Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
John Plant

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av John Plant » 16 aug 2007 17:07:35

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
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%.

Errm, excuse me, I hate to interrupt your merriment. However, I took the
FPE rate [2%] and a postulated number of generations [25] and got "about
50%". Spot the flaw in your reasoning. Doesn't look like simple
multiplication to me.


John

Richard Smyth at Road Run

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av Richard Smyth at Road Run » 16 aug 2007 17:35:59

The calculations under discussion seem to assume that the probability that a
person is illegimate is independent of the probability that one or both
parents were illegimate. Is that assumption not in play here? And, if so,
is everyone but me happy with it?

Regards,

Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 16 aug 2007 17:50:25

Plant is completely confused and bollixed here.

He doesn't understand the Mathematics of Joint Probabilities -- something he
should have learned in Statistics 101.

DSH

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

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.187.1186246314.31452.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

In a message dated 8/4/2007 9:42:49 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:

Rates of around 2% to 5% per coupling are estimated. Taking the lower
estimate, 2% per coupling corresponds to once per 50 generations
or around 50% per typical ancestral line of descent
----------------------

This reasoning is faulty. Starting from a false premise, you get a false
conclusion.

WHO is estimating this rate and where is their raw data published?

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


Correct...

He is confused as to BOTH...

His Premises & Conclusions...

PLUS even his MATH is Dead Wrong.

He obviously doesn't understand the mathematics of Joint Probabilities.

If the probability of an FPE is p = .02 [2%] in each generation of a descent
then the probability that the Paternal Descent is NOT false is p = .98.

Then calculating the JOINT Probability of True Paternal Descents over 50
generations gives us:

..98^50 = .3642.

Therefore the p for FPE over the 50 generations is:

1.0000 - .3642 = .6358 or about 64%.

However, using the 5% figure for FPE's we get a p of .9231 or 92%.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

<j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:mailman.186.1186245752.31452.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

On Aug 2, 1:31 am, John Plant <j.s.pl...@isc.keele.ac.uk> wrote:
taf wrote:

Apart from a couple, whose male lines both originated in south
Lincolnshire around 1800, these 9 have random haplotypes. This is
consistent with expectation for a surname that originated from a single
ancestor, since, in the centuries since then, about half of the lines
are expected to have a false paternity event (FPE) somewhere in the line
of descent (unfaithful wife, adoption, unmarried mother giving child her
own surname, etc). This phenomenon of FPEs is widely documented in
DNA-genealogy literature.

The phenomenon has been widely discussed, but not widely documented.
To document it, you actually have to show that people who 'should'
have the same ancestor don't have the same type. All too often, though
this is assumed rather than documented. Are any of yours documented
FPEs?

taf

True. Let's see some documented FPE's as noted.

[...]

Perhaps you already knew all this; but most people as yet seem to get
confused.

John

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter / Tegretol

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 16 aug 2007 18:17:08

Peter is fantasizing again -- bollixed brain.

I never even used the word "migraine" in this discussion of Peter's illness,
much less confused Trigeminal Neuralgia with it.

Peter has a bollixed memory and a bollixed brain as a result of that hard
smash on the cobblestones 22 years ago, when he was a student at Oxford.

You'll recall that he objected to my use of the word "pavement".

It all happened at Oxford. Peter's girlfriend was driving the motorcycle
and Peter, drunk as a skunk, was allegedly riding behind her.

He fell off and smashed his noodle against the cobblestones -- probably
worse than cement in this case.

Peter insists he was NOT drunk -- but merely "tipsy"...

Those are the sorts of word games he chooses to indulge in.

Hilarious!

His noodle was so badly discombobulated he could no longer continue at
Oxford.

'Nuff Said.

Peter also objects to my accurate portrayal of his Father as "furious" about
Peter's loss of his fortune on the horses -- but has described his Father as
"very disappointed"...

More word games.

No, no bones were broken -- but poor Peter's brain was scrambled.

I really do pity him and his obvious concomitant venting of his Anger, Angst
and Frustrations on USENET.

DSH

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

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3GTwi.21170$4A1.12333@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

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.

Hal Bradley

RE: Bernard family of Akenham, Suffolk

Legg inn av Hal Bradley » 16 aug 2007 18:28:18

Sylvia,

The ancestry of Katherine can be found in "The Bernards of Abington and
Nether Winchendon: A Family History" (London: Longmans, Green, 1903) by
Sophia Higgins. This is available through Google books. She, as wife of
Thomas Jermyn, can be found on page 9. The Bernards were of Isleham. Another
secondary source is "A History of the Mallory Family" (Chichester, England:
Phillimore, 1985.) by Sheila Smith. Katherine's mother was Elizabeth
Mallory.

A part of her ancestry can be found in the 1575 Visitation of Cambridge, pp.
3-4.

Katherine's father, Sir John Bernard, was supposedly at Agincourt, being
knighted there on the battlefield.

Hal Bradley

-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of Sylvia Tupper
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:42 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Bernard family of Akenham, Suffolk


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

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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 16 aug 2007 19:05:38

Correct...

Even after my drawing this to his attention several times now -- he still
doesn't understand it.

He needs a Good Course in Statistics at his local university.

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

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.652.1187286413.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 8/16/2007 9:08:19 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:

Errm, excuse me, I hate to interrupt your merriment. However, I took the
FPE rate [2%] and a postulated number of generations [25] and got "about
50%".
--------------------------------------

The point being you cannot do this with statistics. They don't work that
way.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 16 aug 2007 19:06:58

Bingo!

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

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.651.1187286211.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 8/16/2007 4:24:11 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:

The "recruitment" has consisted of:
---------------

That's a good start, but you need to put this discussion ON the web page.
And you need to discuss even if superficially how the recruitment might
have been skewed. If you publish in a targeted forum you get a targeted
audience, you know this. Conscientiously you should make it clear
on the same page where the results are, instead of here.

Will

John Brandon

Re: Postnominals through use?

Legg inn av John Brandon » 16 aug 2007 19:51:07

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

MA-R

This has never been a problem to you in the past.

TJ Booth

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av TJ Booth » 16 aug 2007 20:01:02

Will,

Great job! Once you grab on you don't let go.

Does anyone know if all Domesday records been reviewed? The UK National
Archives has them online BUT you only see names and places on a search -
costs 3 1/2 pounds for a translation & photocopy (too small to read). Here
is what I found with different search keys:

Godgifu - 877 Domesday pages
Countess Godgifu (exact phrase) - 423 pages
Earl Leofric (exact phrase) - 226 pages
Leofric+Godgifu - 305 pages
Aelfgar+Godgifu - 205 pages
Earl Aelfgar (exact phrase) - 1178 pages
Osbern FitzRichard (exact phrase) - 432 pages
Osbern FitzRichard+Godgifu - 84 pages
Ealdgyth - 293 pages (Most pages look unrelated)
Ealdgyth+Gruffydd+Osbern - 25 (all have same list of names, so ..)
Ealdgyth+Gruffydd+Osbern+Leofric - 25 (did Osbern got all properties?)
Eadgifu the Fair (exact) - 382 pages

The search results are misleading. I bought the Warwick, Warwickshire page w
Binley in Stoneleigh hundred (owned by Church of Coventry). The translation
shows "Ealdgyth wife of Gruffydd held this land. The abbot bought this from
Osbern fitzRichard."). But the Earl Leofric shown in the search was for a
different property (owned by Bishop of Worcester) on the same page. Here's
the search record
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/docu ... Id=7609500

Some interesting Domesday records mentioned in Freeman 'History of Norman
Conquest' :
http://books.google.com/books?id=-IkJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA804 :
"In Warwickshire is a heading of "elemosinee regis" among which is Leofgifu
a nun ("Leveve monialis"), holds 3 hides which had belonged to Godgifu the
wife of Leofric, and five hides are held of the King in alms by one Eadgyth,
who had herself held them T.R.E." [so an Ealdgyth and a Leofgifu of
Warwickshire were living 1086, and the Ealdgyth had owned her land since
1066 - T(empore) R(egis) E(duuardi). Onomastically and the land association
suggests Leofgifu the nun might be another dau. given Leofric & Godgifu's
very religious family. The description of Eadgyth is consistent with her
having inherited property from Aelfgar (who d. "prob 1062" per the DNB on
your Aelfgar page) before 1066. UK Archives note it was highly unusual for a
person to own the same property under both Edward and after Domesday].

On page 803 another Eadgyth is identified, apparently m. to a Wulfram/Wuffa
with a son Aelfsige :
"One Wulfward (perhaps Wulfward the White, see above, page 745) held lands
of the Lady Ealdgyth both in Somerset and in Buckinghamshire. So did his
wife Ealdgyth or Eadgifu, 'Hoc manerium tenuit Eddeda de Regina Eddeva", and
directly after, "Hoc manerium tenuit Eddeva uxor Uluuardi" which shows how
the names Eadgyth and Eadgifu were confounded. Wulfward died after the
coming of William, and the Lady gave to his son-in-law Aelfsige the estate
which he had held of her, and two other estates of her own. In the Survey
Aelfsige holds all three, with these notes attached to each "Hac manerium
tenuit Eddid regina, et ipsa dedit eidem Alsi post adventum Regis W." "Hoc
manerium tenuit Wluulard reginae Eddid T.R.E. et ipsa dedit huic Alsi cum
filia Wluuardi." "Hanc terram sumpsit cum uxore sua." Aelfsige and his wife
were exceptionally lucky, perhaps out of respect to the memory of their
benefactress. But the widow of Wulfward did not fare so well. She still kept
one hide in Somerset, but her Buckinghamshire estate had passed to Walter
Giffard."

I presume a conflation of Ealdgyth and Ealdgifu the Fair has previously been
ruled out. A book review for the revised DNB on the DNB website(
http://www.oup.com/oxforddnb/info/dictionary/localhist/ ) notes "Domesday
Book, too, has been thoroughly exploited [by the new DNB] to shed light on
the great landowners of pre-Conquest England, some of them women. *Eadgifu
the Fair may have been King Harold's mistress; more certainly, she can be
shown to have been 'one of the richest English magnates at that time'.").
Since King Harold was renamed Earl Harold in Domesday (this from UK
archives), could his wife/mistress have been conveniently renamed as well?
Why would a mistress end up with so much land, if there was a second wife
that doesn't seem to have gotten much land?

Terry Booth
Chicago

----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 8:25 PM
Subject: Re: Lady Godiva


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

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

Gjest

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 aug 2007 20:01:04

In a message dated 8/16/2007 9:08:19 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:

Errm, excuse me, I hate to interrupt your merriment. However, I took the
FPE rate [2%] and a postulated number of generations [25] and got "about
50%".


--------------------------------------
The point being you cannot do this with statistics. They don't work that
way.



************************************** 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 » 16 aug 2007 20:02:03

In a message dated 8/16/2007 4:24:11 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:

The "recruitment" has consisted of:


---------------
That's a good start, but you need to put this discussion ON the web page.
And you need to discuss even if superficially how the recruitment might have
been skewed. If you publish in a targeted forum you get a targeted audience,
you know this. Conscientiously you should make it clear on the same page
where the results are, instead of here.

Will



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

John Brandon

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av John Brandon » 16 aug 2007 20:04:48

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

Yes. One pities him just a bit (I hadn't paid attention to the
trigeminal neuralgia bit before and how it is the worst pain in the
world).

But still it really is no excuse for his extreme unpleasantness on the
newsgroup, excoriating people with over-the-top terms of abuse:
"ruined intelligence," "malignant," "corrupted," "embittered" (pot
calling kettle black), "toxic delinquency."

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 16 aug 2007 20:34:31

Yes, Trigeminal Neuralgia involves some of the worst pain known to mankind.

It is reported as involving a sharp, lancinating pain -- similar to an
electric shock -- that often seems to travel from the naso-maxillary area
[near the right side of the nose and above the lip] up the right cheek and
through the eye socket. Pain in BOTH cheeks is less frequent.

Contrary to what Peter has posted, many of the causal factors, not ALL, are
well-known and can be treated with drugs -- and surgery if the drugs fail to
work because of tolerance over time.

Trigeminal Neuralgia, because of the excruciating pain it causes, has been
known in previous centuries -- before modern drugs and surgical techniques
were available -- as "THE SUICIDE DISEASE".

Yes, I certainly pity Peter for his afflictions and certainly hope he gets
better.

Then his behavior here MIGHT improve.

Hope Springs Eternal...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187291088.373886.12930@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

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

Yes. One pities him just a bit (I hadn't paid attention to the
trigeminal neuralgia bit before and how it is the worst pain in the
world).

But still it really is no excuse for his extreme unpleasantness on the
newsgroup, excoriating people with over-the-top terms of abuse:
"ruined intelligence," "malignant," "corrupted," "embittered" (pot
calling kettle black), "toxic delinquency."

M. de la Fayette

RE: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av M. de la Fayette » 16 aug 2007 20:40:05

I agree. Peter Stewart is a disgrace to this list and should be banned
from it to really restore civility and mutual respect.

As you said, his "extreme unpleasantness on the newsgroup" CANNOT BE
ACCEPTED ANY LONGER!



-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of John Brandon
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 9:05 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry


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

Yes. One pities him just a bit (I hadn't paid attention to the
trigeminal neuralgia bit before and how it is the worst pain in the
world).

But still it really is no excuse for his extreme unpleasantness on the
newsgroup, excoriating people with over-the-top terms of abuse: "ruined
intelligence," "malignant," "corrupted," "embittered" (pot calling
kettle black), "toxic delinquency."


-------------------------------
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: Harleian MSS

Legg inn av WJhonson » 16 aug 2007 21:03:56

<<In a message dated 08/16/07 12:40:41 Pacific Standard Time, nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net writes:
But even on an original visitation MS leaf--jotted down in the herald's
hand and autographed by the informant--it is hard to know precisely
where the informant would have got his information. And a family member
was not necessarily (in fact not likely) the best informant on
information more than two generations old. >>

----------------------
Quite. As we keep showing here by things we dig out of Procat or A2A that *are* in fact contemporary to the persons they describe.

As Nat says, even should you view the original MS, sources are unlikely to be present. The best solution might be to simply cite and quote what the secondary source says, and then see if it can be verified by other contemporary sources that are published like the baptismal registers, the items from Procat, A2A, the marriage licenses, etc.

Will

WJhonson

Re: Bernard family of Akenham, Suffolk

Legg inn av WJhonson » 16 aug 2007 22:04:54

<<In a message dated 08/16/07 10:29:09 Pacific Standard Time, hw.bradley@verizon.net writes:
A part of her ancestry can be found in the 1575 Visitation of Cambridge, pp.
3-4. >>
------------------------
Chris Phillips is showing *nothing* on Cambridgeshire on his site of online resources.

http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/sou ... ions.shtml

NOTHING! that's bizarre
Isn't it?

