Blount-Ayala
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
In a message dated 8/17/2007 9:20:31 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
panther@excelsior.com writes:
Will Johnson oafish?
--------------
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
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
panther@excelsior.com writes:
Will Johnson oafish?
--------------
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
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-
WJhonson
Re: Back to a Medieval genealogy question
<<In a message dated 08/17/07 07:33:46 Pacific Standard Time, jamin@millcomm.com writes:
According to Burke's Peerage, as well as the Visitation of Somerset, John
Malet, son of Baldwin Malet of Enmore, Deardon And St. Audries, and Avicia
(Avice) Raleigh, died ca. 1349, married Elizabeth Kingston. >>
------------------------
Thomas, the Vis Som "Mallett" does not show that anyone died ca 1349.
Where does that come from?
Thanks
Will Johnson
According to Burke's Peerage, as well as the Visitation of Somerset, John
Malet, son of Baldwin Malet of Enmore, Deardon And St. Audries, and Avicia
(Avice) Raleigh, died ca. 1349, married Elizabeth Kingston. >>
------------------------
Thomas, the Vis Som "Mallett" does not show that anyone died ca 1349.
Where does that come from?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
WJhonson
Re: Back to a Medieval genealogy question
If this is the Vis Som in question
http://www.ukgenealogyarchives.org.uk/c ... eserve.cgi
I see no John married Avise there.
Will Johnson
http://www.ukgenealogyarchives.org.uk/c ... eserve.cgi
I see no John married Avise there.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
On 18 Aug., 07:38, Elizabeth Moss <macb...@webaxs.net> wrote:
Elizabeth
I second everything you have written. We are very fortunate to have
people like Peter who very generously encourage and inform. I am
sorry that you, and Fred, have been subjected to the typical ad
hominem attacks from the bugs, and trust that you will appreciate they
carry no value whatsoever. I hope you will continue to enjoy the
group, and post when you can.
Kind regards, Michael
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
Elizabeth
I second everything you have written. We are very fortunate to have
people like Peter who very generously encourage and inform. I am
sorry that you, and Fred, have been subjected to the typical ad
hominem attacks from the bugs, and trust that you will appreciate they
carry no value whatsoever. I hope you will continue to enjoy the
group, and post when you can.
Kind regards, Michael
-
Gjest
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
On 17 Aug., 00:02, "M. de la Fayette" <Faye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ah, yes; another useful contribution from the multi-named poster
currently crusading to "restore civility and mutual respect".
What is Italian for "potty-mouthed hypocrite"?
MAR
Just to remember you once again that you are nothing but a big balloon
full of shit.
Ah, yes; another useful contribution from the multi-named poster
currently crusading to "restore civility and mutual respect".
What is Italian for "potty-mouthed hypocrite"?
MAR
-
WJhonson
Re: ? king ?
<<In a message dated 08/17/07 10:55:30 Pacific Standard Time, dsleslie@alumni.princeton.edu writes:
Memnon of
Ethiopia (who fought at Troy), and still further back to Adam, >>
----------------------------------
I have well-documented on my old site, exactly why tracing any line to Adam is unsupported.
You should also be aware that there is no reliable source linking any person who lived *outside of Israel/Palestine* during the Old Testament period, to anyone living inside it, beyond a simple name her and there.
I.E. there are no extra-Palestinian lineages, linking to Palestinian ones, for Old Testament times.
If someone knows of one, I'd like to hear it, either here or at Gen-Ancient.
Will Johnson
Memnon of
Ethiopia (who fought at Troy), and still further back to Adam, >>
----------------------------------
I have well-documented on my old site, exactly why tracing any line to Adam is unsupported.
You should also be aware that there is no reliable source linking any person who lived *outside of Israel/Palestine* during the Old Testament period, to anyone living inside it, beyond a simple name her and there.
I.E. there are no extra-Palestinian lineages, linking to Palestinian ones, for Old Testament times.
If someone knows of one, I'd like to hear it, either here or at Gen-Ancient.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
On Aug 17, 2:12 pm, "M. de la Fayette" <Faye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
There is no confusion on my part. However, having been subjected to
your various posts under multiple personalities, I can see that
insightfulness, cogency and most especially sincerity might be alien
concepts to you.
Fred Chalfant
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-boun...@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-boun...@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of fc...@charm.net
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 6:42 PM
To: gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
You wrote: "Peter Stewart is the primary reason I read SGM, because his
comments are insightful, cogent and sincere."
OH MY GOD!
Are you serious? If affirmative, you seems to me a bit confused...
There is no confusion on my part. However, having been subjected to
your various posts under multiple personalities, I can see that
insightfulness, cogency and most especially sincerity might be alien
concepts to you.
Fred Chalfant
-
Gjest
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
A message for D.S.Hines
Would you please stop your attacks on Mr Peter Stewart. In your own words-
'Nuff said.
M"blancmange"M
Would you please stop your attacks on Mr Peter Stewart. In your own words-
'Nuff said.
M"blancmange"M
-
Gjest
Re: Eylesford snippet
mjcar quotes a record dated 15th July 1324 from the Berkeley Castle
archives:-
<"Roger, son of Roger de Bourghill, has sold to Agnes, daughter of
<Gerard de Eylesford, for a certain sum of money, custody of the lands
<and heir of Walter Ilour in Canonebrugg' [Cannon Bridge,
<Herefordshire] until the full age of the heir. At King's Pyon, Sunday
<before St Kenelm, 18 Edward II [15 July 1324]"
Thank you, Michael. The means by which the Burghill estate came to descend
to, or to be acquired by, the Milbornes remains a mystery to me, in the
continuing absence of any record of any Burghill/Eylesford or Eylesford/Milborne
marriages, or of any sale transaction
Best regards
MM
archives:-
<"Roger, son of Roger de Bourghill, has sold to Agnes, daughter of
<Gerard de Eylesford, for a certain sum of money, custody of the lands
<and heir of Walter Ilour in Canonebrugg' [Cannon Bridge,
<Herefordshire] until the full age of the heir. At King's Pyon, Sunday
<before St Kenelm, 18 Edward II [15 July 1324]"
Thank you, Michael. The means by which the Burghill estate came to descend
to, or to be acquired by, the Milbornes remains a mystery to me, in the
continuing absence of any record of any Burghill/Eylesford or Eylesford/Milborne
marriages, or of any sale transaction
Best regards
MM
-
Gjest
Re: Back to a Medieval genealogy question
On 17 Aug., 18:44, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
It's in Burke's Baronetage, sub Malet (eg 107th Edition, vol 2, p
2573).
MA-R
In a message dated 08/17/07 07:33:46 Pacific Standard Time, ja...@millcomm.com writes:
According to Burke's Peerage, as well as the Visitation of Somerset, John
Malet, son of Baldwin Malet of Enmore, Deardon And St. Audries, and Avicia
(Avice) Raleigh, died ca. 1349, married Elizabeth Kingston.
------------------------
Thomas, the Vis Som "Mallett" does not show that anyone died ca 1349.
Where does that come from?
Thanks
Will Johnson
It's in Burke's Baronetage, sub Malet (eg 107th Edition, vol 2, p
2573).
MA-R
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: The British Army
You sleep soundly because your wiser and better educated forbears took steps
to make a military coup d'etat very difficult if not impossible.
Steps designed to ensure it doesn't happen -- some wise, some foolish.
One-year budgets are some of the more foolish ones -- and cost the British
taxpayer more in the long run.
We have also taken steps in the United States.
We have a Five-Year Budget for our Armed Forces -- which admittedly is
squishy in the out years -- but there is planning.
Cromwell had a major impact on how we wrote our Constitution.
So did the Duke of Cumberland.
Madison knew the History of both men.
History has a Long Reach.
We made the POTUS the Commander-in-Chief. We did not create a post for a
Generalissimo.
Our senior military man is simply Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Civilian control throughout.
A Good Thing...
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
---------------------------------------------
"Julian Richards" <julian@spam-me-not.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5esbc35tfdbaac11jf5fati1q13liens9k@4ax.com...
to make a military coup d'etat very difficult if not impossible.
Steps designed to ensure it doesn't happen -- some wise, some foolish.
One-year budgets are some of the more foolish ones -- and cost the British
taxpayer more in the long run.
We have also taken steps in the United States.
We have a Five-Year Budget for our Armed Forces -- which admittedly is
squishy in the out years -- but there is planning.
Cromwell had a major impact on how we wrote our Constitution.
So did the Duke of Cumberland.
Madison knew the History of both men.
History has a Long Reach.
We made the POTUS the Commander-in-Chief. We did not create a post for a
Generalissimo.
Our senior military man is simply Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Civilian control throughout.
A Good Thing...
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
---------------------------------------------
"Julian Richards" <julian@spam-me-not.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5esbc35tfdbaac11jf5fati1q13liens9k@4ax.com...
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:24:49 +1000, "D. Spencer Hines"
panther@excelsior.com> wrote:
That's my point.
There was/is still fear of a Dictator With A Standing Army -- echoes of
Oliver Cromwell.
I don't have many sleepless nights over the arrival of another Oliver
Cromwell or an uprising within the army. I wouldn't think that many of
my countrymen would either.
--
Julian Richards
-
Volucris
Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 886
Sabrina,
You are not the first newcomer who voices her astonishment and
irritation, and you will not be the last. Once a while a flame war
breaks out. Any reaction, even yours, feeds the dispute.
Best way is to let it die on itself. If you consult the past years of
posting and do a short name searching you will notice the persons who
are serious in their contributions and helping. Others are just
'commenting' and 'fishing'.
One can be selective, ignoring, amused, or reactive to remarks.
Everyone has a different approach. If provoked one can shoot back with
a shotgun or one can laugh on the silliness of the posts or the way a
discussion develops.
If you are just here to shop knowledge why bother to react. Just post
questions and contributions. As a woman you should know that men are
more tended to be more hotheaded. Some of the participants have been
around for years and occasionly the axes are grinded.
Hans Vogels
On 17 aug, 12:46, "Sab" <morga...@logonix.net> wrote:
You are not the first newcomer who voices her astonishment and
irritation, and you will not be the last. Once a while a flame war
breaks out. Any reaction, even yours, feeds the dispute.
Best way is to let it die on itself. If you consult the past years of
posting and do a short name searching you will notice the persons who
are serious in their contributions and helping. Others are just
'commenting' and 'fishing'.
One can be selective, ignoring, amused, or reactive to remarks.
Everyone has a different approach. If provoked one can shoot back with
a shotgun or one can laugh on the silliness of the posts or the way a
discussion develops.
If you are just here to shop knowledge why bother to react. Just post
questions and contributions. As a woman you should know that men are
more tended to be more hotheaded. Some of the participants have been
around for years and occasionly the axes are grinded.
Hans Vogels
On 17 aug, 12:46, "Sab" <morga...@logonix.net> wrote:
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-boun...@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-boun...@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of
gen-medieval-requ...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 4:34 AM
To: gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Subject: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 886
-
WJhonson
Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 886
<<In a message dated 08/17/07 13:15:23 Pacific Standard Time, volucris@kpnplanet.nl writes:
As a woman you should know that men are
more tended to be more hotheaded. Some of the participants have been
around for years and occasionly the axes are grinded. >>
------------------
"Ground" not grinded.
How dare you say men are hotheaded. Why if I was a woman I'd slap your face and then take your wallet and go shopping !!
Will
As a woman you should know that men are
more tended to be more hotheaded. Some of the participants have been
around for years and occasionly the axes are grinded. >>
------------------
"Ground" not grinded.
How dare you say men are hotheaded. Why if I was a woman I'd slap your face and then take your wallet and go shopping !!
Will
-
Volucris
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
DSH,
Oh shut up and go bother the other newsgroups you frequent.
Once you were funny, now you're irritating and tedious.
Nuff said.
Hans Vogels
On 17 aug, 18:44, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
> Crapp <
Oh shut up and go bother the other newsgroups you frequent.
Once you were funny, now you're irritating and tedious.
Nuff said.
Hans Vogels
On 17 aug, 18:44, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
> Crapp <
-
John Brandon
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
Brandon even recalls the exact words that have stung him, and echoes
them back like Smeagol/Gollum at the reflecting pond.
Oh, I missed this little gem! But ... um ... no, sorry to disappoint,
I had to go back into the archive to look them up (and a right bother
it was, too). You use such antiquated terms, like "incorrigible" and
"malignant." No real person I know has ever uttered these words, at
least in my hearing.
-
Volucris
To Peter
Peter,
You have my full support. There have been moments we disagreed but
your knowledge to facts and literature are undenyable. You have a nice
way with words too and you are quite capable in defending yourself.
There have been several moments of these kind of flame wars before and
you never hesitated to counter with a proper answer. I know that
you're quite clear in that black or white line of approach.
You can use a pointed pen, use a shotgun or a canon for my part, but
were does it get you. These trolls have no backbone, they are
unsubstantional. They bend like reed and veer back to annoy you again.
See the light. These posts are just hot air. Just pfffffffffffffff and
they desolve. Stop reacting to the garbage and those trolls will
wither without your feedback.
Hans Vogels
You have my full support. There have been moments we disagreed but
your knowledge to facts and literature are undenyable. You have a nice
way with words too and you are quite capable in defending yourself.
There have been several moments of these kind of flame wars before and
you never hesitated to counter with a proper answer. I know that
you're quite clear in that black or white line of approach.
You can use a pointed pen, use a shotgun or a canon for my part, but
were does it get you. These trolls have no backbone, they are
unsubstantional. They bend like reed and veer back to annoy you again.
See the light. These posts are just hot air. Just pfffffffffffffff and
they desolve. Stop reacting to the garbage and those trolls will
wither without your feedback.
Hans Vogels
-
Volucris
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
Pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
On 17 aug, 22:38, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 17 aug, 22:38, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Brandon even recalls the exact words that have stung him, and echoes
them back like Smeagol/Gollum at the reflecting pond.
Oh, I missed this little gem! But ... um ... no, sorry to disappoint,
I had to go back into the archive to look them up (and a right bother
it was, too). You use such antiquated terms, like "incorrigible" and
"malignant." No real person I know has ever uttered these words, at
least in my hearing.
-
John Brandon
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
Same to ya, hon.
Pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
On 17 aug, 22:38, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Brandon even recalls the exact words that have stung him, and echoes
them back like Smeagol/Gollum at the reflecting pond.
Oh, I missed this little gem! But ... um ... no, sorry to disappoint,
I had to go back into the archive to look them up (and a right bother
it was, too). You use such antiquated terms, like "incorrigible" and
"malignant." No real person I know has ever uttered these words, at
least in my hearing.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
-
William Black
Re: The British Army
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:i8nxi.261$wi6.1570@eagle.america.net...
Oh no.
Purchase was undoubtedly far more foolish.
But it eliminated oficers from the ranks of the general officerers those who
got by on intelligence and ability.
It ensured that most officers had a financial interest in the country of
some sort, and it gave the men promoted on merit an assett that they could
sell...
In what way?
I mean, if you're a republic there's not much chance of the king's sons
being apointed as general officers.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
news:i8nxi.261$wi6.1570@eagle.america.net...
You sleep soundly because your wiser and better educated forbears took
steps
to make a military coup d'etat very difficult if not impossible.
Steps designed to ensure it doesn't happen -- some wise, some foolish.
One-year budgets are some of the more foolish ones -- and cost the British
taxpayer more in the long run.
Oh no.
Purchase was undoubtedly far more foolish.
But it eliminated oficers from the ranks of the general officerers those who
got by on intelligence and ability.
It ensured that most officers had a financial interest in the country of
some sort, and it gave the men promoted on merit an assett that they could
sell...
Cromwell had a major impact on how we wrote our Constitution.
So did the Duke of Cumberland.
In what way?
I mean, if you're a republic there's not much chance of the king's sons
being apointed as general officers.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
-
Volucris
Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 886
Hi Will,
Nice one. You got me laughing.
Pardon me for my decreasing mastership of the English Language.
I'm Dutch as you know and have been away in German speaking countries.
Hans Vogels
On 17 aug, 22:20, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Nice one. You got me laughing.
Pardon me for my decreasing mastership of the English Language.
I'm Dutch as you know and have been away in German speaking countries.
Hans Vogels
On 17 aug, 22:20, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 08/17/07 13:15:23 Pacific Standard Time, voluc...@kpnplanet.nl writes:
As a woman you should know that men are
more tended to be more hotheaded. Some of the participants have been
around for years and occasionly the axes are grinded.
------------------
"Ground" not grinded.
How dare you say men are hotheaded. Why if I was a woman I'd slap your face and then take your wallet and go shopping !!
Will
-
Volucris
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
On 17 aug, 23:04, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Same to ya, hon.
Pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
On 17 aug, 22:38, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Brandon even recalls the exact words that have stung him, and echoes
them back like Smeagol/Gollum at the reflecting pond.
Oh, I missed this little gem! But ... um ... no, sorry to disappoint,
I had to go back into the archive to look them up (and a right bother
it was, too). You use such antiquated terms, like "incorrigible" and
"malignant." No real person I know has ever uttered these words, at
least in my hearing.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
-
John Higgins
Re: Back to a Medieval genealogy question
If you compare the Malet pedigree in the visitation of Somerset with the
family's pedigree in BP, you'd see that the segment of the family in the
visitation pedigree is about a century and a half after the members that the
original poster mention. Thus, the absence of John and Avice....
I have no idea whether an appropriate edition of BP is available on-line,
but there ARE other ways of finding genealogical information beyond simply
Googling through the internet.....
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: Back to a Medieval genealogy question
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
family's pedigree in BP, you'd see that the segment of the family in the
visitation pedigree is about a century and a half after the members that the
original poster mention. Thus, the absence of John and Avice....
I have no idea whether an appropriate edition of BP is available on-line,
but there ARE other ways of finding genealogical information beyond simply
Googling through the internet.....
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: Back to a Medieval genealogy question
If this is the Vis Som in question
http://www.ukgenealogyarchives.org.uk/c ... eserve.cgi
I see no John married Avise there.
