mjcar@btinternet.com> 08/15/07 10:11AM
On 15 Aug., 17:01, "Tony Hoskins" <hosk...@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote:
Continuing this OT thread.


You of all people, Tony!!!


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

WJhonson

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av WJhonson » 15 aug 2007 18:36:37

<<In a message dated 08/15/07 10:03:14 Pacific Standard Time, j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:
Except that the "about 50%" comes from my Y-DNA study, with a small
sample set.>>

-----------------------
A study in which you refuse to discuss how the set was recruited and what possible skewing that might entail. So the "about 50%" is again absolutely worthless.

It's like a person today saying "most of the women married in Virginia in 1650 were 12" when in fact the document they are using is called "Women born in Virginia under the age of 16", and yet they don't disclose that very important fact.

A study, any study, at all, anywhere, at any time, for any purpose, which refuses to META-discuss the origins of the set is .... get ready... here it comes... worthless. So far all you've done is argue why you don't have to do that. Do you think anyone is convinced by that line of argument?

It's not science. I have a hard time believing you cannot get your mind around this concept. It's rule #1 in every science book written by every person since 100,000 BC


Okay maybe not.
But anyway, the kind of science where the set is not discussed from this perspective went out last century. You may be doing history, or literature, but whatever you're doing, it's not science.

Science doesn't spend twenty nine thousand hours arguing why its own methodology shouldn't be followed.

Will

Dolores C. Phifer

Re: Fw: who is Alice/Alecia (nee unkown) (born about 1373 in

Legg inn av Dolores C. Phifer » 15 aug 2007 18:39:31

Ok Will, I'll ask Mike to update the site to include sources and references.
Dolores
----- Original Message -----
From: WJhonson@aol.com
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 3:44 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: who is Alice/Alecia (nee unkown) (born about 1373 in Of Swanborne, Ha...


Okay now turn all those mights and maybes and probablys into something we all can verify by getting sources.

Mike would not be the first amateur or even professional genealogist to make the wrong assumptions and create fictitious lines that people like Dolores spend years researching only to have them shown to be spurious.

Mike does not cite his sources, that is a big giant significant red flag Dolores.
It may mean that somewhere in Mike's sources is a big fat assumption that simply isn't true, or can't be proven.

Faith has no business in genealogy. Leaps of faith are for people who have a strange desire to plunge into a bottemless abyss.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Usefulness of Chancery Proceedings in the _Lists & Index

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 aug 2007 18:40:06

In a message dated 8/15/2007 9:30:14 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:

Leslie Mahler has recently been trying to argue that my postings from
the "Bridges' Division" Chancery Proceedings are useless.


-----------------------
I can add another facet.
Your postings require me, the gopher, to dig into my records to see if I can
add anything to what you've stated. Typically any random such dig is bound
to turn up more connections in my Cecil-web, leading to more questions,
answers, questions, documents, digging, taking up my entire day and preventing me
from actually making a living.

So in addition to your work causing me to churn the list, it's also driving
me to bankruptcy.
So that's another useful purpose :) ~~~~

Will



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

WJhonson

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av WJhonson » 15 aug 2007 18:44:26

<<In a message dated 08/15/07 10:19:10 Pacific Standard Time, j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:
You have moved on to discussing the lunacy. Are you not
interested in the evidence?>>

-----------------------
I keep waiting for the evidence?
Let's start by discussing, on the SAME web page or site where you present your findings.... HOW the set was recruited, and what possible skewing that might present.

Stating it here, does nothing for the science of the findings. It hides those salient details in an obscure list which no one, reading the web page, will ever find.

And remove the reference whatsoever to Pierre Plantard's fictitious descent from some 9th century Plantard's who may or may not have even passed this name to current descendents. It's ridiculous, based on the raving lunacy of people who could not tell Old French from Swahili.

It's like saying that because some guy in the 6th century was named Dagobert Schweinbottom that everyone today named Schweinbottom is descended from him. Completely spurious logic. It doesn't deserve a mention in a purportedly scientific paper.

Will

Gjest

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 aug 2007 18:45:06

In a message dated 8/15/2007 9:35:45 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
panther@excelsior.com writes:

He simply multiplied the SWAG FPE rate for ONE generation [2%] by the
postulated NUMBER of generations [25] in the LOD and got 50%.


-------------------
Just the other day I was reading a *newspaper article* no less. They stated
that since the percentage of seniors will rise from 10% to 35% that it will
have gone up 25 percent....

I was completely stunned. I actually walked around in a daze bumping into
things for an hour before I could recognize that some people even college
graduates cannot grasp such a notion which to me is quite simple.

Will "everything is 100% off today!" Johnson



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

WJhonson

Re: Fw: who is Alice/Alecia (nee unkown) (born about 1373 in

Legg inn av WJhonson » 15 aug 2007 18:45:17

<<n a message dated 08/15/07 10:41:40 Pacific Standard Time, doloresc.phifer@comcast.net writes:
Ok Will, I'll ask Mike to update the site to include sources and references.
Dolores >>

--------------------
Thanks. And let's hope he's prepared for scrutiny :)

Will

Gjest

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 aug 2007 18:46:05

In a message dated 8/15/2007 9:40:28 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
panther@excelsior.com writes:

Plant's looniest and most amusing SWAG is his envious, pathetic and bathetic

contention that folks named PLANT are somehow ipso facto genealogiclly
connected to the PLANTAGENETS.