Will

WJhonson

Re: Bernard family of Akenham, Suffolk

Legg inn av WJhonson » 16 aug 2007 22:09:54

Never mind here it is
http://books.google.com/books?id=IC8EAA ... =titlepage

Vis Camb 1575 and 1619

I guess Chris is no longer updating his page ?

I'll add it to mine.

Will

John Brandon

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av John Brandon » 16 aug 2007 22:33:17

It is reported as involving a sharp, lancinating pain -- similar to an
electric shock -- that often seems to travel from the naso-maxillary area
[near the right side of the nose and above the lip] up the right cheek and
through the eye socket. Pain in BOTH cheeks is less frequent.

Does pain ever occur *in all four cheeks* simultaneously?

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 16 aug 2007 22:35:48

Check where the Trigeminal Nerve is located.

DSH

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187299997.738375.321560@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

It is reported as involving a sharp, lancinating pain -- similar to an
electric shock -- that often seems to travel from the naso-maxillary area
[near the right side of the nose and above the lip] up the right cheek
and through the eye socket. Pain in BOTH cheeks is less frequent.

Does pain ever occur *in all four cheeks* simultaneously?

TJ Booth

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av TJ Booth » 16 aug 2007 22:41:14

Will,

I purchased another Domesday record, for Cambridgeshire, hoping it might
have more insight. The primary source summarized, per UK archives, would be
Great Domesday Book; Folio 194R.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/docu ... Id=7578344

The record was in pdf format which I printed but didn't save (dumb!), so I
will summarize and retype what seems most important. I cannot vouch for the
quality of the transcription or translation from Latin.

Essentially everything on the page had once been owned by Eadgifu (name
mentioned 18 times, including once as "Eadgifu the Fair"). Some of her
ownership is noted as TRE (from Edward's time), but one suspects it all
might have been. But at Domesday time, almost all the land was held by
"Count Alan" (noted to have 10 burgesses in Cambridgeshire). The properties
are identified as in Linton, Little Linton, Whittlesford Hundred, Thriplow
Hundred, Arringford Hundred and Bassingbourn. When Eadgifu owned it, she
held it by various means including providing 8 watchmen for the sheriff and
5 cartage-dues. A total of 32 sokemen are listed (UK Archives defines them
as "Freeman who nevertheless had to attend their lord's court." - presumably
they're like sharecroppers). Some of the Sokemen were noted as responsible
for providing the watchmen and cartage-dues.

The most interesting property is Bassingbourn where Earl Aelfgar is named,
it also has a high property value:
"Count Alan himself holds 7 hides and 1 1/2 virgates in Bassignbourn. There
is land for 18 ploughs. In demesne are 4 hides, and there are 5 ploughs, and
there can be two more. There are 8 villans and 11 bordars and 10 cottars
with 11 ploughs. There are 3 slaves, and 2 mills rendering 20s, and meadow
for 5 ploughs. In all it is worth 301; when received 261, and as much TRE
[i.e. same value in King Edward's time]. Eadgifu held this manor, and there
were 10 sokemen, and 8 of them, men of Eadgifu, could sell their land, but
the soke remained with her; and the other 2, the men of Earl Aelfgar,
provided 4 watchmen for the sheriff, and they themselves could sell their
land."

A preceding property in Arringford Hundred, is also of potential interest
because of the names :
"In Croydon Almaer holds 2 1/2 virgates under the count. There is land for 6
oxen, and there are 6 oxen, with 1 border and 1 cottar. It is and was worth
10s; TRE 15s. Godgifu [this is prob not Countess Godgifu, who seems usually
identified as such] held this land under Eadgifu, and could depart. In the
same vill Fulchei holds 1 virgate of land from the count. It is and was
worth 5s. Leofgifu [the nun?] held this land under Eadgifu, and could
depart."

Can anyone identify Count Alan or a possible relationship?

Terry Booth
Chicago Illinois

----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 8:25 PM
Subject: Re: Lady Godiva


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

-------------------------------
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: Bernard family of Akenham, Suffolk

Legg inn av WJhonson » 16 aug 2007 22:44:50

Interesting, this vis cam 1575 etc

If the rest of my database is accurate then this gives another line which descends from Piers Gaveston to wit

Margaret Bernard m Sir Thomas Peyton (d 1484)
daughter of
John Bernard Knt 1415 m Ellen Mallory "co-heiress"
daughter of
John Mallory m Jane Lane (this name is unsourced)
son of
Sir William Mallory "aged 30 in 1416" m Jane Plumpton
son of
Sir Anketil Mallory d.v.p. 26 Mar 1393 m Alice de Driby

and we all have Alice as a granddaughter of Piers I'm sure by now.

Will Johnson

Yvonne Purdy

RE: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Yvonne Purdy » 16 aug 2007 22:46:14

I don't know about Peter Stewart's Ancestry or illness. That's for him to
know about and care about, and he's well capable. None of your business.

What I do care about are your disgusting postings, about the Sunderland
bairns dying, about anything else which appeals to your sub-human level of
no compassion. You obviously don't care about your own family, or any of
your forebears. You are a despicable being.

Hope springs eternal that you vanish, Troll.
Yvonne


-----Original Message-----
From: D. Spencer Hines [mailto:panther@excelsior.com]
Sent: 16 August 2007 20:35
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry


Yes, Trigeminal Neuralgia involves some of the worst pain known to mankind.

It is reported as involving a sharp, lancinating pain -- similar to an
electric shock -- that often seems to travel from the naso-maxillary area
[near the right side of the nose and above the lip] up the right cheek and
through the eye socket. Pain in BOTH cheeks is less frequent.

Contrary to what Peter has posted, many of the causal factors, not ALL, are
well-known and can be treated with drugs -- and surgery if the drugs fail to
work because of tolerance over time.

Trigeminal Neuralgia, because of the excruciating pain it causes, has been
known in previous centuries -- before modern drugs and surgical techniques
were available -- as "THE SUICIDE DISEASE".

Yes, I certainly pity Peter for his afflictions and certainly hope he gets
better.

Then his behavior here MIGHT improve.

Hope Springs Eternal...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187291088.373886.12930@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

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

Yes. One pities him just a bit (I hadn't paid attention to the
trigeminal neuralgia bit before and how it is the worst pain in the
world).

But still it really is no excuse for his extreme unpleasantness on the
newsgroup, excoriating people with over-the-top terms of abuse:
"ruined intelligence," "malignant," "corrupted," "embittered" (pot
calling kettle black), "toxic delinquency."

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter / Tegretol

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 aug 2007 23:10:36

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:iF%wi.197$wi6.1497@eagle.america.net...
Peter is fantasizing again -- bollixed brain.

I never even used the word "migraine" in this discussion of Peter's
illness,
much less confused Trigeminal Neuralgia with it.

Your delusions and projections are getting worse - I was replying to someone
called Dolores C. Phifer who had written "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".
Unless you ARE Dolores C. Phifer, this has nothing to do with you.

Peter has a bollixed memory and a bollixed brain as a result of that hard
smash on the cobblestones 22 years ago, when he was a student at Oxford.

You'll recall that he objected to my use of the word "pavement".

It all happened at Oxford. Peter's girlfriend was driving the motorcycle
and Peter, drunk as a skunk, was allegedly riding behind her.

He fell off and smashed his noodle against the cobblestones -- probably
worse than cement in this case.

Peter insists he was NOT drunk -- but merely "tipsy"...

Those are the sorts of word games he chooses to indulge in.

If I had been drunk at the time I would quite probably have been killed
outright - if my neck had been as relaxed as a drunk's, the smash against
the cobblestone would have been somewhat harder. In my time as an
undergraduate I was sometimes drunk, and have not the slightest problem
admitting this, but not as it happens on that occasion. I was tipsy, able to
control my fall to an extent that would have been impossible if completely
intoxicated. Only an addict of lies and unimaginative nonsense, such as
Hines, could find this point so compulsive a subject to harp about in
someone else's experience.

Hilarious!

His noodle was so badly discombobulated he could no longer continue at
Oxford.

Quite right for once - I lost the ability to read.

'Nuff Said.

Peter also objects to my accurate portrayal of his Father as "furious"
about
Peter's loss of his fortune on the horses -- but has described his Father
as
"very disappointed"...

More word games.

Disappointed is not the same as angry in any lexicon - maybe Hines had a
different response from his father to his own failure. Mine was quite
naturally disappointed, not angry. Hines has NO idea of the degree to which
my father might have been himself involved in the circumstances decisions
that led to the outcome that was disappointing to me as well. However, I was
indeed somewhat angry with myself, many years ago, but the emotion was
unproductive & didn't last.

No, no bones were broken -- but poor Peter's brain was scrambled.

I really do pity him and his obvious concomitant venting of his Anger,
Angst and Frustrations on USENET.

I am not all over Usenet like a nasty rash - but, of course, Hines is.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 aug 2007 23:18:28

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:7G1xi.204$wi6.1380@eagle.america.net...
Yes, Trigeminal Neuralgia involves some of the worst pain known to
mankind.

It is reported as involving a sharp, lancinating pain -- similar to an
electric shock -- that often seems to travel from the naso-maxillary area
[near the right side of the nose and above the lip] up the right cheek and
through the eye socket. Pain in BOTH cheeks is less frequent.

Contrary to what Peter has posted, many of the causal factors, not ALL,
are well-known and can be treated with drugs -- and surgery if the drugs
fail to work because of tolerance over time.

I have written NOTHING about this, but only about the likelihood or
otherwise of an accident 22 years ago being the cause of trigeminal
neuralgia appearing some 15 years later in my case.

Trigeminal Neuralgia, because of the excruciating pain it causes, has been
known in previous centuries -- before modern drugs and surgical techniques
were available -- as "THE SUICIDE DISEASE".

Yes, I certainly pity Peter for his afflictions and certainly hope he gets
better.

There is no reason to suppose it will change at all after this time - but
unhapopy as it must be for you and Brandon to accommodate the truth, I am
NOT in pain - due to the efficacy of Tegretol.

Then his behavior here MIGHT improve.

My behaviour in this newsgroup is directed at providing help to enquirers.
If people have complaints, they are free to take up specific issues at the
time. If they prefer to sit back and wink silently at other people making
vexatious and unfounded charges, that is entirely a matter for them. If they
then expect further help, information or indeed participation from someone
they don't speak up for, that is also a matter for them. It is notable that
at least as many outsiders to SGM have spoken up in this tedious row as
members of my own newsgroup. Rum.

Peter Stewart

Alan Grey

Re: Bernard family of Akenham, Suffolk

Legg inn av Alan Grey » 16 aug 2007 23:22:53

WJhonson wrote:
If the rest of my database is accurate then this gives another line which descends from Piers Gaveston to wit

Margaret Bernard m Sir Thomas Peyton (d 1484)
daughter of
John Bernard Knt 1415 m Ellen Mallory "co-heiress"
daughter of
John Mallory m Jane Lane (this name is unsourced)
son of
Sir William Mallory "aged 30 in 1416" m Jane Plumpton
son of
Sir Anketil Mallory d.v.p. 26 Mar 1393 m Alice de Driby


I understood that the William Mallory who married Jane Plumpton was not
the Sir William Mallory, son of Antekil, though the two Williams were
coeval. The former was of Hutton Conyers near Ripon (Yorkshire) and was
the son of William Mallory and Catherine Nunewich; the latter was of
Papworth Anneys (Cambridgeshire).

Alan R Grey

John Brandon

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

Legg inn av John Brandon » 16 aug 2007 23:27:17

p. 255

--Vassell, Samuel, Frances his wife, and others
--Gayle, Christopher, and others
--1649; Leeming, Yorks.

--Vassall, Samuel, Frances his wife, and others
--Gale, Christopher, and others
--1649; Leeming, Yorks.

p. 256

--Vassell, Samuel, and others
--Longe, Lislebone, and others
--1653; Middlesex; money

--Vaughan, William, and others
--Gifford, John, and others
--1655; lands, etc. not specified (answer) [mutilated]

p. 263

--Vincent, John
--Davies, Humphrey
--1664; Christ Church, London, Newgate Market

p. 266

--Vivian, Isaac, and Mary his wife
--Wright, Martha, widow, and others
--1669; Binfield [Berks.]; personal estate of Thomas Sheafe

p. 270

--Woodley, John, and another
--Bromwich, Isaac, and Anne his wife
--1648; Bromsberrow, Gloucs.

p. 282

--Waldoe, Daniel, and Edward
--Somer, Alexander, Margaret his wife, and Thomas
--1669; St. Mary, Hoo, and St. Margaret, Rochester [Kent]

p. 312

--Whittington, Elizabeth, widow, and another
--Leigh, Theophilus, and others
--1694; Taynton [Gloucs.]; personal estate of Thomas Pury

There is a weird conjuction of these last two entries on p. 42 of _The
Marriage, Baptismal, and Burial Registers of the Collegiate Church Or
Abbey of St. Peter, Westminster_ ...

http://books.google.com/books?id=pDMEAA ... +adlestrop

Theophilus Leigh was a grandson of Thomas Pury as well as an ancestor
of Jane Austen (per Stirnet):

http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... eigh02.htm

p. 329

--Wiseman, John
--Perne, Rachel, widow, and others
--1649; Gillingham, Dorset

p. 331

--Webb, Thomas
--Washborne, Herriott
--1654; Middlesex; money

p. 334

--Wheelowes, Jane
--Tomlins, Samuel, and Susannah his wife
--1655; Adstock, Bucks. (answer)

--Wilmer, Abraham
--Jones, Cadwallader
--1658; Ashbrittle, Somerset

p. 336

--Webb, Thomas
--Washburne, Agnes, widow
--1658; money (answer)

I'm guessing that Agnes Washburne is the same as Anne/ Agnes
Tuckeridge/ Tickridge, the wife (widow) of Herriott Washburne.

p. 341

--Wandesford, William
--Bromfeild, Henry
--1663; personal estate of John Kemp (answers)

Presumably some relation of Henry Bromfield's wife, Frances Kempe.

--Westall, Anne, widow
--Gibbs, Sir Harry, knight, and others
--1667; Honington, Warwickshire

p. 343

--Worseley, Richard and another
--Fenwick, John, and Dame Mary Roger [sic] _alias_ Fenwick, his wife
--1663; Eaton Hastings [Berks.] manor (answers)

John Brandon

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av John Brandon » 16 aug 2007 23:30:51

they don't speak up for, that is also a matter for them. It is notable that
at least as many outsiders to SGM have spoken up in this tedious row as
members of my own newsgroup. Rum.

Peter Stewart

Getting a little discouraged, Peter? You might want to take a wee
vacation from s.g.m. Seriously, consider it. You'd feel so much
better. WE'D feel so much better. Everyone would be a winner.