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
-
John Briggs
Re: The British Army
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
He knew Blackstone better - the US Constitution is mostly cobbled together
from Blackstone, as a codification of what the British constitution was
thought to be. (Blackstone doesn't mention "high crimes and misdemeanours",
but he does explain "high misdemeanours": maladministration, essentially.
"High crimes and misdemeanours" was the standard charge for impeachment in
Britain, and that Warren Hastings was impeached the month that the
Convention met - they read about it in the newspapers!)
(Federal Covention, 1787: Col. MASON withdrew "maladministration" &
substitutes "other high crimes and misdemeanors against the State." )
[I suppose I shall now be admonished for trying to explain the US
Constitution to a corncrake...]
--
John Briggs
Cromwell had a major impact on how we wrote our Constitution.
So did the Duke of Cumberland.
Madison knew the History of both men.
He knew Blackstone better - the US Constitution is mostly cobbled together
from Blackstone, as a codification of what the British constitution was
thought to be. (Blackstone doesn't mention "high crimes and misdemeanours",
but he does explain "high misdemeanours": maladministration, essentially.
"High crimes and misdemeanours" was the standard charge for impeachment in
Britain, and that Warren Hastings was impeached the month that the
Convention met - they read about it in the newspapers!)
(Federal Covention, 1787: Col. MASON withdrew "maladministration" &
substitutes "other high crimes and misdemeanors against the State." )
[I suppose I shall now be admonished for trying to explain the US
Constitution to a corncrake...]
--
John Briggs
-
WJhonson
Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal
The correction would go to page 420.
Would someone check to verify that this is ... sub Kent ?
I don't have a copy of the book, but page 420 talks about Joan of Kent.
Thanks
Will
------------------------
In a message dated 08/17/07 15:37:29 Pacific Standard Time, jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:
PS: This can be marked as another error in RPA/PA3.
Would someone check to verify that this is ... sub Kent ?
I don't have a copy of the book, but page 420 talks about Joan of Kent.
Thanks
Will
------------------------
In a message dated 08/17/07 15:37:29 Pacific Standard Time, jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:
PS: This can be marked as another error in RPA/PA3.
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal
Yes, it is page 420 of PA.
Another way of establishing who was the mother was to have looked at the
dates of the daughter Jeanne. Sure as a child of less than a year she could
have been married in 1402 to Antoine de Bourgogne, but when you see that
Jeanne's first child was born in 1403 it should be obvious that she was
older. Jeanne's father married as his second wife Bonne de Bar in 1400 and
that does not give enough time for Bonne to give birth to a legitimate child
ready to marry in 1402 and give birth in 1403. It is all to be found on
genealogics (with sources).
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
---- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt.,and Waleran de
Luxembourg, Count of Ligny & St.-Pol
Another way of establishing who was the mother was to have looked at the
dates of the daughter Jeanne. Sure as a child of less than a year she could
have been married in 1402 to Antoine de Bourgogne, but when you see that
Jeanne's first child was born in 1403 it should be obvious that she was
older. Jeanne's father married as his second wife Bonne de Bar in 1400 and
that does not give enough time for Bonne to give birth to a legitimate child
ready to marry in 1402 and give birth in 1403. It is all to be found on
genealogics (with sources).
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
---- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt.,and Waleran de
Luxembourg, Count of Ligny & St.-Pol
The correction would go to page 420.
Would someone check to verify that this is ... sub Kent ?
I don't have a copy of the book, but page 420 talks about Joan of Kent.
Thanks
Will
------------------------
In a message dated 08/17/07 15:37:29 Pacific Standard Time,
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:
PS: This can be marked as another error in RPA/PA3.
-------------------------------
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: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal
Leo can you verify that that section is called "Kent" ?
I already knew it was page 420. But the pages don't have section headings. I presume these only occur "in-text", and yet page 419 is blocked by Google Books.
At any rate, I've added it at least temporarily as "Kent" here
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... t_Ancestry
Which points to my write-up here
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... p/PAC/Kent
I found a correction !!
It's Miller time.
Will Johnson
I already knew it was page 420. But the pages don't have section headings. I presume these only occur "in-text", and yet page 419 is blocked by Google Books.
At any rate, I've added it at least temporarily as "Kent" here
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... t_Ancestry
Which points to my write-up here
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... p/PAC/Kent
I found a correction !!
It's Miller time.
Will Johnson
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal
Yes the Kent segment starts on page 416. And this is part of it.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: WJhonson
To: Leo van de Pas ; gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Waleran de Luxembourg, Count of Ligny & St.-Pol
Leo can you verify that that section is called "Kent" ?
I already knew it was page 420. But the pages don't have section headings. I presume these only occur "in-text", and yet page 419 is blocked by Google Books.
At any rate, I've added it at least temporarily as "Kent" here
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... t_Ancestry
Which points to my write-up here
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... p/PAC/Kent
I found a correction !!
It's Miller time.
Will Johnson
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: WJhonson
To: Leo van de Pas ; gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Waleran de Luxembourg, Count of Ligny & St.-Pol
Leo can you verify that that section is called "Kent" ?
I already knew it was page 420. But the pages don't have section headings. I presume these only occur "in-text", and yet page 419 is blocked by Google Books.
At any rate, I've added it at least temporarily as "Kent" here
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... t_Ancestry
Which points to my write-up here
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... p/PAC/Kent
I found a correction !!
It's Miller time.
Will Johnson
-
WJhonson
Re: Fun and games medieval style
<<In a message dated 08/17/07 15:44:55 Pacific Standard Time, leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
For his actions Enguerrand was excommunicated by the Church. He sought to make amends by taking part in the First Crusade; between 1096 and 1099 he fought heroically in the Holy Land. >>
------------
Hans Vogel had posted here that the elopement occurred in 1103, which if true, would have been several years *after* his aleged involvement in the First Crusade
Subj: Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Baudemont, Aragon, Toulouse
Date: 10/30/06 8:41:44 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: h.vogels6@chello.nl (Birds)
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
<snip>
3. Ida's marriage to count Godfrey I of Louvain is assumed for the year 1105. The marriage period 1087-1103 for count Godfrey of Namur is sufficient to have a marriageable daughter in ca.1105. A firstborn daughter in 1088 could have been married in 1100 or before the elopement of mother in 1103.
For his actions Enguerrand was excommunicated by the Church. He sought to make amends by taking part in the First Crusade; between 1096 and 1099 he fought heroically in the Holy Land. >>
------------
Hans Vogel had posted here that the elopement occurred in 1103, which if true, would have been several years *after* his aleged involvement in the First Crusade
Subj: Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Baudemont, Aragon, Toulouse
Date: 10/30/06 8:41:44 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: h.vogels6@chello.nl (Birds)
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
<snip>
3. Ida's marriage to count Godfrey I of Louvain is assumed for the year 1105. The marriage period 1087-1103 for count Godfrey of Namur is sufficient to have a marriageable daughter in ca.1105. A firstborn daughter in 1088 could have been married in 1100 or before the elopement of mother in 1103.
-
simon fairthorne
Re: FPE probability
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 03:13:44 EDT , Millerfairfield@aol.com wrote:
Putting this on a more formal footing
if p is the probability of FPE in one generation
then (1-p) is the probability of no FPE in one generation
and (1 - p)^n is the probability of no FPE in n generations
giving
1 - (1-p)^n as the probability of at least one FPE in n generations
this assumes
1 p is constant throughout the generations
2 the probability of an FPE n one generation is independent of an FPE in any previous or succeeding generation - I'm not convinced that is true
p = 0.02 n = 25 gives .40 for at least one FPE in 25 generations
p = 0.05 n = 25 gives .72 for at least one FPE in 25 generations
p= 0.1 n = 25 gives .93 for at least one FPE in 25 generations
cheers
Simon
(1-p)^n means raise (1-p) to the power n
I am no mathematician, but offer the following calculation:-
1. Assume a test population of 100 men, living today, all of whom have
(obviously) ancestors in the male line for 25 generations back
2. Assume an FPE frequency of 2% per generation
Then, on the second assumption, the ancestral couplings will have resulted
in only 98 out of every 100 males born in each generation being (genetically
speaking) the sons of their mothers' husbands.
After 25 generations it can be expected that of today's population of 100
there will be only about 60 men who have LODs unaffected by an FPE.
[(98/100) to the power of 25=about 60]
So the percentage for which John asks would be 40%.
Interestingly, if the FPE frequency per generation is 5%, the same approach
leads to the calculated percentage rising to 73%.
Putting this on a more formal footing
if p is the probability of FPE in one generation
then (1-p) is the probability of no FPE in one generation
and (1 - p)^n is the probability of no FPE in n generations
giving
1 - (1-p)^n as the probability of at least one FPE in n generations
this assumes
1 p is constant throughout the generations
2 the probability of an FPE n one generation is independent of an FPE in any previous or succeeding generation - I'm not convinced that is true
p = 0.02 n = 25 gives .40 for at least one FPE in 25 generations
p = 0.05 n = 25 gives .72 for at least one FPE in 25 generations
p= 0.1 n = 25 gives .93 for at least one FPE in 25 generations
cheers
Simon
(1-p)^n means raise (1-p) to the power n
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Fun and games medieval style
Great! We are coming to fine tuning. I have that Godefroid de Namur divorced
Sibil de Porcean about 1104 The bigamous marriage, of course, took place
before. But you have lost me a little. "Ida's marriage to count Godfrey I of
Louvain is assumed for the year 1105" I have (well ES) two daughters
Elisabeth and Flandrine, for Godefroid de Namur and Sibil de Porcean. Where
does Ida fit in?
Help! This may make me change a small biography I am at present entering
into my database.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: Fun and games medieval style
Sibil de Porcean about 1104 The bigamous marriage, of course, took place
before. But you have lost me a little. "Ida's marriage to count Godfrey I of
Louvain is assumed for the year 1105" I have (well ES) two daughters
Elisabeth and Flandrine, for Godefroid de Namur and Sibil de Porcean. Where
does Ida fit in?
Help! This may make me change a small biography I am at present entering
into my database.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: Fun and games medieval style
In a message dated 08/17/07 15:44:55 Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
For his actions Enguerrand was excommunicated by the Church. He sought to
make amends by taking part in the First Crusade; between 1096 and 1099 he
fought heroically in the Holy Land.
------------
Hans Vogel had posted here that the elopement occurred in 1103, which if
true, would have been several years *after* his aleged involvement in the
First Crusade
Subj: Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Baudemont,
Aragon, Toulouse
Date: 10/30/06 8:41:44 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: h.vogels6@chello.nl (Birds)
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
snip
3. Ida's marriage to count Godfrey I of Louvain is assumed for the year
1105. The marriage period 1087-1103 for count Godfrey of Namur is
sufficient to have a marriageable daughter in ca.1105. A firstborn
daughter in 1088 could have been married in 1100 or before the elopement
of mother in 1103.
-------------------------------
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: Fun and games medieval style
Leo it might have been speculation on exactly *where* Ida does fit in. And perhaps the end result was we don't know. I don't have the full exchange at hand. The header should lead you to the archived thread. I was only pointing out that evidently the *date* of the elopement is questionable.
In a message dated 08/17/07 16:25:25 Pacific Standard Time, leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
Great! We are coming to fine tuning. I have that Godefroid de Namur divorced
Sibil de Porcean about 1104 The bigamous marriage, of course, took place
before. But you have lost me a little. "Ida's marriage to count Godfrey I of
Louvain is assumed for the year 1105" I have (well ES) two daughters
Elisabeth and Flandrine, for Godefroid de Namur and Sibil de Porcean. Where
does Ida fit in?
Help! This may make me change a small biography I am at present entering
into my database.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: Fun and games medieval style
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
In a message dated 08/17/07 16:25:25 Pacific Standard Time, leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
Great! We are coming to fine tuning. I have that Godefroid de Namur divorced
Sibil de Porcean about 1104 The bigamous marriage, of course, took place
before. But you have lost me a little. "Ida's marriage to count Godfrey I of
Louvain is assumed for the year 1105" I have (well ES) two daughters
Elisabeth and Flandrine, for Godefroid de Namur and Sibil de Porcean. Where
does Ida fit in?
Help! This may make me change a small biography I am at present entering
into my database.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: Fun and games medieval style
In a message dated 08/17/07 15:44:55 Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
For his actions Enguerrand was excommunicated by the Church. He sought to
make amends by taking part in the First Crusade; between 1096 and 1099 he
fought heroically in the Holy Land.
------------
Hans Vogel had posted here that the elopement occurred in 1103, which if
true, would have been several years *after* his aleged involvement in the
First Crusade
Subj: Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Baudemont,
Aragon, Toulouse
Date: 10/30/06 8:41:44 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: h.vogels6@chello.nl (Birds)
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
snip
3. Ida's marriage to count Godfrey I of Louvain is assumed for the year
1105. The marriage period 1087-1103 for count Godfrey of Namur is
sufficient to have a marriageable daughter in ca.1105. A firstborn
daughter in 1088 could have been married in 1100 or before the elopement
of mother in 1103.
-------------------------------
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
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Fun and games medieval style
The confusing part (for me) is that Godefroid has no daughter Ida, he has 1st marriage Elisabeth and Flandrine 2nd marriage Clemence, Adele/Ermesinde and Beatrice. Also I don't see a Godfrey I of Louvain in that period. Perhaps this Godfrey I of Louvain was known by another name?
Godefroid de Namur's mother was Ida of Saxony and so the name Ida may well be part of this family.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: WJhonson
To: Leo van de Pas ; gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: Fun and games medieval style
Leo it might have been speculation on exactly *where* Ida does fit in. And perhaps the end result was we don't know. I don't have the full exchange at hand. The header should lead you to the archived thread. I was only pointing out that evidently the *date* of the elopement is questionable.
In a message dated 08/17/07 16:25:25 Pacific Standard Time, leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
Great! We are coming to fine tuning. I have that Godefroid de Namur divorced
Sibil de Porcean about 1104 The bigamous marriage, of course, took place
before. But you have lost me a little. "Ida's marriage to count Godfrey I of
Louvain is assumed for the year 1105" I have (well ES) two daughters
Elisabeth and Flandrine, for Godefroid de Namur and Sibil de Porcean. Where
does Ida fit in?
Help! This may make me change a small biography I am at present entering
into my database.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: Fun and games medieval style
-------------------------------
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
Godefroid de Namur's mother was Ida of Saxony and so the name Ida may well be part of this family.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: WJhonson
To: Leo van de Pas ; gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: Fun and games medieval style
Leo it might have been speculation on exactly *where* Ida does fit in. And perhaps the end result was we don't know. I don't have the full exchange at hand. The header should lead you to the archived thread. I was only pointing out that evidently the *date* of the elopement is questionable.
In a message dated 08/17/07 16:25:25 Pacific Standard Time, leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
Great! We are coming to fine tuning. I have that Godefroid de Namur divorced
Sibil de Porcean about 1104 The bigamous marriage, of course, took place
before. But you have lost me a little. "Ida's marriage to count Godfrey I of
Louvain is assumed for the year 1105" I have (well ES) two daughters
Elisabeth and Flandrine, for Godefroid de Namur and Sibil de Porcean. Where
does Ida fit in?
Help! This may make me change a small biography I am at present entering
into my database.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: Fun and games medieval style
In a message dated 08/17/07 15:44:55 Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
For his actions Enguerrand was excommunicated by the Church. He sought to
make amends by taking part in the First Crusade; between 1096 and 1099 he
fought heroically in the Holy Land.
------------
Hans Vogel had posted here that the elopement occurred in 1103, which if
true, would have been several years *after* his aleged involvement in the
First Crusade
Subj: Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Baudemont,
Aragon, Toulouse
Date: 10/30/06 8:41:44 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: h.vogels6@chello.nl (Birds)
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
snip
3. Ida's marriage to count Godfrey I of Louvain is assumed for the year
1105. The marriage period 1087-1103 for count Godfrey of Namur is
sufficient to have a marriageable daughter in ca.1105. A firstborn
daughter in 1088 could have been married in 1100 or before the elopement
of mother in 1103.
-------------------------------
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
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187359408.498005.313940@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Misunderstanding again, that would be taken as deliberate if only it didn't
make you look so foolish that you probably just didn't think first.
I am hardly proposing myself as a teacher much less "the only one here with
any knowledge or insight". My limited interests wouldn't allow for this to
start with. Look over the subject lines, recent or random at any time over
the past 8 (?) years that I have been here - most of the questions raised by
SGM readers relate to the late-13th century onwards, mostly focused on the
English gentry. This period and subject are outside my range of study but
are familiar ground to some very expert & presently regular contributors,
such as Brad Verity and Michael Andrews-Reading among others. The archive
has exceptional contributions from others such as Paul Reed and Rosie Bevan
for anyone who wants instruction from example in research and analysis, and
even Douglas Richardson has the value of showing by precept how not to go
about it.
Insufferable pests, like yourself.
Peter Stewart
news:1187359408.498005.313940@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
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.
Misunderstanding again, that would be taken as deliberate if only it didn't
make you look so foolish that you probably just didn't think first.
I am hardly proposing myself as a teacher much less "the only one here with
any knowledge or insight". My limited interests wouldn't allow for this to
start with. Look over the subject lines, recent or random at any time over
the past 8 (?) years that I have been here - most of the questions raised by
SGM readers relate to the late-13th century onwards, mostly focused on the
English gentry. This period and subject are outside my range of study but
are familiar ground to some very expert & presently regular contributors,
such as Brad Verity and Michael Andrews-Reading among others. The archive
has exceptional contributions from others such as Paul Reed and Rosie Bevan
for anyone who wants instruction from example in research and analysis, and
even Douglas Richardson has the value of showing by precept how not to go
about it.
And what got Leo in his current "preaching and teaching" mode? (More
like prattling and tattling.)
Insufferable pests, like yourself.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
An empirical answer to this has been given several times: Hines was ABSENT
from SGM for a blessedly long stretch after a similar struggle from which he
emerged fleeing with his tail between his legs. He stayed away, smarting
because he wasn't really very smart. He came back to try again when he could
no longer resist the venting of his intellectual frustrations and
psycho-sexual obsessions, that he projects onto others hoping to gain an
inward feeling of acceptability by ridiculing. He can only do this by
blatant lies, but this has the side benefit for him of entrapping a few like
Dolores who believe him and like Will who humour him.