--------------------
Oh come on, everyone knows the Plants and Plantagenets, and Plantards are
all related and all descend from Mary Magdalene the original.... get ready....
"plant".

Will "tongue in cheek" Johnson



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

WJhonson

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av WJhonson » 15 aug 2007 18:54:51

<<In a message dated 08/14/07 11:17:21 Pacific Standard Time, paulvheath@gmail.com writes:
Also worth a look is http://www.pase.ac.uk/content/search/search.html
but that site seems somewhat incomplete. >>


--------------------
I've added the page Paul suggested on the Early Anglo-Saxon charters to my jump page, and actually found three charters that were helpful on this topic.

The above link however, on searches for Godiva, Godgifu, Aelfgar and Leofric turned up nothing on the family. Perhaps there's another way to search it?

Will

WJhonson

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av WJhonson » 15 aug 2007 19:01:12

<<In a message dated 08/14/07 11:41:03 Pacific Standard Time, mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:
1. Godgifu (Godiva) d. mid 1080s m. Leofric Earl of Mercia, d. 1057.>>

---------------------
On this late death date for Godiva, is Domesday online somewhere?
I suspect very much that this last date is based on that, and ALSO is being used to pigeon hole her daughter in some odd way. I want to see exactly how the entry is worded to see why different sources are using it differently.

Thanks
Will

WJhonson

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av WJhonson » 15 aug 2007 19:15:39

<<In a message dated 08/15/07 10:05:32 Pacific Standard Time, farmerie@interfold.com writes:
Again, I would like to know the earliest
source that suggests this was the case - so far, we have the DNB,
which is a bit far removed from the time period in question. >>

-----------------------
I've completed now, extracting the DNB(1922) for Leofric which you can read here
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... _of_Mercia

I've included exactly as they have it, some embedded, some at the end, all the authorities they cite.

Now I'm going to work on the DNB for Aelfgar his son (as stated as ASC) and her alleged son (so far finding no primary on that), which when done will appear here
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... _of_Mercia

Hopefully some others will be interested enough in the puzzle to look up some of the references to see what they actually say.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Alice [de] Perrers, mistress of King Edward III, and her

Legg inn av WJhonson » 15 aug 2007 22:04:59

<<In a message dated 08/14/07 17:40:21 Pacific Standard Time, royalancestry@msn.com writes:
The affair must
have started after 1360, as Alice's first husband, Jankyn de Perrers,
was still living as of that date. Her husband evidently died soon
afterwards. By 1364 Alice was acting on behalf of the king>>

------------
I think the use of "must" is overreaching. There are evidences of other married women becoming mistresses of kings. As for her husband's dying "soon after" I submit that all we know is that he was alive 24 Jun 1360 and presumably dead by 18 Dec 1362 when Alice is enfeoffed without naming him.

Will

Yvonne Purdy

RE: The Nine Lies of Fahrenheit 9/11

Legg inn av Yvonne Purdy » 15 aug 2007 22:24:18

Having family in the said area of Sunderland, your point is? You're a sad,
sad, person to post this.
Yvonne

-----Original Message-----
From: Spencey Heinz [mailto:me@noone.com]
Sent: 15 August 2007 21:04
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: The Nine Lies of Fahrenheit 9/11



"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message news:GkGwi.168

You have been Mcgonagalled courtesy of Spencey Heinz!!!!!

The Sunderland Calamity
'Twas in the town of Sunderland, and in the year of 1883,
That about 200 children were launch'd into eternity
While witnessing an entertainment in Victoria Hall,
While they, poor little innocents, to God for help did call.

The entertainment consisted of conjuring, and the ghost illusion play,
Also talking waxworks, and living marionettes, and given by Mr. Fay;
And on this occasion, presents were to be given away,
But in their anxiety of getting presents they wouldn't brook delay,
And that is the reason why so many lives have been taken away;
But I hope their precious souls are in heaven to-day.

As soon as the children began to suspect
That they would lose their presents by neglect,
They rush'd from the gallery, and ran down the stairs pell-mell,
And trampled one another to death, according as they fell.

As soon as the catastrophe became known throughout the boro'
The people's hearts were brim-full of sorrow,
And parents rush'd to the Hall terror-stricken and wild,
And each one was anxious to find their own child.

Oh! it must have been a most horrible sight
To see the dear little children struggling with all their might
To get out at the door at the foot of the stair,
While one brave little boy did repeat the Lord's Prayer.

The innocent children were buried seven or eight layers deep,
The sight was heart-rending and enough to make one weep;
It was a most affecting spectacle and frightful to behold
The corpse of a little boy not above four years old,

Who had on a top-coat much too big for him,
And his little innocent face was white and grim,
And appearing to be simply in a calm sleep-
The sight was enough to make one's flesh to creep.

The scene in the Hall was heart-sickening to behold,
And enough to make one's blood run cold.
To see the children's faces, blackened, that were trampled to death,
And their parents lamenting o'er them with bated breath.

Oh! it was most lamentable for to hear
The cries of the mothers for their children dear;
And many mothers swooned in grief away
At the sight of their dead children in grim array.