Peter Stewart

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

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 aug 2007 23:33:48

"M. de la Fayette" <Fayette@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.641.1187270704.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
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) .....

Ah yes, "Whishes". So "M. de la Fayette" has the same spelling difficulty as
"Adrian Whitaker". I wonder why.

It has evidently not occurred to the pair of him that the work of Litta was
issued in fascicules from 1819, and that these were bound into 16 volumes at
Princeton. But the set issued complete by the publisher contained 11 volumes
bound in 10, see

http://catnyp.nypl.org/search?/aLitta/a ... 2&1%2C1%2C

or any number of other library catalogues.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 aug 2007 23:43:07

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187303451.934692.132800@a39g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
they don't speak up for, that is also a matter for them. It is notable
that
at least as many outsiders to SGM have spoken up in this tedious row as
members of my own newsgroup. Rum.

Peter Stewart

Getting a little discouraged, Peter? You might want to take a wee
vacation from s.g.m. Seriously, consider it. You'd feel so much
better. WE'D feel so much better. Everyone would be a winner.

Not discouraged, but rather disgusted with the unreciprocal consumerism of
people I have defended in the past.

If I leave the newsgroup again, for the same reason as before, my
communication on matters raised in SGM can continue off-list to the people I
wish to remain in touch with, as before.

I am not under any obligaton to provide help, corrections or warnings to SGM
readers.

Then see how happy and civil the forum will become, with Richardson,
Brandon, Hines and Marco/Jack/Adrian/Steven untrammelled by the discipline
of having their inanities countered and their lies pointed out, especially
to inattentive or new readers like Dolores C. Phifer.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av John Brandon » 16 aug 2007 23:47:43

Not discouraged, but rather disgusted with the unreciprocal consumerism of
people I have defended in the past.

If I leave the newsgroup again, for the same reason as before, my
communication on matters raised in SGM can continue off-list to the people I
wish to remain in touch with, as before.

I am not under any obligaton to provide help, corrections or warnings to SGM
readers.

Then see how happy and civil the forum will become, with Richardson,
Brandon, Hines and Marco/Jack/Adrian/Steven untrammelled by the discipline
of having their inanities countered and their lies pointed out, especially
to inattentive or new readers like Dolores C. Phifer.

Peter Stewart

Pout ... sulk ... pout.

WJhonson

Re: Bernard family of Akenham, Suffolk

Legg inn av WJhonson » 16 aug 2007 23:48:16

<<In a message dated 08/16/07 15:23:47 Pacific Standard Time, a.grey@niwa.co.nz writes:
I understood that the William Mallory who married Jane Plumpton was not
the Sir William Mallory, son of Antekil, though the two Williams were
coeval. The former was of Hutton Conyers near Ripon (Yorkshire) and was
the son of William Mallory and Catherine Nunewich; the latter was of
Papworth Anneys (Cambridgeshire). >>
--------------------------------
It's possible Alan, I have no source for making them the same person. I do have a source for one of these William's marrying a Margaret and having a dau Margaret who m Robert Corbet.

This source only says that William "lived at Shawbury" wherever that is and gives nothing else that can pin down the places for anyone else.

You have a source?

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 23:50:40

You should seriously consider John Brandon's suggestion: You might want
to take a LONG vacation from s.g.m. Everyone will feel so much better
here.




-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Peter Stewart
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 12:34 AM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Isabella di Chiaramonte m 1444 Ferdinand I, King of Naples



"M. de la Fayette" <Fayette@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.641.1187270704.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
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) .....

Ah yes, "Whishes". So "M. de la Fayette" has the same spelling
difficulty as
"Adrian Whitaker". I wonder why.

It has evidently not occurred to the pair of him that the work of Litta
was
issued in fascicules from 1819, and that these were bound into 16
volumes at
Princeton. But the set issued complete by the publisher contained 11
volumes
bound in 10, see

http://catnyp.nypl.org/search?/aLitta/a ... rameset&FF
=alitta+pompeo+conte+1781-1852&1%2C1%2C

or any number of other library catalogues.

Peter Stewart

M. de la Fayette

RE: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av M. de la Fayette » 17 aug 2007 00:02:27

Just to remember you once again that you are nothing but a big balloon
full of shit.

Don't worry for us, Stewart, you can "provide help, corrections or
warnings" to someone else .... I can't imagine who.

Leave this place as soon as possible. Thanks



-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Peter Stewart
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 12:43 AM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry



"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187303451.934692.132800@a39g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
they don't speak up for, that is also a matter for them. It is
notable
that
at least as many outsiders to SGM have spoken up in this tedious row
as
members of my own newsgroup. Rum.

Peter Stewart

Getting a little discouraged, Peter? You might want to take a wee
vacation from s.g.m. Seriously, consider it. You'd feel so much
better. WE'D feel so much better. Everyone would be a winner.

Not discouraged, but rather disgusted with the unreciprocal consumerism
of
people I have defended in the past.

If I leave the newsgroup again, for the same reason as before, my
communication on matters raised in SGM can continue off-list to the
people I
wish to remain in touch with, as before.

I am not under any obligaton to provide help, corrections or warnings to
SGM
readers.

Then see how happy and civil the forum will become, with Richardson,
Brandon, Hines and Marco/Jack/Adrian/Steven untrammelled by the
discipline
of having their inanities countered and their lies pointed out,
especially
to inattentive or new readers like Dolores C. Phifer.

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

Hal Bradley

RE: Bernard family of Akenham, Suffolk

Legg inn av Hal Bradley » 17 aug 2007 00:09:36

Will,

According to Smith's "History of the Mallory Family", John Mallory who
married Jane Lane was the son of another John Mallory of Holwell,
Northamptonshire. I do not see any connection with the Mallory's of
Leicestershire.

Hal Bradley

-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of WJhonson
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 2:45 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Bernard family of Akenham, Suffolk


Interesting, this vis cam 1575 etc

If the rest of my database is accurate then this gives
another line which descends from Piers Gaveston to wit

Margaret Bernard m Sir Thomas Peyton (d 1484)
daughter of
John Bernard Knt 1415 m Ellen Mallory "co-heiress"
daughter of
John Mallory m Jane Lane (this name is unsourced)
son of
Sir William Mallory "aged 30 in 1416" m Jane Plumpton
son of
Sir Anketil Mallory d.v.p. 26 Mar 1393 m Alice de Driby

and we all have Alice as a granddaughter of Piers I'm sure by now.

Will Johnson

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

WJhonson

Re: Bernard family of Akenham, Suffolk

Legg inn av WJhonson » 17 aug 2007 00:45:59

<<In a message dated 08/16/07 10:29:09 Pacific Standard Time, hw.bradley@verizon.net writes:
"The Bernards of Abington and
Nether Winchendon: A Family History" (London: Longmans, Green, 1903) by
Sophia Higgins.>>
--------------
Specifically at this link
http://books.google.com/books?id=LeHZgd ... f+Abington

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 aug 2007 00:56:46

Peter,

Please do not leave SGM.? You have made many useful contributions to this list.

If Spencer will stop his running commentary, we will be better off.? We will all have health questions someday and there is no need to air those issues on this list.

?Peter, please take the time to answer people with helpful words, instead of caustic replies.

If we will all stop critcizing and offer assistance to the seasoned veteran on this list as well as the newcomers, genealogy will improve in all quarters.? If each of us?will seek facts instead of using hearsay we can be well-documented.

Take a deep breath and let's move forward in the name of genealogy.

Regards,
Jim Malone


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 5:43 pm
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry




"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187303451.934692.132800@a39g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
they don't speak up for, that is also a matter for them. It is notable
that
at least as many outsiders to SGM have spoken up in this tedious row as
members of my own newsgroup. Rum.

Peter Stewart

Getting a little discouraged, Peter? You might want to take a wee
vacation from s.g.m. Seriously, consider it. You'd feel so much
better. WE'D feel so much better. Everyone would be a winner.

Not discouraged, but rather disgusted with the unreciprocal consumerism of
people I have defended in the past.

If I leave the newsgroup again, for the same reason as before, my
communication on matters raised in SGM can continue off-list to the people I
wish to remain in touch with, as before.

I am not under any obligaton to provide help, corrections or warnings to SGM
readers.

Then see how happy and civil the forum will become, with Richardson,
Brandon, Hines and Marco/Jack/Adrian/Steven untrammelled by the discipline
of having their inanities countered and their lies pointed out, especially
to inattentive or new readers like Dolores C. Phifer.

Peter Stewart



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


________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 aug 2007 01:10:13

On Aug 17, 8:18 am, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in messagenews:7G1xi.204$wi6.1380@eagle.america.net...

Yes, Trigeminal Neuralgia involves some of the worst pain known to
mankind.

It is reported as involving a sharp, lancinating pain -- similar to an
electric shock -- that often seems to travel from the naso-maxillary area
[near the right side of the nose and above the lip] up the right cheek and
through the eye socket. Pain in BOTH cheeks is less frequent.

Contrary to what Peter has posted, many of the causal factors, not ALL,
are well-known and can be treated with drugs -- and surgery if the drugs
fail to work because of tolerance over time.

I have written NOTHING about this, but only about the likelihood or
otherwise of an accident 22 years ago being the cause of trigeminal
neuralgia appearing some 15 years later in my case.

Hines will be pleased to note that my first-thing-in-the-morning brain
certainly bollixed this - though not as a result of any untoward
incident as an adult: my capacity for arithmetic has always been
negative, around minus infinity. (That is how I got a relationship
degree wrong in 2004 when Hines was asking me for details.)

The trigeminal neuralgia first appeared 22 years (not 15) after the
accident, that happened 33+ years ago. How the years roll away, into a
blur, after a good night's sleep.

As for "tolerance over time", Tegretol failed for me inexplicably last
year. I was given another drug instead, that didn't work as well, and
then went back to Tegretol that is again working perfectly as from the
first.

Peter Stewart

WJhonson

Re: Bernard family of Akenham, Suffolk

Legg inn av WJhonson » 17 aug 2007 02:33:44

Yes. I find your analysis very compelling that the wife of Robert Corbet was not a Mallory but rather was Margaret Burley, daughter of John who had Robert's wardship and marriage until 1405 as you state.

This correction would satisfy the chronological problem in making her the daughter of a man "aged 30 in 1416", and there is almost *no* way to make him any younger given that his purported mother Alice de Driby only married sometime between Jul 1378 and Feb 1381. At most we could make him 4 years younger which still does not fix the problem very satisfactorily as its strained.

Your solution however is virtually perfect.
A) Robert Corbet's wife was Margaret Burley
B) after his death, she married William Mallory, who would within reason be her same age.

William Mallory *is* attested with a wife named Margaret, although by Living Descendents V2 "Shepperd" evidently citing either Jacobus "Bulkeley Genealogy" or CP "Gloucester" or AG 35:31-32

They cite all three for this line, without further specification.

Do I presume by your "John Burley" that you mean that
John /Burley/ of Bromcroft Castle, High Sheriff of Salop 1409 ?

And do we have anything that can pin his own life-dates down to allow us to say that it's impossible, or yet possible that he had a daughter born sometime between 1375 and 1395 ?

The keystone would be to find a document from John or one of his other children, naming Margaret, under any of her supposed three names.

Will Johnson

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 aug 2007 02:41:02

On Aug 17, 11:13 am, norenxaq <noren...@san.rr.com> wrote:
Merilyn Pedrick wrote:
But we would all be a winner if the trolls would just get back under their
bridges

they need the attention and will go to any lenghth necessary to get it.
telling them to back off is pointless as they won't until they are ready to

The last thing Hines wants is attention to his ignorance of Latin, or
to his lack of talent for controversy, or to his tedious repetition of
obtuse lies in half-baked phrases that he identifies as the best shots
he can make.

The longer these exchanges go on, the worse it is for his self-image.
He is a lamed soul, addicted to what he sees as affirmation when his
own words go without contradiction. He keeps going in desperation to
get a last word, but if he had this at the start he woud crow inwardly
and outwardly over what he saw as a victory, and he would be ready
immediately to try for the same again with other victims.

Anyone observing him over time ought to realise this. Ignoring him
simply does not improve him, never has. He just repeats himself if no-
one answers, because he gets his jollies from seeming to hold his own
to inattentive readers or twits like Brandon and Marco/Jack/Steven/
Adrian/La Fayette.

Peter Stewart

WJhonson

Re: Bernard family of Akenham, Suffolk

Legg inn av WJhonson » 17 aug 2007 02:43:37

Oops I mischaracterized Alan's preferred correction.

Instead of William Mallory being a second husband to Margaret (Burley) Corbet, that Alan is saying it's more likely that he was guardian for her minor heir Thomas until at least 1430 or if he had already died, perhaps for Robert which would last until at least 1436.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Bernard family of Akenham, Suffolk

Legg inn av WJhonson » 17 aug 2007 02:46:13

Will thank you for your excellent post. I can add the merest smidge of chronology to Ellen Mallory, daughter of Sir John Mallory, and wife to Sir John Bernard

They were married BY 1 Apr 1429, her father was yet living on this date, and her husband was yet living on this date as well.

See document below
HTH (Hope that hurts)

Will Johnson
---------------------------
http://books.google.com/books?id=h-IrAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA191
A Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds...
page 191
Northampton A7611
Indenture being a feoffment by John Stele and John Falelyf, clerks, to John Malory of Welton, esquire, and Elizabeth his wife, for the term of their lives in survivorship of the manor of Welton, which they lately had by his gift and feoffment; with remainder to Ellen his daughter for life, with remainder to John Swynerton, esquire, in tail, with remainder in default to John Bernard and Ellen his wife, daughter of the said John Malory, in tail, with remainder in default to the said John Malory and his heirs. 1 April, 7 Henry VI. Two Seals.
Note: 1 April 7H6 is 1 April 1429

Gjest

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 aug 2007 02:54:25

On Aug 16, 5:20 pm, Peter Stewart <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
On Aug 17, 8:47 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:





Not discouraged, but rather disgusted with the unreciprocal consumerism of
people I have defended in the past.

If I leave the newsgroup again, for the same reason as before, my
communication on matters raised in SGM can continue off-list to the people I
wish to remain in touch with, as before.

I am not under any obligaton to provide help, corrections or warnings to SGM
readers.

Then see how happy and civil the forum will become, with Richardson,
Brandon, Hines and Marco/Jack/Adrian/Steven untrammelled by the discipline
of having their inanities countered and their lies pointed out, especially
to inattentive or new readers like Dolores C. Phifer.

Peter Stewart

Pout ... sulk ... pout.-

Yes, I agree it would be not entirely unfair to characterise it like
that.