In contrast to this, in the previous 10 years or however long he had been
harrassing people on SGM, he was NEVER driven away by silent contempt. Like
many sociopaths, he doesn't have the self-awareness to realise that he even
deserves this.
Peter Stewart
"Richard Smyth at UNC-CH" <smyth@email.unc.edu> wrote in message
news:mailman.730.1187361767.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
from SGM for a blessedly long stretch after a similar struggle from which he
emerged fleeing with his tail between his legs. He stayed away, smarting
because he wasn't really very smart. He came back to try again when he could
no longer resist the venting of his intellectual frustrations and
psycho-sexual obsessions, that he projects onto others hoping to gain an
inward feeling of acceptability by ridiculing. He can only do this by
blatant lies, but this has the side benefit for him of entrapping a few like
Dolores who believe him and like Will who humour him.
In contrast to this, in the previous 10 years or however long he had been
harrassing people on SGM, he was NEVER driven away by silent contempt. Like
many sociopaths, he doesn't have the self-awareness to realise that he even
deserves this.
Peter Stewart
"Richard Smyth at UNC-CH" <smyth@email.unc.edu> wrote in message
news:mailman.730.1187361767.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
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.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
So Brandon is off barking & yapping on the basis of his twisted "guess" -
there is a lesson for all in how not to go about genealogy, or indeed
anything else in life.
Obviously he doesn't "hate" to put anything hatefully, it is his preferred
way. Elizabeth signed her name, and is by that alone -like everyone else,
even Brandon - not a "nobody". The quality of posts has nothing to do with
their number. Lurking in a public newsgroup is anyone's entitlement, as is
posting.
Peter Stewart
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187361653.939480.205490@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
there is a lesson for all in how not to go about genealogy, or indeed
anything else in life.
Obviously he doesn't "hate" to put anything hatefully, it is his preferred
way. Elizabeth signed her name, and is by that alone -like everyone else,
even Brandon - not a "nobody". The quality of posts has nothing to do with
their number. Lurking in a public newsgroup is anyone's entitlement, as is
posting.
Peter Stewart
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187361653.939480.205490@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
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 ...
-
John Higgins
Re: Descendants of King John's alleged illegitimate daughter
The original post in this thread (available on SGM but not in Gen-Med) says
that Sir Stephen de Beaupré and his wife Isabel (surnamed Fitz William in
the post but called Fitz Ives in the source cited and quoted in the post)
had a daughter Joan married to "John de Trevegnan, Knt.". This latter
individual is surely Sir John Trevanion, MP for Lostwithiel in the reign of
Edward III, who heads the Trevanion pedigree in Vivian's edition of the
visitations of Cornwall. In that source he is noted as having married
"Jone, Da. & Hey. [sic] of Stephen de Belloprato". From this Sir John many
descents to interesting folks can be traced, as his descendants intermarried
with many of the prominent families of Cornwall.
that Sir Stephen de Beaupré and his wife Isabel (surnamed Fitz William in
the post but called Fitz Ives in the source cited and quoted in the post)
had a daughter Joan married to "John de Trevegnan, Knt.". This latter
individual is surely Sir John Trevanion, MP for Lostwithiel in the reign of
Edward III, who heads the Trevanion pedigree in Vivian's edition of the
visitations of Cornwall. In that source he is noted as having married
"Jone, Da. & Hey. [sic] of Stephen de Belloprato". From this Sir John many
descents to interesting folks can be traced, as his descendants intermarried
with many of the prominent families of Cornwall.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
More dreary nonsense.
Clearly I don't "attack people FIRST" or there would be hundreds of SGM
readers on the receiving end instead of just the fools and phoneys.
Hines knows perfectly well that he has not carried a single point in our
exchanges, otherwise he wouldn't have retreated to copying his same-old lies
time and again.
His defective language and comprehension skills are on parade yet again: my
head hit ONE cobblestone, and Leo said that Richardson "maintained" a
falsehood about me, not that he "said" this explicitly. The case has been
poroved. Deceit and insinuation are Richardson's stock-in-trade, always have
been.
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:rmkxi.253$wi6.1277@eagle.america.net...
Clearly I don't "attack people FIRST" or there would be hundreds of SGM
readers on the receiving end instead of just the fools and phoneys.
Hines knows perfectly well that he has not carried a single point in our
exchanges, otherwise he wouldn't have retreated to copying his same-old lies
time and again.
His defective language and comprehension skills are on parade yet again: my
head hit ONE cobblestone, and Leo said that Richardson "maintained" a
falsehood about me, not that he "said" this explicitly. The case has been
poroved. Deceit and insinuation are Richardson's stock-in-trade, always have
been.
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:rmkxi.253$wi6.1277@eagle.america.net...
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
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187369491.804201.190820@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
What has this got to do with the subject, or with you?
Fred has kindly posted his own thoughts, that WERE quite obviously _thought_
rather than merely wished like your own poisonous cogitations.
Peter Stewart
news:1187369491.804201.190820@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
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?
What has this got to do with the subject, or with you?
Fred has kindly posted his own thoughts, that WERE quite obviously _thought_
rather than merely wished like your own poisonous cogitations.
Peter Stewart
-
WJhonson
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
<<In a message dated 08/17/07 17:10:19 Pacific Standard Time, p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
Will who humour him. >>
--------------------------------------
I think what I'm doing is poking fun where I see it.
Not specifically humoring Hines
I don't see it as an "us versus them" sort of thing.
Will
Will who humour him. >>
--------------------------------------
I think what I'm doing is poking fun where I see it.
Not specifically humoring Hines
I don't see it as an "us versus them" sort of thing.
Will
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.765.1187397229.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Hines is beyond the pale of humorous discourse, and you humoured him: simple
as that.
If you think he deserves to be treated with impartiality, that refelction on
you is also simple.
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.765.1187397229.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 08/17/07 17:10:19 Pacific Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
Will who humour him.
--------------------------------------
I think what I'm doing is poking fun where I see it.
Not specifically humoring Hines
I don't see it as an "us versus them" sort of thing.
Hines is beyond the pale of humorous discourse, and you humoured him: simple
as that.
If you think he deserves to be treated with impartiality, that refelction on
you is also simple.
Peter Stewart
-
M. de la Fayette
RE: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
Hey! ... For God sake...
STOP IT!
STOP TO WRITE POSTS!
STOP TO INUNDATE THIS LIST WITH YOUR VERBAL DIARRHEA!
LEAVE THIS PLACE
LEAVE US IN PEACE
ARE YOU A REAL PSYCHOPATHIC?
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Peter Stewart
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 2:24 AM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187369491.804201.190820@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
What has this got to do with the subject, or with you?
Fred has kindly posted his own thoughts, that WERE quite obviously
_thought_
rather than merely wished like your own poisonous cogitations.
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
STOP IT!
STOP TO WRITE POSTS!
STOP TO INUNDATE THIS LIST WITH YOUR VERBAL DIARRHEA!
LEAVE THIS PLACE
LEAVE US IN PEACE
ARE YOU A REAL PSYCHOPATHIC?
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Peter Stewart
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 2:24 AM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187369491.804201.190820@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
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?
What has this got to do with the subject, or with you?
Fred has kindly posted his own thoughts, that WERE quite obviously
_thought_
rather than merely wished like your own poisonous cogitations.
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
-
WJhonson
Re: Descendants of King John's alleged illegitimate daughter
<<In a message dated 08/17/07 17:15:52 Pacific Standard Time, jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:
Sir John Trevanion, MP for Lostwithiel in the reign of
Edward III, who heads the Trevanion pedigree in Vivian's edition of the
visitations of Cornwall. In that source he is noted as having married
"Jone, Da. & Hey. [sic] of Stephen de Belloprato". From this Sir John many
descents to interesting folks can be traced, as his descendants intermarried
with many of the prominent families of Cornwall. >>
-----------------
To assist in this tracing I present this line as from Burke's Commoners
http://books.google.com/books?id=QisAAA ... de+beaupre
"Trevanion, of Caerhayes"
Will Johnson
Sir John Trevanion, MP for Lostwithiel in the reign of
Edward III, who heads the Trevanion pedigree in Vivian's edition of the
visitations of Cornwall. In that source he is noted as having married
"Jone, Da. & Hey. [sic] of Stephen de Belloprato". From this Sir John many
descents to interesting folks can be traced, as his descendants intermarried
with many of the prominent families of Cornwall. >>
-----------------
To assist in this tracing I present this line as from Burke's Commoners
http://books.google.com/books?id=QisAAA ... de+beaupre
"Trevanion, of Caerhayes"
Will Johnson
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
Amusing...
Peter retreats to weasel-wording, balderdash and bafflegab.
His attack on Douglas Richardson is totally unjustified.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
--------------------------------------------
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:eZqxi.22320$4A1.5235@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Nonsense & Bafflegab.
Nonsense & Bafflegab. No lying by Hines. Everything I say below has been
proven.
Lies, Weasel-Wording & Bafflegab
That's Precisely What Happened.
Proven In The Archives...
All Proven By Peter's Own Testimony.
Leo has NOT acted like a man and continues to hide in the shadows. Bad
Show.
Verdict: Leo is NOT an honorable man.
Peter retreats to weasel-wording, balderdash and bafflegab.
His attack on Douglas Richardson is totally unjustified.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
--------------------------------------------
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:eZqxi.22320$4A1.5235@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
More dreary nonsense.
Clearly I don't "attack people FIRST" or there would be hundreds of SGM
readers on the receiving end instead of just the fools and phoneys.
Nonsense & Bafflegab.
Hines knows perfectly well that he has not carried a single point in our
exchanges, otherwise he wouldn't have retreated to copying his same-old
lies time and again.
Nonsense & Bafflegab. No lying by Hines. Everything I say below has been
proven.
His defective language and comprehension skills are on parade yet again:
my head hit ONE cobblestone, and Leo said that Richardson "maintained" a
falsehood about me, not that he "said" this explicitly. The case has been
poroved. [sic] Deceit and insinuation are Richardson's stock-in-trade,
always
have been.
Lies, Weasel-Wording & Bafflegab
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:rmkxi.253$wi6.1277@eagle.america.net...
Rosie Bevan obviously hasn't kept up with the message traffic.
She is posting from a Flower 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.
That's Precisely What Happened.
Any honest person will see that Peter attacks people FIRST -- as is the
case here -- not the other way around.
Proven In The Archives...
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...
All Proven By Peter's Own Testimony.
"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.
Leo has NOT acted like a man and continues to hide in the shadows. Bad
Show.
There are NO other honorable alternatives.
Verdict: Leo is NOT an honorable man.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
Pure Fantasy -- Rampant.
Worse than the Soviet manipulation of History.
DSH
------------------------------------
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:tJqxi.22294$4A1.2474@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Worse than the Soviet manipulation of History.
DSH
------------------------------------
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:tJqxi.22294$4A1.2474@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
An empirical answer to this has been given several times: Hines was ABSENT
from SGM for a blessedly long stretch after a similar struggle from which
he emerged fleeing with his tail between his legs. He stayed away,
smarting because he wasn't really very smart. He came back to try again
when he could no longer resist the venting of his intellectual
frustrations and psycho-sexual obsessions, that he projects onto others
hoping to gain an inward feeling of acceptability by ridiculing. He can
only do this by blatant lies, but this has the side benefit for him of
entrapping a few like Dolores who believe him and like Will who humour
him.
In contrast to this, in the previous 10 years or however long he had been
harrassing people on SGM, he was NEVER driven away by silent contempt.
Like many sociopaths, he doesn't have the self-awareness to realise that
he even deserves this.
Peter Stewart
"Richard Smyth at UNC-CH" <smyth@email.unc.edu> wrote in message
news:mailman.730.1187361767.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
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 n 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.
-
WJhonson
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
<<In a message dated 08/17/07 17:45:17 Pacific Standard Time, p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
If you think he deserves to be treated with impartiality, that refelction on
you is also simple. >>
-----------------------------------
I have never treated anyone with impartiality
Well maybe there was that one time back in 1982.
Responding to a thread (not a person) with humor doesn't mean imho, that you are humoring the person. It means you're reacting to a situation with humor, not a person.
The situation being a hundred emails and counting on this topic. Not that that point bothers me, I process about 200 plus emails every day on average. I still find it humorous.
Will Johnson
If you think he deserves to be treated with impartiality, that refelction on
you is also simple. >>
-----------------------------------
I have never treated anyone with impartiality
Well maybe there was that one time back in 1982.
Responding to a thread (not a person) with humor doesn't mean imho, that you are humoring the person. It means you're reacting to a situation with humor, not a person.
The situation being a hundred emails and counting on this topic. Not that that point bothers me, I process about 200 plus emails every day on average. I still find it humorous.
Will Johnson
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
The proof is as simple as can be: Hines says "Proven In The Archives..." but
unlike his claims my points have been proven _from_ the archive.
Asserting that demonstrated truths are "lies" would collapse the credibility
of anyone who had some of it to start with, but from Hines this is merely
another gasping exhalation of the foulness within.
He is beaten by his own devices, neck and crop, and he knows it. Just like
last time, and the time before....
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:Qirxi.265$wi6.1650@eagle.america.net...
unlike his claims my points have been proven _from_ the archive.
Asserting that demonstrated truths are "lies" would collapse the credibility
of anyone who had some of it to start with, but from Hines this is merely
another gasping exhalation of the foulness within.
He is beaten by his own devices, neck and crop, and he knows it. Just like
last time, and the time before....
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:Qirxi.265$wi6.1650@eagle.america.net...
Amusing...
Peter retreats to weasel-wording, balderdash and bafflegab.
His attack on Douglas Richardson is totally unjustified.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
--------------------------------------------
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:eZqxi.22320$4A1.5235@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
More dreary nonsense.
Clearly I don't "attack people FIRST" or there would be hundreds of SGM
readers on the receiving end instead of just the fools and phoneys.
Nonsense & Bafflegab.
Hines knows perfectly well that he has not carried a single point in our
exchanges, otherwise he wouldn't have retreated to copying his same-old
lies time and again.
Nonsense & Bafflegab. No lying by Hines. Everything I say below has been
proven.
His defective language and comprehension skills are on parade yet again:
my head hit ONE cobblestone, and Leo said that Richardson "maintained" a
falsehood about me, not that he "said" this explicitly. The case has been
poroved. [sic] Deceit and insinuation are Richardson's stock-in-trade,
always
have been.
Lies, Weasel-Wording & Bafflegab
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:rmkxi.253$wi6.1277@eagle.america.net...
Rosie Bevan obviously hasn't kept up with the message traffic.
She is posting from a Flower 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.
That's Precisely What Happened.
Any honest person will see that Peter attacks people FIRST -- as is the
case here -- not the other way around.
Proven In The Archives...
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...
All Proven By Peter's Own Testimony.
"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.
Leo has NOT acted like a man and continues to hide in the shadows. Bad
Show.
There are NO other honorable alternatives.
Verdict: Leo is NOT an honorable man.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
It's a plain, logical and chronological fact. Hines can't now pretend that
he didn't disappear, his profile shows this.
SGM had no posts from Hines in the first three months of 2007, only 2 in
April, 28 in May, 5 in June and 2 in July (crosspostings that originated
elsewhere), and now 152 in August - when he could no longer resist the urge
to attack himself in the guise of me, in order to talk some more about an
ancestry that fascinates him much more than it does me, and SGM is the only
place to do this.
It's far too late for Hines to say this is untrue, there is no manipulation
but just straight reporting from
http://groups.google.com.au/groups/prof ... y.medieval
Maybe Hines will say, in Pravda style, that he just happened to lose the
address for SGM and thought his posts were coming here all along....
And why else hasn't he crossposted THIS message of his, out of all of them?
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:Rnrxi.266$wi6.1688@eagle.america.net...
he didn't disappear, his profile shows this.
SGM had no posts from Hines in the first three months of 2007, only 2 in
April, 28 in May, 5 in June and 2 in July (crosspostings that originated
elsewhere), and now 152 in August - when he could no longer resist the urge
to attack himself in the guise of me, in order to talk some more about an
ancestry that fascinates him much more than it does me, and SGM is the only
place to do this.
It's far too late for Hines to say this is untrue, there is no manipulation
but just straight reporting from
http://groups.google.com.au/groups/prof ... y.medieval
Maybe Hines will say, in Pravda style, that he just happened to lose the
address for SGM and thought his posts were coming here all along....
And why else hasn't he crossposted THIS message of his, out of all of them?
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:Rnrxi.266$wi6.1688@eagle.america.net...
Pure Fantasy -- Rampant.
Worse than the Soviet manipulation of History.
DSH
------------------------------------
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:tJqxi.22294$4A1.2474@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
An empirical answer to this has been given several times: Hines was
ABSENT from SGM for a blessedly long stretch after a similar struggle
from which he emerged fleeing with his tail between his legs. He stayed
away, smarting because he wasn't really very smart. He came back to try
again when he could no longer resist the venting of his intellectual
frustrations and psycho-sexual obsessions, that he projects onto others
hoping to gain an inward feeling of acceptability by ridiculing. He can
only do this by blatant lies, but this has the side benefit for him of
entrapping a few like Dolores who believe him and like Will who humour
him.
In contrast to this, in the previous 10 years or however long he had been
harrassing people on SGM, he was NEVER driven away by silent contempt.
Like many sociopaths, he doesn't have the self-awareness to realise that
he even deserves this.
Peter Stewart
"Richard Smyth at UNC-CH" <smyth@email.unc.edu> wrote in message
news:mailman.730.1187361767.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
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 n 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.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
Special pleading doesn't cut it - you don't respond to "a thread", but to
specific messages that come from individual posters.
You responded several times to Hines, bantering with him, indulging him.
If you don't even have the courage of your own jokes, why attempt them?
Peter Stewart
"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.769.1187398669.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
specific messages that come from individual posters.
You responded several times to Hines, bantering with him, indulging him.
If you don't even have the courage of your own jokes, why attempt them?