There was a parent took home a boy by mistake,
And after arriving there his heart was like to break
When it was found to be the body of a neighbour's child;
The parent stood aghast and was like to go wild.

A man and his wife rush'd madly in the Hall,
And loudly in grief on their children they did call,
And the man searched for his children among the dead
Seemingly without the least fear or dread.

And with his finger pointing he cried. "That's one! two!
Oh! heaven above, what shall I do;"
And still he kept walking on and murmuring very low.
Until he came to the last child in the row;

Then he cried, "Good God! all my family gone
And now I am left to mourn alone;"
And staggering back he cried, "Give me water, give me water!"
While his heart was like to break and his teeth seem'd to chatter.

Oh, heaven! it must have been most pitiful to see
Fathers with their dead children upon their knee
While the blood ran copiously from their mouths and ears
And their parents shedding o'er them hot burning tears.

I hope the Lord will comfort their parents by night and by day,
For He gives us life and He takes it away,
Therefore I hope their parents will put their trust in Him,
Because to weep for the dead it is a sin.

Her Majesty's grief for the bereaved parents has been profound,
And I'm glad to see that she has sent them £50;
And I hope from all parts of the world will flow relief
To aid and comfort the bereaved parents in their grief.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 15 aug 2007 22:25:40

It's pretty elementary that when you are using probabilities in series you
don't add them together. Isn't that still taught in Statistics A01 a
Freshman-level course? Surely a physics vunderkind would have taken at
least four years of Math right? -- Will Johnson

Right!

Somehow the significance of this detail escaped me the first time
around. -- Will Johnson

Yes, I realized you had missed it -- just as had most of the rest of the
folks here.

He's totally incompetent and unqualified to do what he is trying to do.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.581.1187205671.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Wow, that just struck me again.
Our renowned contributor who has a doctorate in Physics failed statistics
?

It's pretty elementary that when you are using probabilities in series you
don't add them together. Isn't that still taught in Statistics A01 a
Freshman-level course? Surely a physics vunderkind would have taken at
least four years of Math right?

Somehow the significance of this detail escaped me the first time around.

Will Johnson

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message news:...

Nope...

He bollixed the MATH.

His method of calculating an FPE rate for a Line Of Descent [LOD] is
fatally flawed -- both mathematically and conceptually.

He simply multiplied the SWAG FPE rate for ONE generation [2%] by the
postulated NUMBER of generations [25] in the LOD and got 50%.

Hilarious!

That's bollixed math for a genealogical model -- proving he doesn't know
what he is are doing.

He doesn't understand the Mathematics of Joint Probabilities.

Plant is a barefoot empiricist at loose in the jungle -- web-spinning and
thumb-sucking as he goes.

His models have no intellectual or conceptual integrity and are Doomed To
Perdition and to the Garbage Can.

'Nuff Said.

John 5:14

Matthew 7:6

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

WJhonson

Re: de Vaux of Cotham, Notts: a branch of the East Anglian f

Legg inn av WJhonson » 15 aug 2007 22:31:16

Michael per your request, I've again dug up the Throckmorton work where the de Vaux occupy a sort of Appendix if you will and posted the relevant material in total here
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... ry_sources


As you can see, he only cites Burke's Peerage although he does give some curiously specific details which must be based on something.. you'd think.

Will Johnson

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 aug 2007 23:04:08

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187189841.372445.312120@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
As usual, you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick that you are
poking yourself with: I do not suffer from epilepsy at all; any injury
can

I was not poking at anybody: not at myself, and certainly not at you
in your delapidated state. I was merely stating the facts as I know
of them, ma'am.

And you "know" your "facts" from the posts of Hines.....

Peter Stewart

WJhonson

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av WJhonson » 16 aug 2007 00:16:30

<<In a message dated 08/15/07 16:05:17 Pacific Standard Time, paulvheath@gmail.com writes:
http://www.pase.ac.uk/pase/apps/persons/index.html >>

------------
Thanks Paul, now it makes perfect sense.
On this particular case, I note that the Pase site says that Charter S1223 states "Leofric comes and Godgifu his wife" (dating to 1033x1038) or at least they say this in the index. But then in the description they merely say "Leofric comes to Evesham..."

Frustrating!
Maybe there is some place where this charter is actually laid out in full?

Will

WJhonson

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av WJhonson » 16 aug 2007 01:03:57

Will in your excellent research on Lady Godiva, you have cited a source simply called "Norman Conquest" by Freeman or Freeman's Norman Conquest.

You will be enlightened to know that this source is *also* online here
http://books.google.com/books?id=gWUNAAAAIAAJ

"The History of the Norman Conquest of England: Its Causes and its Results", by Edward Augustus Freeman

The likelihood that any significant information on the children of Godiva or the marriage of Leofric's son Aelfgar is in that work, is vanishingly small. But we have to satisfy those who wish to plumb every mentioned source (and will then still object anyway), in your mission which apparently is showing that there *is* no source for the connections.

Will Johnson

Peter Stewart

Re: Red Faces as Dispenser Hines faces the truth.

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 aug 2007 01:10:19

On Aug 16, 3:18 am, "Tony Hoskins" <hosk...@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote:
Michael,
But F 9/11 is an utter joke and fraud. Only Moore's Kool-Aid drinking
fans should swallow that one. I especially liked Hitchens on it!
All best,
T.