However, there is a certain compact implicit in daily communication
with a group of people who are personally unknown to each other. If
one of them - myself at present - comes to the conclusion that he is
making a long and time-consuming effort for the benefit of a kind of
moral blancmange, an indeterminate number of people who prefer to
remain nameless and uncounted when I am being subjected to sustained
slander and idiotic abuse, then that person is surely entitled to feel
some disenchantment, even dudgeon.

All the members of SGM who have been sitting on their hands during
this turmoil are no doubt thinking that discretion = dignified silence
= the better part of valour. Chivalry lives.....I don't agree with
them, I don't resepct the view, and don't know if I wish to go on
taking part in a forum with a collection of people who hold it.

Peter Stewart- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As a member of this newsgroup, I hold the highest regard for you and
your work. I have had little contact with you directly but your
contributions speak for themselves and the best people on the list,
both in terms of their own academic contributions and in terms of
their treatment of other people, hold you in high regard. Hiney seems
to be organizing his own Lord of the Flies game, judging from the
shrill and illiterate postings that may or may not be from people
other than Hiney himself. I am concerned that allowing their feeding
frenzy to continue will be harmful to you. Your ancestry, your
thoughts about your ancestry, your family, your personal history - all
of this is your business and no one's else's. Hiney is one of those
people who project their own faults & anxieties onto others and
scream. There is absolutely nothing that Hiney & his hillbilly
Hineyettes can post that will change my perception of your value on
this list. Since, as you have pointed out, simply watching the
trainwreck does nothing to help anyone, I hope that other listers will
continue to come to your defense as Leo & others have done. I find it
incredible that Hiney is even allowed to post here at all anymore,
considering the damage he obviously still wants to do. He's a dried up
sick little old thing who is deluded about who HE is and apparently
has nothing better to do than sit at a computer in his home and
shriek. Best, Bronwen

Alan Grey

Re: Bernard family of Akenham, Suffolk

Legg inn av Alan Grey » 17 aug 2007 02:57:33

WJhonson wrote:
Do I presume by your "John Burley" that you mean that

John /Burley/ of Bromcroft Castle, High Sheriff of Salop 1409 ?


Yes, I believe so.

And do we have anything that can pin his own life-dates down to allow
us to say that it's impossible, or yet possible that he had a daughter
born sometime between 1375 and 1395 ?


Sorry, as yet I have not looked into this family (just one of the other
tasks to do).

The keystone would be to find a document from John or one of his other
children, naming Margaret, under any of her supposed three names.


I agree, so we'll see if anything turns up.

Regards

Alan

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 17 aug 2007 02:59:59

Yes, Poor Peter definitely has a damaged noodle and suffers from:

BOLLIXED BRAIN SYNDROME...

It's not just his Basic INNUMERACY -- his mathematical skills -- that are at
issue here -- his:

READING...

WRITING...

And:

READING COMPREHENSION skills are also suffering...

As We See Daily.

For Example:

"Trigeminal neuralgia is indeed excruciating, but has no specifin [sic]
known cause." -- Peter

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Gjest

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 aug 2007 03:29:48

Spencer,

Please stop this.? We are not interested or amused.

Jim malone

-----Original Message-----
From: D. Spencer Hines <panther@excelsior.com>
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 8:59 pm
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry



Yes, Poor Peter definitely has a damaged noodle and suffers from:

BOLLIXED BRAIN SYNDROME...

It's not just his Basic INNUMERACY -- his mathematical skills -- that are at
issue here -- his:

READING...

WRITING...

And:

READING COMPREHENSION skills are also suffering...

As We See Daily.

For Example:

"Trigeminal neuralgia is indeed excruciating, but has no specifin [sic]
known cause." -- Peter

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas



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


________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 17 aug 2007 03:29:55

No-one would be a winner if Peter Stewart left the group. His tenacity is
astounding as he fights off the trolls, and I admire him for it enormously.
But we would all be a winner if the trolls would just get back under their
bridges and let Peter do what he does best - that is provide a scholarly
mind to any debate involving early medieval genealogy. Apart from anything
else he is one of only a very few who can translate Latin for the rest of us

Vicious detractors like Brandon and Hines should just back off. We're sick
to death of you.
Merilyn Pedrick


From: John Brandon
Date: 08/17/07 08:05:18
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

they don't speak up for, that is also a matter for them. It is notable
that
at least as many outsiders to SGM have spoken up in this tedious row as
members of my own newsgroup. Rum.

Peter Stewart

Getting a little discouraged, Peter? You might want to take a wee
vacation from s.g.m. Seriously, consider it. You'd feel so much
better. WE'D feel so much better. Everyone would be a winner.


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

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 17 aug 2007 03:29:55

No-one would be a winner if Peter Stewart left the group. His tenacity is
astounding as he fights off the trolls, and I admire him for it enormously.
But we would all be a winner if the trolls would just get back under their
bridges and let Peter do what he does best - that is provide a scholarly
mind to any debate involving early medieval genealogy. Apart from anything
else he is one of only a very few who can translate Latin for the rest of us

Vicious detractors like Brandon and Hines should just back off. We're sick
to death of you.
Merilyn Pedrick


From: John Brandon
Date: 08/17/07 08:05:18
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

they don't speak up for, that is also a matter for them. It is notable
that
at least as many outsiders to SGM have spoken up in this tedious row as
members of my own newsgroup. Rum.

Peter Stewart

Getting a little discouraged, Peter? You might want to take a wee
vacation from s.g.m. Seriously, consider it. You'd feel so much
better. WE'D feel so much better. Everyone would be a winner.


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

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 17 aug 2007 03:29:55

No-one would be a winner if Peter Stewart left the group. His tenacity is
astounding as he fights off the trolls, and I admire him for it enormously.
But we would all be a winner if the trolls would just get back under their
bridges and let Peter do what he does best - that is provide a scholarly
mind to any debate involving early medieval genealogy. Apart from anything
else he is one of only a very few who can translate Latin for the rest of us

Vicious detractors like Brandon and Hines should just back off. We're sick
to death of you.
Merilyn Pedrick


From: John Brandon
Date: 08/17/07 08:05:18
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

they don't speak up for, that is also a matter for them. It is notable
that
at least as many outsiders to SGM have spoken up in this tedious row as
members of my own newsgroup. Rum.

Peter Stewart

Getting a little discouraged, Peter? You might want to take a wee
vacation from s.g.m. Seriously, consider it. You'd feel so much
better. WE'D feel so much better. Everyone would be a winner.


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

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 17 aug 2007 03:30:04

No-one would be a winner if Peter Stewart left the group. His tenacity is
astounding as he fights off the trolls, and I admire him for it enormously.
But we would all be a winner if the trolls would just get back under their
bridges and let Peter do what he does best - that is provide a scholarly
mind to any debate involving early medieval genealogy. Apart from anything
else he is one of only a very few who can translate Latin for the rest of us

Vicious detractors like Brandon and Hines should just back off. We're sick
to death of you.
Merilyn Pedrick


From: John Brandon
Date: 08/17/07 08:05:18
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

they don't speak up for, that is also a matter for them. It is notable
that
at least as many outsiders to SGM have spoken up in this tedious row as
members of my own newsgroup. Rum.

Peter Stewart

Getting a little discouraged, Peter? You might want to take a wee
vacation from s.g.m. Seriously, consider it. You'd feel so much
better. WE'D feel so much better. Everyone would be a winner.


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

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 aug 2007 03:43:26

A typo proves nothing, Hines - any more than yours do.

Your infantile costiveness over them, however, does indeed prove something.

I have difficulty reading sometimes, unable to process even simple strings
of letters into words, and like other people with other disabilities I have
to take extra time & trouble to compensate. This doesn't embarrass me in the
slightest, any more than I allow it to bother the readers of my published
work or (I hope, in general) of my contributions to SGM.

If you could write better, Hines, you would have found other outlets than
the innumerable (yes, far beyond my capacity to count) Usenet groups that
you infest.

Peter Stewart


"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:Mj7xi.221$wi6.1449@eagle.america.net...
Yes, Poor Peter definitely has a damaged noodle and suffers from:

BOLLIXED BRAIN SYNDROME...

It's not just his Basic INNUMERACY -- his mathematical skills -- that are
at issue here -- his:

READING...

WRITING...

And:

READING COMPREHENSION skills are also suffering...

As We See Daily.

For Example:

"Trigeminal neuralgia is indeed excruciating, but has no specifin [sic]
known cause." -- Peter

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 aug 2007 03:43:59

Thanks, Bronwen, this is very well put and much appreciated.

Peter Stewart

<lostcooper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1187315665.751442.130860@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 16, 5:20 pm, Peter Stewart <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
On Aug 17, 8:47 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:





Not discouraged, but rather disgusted with the unreciprocal
consumerism of
people I have defended in the past.

If I leave the newsgroup again, for the same reason as before, my
communication on matters raised in SGM can continue off-list to the
people I
wish to remain in touch with, as before.

I am not under any obligaton to provide help, corrections or warnings
to SGM
readers.

Then see how happy and civil the forum will become, with Richardson,
Brandon, Hines and Marco/Jack/Adrian/Steven untrammelled by the
discipline
of having their inanities countered and their lies pointed out,
especially
to inattentive or new readers like Dolores C. Phifer.

Peter Stewart

Pout ... sulk ... pout.-

Yes, I agree it would be not entirely unfair to characterise it like
that.

However, there is a certain compact implicit in daily communication
with a group of people who are personally unknown to each other. If
one of them - myself at present - comes to the conclusion that he is
making a long and time-consuming effort for the benefit of a kind of
moral blancmange, an indeterminate number of people who prefer to
remain nameless and uncounted when I am being subjected to sustained
slander and idiotic abuse, then that person is surely entitled to feel
some disenchantment, even dudgeon.

All the members of SGM who have been sitting on their hands during
this turmoil are no doubt thinking that discretion = dignified silence
= the better part of valour. Chivalry lives.....I don't agree with
them, I don't resepct the view, and don't know if I wish to go on
taking part in a forum with a collection of people who hold it.

Peter Stewart- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As a member of this newsgroup, I hold the highest regard for you and
your work. I have had little contact with you directly but your
contributions speak for themselves and the best people on the list,
both in terms of their own academic contributions and in terms of
their treatment of other people, hold you in high regard. Hiney seems
to be organizing his own Lord of the Flies game, judging from the
shrill and illiterate postings that may or may not be from people
other than Hiney himself. I am concerned that allowing their feeding
frenzy to continue will be harmful to you. Your ancestry, your
thoughts about your ancestry, your family, your personal history - all
of this is your business and no one's else's. Hiney is one of those
people who project their own faults & anxieties onto others and
scream. There is absolutely nothing that Hiney & his hillbilly
Hineyettes can post that will change my perception of your value on
this list. Since, as you have pointed out, simply watching the
trainwreck does nothing to help anyone, I hope that other listers will
continue to come to your defense as Leo & others have done. I find it
incredible that Hiney is even allowed to post here at all anymore,
considering the damage he obviously still wants to do. He's a dried up
sick little old thing who is deluded about who HE is and apparently
has nothing better to do than sit at a computer in his home and
shriek. Best, Bronwen

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 aug 2007 03:53:57

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1187313701.665047.56260@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 17, 10:57 am, "Merilyn Pedrick" <pedri...@ozemail.com.au
wrote:
No-one would be a winner if Peter Stewart left the group. His tenacity
is
astounding as he fights off the trolls, and I admire him for it
enormously.
But we would all be a winner if the trolls would just get back under
their
bridges and let Peter do what he does best - that is provide a scholarly
mind to any debate involving early medieval genealogy. Apart from
anything
else he is one of only a very few who can translate Latin for the rest of
us

Vicious detractors like Brandon and Hines should just back off. We're
sick
to death of you.

Thank you, Merilyn - you, Leo, Michael, Richard and David are always
ready to defend principle here, as well as people who come under
attack from the assorted trolls. If there were more like you amongst
the hundreds who subscribe to the Gen-Med list or Usenet, or who read
the posts via Google Groups, these pests might be seen off as they are
clearly sensitive to public opinion or they wouldn't court it for
crediting of their lies in the first place.

I should add, this was not meant to be an exhaustive list of the people to
whom I owe thanks and respect for their support in the past or present.

Some others, who frequent SGM less nowadays or who read fewer threads but
who can equally be relied upon to take a principled and outspoken stand, are
Francisco, Hap, Cesare, Paul (Reed), Chico, Rosie, Pierre, Bronwen, Gordon,
Brad and Louise; and no doubt others who haven't come to mind just at the
moment.

How striking is the high level of good sense, civility and expertise in this
group of SGM contributors!

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 17 aug 2007 04:19:23

His noodle was so badly discombobulated he could no longer continue at
Oxford. -- DSH

"Quite right for once - I lost the ability to read." -- Peter

A Disability He STILL HAS...

As We See In These NEWSGROUPS.

Straight from the horse's own mouth:

I have difficulty reading sometimes, unable to process even simple strings
of letters into words, and like other people with other disabilities I
have to take extra time & trouble to compensate. -- Peter Stewart

BINGO!

All dating from that hard noodle smash on the cobblestones at Oxford 33+
years ago, when he fell off the motorcycle -- drunk.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 17 aug 2007 04:30:30

"...Richardson maintained Peter Stewart was a homosexual..."

Leo van de Pas -- 15 August 2007
---------------------------------------------

Hmmmmmmmm...

Did Douglas Richardson do that?

If so:

WHEN was THAT and WHAT did he SAY?

Does Leo actually know what he is talking about?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 aug 2007 04:38:07

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:qt8xi.225$wi6.1508@eagle.america.net...
His noodle was so badly discombobulated he could no longer continue at
Oxford. -- DSH

"Quite right for once - I lost the ability to read." -- Peter

A Disability He STILL HAS...

As We See In These NEWSGROUPS.

No, Hines, you do not see it on Usenet - rather, you know it because I told
you.

Straight from the horse's own mouth:

I have difficulty reading sometimes, unable to process even simple
strings
of letters into words, and like other people with other disabilities I
have to take extra time & trouble to compensate. -- Peter Stewart

BINGO!

All dating from that hard noodle smash on the cobblestones at Oxford 33+
years ago, when he fell off the motorcycle -- drunk.

One cobblestone - intelligent people who can read learn to distinguish
singular from plural early on in the adventure. And I wasn't drunk. Hines
has no imagination, but he does have the inveterate falsifier's knack for
untruth, and the poseur's trick of sham obtuseness. They have never served
him less well than in this pointless statement & endless repetition.

Peter Stewart

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 aug 2007 04:56:41

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:7H8xi.226$wi6.1371@eagle.america.net...
"...Richardson maintained Peter Stewart was a homosexual..."

Leo van de Pas -- 15 August 2007
---------------------------------------------

Hmmmmmmmm...

Did Douglas Richardson do that?

If so:

WHEN was THAT and WHAT did he SAY?

Does Leo actually know what he is talking about?