Peter Stewart
"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.769.1187398669.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 08/17/07 17:45:17 Pacific Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
If you think he deserves to be treated with impartiality, that refelction
on
you is also simple.
-----------------------------------
I have never treated anyone with impartiality
Well maybe there was that one time back in 1982.
Responding to a thread (not a person) with humor doesn't mean imho, that
you are humoring the person. It means you're reacting to a situation with
humor, not a person.
The situation being a hundred emails and counting on this topic. Not that
that point bothers me, I process about 200 plus emails every day on
average. I still find it humorous.
Will Johnso
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
Special pleading doesn't cut it - you don't respond to "a thread", but to
specific messages that come from individual posters.
You responded several times to Hines, bantering with him, indulging him.
If you don't even have the courage of your own jokes, why attempt them?
Peter Stewart
"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.769.1187398669.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
specific messages that come from individual posters.
You responded several times to Hines, bantering with him, indulging him.
If you don't even have the courage of your own jokes, why attempt them?
Peter Stewart
"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.769.1187398669.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 08/17/07 17:45:17 Pacific Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
If you think he deserves to be treated with impartiality, that refelction
on
you is also simple.
-----------------------------------
I have never treated anyone with impartiality
Well maybe there was that one time back in 1982.
Responding to a thread (not a person) with humor doesn't mean imho, that
you are humoring the person. It means you're reacting to a situation with
humor, not a person.
The situation being a hundred emails and counting on this topic. Not that
that point bothers me, I process about 200 plus emails every day on
average. I still find it humorous.
Will Johnso
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
Special pleading doesn't cut it - you don't respond to "a thread", but to
specific messages that come from individual posters.
You responded several times to Hines, bantering with him, indulging him.
If you don't even have the courage of your own jokes, why attempt them?
Peter Stewart
"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.769.1187398669.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
specific messages that come from individual posters.
You responded several times to Hines, bantering with him, indulging him.
If you don't even have the courage of your own jokes, why attempt them?
Peter Stewart
"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.769.1187398669.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 08/17/07 17:45:17 Pacific Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
If you think he deserves to be treated with impartiality, that refelction
on
you is also simple.
-----------------------------------
I have never treated anyone with impartiality
Well maybe there was that one time back in 1982.
Responding to a thread (not a person) with humor doesn't mean imho, that
you are humoring the person. It means you're reacting to a situation with
humor, not a person.
The situation being a hundred emails and counting on this topic. Not that
that point bothers me, I process about 200 plus emails every day on
average. I still find it humorous.
Will Johnso
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
Special pleading doesn't cut it - you don't respond to "a thread", but to
specific messages that come from individual posters.
You responded several times to Hines, bantering with him, indulging him.
If you don't even have the courage of your own jokes, why attempt them?
Peter Stewart
"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.769.1187398669.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
specific messages that come from individual posters.
You responded several times to Hines, bantering with him, indulging him.
If you don't even have the courage of your own jokes, why attempt them?
Peter Stewart
"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.769.1187398669.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 08/17/07 17:45:17 Pacific Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
If you think he deserves to be treated with impartiality, that refelction
on
you is also simple.
-----------------------------------
I have never treated anyone with impartiality
Well maybe there was that one time back in 1982.
Responding to a thread (not a person) with humor doesn't mean imho, that
you are humoring the person. It means you're reacting to a situation with
humor, not a person.
The situation being a hundred emails and counting on this topic. Not that
that point bothers me, I process about 200 plus emails every day on
average. I still find it humorous.
Will Johnso
-
Merilyn Pedrick
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
Just goes to prove your ignorance John. Buy yourself a dictionary and
learn a few long words. Then you can insult us with more style.
Merilyn
From: John Brandon
Date: 08/18/07 06:10:15
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
Oh, I missed this little gem! But ... um ... no, sorry to disappoint,
I had to go back into the archive to look them up (and a right bother
it was, too). You use such antiquated terms, like "incorrigible" and
"malignant." No real person I know has ever uttered these words, at
least in my hearing.
-------------------------------
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
learn a few long words. Then you can insult us with more style.
Merilyn
From: John Brandon
Date: 08/18/07 06:10:15
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
Brandon even recalls the exact words that have stung him, and echoes
them back like Smeagol/Gollum at the reflecting pond.
Oh, I missed this little gem! But ... um ... no, sorry to disappoint,
I had to go back into the archive to look them up (and a right bother
it was, too). You use such antiquated terms, like "incorrigible" and
"malignant." No real person I know has ever uttered these words, at
least in my hearing.
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
Psychobabble Writ Large -- By Peter Stewart...
Who is totally unqualified as a psychiatrist and has never even met me.
Further:
I simply stopped posting in or reading SGM because I had traced the lines I
wanted to trace and saw a sharp falloff in the quality of the posting
here -- the Law of Diminishing Returns had set in and I had far better
things to do in Hawai'i and points South, East and West -- as well as other
intellectual endeavors.
Of note:
Richard Smyth is reportedly an academic -- retired -- from the University of
North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Reportedly a Professor of Philosophy -- hence his previous reference to
Martin Heidegger -- the German Existentialist, among his contributions to
other fields.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger>
Richard Smyth allegedly graduated from Yale College in 1955 and was a
resident of Branford College.
He's one of the folks here NOW who need help with various lines and figure
they can get a lot of gratis assistance from Peter Stewart.
So, they don't want to offend him.
We see cycles like this -- as we did with WAR, Paul Reed, Stewart Baldwin,
Laura Blanchard -- and some others.
They are here for a while "helping others" until they realize they are being
conned, get bored by the clueless, repetitive questions, lose interest and
move on -- or just drop in occasionally -- "to see how things are going."
DSH
------------------------------------
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:tJqxi.22294$4A1.2474@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Who is totally unqualified as a psychiatrist and has never even met me.
Further:
I simply stopped posting in or reading SGM because I had traced the lines I
wanted to trace and saw a sharp falloff in the quality of the posting
here -- the Law of Diminishing Returns had set in and I had far better
things to do in Hawai'i and points South, East and West -- as well as other
intellectual endeavors.
Of note:
Richard Smyth is reportedly an academic -- retired -- from the University of
North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Reportedly a Professor of Philosophy -- hence his previous reference to
Martin Heidegger -- the German Existentialist, among his contributions to
other fields.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger>
Richard Smyth allegedly graduated from Yale College in 1955 and was a
resident of Branford College.
He's one of the folks here NOW who need help with various lines and figure
they can get a lot of gratis assistance from Peter Stewart.
So, they don't want to offend him.
We see cycles like this -- as we did with WAR, Paul Reed, Stewart Baldwin,
Laura Blanchard -- and some others.
They are here for a while "helping others" until they realize they are being
conned, get bored by the clueless, repetitive questions, lose interest and
move on -- or just drop in occasionally -- "to see how things are going."
DSH
------------------------------------
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:tJqxi.22294$4A1.2474@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
An empirical answer to this has been given several times: Hines was ABSENT
from SGM for a blessedly long stretch after a similar struggle from which
he emerged fleeing with his tail between his legs. He stayed away,
smarting because he wasn't really very smart. He came back to try again
when he could no longer resist the venting of his intellectual
frustrations and psycho-sexual obsessions, that he projects onto others
hoping to gain an inward feeling of acceptability by ridiculing. He can
only do this by blatant lies, but this has the side benefit for him of
entrapping a few like Dolores who believe him and like Will who humour
him.
In contrast to this, in the previous 10 years or however long he had been
harrassing people on SGM, he was NEVER driven away by silent contempt.
Like many sociopaths, he doesn't have the self-awareness to realise that
he even deserves this.
Peter Stewart
"Richard Smyth at UNC-CH" <smyth@email.unc.edu> wrote in message
news:mailman.730.1187361767.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
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 n 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.
-
Merilyn Pedrick
Re: Fun and games medieval style
Dear Leo
Thankyou for this interesting little bio of Enguerrand de Coucy. I was
going to cut and paste it into my database, and noticed a previous posting
by Peter Stewart in 2004, (see below). Your two posts differ slightly in
that in yours you say that Enguerrand repudiated Ada, and in Peter's he says
that Ada repudiated her first husband to marry Enguerrand.
Were there two repudiations?
Merilyn Pedrick
Seigneur de Boves de Coucy.Historians usually prefer to follow sources that
refer to the father as Enguerrand "de Bova" (de Boves) and to the notorious
son as Thomas "de Marla" (de Marle).Both men are called count, sometimes of
Amiens and sometimes of Coucy, but other sources name them merely as lords
in the same timeframe.Enguerrand took possession of Coucy with the
complicity its heiress, Ada. She then repudiated her first husband, the
negligent castellan Alberic de Beaumont, and married Enguerrand: Marle and
Coucy belonged to him only by right of his wife.These events took place,
according to Dominique Barthélemy, in 1079 - I haven't checked this point -
and computing from the year of his parents' marriage and the fact that
Thomas himself departed on crusade in 1095, indicating that he must have
been at least 15 years old at the time, Barthélemy places his birth in 1080
The birthdate of 1044 for Ada is unfounded. She was said to be daughter of
Letald de Marle, but given the chronological stretch in this genealogy she
may have been his granddaughter.
Peter Stewart (GEN-MED 22/11/04)
From: Leo van de Pas
Date: 08/18/07 08:14:44
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Fun and games medieval style
Enguerrand I de Coucy repudiated his wife Ada de Marle for her adultery. At
least he waited until after Ada died when he abducted Sibil de Porcean, wife
of Godefroid, comte de Namur. He married her despite the fact that she was
still married to Godefroid (who later divorced her and married again.
For his actions Enguerrand was excommunicated by the Church. He sought to
make amends by taking part in the First Crusade; between 1096 and 1099 he
fought heroically in the Holy Land.
During one battle with the Moslems he mislaid his banner; he tore off his
coat of scarlet lined with squirrel fur, and cut out a new emblem from it.
Thus was born the celebrated description of his arms: "Fasse de vair et de
gueulle de six pieces" (fessy of squirrel fur and gules of six parts), which
would bear the name of Coucy on many battlefields.
Enguerrand's excommunication was lifted through the help of his kinsman,
also called Enguerrand, the bishop of Laon.
-------------------------------
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
Thankyou for this interesting little bio of Enguerrand de Coucy. I was
going to cut and paste it into my database, and noticed a previous posting
by Peter Stewart in 2004, (see below). Your two posts differ slightly in
that in yours you say that Enguerrand repudiated Ada, and in Peter's he says
that Ada repudiated her first husband to marry Enguerrand.
Were there two repudiations?
Merilyn Pedrick
Seigneur de Boves de Coucy.Historians usually prefer to follow sources that
refer to the father as Enguerrand "de Bova" (de Boves) and to the notorious
son as Thomas "de Marla" (de Marle).Both men are called count, sometimes of
Amiens and sometimes of Coucy, but other sources name them merely as lords
in the same timeframe.Enguerrand took possession of Coucy with the
complicity its heiress, Ada. She then repudiated her first husband, the
negligent castellan Alberic de Beaumont, and married Enguerrand: Marle and
Coucy belonged to him only by right of his wife.These events took place,
according to Dominique Barthélemy, in 1079 - I haven't checked this point -
and computing from the year of his parents' marriage and the fact that
Thomas himself departed on crusade in 1095, indicating that he must have
been at least 15 years old at the time, Barthélemy places his birth in 1080
The birthdate of 1044 for Ada is unfounded. She was said to be daughter of
Letald de Marle, but given the chronological stretch in this genealogy she
may have been his granddaughter.
Peter Stewart (GEN-MED 22/11/04)
From: Leo van de Pas
Date: 08/18/07 08:14:44
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Fun and games medieval style
Enguerrand I de Coucy repudiated his wife Ada de Marle for her adultery. At
least he waited until after Ada died when he abducted Sibil de Porcean, wife
of Godefroid, comte de Namur. He married her despite the fact that she was
still married to Godefroid (who later divorced her and married again.
For his actions Enguerrand was excommunicated by the Church. He sought to
make amends by taking part in the First Crusade; between 1096 and 1099 he
fought heroically in the Holy Land.
During one battle with the Moslems he mislaid his banner; he tore off his
coat of scarlet lined with squirrel fur, and cut out a new emblem from it.
Thus was born the celebrated description of his arms: "Fasse de vair et de
gueulle de six pieces" (fessy of squirrel fur and gules of six parts), which
would bear the name of Coucy on many battlefields.
Enguerrand's excommunication was lifted through the help of his kinsman,
also called Enguerrand, the bishop of Laon.
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
Hilarious!
Stewart is obviously drinking his lunch and is in high dudgeon again --
always an amusing show.
He sees conspiracies everywhere.
With Pogue J. Gans in semi-retirement, Stewart offers some of the Best
Entertainment Value on USENET.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Stewart is obviously drinking his lunch and is in high dudgeon again --
always an amusing show.
He sees conspiracies everywhere.
With Pogue J. Gans in semi-retirement, Stewart offers some of the Best
Entertainment Value on USENET.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
Patent rot - the "quality" of discussions on the other threads that are
degraded by the attention of Hines, and that remained so when he was
cowering from embarrassment on SGM, is even lower than here, partly (but not
exlusively) due to him.
He came back to foist on the inexperienced his tired and derivative screed
about the byname/surname Plantagenet. He hopes that this might gain him some
credibility for a fresh start with new readers who have not explored the
many published studies of the same question or witnessed him in action at
length on other subjects.
As to medieval genealogy, Hines had given up milking help on his Alienor of
Aquitaine ancestor table years ago, and hasn't taken an active part in any
substantive discussion here since. But he didn't go away, through years of
unproductive (though occasionally funny, as Hans said, when he still had a
fingerhold on sanity) gingering in SGM.
As to his psycho-sexual compulsions, who needs to meet him to know about
these when he is displaying & expounding them continually in plain words?
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:aEsxi.268$wi6.1738@eagle.america.net...
degraded by the attention of Hines, and that remained so when he was
cowering from embarrassment on SGM, is even lower than here, partly (but not
exlusively) due to him.
He came back to foist on the inexperienced his tired and derivative screed
about the byname/surname Plantagenet. He hopes that this might gain him some
credibility for a fresh start with new readers who have not explored the
many published studies of the same question or witnessed him in action at
length on other subjects.
As to medieval genealogy, Hines had given up milking help on his Alienor of
Aquitaine ancestor table years ago, and hasn't taken an active part in any
substantive discussion here since. But he didn't go away, through years of
unproductive (though occasionally funny, as Hans said, when he still had a
fingerhold on sanity) gingering in SGM.
As to his psycho-sexual compulsions, who needs to meet him to know about
these when he is displaying & expounding them continually in plain words?
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:aEsxi.268$wi6.1738@eagle.america.net...
Psychobabble Writ Large -- By Peter Stewart...
Who is totally unqualified as a psychiatrist and has never even met me.
Further:
I simply stopped posting in or reading SGM because I had traced the lines
I
wanted to trace and saw a sharp falloff in the quality of the posting
here -- the Law of Diminishing Returns had set in and I had far better
things to do in Hawai'i and points South, East and West -- as well as
other
intellectual endeavors.
Of note:
Richard Smyth is reportedly an academic -- retired -- from the University
of
North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Reportedly a Professor of Philosophy -- hence his previous reference to
Martin Heidegger -- the German Existentialist, among his contributions to
other fields.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger
Richard Smyth allegedly graduated from Yale College in 1955 and was a
resident of Branford College.
He's one of the folks here NOW who need help with various lines and figure
they can get a lot of gratis assistance from Peter Stewart.
So, they don't want to offend him.
We see cycles like this -- as we did with WAR, Paul Reed, Stewart Baldwin,
Laura Blanchard -- and some others.
They are here for a while "helping others" until they realize they are
being
conned, get bored by the clueless, repetitive questions, lose interest and
move on -- or just drop in occasionally -- "to see how things are going."
DSH
------------------------------------
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:tJqxi.22294$4A1.2474@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
An empirical answer to this has been given several times: Hines was
ABSENT
from SGM for a blessedly long stretch after a similar struggle from which
he emerged fleeing with his tail between his legs. He stayed away,
smarting because he wasn't really very smart. He came back to try again
when he could no longer resist the venting of his intellectual
frustrations and psycho-sexual obsessions, that he projects onto others
hoping to gain an inward feeling of acceptability by ridiculing. He can
only do this by blatant lies, but this has the side benefit for him of
entrapping a few like Dolores who believe him and like Will who humour
him.
In contrast to this, in the previous 10 years or however long he had been
harrassing people on SGM, he was NEVER driven away by silent contempt.
Like many sociopaths, he doesn't have the self-awareness to realise that
he even deserves this.
Peter Stewart
"Richard Smyth at UNC-CH" <smyth@email.unc.edu> wrote in message
news:mailman.730.1187361767.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
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 n 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.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
Hines has removed the context once again, trying to fool himself that he has
a new point - but it is only now 12.50 in Melbourne and whatever missparked
his latest damp squib cannot have been at my lunch time.
And how many times does he need to be told that "Lux et Veritas et Libertas"
is a clumsy, semi-literate attempt at translating his false slogan into
Latin? (And of course, he wouldn't know "veritas" if it bit him, which it
does every hour of every day.)
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:mVsxi.269$wi6.1673@eagle.america.net...
a new point - but it is only now 12.50 in Melbourne and whatever missparked
his latest damp squib cannot have been at my lunch time.
And how many times does he need to be told that "Lux et Veritas et Libertas"
is a clumsy, semi-literate attempt at translating his false slogan into
Latin? (And of course, he wouldn't know "veritas" if it bit him, which it
does every hour of every day.)
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:mVsxi.269$wi6.1673@eagle.america.net...
Hilarious!
Stewart is obviously drinking his lunch and is in high dudgeon again --
always an amusing show.
He sees conspiracies everywhere.
With Pogue J. Gans in semi-retirement, Stewart offers some of the Best
Entertainment Value on USENET.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
Ray O\\'Hara
Re: The British Army
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:i8nxi.261$wi6.1570@eagle.america.net...
the chimptator sees himself as generalissimo.
he interpets the CinC as giving him carte blanche to use the army as he
wishes.
the actual idea was congress declared when the army was to be used and the
president was to lead it into battle.
not for the president to send it off on adventures of his own choosing.
when congress let harry truman call korea a "police action" they violated
the constitution. and led us to today where the army is no longer answerable
to the peoples representitives.
news:i8nxi.261$wi6.1570@eagle.america.net...