So the exposure and criticism of an off-topic fraud that happens to
get your goat is fine for SGM, but not the same applied to resident
liars and charlatans by someone who cares for ethics and scholarship
in medieval genealogy.....

Like Brandon, you are poking yourself in the eye with a burnt stick
with this kind of screaming double standard.

Peter Stewart



mj...@btinternet.com> 08/15/07 10:11AM

On 15 Aug., 17:01, "Tony Hoskins" <hosk...@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote:

Continuing this OT thread.

You of all people, Tony!!!

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

WJhonson

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av WJhonson » 16 aug 2007 01:11:54

<<In a message dated 08/15/07 17:04:19 Pacific Standard Time, WJhonson writes:
You will be enlightened to know that this source is *also* online here
http://books.google.com/books?id=gWUNAAAAIAAJ

"The History of the Norman Conquest of England: Its Causes and its Results", by Edward Augustus Freeman >>
---------------------
Will excellent find, but may I slightly correct you, the above link is only *one* of the volumes.

Freeman, an "exceedingly boring individual at cocktail parties", wrote his History over many volumes. Many.... Many.
At any rate see here
http://books.google.com/books?q=edition ... QNAAAAIAAJ

Will Johnson

Tony Hoskins

Re: Red Faces as Dispenser Hines faces the truth.

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 16 aug 2007 01:47:30

"screaming double standard."

You're quite right to bring this up. I'm sorry I reacted without
thinking, forgetting the venue. Although, my real worry and objection is
to personal attacks being leveled on SGM (they hurt everybody and gain
us nothing), not so much the off topic venting. Although this wasn't
truly an example of a double standard - since my point earlier was
addressing personal attacks, not political opinions - it still violates
the principle of civil on-topic-ness. Point taken.

Tony

WJhonson

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av WJhonson » 16 aug 2007 02:25:03

<<In a message dated 08/15/07 18:00:15 Pacific Standard Time, therav3 writes:
As I recall, it has been reasonably established that Osbern
was the husband of Nest, daughter of 'Grifin' (or rather, Gruffydd
ap Llywelyn). Unless the land of Ealdgyth in Binley were taken by
the (Norman) crown after 1066 and subsequently given to Osbern
fitz Richard, it would have presumably gone to Ealdgyth's heir.
She had no known issue by Harold II: the logical inference here
would be, Nest (wife of Osbern) was the daughter of Gruffydd ap
Llywelyn, by Ealdgyth, his known wife. >>

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

Actually John I hadn't even gotten as far as that generation.

My main issues are:
1) What source tells us that Aelfgar was son of Godiva, and
2) What source tells us that Aelfgar was married at all, let alone to a woman named Elfgifu, and
3) What source tells us that Aelfgar had a daughter who married Griffin.

So you see I'm a generation or two behind what you say above.
As I've detailed, so far, there *is* no primary source that says this.

I haven't read all the sources yet, but I really thought by now I'd find the primary one instead of finding silence.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Mediaeval Berkshire: the Dunch family of Little Wittenha

Legg inn av WJhonson » 16 aug 2007 02:51:04

One of the images Michael sent me is a Brass with Kneeling Figures of William Dunch who was Auditor to H8 and E6 as he states.

The full text is online at Berkshire History here
http://www.berkshirehistory.com/churche ... brass.html

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Mediaeval Berkshire: the Dunch family of Little Wittenha

Legg inn av WJhonson » 16 aug 2007 03:03:25

Another of the photos Michael sent is called by Berkshire History site, the "Great Dunch Monument". Some very nice pictures can be seen here with a description

http://www.berkshirehistory.com/churche ... ument.html

Will Johnson

Peter Stewart

Re: Red Faces as Dispenser Hines faces the truth.

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 aug 2007 03:23:20

"Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:mailman.597.1187225310.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
"screaming double standard."

You're quite right to bring this up. I'm sorry I reacted without
thinking, forgetting the venue. Although, my real worry and objection is
to personal attacks being leveled on SGM (they hurt everybody and gain
us nothing), not so much the off topic venting. Although this wasn't
truly an example of a double standard - since my point earlier was
addressing personal attacks, not political opinions - it still violates
the principle of civil on-topic-ness. Point taken.

And your point is taken. But remember, the target of your criticism is not
present here to respond with further deceptions and evasions, leaving you a
choice between a compromising retreat into silence or a possibly escalating
engagement over the issues and nefarious behaviour. In SGM these quickly
sink into slanging matches, but that should not obscure the substance of the
original contention, or the wish to see a just outcome from the brouhaha.
Hines is conducting himself far less unacceptably today than he was until
yesterday. Why do you think that is?

Peter Stewart

WJhonson

[OT] Re: 1922 Washington Post -- "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm;

Legg inn av WJhonson » 16 aug 2007 04:54:20

Well I was wrong, here it is
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonp ... tting+Warm

Arctic Ocean Getting Warm
Seals Vanish And Icebergs Melt


The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the waters too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.

135 words, you can buy it off their site for four bucks.

Will Johnson
----------------------------------

In a message dated 08/15/07 20:44:02 Pacific Standard Time, WJhonson writes:
<<In a message dated 08/14/07 11:45:47 Pacific Standard Time, panther@excelsior.com writes:
D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of
Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922
edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and
Icebergs Melt."

The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention "great
masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and
"at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."

"This was one of several such articles I have found at the Library of
Congress for the 1920s and 1930s," says Mr. Lockwood. "I had read of the
just-released NASA estimates, that four of the 10 hottest years in the U.S.
were actually in the 1930s, with 1934 the hottest of all." >>

-----------------------
I haven't yet found this on urbanlegends but I think there is something very wrong with this story. I'm still researching but it's possible that Washington Post did not have such a story on that particular date.

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

Sylvia Tupper

Bernard family of Akenham, Suffolk

Legg inn av Sylvia Tupper » 16 aug 2007 06:41:59

Seeking information on the Bernard family of Akenham, Suffolk.
According to W.A.Copinger's "Manors of Suffolk", Sir Thomas Jermyn of
Lavenham married Katherine (or Cathryn) Bernard, daughter of Sir John
Bernard of Akenham in the 1400's, possibly around 1480.

Does anyone know the history of these Bernards, who lived at Rice
Hall, Akenham? Were they related to the Bernards of Isleham,
Cambridgeshire or the ones in Abington, Nhants?
I have found both these possible links in family trees posted on the
web but lack any evidence that this is true.
Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Sylvia Tupper

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 16 aug 2007 07:06:26

I've never said Peter is suffering from epilepsy.

I've said he suffers from Trigeminal Neuralgia and is taking an Anti
Epileptic Drug [AED], Tegretol, which is designed to control the
seizures....

Yes, his drunken fall off the motorcycle -- and then cracking his head hard
against the pavement was etiological.

But he's taking the Wrong Drug...

....And is too stupid and ignorant to know it.

Australia, like Canada and Britain, is behind on these medical developments.

Par for the course...

I've also drawn Gentle Readers attention to the hard, cold facts that:

Peter tries to forget his fallen, sharply reduced circumstances --
financial, occupational, physical, material, sexual, and spiritual -- at
present.

He lost all his money on the horses, as he admits -- and is now reduced to a
low-level clerical job where he ekes out a living -- scribbling.

His Father was furious with him -- and his mother sees him a poor, lost
lamb.

Hilarious!

So, he pours out his Angst and Anger on USENET -- as Therapy.

The advanced substance abuse doesn't help either...

Poor Blaggard...

I pity him.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

'Nuff Said.

DSH

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

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187189841.372445.312120@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...

As usual, you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick that you are
poking yourself with: I do not suffer from epilepsy at all; any injury
can

I was not poking at anybody: not at myself, and certainly not at you
in your dilapidated state. I was merely stating the facts as I know
of them, ma'am.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Crispin van de Passe (1564-1637) -- Leo's Coveted Relati

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 16 aug 2007 07:14:03

Hilarious!

Leo pines for a relationship of ANY sort to Crispijn van de Passe who
painted Queen Elizabeth I's portrait.

DSH

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

From: "Leo van de Pas" < leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>

Subject: Re: [OT] Raquel Welch Re: Genealogics Updated
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 16:34:28 +1100
References: 775DE820.5CCFFF8A.007FA2F6@aol.com

I think the observation by WJhonson was petty and a waste of everybodys
[sic] time, if he disagreed he could have sent it to me----if he had, I
would have explained why I made that remark. He was ignoring the rest of the
sentence, which was an explanation as to how you can search amongst the
portraits, something not very clearly explained on that page of the website.

I chose Raquel Welch, I could as easily have suggested the year 1533 where a
famous portrait of Queen Elizabeth I has been added, a portrait made by
Crispijn van de Passe.

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 aug 2007 08:16:42

More fabrications from Hines.

Most of these lies are just stale hot air.

Comments interspersed:

On Aug 16, 4:06 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
I've never said Peter is suffering from epilepsy.

I've said he suffers from Trigeminal Neuralgia and is taking an Anti
Epileptic Drug [AED], Tegretol, which is designed to control the
seizures....

Yes, his drunken fall off the motorcycle -- and then cracking his head hard
against the pavement was etiological.

Not drunk, and it was a cobblestone.

But he's taking the Wrong Drug...

...And is too stupid and ignorant to know it.

Australia, like Canada and Britain, is behind on these medical developments.

Par for the course...

Rubbish. Tegretol is prescribed for me by one of the greatest experts
in the world on trigeminal neuralgia, who is acknowledged as such
thoughout the USA. Hines knows nothing of this, indeed he had to look
it up on Wikipedia to find even a misconceived angle for his blather.

I've also drawn Gentle Readers attention to the hard, cold facts that:

Peter tries to forget his fallen, sharply reduced circumstances --
financial, occupational, physical, material, sexual, and spiritual -- at
present.

"Sharply reduced" my foot, quite apart from the rest of the this quite
obviously reflexive falsehood. The process was gradual and happened
many years ago.

He lost all his money on the horses, as he admits -- and is now reduced to a
low-level clerical job where he ekes out a living -- scribbling.

More stupid trash. Even if literary criticism is "scribbling", this is
not a clerical job, at any level. Hines can know nothing whatsoever
about my occupation, earnings or way of living. His vindictive guesses
are no doubt revealing of his own lasting chagrin over being
transferred to menial housing duties in the US navy.

His Father was furious with him -- and his mother sees him a poor, lost
lamb.

Fury and my father could not be more strange to each other. My
mother's views on anything are closed to Hines, even her name is
unknown to him.

Hilarious!

So, he pours out his Angst and Anger on USENET -- as Therapy.

The few targets of my scorn in SGM are hardly therapeutic. Hines is
the inveterate Usenet fiend - unlike him, I don't even look at other
groups much less seek out vapid, witless and self-abusive ways to fill
my time on them.

Peter Stewart

Dolores C. Phifer

Re: Peter / Tegretol

Legg inn av Dolores C. Phifer » 16 aug 2007 08:19:06

Good Morning Peter. If the meds are not really helping, why continue taking
them?. You don't need the side effects. The accident more than likely
jostled your bones a bit. Pain *&^%s, but don't let it ruin your life.
Find a great Chiropractor who does Deep Muscle Massage and you'll find that
over the next few months the migraines and most of the other symptoms will
disappear or at least lessen. Then, under your doctor's supervision wean
yourself off them.

Sorry for putting my 2 cents in.
Dolores

----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british,soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 2:06 AM
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

.... I've said he suffers from Trigeminal Neuralgia and is taking an Anti
Epileptic Drug [AED], Tegretol, which is designed to control the
seizures... -- and then cracking his head hard against the pavement was
etiological. ...

Dolores C. Phifer

Re: Peter / Tegretol

Legg inn av Dolores C. Phifer » 16 aug 2007 08:19:06

Good Morning Peter. If the meds are not really helping, why continue taking
them?. You don't need the side effects. The accident more than likely
jostled your bones a bit. Pain *&^%s, but don't let it ruin your life.
Find a great Chiropractor who does Deep Muscle Massage and you'll find that
over the next few months the migraines and most of the other symptoms will
disappear or at least lessen. Then, under your doctor's supervision wean
yourself off them.

Sorry for putting my 2 cents in.
Dolores

----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british,soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 2:06 AM
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

.... I've said he suffers from Trigeminal Neuralgia and is taking an Anti
Epileptic Drug [AED], Tegretol, which is designed to control the
seizures... -- and then cracking his head hard against the pavement was
etiological. ...

Dolores C. Phifer

Re: Peter / Tegretol

Legg inn av Dolores C. Phifer » 16 aug 2007 08:19:06

Good Morning Peter. If the meds are not really helping, why continue taking
them?. You don't need the side effects. The accident more than likely
jostled your bones a bit. Pain *&^%s, but don't let it ruin your life.
Find a great Chiropractor who does Deep Muscle Massage and you'll find that
over the next few months the migraines and most of the other symptoms will
disappear or at least lessen. Then, under your doctor's supervision wean
yourself off them.

Sorry for putting my 2 cents in.
Dolores

----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british,soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 2:06 AM
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

.... I've said he suffers from Trigeminal Neuralgia and is taking an Anti
Epileptic Drug [AED], Tegretol, which is designed to control the
seizures... -- and then cracking his head hard against the pavement was
etiological. ...

Dolores C. Phifer

Re: Peter / Tegretol

Legg inn av Dolores C. Phifer » 16 aug 2007 08:19:06

Good Morning Peter. If the meds are not really helping, why continue taking
them?. You don't need the side effects. The accident more than likely
jostled your bones a bit. Pain *&^%s, but don't let it ruin your life.
Find a great Chiropractor who does Deep Muscle Massage and you'll find that
over the next few months the migraines and most of the other symptoms will
disappear or at least lessen. Then, under your doctor's supervision wean
yourself off them.

Sorry for putting my 2 cents in.
Dolores

----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british,soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 2:06 AM
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

.... I've said he suffers from Trigeminal Neuralgia and is taking an Anti
Epileptic Drug [AED], Tegretol, which is designed to control the
seizures... -- and then cracking his head hard against the pavement was
etiological. ...

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter / Tegretol

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 aug 2007 09:12:47

You are doing a Brandon, apparently either from ignorance or more probably
from the wish to be a nuisance.

The posts from Hines are base and delusional fiction: if you had also read
my replies you would have learned from someone who actually knows what he is
talking about that Tegretol works perfectly for me. I don't need any advice
about alternative treatments.

Trigeminal neuralgia is NOTHING like a migraine - Hines makes it up to suit
his desperation as he goes along but you would be well advised not to
emulate him.

It also has no established or very likely connection to my accident 22 years
ago, in which for your information no bones were broken.

Peter Stewart


"Dolores C. Phifer" <doloresc.phifer@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.622.1187248813.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Good Morning Peter. If the meds are not really helping, why continue
taking them?. You don't need the side effects. The accident more than
likely jostled your bones a bit. Pain *&^%s, but don't let it ruin your
life. Find a great Chiropractor who does Deep Muscle Massage and you'll
find that over the next few months the migraines and most of the other
symptoms will disappear or at least lessen. Then, under your doctor's
supervision wean yourself off them.

Sorry for putting my 2 cents in.
Dolores

----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com
Newsgroups:
alt.history.british,soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 2:06 AM
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

... I've said he suffers from Trigeminal Neuralgia and is taking an Anti
Epileptic Drug [AED], Tegretol, which is designed to control the
seizures... -- and then cracking his head hard against the pavement was
etiological. ...


Gjest

Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 869

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 aug 2007 09:20:06

John Briggs asked:

<Would you care to give your own calculation? Of the probability (expressed
<as a percentage) of at least one FPE in a LOD of 25 generations, given a
<frequency of 2% for an FPE per generation?

I am no mathematician, but offer the following calculation:-
1. Assume a test population of 100 men, living today, all of whom have
(obviously) ancestors in the male line for 25 generations back
2. Assume an FPE frequency of 2% per generation
Then, on the second assumption, the ancestral couplings will have resulted
in only 98 out of every 100 males born in each generation being (genetically
speaking) the sons of their mothers' husbands.
After 25 generations it can be expected that of today's population of 100
there will be only about 60 men who have LODs unaffected by an FPE.
[(98/100) to the power of 25=about 60]
So the percentage for which John asks would be 40%.
Interestingly, if the FPE frequency per generation is 5%, the same approach
leads to the calculated percentage rising to 73%.

Should this make us all doubt our alleged medieval ancestry?

All corrections and comments welcome, as usual
MM

Peter Stewart

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

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 aug 2007 11:50:26

The sources stated below do not inspire confidence in the website you are
promoting - comments interspersed:

"Steven Loyd" <andrra@email.it> wrote in message
news:mailman.505.1187123949.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Sources for the marriage between Nicola Orsini, Count of Nola and
Giovanna (or Gorizia)
de Sabran in the genealogy at
http://www.genmarenostrum.com/pagine-le ... orsini.htm
are:

- count Pompeo Litta, "Famiglie Celebri Italiane", vol. 6, fasc. 80
"Orsini di Roma", 1819-1883

Volume 6 of Litta's work contains fascicules 47 to 59, not 80 - tables for
the Orsini di Roma are in volume 7, fasc. 62.

- Leon Robert Menager, "Inventaire des familles normandes et franques
emigrées en Italie Méridionale et en Sicile (XI-XII siécles)", in "Atti
delle Prime giornate normanno-sveve". Bari, 1973.
Reprint Bari, 1991; (Università degli Studi di Bari, Centro di studi
normanno-svevi.)

Ménager's work is about Norman and Frankish arrivals in southern Italy in
the 11th and 12th centuries (siècles, not "siécles"), and I'm almost certain
there is no mention whatsoever of the Orsini or Sabran families in that
period let alone the late 14th century.

Did you take these citations from the right place?

Peter Stewart

John Plant

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av John Plant » 16 aug 2007 12:23:50

WJhonson wrote:
In a message dated 08/15/07 10:19:10 Pacific Standard Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:

You have moved on to discussing the lunacy. Are you not
interested in the evidence?


-----------------------
I keep waiting for the evidence?
Let's start by discussing, on the SAME web page or site where you
present your findings.... HOW the set was recruited, and what possible
skewing that might present.

Stating it here, does nothing for the science of the findings. It hides
those salient details in an obscure list which no one, reading the web
page, will ever find.

And remove the reference whatsoever to Pierre Plantard's fictitious
descent from some 9th century Plantard's who may or may not have even
passed this name to current descendents. It's ridiculous, based on the
raving lunacy of people who could not tell Old French from Swahili.

It's like saying that because some guy in the 6th century was named
Dagobert Schweinbottom that everyone today named Schweinbottom is
descended from him. Completely spurious logic. It doesn't deserve a
mention in a purportedly scientific paper.

Will

The "recruitment" has consisted of:

(1) describing the project in the Plant Family History Group in-house
journal - that has led to about half a dozen volunteers, mainly from
assorted places except that there was a pair who thought they might
have a descent from a common Plant ancestor within the documentary evidence;

(2) the rest who have come in from assorted places, presumably by
something like a route such as follows:

(a) perhaps they Googled something like "Plant surname DNA" and
found my web-page which indicates that they can take a Y-DNA test with
the FT-DNA Testing Lab (who incidentally then share the results with the
volunteer and with me, to which the volunteer needs to agree);

(b) perhaps they went direct to the FT-DNA web-site and looked in
their Projects search/list to see if there was any project for the
surname Plant (there are then web links both ways between (a) and (b)
for those who want them).

There is a table, on my Y-DNA web page, of the volunteers who have taken
the test, ascribing them a code (e.g. I am P1a) and listing their
approximate location and their earliest known ancestor (I do not reveal
their full name and address for reasons of privacy). This is then
followed by their results (their so-called "Y-DNA haplotype") given for
the code of each person (e.g. for me, P1a). There is also some
discussion of who does and doesn't match.

The discussion of the results includes mention of the "Plant Modal
Haplotype" (PMH) which is the most common signature that has been found
for the Plants who have been tested so far and which can be described as
the Y-DNA signature for the "main Plant family". About half of the
Plants tested match this signature and half don't - this is the much
debated "about half" figure of the preceding discussion.

I agree fully with your comments about Pierre Plantard's ridiculous
genealogy. I apologize. However, they are mentioned simply because this
puts up the hit rate on my web site and the web site is partly a
recruiting document.

John

M. de la Fayette

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

Legg inn av M. de la Fayette » 16 aug 2007 14:24:28

Some more unknown Tegretol side-effect? (delusional? Brain confused?)

Instead of take one more dose, please check the Princeton University
Library site at
http://infoshare1.princeton.edu/rbsc2/m ... 968619.pdf

Best Whishes "Stéwart" (not Stèwart) .....








-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Peter Stewart
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 12:50 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Isabella di Chiaramonte m 1444 Ferdinand I, King of Naples


The sources stated below do not inspire confidence in the website you
are
promoting - comments interspersed:

"Steven Loyd" <andrra@email.it> wrote in message
news:mailman.505.1187123949.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Sources for the marriage between Nicola Orsini, Count of Nola and
Giovanna (or Gorizia) de Sabran in the genealogy at

http://www.genmarenostrum.com/pagine-le ... orsini.htm
are:

- count Pompeo Litta, "Famiglie Celebri Italiane", vol. 6, fasc. 80
"Orsini di Roma", 1819-1883

Volume 6 of Litta's work contains fascicules 47 to 59, not 80 - tables
for
the Orsini di Roma are in volume 7, fasc. 62.

- Leon Robert Menager, "Inventaire des familles normandes et franques
emigrées en Italie Méridionale et en Sicile (XI-XII siécles)", in
"Atti delle Prime giornate normanno-sveve". Bari, 1973. Reprint Bari,
1991; (Università degli Studi di Bari, Centro di studi
normanno-svevi.)

Ménager's work is about Norman and Frankish arrivals in southern Italy
in
the 11th and 12th centuries (siècles, not "siécles"), and I'm almost
certain
there is no mention whatsoever of the Orsini or Sabran families in that
period let alone the late 14th century.

Did you take these citations from the right place?

Peter Stewart

David Nelson

Re: Postnominals through use?

Legg inn av David Nelson » 16 aug 2007 15:36:23

How so?

David Nelson
Salt Lake City

----------
From: mjcar@btinternet.com
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Postnominals through use?
Date: Thu, Aug 16, 2007, 02:20 AM

(1) It would be remarkably pretentious

(2) It is off topic here

MAR

Gjest

Re: Postnominals through use?

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 aug 2007 15:53:01

On 16 Aug., 15:36, "David Nelson" <david.nelso...@att.net> wrote:
How so?

My further opinions would be a rant - we have enough of those here at
present!

MA-R

Ian Goddard

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av Ian Goddard » 16 aug 2007 16:25:03

John Plant wrote:

Specifically, in connection with my Y-DNA evidence for the Plant/Plantt
family, the easiest way to see it is to look at Table 1 in my Nomina 28
paper:

http://cogprints.org/5462/01/nomina_eprint.pdf

The matching Plants (known up to that time) are those above the dividing
line. The argument is very simple. The matching Plants have lines going
back to times such as: Ct USA 1646-91; VA USA c1655; Cheshire England
c1565. Their common ancestor must be before 1646. It is not known who
was the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of these matching Plants; but
vaguely it must have been "quite early" (before 1646, assuming the line
genealogies are correct). Nor is it known who exactly was the founding
father(s) of the Plant/Plantt surname. Some of the 13th century
documentary evidence for the Plant/Plantt byname/surname is summarised
in Appendix A of the same paper and there will be more about this in
Appendix D of my Nomina 30 paper.

An interesting paper. Like most contributors I have reservations about
the size of the data set and even more so about the rule of thumb
regarding modal families.

I accept that in what are essentially observational sciences one has to
be content with the data set one can get - I've been there myself as a
palaeoecologist and then as a forensic scientist. Frustrating as it may
be one simply has to tailor the strength of one's conclusions to the
strength of the material.

As regards the rule of thumb one could never eliminate the possibility
that some of the non-matches of the core group represent families of
completely separate origin. The strongest assessment of such a
situation would be "consistent with" or maybe just "not inconsistent with".

One thing which struck me is that in the non-matching group you have two
individuals who are 10 distant from the original and a further
individual who is 9 distant from your mode. How distant are these from
each other? Are they, together with the individual at 12 distant,
another potential matching group? I observe that all three trace their
ancestry back to your core area of Cheshire/Derbyshire and yet only the
weakest match of your matching group can do so.

What I found most interesting, however, was the association with the
Warennes' holdings. I've noted an association in Yorkshire between the
God[d]ard surname and the Fitzwilliams' holdings. I'm a little cautious
because the FWs had quite a spread of holdings so there may be nothing
more than coincidence at work but it did strike me that the spread of
the surname may have in some way happened under their aegis. Have you
considered the possibility that such a mechanism may have been involved
with the Plants without there having been a genetic connections?

Tony Hoskins

Re: Typing error medieval style?

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 16 aug 2007 17:05:56

"I find it fascinating to see how widespread descendants of medieval
people can be. Just to stick to the USA, this apparently ineffectual
leader is an ancestor of the following presidents of the USA"

Though we ought to resolve to eschew political comment (and
president-bashing), as a long-time student of America genealogy I have
found it amusing to note the presidents (and presidential contenders) to
whom I am most closely and most multiply related. They are:

William Howard Taft
Theodore Roosevelt
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
John Kerry
George W. H. Bush
George H. Bush

If nothing else, this shows how inextricably linked we all are, do we
but realize it.

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

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»