Ho hum - feigning ignorance again. Hines was in this unhinged falsehood up
to his neck, along with Richardson.

Attached below is a post of mine in reply to a particuarly objectionable,
schoolmarmish and self-serving one from Todd Farmerie (who usually doesn't
speak up on these occasions except trying to implicate everyone else equally
in twisted blame) at the time in question.

Peter Stewart


Jul 25 2005, 1:54 pm

Comments interspersed:

"Todd A. Farmerie" <farme...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:dc1dut$f8$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu...



(This is the last I will say on this.)

Peter Stewart wrote:


Drivel


An accurate description of much of the last month here.


- if your idea of "nettequite", or indeed "netiquette", requires
people who are maligned and misrepresented in flagrantly self-serving and
dishonest posts to keep quiet, . . .


Oh, yes. I forgot that _you_ are the victim here. Funny thing, so is
Richardson, so is Leo, so is . . . . (Yawn!)



Ah yes, the usual cop-out - having failed to take note of the beginnings of
a problem thread, you take up midway and decide in ignorance that everyone
is to blame for it.

Kindergarten teachers might take the line that right and wrong don't matter,
only peace and quiet. Adults might be expected to have more regard for truth
than for convenience.



then it is your own conventional thoughtlessness that
violates the rights of others.

Do you honestly think that calling someone the same name the 253rd time
carries any more weight than the 252nd or 251st? At some point, it just
becomes noise. You are all well beyond that point.



No, I don't think this and have not suggested anything of the kind. I do
however think that eventually Hines, Brandon (who shows signs of it now) and
even possibly Richardson will get fed up with constant humiliation and learn
to moderate their disruptive behaviours.

These alleged "names" are rarely the entire burden of any post, even from
them and certainly not from Leo, CED, Hans or myself. Again, you are lazily
tarring everyone with the same brush - very bad 'netiquette', or it ought to
be.



Richardson, Brandon and HInes are learning - slowly, as always, but from
an unusual number of correspondents lately that amy help to pick up their
mental pace - that they will not (NOT EVER) get away with their lies and
distortions.

And they say that you are learning that you will NOT EVER get away with
yours.



The difference that you must recognise - or kindly have the gumption to say
so if you don't - is in WHO tells the lies and makes the distortions. This
is a matter of evidence, not mere impressions.


To ensure this, they insist, they must continue to insult you, and you
them, and they you, and you them, and on, and On, and ON! It might be
different if something was being accomplished, but that time is long past.
After all, if your goal is to enlighten all of the readers too stupid to
see the other side's transgressions for what they are (I mean, really,
does anyone take Hines' posts seriously, other than you?), driving those
readers away or convincing them that you have an unhealthy fixation on
Richardson and Hines are not very effective ways of educating them.

Hines makes his posts BECAUSE he thinks someone takes him seriously - and
sure enough, along comes Richardson to confirm this; and vice versa.


For some time, the posts have been revealing much more about their authors
than their targets. It's not flattering. It is like yelling at a lunatic
that he most certainly IS NOT the Emperor Napoleon - it only causes people
to pity him and think you crass, at best, but it accomplishes nothing and
it certainly does not set any record straight. (To argue with the lunatic
for weeks, . . . well, that speaks for itself.) If your approach is so
effective in putting them in their place, why do you think they keep
goading people back into the flame war?


Because they can impress new readers with their imagined ascendancy in some
past argument, of course. Why do you think they come here in the first
place, except to gratify their warped egos? Does either of them go out of
their way to help people, much less without trupoet-blowing and savaging
innocent enquirers, as Leo and I have been doing here for years?


You are not even talking about genealogy or research or qualifications any
more - you are now talking about who is and is not homosexual, for God's
sake. Who are you protecting from evil by hinting that Mr. Richardson
might be gay? Have none of you any shame? (Or is my failure to
appreciate the utter necessity of such a discussion another manifestation
of my conventional thoughtlessness?)


Again, you have missed the point. Homosexuality is NOT the issue: HYPOCRISY
is. Richardson called me "prissy" and supported Hines in stating (not just
implying) that I should "come out of the closet". As it happens, I am not in
a closet, not gay - but implying that this would be discreditable to me if
it were true is certainly offensive and hurtful to some people. To have this
come from Richardson who is known to haunt gay bars despite his six
children, and Hines who is fixated on homosexuality and now even on the
anatomy of a dead royal male, is a flagrant example of the hypocrisy that
they insinuate into other discussions on other topics (including medieval
genealogy). Is this dishonesty on their part of NO interest to the
newsgroup? If you think so, say so - why wait till now when you add this to
offenses you are alleging against everyone indiscriminately?


And don't say, "just don't read it if you don't like it". That is like
urinating in a public place and telling people they are free to hold their
noses if they don't like the resulting smell (not to mention the spatter).


Specious - you don't have to open my messages in the first place to know
what is or is not in them, and this has no analogy to encountering a
nuisance while passing along a street that you are entitled to use.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 17 aug 2007 05:50:50

What an incredible hysterical rant by Peter Stewart!

Vide infra pro risibus.

STEWART seems to be the one accusing Douglas Richardson of being
homosexual -- NOT the other way around.

Douglas has SIX children, as I recall.

What is this incredible urge that Stewart has to malign people without a
scintilla of evidence.

Homosexuality is NOT a crime _per se_ either,

Live And Let Live, I Say...

What the HELL is Stewart up to?

You are not even talking about genealogy or research or qualifications
any more - you are now talking about who is and is not homosexual, for
God's sake. Who are you protecting from evil by hinting that Mr.
Richardson might be gay? -- taf

We ALSO need to hear from Leo van de Pas who made the charge against Douglas
Richardson. See below.

Posthaste...

DSH

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

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Z%8xi.21455$4A1.8337@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:7H8xi.226$wi6.1371@eagle.america.net...

"...Richardson maintained Peter Stewart was a homosexual..."

Leo van de Pas -- 15 August 2007
---------------------------------------------

Hmmmmmmmm...

Did Douglas Richardson do that?

If so:

WHEN was THAT and WHAT did he SAY?

Does Leo actually know what he is talking about?

Ho hum - feigning ignorance again. Hines was in this unhinged falsehood up
to his neck, along with Richardson.

Attached below is a post of mine in reply to a particuarly objectionable,
schoolmarmish and self-serving one from Todd Farmerie (who usually doesn't
speak up on these occasions except trying to implicate everyone else
equally in twisted blame) at the time in question.

Peter Stewart


Jul 25 2005, 1:54 pm

Comments interspersed:

"Todd A. Farmerie" <farme...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:dc1dut$f8$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu...

(This is the last I will say on this.)

Peter Stewart wrote:

Drivel

An accurate description of much of the last month here.

- if your idea of "nettequite", or indeed "netiquette", requires
people who are maligned and misrepresented in flagrantly self-serving
and dishonest posts to keep quiet, . . .

Oh, yes. I forgot that _you_ are the victim here. Funny thing, so is
Richardson, so is Leo, so is . . . . (Yawn!)

Ah yes, the usual cop-out - having failed to take note of the beginnings
of a problem thread, you take up midway and decide in ignorance that
everyone is to blame for it.

Kindergarten teachers might take the line that right and wrong don't
matter, only peace and quiet. Adults might be expected to have more
regard for truth than for convenience.

then it is your own conventional thoughtlessness that
violates the rights of others.

Do you honestly think that calling someone the same name the 253rd time
carries any more weight than the 252nd or 251st? At some point, it just
becomes noise. You are all well beyond that point.

No, I don't think this and have not suggested anything of the kind. I do
however think that eventually Hines, Brandon (who shows signs of it now)
and
even possibly Richardson will get fed up with constant humiliation and
learn
to moderate their disruptive behaviours.

Hilarious! -- DSH

These alleged "names" are rarely the entire burden of any post, even from
them and certainly not from Leo, CED, Hans or myself. Again, you are
lazily
tarring everyone with the same brush - very bad 'netiquette', or it ought
to
be.

Richardson, Brandon and HInes are learning - slowly, as always, but from
an unusual number of correspondents lately that amy help to pick up
their mental pace - that they will not (NOT EVER) get away with their
lies and distortions.

And they say that you are learning that you will NOT EVER get away with
yours.

The difference that you must recognise - or kindly have the gumption to
say
so if you don't - is in WHO tells the lies and makes the distortions. This
is a matter of evidence, not mere impressions.

To ensure this, they insist, they must continue to insult you, and you
them, and they you, and you them, and on, and On, and ON! It might be
different if something was being accomplished, but that time is long
past. After all, if your goal is to enlighten all of the readers too
stupid to see the other side's transgressions for what they are (I mean,
really, does anyone take Hines' posts seriously, other than you?),
driving those readers away or convincing them that you have an unhealthy
fixation on Richardson and Hines are not very effective ways of educating
them.

He certainly has an unhealthy fixation on Richardson and Hines. -- DSH

Hines makes his posts BECAUSE he thinks someone takes him seriously - and
sure enough, along comes Richardson to confirm this; and vice versa.

For some time, the posts have been revealing much more about their
authors than their targets. It's not flattering. It is like yelling at
a lunatic that he most certainly IS NOT the Emperor Napoleon - it only
causes people to pity him and think you crass, at best, but it
accomplishes nothing and it certainly does not set any record straight.
(To argue with the lunatic for weeks, . . . well, that speaks for
itself.) If your approach is so effective in putting them in their
place, why do you think they keep goading people back into the flame war?

Because they can impress new readers with their imagined ascendancy in
some
past argument, of course. Why do you think they come here in the first
place, except to gratify their warped egos? Does either of them go out of
their way to help people, much less without trupoet-blowing and savaging
innocent enquirers, as Leo and I have been doing here for years?

You are not even talking about genealogy or research or qualifications
any more - you are now talking about who is and is not homosexual, for
God's sake. Who are you protecting from evil by hinting that Mr.
Richardson might be gay? Have none of you any shame? (Or is my failure
to appreciate the utter necessity of such a discussion another
manifestation of my conventional thoughtlessness?)

Again, you have missed the point. Homosexuality is NOT the issue:
HYPOCRISY
is. Richardson called me "prissy" and supported Hines in stating (not just
implying) that I should "come out of the closet". As it happens, I am not
in
a closet, not gay - but implying that this would be discreditable to me if
it were true is certainly offensive and hurtful to some people. To have
this
come from Richardson who is known to haunt gay bars despite his six
children, and Hines who is fixated on homosexuality and now even on the
anatomy of a dead royal male, is a flagrant example of the hypocrisy that
they insinuate into other discussions on other topics (including medieval
genealogy). Is this dishonesty on their part of NO interest to the
newsgroup? If you think so, say so - why wait till now when you add this
to
offenses you are alleging against everyone indiscriminately?

And don't say, "just don't read it if you don't like it". That is like
urinating in a public place and telling people they are free to hold
their noses if they don't like the resulting smell (not to mention the
spatter).

Specious - you don't have to open my messages in the first place to know
what is or is not in them, and this has no analogy to encountering a
nuisance while passing along a street that you are entitled to use.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 17 aug 2007 06:01:07

His noodle was so badly discombobulated he could no longer continue at
Oxford. -- DSH

"Quite right for once - I lost the ability to read." -- Peter

A Disability He STILL HAS...

As We See In These NEWSGROUPS.

Straight from the horse's own mouth:

I have difficulty reading sometimes, unable to process even simple strings
of letters into words, and like other people with other disabilities I
have to take extra time & trouble to compensate. -- Peter Stewart

BINGO!

I couldn't have said it better myself.

All dating from that hard noodle smash on the cobblestones at Oxford 33+
years ago, when he fell off the motorcycle -- drunk...

"Tipsy" -- as he insists.

Hilarious!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 17 aug 2007 06:18:20

Stunned & Titillated?

Peyton Place indeed -- although you're dating yourself. <g>

Douglas Richardson is in Salt Lake City not Oklahoma. Right?

Peter and Leo are in Australia. Brisbane?

Many homosexuals have ***Great Talents*** in Genealogy.

I'm stalwartly heterosexual...

But what's wrong with mixing with homosexuals in gay bars -- perhaps to
meet, greet, socialize and discuss Genealogy?

DSH

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

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.700.1187327051.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

The most shocking assertion in all this Peyton Place cum RomperRoom
activity is...

They have gay bars in Oklahoma???

I'm stunned and titillated all at the same time, which is odd itself.

Will Johnson

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 aug 2007 06:29:01

On Aug 17, 2:50 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
What an incredible hysterical rant by Peter Stewart!

Vide infra pro risibus.

STEWART seems to be the one accusing Douglas Richardson of being
homosexual -- NOT the other way around.

This was a RESPONSE to a third party - read it and you see that
Richardson had backed up YOUR false implication (I don't miscall it an
"accusation") about me. If necessary that too can be dredged from the
archive.

Douglas has SIX children, as I recall.

There was no assertion by me of Richardson's sexuality, but rather of
his attendance at gay bars in contradistinction to the image of a
familly man that he cultivates in SGM - the point was NOT about his
sexuality but his hypocrisy.

What is this incredible urge that Stewart has to malign people without a
scintilla of evidence.

And of course it was not without a scintilla of evidence: it was
undeniable and undenied by him, and the information came from three
different correspondents who had knowledge of the fact and wrote to me
about it in disgust when HE made the insinuation about me.

Homosexuality is NOT a crime _per se_ either,

It's not a crime _full stop_, in any civilised nation.

Live And Let Live, I Say...

What the HELL is Stewart up to?

Answering your question.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 17 aug 2007 06:37:07

Even if he did go to a gay bar or gay bars...

SO WHAT?????

Stewart is unhinged.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1187328541.913130.179860@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

There was no assertion by me of Richardson's sexuality, but rather of
his attendance at gay bars in contradistinction to the image of a
familly man that he cultivates in SGM - the point was NOT about his
sexuality but his hypocrisy.

What is this incredible urge that Stewart has to malign people without a
scintilla of evidence.

And of course it was not without a scintilla of evidence: it was
undeniable and undenied by him, and the information came from three
different correspondents who had knowledge of the fact and wrote to me
about it in disgust when HE made the insinuation about me.

Homosexuality is NOT a crime _per se_ either,

It's not a crime _full stop_, in any civilised nation.

Live And Let Live, I Say...

What the HELL is Stewart up to?

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 aug 2007 06:43:10

On Aug 17, 1:30 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
"...Richardson maintained Peter Stewart was a homosexual..."

Leo van de Pas -- 15 August 2007
---------------------------------------------

Hmmmmmmmm...

Did Douglas Richardson do that?

If so:

WHEN was THAT and WHAT did he SAY?

Does Leo actually know what he is talking about?

Hines is now pretending to have forgotten his own disingenuous
question, that was an attempt to shift the focus of this thread from
his own embarrassment over lost arguments onto a discussion of his old
pet subject, male homosexuality.