We made the POTUS the Commander-in-Chief. We did not create a post for a
Generalissimo.
the chimptator sees himself as generalissimo.
he interpets the CinC as giving him carte blanche to use the army as he
wishes.
the actual idea was congress declared when the army was to be used and the
president was to lead it into battle.
not for the president to send it off on adventures of his own choosing.
when congress let harry truman call korea a "police action" they violated
the constitution. and led us to today where the army is no longer answerable
to the peoples representitives.
-
Mary Jane Battaglia
Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 886
Thank you Sabina! Well said.
MJBattaglia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sab" <morgause@logonix.net>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 3:46 AM
Subject: RE: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 886
MJBattaglia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sab" <morgause@logonix.net>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 3:46 AM
Subject: RE: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 886
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
-------------------------------
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: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal
Hmmmmm...
Silly rabbit indeed.
But GREAT ENTERTAINMENT.
How Sweet It Is!
Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.
Enjoy!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
Exitus Acta Probat
Ex Scientia Tridens
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1187410133.700378.52550@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Well, as we all know:
Stewart's 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:
'Nuff Said.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
Silly rabbit indeed.
But GREAT ENTERTAINMENT.
How Sweet It Is!
Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.
Enjoy!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
Exitus Acta Probat
Ex Scientia Tridens
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1187410133.700378.52550@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 17, 9:38 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Hines must be at his wit's end (i.e. his own fundament) if he is reduced
to copying and endorsing a message from the all-time champeen
ignoramus of the Jethro Clampett Insititue, their common alma mater.
This too will come back to bite him, like that pesky varmit "veritas".
Peter Stewart
The word is spelled "institute" not "institue." Silly rabbit.
DR
--------------------------------------------------------------
Well, as we all know:
Stewart's 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
'Nuff Said.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal
A missing "t" is great entertainment, but not a missing "s"? All depends who
missed it....
Hines has slipped the tether of rationality now, and has obviously lost
consciousness of his own dire pettiness to claim that this is "Sweet" or as
good as it gets.
What a wizened, dried-up husk of a life he must be suffering in. Doesn't the
US Navy have a support serivce for its mentally broken and psychologically
distressed ex-personnel?
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:jowxi.274$wi6.1711@eagle.america.net...
missed it....
Hines has slipped the tether of rationality now, and has obviously lost
consciousness of his own dire pettiness to claim that this is "Sweet" or as
good as it gets.
What a wizened, dried-up husk of a life he must be suffering in. Doesn't the
US Navy have a support serivce for its mentally broken and psychologically
distressed ex-personnel?
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:jowxi.274$wi6.1711@eagle.america.net...
Hmmmmm...
Silly rabbit indeed.
But GREAT ENTERTAINMENT.
How Sweet It Is!
Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.
Enjoy!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
Exitus Acta Probat
Ex Scientia Tridens
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1187410133.700378.52550@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 17, 9:38 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Hines must be at his wit's end (i.e. his own fundament) if he is reduced
to copying and endorsing a message from the all-time champeen
ignoramus of the Jethro Clampett Insititue, their common alma mater.
This too will come back to bite him, like that pesky varmit "veritas".
Peter Stewart
The word is spelled "institute" not "institue." Silly rabbit.
DR
--------------------------------------------------------------
Well, as we all know:
Stewart's 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
'Nuff Said.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Fun and games medieval style
"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.761.1187393950.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
You may have him as Godfrey I of Brabant, aka Godfrey the Bearded - he was
count of Louvain from 1095, then became duke of Lower Lorrain (that is,
Brabant) from 1104. The family of his wife Ida is not certain, it is thought
that she was probably a daughter of Odo II, count of Chiny by Adelais/Alix
of Namur (who was a sister of the Godefroid above).
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.761.1187393950.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
The confusing part (for me) is that Godefroid has no daughter
Ida, he has 1st marriage Elisabeth and Flandrine 2nd marriage
Clemence, Adele/Ermesinde and Beatrice. Also I don't see a
Godfrey I of Louvain in that period. Perhaps this Godfrey I of
Louvain was known by another name?
You may have him as Godfrey I of Brabant, aka Godfrey the Bearded - he was
count of Louvain from 1095, then became duke of Lower Lorrain (that is,
Brabant) from 1104. The family of his wife Ida is not certain, it is thought
that she was probably a daughter of Odo II, count of Chiny by Adelais/Alix
of Namur (who was a sister of the Godefroid above).
Peter Stewart
-
Francisco Tavares de Alme
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
This re-edition of the very old same is getting worse than before.
Hines is clearly a lost case.
Long ago, around 1964 an agriculture engineer was the only in the
University Laboratory doing some special and crucial analysing of
soil. He was recalled to the army and in spite of the uproar rised he
was trained for one year and sent to Africa for two years as a
captain. In Bissau, the capital of Portuguese Guinea, he was in
command of some barracks that received the new arrived for a few days
until they went to their destinations and also those who had finished
the two years comission and were waiting the ship back to Europe.
I met him in 1966 and the cientist that the army could not dispense
with was counting matresses and verifying sheets and blankets. As I
knew him before I could evaluate the damage done to him.
Hines relapses are only the natural consequence of his duties in the
Navy, aggravated by the high expectancies created by the father's
career. As I said, a lost case.
Brandon is a different and simple case. If it was not for him and his
sort, europeans had no real reason to resent americans. Probably
generously helped by alcohol he feels he is right and has the right to
post whatever he pleases and abuse whoever he wish. But endowed with
little imagination, without Hines and Richardson we would become a
negligible nuisance.
I will not comment Richardson, because he must be countered in
specific points and Peter and others can deal with those while I can
not (unless the I-don't-remember-the-name returns from Turkey because
even to denounce some tricks and tactics my english fails me).
My main concern is the newly arrived crook-duke or cuckoo-duke and,
for the moment, the rightfull marquess of Sevennicks. Thanks to him,
Sardimpex is closed to public and if he succeeds in driving Peter
away, obviously his aim, who else could possibly know if a Litta's
citation was correct?
Peter, you have my whole support.
Francisco
On 18 Ago, 01:42, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Hines is clearly a lost case.
Long ago, around 1964 an agriculture engineer was the only in the
University Laboratory doing some special and crucial analysing of
soil. He was recalled to the army and in spite of the uproar rised he
was trained for one year and sent to Africa for two years as a
captain. In Bissau, the capital of Portuguese Guinea, he was in
command of some barracks that received the new arrived for a few days
until they went to their destinations and also those who had finished
the two years comission and were waiting the ship back to Europe.
I met him in 1966 and the cientist that the army could not dispense
with was counting matresses and verifying sheets and blankets. As I
knew him before I could evaluate the damage done to him.
Hines relapses are only the natural consequence of his duties in the
Navy, aggravated by the high expectancies created by the father's
career. As I said, a lost case.
Brandon is a different and simple case. If it was not for him and his
sort, europeans had no real reason to resent americans. Probably
generously helped by alcohol he feels he is right and has the right to
post whatever he pleases and abuse whoever he wish. But endowed with
little imagination, without Hines and Richardson we would become a
negligible nuisance.
I will not comment Richardson, because he must be countered in
specific points and Peter and others can deal with those while I can
not (unless the I-don't-remember-the-name returns from Turkey because
even to denounce some tricks and tactics my english fails me).
My main concern is the newly arrived crook-duke or cuckoo-duke and,
for the moment, the rightfull marquess of Sevennicks. Thanks to him,
Sardimpex is closed to public and if he succeeds in driving Peter
away, obviously his aim, who else could possibly know if a Litta's
citation was correct?
Peter, you have my whole support.
Francisco
On 18 Ago, 01:42, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"WJhonson" <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.765.1187397229.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 08/17/07 17:10:19 Pacific Standard Time,
p_m_stew...@msn.com writes:
Will who humour him.
--------------------------------------
I think what I'm doing is poking fun where I see it.
Not specifically humoring Hines
I don't see it as an "us versus them" sort of thing.
Hines is beyond the pale of humorous discourse, and you humoured him: simple
as that.
If you think he deserves to be treated with impartiality, that refelction on
you is also simple.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
Thank you, Francisco.
If I should decide to leave the newsgroup once again, this will not be due
directly to the crook-duke Marco-Antoine-Jack-Adrian-Steven, nor to Hines,
Richardson or Brandon, all of whom are just extremely noisy static (in both
senses of the word): it will rather be because a silent majority of readers
for whom I take the trouble to provide information whenever I can have
chosen to tolerate and even indulge such people. My contempt for these
nuisances is nothing compared to loss of respect for others.
Eventually the pests will start to realise that I don't give up, and that
they won't get to snipe at decent newsgroup members without taking worse
harm themselves, _every_ single time.
The work of Litta is an extremely fine and beautiful set of books, so
imposing that this is hardly the right word for them, although the lack of
specific source citations is a great pity. Chico Doria is expert in the
contents, unlike me. I hope he will return one day when he is able to spare
more time for medieval genealogy.
Peter Stewart
"Francisco Tavares de Almeida" <francisco.tavaresdealmeida@gmail.com> wrote
in message news:1187435498.784704.171330@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
If I should decide to leave the newsgroup once again, this will not be due
directly to the crook-duke Marco-Antoine-Jack-Adrian-Steven, nor to Hines,
Richardson or Brandon, all of whom are just extremely noisy static (in both
senses of the word): it will rather be because a silent majority of readers
for whom I take the trouble to provide information whenever I can have
chosen to tolerate and even indulge such people. My contempt for these
nuisances is nothing compared to loss of respect for others.
Eventually the pests will start to realise that I don't give up, and that
they won't get to snipe at decent newsgroup members without taking worse
harm themselves, _every_ single time.
The work of Litta is an extremely fine and beautiful set of books, so
imposing that this is hardly the right word for them, although the lack of
specific source citations is a great pity. Chico Doria is expert in the
contents, unlike me. I hope he will return one day when he is able to spare
more time for medieval genealogy.
Peter Stewart
"Francisco Tavares de Almeida" <francisco.tavaresdealmeida@gmail.com> wrote
in message news:1187435498.784704.171330@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
This re-edition of the very old same is getting worse than before.
Hines is clearly a lost case.
Long ago, around 1964 an agriculture engineer was the only in the
University Laboratory doing some special and crucial analysing of
soil. He was recalled to the army and in spite of the uproar rised he
was trained for one year and sent to Africa for two years as a
captain. In Bissau, the capital of Portuguese Guinea, he was in
command of some barracks that received the new arrived for a few days
until they went to their destinations and also those who had finished
the two years comission and were waiting the ship back to Europe.
I met him in 1966 and the cientist that the army could not dispense
with was counting matresses and verifying sheets and blankets. As I
knew him before I could evaluate the damage done to him.
Hines relapses are only the natural consequence of his duties in the
Navy, aggravated by the high expectancies created by the father's
career. As I said, a lost case.
Brandon is a different and simple case. If it was not for him and his
sort, europeans had no real reason to resent americans. Probably
generously helped by alcohol he feels he is right and has the right to
post whatever he pleases and abuse whoever he wish. But endowed with
little imagination, without Hines and Richardson we would become a
negligible nuisance.
I will not comment Richardson, because he must be countered in
specific points and Peter and others can deal with those while I can
not (unless the I-don't-remember-the-name returns from Turkey because
even to denounce some tricks and tactics my english fails me).
My main concern is the newly arrived crook-duke or cuckoo-duke and,
for the moment, the rightfull marquess of Sevennicks. Thanks to him,
Sardimpex is closed to public and if he succeeds in driving Peter
away, obviously his aim, who else could possibly know if a Litta's
citation was correct?
Peter, you have my whole support.
Francisco
On 18 Ago, 01:42, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"WJhonson" <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.765.1187397229.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 08/17/07 17:10:19 Pacific Standard Time,
p_m_stew...@msn.com writes:
Will who humour him.
--------------------------------------
I think what I'm doing is poking fun where I see it.
Not specifically humoring Hines
I don't see it as an "us versus them" sort of thing.
Hines is beyond the pale of humorous discourse, and you humoured him:
simple
as that.
If you think he deserves to be treated with impartiality, that refelction
on
you is also simple.
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%Awxi.22513$4A1.21457@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Hmmmmm...
Silly rabbit indeed.
But GREAT ENTERTAINMENT.
How Sweet It Is!
Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.
Enjoy!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
Exitus Acta Probat
Ex Scientia Tridens
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1187410133.700378.52550@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Well, as we all know:
Stewart's 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:
'Nuff Said.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
news:%Awxi.22513$4A1.21457@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Doesn't the US Navy have a support serivce [sic] for its mentally broken
and psychologically distressed ex-personnel?
Peter Stewart
--------------------------------------------
Hmmmmm...
Silly rabbit indeed.
But GREAT ENTERTAINMENT.
How Sweet It Is!
Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.
Enjoy!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
Exitus Acta Probat
Ex Scientia Tridens
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1187410133.700378.52550@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 17, 9:38 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Hines must be at his wit's end (i.e. his own fundament) if he is reduced
to copying and endorsing a message from the all-time champeen
ignoramus of the Jethro Clampett Insititue, their common alma mater.
This too will come back to bite him, like that pesky varmit "veritas".
Peter Stewart
The word is spelled "institute" not "institue." Silly rabbit.
DR
--------------------------------------------------------------
Well, as we all know:
Stewart's 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
'Nuff Said.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal
There is nothing more DEEEEEELIGHTFUL! than watching someone such as
Stewart, who is trying to correct someone else -- take an egregious pratfall
himself.
Great Entertainment!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
------------------------------------------------
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%Awxi.22513$4A1.21457@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Hmmmmm...
Silly rabbit indeed.
But GREAT ENTERTAINMENT.
How Sweet It Is!
Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.
Enjoy!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
Exitus Acta Probat
Ex Scientia Tridens
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1187410133.700378.52550@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Well, as we all know:
Stewart's 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:
'Nuff Said.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
Stewart, who is trying to correct someone else -- take an egregious pratfall
himself.
Great Entertainment!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
------------------------------------------------
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%Awxi.22513$4A1.21457@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Doesn't the US Navy have a support serivce [sic] for its mentally broken
and psychologically distressed ex-personnel?
Peter Stewart
--------------------------------------------
Hmmmmm...
Silly rabbit indeed.
But GREAT ENTERTAINMENT.
How Sweet It Is!
Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.
Enjoy!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
Exitus Acta Probat
Ex Scientia Tridens
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1187410133.700378.52550@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 17, 9:38 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Hines must be at his wit's end (i.e. his own fundament) if he is reduced
to copying and endorsing a message from the all-time champeen
ignoramus of the Jethro Clampett Insititue, their common alma mater.
This too will come back to bite him, like that pesky varmit "veritas".
Peter Stewart
The word is spelled "institute" not "institue." Silly rabbit.
DR
--------------------------------------------------------------
Well, as we all know:
Stewart's 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
'Nuff Said.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal
There is NOTHING more DEEEEEELIGHTFUL! than watching someone such as
Stewart, who is trying to correct someone else -- take an egregious pratfall
himself.
KAWHOMP!!!
Hoist With His Own Petar!
Jolly Good Show!
Great Entertainment!
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
"I don't care a twopenny damn what becomes of the ashes of Napoleon
Buonaparte." ---- Attributed to Arthur Wellesley, [1769-1852] Duke of
Wellington
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
John 5:14
Matthew 7:6
------------------------------------------------
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%Awxi.22513$4A1.21457@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Hmmmmm...
Silly rabbit indeed.
But GREAT ENTERTAINMENT.
How Sweet It Is!
Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.
Enjoy!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
Exitus Acta Probat
Ex Scientia Tridens
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1187410133.700378.52550@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Well, as we all know:
Stewart's 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:
'Nuff Said.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
Stewart, who is trying to correct someone else -- take an egregious pratfall
himself.
KAWHOMP!!!
Hoist With His Own Petar!
Jolly Good Show!
Great Entertainment!
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
"I don't care a twopenny damn what becomes of the ashes of Napoleon
Buonaparte." ---- Attributed to Arthur Wellesley, [1769-1852] Duke of
Wellington
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
John 5:14
Matthew 7:6
------------------------------------------------
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%Awxi.22513$4A1.21457@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Doesn't the US Navy have a support serivce [sic] for its mentally broken
and psychologically distressed ex-personnel?
Peter Stewart
--------------------------------------------
Hmmmmm...
Silly rabbit indeed.
But GREAT ENTERTAINMENT.
How Sweet It Is!
Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.
Enjoy!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
Exitus Acta Probat
Ex Scientia Tridens
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1187410133.700378.52550@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 17, 9:38 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Hines must be at his wit's end (i.e. his own fundament) if he is reduced
to copying and endorsing a message from the all-time champeen
ignoramus of the Jethro Clampett Insititue, their common alma mater.
This too will come back to bite him, like that pesky varmit "veritas".
Peter Stewart
The word is spelled "institute" not "institue." Silly rabbit.
DR
--------------------------------------------------------------
Well, as we all know:
Stewart's 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
'Nuff Said.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
-
Kelly Leighton
Re: Leek/Leake ancestry of HM The Queen
Pages 48-50 seem relevant to this discussion.
Kelly
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly Leighton" <kleigh1@cox.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Cc: "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: Leek/Leake ancestry of HM The Queen
Kelly
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly Leighton" <kleigh1@cox.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Cc: "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: Leek/Leake ancestry of HM The Queen
Listers,
I know that the first volume of Thoroton's work was available on
Googlebooks on the 14th of July 2007, because I downloaded it and am
looking at it now. 35.5 MB.
http://books.google.com/books?id=gz4uAA ... simon+leek
Take care,
Kelly in RI
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net
To: "Gen-Med" <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: Leek/Leake ancestry of HM The Queen
In addition to the snippet of the Leek family in the Hercy pedigree in
the
visitation of Nottinghamshire, there are two slightly more extensive
pedigrees of the family in "The Genealogist" [new series], 7:228-230,
apparently from a visitation of Derbyshire in 1569 and/or 1611. Although
these pedigrees have some of the same errors that Michael mentioned in
the
Notts visitation pedigree, they do agree as to the placement of John Leek
who mar. Alice Grey as the brother of Sir Simon Leek of Cotham who mar.
Joan
Talbot. No mention of a Ralph Leek. If so, John would indeed be a
nephew
of William Leek the MP as Roskell indicates, but a son rather than a
nephew
of Sir John the MP (who mar. Isabel Towers).
[For the sake of full disclosure, I must mention that the Derbyshire
pedigree has this interesting note added, apparently from the original
visitation: "To this descent Sir Francis Leeke is not willing to put his
hand, because he doubteth whether it be true or no although it were taken
from his father's relation the last Visitation." !!]
I can't readily check the sources that Roskell gives for his suggested
parentage of the younger John, but I wonder if perhaps he simply confused
a
reference to John son of Ralph and inferred that this was the John he was
looking for. I note that Thoroton's "Antiquities of Nottinghamshire",
vol.
1, has pedigree information on the family (although perhaps just the
Notts
branch), but I don't have access to it at present.
There is also a pedigree (unsourced) of the family in Simon Payling,
"Political Society in Lancastrian England: The Greater Gentry of
Nottinghamshire". It starts with Sir Simon (m. Margaret Vaux) and his
two
sons the MPs Sir John (m. Isabel Towers) and William (m. Avice Stockton).
For Sir John, it gives as children Simon (m. Joan Talbot), Margaret (m.
Foljambe and Rempston), and John, (m. Alice Grey). It continues John's
line
one generation to William who m. Katherine Chaworth.
As to the cadency mark for a second son in the arms of the father of Bess
of
Hardwick, the Derbyshire visitation pedigree says explicitly that Thomas
Leek of Hasland, father of Elizabeth who mar. John Hardwick, was the
second
son, not the first. If this is accurate, it would explain the cadency
mark
without having to go back a few more generations. Also, the pedigree in
Payling suggests by placement (although not explicitly stating it) that
John
Leek who mar. Alice Grey was also a second son - another explanation for
the
cadency mark which doesn't require that his possible father Ralph (per
Roskell) be a second son.
It's an interesting problem....
----- Original Message -----
From: <mjcar@btinternet.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 2:28 PM
Subject: Leek/Leake ancestry of HM The Queen
Paget's 1977 work on the ancestry of the present Royal Family provides
some details of the Leek/Leake family of Nottinghamshire.
However, one of the links appears to be incorrect.
The Leeks were ancestral to the Cavendish family, Dukes of Devonshire,
thus:
a. Thomas Leek of Hasland, had issue:
b. Elizabeth Leek, married John Hardwick; issue:
c. Elizabeth Hardwick - 'Bess of Hardwick', married (1) Robert Barlow,
(2) Sir William Cavendish, (3) Sir Willam St Loe, (4) Gilbert, 6th
Earl of Shrewsbury.
According to Paget, Thomas Leek was the son of William Leek, who was
son of John Leek and Alice Grey. He continues by stating that John
was son of an earlier Sir John Leek, of Cotham, Notts. This is
presumably based on the Leek details contained in the Hercy pedigree
in the Nottinghamshire Visitations. Unfortunately, this pedigree is
unreliable in a number of respects (eg it calls Sir John Leek's father
"Sir John" when he is known to have been named Simon; it states his
granddaughter Ann was a nun, whereas extant legal papers show she
married Richard Willoughby).
However, Roskell et al in 'History of Parliament 1386-1421', vol III
sub Leek, states that John (the grandfather of Thomas Leek) was the
son and heir of Ralph Leek, who was living in 1399. According to HoP,
John was "probably a nephew of Sir John Leek", and elsewhere it calls
him nephew of Sir John's younger brother, William Leek.
That there was a close family relationship is borne out by the legal
records linking the various Leeks in joint feoffeeships, sureties,
wardships etc. A further clue is offered by the heraldic evidence
from Bess of Hardwick's own tomb in Derby Cathedral.
This shows her parents' impaled coat of arms, with Hardwick impaling
Leek (argent, on a saltire engrailed sable, nine annulets or) which is
charged with a crescent for difference. This is the cadency mark for
a second son. We know that Bess's grandfather, Thomas Leek, was
eldest son of William, eldest son of John, eldest son of Ralph, so it
seems that the inference is Ralph was a second son.
If HoP is right in their tentative placement of this branch of the
Leeks, Ralph would be the second son of Sir Simon Leek by his wife
Margaret de Vaux, and brother of Sir John Leek, William Leek MP, and
Margaret, successively wife of Godfrey Foljambe and Sir Thomas
Rempston, KG.
MA-R
-------------------------------
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: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal
Dear Spencer,
Peter doubtless disagrees but generally speaking I
prefer the sound of silence to meaningless prattle such as this Hog wash is.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
PS Usually I prefer to keep silent which neither denotes agreement nor
disagreement. These are personal matters which should be handled off list.
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
Peter doubtless disagrees but generally speaking I
prefer the sound of silence to meaningless prattle such as this Hog wash is.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
PS Usually I prefer to keep silent which neither denotes agreement nor
disagreement. These are personal matters which should be handled off list.
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-
Gjest
Re: Somerset land grants by William
G'day Folks,
This is my first post to this group. I have a problem which I hope
that someone can resolve.
I am descended from the Stawell family. Oral tradition, plus
information that I located on a Web Site dealing with Somerset,
suggest that the earliest person of the family who has been
identified, is an Adam De Coveston, who supposedly was granted land
by William the Conqueror. I emailed to the contact person on that site
and have received no reply and the information appears to have been
removed. This suggests to me that they had picked up on some fairy
tale that they were unable to verify.
I have copies of the Falaise Roll and the Battle Abbey Roll and have
identified 3 people with the given name Adam, who appear in both
rolls. I have read the text associated with all three, in the Falaise
Roll and none of them appear to be associated with Somerset.
I have two copies of the Domesday Book and neither of them identify an
Adam associated with Stawell. I cannot remember, off the top of my
head, whether I have identified Coveston (or Cothelston, or any other
variation in spelling). in either version. One version (the Penquin
translation) is organised by name within each county. The other
version is a single volume version which is organised by location
name, within each county.
Does anyone have any knowledge of this Adam De Coveston or can you
point me to any readily available source where I can identify who he
was, so that I can extend the lineage further back. I have several
lines going back 3000 years and feel that he must tie in to at least
one of them.
Sorry that this first foray into this list is so long. I offer
sincere thanks to anyone who may be able to provide information to
resolve this dilemma.
Keep well and happy, as I am.
Happy Hunting
Rfer & Hue
Melbourne,
Victoria,
Australia.
This is my first post to this group. I have a problem which I hope
that someone can resolve.
I am descended from the Stawell family. Oral tradition, plus
information that I located on a Web Site dealing with Somerset,
suggest that the earliest person of the family who has been
identified, is an Adam De Coveston, who supposedly was granted land
by William the Conqueror. I emailed to the contact person on that site
and have received no reply and the information appears to have been
removed. This suggests to me that they had picked up on some fairy
tale that they were unable to verify.
I have copies of the Falaise Roll and the Battle Abbey Roll and have
identified 3 people with the given name Adam, who appear in both
rolls. I have read the text associated with all three, in the Falaise
Roll and none of them appear to be associated with Somerset.
I have two copies of the Domesday Book and neither of them identify an
Adam associated with Stawell. I cannot remember, off the top of my
head, whether I have identified Coveston (or Cothelston, or any other
variation in spelling). in either version. One version (the Penquin
translation) is organised by name within each county. The other
version is a single volume version which is organised by location
name, within each county.
Does anyone have any knowledge of this Adam De Coveston or can you
point me to any readily available source where I can identify who he
was, so that I can extend the lineage further back. I have several
lines going back 3000 years and feel that he must tie in to at least
one of them.
Sorry that this first foray into this list is so long. I offer
sincere thanks to anyone who may be able to provide information to
resolve this dilemma.
Keep well and happy, as I am.
Happy Hunting
Rfer & Hue
Melbourne,
Victoria,
Australia.
-
Gjest
Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve
John Plant wrote:
Specifically, in connection with my Y-DNA evidence for the Plant/Plantt
family, the easiest way to see it is to look at Table 1 in my Nomina 28
paper:
http://cogprints.org/5462/01/nomina_eprint.pdf
The matching Plants (known up to that time) are those above the dividing
line. The argument is very simple. The matching Plants have lines going
back to times such as: Ct USA 1646-91; VA USA c1655; Cheshire England
c1565. Their common ancestor must be before 1646. It is not known who
was the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of these matching Plants; but
vaguely it must have been "quite early" (before 1646, assuming the line
genealogies are correct). Nor is it known who exactly was the founding
father(s) of the Plant/Plantt surname. Some of the 13th century
documentary evidence for the Plant/Plantt byname/surname is summarised
in Appendix A of the same paper and there will be more about this in
Appendix D of my Nomina 30 paper.
An interesting paper. Like most contributors I have reservations about
the size of the data set and even more so about the rule of thumb
regarding modal families.
I accept that in what are essentially observational sciences one has to
be content with the data set one can get - I've been there myself as a
palaeoecologist and then as a forensic scientist. Frustrating as it may
be one simply has to tailor the strength of one's conclusions to the
strength of the material.
As regards the rule of thumb one could never eliminate the possibility
that some of the non-matches of the core group represent families of
completely separate origin. The strongest assessment of such a
situation would be "consistent with" or maybe just "not inconsistent
with".
One thing which struck me is that in the non-matching group you have two
individuals who are 10 distant from the original and a further
individual who is 9 distant from your mode. How distant are these from
each other? Are they, together with the individual at 12 distant,
another potential matching group?
In the non-matching group, each individual neither matches closely the
matching group nor any other in the non-matching group.
I observe that all three trace their
ancestry back to your core area of Cheshire/Derbyshire and yet only the
weakest match of your matching group can do so.
It is possible that others in the matching group may do so, just judging
by the general name distribution evidence. Before the nineteenth century,
most Plants were evidently clustered in Prestbury parish (east Cheshire)
and just to the south in Leek parish (north Staffordshire) which are large
rural parishes where the vital records are patchy; this tends to form a
barrier when trying to make links back to the main Plant homeland.
What I found most interesting, however, was the association with the
Warennes' holdings. I've noted an association in Yorkshire between the
God[d]ard surname and the Fitzwilliams' holdings. I'm a little cautious
because the FWs had quite a spread of holdings so there may be nothing
more than coincidence at work but it did strike me that the spread of
the surname may have in some way happened under their aegis. Have you
considered the possibility that such a mechanism may have been involved
with the Plants without there having been a genetic connections?
In Appendix D of my Nomina 30 paper, I develop this slightly to a
*possible* association with the interests of Maud Marshall leading on to
the Longspee and Warenne holdings, possibly including some sea trade
activities. I use this only, however, to illustrate that there were
adequate proximities for the possibility of some relevant cultural
interaction. This is just an aside and not the main theme of the paper.
John
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve
Hilarious!
Grasping At Straws...
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
<j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:mailman.803.1187469818.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Grasping At Straws...
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
<j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:mailman.803.1187469818.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
John Plant wrote:
What I found most interesting, however, was the association with the
Warennes' holdings. I've noted an association in Yorkshire between the
God[d]ard surname and the Fitzwilliams' holdings. I'm a little cautious
because the FWs had quite a spread of holdings so there may be nothing
more than coincidence at work but it did strike me that the spread of
the surname may have in some way happened under their aegis. Have you
considered the possibility that such a mechanism may have been involved
with the Plants without there having been a genetic connections?
In Appendix D of my Nomina 30 paper, I develop this slightly to a
*possible* association with the interests of Maud Marshall leading on to
the Longspee and Warenne holdings, possibly including some sea trade
activities. I use this only, however, to illustrate that there were
adequate proximities for the possibility of some relevant cultural
interaction. This is just an aside and not the main theme of the paper.
John
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal
Do you enjoy your own typos just as insanely, Hines?
"Bribane"? Hysterical.
What about " [the deceased Queen Mother ([2002)]"? Getting muddled over
parentheses must be a symptom of something beyond DEEEEELIGHT for you. If
only it hadn't been you who did it.....
A search of the archive for the apparently mutually exclusive terms "Hines"
and "Recte" will dredge up countless more, and they just the rare ones he
noted & corrected himself.
As for entertainment, EVERY single post from Hines advertises to anyone who
knows the first thing about Latin that HE doesn't.
His slogan "Lux et Veritas et Libertas" is meant to state literally "Light,
Truth and Liberty", or more loosely "Enlightenment, Integrity and Freedom
(of speech)". The actual guiding ideals for Hines are, of course, Nox,
Mendacitas, Licentia (Obscurity, Falsehood, Licentiousness).
Even in English it would be clumsy to write out "Light and Truth and
Liberty", but Latin especially avoids repetition of the conjunction "et".
Examples can be found, mostly from stupid, ill-educated and semi-literate
scribes, but then correcting an error was not so practicable or easy with
parchment and quill as with screen and keyboard. Hines hasn't managed it
after years, and following repeated advice.
This is a telling sign of his mental fracture and psychological
helplessness: he can't bear to correct himself now as that too would
advertise (though only to those who don't already realise it) that he has
been mistaken on such a basic point and stubborn in his error for many
years. He is an incompetent poseur.
Deeply pathetic. But what can be expected from someone who still hasn't
twigged that he can only sink deeper with every single post?
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:5yFxi.3$Jp2.153@eagle.america.net...
"Bribane"? Hysterical.
What about " [the deceased Queen Mother ([2002)]"? Getting muddled over
parentheses must be a symptom of something beyond DEEEEELIGHT for you. If
only it hadn't been you who did it.....
A search of the archive for the apparently mutually exclusive terms "Hines"
and "Recte" will dredge up countless more, and they just the rare ones he
noted & corrected himself.
As for entertainment, EVERY single post from Hines advertises to anyone who
knows the first thing about Latin that HE doesn't.
His slogan "Lux et Veritas et Libertas" is meant to state literally "Light,
Truth and Liberty", or more loosely "Enlightenment, Integrity and Freedom
(of speech)". The actual guiding ideals for Hines are, of course, Nox,
Mendacitas, Licentia (Obscurity, Falsehood, Licentiousness).
Even in English it would be clumsy to write out "Light and Truth and
Liberty", but Latin especially avoids repetition of the conjunction "et".
Examples can be found, mostly from stupid, ill-educated and semi-literate
scribes, but then correcting an error was not so practicable or easy with
parchment and quill as with screen and keyboard. Hines hasn't managed it
after years, and following repeated advice.
This is a telling sign of his mental fracture and psychological
helplessness: he can't bear to correct himself now as that too would
advertise (though only to those who don't already realise it) that he has
been mistaken on such a basic point and stubborn in his error for many
years. He is an incompetent poseur.
Deeply pathetic. But what can be expected from someone who still hasn't
twigged that he can only sink deeper with every single post?
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:5yFxi.3$Jp2.153@eagle.america.net...
There is nothing more DEEEEEELIGHTFUL! than watching someone such as
Stewart, who is trying to correct someone else -- take an egregious
pratfall himself.
Great Entertainment!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
------------------------------------------------
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%Awxi.22513$4A1.21457@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Doesn't the US Navy have a support serivce [sic] for its mentally broken
and psychologically distressed ex-personnel?
Peter Stewart
--------------------------------------------
Hmmmmm...
Silly rabbit indeed.
But GREAT ENTERTAINMENT.
How Sweet It Is!
Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.
Enjoy!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
Exitus Acta Probat
Ex Scientia Tridens
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1187410133.700378.52550@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 17, 9:38 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Hines must be at his wit's end (i.e. his own fundament) if he is reduced
to copying and endorsing a message from the all-time champeen
ignoramus of the Jethro Clampett Insititue, their common alma mater.
This too will come back to bite him, like that pesky varmit "veritas".
Peter Stewart
The word is spelled "institute" not "institue." Silly rabbit.
DR
--------------------------------------------------------------
Well, as we all know:
Stewart's 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
'Nuff Said.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt.,and Wale
<Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.801.1187467613.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
These matters can't be handled off-list, James - I would not share my
private email address with Hines on any inducement whatsoever, and since he
attacks me here I will reply here, every time until it finally dawns on him
that the only way out of his public humilitation is to desist.
The longer this takes, the more unmistakable the gauge of his foolishness to
inattentive people like Dolores who didn't twig from the start.
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.801.1187467613.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Dear Spencer,
Peter doubtless disagrees but generally speaking I
prefer the sound of silence to meaningless prattle such as this Hog wash
is.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
PS Usually I prefer to keep silent which neither denotes agreement nor
disagreement. These are personal matters which should be handled off list.
These matters can't be handled off-list, James - I would not share my
private email address with Hines on any inducement whatsoever, and since he
attacks me here I will reply here, every time until it finally dawns on him
that the only way out of his public humilitation is to desist.
The longer this takes, the more unmistakable the gauge of his foolishness to
inattentive people like Dolores who didn't twig from the start.
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Royal & Noble Bastard Descents -- A Fertile Subject
There are many Brits, millions of them, and Australians, South Africans,
Canadians, New Zealanders and Americans as well -- who are
DESCENDANTS of Bastards -- but NOT bastards THEMSELVES.
For Example:
Millions of folks are descendants of William de Longespee, Earl of
Salisbury, who was a bastard of King Henry II. William was born circa 1170
and died in 1226 and was a famous warrior and very competent fellow.
Presidents George Washington and Franklin Delano Roosevelt are both
descendants of William de Longespee.
Washington is a 16th great-grandson of William de Longespee, FDR is a 21st
great-grandson ---- and Queen Elizabeth II is a 22nd great-granddaughter.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_de_Longespee,_3rd_Earl_of_Salisbury>
The story of William de Longespee and the rat is a charming one --
delightfully British and outré.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Illegitimatis Non Carborundum
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
Canadians, New Zealanders and Americans as well -- who are
DESCENDANTS of Bastards -- but NOT bastards THEMSELVES.