The archive has numberless examples of his oiling and oozing around
this epicentre of his obsessions.

We will now in all likelihood be treated to an industrial bellows of
posting from him, trying to fan this subject into flame.

How transparent can he BE?

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 17 aug 2007 06:46:44

<G>

DSH

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.701.1187328411.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 8/16/2007 10:20:22 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
panther@excelsior.com writes:

Peyton Place indeed -- although you're dating yourself. <g
------------------

Shocking! I would never date myself! I'm much too hyper-critical *read
annoying twit*

Right! Genealogical Researchers are allowed to DATE anything they want. It
comes with the Territory.

I even check the DATES on hams, orange juice and cereal.

Douglas Richardson is in Salt Lake City not Oklahoma. Right?
You're right. I'd better update my page on him

Leo is in Bribane as I recall. But Stewart may not be. He prefers the
anonymity of the BIGGER city.

Does Peter date Leo?

I'm stalwartly heterosexual...

I'd better put a stop on that box of chocolates I was sending you then.

<G>

But what's wrong with mixing with homosexuals in gay bars -- perhaps to
meet, greet, socialize and discuss Genealogy?

Certainly. There's nothing more seductive, then discussing whether John
Grey of Pirgo died on Aug 18, or Aug 19.

OR -- who WAS and who was NOT homosexual in History. Richard I is always a
favorite topic.

And William Rufus...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

norenxaq

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av norenxaq » 17 aug 2007 06:51:04

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 8/16/2007 10:45:28 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

male homosexuality.

The archive has numberless examples of his oiling and oozing around
this epicentre of his obsessions.


---------------
Oiling and oozing around male homosexuality?
Did I accidentally tune into the gay-porn channel?


Will




it would seem so...

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 aug 2007 06:51:55

Hines is now deleting lines including signatures from copied posts,
trying to fudge over who wrote what.

The question he poses now has already been answered, at least twice.
The issue was Richardson's HYPOCRISY, and his dishonest projection of
whatever he perceives or hopes will be perceived as negative onto
others.

As predicted, Hines just wants to submerge himself in his old
favourite subject, both for the furtive pleasure this obviously gives
him each & every time and to avoid the far from pleasant pasting he
has taken on all other matters.

Peter Stewart


On Aug 17, 3:37 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Even if he did go to a gay bar or gay bars...

SO WHAT?????

Stewart is unhinged.

DSH

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

news:1187328541.913130.179860@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...



There was no assertion by me of Richardson's sexuality, but rather of
his attendance at gay bars in contradistinction to the image of a
familly man that he cultivates in SGM - the point was NOT about his
sexuality but his hypocrisy.

What is this incredible urge that Stewart has to malign people without a
scintilla of evidence.

And of course it was not without a scintilla of evidence: it was
undeniable and undenied by him, and the information came from three
different correspondents who had knowledge of the fact and wrote to me
about it in disgust when HE made the insinuation about me.

Homosexuality is NOT a crime _per se_ either,

It's not a crime _full stop_, in any civilised nation.

Live And Let Live, I Say...

What the HELL is Stewart up to?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 17 aug 2007 06:52:48

Followup To My Last:

OR -- who WAS and who was NOT homosexual in History. Richard I is always
a favorite topic. -- DSH

And William Rufus... -- DSH

And Edward II...

But he's been probed to death.

DSH

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:LDaxi.235$wi6.1450@eagle.america.net...

G

DSH

WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.701.1187328411.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 8/16/2007 10:20:22 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
panther@excelsior.com writes:

Peyton Place indeed -- although you're dating yourself. <g
------------------

Shocking! I would never date myself! I'm much too hyper-critical *read
annoying twit*

Right! Genealogical Researchers are allowed to DATE anything they want.
It comes with the Territory.

I even check the DATES on hams, orange juice and cereal.

Douglas Richardson is in Salt Lake City not Oklahoma. Right?
You're right. I'd better update my page on him

Leo is in Bribane as I recall. But Stewart may not be. He prefers the
anonymity of the BIGGER city.

Does Peter date Leo?

I'm stalwartly heterosexual...

I'd better put a stop on that box of chocolates I was sending you then.

G

But what's wrong with mixing with homosexuals in gay bars -- perhaps
to
meet, greet, socialize and discuss Genealogy?

Certainly. There's nothing more seductive, then discussing whether John
Grey of Pirgo died on Aug 18, or Aug 19.

OR -- who WAS and who was NOT homosexual in History. Richard I is always
a favorite topic.

And William Rufus...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 aug 2007 06:55:17

On Aug 17, 3:51 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/16/2007 10:45:28 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

p_m_stew...@msn.com writes:

male homosexuality.

The archive has numberless examples of his oiling and oozing around
this epicentre of his obsessions.

---------------
Oiling and oozing around male homosexuality?
Did I accidentally tune into the gay-porn channel?

Will

Are you trying to outdo Michael Moor in selective and biased editing?

I'm sure Hines will exploit your feeble humour, as you probably wish.

Grow up or shut up - this is not the forum for smut.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 17 aug 2007 06:59:33

Peter obviously has "issues" in his life.

And:

Freudian slips galore.

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

"norenxaq" <norenxaq@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.703.1187330066.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 8/16/2007 10:45:28 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

male homosexuality.

The archive has numberless examples of his oiling and oozing around
this epicentre of his obsessions.

---------------
Oiling and oozing around male homosexuality?
Did I accidentally tune into the gay-porn channel?

Will

it would seem so...

Gjest

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 aug 2007 07:05:05

The most shocking assertion in all this Peyton Place cum RomperRoom activity
is...

They have gay bars in Oklahoma???

I'm stunned and titillated all at the same time, which is odd itself.

Will Johnson



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

Gjest

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 aug 2007 07:30:08

In a message dated 8/16/2007 10:20:22 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
panther@excelsior.com writes:

<<Peyton Place indeed -- although you're dating yourself. <g>>>
------------------
Shocking! I would never date myself! I'm much too hyper-critical *read
annoying twit*

<<Douglas Richardson is in Salt Lake City not Oklahoma. Right?>>
You're right. I'd better update my page on him

<<I'm stalwartly heterosexual...>>
I'd better put a stop on that box of chocolates I was sending you then.

<<But what's wrong with mixing with homosexuals in gay bars -- perhaps to
meet, greet, socialize and discuss Genealogy?>>


Certainly. There's nothing more seductive, then discussing whether John
Grey of Pirgo died on Aug 18, or Aug 19.

Will Johnson



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

Gjest

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 aug 2007 07:55:05

In a message dated 8/16/2007 10:45:28 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

male homosexuality.

The archive has numberless examples of his oiling and oozing around
this epicentre of his obsessions.


---------------
Oiling and oozing around male homosexuality?
Did I accidentally tune into the gay-porn channel?


Will



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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 17 aug 2007 08:02:48

Aha!

Leo is in Canberra these days.

He was in PERTH, some years ago -- and has some sort of relative -- perhaps
a niece -- in Brisbane, as I recall.

Perhaps Peter is in Canberra too -- then they can date each other.

Like Good Genealogists -- always dating.

Canberra should provide sufficient anonymity for all sorts of dating.

But Leo has yet to explain why he is making scurrilous charges against
Douglas Richardson.

He's quite cowardly that way -- preferring to plunge his little dagger into
the back -- not the chest.

As To Peter:

Peter obviously has "issues" in his life.

Vide infra.

And:

Freudian slips galore.

Hilarious!

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

"norenxaq" <norenxaq@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.703.1187330066.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 8/16/2007 10:45:28 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

male homosexuality.

The archive has numberless examples of his oiling and oozing around
this epicentre of his obsessions.

---------------
Oiling and oozing around male homosexuality?
Did I accidentally tune into the gay-porn channel?

Will

it would seem so...

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 17 aug 2007 08:47:17

"...Richardson maintained Peter Stewart was a homosexual..."

Leo van de Pas -- 15 August 2007
---------------------------------------------

Hmmmmmmmm...

Did Douglas Richardson do that?

If so:

WHEN was THAT and WHAT did he SAY?

Does Leo actually know what he is talking about?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 aug 2007 09:00:54

I do not live in Canberra, and have never met Leo.

Every life generates "issues", unresolved and/or unresolvable. Mine too.

But Hines is the specialist in Freudian slips.

The archive is replete with them. Also outright slips from ignorance and
ill-education as well as from his pretentious and maimed being. A failure of
nature and nurture, reflecting poorly on all concerned.

Peter Stewart


"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:PLbxi.238$wi6.1513@eagle.america.net...
Aha!

Leo is in Canberra these days.

He was in PERTH, some years ago -- and has some sort of relative --
perhaps a niece -- in Brisbane, as I recall.

Perhaps Peter is in Canberra too -- then they can date each other.

Like Good Genealogists -- always dating.

Canberra should provide sufficient anonymity for all sorts of dating.

But Leo has yet to explain why he is making scurrilous charges against
Douglas Richardson.

He's quite cowardly that way -- preferring to plunge his little dagger
into the back -- not the chest.

As To Peter:

Peter obviously has "issues" in his life.

Vide infra.

And:

Freudian slips galore.

Hilarious!

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

"norenxaq" <norenxaq@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.703.1187330066.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 8/16/2007 10:45:28 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

male homosexuality.

The archive has numberless examples of his oiling and oozing around
this epicentre of his obsessions.

---------------
Oiling and oozing around male homosexuality?
Did I accidentally tune into the gay-porn channel?

Will

it would seem so...


D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 17 aug 2007 10:28:57

Leo and Peter really SHOULD meet.

It would be a Good Thing for both of them.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

John Plant

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av John Plant » 17 aug 2007 10:33:35

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Correct...

Even after my drawing this to his attention several times now -- he still
doesn't understand it.

He needs a Good Course in Statistics at his local university.

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

WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.652.1187286413.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 8/16/2007 9:08:19 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:

Errm, excuse me, I hate to interrupt your merriment. However, I took the
FPE rate [2%] and a postulated number of generations [25] and got "about
50%".
--------------------------------------

The point being you cannot do this with statistics. They don't work that
way.


Of course. One only has to look at the limiting rates of 0 and 1 to see
immediately that the statistics don't work in the way that DSH *claims*
that I was assuming. I am not a professional statistician. However, I
chose my words carefully and what I said was not wrong. Is DSH a
professional statistician? He does not seem to be addressing the
relevant issues. He just seems to keep repeating something of little
direct relevance. Perhaps he should tell us his qualifications. Instead
of maligning me, perhaps he should answer the questions of John Briggs
and others.

Nor, unfortunately, do I believe that you are really on the ball about
your advice about what I should put on my Y-DNA web page, though I do
not find your remarks as offensive as those of DSH. I have been guided
partly by the way that other people report their Y-DNA results and I
have never known of anyone putting forward before what you are suggesting.

I am only too ready to receive good advice. The problem is that I do not
believe that I am getting any. I keep going into long explanations of my
methods only to get little or nothing back. I am falling behind with
other things that I need to do.

Is DSH saying that his method of calculation is relevant to the problem
in hand to an accuracy of two decimal places, as he seems to be
claiming? Or has he just cut and pasted something that he understands
less than the rest of us?

John

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 17 aug 2007 10:36:02

Peter's only rhetorical weapons are very weak _TU QUOQUES_.

Childish...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 17 aug 2007 10:38:52

Plant STILL doesn't understand how to calculate Joint Probabilities.

Rockhead...

DSH

"John Plant" <j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:mailman.709.1187343239.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

<blathersnip>

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 17 aug 2007 10:50:28

Leo has come up empty-handed on this anserine, mean-spirited accusation.

Not Surprising...

He can't provide a verbatim quotation of Douglas saying that.

DSH

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

"...Richardson maintained Peter Stewart was a homosexual..."

Leo van de Pas -- 15 August 2007
---------------------------------------------

Hmmmmmmmm...

Did Douglas Richardson do that?

If so:

WHEN was THAT and WHAT did he SAY?

Does Leo actually know what he is talking about?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 aug 2007 11:02:38

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:m_dxi.244$wi6.1287@eagle.america.net...
Peter's only rhetorical weapons are very weak _TU QUOQUES_.

Childish...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Only a simpleton would try posting this claim, without any context
whatsoever, hoping that it might be read by someone who didn't see or
understand other posts.

I have shown that what Leo said was quite correct, and that's all there is
to it. Persisting readers can of course use the subject lines to seek out
the imbecilities from Hines in July 2005, that he pretends to have
forgotten, goading and abetting Richardson in what was an evasive tactic
then as now.

There are not many like Brandon and Dolores C. Phifer who are foolish enough
to believe, or pretend to believe, a word from Hines, or as Will Johnson who
indulges him with oafish banter.

Peter Stewart

Sab

RE: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 886

Legg inn av Sab » 17 aug 2007 11:46:57

You know I joined this list to learn how to better research my medieval
family history. How am I learning anything when basically for the past week
there's been this whole male soap opera going on. I don't care who said
what about whom or who's more intellectually sound. It's all childish and
irrelevant. So, children take the fight somewhere else and let the
grown-ups discuss the important stuff. Now can we get back to learning
about medieval genealogy.



Sabrina L. Young

This e-mail communication, including all attachments, may contain private,
proprietary, privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only
for the person to whom it is addressed. Any unauthorized use, copying or
distribution of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, and have received it in
error, please delete it and notify the sender immediately.

From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of
gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 4:34 AM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 886

Rosie Bevan

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Rosie Bevan » 17 aug 2007 12:57:13

Not having had the time to frequent the newsgroup lately, I'm
disgusted to return and find yet another attack on the integrity on
Peter by Mr Hines, whose attempts to discredit him in any way he
imagines feasible, only expose his own sick, envious and dessicated
soul for what it is. As far as Peter is concerned there is no-one
whose honesty and values I respect more, and I would consider myself
extremely blessed to have anything approaching his finely honed
intellect. Peter generously shares his deep knowledge and passion for
European medieval genealogy with this community nearly every day.
Shame on Hines and his camp followers - the peevish Brandon, and the
Andrra/Fayette/Whittaker brigade who have contributed next to nothing
to this medieval forum in comparison. And Bravo to the stout-hearted
Leo and others for standing up for him.

Take comfort from the ratings, Peter. They show that Mr Hines has only
succeeded in highlighting your value to this newsgroup.

Cheers

Rosie




On Aug 17, 12:20 pm, Peter Stewart <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
On Aug 17, 8:47 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:





Not discouraged, but rather disgusted with the unreciprocal consumerism of
people I have defended in the past.

If I leave the newsgroup again, for the same reason as before, my
communication on matters raised in SGM can continue off-list to the people I
wish to remain in touch with, as before.

I am not under any obligaton to provide help, corrections or warnings to SGM
readers.

Then see how happy and civil the forum will become, with Richardson,
Brandon, Hines and Marco/Jack/Adrian/Steven untrammelled by the discipline
of having their inanities countered and their lies pointed out, especially
to inattentive or new readers like Dolores C. Phifer.

Peter Stewart

Pout ... sulk ... pout.-

Yes, I agree it would be not entirely unfair to characterise it like
that.

However, there is a certain compact implicit in daily communication
with a group of people who are personally unknown to each other. If
one of them - myself at present - comes to the conclusion that he is
making a long and time-consuming effort for the benefit of a kind of
moral blancmange, an indeterminate number of people who prefer to
remain nameless and uncounted when I am being subjected to sustained
slander and idiotic abuse, then that person is surely entitled to feel
some disenchantment, even dudgeon.

All the members of SGM who have been sitting on their hands during
this turmoil are no doubt thinking that discretion = dignified silence
= the better part of valour. Chivalry lives.....I don't agree with
them, I don't resepct the view, and don't know if I wish to go on
taking part in a forum with a collection of people who hold it.

Peter Stewart- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

M. de la Fayette

RE: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av M. de la Fayette » 17 aug 2007 13:04:02

You wrote: "he is one of only a very few who can translate Latin for the
rest of us"
Are you joking?

And what about is aggressively, impoliteness on the list etc etc...?

-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Merilyn Pedrick
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 2:58 AM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry


No-one would be a winner if Peter Stewart left the group. His tenacity
is astounding as he fights off the trolls, and I admire him for it
enormously.
But we would all be a winner if the trolls would just get back under
their bridges and let Peter do what he does best - that is provide a
scholarly mind to any debate involving early medieval genealogy. Apart
from anything else he is one of only a very few who can translate Latin
for the rest of us

Vicious detractors like Brandon and Hines should just back off. We're
sick to death of you. Merilyn Pedrick


From: John Brandon
Date: 08/17/07 08:05:18
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

they don't speak up for, that is also a matter for them. It is notable
that
at least as many outsiders to SGM have spoken up in this tedious row
as members of my own newsgroup. Rum.

Peter Stewart

Getting a little discouraged, Peter? You might want to take a wee
vacation from s.g.m. Seriously, consider it. You'd feel so much
better. WE'D feel so much better. Everyone would be a winner.


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


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

Peter Stewart

Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 886

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 aug 2007 13:17:26

"Sab" <morgause@logonix.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.712.1187347615.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
You know I joined this list to learn how to better research my medieval
family history. How am I learning anything when basically for the past
week
there's been this whole male soap opera going on. I don't care who said
what about whom or who's more intellectually sound. It's all childish and
irrelevant. So, children take the fight somewhere else and let the
grown-ups discuss the important stuff. Now can we get back to learning
about medieval genealogy.

The problem, Sabrina, is who are you going to learn from once this list is
taken over by the likes of Hines, Brandon, Richardson and Marco? From Will
Johnson, perhaps?

Anyone then who comes here asking questions will be treated to posturing and
deception, anyone trying to offer help and answers, like Leo van de Pas, and
anyone who questions the ineptitude and bullying will be subjected to
sneers, slander and abuse. This has been the pattern of behaviour from these
people over years.

You are right to express your intolerance - although I don't agree with you
all round in this case, there should be more readers prepared to speak up as
you have done against whatever they see as improper, manipulative or
unhelpful.

One of the great historic errors that came out of the misery of earlier
centuries, particularly the 20th, is the distaste of educated & cultivated
people for intolerance: religious, racial, ethnic and other perversions of
it have left a very bad odour, and people tend to forget that sanely &
sensibly directed it is the basis of all law and order in society, from
Hammurabi to the present. Codes of laws are just proscriptions of behaviour
that will not be tolerated.

An internet newsgroup without a moderator has no way to impose sanctions,
but its members can freely express their annoyance, as you have done. If
more did this - better still, if a clear majority did this all at once - the
shock to egomaiacal trolls and liars might be salutary. The intolerance
should not need to be of long and tiresome brawls, but instead should
forestall these by shaming the offenders whose posts get them started.

In my case, for instance, you might say that unduly vehement expression is
to blame - as long as you are quite clear that this has not been provoked by
the prior offense of someone else against reason, commonsense or honesty.
The aim of any worthwhile effort of law or justice is to get at the root of
the evil, not to spray censure around in the hope of hitting a big enough
target.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 aug 2007 14:22:20

"Rosie Bevan" <rbevan@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:1187351833.015919.240320@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Not having had the time to frequent the newsgroup lately, I'm
disgusted to return and find yet another attack on the integrity on
Peter by Mr Hines, whose attempts to discredit him in any way he
imagines feasible, only expose his own sick, envious and dessicated
soul for what it is. As far as Peter is concerned there is no-one
whose honesty and values I respect more, and I would consider myself
extremely blessed to have anything approaching his finely honed
intellect. Peter generously shares his deep knowledge and passion for
European medieval genealogy with this community nearly every day.
Shame on Hines and his camp followers - the peevish Brandon, and the
Andrra/Fayette/Whittaker brigade who have contributed next to nothing
to this medieval forum in comparison. And Bravo to the stout-hearted
Leo and others for standing up for him.

Take comfort from the ratings, Peter. They show that Mr Hines has only
succeeded in highlighting your value to this newsgroup.

Thank you Rosie. This newsgroup is very much the poorer for the absence or
infrequent appearances of several of its great past contributors, while
being stuck with the shennanigans of a few at the opposite end of the scale
of learning and helpfulness who are unfortunately still here - or, in the
case of Hines, back after taking to heels in disgrace before.

Ever since I first joined SGM, the most brilliant and substantial posts have
been from you, Paul Reed and Stewart Baldwin. The archive is a constant
reminder of this - even though our areas of major interest don't completely
overlap, I'm always grateful when your names come up from a search, and I
know there will be rewarding and enlightening messages to read.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 886

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 aug 2007 14:37:08

<JKent10581@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.725.1187355637.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
This list has gotten to be a bad joke...about personalities and not about
medieval genealogy.

So why not make it a good joke and _post_ some medieval genealogy?

Or are you speaking as a personality who is just here to consume, and have
it your own way?

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 aug 2007 14:56:25

There is absolutely no need to apologise, Elizabeth - I greatly appreciate
your support, your very generous good sense, and your courage in exposing
yourself to possible vituperation for the sake of expressing what you think
is right. Thank you for your excellent post.

Peter Stewart


"Elizabeth Moss" <macbeth@webaxs.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.727.1187357985.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Deeply ashamed that I must identify myself as one part of Peter's "moral
blancmange", better-late-than-never(?) my fingers now hit the keyboard.

Pout ... sulk ... pout.-

Yes, I agree it would be not entirely unfair to characterise it like
that.
I disagree. In such malignant and vindictively-created circumstances,
feeling let-down by and disappointed in one's fellow-subscribers, is not
pouting or sulking, but an entirely normal and remarkedly controlled
reaction to silence from we the "nameless and uncounted".

However, there is a certain compact implicit in daily communication
with a group of people who are personally unknown to each other. If
one of them - myself at present - comes to the conclusion that he is
making a long and time-consuming effort for the benefit of a kind of
moral blancmange, an indeterminate number of people who prefer to
remain nameless and uncounted when I am being subjected to sustained
slander and idiotic abuse, then that person is surely entitled to feel
some disenchantment, even dudgeon.
Reading post after post of slanderous and shockingly abusive attacks, a
bad taste is left in the mouth. A very bad taste. As almost all are
written in a vindictive, spiteful, school-girlish style, it is hard to
believe that these people are adults. One wonders about any upbringing,
and/or life-experience, that could bear such rotten fruit.

Now, those of us who have been following the posts in this thread (and
similar vendettas over the years) cannot but be aware of their purpose to
discredit and demean, mainly by ridicule and intended insult delivered in
a sustained, repetitious, verbal barrage. This is sick.

No need to feel sorry for Peter. He is well able to deal with these
puerile posters, but in repudiation he should not appear unsupported by
the 'blancmange' majority. The term is moral support, and it's not
unreasonable of Peter to expect it. Therefore I give mine. Wholeheartedly.

To my own surprise, I feel there is some need to feel sorry, just a
little, for his detractors. Ask yourself what their lives might be like.
What could elicit such pathetic behaviour from reasonably intelligent
beings? My guess is that they are among the unrespected of this world.
Why else the obvious resentment and wish to humiliate someone who has the
wherewithal to command the respect of others?
All the members of SGM who have been sitting on their hands during
this turmoil are no doubt thinking that discretion = dignified silence
= the better part of valour. Chivalry lives.....I don't agree with
them, I don't resepct the view, and don't know if I wish to go on
taking part in a forum with a collection of people who hold it.

Peter Stewart
Peter, please accept my apology for the lateness of my support.

Elizabeth

M. de la Fayette

RE: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av M. de la Fayette » 17 aug 2007 14:57:10

Your Stewart defense is astonishing.
Did you ignore his PERMANENT attacks, insults etc. etc. to everyone on
this list that not intent to accept to "lie-down" in front of his (self
asserted) superiority?

You should have paid more attention to this, before have written your
post.

The present situation on this list is nothing but a reaction to his
unacceptable behavior, from peoples that no longer whish to accept it!

Personally, I'm only ashamed for him, I mean for Stewart pomposity,
arrogance, impoliteness, and so and so! Usque tandem ....?


And about what you describe as "the indeterminate number of people who
prefer to remain nameless and uncounted" if you where insulted and
personally attacked in a recent past on this list by this "man", in the
most incredible, violent, arrogant, disgusting way, I'm sure you will
chose to "remain nameless" too.

-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Moss
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 8:38 AM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Cc: Elizabeth Moss
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry


Deeply ashamed that I must identify myself as one part of Peter's
"moral blancmange", better-late-than-never(?) my fingers now hit the
keyboard.
Pout ... sulk ... pout.-

Yes, I agree it would be not entirely unfair to characterise it like
that.
I disagree. In such malignant and vindictively-created circumstances,

feeling let-down by and disappointed in one's fellow-subscribers, is
not pouting or sulking, but an entirely normal and remarkedly
controlled reaction to silence from we the "nameless and uncounted".
However, there is a certain compact implicit in daily communication
with a group of people who are personally unknown to each other. If
one of them - myself at present - comes to the conclusion that he is
making a long and time-consuming effort for the benefit of a kind of
moral blancmange, an indeterminate number of people who prefer to
remain nameless and uncounted when I am being subjected to sustained
slander and idiotic abuse, then that person is surely entitled to feel

some disenchantment, even dudgeon.
Reading post after post of slanderous and shockingly abusive attacks, a

bad taste is left in the mouth. A very bad taste. As almost all are
written in a vindictive, spiteful, school-girlish style, it is hard to
believe that these people are adults. One wonders about any upbringing,
and/or life-experience, that could bear such rotten fruit.

Now, those of us who have been following the posts in this thread (and
similar vendettas over the years) cannot but be aware of their purpose
to discredit and demean, mainly by ridicule and intended insult
delivered in a sustained, repetitious, verbal barrage. This is sick.

No need to feel sorry for Peter. He is well able to deal with these
puerile posters, but in repudiation he should not appear unsupported by
the 'blancmange' majority. The term is moral support, and it's not
unreasonable of Peter to expect it. Therefore I give mine.
Wholeheartedly.

To my own surprise, I feel there is some need to feel sorry, just a
little, for his detractors. Ask yourself what their lives might be
like. What could elicit such pathetic behaviour from reasonably
intelligent beings? My guess is that they are among the unrespected of
this world. Why else the obvious resentment and wish to humiliate
someone who has the wherewithal to command the respect of others?
All the members of SGM who have been sitting on their hands during
this turmoil are no doubt thinking that discretion = dignified silence

= the better part of valour. Chivalry lives.....I don't agree with
them, I don't resepct the view, and don't know if I wish to go on
taking part in a forum with a collection of people who hold it.

Peter Stewart
Peter, please accept my apology for the lateness of my support.


Elizabeth


-------------------------------
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 Brandon

Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 886

Legg inn av John Brandon » 17 aug 2007 15:03:28

The problem, Sabrina, is who are you going to learn from once this list is
taken over by the likes of Hines, Brandon, Richardson and Marco? From Will
Johnson, perhaps?

One *can* learn from Will Johnson, by the way. It's very silly,
Peter, to act as though you are the only one here with any knowledge
or insight. Your manner is so ill and off-putting that I never think
of you as contributing very much.

And what got Leo in his current "preaching and teaching" mode? (More
like prattling and tattling.)

John Brandon

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av John Brandon » 17 aug 2007 15:04:41

Vicious detractors like Brandon and Hines should just back off. We're sick
to death of you.
Merilyn Pedrick

Oh, Merilyn, you blessed dum-dum.

Gjest

Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 886

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 aug 2007 15:06:03

This list has gotten to be a bad joke...about personalities and not about
medieval genealogy.

Jno



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

Richard Smyth at UNC-CH

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Richard Smyth at UNC-CH » 17 aug 2007 15:37:35

Elizabeth:

Before you label yourself (and myself) as `moral delinquent', perhaps you
could clear something up for me. Stewart and at least one of the
list-managers seem to disagree about a question of empirical fact. The
question is which behavior is more effective in silencing trolls: ignoring
them or attacking them. I have absolutely no empirical evidence that bears
on this question. Do you?

In the absence of evidence, I am inclined to follow the advice of the
list-manager in most cases. Is that evidence of my moral delinquency?

Regards,

Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com

Deeply ashamed that I must identify myself as one part of Peter's
"moral blancmange", better-late-than-never(?) my fingers now hit the
keyboard.

John Brandon

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av John Brandon » 17 aug 2007 15:40:53

There is absolutely no need to apologise, Elizabeth - I greatly appreciate
your support, your very generous good sense, and your courage in exposing
yourself to possible vituperation for the sake of expressing what you think
is right. Thank you for your excellent post.

Peter Stewart

You must be desperate if you are thanking this mere "nobody" (hate to
put it that way, but hey ...), who has made 10 postings in her life,
for supporting you. Let me guess, she hails from Australia or
NZ ...? What a worthless, mindless, herd-mentality, one-track-minded
lot. You obviously feel inferior not only to the British, but to the
Americans. It is true there's good reason to feel that way ...

TJ Booth

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av TJ Booth » 17 aug 2007 16:21:00

Here is some additional information from the Domesday record, which leads to
an additional question :

One of the properties owned by Count Alan 'the Red' is described as : "Count
Alan holds another Linton (Little Linton). There are 2 1/2 hides. There is
land for 5 ploughs. In demesne (are) 1 1/2 hides, and there are 2 ploughs.
There (partly in margin) are 8 villans and 2 bordars with 3 ploughs. There
are 4 slaves, and 1 mill rendering 8s, meadow for 1 plough, (and) woodland
for 20 pigs. All together is worth 71; when received and TRE, 100s. Eadgifu
the Fair held this manor."

As previously noted, the name Eadgifu appears 18 times on this page from
Domesday. But this is the only entry on the page in which she is called 'the
Fair'.

Perhaps there are 2 Eadgifus - mother and (possibly) dau - with Domesday
intentionally distinguishing between them. Earl Aeflgar was d. abt 1062 (per
DNB), and Ealdgyth's husband(s) were d. by/in 1066, in which case both would
have been widows and recorded as property owners in Domesday.

So who is/are Eadgifu? Does the new DNB identify the origins of 'Eadgifu the
Fair' who owned so much property in Domesday?

Terry Booth
Chicago Illinois


----- Original Message -----
From: "TJ Booth" <terryjbooth@sbcglobal.net>
To: "TJ Booth" <terryjbooth@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: Lady Godiva


Or perhaps Eadgifu was indeed Aelfgar's widow (called 'Aegifu' in AR), in
which case this may have nothing to do with Ealdgyth.

Is there any value to be found in this Domesday record?

Terry Booth
Chicago, Illnois


----- Original Message -----
From: "TJ Booth" <terryjbooth@sbcglobal.net
To: "GenMedieval" <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: Lady Godiva


Excuse me.

The paragraph below should read :

I'd like to suggest that this identity of Count Alan 'the Red'
establishes a reasonable case that the property owned by Eadgifu/Ealdgyth
in the time of
King Edward - which would have to be in the name of Earl Aelfgar's
[daughter] in 1066 since both the Earl (abt 1062 per DNB) and Ealdgyth's
husband were dead. They then passed to [her] son, Earl Edwin, sometime
before 1071. The Domesday property record would thus not only confirm the
name of Edwin's [grand]father - Earl Aelfgar - but confirm that the name
of his mother was Eadgifu/Ealdgyth. The Domesday record - if the
translation can be verified - would also seem to establish a prima facia
case that the names Ealdgyth and Eadigifu (perhaps 'the Fair') may be
synonymous. This in turn would lend increased support to the later
secondary sources which claim that Gruffydd ap Llywelyn's widow m. (or at
least 'had a relationship with') (2), King Harold II who d. in the Battle
of Hastings.

Terry Booth
Chicago Illinois

----- Original Message -----
From: "TJ Booth" <terryjbooth@sbcglobal.net
To: "GenMedieval" <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: Lady Godiva


John,

Thanks for your note - it helped steer me the right way. Here's some
further
information and thoughts.

"Florence of Worcester" notes that in 1071, Aelfgar's sons Earl Edwin
and
Earl Morcar revolted against King William, with Earl Edwin being killed
by
his own people. http://books.google.com/books?id=gpR0iz5GjYgC&pg=177

Subsequent to that event, about 1072 the King began 'dismantling' Earl
Edwin's properties - which were extensive and largely in Richmond - and
granted them to Count Alan 'the Red', who is believed to have
accompanied
William in the invasion. See a discussion of this in Paul Dalton's
'Conquest, Anarchy, and Lordship: Yorkshire, 1066-1154' at
http://books.google.com/books?id=Nog9_G ... Q#PPA67,M1.

As you note, count Alan 'the Red' was the son of Eudo, count of
Penthievre.
He apparently had a brother also named Alan ('the Black') who was
granted
some of his brother's properties. A reasonable (but not perfect)
facsimile
of Count Alan's dates and titles can be found in Doyle's "Official
Baronage
of England" at http://books.google.com/books?id=DO8IAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA105.
He
also appears in a chart in CP X, page 781, which shows him as 'Lord of
Richmond'. CP apparently states (not seen) he dsp. 4 Aug 1089, a late
enough
date for his extensive land grants from King William to be shown in the
Domesday book .

I'd like to suggest that this identity of Count Alan 'the Red'
establishes a
reasonable case that the property owned by Eadgifu/Ealdgyth in the time
of
King Edward - which would have to be in the name of Earl Aelfgar's widow
in
1066 since the Earl was by then dead (abt 1062 per DNB) - passed to
their
son, Earl Edwin, sometime before 1071. The Domesday property record
would
thus not only confirm the name of Edwin's father - Earl Aelfgar - but
confirm that the name of his mother (and Aelfgar's wife) was
Eadgifu/Ealdgyth. The Domesday record - if the translation can be
verified -
would also seem to establish a prima facia case that the names Ealdgyth
and
Eadigifu (perhaps 'the Fair') may be synonymous. This in turn would lend
increased support to the later secondary sources which claim that
Aelfgar's
wife m. (or at least 'had a relationship with') (2), King Harold II who
d.
in the Battle of Hastings.

I apologize for not having access to the primary source to confirm all
the
details and spellings in the Domesday record as provided by UK Archives.

Terry Booth
Chicago, Illinois

----- Original Message -----
From: "John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: Lady Godiva


Dear Terry,

Re: the identification of Count Alan, he was one of the more
important tenants in chief of King William at the time of Domesday
Book (1086). He was a younger son of Eudo, count of Penthievre (also
designated 'count of Brittany'). He has been identified as one of the
few certain participants in the Battle of Hastings (or Senlac Hill as
your prefer). See Complete Peerage XII, Appendix L, p. 48.

Count Alan, also called 'Alan the Red', has no known
descendants. However, his younger brother and heir Stephen, lord of
the honour of Richmond (d. 21 Apr 1135) has myriad descendants,
including Ela of Salisbury (countess of Salisbury, wife of William
Longespee)), the Dukes of Brittany (from 1356 on), the Mowbray and
Howard Dukes of Norfolk, and far too many others to contemplate.

Cheers,

John



On Aug 16, 5:41 pm, "TJ Booth" <terryjbo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Will,

I purchased another Domesday record, for Cambridgeshire, hoping it
might
have more insight. The primary source summarized, per UK archives,
would
be
Great Domesday Book; Folio
194R.http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/docu ... sult.asp...

The record was in pdf format which I printed but didn't save (dumb!),
so
I
will summarize and retype what seems most important. I cannot vouch
for
the
quality of the transcription or translation from Latin.

Essentially everything on the page had once been owned by Eadgifu
(name
mentioned 18 times, including once as "Eadgifu the Fair"). Some of her
ownership is noted as TRE (from Edward's time), but one suspects it
all
might have been. But at Domesday time, almost all the land was held by
"Count Alan" (noted to have 10 burgesses in Cambridgeshire). The
properties
are identified as in Linton, Little Linton, Whittlesford Hundred,
Thriplow
Hundred, Arringford Hundred and Bassingbourn. When Eadgifu owned it,
she
held it by various means including providing 8 watchmen for the
sheriff
and
5 cartage-dues. A total of 32 sokemen are listed (UK Archives defines
them
as "Freeman who nevertheless had to attend their lord's court." -
presumably
they're like sharecroppers). Some of the Sokemen were noted as
responsible
for providing the watchmen and cartage-dues.

The most interesting property is Bassingbourn where Earl Aelfgar is
named,
it also has a high property value:
"Count Alan himself holds 7 hides and 1 1/2 virgates in Bassignbourn.
There
is land for 18 ploughs. In demesne are 4 hides, and there are 5
ploughs,
and
there can be two more. There are 8 villans and 11 bordars and 10
cottars
with 11 ploughs. There are 3 slaves, and 2 mills rendering 20s, and
meadow
for 5 ploughs. In all it is worth 301; when received 261, and as much
TRE
[i.e. same value in King Edward's time]. Eadgifu held this manor, and
there
were 10 sokemen, and 8 of them, men of Eadgifu, could sell their land,
but
the soke remained with her; and the other 2, the men of Earl Aelfgar,
provided 4 watchmen for the sheriff, and they themselves could sell
their
land."

A preceding property in Arringford Hundred, is also of potential
interest
because of the names :
"In Croydon Almaer holds 2 1/2 virgates under the count. There is land
for 6
oxen, and there are 6 oxen, with 1 border and 1 cottar. It is and was
worth
10s; TRE 15s. Godgifu [this is prob not Countess Godgifu, who seems
usually
identified as such] held this land under Eadgifu, and could depart. In
the
same vill Fulchei holds 1 virgate of land from the count. It is and
was
worth 5s. Leofgifu [the nun?] held this land under Eadgifu, and could
depart."

Can anyone identify Count Alan or a possible relationship?

Terry Booth
Chicago Illinois

----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhon...@aol.com
To: <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 8:25 PM
Subject: Re: Lady Godiva

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

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



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


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


Elizabeth Moss

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Elizabeth Moss » 17 aug 2007 16:23:04

Deeply ashamed that I must identify myself as one part of Peter's
"moral blancmange", better-late-than-never(?) my fingers now hit the
keyboard.
Pout ... sulk ... pout.-

Yes, I agree it would be not entirely unfair to characterise it like
that.
I disagree. In such malignant and vindictively-created circumstances,

feeling let-down by and disappointed in one's fellow-subscribers, is
not pouting or sulking, but an entirely normal and remarkedly
controlled reaction to silence from we the "nameless and uncounted".
However, there is a certain compact implicit in daily communication
with a group of people who are personally unknown to each other. If
one of them - myself at present - comes to the conclusion that he is
making a long and time-consuming effort for the benefit of a kind of
moral blancmange, an indeterminate number of people who prefer to
remain nameless and uncounted when I am being subjected to sustained
slander and idiotic abuse, then that person is surely entitled to feel
some disenchantment, even dudgeon.
Reading post after post of slanderous and shockingly abusive attacks, a

bad taste is left in the mouth. A very bad taste. As almost all are
written in a vindictive, spiteful, school-girlish style, it is hard to
believe that these people are adults. One wonders about any upbringing,
and/or life-experience, that could bear such rotten fruit.

Now, those of us who have been following the posts in this thread (and
similar vendettas over the years) cannot but be aware of their purpose
to discredit and demean, mainly by ridicule and intended insult
delivered in a sustained, repetitious, verbal barrage. This is sick.

No need to feel sorry for Peter. He is well able to deal with these
puerile posters, but in repudiation he should not appear unsupported by
the 'blancmange' majority. The term is moral support, and it's not
unreasonable of Peter to expect it. Therefore I give mine.
Wholeheartedly.

To my own surprise, I feel there is some need to feel sorry, just a
little, for his detractors. Ask yourself what their lives might be
like. What could elicit such pathetic behaviour from reasonably
intelligent beings? My guess is that they are among the unrespected of
this world. Why else the obvious resentment and wish to humiliate
someone who has the wherewithal to command the respect of others?
All the members of SGM who have been sitting on their hands during
this turmoil are no doubt thinking that discretion = dignified silence
= the better part of valour. Chivalry lives.....I don't agree with
them, I don't resepct the view, and don't know if I wish to go on
taking part in a forum with a collection of people who hold it.

Peter Stewart
Peter, please accept my apology for the lateness of my support.


Elizabeth

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 17 aug 2007 17:18:41

Will Johnson oafish?

Hardly...

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:2nexi.21960$4A1.14082@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

... Will Johnson who indulges him with oafish banter.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av John Brandon » 17 aug 2007 17:40:10

--------------
Is he saying I'm fat?

I would have preferred impish, at least that doesn't sound like he's saying
I'm fat.

Will "sulking" Johnson

"Oafish" is a very old fashioned word, no longer ever even used in
*this* country, meaning "clumsy" or "simple." So he's trying to put
you down (from his great petty- bourgeoise eminence as direct
descendant of Charlotte Countess of Cumberland). But not calling you
fat, at least.

Gjest

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 aug 2007 17:41:41

On Aug 17, 10:40 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
There is absolutely no need to apologise, Elizabeth - I greatly appreciate
your support, your very generous good sense, and your courage in exposing
yourself to possible vituperation for the sake of expressing what you think
is right. Thank you for your excellent post.

Peter Stewart

You must be desperate if you are thanking this mere "nobody" (hate to
put it that way, but hey ...), who has made 10 postings in her life,
for supporting you. Let me guess, she hails from Australia or
NZ ...? What a worthless, mindless, herd-mentality, one-track-minded
lot. You obviously feel inferior not only to the British, but to the
Americans. It is true there's good reason to feel that way ...

No desperation seems evident in Peter Stewart's reply. It is only
common courtesy to thank someone for their support. I am only chiming
in here to echo Elizabeth's comments. Peter Stewart is the primary
reason I read SGM, because his comments are insightful, cogent and
sincere.

Fred Chalfant

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 17 aug 2007 17:44:43

Rosie Bevan obviously hasn't kept up with the message traffic.

She is posting from a Bed of Ignorance.

Peter Stewart berates and insults people -- then runs for the tall grass and
cries, "Help, the trolls are beating on me!" when people grab him by the
short hairs and PULL -- as I have.

Any honest person will see that Peter attacks people FIRST -- as is the case
here -- not the other way around.

Further, as we all now know:

Stewart damaged his brain VERY badly 33+ years ago, when he banged his skull
on an Oxford cobblestone.

His noodle was so badly damaged and discombobulated he could no longer
continue at Oxford.

"Quite right for once - I lost the ability to read." -- Peter Stewart

A Disability He STILL HAS...

As We See In These NEWSGROUPS.

Straight from the horse's own mouth:

I have difficulty reading sometimes, unable to process even simple strings
of letters into words, and like other people with other disabilities I
have to take extra time & trouble to compensate. -- Peter Stewart

BINGO!

I couldn't have said it better myself.

All Peter's troubles date from that hard noodle smash on the cobblestones at
Oxford 33+ years ago, when he fell off the motorcycle -- drunk...

"Tipsy" -- as he insists.

'Nuff Said.

As for Leo van de Pas, he has QUITE RECENTLY made a totally unwarranted
attack on Douglas Richardson, as follows:

"...Richardson maintained Peter Stewart was a homosexual..."

Leo van de Pas -- 15 August 2007

Now Leo needs to act like a MAN and either PROVE Douglas said that, with
hard evidence, OR withdraw the accusation and apologize.

There are NO other honorable alternatives.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

John Brandon

Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry

Legg inn av John Brandon » 17 aug 2007 17:51:31

You must be desperate if you are thanking this mere "nobody" (hate to
put it that way, but hey ...), who has made 10 postings in her life,
for supporting you. Let me guess, she hails from Australia or
NZ ...? What a worthless, mindless, herd-mentality, one-track-minded
lot. You obviously feel inferior not only to the British, but to the
Americans. It is true there's good reason to feel that way ...

No desperation seems evident in Peter Stewart's reply. It is only
common courtesy to thank someone for their support. I am only chiming
in here to echo Elizabeth's comments. Peter Stewart is the primary
reason I read SGM, because his comments are insightful, cogent and
sincere.

Fred Chalfant

Wonderful. I also see in your boundless wisdom you've provided us
with a similar number of postings to Elizabeth.

Is "Fred Chalfant" a real name?

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»