For Example:
Millions of folks are descendants of William de Longespee, Earl of
Salisbury, who was a bastard of King Henry II. William was born circa 1170
and died in 1226 and was a famous warrior and very competent fellow.
Presidents George Washington and Franklin Delano Roosevelt are both
descendants of William de Longespee.
Washington is a 16th great-grandson of William de Longespee, FDR is a 21st
great-grandson ---- and Queen Elizabeth II is a 22nd great-granddaughter.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_de_Longespee,_3rd_Earl_of_Salisbury>
The story of William de Longespee and the rat is a charming one --
delightfully British and outré.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Illegitimatis Non Carborundum
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
-
Gjest
Re: The le Brun family of Bothel & Torpenhow in Cumberland
Tim,
The witness Patrick le Brun at
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/documentxs ... esheet=xsl\
A2A_com.xsl&keyword=Patrick%20le%20Brun&properties=0601
(PRO; A2A; Cumbria Record Office, Carlisle Headquarters: Mounsey-Heysham
Family;
Reference: DMH 10/1/2)
Is perhaps the same Patrick Brun, but I'm not sure if that is much help.
Adrian
Timothy J. Cartmell wrote;
In a message dated 18/08/2007 21:29:01 GMT Standard Time, inver1000@yahoo.ca
writes:
<snip?
In closing, would anyone have other source documentation which may help
confirm or reject the placement of the said unknown Patric(k) Bruns and/or
Richard (le) Brun(e) within this family?
Through the last le Brun co-heiress, Margaret and Elena, this le Brun family
would be, I believe, ancestors of the Curwens of Workington, and Haringtons
of Farleton.
Thanks,
Timothy J. Cartmell
The witness Patrick le Brun at
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/documentxs ... esheet=xsl\
A2A_com.xsl&keyword=Patrick%20le%20Brun&properties=0601
(PRO; A2A; Cumbria Record Office, Carlisle Headquarters: Mounsey-Heysham
Family;
Reference: DMH 10/1/2)
Is perhaps the same Patrick Brun, but I'm not sure if that is much help.
Adrian
Timothy J. Cartmell wrote;
In a message dated 18/08/2007 21:29:01 GMT Standard Time, inver1000@yahoo.ca
writes:
<snip?
In closing, would anyone have other source documentation which may help
confirm or reject the placement of the said unknown Patric(k) Bruns and/or
Richard (le) Brun(e) within this family?
Through the last le Brun co-heiress, Margaret and Elena, this le Brun family
would be, I believe, ancestors of the Curwens of Workington, and Haringtons
of Farleton.
Thanks,
Timothy J. Cartmell
-
M. de la Fayette
RE: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal
COME BACK TO AUSTRALIA; POMPOUS IDIOT
LEAVE THIS PLACE AND STOP TO BOTHER US WITH YOUR RIDICULOUS BEING
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Peter Stewart
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 1:48 AM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt.,and Waleran
de Luxembour...
<Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.801.1187467613.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
These matters can't be handled off-list, James - I would not share my
private email address with Hines on any inducement whatsoever, and since
he
attacks me here I will reply here, every time until it finally dawns on
him
that the only way out of his public humilitation is to desist.
The longer this takes, the more unmistakable the gauge of his
foolishness to
inattentive people like Dolores who didn't twig from the start.
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
LEAVE THIS PLACE AND STOP TO BOTHER US WITH YOUR RIDICULOUS BEING
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Peter Stewart
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 1:48 AM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt.,and Waleran
de Luxembour...
<Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.801.1187467613.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Dear Spencer,
Peter doubtless disagrees but generally speaking
I prefer the sound of silence to meaningless prattle such as this Hog
wash is.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
PS Usually I prefer to keep silent which neither denotes agreement
nor disagreement. These are personal matters which should be handled
off list.
These matters can't be handled off-list, James - I would not share my
private email address with Hines on any inducement whatsoever, and since
he
attacks me here I will reply here, every time until it finally dawns on
him
that the only way out of his public humilitation is to desist.
The longer this takes, the more unmistakable the gauge of his
foolishness to
inattentive people like Dolores who didn't twig from the start.
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
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal
Learn some basic English..................COME BACK TO AUSTRALIA when he
already is there
it shows us who is the idiot.
----- Original Message -----
From: "M. de la Fayette" <Fayette@hotmail.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 11:24 AM
Subject: RE: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt.,and Waleran de
Luxembour...
already is there
it shows us who is the idiot.
----- Original Message -----
From: "M. de la Fayette" <Fayette@hotmail.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 11:24 AM
Subject: RE: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt.,and Waleran de
Luxembour...
COME BACK TO AUSTRALIA; POMPOUS IDIOT
LEAVE THIS PLACE AND STOP TO BOTHER US WITH YOUR RIDICULOUS BEING
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Peter Stewart
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 1:48 AM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt.,and Waleran
de Luxembour...
Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.801.1187467613.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Dear Spencer,
Peter doubtless disagrees but generally speaking
I prefer the sound of silence to meaningless prattle such as this Hog
wash is.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
PS Usually I prefer to keep silent which neither denotes agreement
nor disagreement. These are personal matters which should be handled
off list.
These matters can't be handled off-list, James - I would not share my
private email address with Hines on any inducement whatsoever, and since
he
attacks me here I will reply here, every time until it finally dawns on
him
that the only way out of his public humilitation is to desist.
The longer this takes, the more unmistakable the gauge of his
foolishness to
inattentive people like Dolores who didn't twig from the start.
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
-------------------------------
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
-
Paul Mackenzie
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Hi All:
I agree with what Elizabeth has said. I totally support Peter in his
dealings with these attacks. Furthermore, I would like to say thank you
to Peter for his generous insights on genealogical matters he has given
to me and others over the years. Peter's knowledge is a resource we
should not lose.
Paul
On 18 Aug., 07:38, Elizabeth Moss <macb...@webaxs.net> wrote:
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
Elizabeth
I second everything you have written. We are very fortunate to have
people like Peter who very generously encourage and inform. I am
sorry that you, and Fred, have been subjected to the typical ad
hominem attacks from the bugs, and trust that you will appreciate they
carry no value whatsoever. I hope you will continue to enjoy the
group, and post when you can.
Kind regards, Michael
Hi All:
I agree with what Elizabeth has said. I totally support Peter in his
dealings with these attacks. Furthermore, I would like to say thank you
to Peter for his generous insights on genealogical matters he has given
to me and others over the years. Peter's knowledge is a resource we
should not lose.
Paul
-
M. de la Fayette
RE: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
"Peter's knowledge is a resource we
should not lose.
Paul"
Good luck, Paul!
should not lose.
Paul"
Good luck, Paul!
-
Gjest
Re: Cobb Site: Ambrose COBBS and ANN WHITE / source
In a message dated 8/18/2007 6:44:06 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
doloresc.phifer@comcast.net writes:
He merely published their findings. My copy of the book is now packed away,
but the sources were cited. Be reminded, this research was done before
computers, which means the researchers had to actually find and examine the
original documents. But I would not begin to doubt the research done for Cully's
book. Before he published the work, Cully went to England and used the book
as a virtual travel guide. He found everything exactly where it was claimed
to be.
------------------
Sorry dolores this doesn't fly. Let's first note how urgently Mike states
that case, that's a big red flag right there. A genealogist has doubts, they
don't believe every book they read.
The book however might be a good place to *start*, but its a very bad place
to *finish*.
Will Johnson
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
doloresc.phifer@comcast.net writes:
He merely published their findings. My copy of the book is now packed away,
but the sources were cited. Be reminded, this research was done before
computers, which means the researchers had to actually find and examine the
original documents. But I would not begin to doubt the research done for Cully's
book. Before he published the work, Cully went to England and used the book
as a virtual travel guide. He found everything exactly where it was claimed
to be.
------------------
Sorry dolores this doesn't fly. Let's first note how urgently Mike states
that case, that's a big red flag right there. A genealogist has doubts, they
don't believe every book they read.
The book however might be a good place to *start*, but its a very bad place
to *finish*.
Will Johnson
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
"M. de la Fayette" <Fayette@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.819.1187489130.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Well, fancy that - for once I can agree with "M. de la Fayette", perhaps for
all I know with each and every one of him.
Paul Mackenzie, needless to say, is a real person and a real gentleman, who
doesn't depend on anyone else's knowledge, as his own posts show from the
formidable depth of his own research. He also doesn't resort to fantasy and
wishful thinking in genealogy, unlike "Duke" Marco who presides over the
"genmarenostrum" website about which we are constantly reminded by his
cohort of phoney identities.
Thanks, Paul. As you are one of the few SGM participants I have had the
pleasure of meeting, it is always gratifying to hear your views.
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.819.1187489130.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
"Peter's knowledge is a resource we
should not lose.
Paul"
Good luck, Paul!
Well, fancy that - for once I can agree with "M. de la Fayette", perhaps for
all I know with each and every one of him.
Paul Mackenzie, needless to say, is a real person and a real gentleman, who
doesn't depend on anyone else's knowledge, as his own posts show from the
formidable depth of his own research. He also doesn't resort to fantasy and
wishful thinking in genealogy, unlike "Duke" Marco who presides over the
"genmarenostrum" website about which we are constantly reminded by his
cohort of phoney identities.
Thanks, Paul. As you are one of the few SGM participants I have had the
pleasure of meeting, it is always gratifying to hear your views.
Peter Stewart
-
alden@mindspring.com
Re: The le Brun family of Bothel & Torpenhow in Cumberland
On Aug 18, 7:50 pm, ADRIANCHANNIN...@aol.com wrote:
Also see:
'Parishes: Bewcastle - Brigham', Magna Britannia: volume 4: Cumberland
(1816), pp. 26-40. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=50680.
Date accessed: 19 August 2007.
for a Bowet heiress as well.
Doug Smith
Tim,
The witness Patrick le Brun at
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/documentxs ... 2&styles...
A2A_com.xsl&keyword=Patrick%20le%20Brun&properties=0601
(PRO; A2A; Cumbria Record Office, Carlisle Headquarters: Mounsey-Heysham
Family;
Reference: DMH 10/1/2)
Is perhaps the same Patrick Brun, but I'm not sure if that is much help.
Adrian
Timothy J. Cartmell wrote;
In a message dated 18/08/2007 21:29:01 GMT Standard Time, inver1...@yahoo.ca
writes:
snip?
In closing, would anyone have other source documentation which may help
confirm or reject the placement of the said unknown Patric(k) Bruns and/or
Richard (le) Brun(e) within this family?
Through the last le Brun co-heiress, Margaret and Elena, this le Brun family
would be, I believe, ancestors of the Curwens of Workington, and Haringtons
of Farleton.
Thanks,
Timothy J. Cartmell
Also see:
'Parishes: Bewcastle - Brigham', Magna Britannia: volume 4: Cumberland
(1816), pp. 26-40. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=50680.
Date accessed: 19 August 2007.
for a Bowet heiress as well.
Doug Smith
-
Roger LeBlanc
Re: Fun and games medieval style
Peter Stewart wrote:
October/November of 2006, leaving no doubt that she was daughter of
Odo/Otto II de Chiny. Am I mistaken?
Roger LeBlanc
"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.761.1187393950.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
The confusing part (for me) is that Godefroid has no daughter
Ida, he has 1st marriage Elisabeth and Flandrine 2nd marriage
Clemence, Adele/Ermesinde and Beatrice. Also I don't see a
Godfrey I of Louvain in that period. Perhaps this Godfrey I of
Louvain was known by another name?
You may have him as Godfrey I of Brabant, aka Godfrey the Bearded - he was
count of Louvain from 1095, then became duke of Lower Lorrain (that is,
Brabant) from 1104. The family of his wife Ida is not certain, it is thought
that she was probably a daughter of Odo II, count of Chiny by Adelais/Alix
of Namur (who was a sister of the Godefroid above).
Peter Stewart
I thought the identity of Ida was hammered out on the list in
October/November of 2006, leaving no doubt that she was daughter of
Odo/Otto II de Chiny. Am I mistaken?
Roger LeBlanc
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Fun and games medieval style
"Roger LeBlanc" <leblancr@mts.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.822.1187497711.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Your memory is correct, Roger - the thread (another marathon, of 76 posts)
is at
http://groups.google.com.au/group/soc.g ... f738f09996
and the most relevant discussion of clear evidence gets underway from
message #42 on 6 November last year. I haven't got round to looking into it
further so far, and certainty for me about the Chiny connection had very
nearly but not quite reached 100% when I considered it last year.
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.822.1187497711.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.761.1187393950.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
The confusing part (for me) is that Godefroid has no daughter
Ida, he has 1st marriage Elisabeth and Flandrine 2nd marriage
Clemence, Adele/Ermesinde and Beatrice. Also I don't see a
Godfrey I of Louvain in that period. Perhaps this Godfrey I of
Louvain was known by another name?
You may have him as Godfrey I of Brabant, aka Godfrey the Bearded - he was
count of Louvain from 1095, then became duke of Lower Lorrain (that is,
Brabant) from 1104. The family of his wife Ida is not certain, it is
thought that she was probably a daughter of Odo II, count of Chiny by
Adelais/Alix of Namur (who was a sister of the Godefroid above).
Peter Stewart
I thought the identity of Ida was hammered out on the list in
October/November of 2006, leaving no doubt that she was daughter of
Odo/Otto II de Chiny. Am I mistaken?
Your memory is correct, Roger - the thread (another marathon, of 76 posts)
is at
http://groups.google.com.au/group/soc.g ... f738f09996
and the most relevant discussion of clear evidence gets underway from
message #42 on 6 November last year. I haven't got round to looking into it
further so far, and certainty for me about the Chiny connection had very
nearly but not quite reached 100% when I considered it last year.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: For Peter Stewart
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.823.1187498342.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
A2A and Procat are scarcely useful resources for European genalogy that
interests Roger, and Google Books is a very mixed blessing: many works that
are open for "full view" in the USA cannot be accessed by readers elsewhere
(except through a proxifier), the digitisations are very frequently botched,
sets are sometimes not complete, the editions of primary sources are (though
not as often) obsolete, and modern scholarship is almost never available
beyond a "snippet view". Hardly a useful library for medieval genealogy at
the researcher's fingertips.
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.823.1187498342.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 8/18/2007 9:14:42 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
leblancr@mts.net writes:
I have virtually no access to useful
source material, so can contribute little on that front, but I am very
interested in medieval history and genealogy
------------------
With the online records of A2A, Procat and especially Google books, now
no
one can claim that any longer.
A2A and Procat are scarcely useful resources for European genalogy that
interests Roger, and Google Books is a very mixed blessing: many works that
are open for "full view" in the USA cannot be accessed by readers elsewhere
(except through a proxifier), the digitisations are very frequently botched,
sets are sometimes not complete, the editions of primary sources are (though
not as often) obsolete, and modern scholarship is almost never available
beyond a "snippet view". Hardly a useful library for medieval genealogy at
the researcher's fingertips.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Fun and games medieval style
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:DeQxi.22774$4A1.21243@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
I should add that the small lingering doubt over this is whether Adelais of
Namur, who was the mother of Bishop Adalbero II of Liège and his sister Ida,
might have been married to another, unknown, husband (who was their father)
before Count Odo II of Chiny. The chronology of her parents' and siblings'
marriages would allow for this possibility, but there is no direct evidence
for it as far as I am aware.
Peter Stewart
news:DeQxi.22774$4A1.21243@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Roger LeBlanc" <leblancr@mts.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.822.1187497711.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.761.1187393950.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
The confusing part (for me) is that Godefroid has no daughter
Ida, he has 1st marriage Elisabeth and Flandrine 2nd marriage
Clemence, Adele/Ermesinde and Beatrice. Also I don't see a
Godfrey I of Louvain in that period. Perhaps this Godfrey I of
Louvain was known by another name?
You may have him as Godfrey I of Brabant, aka Godfrey the Bearded - he
was count of Louvain from 1095, then became duke of Lower Lorrain (that
is, Brabant) from 1104. The family of his wife Ida is not certain, it is
thought that she was probably a daughter of Odo II, count of Chiny by
Adelais/Alix of Namur (who was a sister of the Godefroid above).
Peter Stewart
I thought the identity of Ida was hammered out on the list in
October/November of 2006, leaving no doubt that she was daughter of
Odo/Otto II de Chiny. Am I mistaken?
Your memory is correct, Roger - the thread (another marathon, of 76 posts)
is at
http://groups.google.com.au/group/soc.g ... f738f09996
and the most relevant discussion of clear evidence gets underway from
message #42 on 6 November last year. I haven't got round to looking into
it further so far, and certainty for me about the Chiny connection had
very nearly but not quite reached 100% when I considered it last year.
I should add that the small lingering doubt over this is whether Adelais of
Namur, who was the mother of Bishop Adalbero II of Liège and his sister Ida,
might have been married to another, unknown, husband (who was their father)
before Count Odo II of Chiny. The chronology of her parents' and siblings'
marriages would allow for this possibility, but there is no direct evidence
for it as far as I am aware.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: For Peter Stewart
In a message dated 8/18/2007 9:14:42 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
leblancr@mts.net writes:
I have virtually no access to useful
source material, so can contribute little on that front, but I am very
interested in medieval history and genealogy
------------------
With the online records of A2A, Procat and especially Google books, now no
one can claim that any longer.
Will
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
leblancr@mts.net writes:
I have virtually no access to useful
source material, so can contribute little on that front, but I am very
interested in medieval history and genealogy
------------------
With the online records of A2A, Procat and especially Google books, now no
one can claim that any longer.
Will
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-
Peter Stewart
Re: For Peter Stewart
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.825.1187501572.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
That's true, where the texts have been added to Google Books (that is not a
systematic project by any means), but the editorial glosses can be
misleading without the benefit of more recent studies.
For instance, Merilyn yesterday asked a most interesting question that I am
delving to answer, in the thread "Fun and games medieval style", as to
whether there were two repudiated marriages involving Ada of Marle, wife of
Enguerrand I de Boves, seigneur of Coucy & count of Amiens. I think the
answer is probably No, but it will take a while yet for me to establish this
and post about it.
However, virtually all authorities from the 16th century until the late 20th
stated as fact the one repudiation that I think may not have happened, while
passing over the one that did. This seems to be entirely a matter of
interpretation from a single source, but you would not realise this from
notes in the editions online or indeed others (down to 1981 at least) that
are not yet available.
The points that are easiest to glean from medieval sources are already a
matter of common knowledge, and don't tend to come up for discussion on SGM.
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.825.1187501572.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 8/18/2007 10:20:31 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
the editions of primary sources are (though
not as often) obsolete, and modern scholarship is almost never available
beyond a "snippet view".
------------------
But still it's something, versus the nothing that existed before.
Many primary sources exist in older translations, that can still be
quoted.
That's true, where the texts have been added to Google Books (that is not a
systematic project by any means), but the editorial glosses can be
misleading without the benefit of more recent studies.
For instance, Merilyn yesterday asked a most interesting question that I am
delving to answer, in the thread "Fun and games medieval style", as to
whether there were two repudiated marriages involving Ada of Marle, wife of
Enguerrand I de Boves, seigneur of Coucy & count of Amiens. I think the
answer is probably No, but it will take a while yet for me to establish this
and post about it.
However, virtually all authorities from the 16th century until the late 20th
stated as fact the one repudiation that I think may not have happened, while
passing over the one that did. This seems to be entirely a matter of
interpretation from a single source, but you would not realise this from
notes in the editions online or indeed others (down to 1981 at least) that
are not yet available.
The points that are easiest to glean from medieval sources are already a
matter of common knowledge, and don't tend to come up for discussion on SGM.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: For Peter Stewart
In a message dated 8/18/2007 10:20:31 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
the editions of primary sources are (though
not as often) obsolete, and modern scholarship is almost never available
beyond a "snippet view".
------------------
But still it's something, versus the nothing that existed before.
Many primary sources exist in older translations, that can still be quoted.
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
the editions of primary sources are (though
not as often) obsolete, and modern scholarship is almost never available
beyond a "snippet view".
------------------
But still it's something, versus the nothing that existed before.
Many primary sources exist in older translations, that can still be quoted.
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-
Gjest
Re: Somerset land grants by William
On 18 Aug., 22:41, arth...@alphalink.com.au wrote:
G'day, Rfer.
Keats-Rohan, 'Domesday Descendants', p 413 has details as follows:
Adam de Covestone, son of Geoffrey I de Covestone, and father of
Geoffrey II de Covestone, who held his grandfather's fee of the abbot
of Glastonsbury in 1166.
Chronologically, it would therefore seem extremely unlikely that Adam
was active at the time of the Conquest, or received land from William
I.
Is this a typo for 300? No human genealogy is provable further than
some 1600 years, so any 3000 year genealogy is not valid.
Regards, Michael
G'day Folks,
This is my first post to this group. I have a problem which I hope
that someone can resolve.
Does anyone have any knowledge of this Adam De Coveston or can you
point me to any readily available source where I can identify who he
was, so that I can extend the lineage further back.
G'day, Rfer.
Keats-Rohan, 'Domesday Descendants', p 413 has details as follows:
Adam de Covestone, son of Geoffrey I de Covestone, and father of
Geoffrey II de Covestone, who held his grandfather's fee of the abbot
of Glastonsbury in 1166.
Chronologically, it would therefore seem extremely unlikely that Adam
was active at the time of the Conquest, or received land from William
I.
I have several
lines going back 3000 years and feel that he must tie in to at least
one of them.
Is this a typo for 300? No human genealogy is provable further than
some 1600 years, so any 3000 year genealogy is not valid.
Regards, Michael
-
Steven Loyd
RE: For Peter Stewart
Dear Roger,
Speaking for myself, I' have little interest to question, here, about
the quality of "Stewart" contributions.
Me (and much more peoples on this list) are questioning his BEHAVIOR:
his arrogance, pomposity, impoliteness etc. etc that characterize his
replies, and that is undoubtfull.
If you find correct that "Stewart" (or any other) can be free to
systematically treat other peoples like garbage .... Good luck to you
too!
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Roger LeBlanc
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 6:15 AM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: For Peter Stewart
Speaking only for myself, I just want to say that I don't feel
comfortable criticizing members of this list whose credentials/standing
I don't know the first thing about. I have virtually no access to useful
source material, so can contribute little on that front, but I am very
interested in medieval history and genealogy, so that's why I keep
reading this group, hoping it may someday live up to its potential and
become a genuine "discussion" group.
Peter's participation here has been tremendously beneficial to me. He
often is the only member who replies to my postings (as with the recent
Simon de Montforts thread), and I think his helpfulness and genuine
interest must be self-evident to every reader here. For those who think
otherwise, they are free to hit the delete key (as I often do with a
couple of the posters which I have come to learn will have nothing of
interest to me). That being said I think those who would delete Peter's
contributions without reading them can't be very serious about the
subject.
Roger LeBlanc
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor:
Comunicazione NON verbale: impara il linguaggio del corpo e ottieni successo nella vita e negli affari
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6931&d=19-8
Speaking for myself, I' have little interest to question, here, about
the quality of "Stewart" contributions.
Me (and much more peoples on this list) are questioning his BEHAVIOR:
his arrogance, pomposity, impoliteness etc. etc that characterize his
replies, and that is undoubtfull.
If you find correct that "Stewart" (or any other) can be free to
systematically treat other peoples like garbage .... Good luck to you
too!
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Roger LeBlanc
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 6:15 AM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: For Peter Stewart
Speaking only for myself, I just want to say that I don't feel
comfortable criticizing members of this list whose credentials/standing
I don't know the first thing about. I have virtually no access to useful
source material, so can contribute little on that front, but I am very
interested in medieval history and genealogy, so that's why I keep
reading this group, hoping it may someday live up to its potential and
become a genuine "discussion" group.
Peter's participation here has been tremendously beneficial to me. He
often is the only member who replies to my postings (as with the recent
Simon de Montforts thread), and I think his helpfulness and genuine
interest must be self-evident to every reader here. For those who think
otherwise, they are free to hit the delete key (as I often do with a
couple of the posters which I have come to learn will have nothing of
interest to me). That being said I think those who would delete Peter's
contributions without reading them can't be very serious about the
subject.
Roger LeBlanc
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor:
Comunicazione NON verbale: impara il linguaggio del corpo e ottieni successo nella vita e negli affari
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6931&d=19-8
-
Gjest
Re: For Peter Stewart
On 19 Aug., 11:57, "Steven Loyd" <and...@email.it> wrote:
Unfortunately, it is blindingly obvious that the "much more peoples"
are also you. And the only reason you complain about Peter Stewart is
because he has shown you up.
It is downright dishonest to post under a range of pseudonyms.
I am irresistably reminded of someone else, about as welcome as you,
who said "My name is Legion, for we are many". Hopefully, there is a
spare swine or two waiting for your next incarnation.
Good bye,
MA-R
Dear Roger,
Speaking for myself, I' have little interest to question, here, about
the quality of "Stewart" contributions.
Me (and much more peoples on this list) are questioning his BEHAVIOR:
Unfortunately, it is blindingly obvious that the "much more peoples"
are also you. And the only reason you complain about Peter Stewart is
because he has shown you up.
It is downright dishonest to post under a range of pseudonyms.
I am irresistably reminded of someone else, about as welcome as you,
who said "My name is Legion, for we are many". Hopefully, there is a
spare swine or two waiting for your next incarnation.
Good bye,
MA-R
-
bobandcarole
Re: Sexual fascism and the Mark Foley scandel
Apparently, Rep. Mark Foley is homosexual. And like many homosexual
men, he has pedophilic tendencies. We should pray for him that he
gets a handle on this problem and refrains from harming any more
kids.
Meanwhile, we need to wake up. The fact that this is typical
behavior for homosexuals doesn't stop us from continuing to elevate
such folks to positions where they gain access to our kids.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.a ... E_ID=52244
men, he has pedophilic tendencies. We should pray for him that he
gets a handle on this problem and refrains from harming any more
kids.
Meanwhile, we need to wake up. The fact that this is typical
behavior for homosexuals doesn't stop us from continuing to elevate
such folks to positions where they gain access to our kids.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.a ... E_ID=52244
-
M. de la Fayette
RE: For Peter Stewart
I'm afraid you are completely wrong.
Check in this same list the dozens of posts under the title "Restoring
civilities to this list" and you can see those "much more peoples".
And about the alleged "multiple identities" I declare that I'm using
nicknames .... And what about you..? Dear MA-R?
In my knowledge you could much possibly be "one more" ..."Stewart"!
Regards
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of
mjcar@btinternet.com
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 2:39 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: For Peter Stewart
On 19 Aug., 11:57, "Steven Loyd" <and...@email.it> wrote:
Unfortunately, it is blindingly obvious that the "much more peoples" are
also you. And the only reason you complain about Peter Stewart is
because he has shown you up.
It is downright dishonest to post under a range of pseudonyms.
I am irresistably reminded of someone else, about as welcome as you, who
said "My name is Legion, for we are many". Hopefully, there is a spare
swine or two waiting for your next incarnation.
Good bye,
MA-R
-------------------------------
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
Check in this same list the dozens of posts under the title "Restoring
civilities to this list" and you can see those "much more peoples".
And about the alleged "multiple identities" I declare that I'm using
nicknames .... And what about you..? Dear MA-R?
In my knowledge you could much possibly be "one more" ..."Stewart"!
Regards
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of
mjcar@btinternet.com
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 2:39 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: For Peter Stewart
On 19 Aug., 11:57, "Steven Loyd" <and...@email.it> wrote:
Dear Roger,
Speaking for myself, I' have little interest to question, here, about
the quality of "Stewart" contributions.
Me (and much more peoples on this list) are questioning his BEHAVIOR:
Unfortunately, it is blindingly obvious that the "much more peoples" are
also you. And the only reason you complain about Peter Stewart is
because he has shown you up.
It is downright dishonest to post under a range of pseudonyms.
I am irresistably reminded of someone else, about as welcome as you, who
said "My name is Legion, for we are many". Hopefully, there is a spare
swine or two waiting for your next incarnation.
Good bye,
MA-R
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt.,and Wale
Peter Stewart wrote:
why not ... make that address "stewarthateshines666@yahoo.com" and
you can always just stop visiting it!
Hines could do the same, make a special email place just for your feud.
And also the more unmistakeable your idiotic anti-Hines ravings are.
Both you and Hines often have useful things to say, you the more often
about actual genealogical facts. But Hines does often attack,
fairly, people who are simply ludicrously wrong.
SHUT UP, both of you, in your silly feud.
Doug McDonald
These matters can't be handled off-list, James - I would not share my
private email address with Hines on any inducement whatsoever,
why not ... make that address "stewarthateshines666@yahoo.com" and
you can always just stop visiting it!
Hines could do the same, make a special email place just for your feud.
and since he
attacks me here I will reply here, every time until it finally dawns on him
that the only way out of his public humilitation is to desist.
The longer this takes, the more unmistakable the gauge of his foolishness to
inattentive people like Dolores who didn't twig from the start.
Peter Stewart
And also the more unmistakeable your idiotic anti-Hines ravings are.
Both you and Hines often have useful things to say, you the more often
about actual genealogical facts. But Hines does often attack,
fairly, people who are simply ludicrously wrong.
SHUT UP, both of you, in your silly feud.
Doug McDonald
-
Gjest
Re: For Peter Stewart
On 19 Aug., 14:31, "M. de la Fayette" <Faye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You have a lot of "nicknames":
MN
MLS
Marco Lupis Macedonio Palermon di Santa Margherita
Saluzzo
Antonius Severida
Esrnesto Taveneses Calcaterra de Saleida
S.
Arsandri
Aristide
Antoine Andrra
Marc Antoine Andrra
Stephen Loyd
M. de la Fayette
and several email addresses:
mlupis@genmarenostrum.com
saluzzo@email.it
arsandri@katamail.com
andrra@email.it
but no credibility.
I speak for myself, and I come here for mediaeval genealogy, not
childishness. Grow up or blow away.
MA-R
I'm afraid you are completely wrong.
Check in this same list the dozens of posts under the title "Restoring
civilities to this list" and you can see those "much more peoples".
And about the alleged "multiple identities" I declare that I'm using
nicknames ....
You have a lot of "nicknames":
MN
MLS
Marco Lupis Macedonio Palermon di Santa Margherita
Saluzzo
Antonius Severida
Esrnesto Taveneses Calcaterra de Saleida
S.
Arsandri
Aristide
Antoine Andrra
Marc Antoine Andrra
Stephen Loyd
M. de la Fayette
and several email addresses:
mlupis@genmarenostrum.com
saluzzo@email.it
arsandri@katamail.com
andrra@email.it
but no credibility.
And what about you..? Dear MA-R?
I speak for myself, and I come here for mediaeval genealogy, not
childishness. Grow up or blow away.
MA-R
-
Gjest
Re: For Peter Stewart
On 19 Aug., 14:31, "M. de la Fayette" <Faye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
PS And don't bother emailing me direct again, you're in the kill-file
- all of you.
I'm afraid you are completely wrong.
Check in this same list the dozens of posts under the title "Restoring
civilities to this list" and you can see those "much more peoples".
And about the alleged "multiple identities" I declare that I'm using
nicknames .... And what about you..? Dear MA-R?
In my knowledge you could much possibly be "one more" ..."Stewart"!
PS And don't bother emailing me direct again, you're in the kill-file
- all of you.
-
Gjest
Re: For Peter Stewart
On Aug 19, 3:57 am, "Steven Loyd" <and...@email.it> wrote:
Now why is it that these anti-Stewart posts are functionally
illiterate in exactly the same way. As a retired college instructor,
if I received these replies under different names as classroom
assignments, I would be quite sure that they were written by the same
person. It is not likely that the same kinds of grammatical errors
would appear again and again on posts by different people all with the
same irrational and unsubstantiated viewpoint. - Bronwen
Dear Roger,
Speaking for myself, I' have little interest to question, here, about
the quality of "Stewart" contributions.
Me (and much more peoples on this list) are questioning his BEHAVIOR:
his arrogance, pomposity, impoliteness etc. etc that characterize his
replies, and that is undoubtfull.
If you find correct that "Stewart" (or any other) can be free to
systematically treat other peoples like garbage .... Good luck to you
too!
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-boun...@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-boun...@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Roger LeBlanc
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 6:15 AM
To: gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Subject: For Peter Stewart
Speaking only for myself, I just want to say that I don't feel
comfortable criticizing members of this list whose credentials/standing
I don't know the first thing about. I have virtually no access to useful
source material, so can contribute little on that front, but I am very
interested in medieval history and genealogy, so that's why I keep
reading this group, hoping it may someday live up to its potential and
become a genuine "discussion" group.
Peter's participation here has been tremendously beneficial to me. He
often is the only member who replies to my postings (as with the recent
Simon de Montforts thread), and I think his helpfulness and genuine
interest must be self-evident to every reader here. For those who think
otherwise, they are free to hit the delete key (as I often do with a
couple of the posters which I have come to learn will have nothing of
interest to me). That being said I think those who would delete Peter's
contributions without reading them can't be very serious about the
subject.
Roger LeBlanc
-------------------------------
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
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te:http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor:
Comunicazione NON verbale: impara il linguaggio del corpo e ottieni successo nella vita e negli affari
Clicca qui:http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6931&d=19-8- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Now why is it that these anti-Stewart posts are functionally
illiterate in exactly the same way. As a retired college instructor,
if I received these replies under different names as classroom
assignments, I would be quite sure that they were written by the same
person. It is not likely that the same kinds of grammatical errors
would appear again and again on posts by different people all with the
same irrational and unsubstantiated viewpoint. - Bronwen
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Peter Stewart's Ancestry
Amusing...
Peter retreats to weasel-wording, balderdash and bafflegab.
His attack on Douglas Richardson is totally unjustified.
But he still offers some of the Best Entertainment on USENET.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
--------------------------------------------
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:eZqxi.22320$4A1.5235@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Nonsense & Bafflegab.
Nonsense & Bafflegab. No lying by Hines. Everything I say below has been
proven.
More Lies, Weasel-Wording & Bafflegab By Stewart.
That's Precisely What Happened.
Proven From The Archives -- In This Case & Many Others. Peter Attacks
First...Then Complains When Others Respond In Kind...
All Proven By Peter's Own Testimony.
Leo has NOT acted like a man and continues to hide in the shadows. Bad
Show.
Verdict: Leo is NOT an honorable man.
Peter retreats to weasel-wording, balderdash and bafflegab.
His attack on Douglas Richardson is totally unjustified.
But he still offers some of the Best Entertainment on USENET.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
--------------------------------------------
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:eZqxi.22320$4A1.5235@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
More dreary nonsense.
Clearly I don't "attack people FIRST" or there would be hundreds of SGM
readers on the receiving end instead of just the fools and phoneys.
Nonsense & Bafflegab.
Hines knows perfectly well that he has not carried a single point in our
exchanges, otherwise he wouldn't have retreated to copying his same-old
lies time and again.
Nonsense & Bafflegab. No lying by Hines. Everything I say below has been
proven.
His defective language and comprehension skills are on parade yet again:
my head hit ONE cobblestone, and Leo said that Richardson "maintained" a
falsehood about me, not that he "said" this explicitly. The case has been
poroved. [sic] Deceit and insinuation are Richardson's stock-in-trade,
always
have been.
More Lies, Weasel-Wording & Bafflegab By Stewart.
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:rmkxi.253$wi6.1277@eagle.america.net...
Rosie Bevan obviously hasn't kept up with the message traffic.
She is posting from a Flower 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.
That's Precisely What Happened.
Any honest person will see that Peter attacks people FIRST -- as is the
case here -- not the other way around.
Proven From The Archives -- In This Case & Many Others. Peter Attacks
First...Then Complains When Others Respond In Kind...
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...
All Proven By Peter's Own Testimony.
"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.
Leo has NOT acted like a man and continues to hide in the shadows. Bad
Show.
There are NO other honorable alternatives.
Verdict: Leo is NOT an honorable man.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum