Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

Re: Spencer Hines Ancestry

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 23 aug 2007 02:31:42

----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: Spencer Hines Ancestry



What's wrong with the name David?

Spencer may sound so much more aristocratic, but in my dictionary I also
found the following descriptions

Spencer, kind of wig; a short double-breasted overcoat; a woman's short
undergarment, formerly over-jacket

the following may be more applicable

Spencer, n. in ships and barques, a fore-and-aft sail abaft the fore and
main masts.

Still in "our" case, should barques perhaps be spelled barks?

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=people%2c&rank=0&tips=0&gsfn=spencer&gsln=hines&sx=&gs1co=1%2cAll+Countries&gs1pl=1%2c+&year=&yearend=&sbo=0&sbor=&ufr=0&wp=4%3b_80000002%3b_80000003&srchb=r&prox=1&ti=0&ti.si=0&gss=angs-d&o_iid=21416&o_lid=21416&o_it=21416&fh=0&recid=404205888&recoff=2+3

At first I thought "D Spencer's" first name must be something awful....

-------------------------------
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: Medlands & Chris Phillips (Was Re: Contributions of D. S

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 23 aug 2007 02:45:09

We all would like a response from Cawley, and he may be aware of this
desire, but as he doesn't participate (nor does Gary Boyd Roberts, amongst
many) we cannot expect or demand a response.

However as Douglas Richardson does participate, he should feel obliged to
answer questions and when it is shown he was wrong, retract his statement or
apologise if needed. I think he owes publicly an apology to Rev. Detlev
Schwennicke, even though _he_ does not participate here, but the slurs were
recorded here.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas

ehmmm Countess ?? Edward III ??


----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: Medlands & Chris Phillips (Was Re: Contributions of D.
SpencerHines)


On this archived thread
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... 2c36e13649

one can refresh one's memory on DR's original charge of plagarism against
Cawley.

To date I know of no response from Cawley.

Will Johnson

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

WJhonson

Re: Spencer Hines Ancestry

Legg inn av WJhonson » 23 aug 2007 04:18:53

One ascent to Edward I has now been posted sans documentation
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... on_T_Hines

Tomorrow if I have time, I will see what documentation can be dug up to prove or disprove the connections.

Will Johnson

Brad Verity

Re: Medlands & Chris Phillips (Was Re: Contributions of D. S

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 23 aug 2007 04:22:40

From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com

Nothing about plagiarism as far as I can recall - the issue was about
rank incompetence.

After an absence of 7 or 8 months I returned to the newsgroup, most
unexpectedly, in order to support Douglas Richardson against some
unjustified criticism from Chris Phillips and Todd Farmerie over
remarks he had posted about the Medieval Lands database.

Well, there you go - so much for a personal vendetta against Douglas. I
don't have a vendetta against him either. Like you, I just respond to his
posts when his research is shoddy, or his conclusions faulty, or his
'expertise' false. If he makes a post where none of the above takes place -
or if he posts on a topic I'm not familiar with myself - I stay quiet.
Personally, he should only be healthy and happy, as far as I'm concerned.

The FMG had ignored advice about the scope and value of Cawley's work,
and had indeed associated themselves closely with it (format only, as
later claimed, and not content, although the whole was obviously
presented to the public under their aegis). Chris Phillips puffed the
database to the newsgroup, and refused to acknowledge this or to
retract his endorsement when challenged. He went so far as to assert
that I _must_ be wrong, though he couldn't say how, and that Cawley
_must_ have had reasons different from the absurdly mistaken ones that
I had demonstrated for rank errors on one in particular of three
important points that Cawley himself put forward as his most
outstanding discoveries. (Stewart Baldwin pointed out an equal
absurdity in another of these).

Thanks for the summary. I haven't used the Medlands database myself, but I
very much trust your opinion and that of Stewart Baldwin on pre-1300
material.

When he was unable to back this up from his own knowledge of the
matters in question, Phillips undertook to check with Cawley and
report back the presumed vindication of his (misplaced) confidence.
SGM has never heard from him since.

I would venture to say (and seem to recollect hearing it from Chris himself)
that he was taking a break from the newsgroup because of that. I've checked
my own files and realized I haven't corresponded with either Chris or FMG in
a year - and I owe them Part II of an article! A reminder to myself of how
Time does fly. My 'instinct' (and only that) is that Chris has gotten very
busy personally, and that is now the reason why he doesn't participate in
SGM. Because I do know that he is not the type of person who holds a grudge
or is spiteful in any manner.

From: WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com

----------------------------
Did it, been there.
I already told FMG that Cawley had plagarized some items without citation,
from this newsgroup right here. I believe DR for one had found a few of
his own connections there stated without citation to him or anyone else for
that matter, as if Cawley had done it himself.

The irony of Douglas, who has been accused of the same thing himself,
pointing this out is not lost on anyone, I'm sure. However, the nature of
the messenger should not cloud the point of the message, and there should
have been follow-up on FMG's part.

The response from the secretary of FMG (so stated in his email) was
something like, "well I'll ask Mr Cawley about it."
The response from Chris was something like "tell Mr Cawley".
The response from Cawley was silence.

And I never heard anymore about it.

I'm sorry Will. Chris doesn't have any responsibility for getting an
explanation out of Cawley and I would've backed out of being put in the
middle of it as quickly as he did. Cawley has every right to choose not to
respond, though his silence on such a weighty matter speaks volumes. FMG
does owe you a further explanation, even if it's along the lines of "Mr.
Cawley refuses to respond to anything concerning his content," which of
course should become a huge concern for FMG.

When someone points out to me that I may have lifted something without
citation, I'm happy to fix it. I recognize as does everyone that sometimes
in the rush to input data, you may forgot to fully cite where it came from.
But so far, the FMG/Medlands approach seems to be "shush don't say
anything...."

It's not acceptable.

I haven't been to England since April of 2006, and am not involved with any
of the administrative or executive decisions of FMG. Once I renew
correspondence with them (which won't be until I write and submit the Part
II article), I'll entreat them to follow-up with you.

I also find it very odd that a person who is supposed to have created such
a huge and wonderful database should be basically a non-entity. Who is he?
Where did he come from? What else did he do? What are his qualifications?
He seems to have spontaneously appeared on FMG wholely-formed, and then
dropped into a hole.

I don't think it matters a bit what he does outside of his database (unless
he's putting himself over as a trained historian, with expertise in
languages or historical periods, and clearly is no such thing) nor need it
concern any of us. The information in the database is all that counts. If
it's faulty or plagiarized, we (SGM) have every right to point it out. He
of course has every right to ignore us - in which case our only recourse is
to not use his product and create a better and more accurate version
ourselves.

Cheers, --------Brad

_________________________________________________________________
Now you can see trouble…before he arrives
http://newlivehotmail.com/?ocid=TXT_TAG ... ction_0507

John Higgins

Re: Medlands & Chris Phillips (Was Re: Contributions of D. S

Legg inn av John Higgins » 23 aug 2007 04:46:20

I too share Brad Verity's respect for Chris Phillips and his contributions
to this group prior to his departure last year. Any suggestion or
implication of plagiarism by Chris is certainly off-base and out-of-line. I
don't pretend to know why Chris is no longer with us, but it could have
something to do with being referred to as "foolish and churlish" by another
participant in that discussion (see archives for 18 June 2006). No doubt
the contributor of that kind remark will feel that he HAS to have yet
another word (or many words) on the subject, which will further degrade the
tone of the group. Give it up....it's pointless....can we get back to
genealogy please?

If we are to be scolded repeatedly for not sufficiently blowing the whistle
on DR (for example), other contributors to incivility deserve the same
treatment. [Not that it will do any good in any case....]

This group is getting worse and worse by the hour....

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 6:07 PM
Subject: Medlands & Chris Phillips (Was Re: Contributions of D. Spencer
Hines)


From: WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com

Somewhere in my foggy memory is a long conversation we had on-list about
Chris, fmg, and Medlands. It seems that *this* was directly prior to
Chris' vanishing (to never return).

I'm afraid my memory is just as foggy on those details. As I recall, that
heated exchange was taking place at a time for me when I was very busy
off-list, and never followed it closely.

I can, and will, say that I have nothing but respect for Chris Phillips as
a
researcher and as a person. I've had lunch with him on my two previous
trips to London, and he was a tremendous help to me on the last trip at
the
National Archives in Kew.

I also feel FMG is a top-of-the-line organization, and I know, having
written a couple articles for them (and hopefully more to come someday),
that they take research very seriously.

IIRC the issues raised were never addressed adequately although Chris and
Mr Cawley have had an extremely long time to do so.

I don't know Mr. Cawley, and haven't corresponded with Chris in quite
awhile, but it may be (in Chris's case) that life has steered him off onto
other focuses. He certainly doesn't seem like the kind of person who
sulks
in a corner or holds a grudge. I haven't used Medlands, but I use Chris
Phillips's website frequently.

If you still have issues or questions around Medlands, send an email off
to
FMG.

Something about plagarism ?

Chris Phillips doesn't plagiarize. If you've come across plagiarism on
Medlands, then definitely alert FMG.

Cheers, ------Brad

_________________________________________________________________
See what you're getting into.before you go there
http://newlivehotmail.com/?ocid=TXT_TAG ... eview_0507




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


-------------------------------
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: Medlands & Chris Phillips (Was Re: Contributions of D. S

Legg inn av WJhonson » 23 aug 2007 04:54:28

<<In a message dated 08/22/07 20:23:55 Pacific Standard Time, royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
I don't think it matters a bit what he does outside of his database (unless
he's putting himself over as a trained historian, with expertise in
languages or historical periods, and clearly is no such thing) nor need it
concern any of us. >>

------------------
Oh but he is Brad. If you review the original thread, and their own page you will see a statement like (paraphrasing here) re-creating families out of original charters, etc.

Which would of course mean knowing all the original languages. Latin, French, German, whatever I suppose. And then perhaps in an archaic form. Or at the least being able to read more modern same-language renditions of those charters. Cawley evidently is proclaiming he can do that. Otherwise how can you use primary material to rebuild families.

In that thread I point out that for one particular family I happened to pull up at random, there were over 100 statements of fact with not a single citation. So much for that.

Will

WJhonson

Re: Medlands & Chris Phillips (Was Re: Contributions of D. S

Legg inn av WJhonson » 23 aug 2007 04:59:46

<<n a message dated 08/22/07 20:48:22 Pacific Standard Time, jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:
Any suggestion or
implication of plagiarism by Chris is certainly off-base and out-of-line>>

---------------------
The plagarism, etc charges were not directed at Chris. Please read the thread I linked. They were directed at Cawley. The other charge, that is, creating the fiction that your work is an original re-reading of the underlying primaries, when really its a lifting *in situ* of many other secondary works some with gross errors, is, in general a problem all genealogical database share.

They don't all however claim to be something else. Which Cawley's does.

The issue with Chris is, he, being on the advisory board or whatever, of FGM has to date, done nothing to address the issue. Merely ignoring it. You can be *busy* for a while, but surely a year is sufficient time to speak with one of your major contributors and get back to us.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Medlands & Chris Phillips (Was Re: Contributions of D. S

Legg inn av WJhonson » 23 aug 2007 05:04:38

<<In a message dated 08/22/07 21:00:57 Pacific Standard Time, WJhonson writes:
The other charge, that is, creating the fiction that your work is an original re-reading of the underlying primaries, when really its a lifting *in situ* of many other secondary works some with gross errors, is, in general a problem all genealogical database share.

They don't all however claim to be something else. Which Cawley's does. >>

-------------------
My wording above is lacking.
What I meant to say is that Cawley states that he is creating a work from the original primary references. However he then sets out and links up whole slews of individuals for which we don't really have original statements that they are connected, only suppositions and secondary sources.

In those cases, which we all do, he provides nothing to indicate that the line is suspect and based on unsourced or secondary statements. What he does is simply not cite anything!

That's a nice trick! Make people think you've done an exceptional amount of work re-creating a family, while holding most of the cards behind your back where no one else can see that you've merely lifted Burke's without citation!

Will

Peter Stewart

Re: Medlands & Chris Phillips (Was Re: Contributions of D. S

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 23 aug 2007 05:11:57

This is the kind of post that, probably deliberately, stirs up trouble
amongst others by not taking an unbiased view in the first place, and then
throwing out sideswipes without having the gumption to name the targets.

As it happens, I too share Brad Verity's respect for Chris Phillips in many
ways, though less now than previously, for his contributions to the
newsgroup at times and for the effort he put in consistently.

But there were insults exchanged from both sides in the all-out debate that
John is referring to, and in my view Phillips was quite fairly characterised
as foolish and churlish in his behaviour at that time. If anyone thought
otherwise, they were of course at liberty (or indeed under an obligation if
paying attention, unlike Brad, and wishing to represent themselves later
publicly as loyal friends or admirers then) to say so, with reasoning or
just from emotion for that matter, _at the time_.

And as John knows very well, no-one is scolded by me for not "blowing the
whistle" on Richardson for mere "incivility". I make no complaint at all
about his insults directed at me: I have several times stated that I think
he should be excused for these, where they reflect his hurt pride & are not
in some way dishonest, because this is a natural reaction and because he
gets more than he gives.

If you want to contribute to the discourse on SGM, as other than a partisan,
it is always as well to be clear, open, accurate and truthful rather than
self-interested or rationalising excuses for either side.

Peter Stewart


"John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.1130.1187840896.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
I too share Brad Verity's respect for Chris Phillips and his contributions
to this group prior to his departure last year. Any suggestion or
implication of plagiarism by Chris is certainly off-base and out-of-line.
I
don't pretend to know why Chris is no longer with us, but it could have
something to do with being referred to as "foolish and churlish" by
another
participant in that discussion (see archives for 18 June 2006). No doubt
the contributor of that kind remark will feel that he HAS to have yet
another word (or many words) on the subject, which will further degrade
the
tone of the group. Give it up....it's pointless....can we get back to
genealogy please?

If we are to be scolded repeatedly for not sufficiently blowing the
whistle
on DR (for example), other contributors to incivility deserve the same
treatment. [Not that it will do any good in any case....]

This group is getting worse and worse by the hour....

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 6:07 PM
Subject: Medlands & Chris Phillips (Was Re: Contributions of D. Spencer
Hines)


From: WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com

Somewhere in my foggy memory is a long conversation we had on-list about
Chris, fmg, and Medlands. It seems that *this* was directly prior to
Chris' vanishing (to never return).

I'm afraid my memory is just as foggy on those details. As I recall,
that
heated exchange was taking place at a time for me when I was very busy
off-list, and never followed it closely.

I can, and will, say that I have nothing but respect for Chris Phillips
as
a
researcher and as a person. I've had lunch with him on my two previous
trips to London, and he was a tremendous help to me on the last trip at
the
National Archives in Kew.

I also feel FMG is a top-of-the-line organization, and I know, having
written a couple articles for them (and hopefully more to come someday),
that they take research very seriously.

IIRC the issues raised were never addressed adequately although Chris
and
Mr Cawley have had an extremely long time to do so.

I don't know Mr. Cawley, and haven't corresponded with Chris in quite
awhile, but it may be (in Chris's case) that life has steered him off
onto
other focuses. He certainly doesn't seem like the kind of person who
sulks
in a corner or holds a grudge. I haven't used Medlands, but I use Chris
Phillips's website frequently.

If you still have issues or questions around Medlands, send an email off
to
FMG.

Something about plagarism ?

Chris Phillips doesn't plagiarize. If you've come across plagiarism on
Medlands, then definitely alert FMG.

Cheers, ------Brad

_________________________________________________________________
See what you're getting into.before you go there
http://newlivehotmail.com/?ocid=TXT_TAG ... eview_0507




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



-------------------------------
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: Medlands & Chris Phillips (Was Re: Contributions of D. S

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 23 aug 2007 05:20:06

"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1132.1187841637.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
n a message dated 08/22/07 20:48:22 Pacific Standard Time,
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:
Any suggestion or
implication of plagiarism by Chris is certainly off-base and out-of-line

---------------------
The plagarism, etc charges were not directed at Chris. Please read the
thread I linked. They were directed at Cawley. The other charge, that
is, creating the fiction that your work is an original re-reading of the
underlying primaries, when really its a lifting *in situ* of many other
secondary works some with gross errors, is, in general a problem all
genealogical database share.

They don't all however claim to be something else. Which Cawley's does.

To be fair, Cawley is claiming that he is _in the process_ of verifying from
primary sources the genealogies that he has explicitly taken holus-bolus in
the first instance from secondary works (mainly ES neue Folge).

The issue with Chris is, he, being on the advisory board or whatever,
of FGM has to date, done nothing to address the issue. Merely ignoring
it. You can be *busy* for a while, but surely a year is sufficient time
to
speak with one of your major contributors and get back to us.

Quite right, especially having promised this in the heat of defending
yourself and Cawley against specific and reasoned criticism. Anyone
honourable person, whether right or wrong, would have MADE time, and in this
case would have apologised long before now.

I was his colleague as an adviser to FMG, until they published Cawley's work
with every appearance of flouting my prior advice and allowing him to
misrepesent it (and then Chris Phillips its value) with their imprimatur. I
quit.

However, I have taken no interest in it since, so that I don't know what the
FMG or Cawley are up to at present, with Medieval Lands or more generally.

Peter Stewart

Brad Verity

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 23 aug 2007 06:36:09

From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com

maybe I am missing something, but I can't see any reason to suspect
that Leticia Cluff is not a real person much less that she is a
disguise for DS Hines.

I don't follow SHM or other newsgroups but my impression from
crossposted threads over years has been that this poster is frequently
critical or satirical where Hines is concerned. He doesn't show signs
of having the capacity to send himself up, even under an alias.

The post from Leticia copied below is a recent example, where apart
from anything else she clearly knows more than Hines about Latin.

I see now by going to the newsgroup thru Google what happened. Leticia
Cluff made the following post in response to Will's query.

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... 198?hl=en&

Then Spencer Hines cut out all of her post except the link, and posted the
following in response to Will:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... 97a?hl=en&

Since I don't open Hines's posts in my Inbox, but I do open Will's and
opened Leticia Cluff's (I don't know her but I was following the thread), it
seemed to me that when Will was thanking Hines for the link he was revealing
that Leticia Cluff (brand new to SGM, by the way, apparently sucked in from
another newsgroup by the ridiculous cross-postings Hines does) was a 'sock
puppet'.

My apologies to Ms. Cluff for thinking she was any kind of puppet, sock or
otherwise, and double apologies to her for thinking she was Spencer Hines!

Cheers, -----Brad

P.S.: I still think sock puppet alerts are beneficial. If they're wrong,
as this was, they're easily cleared up.

_________________________________________________________________
Learn.Laugh.Share. Reallivemoms is right place!
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt.,and Wale

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 23 aug 2007 06:42:15

Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!

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

"Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1137.1187847424.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com

maybe I am missing something, but I can't see any reason to suspect
that Leticia Cluff is not a real person much less that she is a
disguise for DS Hines.

I don't follow SHM or other newsgroups but my impression from
crossposted threads over years has been that this poster is frequently
critical or satirical where Hines is concerned. He doesn't show signs
of having the capacity to send himself up, even under an alias.

The post from Leticia copied below is a recent example, where apart
from anything else she clearly knows more than Hines about Latin.

I see now by going to the newsgroup thru Google what happened. Leticia
Cluff made the following post in response to Will's query.

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... 198?hl=en&

Then Spencer Hines cut out all of her post except the link, and posted the
following in response to Will:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... 97a?hl=en&

Since I don't open Hines's posts in my Inbox, but I do open Will's and
opened Leticia Cluff's (I don't know her but I was following the thread),
it seemed to me that when Will was thanking Hines for the link he was
revealing that Leticia Cluff (brand new to SGM, by the way, apparently
sucked in from another newsgroup by the ridiculous cross-postings Hines
does) was a 'sock puppet'.

My apologies to Ms. Cluff for thinking she was any kind of puppet, sock or
otherwise, and double apologies to her for thinking she was Spencer Hines!

Cheers, -----Brad

P.S.: I still think sock puppet alerts are beneficial. If they're wrong,
as this was, they're easily cleared up.

Leo van de Pas

Re: Spencer Hines Ancestry

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 23 aug 2007 06:59:47

What a pity (or is it a good thing?) I did not know before, he could have
found his place amongst his "Plantagenet Cousins". No, I am not considering
a second edition.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: Spencer Hines Ancestry


One ascent to Edward I has now been posted sans documentation
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... on_T_Hines

Tomorrow if I have time, I will see what documentation can be dug up to
prove or disprove the connections.

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

Peter Stewart

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt.,and Wale

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 23 aug 2007 07:02:24

"Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1137.1187847424.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

<snip>

P.S.: I still think sock puppet alerts are beneficial. If they're wrong,
as this was, they're easily cleared up.

I agree, Brad, not just because of their nuisance value, but also because it
is unfair to create a false sense of independent support for a poster,
whoever this may be, or for an opinion, whatever its merits - and, for that
matter, possibly counter-productive if this puts off a real poster from
expressing the same view.

Richardson once announced that he thought Spencer Hines and Peter Sterwart
to be one and the same. (That is a measure of the switch Hines has made,
against his own avowed principles of today, to become now not an outright
supporter of Richardson - that would be too foolish even for him - but
rather an automatic critic of his critics.)

This caused Gordon Hale to get in a huff with me, that I regretted, but
otherwise it was easily cleared up, just as the real identity of Uriah was
easy to prove when Richardson copy-pasted some text from a travel writer
trying to establish his familiarity with Turkey. That is the comedy of these
people's activities on Usenet: they simply don't twig to how often & how
readily they give themselves away, by such devious tactics or by spilling
their inmost hang-ups for all to see.

Few however are as blatant as "Duke" Marco, who gets mixed up occasionally &
uses the same email addresses for his multiple personalities while signing
different names. He now asks us to take seriously his explanation that these
are all personal "nicknames", in the form of several distinct nationalities,
with additional or various given names plus surnames. Beyond a farce.

Peter Stewart

John Plant

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av John Plant » 23 aug 2007 08:55:16

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
One more thing, as I tend to react too quickly and hadn't read the part
where you play Charlie Brown "Why's everybody always pickin on me?"

If you Mr Plant would simply say, "My math was wrong for this sort of case,
and the math I used has nothing to do with this sort of case." and then MOVE
ON, this conversation would be over.

But you don't, you constantly want to claim that it was *close*,
*approximate*, *apt* and other similar words, when it wasn't.

I could ride in a grocery-cart, to work down the highway, as its similar to
a car. A grocery-cart (I think these are called trolleys in England) has
wheels, you can steer it sort of, it has a place to sit or crouch anyway...

But I'd still get a ticket or arrested for being on the highway riding one
of these things. Or for that matter a bicycle, a scooter, a skateboard.
These all have wheels. The mere fact that your type of math uses numbers and can
be *summed* doesn't make it appropriate, apt, close, or anything-at-all to
statistics.

Just admit it, and move on. And stop trying to C.Y.A. because that approach
will never pass.

Will Johnson



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

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

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

John Plant

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av John Plant » 23 aug 2007 10:45:58

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/22/2007 5:33:45 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:

I never claimed that it was good for n=50, but just expected
that the extrpolation would fall off gradually for higher n. To my mind,
you just seem to have introduced a higher value of n while keeping to the
first-order approximation to score a cheap point,


-------------
You refuse to admit you made a mistake. And that we caught it and it flew
in your face.
Using inappropriate, third-grade math that just happens to get a close
number doesn't make it "apt" all of the sudden. The random chance that the result
is *close* (in your opinion) doesn't change the fact that you, claiming to
be a physicist with innumerable papers published, should make such an enormous
error as considering statistical mathematics to be similar to arithmetic.

You and I both know, that statistics are a foundational element in modern
quantum mechanics. I have yet to hear any explanation of why you made such a
gross mistake here. Since you should know this math.

And your constant whining about not wanting to own your error doesn't
impress anyone.

Will


Again, I am subject to personal attack, especially by DSH, instead of a
development of the math. OK, he is currently subject to sustained
personal attack himself but that seems like little excuse for
criticizing a plea for better netiquette. This is the worst netiquette I
have ever experienced and it is by no means only me who is complaining
about it; but, OK, if you won't join the plea, so be it.

My statement was correct. Only God knows what would happen if I make an
incorrect statement. Oops, sorry, we already know: I made a typo of
p=0.2 instead of p=0.02 and we all saw the reaction of DSH. Rude
reactions obviously amuse some people though it is no surprise that they
don't go down well with everyone.

Why is one type of math superior to another? Your criticism seems to be
that I made a quick off-the-cuff estimate. Are you saying that there is
no place for quick rough estimates? You should know that approximations
are a fundamental part of quantum mechanics where exact calculations are
often not possible. OK, this is not quantum mechanics and an exact
calculation is possible here. By all means go with the exact
calculation, if you have it written down in front of you and have a
scientific calculator immediately to hand and have the time to do the
calculations on it. At the time I did not. I did not worry because I did
not know that an exact calculation was going to be such a big deal.
Though the reason for this sudden great interest is still a bit of a
mystery to me, I now know that making a quick rough estimate was a
mistake even though it fulfilled its immediate purpose at the time.
Foretelling the future is not my strongest trait.

OK, try this. I had vague recollections reinforced by obvious
requirements for P(n,p) at its limiting values. Obviously P(n,0.02) is
np for n=0,1 and flattens before n=50. An exact calculation fills in the
details. It would be good to see a full series of P(n,p) curves plotted
out but that seems unlikely to happen here.

Can I go now please sir? I had no idea my initial post of Aug 1 was
going to take so long.

John

Ken Ozanne

Re: Somerset 1623 Visitation

Legg inn av Ken Ozanne » 23 aug 2007 13:07:17

Arthur,
Get on a tram, go to the State Library of Victoria. They have that
Visitation. SLV have quite a lot of genealogical stuff.

I'm another Australian, in Central Western NSW with nothing that
looks like a library within 200km. You are well placed.

Libraries Australia website
http://librariesaustralia.nla.gov.au/apps/kss
will give you holdings of some of the major libraries.

Oh. Peter Stewart was saying a few months back that they have taken
to storing a lot of their books at Ballarat. You might want to call them a
day or two before going.

Best,
Ken

On 23/8/07 7:36, "gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com"
<gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com> wrote:

From: arthuri@alphalink.com.au
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:30:37 -0700
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: STAWELL/STOWELL COTHELSTONE

On Aug 22, 11:20 pm, Ken Ozanne <kenoza...@bordernet.com.au> wrote:
Arthur,
There is a fairly extensive pedigree of the Stowell family of
Cothelstone, Somerset in the 1623 Visitation of Somerset, pages 106-107.

There is reference in CP Vol XIIA (under Stawell) and further
references in the footnotes there.

The Falaise Roll and the Battle Abbey Roll are not worthwhile
sources.

I fear that your pedigrees of 3000 years will not stand up under
close scrutiny. There are plenty of members of this group who will gladly
show you where they break down. Of course, if they do stand up, we will all
be delighted!

Hope this helps. Try to ignore our flame wars - there are some very
erudite people here.

Best,
Ken

On 19/8/07 10:37, "gen-medieval-requ...@rootsweb.com"

gen-medieval-requ...@rootsweb.com> wrote:
From: arth...@alphalink.com.au
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:41:22 -0700
To: gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Subject: 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.

G'day Ken,
I will see whether I can locate a copy of that 1623 Visitation of
Somerset and have a look at that pedigree. Such resources as pretty
thin on the ground in Australia - and it is a pretty big place to try
to get copies from other locations.

Many thanks for your input. No doubt you have seen my discussion of my
methods and sources. If what I have has been garnered from incorrect
sources, while not condoning the propagation of incorrect information,
then I am in good company.

Keep well and happy, as I am.
Happy Hunting ;-)
Rfer & Hue

John Plant

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av John Plant » 23 aug 2007 13:10:16

OK, try this. I had vague recollections reinforced by obvious
requirements for P(n,p) at its limiting values. Obviously P(n,0.02) is
np for n=0,1 and flattens before n=50. An exact calculation fills in the
details. It would be good to see a full series of P(n,p) curves plotted
out but that seems unlikely to happen here.

OOps correction. What I should have said is "An exact calculation fills
in the details *subject to certain assumptions*". I am getting so swept
up in this obsession for a particular, simple "uniform p" model that I
am forgetting the more scientific reality myself.

John

Peter Stewart

Re: Somerset 1623 Visitation

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 23 aug 2007 13:43:08

"Ken Ozanne" <kenozanne@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.1161.1187871214.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Arthur,
Get on a tram, go to the State Library of Victoria. They have that
Visitation. SLV have quite a lot of genealogical stuff.

I'm another Australian, in Central Western NSW with nothing that
looks like a library within 200km. You are well placed.

Libraries Australia website
http://librariesaustralia.nla.gov.au/apps/kss
will give you holdings of some of the major libraries.

Oh. Peter Stewart was saying a few months back that they have taken
to storing a lot of their books at Ballarat. You might want to call them a
day or two before going.

The offsite storage is mainly for large series & journals, volumes issued
before ca 1980.

Monographs and (I think) the entire genealogy collection are held at the
library in Swanston Street (this was vastly enlarged some years ago when the
museum moved to its new site in the Carlton Gardens). Any item in the
catalogue stating "Send request - Pick up at Information Centre Book Desk"
will be there.

You have to visit the library to register as a user before books will be
delivered, but this doesn't take long (usually half an hour) after an order
is placed.

I'm sure from experience when I lived in the country that the SLV (and most
others in the Libraries Australia database) will be ready to send books on
ILL to your local town in NSW.

Peter Stewart

Leticia Cluff

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Leticia Cluff » 23 aug 2007 14:22:31

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:36:09 -0700, "Brad Verity"
<royaldescent@hotmail.com> wrote:

From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com

maybe I am missing something, but I can't see any reason to suspect
that Leticia Cluff is not a real person much less that she is a
disguise for DS Hines.

I don't follow SHM or other newsgroups but my impression from
crossposted threads over years has been that this poster is frequently
critical or satirical where Hines is concerned. He doesn't show signs
of having the capacity to send himself up, even under an alias.

The post from Leticia copied below is a recent example, where apart
from anything else she clearly knows more than Hines about Latin.

I see now by going to the newsgroup thru Google what happened. Leticia
Cluff made the following post in response to Will's query.

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... 198?hl=en&

Then Spencer Hines cut out all of her post except the link, and posted the
following in response to Will:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... 97a?hl=en&

Since I don't open Hines's posts in my Inbox, but I do open Will's and
opened Leticia Cluff's (I don't know her but I was following the thread), it
seemed to me that when Will was thanking Hines for the link he was revealing
that Leticia Cluff (brand new to SGM, by the way, apparently sucked in from
another newsgroup by the ridiculous cross-postings Hines does) was a 'sock
puppet'.

My apologies to Ms. Cluff for thinking she was any kind of puppet, sock or
otherwise, and double apologies to her for thinking she was Spencer Hines!

Apologies accepted. It is indeed hilarious that you thought I was
Spencer Hines--I don't know which of us it amuses most.

Mr. Hines has disliked me ever since I first ventured to complain
about his execrable behavior. This happened when Roy Stockdill posted
some details about the circumstances of his birth on
soc.genealogy.britain. That was a relevant post in that particular
forum and Mr. Stockdill was making a point that was germane to an
ongoing discussion there.

One statement in Stockdill's post, "So I was born illegitimate," was
taken by Hines and changed into the message header "Stockdill Tells Us
He Is A Bastard." Hines posted his new message with the abusive header
to a large number of groups where it was totally irrelevant. For some
reason he did not post it here in sgm, while he did think it was
relevant to alt.books.tom-clancy!

I merely pointed out that such mean-spirited breaches of newsgroup
etiquette and offenses against common decency rendered Hines fully
deserving of all the criticism he gets.

Since then I have taken occasional delight in pointing out the
numerous errors in Mr. Hines's "Latin." For this he has thanked me by
heaping his misogynistic abuse on me.


Best always
Tish

Richard Smyth at Road Run

Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines

Legg inn av Richard Smyth at Road Run » 23 aug 2007 16:23:52

Nothing would come as a more welcome relief to me than [a]n end to these
tiresome exchanges: the aim is to impress on the very stupid and slow
Brandon, as on Hines, that further lies and imbecilities will only bring on
worse embarrassment from every single vexatious post. The alternatives to
this have demonstrably NOT worked. Eventually this attempt might. You and
Todd have NO evidence to conclude otherwise, and indeed there is plainly
some to the contrary of your wishful view.

I agree with everything that Stewart tells us about himself in the comments I have just quoted. To be more specific, I believe that the motive for his postings has been to alter the behavior of trolls on the list, and I believe that his attempt might work to alter that behavior. However, I do not agree that there is evidence on the list that shows that Stewart's postings will actually cause the effect that he and I hope they will.

In previous postings Stewart has said that the fact that Hines stopped posting after Stewart had whacked him was proof that Hines stopped posting because Stewart had whacked him. There are two problems with this assertion. First, the past behavior of Hines following the past behavior of Stewart only gives us a reason to try the hypothesis that Stewart's approach works. It would be a "propter hoc" fallacy to take anything in the list-archives as proof of the efficacy of Stewart's proposed method. There is a second problem here. Even if one could accept that Stewart's method had worked once, that would not be evidence that it would work a second time on the same target. Should one expect to catch the same mouse with the same cheese in the same mouse-trap because it worked the last time on that very mouse?

I would be surprised and disappointed if there have not been actual experiments by competent social scientists on the subject of dealing effectively with trolls on internet-lists. If I were a list-manager, I believe I would investigate that possibility. Is there a list that discusses the problems of list-managers? In the absence of scientific evidence, it seems to me that the problem should be left to the discretion of the list-managers.

Regards,

Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com

Gjest

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 aug 2007 18:35:04

In a message dated 8/23/2007 2:46:17 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:

OK, try this. I had vague recollections reinforced by obvious
requirements for P(n,p) at its limiting values. Obviously P(n,0.02) is
np for n=0,1 and flattens before n=50. An exact calculation fills in the
details. It would be good to see a full series of P(n,p) curves plotted
out but that seems unlikely to happen here.

Can I go now please sir? I had no idea my initial post of Aug 1 was
going to take so long.


--------------------
No. Again we get this pathetic whining about why your ridiculous math should
be *passed* instead of pointed out to you. A self-proclaimed physicist,
computer scientist, mathematician or whatever pose you're taking using
*arithmetic* to replace statistical methods. Perhaps you'd like to look at my "Book
store" page where you'll be quite happy to see I have for sale a "Handbook of
Tables for Mathematics".

You have no excuse for not having one of these which would very simply and
easily tell you how probabilities progress over multiple generations. Knowing
that they do, you have no excuse for hand-waving about what *may* happen
over 25 generations and claiming that your result was "close" after-the-fact
when it's now crystal-clear that you made no attempt to do or even discuss the
appropriate math.

What you did was use your experimental, non-random results to back-create
some "mathematical model" based on fallacy, that you then claimed was a good fit
to the data. It was no such thing and for all the wrong reasons.

Your constant failure to own this error, and try to keep pretending it
didn't happen, is never going to pass. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

No high-school graduate, let alone scientific academic would ever make such
an enormous error. The error is not small, its enormous. It's not obscure,
it's obvious. Your logic is not straightforward, its circular. You created
a model artificially to fit your data after-the-fact and you want us to
excuse it.

You still have the chance to admit that you made a blunder and there's no
excuse for it and then move on.

Will Johnson



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

Gjest

Re: William Gardiner and Helen Tudor

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 aug 2007 19:20:04

In a message dated 8/23/2007 10:10:26 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
d_sewall@verizon.net writes:


I'm sorry not to be able to answer your question, but I have seen a
number of references to the fact that Jasper Tudor had TWO
illegitimate daughters - Helen and JOAN. Are you or the Group familiar
with this at all?


---------------
Here is some background
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasper_Tudor,_1st_Duke_of_Bedford_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasper_Tud ... of_Bedford)

Note that this article is *unsourced* and should be treated that way.

Will Johnson



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

Janet Crawford

Fwd: William Gardiner and Helen Tudor

Legg inn av Janet Crawford » 23 aug 2007 19:30:05

How might this man be related please?:

"Blessed Jermyn Gardiner,
Died 1544; beatified in 1886. Blessed Jermyn (German) was educated
at Cambridge.
He became secretary to Stephen Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, and was
executed at Tyburn near London with John
Larke and John Ireland for denying the royal supremacy.
These last two were secular priests. John Larke was rector of Saint
Ethelburga's Bishopsgate, then of Woodford, Essex,
and finally of Chelsea, to which he was nominated by Saint Thomas More.
John Ireland, after being chaplain to the same saint, was made rector
of Eltham, Kent (Benedictines)."

Janet

On 8/23/07, WJhonson@aol.com <WJhonson@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 8/23/2007 10:10:26 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
d_sewall@verizon.net writes:


I'm sorry not to be able to answer your question, but I have seen a
number of references to the fact that Jasper Tudor had TWO
illegitimate daughters - Helen and JOAN. Are you or the Group familiar
with this at all?


---------------
Here is some background
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasper_Tudor,_1st_Duke_of_Bedford_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasper_Tud ... of_Bedford)

Note that this article is *unsourced* and should be treated that way.

Will Johnson



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

-------------------------------
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: Swineherds & Trollops

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 23 aug 2007 20:14:16

Amusing...

But certainly not surprising.

DSH

"taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:1187842666.711925.164710@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

I descend from a man convicted of libeling the President of the United
States....

Gjest

Re: STAWELL/STOWELL COTHELSTONE

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 aug 2007 21:22:48

On Aug 23, 7:44 am, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 08/22/07 14:35:22 Pacific Standard Time, arth...@alphalink.com.au writes:
If what I have has been garnered from incorrect
sources, while not condoning the propagation of incorrect information,
then I am in good company.

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

It was "good" company in the 17th century.
Today it's "bad" company. We simply do not do genealogy in that fashion any longer.

Will

G'day Will & Others,
I have conducted all of my research by the totally time honoured
methods. I started with what I knew and worked back into the unknown,
one generation at a time. I have NEVER assumed anything about where I
was headed. I simply found a birth, which gave me the names of the
parents. I then looked for a "marriage" of those parents and then
looked for the birth of each to get their parents and continued the
process ad nauseum. I have never simply accepted the first piece of
information that I found. I have always looked for several sites
quoting as close to the same information, as I could find.

I also examined the dates to see whether they gelled. Recently, I have
found some sites on the "Net where the son has been born 5 years after
the death of the father. I simply reject that site from my
considerations. Mind you I have much more recent births that are just
as bad. In the 19th century I have two occurrences in direct lines
where siblings of my ancestors were born of fathers who had been dead
for 17 and 19 months. I even have one case where the mother had been
dead for 6 years when she gave birth to a son. So it is not just in
antuquity that these immaculate births occur and not just to women.

So I consider that all of my research has ben done properly. It is
just a shame that it is not possible to have full verification of the
sources. I have quickly determined which sites quote their sources and
which ones appear most often and give the most plausible results.

I am a professional person, just not a professional genealogist. So I
do know how to assess evidence and see whether it fits sensibly. I
have been playing this "game" for over 18 years now, so I do have a
little experience. I have conducted paid research for the Genealogical
Society of Victoria (they got paid, not me). That gets scrutinised
most carefully, and I passed that test with flying colours. None of
you have given me any of your own backgrounds, to allow me to assess
your qualifications to be passing judgment on what I have achieved.

Hope everyone is well and happy, as I am.
Happy Hunting ;-)
Rfer & Hue

WJhonson

Re: William Gardiner and Helen Tudor

Legg inn av WJhonson » 23 aug 2007 21:22:51

Maybe. But quite possibly the contributor is a bored housespouse who enjoys reading romantic historical fiction believing it to be literally true. And spends a few hours a week, adding those *truths* to Wikipedia.

That is why it's always safest to approach Wikipedia with skepticism and ask for sources where none are apparent. Wanton belief in those articles is no different from wanton belief in any unsourced statements. Historians who cannot back up their statements should be discarded by the wayside.

Internet sites have the added disability that they are easy to make and change. Probably few people read a site on Jasper Tudor and fewer still have the apparatus to spot errors. But we all can tag a "fact" with the {{fact}} tag thereby forcing the editors to justify their statements. When they aren't justified after a sufficient space of time, we, as editor, can remove the offending statement entirely.

That's what I did to the Wikipedia article on Godiva which had stated died 1067, (died 1067 indeed....)

Will



In a message dated 08/23/07 13:10:49 Pacific Standard Time, d_sewall@verizon.net writes:
In the case of the reference to Joan Tudor, you can see that the contributor who made that entry also made numerous other entries mainly of an historical nature. The contributor would appear to be an historian.

WJhonson

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av WJhonson » 23 aug 2007 21:24:35

<<In a message dated 08/23/07 13:10:38 Pacific Standard Time, farmerie@interfold.com writes:
We discussed the situation of the Ealdormen in soc.hist.med a few
years ago. Due to political more than tactical concerns, Harold had
appointed teenagers to three of the Ealdordoms, and the other three
went to his immediate family members.>>
--------------------
Todd what is the proof that they were teenagers?
Thanks
Will

WJhonson

Re: STAWELL/STOWELL COTHELSTONE

Legg inn av WJhonson » 23 aug 2007 21:46:35

<<In a message dated 08/23/07 13:25:57 Pacific Standard Time, arthuri@alphalink.com.au writes:
G'day Will & Others,
I have conducted all of my research by the totally time honoured
methods. I started with what I knew and worked back into the unknown,
one generation at a time. I have NEVER assumed anything about where I
was headed. I simply found a birth, which gave me the names of the
parents. I then looked for a "marriage" of those parents and then
looked for the birth of each to get their parents and continued the
process ad nauseum. I have never simply accepted the first piece of
information that I found. I have always looked for several sites
quoting as close to the same information, as I could find. >>

------------------------------------------------
Stop looking for *sites* that say something. Start looking for primary and *reliable* secondary sources that state it. I.E. published books and well-qualified sites like genealogics or stirnet that at least state their own sources. Sites can say all manner of outlandish things and people copy from each other at a wild and accelerating pace without verification. Sites are possibly worse than the IGI patron-sheets at "creating" facts out of thin air. IGI patron Sheets even show persons we know to be well-documented, and yet with dates dozens of years apart, showing the lie that IGI Patron Sheets are worthwhile sources.

IGI extracted parish registers are a whole other kettle of fish, which is why when using the IGI you must carefully document the exact source language used on that particular record, *or* the batch number so we can verify that it is in fact a parish extract.
------------------------------------------

<<So I consider that all of my research has ben done properly. It is
just a shame that it is not possible to have full verification of the
sources. I have quickly determined which sites quote their sources and
which ones appear most often and give the most plausible results. >>


---------------------------------------
I would agree if you were to replace "properly" above with "improperly". If you do not have as you say "full verification" of the source, then you should discard the source. Any site which does not provide its sources is suspect and must not be used for proof. Period. That's basically the entire story. A site with no sources is worthless. That includes the IGI, Wikipedia, and any other misc. site including any pompous-sounding one like CountyHistorian for example . They can be used as guidance, but should not be used as proof unless sources are given, quoted, abstracted etc so you can yourself independently VERIFY the data. Any source used as guidance should be fully cited in your database so you can later say "Oh I got this from the IGI Patron Sheets" so we all know how useless the data is.
-----------------------------------------------

<<I am a professional person, just not a professional genealogist. So I
do know how to assess evidence and see whether it fits sensibly. I
have been playing this "game" for over 18 years now, so I do have a
little experience. I have conducted paid research for the Genealogical
Society of Victoria (they got paid, not me). That gets scrutinised
most carefully, and I passed that test with flying colours. None of
you have given me any of your own backgrounds, to allow me to assess
your qualifications to be passing judgment on what I have achieved. >>
---------------------------------------------------------
A professional what? A lot of statements above, but statements without proof are merely statements. Every random person can make hundreds of false statements every day. That's nothing new.

However, if we are to believe your assertion that you've been copying off random sites which sometimes do not state their own sources, how are we to respect your "research". Especially when you appear to be steadfast in your determination not to learn how to properly do genealogical research?

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Spencer Hines Ancestry

Legg inn av WJhonson » 23 aug 2007 22:09:39

<<In a message dated 08/23/07 13:54:54 Pacific Standard Time, Jwc1870 writes:
I find this line very
interesting as I descend from Nathaniel Tilden`s daughter Judith (Tilden) Preble three
times, from Abraham`s sons Joseph, Benjamin and John.>>

--------------------------------------
Although this ascent from Nathaniel Tilden up to Eleanor (Ellen) Savage is repeated innumerable times by copyists, I haven't yet located sufficient proofs of the line. If you know of any I've love to know.

I also have discovered that Hines is a cousin of mine from this same grouping as you ;) Evidently a prolific family.

Thanks
Will Johnson

John Higgins

Re: Fw: Offer to assist DR was Fw: Maud de Holand, wife of H

Legg inn av John Higgins » 23 aug 2007 22:22:03

As a rule, ESNF mentions the mother of a wife in in the table of the wife's
husband's family only if the wife's family is not itself separately covered
someplace in ESNF. In this case the Bar family is covered a few pages
before the Luxembourgs, so no need to mention her mother on the Luxembourg
page. Seems a sensible convention, to avoid unnecessary redundant
information.

For further information and hints on how to use ESNF, you may want to check
out the notes posted by John P DuLong at
http://habitant.org/tools/esnotes.htm.

----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Offer to assist DR was Fw: Maud de Holand,wife of Hugh de
Courtenay, Knt., and Waleran de Luxembourg, Count of Ligny & St.-Pol


In a message dated 08/22/07 23:24:42 Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
Married (1) 1380 Mathilde de Holand, she dies before/olr about 13 April
1392, widow of Hugh de Courtenay, daughter of Thomas, 1.Lord Holand and
Joan, 4.Cts of Kent(Anjou-Plantagenet; married 2nd Saint Mihiel (sic) 2
June
1400 Bona von Bar, test 1436 buried Pont-a-Mousson, daughter of Duke
Robert I.
--------------------
That's fascinating that they don't mention that Bonne was daughter of
Marie (Mary) daughter of John King of France.

Do they often not mention the mothers? Or is there some indication that
Bonne as granddaughter of John is suspect?

Thanks
Will

-------------------------------
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 Higgins

Re: Spencer Hines Ancestry

Legg inn av John Higgins » 23 aug 2007 22:26:03

I believe that some doubt has been raised about the Savage-Leigh-Tilden
connection in this proposed descent - specifically, whether Percival Leigh
was in fact of the Cheshire family. He certainly doesn't appear in
pedigrees of that family, nor does his daughter. See the archives of the
group for more info.

----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: Spencer Hines Ancestry


One ascent to Edward I has now been posted sans documentation
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... on_T_Hines

Tomorrow if I have time, I will see what documentation can be dug up to
prove or disprove the connections.

Will Johnson

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the

quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Gjest

Re: Spencer Hines Ancestry

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 aug 2007 22:55:06

Dear Leo , Will and Spencer,
I find this line very
interesting as I descend from Nathaniel Tilden`s daughter Judith (Tilden) Preble three
times, from Abraham`s sons Joseph, Benjamin and John.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine
USA



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

WJhonson

Re: Genealogy Software (again)

Legg inn av WJhonson » 23 aug 2007 23:13:19

<<In a message dated 08/23/07 14:55:22 Pacific Standard Time, community@gencircles.com writes:
What will happen to GenCircles and Family Tree Legends?
GenCircles, the Family Tree Legends software program, and the Family Tree Legends Records Collection are now free.>>

-------------------
Has anyone here used Family Tree Legends software?

Peter Stewart

Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 23 aug 2007 23:23:53

"Richard Smyth at Road Runner" <smyth@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1165.1187882663.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Nothing would come as a more welcome relief to me than [a]n end to these
tiresome exchanges: the aim is to impress on the very stupid and slow
Brandon, as on Hines, that further lies and imbecilities will only bring
on
worse embarrassment from every single vexatious post. The alternatives
to
this have demonstrably NOT worked. Eventually this attempt might. You
and
Todd have NO evidence to conclude otherwise, and indeed there is plainly
some to the contrary of your wishful view.

In previous postings Stewart has said that the fact that Hines stopped
posting
after Stewart had whacked him was proof that Hines stopped posting because
Stewart had whacked him.

This is not what I have said: my point is that Hines took off from SGM after
_he_ had made such a fool of himself in front of this intelligent and
critical audience that he thought it better to sit out of discussion here
for a time. I think this could and should happen again. He is clearly not
insenate, as he tries rather feebly to defend himself at times and resorts
to sillier & more hysterical capitalisations and fibs - orthographic and
factual distortions - when running low on his phoney self-confidence.

My contribution to this was just to demonstrate the proofs and expound the
logic that, along with the well-deserved ridicule and insults, provoked him
into further, more stupid and more corrosive self-revelations - just like
this time round.

The fatal trouble for Hines as a controversialist is that he hates himself
more than he hates the truth, or anyone else.

The experiment that Don and Todd reject in advance has never been tried, and
I only propose it without the certainty of success: this is, that EVERY
reader who disdains the nonsense and lies from any poster should SAY SO, all
a the same time. If there are hundreds of subscribers altogether, the shock
of this _might_ be a rather heavy straw to break the feral dromedaries'
backs, when they are depending on the complicit silence of readers to get a
feeling of twisted vindication, or false victory.

Bullies are always the same inadequate and cowardly beast, underneath
whatever appearances they present. Australia produces ts share, but we do
tend to despise the type more than most, perhaps from the cultural heritage
of convicts up against sadistic prison guards.

There is a famous story of a sergeat-major in a transit barracks at Regents
Park in wartime: he was a notorious piece of work who had brutalised
servicemen from Canada, America, South Africa, New Zealand, with impunity,
every day for some time. Then the first Australian troops came through late
one night - and the next morning he was found floating in the Maida Vale
canal, with a knife in his ribs.

Peter Stewart

the_verminator@comcast.ne

Re: Genealogy Software (again)

Legg inn av the_verminator@comcast.ne » 24 aug 2007 00:20:17

On Aug 23, 5:13 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 08/23/07 14:55:22 Pacific Standard Time, commun...@gencircles.com writes:
What will happen to GenCircles and Family Tree Legends?
GenCircles, the Family Tree Legends software program, and the Family Tree Legends Records Collection are now free.

-------------------
Has anyone here used Family Tree Legends software?

I've downloaded both it and Family Tree Builder. Nice little programs
but not in the same league as TMG ( my main program); although I must
say I like Family Tree Builder's Relationship Report. I can see where
they might be of use to the hobbiest - and you can't beat the cost!

Ian Goddard

Re: My English (?) surnames: Cob, Cobbe, Cobbes, Cobbs, Cobb

Legg inn av Ian Goddard » 24 aug 2007 00:31:47

Dolores C. Phifer wrote:

Are the references/sources listed at British-History considered reliable ?

A lot of items in the list from your link are transcripts of primary
sources.

The Victoria County History volumes are usually authoritative although
I've caught one error - in Yorks. East Riding the date they gave for the
death of Sir John Godard, sometime High Sheriff was, in fact, that date
of his son's death.

norenxaq

Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines

Legg inn av norenxaq » 24 aug 2007 02:49:16

Peter Stewart wrote:


The experiment that Don and Todd reject in advance has never been tried, and
I only propose it without the certainty of success: this is, that EVERY
reader who disdains the nonsense and lies from any poster should SAY SO, all
a the same time. If there are hundreds of subscribers altogether, the shock
of this _might_ be a rather heavy straw to break the feral dromedaries'
backs, when they are depending on the complicit silence of readers to get a
feeling of twisted vindication, or false victory.




this would be considered spam by some and thus counterproductive. also,

I doubt Hines would care

Tim Cartmell

Re: The le Brun family of Bothel & Torpenhow in Cumberland

Legg inn av Tim Cartmell » 24 aug 2007 03:15:05

Dear Adrian,


I believe, Margaret, Elena and Elizabeth would have been granddaughters of Sir Robert le Brun, Knt. (d: bef 1342). The final co-heiress of the le Brun estate lands were the three sisters of the last surviving Robert Brun. John Denton stated that these co-heiress were the daughters and heirs of Richard Brun. (Source: Thomas Denton: A Perambulation of Cumberland in 1687-1688, published by The Surtees Society, 2003, pg. 212.)

The three co-heiress Margaret, Elena and Elizabeth were probably the daughters of the following Richard Brun.


1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Richard Brun (d: bef. 1354)

father: Sir Robert Brun, Knt. (d: bef 1342)

Richard is mentioned as the lord of Drumburgh in 1342, in which he presented William de Kirkbythore as the new parson to the church of Bowness, replacing the previous late parson that had been presented by his father Robert Brun; was a commissioner in Carlisle in 1345 (Cal. Pat. Rolls, pg. 584). (Source: Transactions, CWAAS, New Series, Vol. 1928, pgs. 175,176.)


Next Bruns in succession,


i). Robert Brun (d: 1369)

father: Richard Brun (as per John Denton)

Is mentioned as lord of Drumburgh; presented a new parson to the church of Bowness in 1354; made a will at Bothel, which was proved in 1369, requested burial at Bowness. (Test. Karl. edit Ferguson, pg. 98.) (Source: Transactions, CWAAS, New Series, Vol. 1928, pgs. 175,176.)


John le Brun (d: aft. 1381, bef. 1394?)

father: unknown

Seems to have succeeded Robert Brun who d: 1369; was the sheriff and keeper of Carlisle Castle in 1376 (Cal. Fine Rolls, pg. 369.); John was a patron of Bowness church in 1381. (Source: Transactions, CWAAS, New Series, Vol. 1928, pgs. 175,176.)(don't know the relationship of this John; perhaps Robert's will would shed light on who this John was.) John le Brun must have held only a life interest in Bowness, as in the end, the three co-heiress were considered the heiress of their brother Robert le Brun.


ii). Margaret le Brun (d: aft. 1369, bef. 1394?)

father: Richard Brun

Married: Sir William le Engleys, Knt. (d: 1369) of Highhead Castle in Cumberland. (Source: CWAAS, 'Cumberland Families and Heraldry,' published 1978, pgs. 44, 204.)

Children: Isabel, who was recorded as being 24 years old in 1369; married Sir Nicholas de Harington, Knt. (d: 1403) of Farleton in Lancashire. (Source: L' Engleys family, CWAAS, 'Cumberland Families and Heraldry,' published 1978, pg. 204.)


iii). Elena le Brun (d: c.1395)

father: Richard Brun

Married 1stly, Sir Thomas Whitrigg (of Branthwaite & Little Bampton in Cumberland); married 2ndly, Sir William Culwen [Curwen], Knt. of Workington in Cumberland. (Source: le Brun family, CWAAS, 'Cumberland Families and Heraldry,' published 1978, pg. 44.)

Children: Sir Christopher Curwen of Workington (d: 1453)
John Curwen of Porchester Castle (d: 1441)


iv). Elizabeth le Brun

father: Richard Brun

Married: Thomas Bowet of Warcop & Soulby. (Source: CWAAS, 'Cumberland Families and Heraldry,' published 1978, pgs. 34, 44,.)

Children: Thomas Bowet
Richard Bowet


Published support information:

"In 1394, William Culwen and Elena his wife claimed against Nicholas de Haverington two portions of one-third of the manor of Beamond [Beaumont in Cumberland]. The grounds for possession made by Nicholas were that Robert Bruyne (Brun or le Brun), brother of Elena and uncle of another claimant of part of the manor, Richard Bowet, was possessed of these two portions and of other land in fee: that he enfeoffed three interim feoffees and died; that William de Culwen, Elena and Richard Bowet supposing that Robert Brun had leased the lands for his life only, entered into possession; that the three feoffees re-entered as they had a right to do, and, of course, ejected William and Elena and Richard, and now he, Nicholas, holds these. He does not say how the interm feoffes made them over to him*. William and Elena, and Richard Bowet said that they did not recognize all this. They stated that there had been an interview at Drumbough [Drumburgh] between Robert Bruyn and the three
feofees in which the arrangement was made that if Robert should die leaving no heir of his body; and the aforesaid Elena, and Elizabeth and Margaret, formerly wife of William Inglys, Knt., the sisters and heirs of Robert, or their heirs paid within a year and a day next after his death, in the Cathedral of St. Mary of Carlisle, to the three feoffees, or to any one of them 400 marks, they could then enter into possesion of his lands and they and their heirs hold then for all time. After Robert Bruyne's death William Ingleys and Margaret then his wife, Thomas Quyterig and Elena then his wife, and Thomas Bowet and Elizabeth then his wife, frequentlly and oft offered the 400 marks within the prescribed time to the three feoffees; and William Culwen and Elena now his wife and Richard Bowet were always ready to pay their portion but the three feoffees refused and continued to refuse to take the money. Nicholas declined to recognize the arrangement, and persisted in repeating his
former statement." Assize of Thursday after the Assumption of St. Mary, 1394. (Source: Transactions, CWAAS, New Series, Vol. 1914, article 'de Culwen', by Rev. Frederick W. Ragg, pgs. 375, 376.)

The aforementioned claim went to jury, and Elena must have succeeded in her case, as in August 1395, William Culwen her husband, is found granting to interim feoffees all his lands, which included the properties that Elena had inherited from her brother Robert le Brun, specifically, Bothel, Bowness-on-Solway, and "Bronsthath" [Brunscaythe].(Source: ibid. Ragg, pg. 376, & A History of the Ancient House of Curwen, by JF Curwen, published 1928, pg. 67.)

In 1398, Maud de Lucy, baroness of Copeland & Allerdale died, then wife of Henry Percy, 1st earl of Northumberland. By inquest post mortem it was found that within her barony lands, the manor of Bothel and 1/8 part of Torpenhow were then held by Nicholas Harington, William Culwen and Thomas Bowet. (Cal. Inq. p. mortem, vol. iii, pg. 244, 22 Richard II, n. 38.) (Source: A History of the Ancient House of Curwen, published 1928, pg. 68.)

*In Ian Grimble's book 'The Harington Family', it reads that Sir Nicholas Harington early on, became a powerful man in Lancaster affairs through a combination of personal ambition, the holden of various positions of trust and authority, and as a loyal supporter of John de Guant, Duke of Lancaster. The status and power of Sir Nicholas was clearly demonstrated at age 27 yrs., when he had complicity "in an incident which occured one year after he first entered Parliament (as Knight of the Shire of Lancaster) wherein on 1 March 1373 a Dacre laid complaint that Sir Nicholas had come to Beaumond in Cumberland with three hundred armed men, and destroyed houses, assaulted servants and tenants, driven away horses, cattle and sheep worth 50 pounds. Whatever the cause of this turbulence may have been, it is not without significance that a Dacre complained in vain." (Source: The Harington Family, by Ian Grimble, pgs. 26-29.)

In my mind, this incident may have been in response to an interest in the le Brun estate, wherein Sir Nicholas was asserting to claim certain rights (mother-in-law or wife's inheritance?) to the manor of Beaumont in Cumberland?

Finally, I don't have anything regarding a connection between this le Brun family of Cumberland, and the Brun family you speak of in the south of England.

Hope this is of some help.




Regards,

Timothy J. Cartmell


---------------------------------
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

Tim Cartmell

Re: The le Brun family of Bothel & Torpenhow in Cumberland

Legg inn av Tim Cartmell » 24 aug 2007 04:01:02

Dear Adrian,


I believe, Margaret, Elena and Elizabeth would have been granddaughters of Sir Robert le Brun, Knt. (d: bef 1342). The final co-heiress of the le Brun estate lands were the three sisters of the last surviving Robert Brun. John Denton stated that these co-heiress were the daughters and heirs of Richard Brun. (Source: Thomas Denton: A Perambulation of Cumberland in 1687-1688, published by The Surtees Society, 2003, pg. 212.)

The three co-heiress Margaret, Elena and Elizabeth were probably the daughters of the following Richard Brun.


1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Richard Brun (d: bef. 1354)

father: Sir Robert Brun, Knt. (d: bef 1342)

Richard is mentioned as the lord of Drumburgh in 1342, in which he presented William de Kirkbythore as the new parson to the church of Bowness, replacing the previous late parson that had been presented by his father Robert Brun; was a commissioner in Carlisle in 1345 (Cal. Pat. Rolls, pg. 584). (Source: Transactions, CWAAS, New Series, Vol. 1928, pgs. 175,176.)


Next Bruns in succession,


i). Robert Brun (d: 1369)

father: Richard Brun (as per John Denton)

Is mentioned as lord of Drumburgh; presented a new parson to the church of Bowness in 1354; made a will at Bothel, which was proved in 1369, requested burial at Bowness. (Test. Karl. edit Ferguson, pg. 98.) (Source: Transactions, CWAAS, New Series, Vol. 1928, pgs. 175,176.)


John le Brun (d: aft. 1381, bef. 1394?)

father: unknown

Seems to have succeeded Robert Brun who d: 1369; was the sheriff and keeper of Carlisle Castle in 1376 (Cal. Fine Rolls, pg. 369.); John was a patron of Bowness church in 1381. (Source: Transactions, CWAAS, New Series, Vol. 1928, pgs. 175,176.)(don't know the relationship of this John; perhaps Robert's will would shed light on who this John was.) John le Brun must have held only a life interest in Bowness, as in the end, the three co-heiress were considered the heiress of their brother Robert le Brun.


ii). Margaret le Brun (d: aft. 1369, bef. 1394?)

father: Richard Brun

Married: Sir William le Engleys, Knt. (d: 1369) of Highhead Castle in Cumberland. (Source: CWAAS, 'Cumberland Families and Heraldry,' published 1978, pgs. 44, 204.)

Children: Isabel, who was recorded as being 24 years old in 1369; married Sir Nicholas de Harington, Knt. (d: 1403) of Farleton in Lancashire. (Source: L' Engleys family, CWAAS, 'Cumberland Families and Heraldry,' published 1978, pg. 204.)


iii). Elena le Brun (d: c.1395)

father: Richard Brun

Married 1stly, Sir Thomas Whitrigg (of Branthwaite & Little Bampton in Cumberland); married 2ndly, Sir William Culwen [Curwen], Knt. of Workington in Cumberland. (Source: le Brun family, CWAAS, 'Cumberland Families and Heraldry,' published 1978, pg. 44.)

Children: Sir Christopher Curwen of Workington (d: 1453)
John Curwen of Porchester Castle (d: 1441)


iv). Elizabeth le Brun

father: Richard Brun

Married: Thomas Bowet of Warcop & Soulby. (Source: CWAAS, 'Cumberland Families and Heraldry,' published 1978, pgs. 34, 44,.)

Children: Thomas Bowet
Richard Bowet


Published support information:

"In 1394, William Culwen and Elena his wife claimed against Nicholas de Haverington two portions of one-third of the manor of Beamond [Beaumont in Cumberland]. The grounds for possession made by Nicholas were that Robert Bruyne (Brun or le Brun), brother of Elena and uncle of another claimant of part of the manor, Richard Bowet, was possessed of these two portions and of other land in fee: that he enfeoffed three interim feoffees and died; that William de Culwen, Elena and Richard Bowet supposing that Robert Brun had leased the lands for his life only, entered into possession; that the three feoffees re-entered as they had a right to do, and, of course, ejected William and Elena and Richard, and now he, Nicholas, holds these. He does not say how the interm feoffes made them over to him*. William and Elena, and Richard Bowet said that they did not recognize all this. They stated that there had been an interview at Drumbough [Drumburgh] between Robert Bruyn and the three
feofees in which the arrangement was made that if Robert should die leaving no heir of his body; and the aforesaid Elena, and Elizabeth and Margaret, formerly wife of William Inglys, Knt., the sisters and heirs of Robert, or their heirs paid within a year and a day next after his death, in the Cathedral of St. Mary of Carlisle, to the three feoffees, or to any one of them 400 marks, they could then enter into possesion of his lands and they and their heirs hold then for all time. After Robert Bruyne's death William Ingleys and Margaret then his wife, Thomas Quyterig and Elena then his wife, and Thomas Bowet and Elizabeth then his wife, frequentlly and oft offered the 400 marks within the prescribed time to the three feoffees; and William Culwen and Elena now his wife and Richard Bowet were always ready to pay their portion but the three feoffees refused and continued to refuse to take the money. Nicholas declined to recognize the arrangement, and persisted in repeating his
former statement." Assize of Thursday after the Assumption of St. Mary, 1394. (Source: Transactions, CWAAS, New Series, Vol. 1914, article 'de Culwen', by Rev. Frederick W. Ragg, pgs. 375, 376.)

The aforementioned claim went to jury, and Elena must have succeeded in her case, as in August 1395, William Culwen her husband, is found granting to interim feoffees all his lands, which included the properties that Elena had inherited from her brother Robert le Brun, specifically, Bothel, Bowness-on-Solway, and "Bronsthath" [Brunscaythe].(Source: ibid. Ragg, pg. 376, & A History of the Ancient House of Curwen, by JF Curwen, published 1928, pg. 67.)

In 1398, Maud de Lucy, baroness of Copeland & Allerdale died, then wife of Henry Percy, 1st earl of Northumberland. By inquest post mortem it was found that within her barony lands, the manor of Bothel and 1/8 part of Torpenhow were then held by Nicholas Harington, William Culwen and Thomas Bowet. (Cal. Inq. p. mortem, vol. iii, pg. 244, 22 Richard II, n. 38.) (Source: A History of the Ancient House of Curwen, published 1928, pg. 68.)

*In Ian Grimble's book 'The Harington Family', it reads that Sir Nicholas Harington early on, became a powerful man in Lancaster affairs through a combination of personal ambition, the holden of various positions of trust and authority, and as a loyal supporter of John de Guant, Duke of Lancaster. The status and power of Sir Nicholas was clearly demonstrated at age 27 yrs., when he had complicity "in an incident which occured one year after he first entered Parliament (as Knight of the Shire of Lancaster) wherein on 1 March 1373 a Dacre laid complaint that Sir Nicholas had come to Beaumond in Cumberland with three hundred armed men, and destroyed houses, assaulted servants and tenants, driven away horses, cattle and sheep worth 50 pounds. Whatever the cause of this turbulence may have been, it is not without significance that a Dacre complained in vain." (Source: The Harington Family, by Ian Grimble, pgs. 26-29.)

In my mind, this incident may have been in response to an interest in the le Brun estate, wherein Sir Nicholas was asserting to claim certain rights (mother-in-law or wife's inheritance?) to the manor of Beaumont in Cumberland?

Finally, I don't have anything regarding a connection between this le Brun family of Cumberland, and the Brun family you speak of in the south of England.

Hope this is of some help.




Regards,

Timothy J. Cartmell


---------------------------------
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

junction5@msn.com

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av junction5@msn.com » 24 aug 2007 04:06:08

"allan connochie" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:rBmyi.19084$ph7.3270@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
"Leticia Cluff" <leticia.cluff@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hnnjc39hljfi8ko2v3tifb75ldfi0me8s9@4ax.com...
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:15:19 GMT, "allan connochie"
conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:

More seriously though the border as such is more or less as it was long
before the Wars of Indepedence.


I actually don't think the Borders mattered a
curdy one way or another to Scotland or England.
Borders history is the history of some wee gang fights.

Scotland is not a Great Nation.
It is a Great Tale of a Nation,
and thus it ever has been.

j5

Peter Stewart

Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 24 aug 2007 04:11:03

"norenxaq" <norenxaq@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1206.1187920370.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:



The experiment that Don and Todd reject in advance has never been tried,
and I only propose it without the certainty of success: this is, that
EVERY reader who disdains the nonsense and lies from any poster should SAY
SO, all a the same time. If there are hundreds of subscribers altogether,
the shock of this _might_ be a rather heavy straw to break the feral
dromedaries' backs, when they are depending on the complicit silence of
readers to get a feeling of twisted vindication, or false victory.



this would be considered spam by some and thus counterproductive.

It would take no more trouble to delete than the same number of on-topic
posts about medieval genealogies that don't happen to interest the
recipient. The nuisance would last only a few days.

also, I doubt Hines would care

So you think he is posting to (the same) newsgroups purely for his own
edification? If so, and he has no regard for the audiences he is addressing,
why do you suppose he doesn't just make a random selection or move on to
some other of the many Usenet groups where even he is so far, happily for
them, unknown?

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 24 aug 2007 04:24:19

"Leticia Cluff" <leticia.cluff@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l01rc3p2nsu341p3n8kpnmo152umgb8g0h@4ax.com...

<snip>

Mr. Hines has disliked me ever since I first ventured to complain
about his execrable behavior. This happened when Roy Stockdill posted
some details about the circumstances of his birth on
soc.genealogy.britain. That was a relevant post in that particular
forum and Mr. Stockdill was making a point that was germane to an
ongoing discussion there.

One statement in Stockdill's post, "So I was born illegitimate," was
taken by Hines and changed into the message header "Stockdill Tells Us
He Is A Bastard." Hines posted his new message with the abusive header
to a large number of groups where it was totally irrelevant. For some
reason he did not post it here in sgm, while he did think it was
relevant to alt.books.tom-clancy!

I merely pointed out that such mean-spirited breaches of newsgroup
etiquette and offenses against common decency rendered Hines fully
deserving of all the criticism he gets.

Since then I have taken occasional delight in pointing out the
numerous errors in Mr. Hines's "Latin." For this he has thanked me by
heaping his misogynistic abuse on me.

Thanks, Tish. It is clear that Hines could never masquerade as such a
sensible individual, much less a good-natured, witty and personable one.

I can't remember when he first started trying Latin tags - was this around
the time of the first Harry Potter novel, by any chance? He appears to have
learned his pidgin at the feet of Hermione and Ron, never progressing beyond
the level of "Oculus repairo".

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 aug 2007 05:47:03

I think the problem we'll face is the circularity of the secondaries in
dealing with this family.

A source if it's going to make a statement like that based on oblique clues
should make those clues apparent so we can see that the source is using
*reasoning* to arrive at their conclusion, instead of actually citing some primary
source.

It's quite likely that your secondary, uses the same logic that Godiva must
be the mother, and then works backward to calculate what the ages of the
children must be if she lived through the Conquest.

All we have to do is suppose that possibly she wasn't the mother, and all
that has to be redrawn again.

Will



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

norenxaq

Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines

Legg inn av norenxaq » 24 aug 2007 07:36:59

Peter Stewart wrote:

"norenxaq" <norenxaq@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1206.1187920370.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...


Peter Stewart wrote:



The experiment that Don and Todd reject in advance has never been tried,
and I only propose it without the certainty of success: this is, that
EVERY reader who disdains the nonsense and lies from any poster should SAY
SO, all a the same time. If there are hundreds of subscribers altogether,
the shock of this _might_ be a rather heavy straw to break the feral
dromedaries' backs, when they are depending on the complicit silence of
readers to get a feeling of twisted vindication, or false victory.





this would be considered spam by some and thus counterproductive.



It would take no more trouble to delete than the same number of on-topic
posts about medieval genealogies that don't happen to interest the
recipient. The nuisance would last only a few days.




true, but why add to the "noise"?

also, I doubt Hines would care



So you think he is posting to (the same) newsgroups purely for his own
edification?


actually, yes

If so, and he has no regard for the audiences he is addressing,
why do you suppose he doesn't just make a random selection or move on to
some other of the many Usenet groups where even he is so far, happily for
them, unknown?



he fancies himself a genealogist and historian. hence, he stays within
these groups

Peter Stewart



allan connochie

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av allan connochie » 24 aug 2007 07:40:56

"junction5@msn.com" <robt.black@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:NKqdnZHK7tSy1lPbnZ2dnUVZ8tWnnZ2d@bt.com...
"allan connochie" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:rBmyi.19084$ph7.3270@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...

"Leticia Cluff" <leticia.cluff@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hnnjc39hljfi8ko2v3tifb75ldfi0me8s9@4ax.com...
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:15:19 GMT, "allan connochie"
conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:

More seriously though the border as such is more or less as it was long
before the Wars of Indepedence.


I actually don't think the Borders mattered a
curdy one way or another to Scotland or England.
Borders history is the history of some wee gang fights.

That is a worthy addition to the debate.

Allan

Peter Stewart

Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 24 aug 2007 08:23:22

On Aug 24, 4:36 pm, norenxaq <noren...@san.rr.com> wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:
"norenxaq" <noren...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1206.1187920370.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Peter Stewart wrote:

The experiment that Don and Todd reject in advance has never been tried,
and I only propose it without the certainty of success: this is, that
EVERY reader who disdains the nonsense and lies from any poster should SAY
SO, all a the same time. If there are hundreds of subscribers altogether,
the shock of this _might_ be a rather heavy straw to break the feral
dromedaries' backs, when they are depending on the complicit silence of
readers to get a feeling of twisted vindication, or false victory.

this would be considered spam by some and thus counterproductive.

It would take no more trouble to delete than the same number of on-topic
posts about medieval genealogies that don't happen to interest the
recipient. The nuisance would last only a few days.

true, but why add to the "noise"?

also, I doubt Hines would care

So you think he is posting to (the same) newsgroups purely for his own
edification?

actually, yes

If so, and he has no regard for the audiences he is addressing,
why do you suppose he doesn't just make a random selection or move on to
some other of the many Usenet groups where even he is so far, happily for
them, unknown?

he fancies himself a genealogist and historian. hence, he stays within
these groups

Hines on past showing was capable of studying genealogy with
occasional acumen from secondary sources, and he had a take on
scattered points of history that was arguably worth some fraction of
the pains he took to publicise it.

If he really still fancies himself as a genealogist and historian, he
would surely go on trying as he did years ago to engage productively
with others who share these interests. Monstering everybody who
doesn't show him instant & total deference is the mark of someone who
is past fancying himself, and into abasing himself publicly as a
notorious fool and/or aggressive madman to anyone who knows and cares
about these subjects, depending on how much he can still distinguish
his self-loathing urges.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: STAWELL/STOWELL COTHELSTONE

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 aug 2007 08:35:05

On Aug 24, 6:46 am, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 08/23/07 13:25:57 Pacific Standard Time, arth...@alphalink.com.au writes:
G'day Will & Others,
I have conducted all of my research by the totally time honoured
methods. I started with what I knew and worked back into the unknown,
one generation at a time. I have NEVER assumed anything about where I
was headed. I simply found a birth, which gave me the names of the
parents. I then looked for a "marriage" of those parents and then
looked for the birth of each to get their parents and continued the
process ad nauseum. I have never simply accepted the first piece of
information that I found. I have always looked for several sites
quoting as close to the same information, as I could find.

------------------------------------------------
Stop looking for *sites* that say something. Start looking for primary and *reliable* secondary sources that state it. I.E. published books and well-qualified sites like genealogics or stirnet that at least state their own sources. Sites can say all manner of outlandish things and people copy from each other at a wild and accelerating pace without verification. Sites are possibly worse than the IGI patron-sheets at "creating" facts out of thin air. IGI patron Sheets even show persons we know to be well-documented, and yet with dates dozens of years apart, showing the lie that IGI Patron Sheets are worthwhile sources.

IGI extracted parish registers are a whole other kettle of fish, which is why when using the IGI you must carefully document the exact source language used on that particular record, *or* the batch number so we can verify that it is in fact a parish extract.
------------------------------------------

So I consider that all of my research has ben done properly. It is
just a shame that it is not possible to have full verification of the
sources. I have quickly determined which sites quote their sources and
which ones appear most often and give the most plausible results.

---------------------------------------
I would agree if you were to replace "properly" above with "improperly". If you do not have as you say "full verification" of the source, then you should discard the source. Any site which does not provide its sources is suspect and must not be used for proof. Period. That's basically the entire story. A site with no sources is worthless. That includes the IGI, Wikipedia, and any other misc. site including any pompous-sounding one like CountyHistorian for example . They can be used as guidance, but should not be used as proof unless sources are given, quoted, abstracted etc so you can yourself independently VERIFY the data. Any source used as guidance should be fully cited in your database so you can later say "Oh I got this from the IGI Patron Sheets" so we all know how useless the data is.
-----------------------------------------------

I am a professional person, just not a professional genealogist. So I
do know how to assess evidence and see whether it fits sensibly. I
have been playing this "game" for over 18 years now, so I do have a
little experience. I have conducted paid research for the Genealogical
Society of Victoria (they got paid, not me). That gets scrutinised
most carefully, and I passed that test with flying colours. None of
you have given me any of your own backgrounds, to allow me to assess
your qualifications to be passing judgment on what I have achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------
A professional what? A lot of statements above, but statements without proof are merely statements. Every random person can make hundreds of false statements every day. That's nothing new.

However, if we are to believe your assertion that you've been copying off random sites which sometimes do not state their own sources, how are we to respect your "research". Especially when you appear to be steadfast in your determination not to learn how to properly do genealogical research?

Will Johnson

G'day Will,
I have done all that you have suggested above as far as recording the
reliability of the sources from which I have obtained my information.

I come back to the point that no one in this group has given any
indication of their qualifications, particularly in regard to their
right to criticise what I have done, not even you. And you continue to
pass criticism on my work. I have stated previously that I am a Civil
Engineer, but have been researching family history for over 18 years.
Note that I do not claim to be researching Genealogy, as there is a
huge difference between the two terms.

Keep well and happy, as I am.
Happy Hunting ;-)
Rfer & Hue

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 aug 2007 09:10:09

Bingo...

Indeed Hines would RELISH and DELIGHT in it, so I've been told...

And it would bury the newsgroup in Righteous, Hissy-Fit, Spittle-Flecked
Spam ---- thereby making it unreadable.

People would soon grow tired of it.

Peter hasn't thought this one through.

No Surprises There...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

"norenxaq" <norenxaq@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1206.1187920370.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Peter Stewart wrote:

The experiment that Don and Todd reject in advance has never been tried,
and I only propose it without the certainty of success: this is, that
EVERY reader who disdains the nonsense and lies from any poster should SAY
SO, all a [sic] the same time. If there are hundreds of subscribers
altogether,
the shock of this _might_ be a rather heavy straw to break the feral
dromedaries' backs, when they are depending on the complicit silence of
readers to get a feeling of twisted vindication, or false victory.

this would be considered spam by some and thus counterproductive. also, I
doubt Hines would care.

Vide supra.
----------------------------------------------------

So you think he is posting to (the same) newsgroups purely for his own
edification? If so, and he has no regard for the audiences he is
addressing,
why do you suppose he doesn't just make a random selection or move on to
some other of the many Usenet groups where even he is so far, happily for
them, unknown?

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 24 aug 2007 09:30:54

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:howzi.192$Jp2.1104@eagle.america.net...
Bingo...

Indeed Hines would RELISH and DELIGHT in it, so I've been told...

Oh yes, so why did Hines tell Hines he was griping to Leo earlier today that
Peter Stewart is basely trying to orchestrate a campaign of vilification
against him, when he would actually ENJOY this more than a parting glimpse
of sanity?

Peter Stewart

John Plant

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av John Plant » 24 aug 2007 10:10:58

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/23/2007 2:46:17 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:

OK, try this. I had vague recollections reinforced by obvious
requirements for P(n,p) at its limiting values. Obviously P(n,0.02) is
np for n=0,1 and flattens before n=50. An exact calculation fills in
the
details. It would be good to see a full series of P(n,p) curves plotted
out but that seems unlikely to happen here.

Can I go now please sir? I had no idea my initial post of Aug 1 was
going to take so long.

--------------------
No. Again we get this pathetic whining about why your ridiculous math
should be *passed* instead of pointed out to you. A self-proclaimed
physicist, computer scientist, mathematician or whatever pose you're
taking using *arithmetic* to replace statistical methods. Perhaps you'd
like to look at my "Book store" page where you'll be quite happy to see
I have for sale a "Handbook of Tables for Mathematics".

You have no excuse for not having one of these which would very simply
and easily tell you how probabilities progress over multiple
generations. Knowing that they do, you have no excuse for hand-waving
about what *may* happen over 25 generations and claiming that your
result was "close" after-the-fact when it's now crystal-clear that you
made no attempt to do or even discuss the appropriate math.

What you did was use your experimental, non-random results to
back-create some "mathematical model" based on fallacy, that you then
claimed was a good fit to the data. It was no such thing and for all
the wrong reasons.

Your constant failure to own this error, and try to keep pretending it
didn't happen, is never going to pass. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

No high-school graduate, let alone scientific academic would ever make
such an enormous error. The error is not small, its enormous. It's not
obscure, it's obvious. Your logic is not straightforward, its
circular. You created a model artificially to fit your data
after-the-fact and you want us to excuse it.

You still have the chance to admit that you made a blunder and there's
no excuse for it and then move on.

Will Johnson

Simply, it is not my model; it is just a simple illustration of what
might be happening which is relevant to the current "state of the art"
for Y-DNA testing studies of surnames. It is mainly you, not me, who has
tried to present it as more than it was intended to be. If you want to
argue this out further, perhaps you should do so on the GENEALOGY-DNA list.

A detailed analysis of the experimental reality in terms of specific
statistical models is interesting to a few people; but you are the only
person I have come across who seems to think it serves any purpose,
given the current "state of the art", or that it is what most people are
wanting.

Perhaps it was George Bernard Shaw (perhaps not) who said something
about: two nations divided by a single language. Or perhaps this
divergence of views has little to do with the two sides of "the pond".
They say they are more aggressive with their arguments over there and
often call it rudeness over here; but, obviously, you will have a
different take on that over there. Our divergence of views also seems to
have something to do will an age-old divergence between the
experimental scientist and the theoretical mathematician. Most people, I
feel sure, are more interested in the new experimental results coming
out of Y-DNA testing. To that extent, you seem rather out on a limb with
this fuller mathematical analysis. I am not knocking it too much myself,
except that it seems a bit of a backwater rather than mainstream. I
don't know of anyone who would be interested in publishing it. I should
be more interested if it were otherwise.

John

Jack Linthicum

Re: Loony Genealogical Studies

Legg inn av Jack Linthicum » 24 aug 2007 12:49:28

On Aug 24, 2:55 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
"Brad Verity" <royaldesc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:mailman.1208.1187923712.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Actually, I'm trying to trace all the descendants of Edward I, an even
wider net. Exactly how much wider is one of the questions I hope
to be able to come up with a reasonable answer to someday.

That's certainly one of the looniest genealogical studies one is likely to
see.

There are, at the least, tens of millions of such descendants of Edward I.

A Fool's Task...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

No Hines?

Free Genealogy Resources of the Descendants of Edward I, "Longshanks"
King of England from AD 1239
Surname List

Acre" , Aragon , Audley , Austell , Badlesmere , Bar-Le-Duc ,
Beauchamp , Beaufort , Beaumont , Bere , Berkeley , Blague , Blount ,
Bohun , Brabant , Braye , Brittany , Bromwich , Brooke , Brooke or
Brooks , Brooke , Burgh , Butler , Castile & Leon , Castile ,
Castille , Chedworth , Chiles , Clare , Clifford , Cocke , Coucy ,
Courtenay , Cox , Cranmer , Dagworth , Daniel , Despenser , Done ,
Dutton , Edward I, "Longshanks" , Egleston , Englan , England ,
Eveleigh , Faucomberge , Ferrers , Finch , Finche or Finch ,
FitzAlan , Fogge , France , Gilbert , Goushill , Grey , Gueldres ,
Hainault (Hollan , Hart , Hastings , Hawte or Haute , Heydon ,
Holand , Holland , Howard , Isaack , Jones , Katherine , Langley" , Le
Despensor , Lestrange , Lighe , Mills , Mitford or Milfo , Mohun ,
Moleyns , Molines , Molyneux , Montagu , Monthermer , Mortimer ,
Mowbray , Needham , Nevill , Neville , Okendon , Osborne , Pamplin ,
Patryckson , Peche , Percy , Plantagenet , Pole , Portugal , Roet ,
Ros , Saint Hilaire , Sandys or Sander , Scotland , Scott , Seymour ,
Smith , Southwell , Stafford , Stark , Starke , Strangeways ,
Strangways , Streshley , Tanfield , Touchet , Trimble , Twisden ,
Usflete , Vaughan , Visconti , Warner , Whitney , Worsley , Wyatt ,
Wyatt or Wyat , Wyatt , Wydeville

Cory Bhreckan

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av Cory Bhreckan » 24 aug 2007 14:02:20

allan connochie wrote:
"junction5@msn.com" <robt.black@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:NKqdnZHK7tSy1lPbnZ2dnUVZ8tWnnZ2d@bt.com...
"allan connochie" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:rBmyi.19084$ph7.3270@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
"Leticia Cluff" <leticia.cluff@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hnnjc39hljfi8ko2v3tifb75ldfi0me8s9@4ax.com...
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:15:19 GMT, "allan connochie"
conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:

More seriously though the border as such is more or less as it was long
before the Wars of Indepedence.

I actually don't think the Borders mattered a
curdy one way or another to Scotland or England.
Borders history is the history of some wee gang fights.

That is a worthy addition to the debate.

Allan

A certain amount of trolling is required by The Rules.

--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall

The Highlander

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av The Highlander » 24 aug 2007 15:21:11

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:48:07 GMT, Dave <dave@knowhere.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:28:26 GMT, The Highlander <micheil@shaw.ca
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:03:28 GMT, Dave <dave@knowhere.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:14:21 GMT, The Highlander <micheil@shaw.ca
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 12:39:07 GMT, Dave <dave@knowhere.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 03:38:15 GMT, The Highlander <micheil@shaw.ca
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:35:46 GMT, Dave <dave@knowhere.com> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:16:24 GMT, The Highlander <micheil@shaw.ca
wrote:

Several posters in SCS are descended from the Border Reivers
(Raiders), myself included.

Your mother certainly put it about a bit. If it's not border reivers
it's Bonnie Prince whatsit or Robert the Bruce.

I think you're confusing my mother with your daughter, the wee hoor
who works the sailors down at the docks for five bucks a shot to pay
for her crack habit.


But is she related to William Wallace?

I have no idea who your daughter is related to.

Anglotrash is not my scene.

Funny that since you seem to be related to every other Scottish
historical figure. But as William Wallace supposedly didn't have any
surviving children I guess you must be descended from his idiot
brother. The one they don't like to talk about.

Ach, I can hardly cope with all the clumsy attempts at wit!

I'll bet they think you're "a real card" at your local boozer, down
there in the Great British Slum - England.

Away home your fatherless bastard. God curse you in all your
undertakings and guide your feet to the cliff edge - and over it!

Struck a nerve then? I'll bet you have more English blood in you than
I do after what the redcoats did to your great great grandmother.

Your Scottish lairds did a good job when they cleared the land for
more intelligent life.

Yes, we sure did. Not that I accept any responsibility for my family's

past activities, although I don't mind wallowing in the nastier stuff
like the slave trade which somehow missed you and yours.

How about your family? When did they manage to shake off serf status?
Still having inbreeding problems, or is sleeping with your children a
no-no these days? Oh yes, the night-time habits of the English working
class are well-known despite all the attempts to draw a curtain over
what goes on down there in Anglistan's remoter backwaters.

Disgusting. Like animals.

The Highlander
Tilgibh smucaid air do làmhan,
togaibh a' bhratach dhubh agus
toisichibh a' geàrradh na sgòrnanan!

Gjest

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 aug 2007 16:28:56

On Aug 24, 10:21 am, The Highlander <mich...@shaw.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:48:07 GMT, Dave <d...@knowhere.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:28:26 GMT, The Highlander <mich...@shaw.ca
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:03:28 GMT, Dave <d...@knowhere.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:14:21 GMT, The Highlander <mich...@shaw.ca
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 12:39:07 GMT, Dave <d...@knowhere.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 03:38:15 GMT, The Highlander <mich...@shaw.ca
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:35:46 GMT, Dave <d...@knowhere.com> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:16:24 GMT, The Highlander <mich...@shaw.ca
wrote:

Several posters in SCS are descended from the Border Reivers
(Raiders), myself included.

Your mother certainly put it about a bit. If it's not border reivers
it's Bonnie Prince whatsit or Robert the Bruce.

I think you're confusing my mother with your daughter, the wee hoor
who works the sailors down at the docks for five bucks a shot to pay
for her crack habit.

But is she related to William Wallace?

I have no idea who your daughter is related to.

Anglotrash is not my scene.

Funny that since you seem to be related to every other Scottish
historical figure. But as William Wallace supposedly didn't have any
surviving children I guess you must be descended from his idiot
brother. The one they don't like to talk about.

Ach, I can hardly cope with all the clumsy attempts at wit!

I'll bet they think you're "a real card" at your local boozer, down
there in the Great British Slum - England.

Away home your fatherless bastard. God curse you in all your
undertakings and guide your feet to the cliff edge - and over it!

Struck a nerve then? I'll bet you have more English blood in you than
I do after what the redcoats did to your great great grandmother.

Your Scottish lairds did a good job when they cleared the land for
more intelligent life.

Yes, we sure did. Not that I accept any responsibility for my family's
past activities, although I don't mind wallowing in the nastier stuff
like the slave trade which somehow missed you and yours.

How about your family? When did they manage to shake off serf status?
Still having inbreeding problems, or is sleeping with your children a
no-no these days? Oh yes, the night-time habits of the English working
class are well-known despite all the attempts to draw a curtain over
what goes on down there in Anglistan's remoter backwaters.

Disgusting. Like animals.

You haven't Changed a Bit

The Highlander
Tilgibh smucaid air do làmhan,
togaibh a' bhratach dhubh agus
toisichibh a' geàrradh na sgòrnanan!

D. Spencer Hines

Re: No "Activist" Interpretation Of The Laws

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 aug 2007 16:29:10

No...

It's Lyndon Baines Johnson.

AND:

"It’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside
the tent pissing in."

He was referring to legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.

Quoted in _The New York Times_, 31 October 1971.

Black is getting sloppy again...

It's the Socialism [and lack of Good Sense].

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Gdyzi.26026$Db6.14167@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...

Now, now, Mister Black.
How shall we ever keep the pot boiling if you go all reasonable on me?
;=) [sop]

The Socialism (and good sense) usually overwhelms the nationalism.

I've met the English ruling classes.

As a general rule they're charming, ruthless, devious and manipulative.

I rather like them.

But in the words [No] of the late President Lyndon Bains [sic] Johnson
[sic] "I'd rather have them [sic] inside the tent piss [sic] out than
outside the tent pissing in" [sic]

--
William Black

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stuyvesant

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 aug 2007 16:34:52

Right!

Which is another Good Reason Leo should distribute his file to all of us --
so we can discuss and add to it.

Putting up a download link at his site is probably the easiest way to do
that.

DSH

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1235.1187968655.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

I believe the Peter or at least the Stuyvesant family I run acrost several
times in my research.

There is a place in New York City called Stuyvesant Village which is a
housing development in which evidently many people are eager to live.
Although I
lived in Manhattan for several years I never visited it, but it was in
the
news quite a bit.

At any rate, I think the Stuyvesant's are ancestral to many famous people,
Leo probably knows a few, and I'm sure I could add a few more with a bit
of
looking.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Loony Genealogical Studies

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 aug 2007 16:37:28

Bingo!

He needs to add tens of millions of other folks -- at the least.

Just another dufus who thinks every Truth can be found on the Internet.

DSH

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1234.1187968256.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 8/24/2007 7:52:05 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jacklinthicum@earthlink.net writes:

Free Genealogy Resources of the Descendants of Edward I, "Longshanks"
King of England from AD 1239
Surname List

===========
Your list is incomplete, get busy.

Gjest

Re: Loony Genealogical Studies

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 aug 2007 17:16:03

In a message dated 8/24/2007 7:52:05 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jacklinthicum@earthlink.net writes:

Free Genealogy Resources of the Descendants of Edward I, "Longshanks"
King of England from AD 1239
Surname List



===========
Your list is incomplete, get busy.



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

Gjest

Re: Peter Stuyvesant

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 aug 2007 17:21:03

I believe the Peter or at least the Stuyvesant family I run acrost several
times in my research.

There is a place in New York City called Stuyvesant Village which is a
housing development in which evidently many people are eager to live. Although I
lived in Manhattan for several years I never visited it, but it was in the
news quite a bit.

At any rate, I think the Stuyvesant's are ancestral to many famous people,
Leo probably knows a few, and I'm sure I could add a few more with a bit of
looking.



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

The Highlander

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av The Highlander » 24 aug 2007 17:29:55

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 07:42:59 -0700, Duwop <tutall@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 20, 11:16 am, The Highlander <mich...@shaw.ca> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:59:11 +0100, Bryn

SNIP very informative entertaining post

My personal picture of a Border Reiver is that of a man sitting on a
horse, leaning on a spear with his shoulder which is pinning an
enemy messenger to the ground through the neck, while the rider *reads*
the message he was carrying.

Ahh, you had me going there for a minute, till you'd have us believe
that Reivers were literate. Most likely he was holding the paper
thinking "Hey! This'll be better than a clump of grass".

That suggestion would have been a great deal truer of England than
Scotland.

The reality is that starting with the Scottish Education Act of 1496,
the country was completely literate by the late 1700s, with small
villages featuring lending libraries available to all - and from the
records of who took out books and what sort of books they read, about
50% were religious in nature, while the rest included novels,
educational books and surprisingly, literature about social and
political matters. Borrowers listed included maids, blacksmiths, farm
workers, etc.

The reason for this interest in literacy was the determination of John
Knox, the firebrand Protestant preacher and later Scotland's Ayatollah
Khomeini, that every Christian should be able to read the Bible; in
contrast to those of the Catholic faith, whose Bible was read to them
by their priests in unintelligible Latin.

By his order, every village was forced to establish a school and pay
for a teacher. Some were magnificent in what they achieved; others
were little more than pathetic gestures.

Notwithstanding, the thirst for learning became such a force that a
large segment of the population of the time worked in the papermaking
industry and books poured out of Scotland. This helped to spread
Scottish ideas on what constitued a liveable society and was the basis
of Voltaire's remark that "We look to Scotland for all our ideas of
civilization". To this day, a Scottish education is considered among
the best to be found, and the Scottish obsession with education is
underlined by the fact that anyone can get a free university education
in Scoitland if they meet the qualifications, regardless of their
nationality. I consider Scotland to be one of the great civilized
countries for that reason alone.

In contrast England was not declared literate until 1888, just over
100 years ago.

Scottish literacy of course did not include the Highlands of Scotland
where Gaelic was and in many places still is the primary language and
where Knox's authority did not run. Even so, many Highlanders sent
their children south to university, traditionally with a sack of
oatmeal to sustain them; the Highlands being at that time one of the
poorest parts of Europe.

The Highland people, like the Welsh, correctly recognized that
education could ensure their survival; and in Gaelic-speaking
Scotland in particular, it seems to be a rare family that does not
have one member with a degree. As a result, one meets Gaels all over
the world in positions of authority, such as my buddy Murdo here in
Vancouver - just voted the most liveable city in the world yet again -
who was captain of Vancouver's fireboat for many years; a very visible
and critical position, as Vancouver's harbour is one of the largest
and busiest on the North American Pacific coast and has had its share
of major incidents.

Indeed, only last night, I listened to an interview on Radio Alba
(Gaelic radio) with an American from Seattle in Washington State,
called Andreas Wolf who is currently on the Isle of Skye at Sabhal Mòr
Ostaig, Scotland's Gaelic college, a man who speaks excellent Gaelic
with a strong American accent and despite the rapidfire and highly
regional accent of the interviewer, never once had to ask for a
question to be repeated - indeed, he began to take on the
interviewer's pronunciations; those of the Isle of Lewis!

I know that Seattle is a prominent Gaelic centre, but to listen to
someone with no Highland background speak such perfect Gaelic was
rather a surprise! I might add that Donald Trump, whose mother was
from the Isle of Lewis, appears to have only a smattering of the
language.~

Sin a mar a tha! (Shin ah mar ah ha) That's the way of it! - a common
Gaelic expression when accepting a reality or the inevitable.

To hear this interview, go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/alba/
and click on "Èisd a-rithist"(Listen again). then scroll down to
"Prògram Choinnich" select FRI (Friday)


So, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that many reivers may have
been literate.
Still, enjoyable read.

Well, thank you! As the Norman proverb says, "à brebis tondue Dieu

mesure le vent" - the Lord tempers the wind to the shorn lamb.

I ran into a strange English proverb the other day - Daub yourself
with honey and you'll never want for flies.

If there is a need for flies in England, the entire Highlands will
unite in sending you their share of the bounty - some of the worst
blood-sucking insects you've ever met in your life - of course, apart
from the Inland Revenue or whatever the tax people call themeselves
these days.

I suspect that a co-poster will be along shortly to assure you that
the Highland people and the insects/midges have everything in common
when it comes to blood-sucking... It is an ancient Highland art and
quite painless if done with the usual consummate skill and cunning...

There - that should annoy AWS at having missed his chance for a good
wallow in the evils of Highlanders!

The Highlander
Tilgibh smucaid air do làmhan,
togaibh a' bhratach dhubh agus
toisichibh a' geàrradh na sgòrnanan!

Gjest

Re: OT Romanoff Remains

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 aug 2007 17:30:05

In a message dated 8/24/2007 12:29:35 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, writes:

Has only just come up on the screen in the past hour or so. If it is
correct, the world can stop pondering whether anyone escaped the Ekaterinberg
slaughter.



--------------
How interesting.
For some reason the name of the city stuck in my mind.
Wasn't Blavatsky born in Ekaterinberg, then called something else
Dnepropetrovsk ?

Will



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

Gjest

Re: STAWELL/STOWELL COTHELSTONE

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 aug 2007 17:31:03

In a message dated 8/24/2007 12:40:29 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
arthuri@alphalink.com.au writes:

I come back to the point that no one in this group has given any
indication of their qualifications, particularly in regard to their
right to criticise what I have done, not even you. And you continue to
pass criticism on my work.


---------------------
I criticize all work which does not meet the level of genealogical research
to which we strive. Since you don't want to look in the archives for that, I
will mention that on-list I've criticized Ancestral Roots, Plantagenet
Ancestry, Dictionary of National Biography, Encyclopaedia Brittanica and well as
many, many posters here.

The points are the same. You do not need any special qualifications to
point out the holes in ones research. You merely need a healthy skepticism and a
discerning ability.

You can see some of my work on my web site
_http://www.countyhistorian.com_ (http://www.countyhistorian.com)

Take a look, criticize me to the skies. Its your perogative.

My criticism gets more pointed the more a person protests. People who
refuse to learn are not tolerated, they are berated. There are sources which are
"good" or "better" and then ones which are "worse" or even "worthless". You,
ME, and others learn which are which.

I do not know everything about genealogy, I probably only know one percent
of that. But I'm willing to learn the other ninety-nine percent. Hopefully
that is why YOU are here as well.

So learn that web sites with no sources are worthless as proofs, no matter
how many MILLIONS of people parrot what they say.

Will Johnson



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

Gjest

Re: STAWELL/STOWELL COTHELSTONE

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 aug 2007 17:35:06

In a message dated 8/24/2007 12:40:29 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
arthuri@alphalink.com.au writes:

I come back to the point that no one in this group has given any
indication of their qualifications, particularly in regard to their
right to criticise what I have done, not even you. And you continue to
pass criticism on my work.


---------------------
I criticize all work which does not meet the level of genealogical research
to which we strive. Since you don't want to look in the archives for that, I
will mention that on-list I've criticized Ancestral Roots, Plantagenet
Ancestry, Dictionary of National Biography, Encyclopaedia Brittanica and well as
many, many posters here.

The points are the same. You do not need any special qualifications to
point out the holes in ones research. You merely need a healthy skepticism and a
discerning ability.

You can see some of my work on my web site
_http://www.countyhistorian.com_ (http://www.countyhistorian.com)

Take a look, criticize me to the skies. Its your perogative.

My criticism gets more pointed the more a person protests. People who
refuse to learn are not tolerated, they are berated. There are sources which are
"good" or "better" and then ones which are "worse" or even "worthless". You,
ME, and others learn which are which.

I do not know everything about genealogy, I probably only know one percent
of that. But I'm willing to learn the other ninety-nine percent. Hopefully
that is why YOU are here as well.

So learn that web sites with no sources are worthless as proofs, no matter
how many MILLIONS of people parrot what they say.

Will Johnson



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

Gjest

Re: No "Activist" Interpretation Of The Laws

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 aug 2007 17:36:04

In a message dated 8/24/2007 8:30:30 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
panther@excelsior.com writes:

He was referring to legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.


-------------
Query: Was Lee Oswald an FBI informant?

Hoover: Oh no he wasn't ours.

.......



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

The Highlander

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av The Highlander » 24 aug 2007 17:38:31

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 06:40:56 GMT, "allan connochie"
<conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:

"junction5@msn.com" <robt.black@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:NKqdnZHK7tSy1lPbnZ2dnUVZ8tWnnZ2d@bt.com...

"allan connochie" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:rBmyi.19084$ph7.3270@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...

"Leticia Cluff" <leticia.cluff@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hnnjc39hljfi8ko2v3tifb75ldfi0me8s9@4ax.com...
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:15:19 GMT, "allan connochie"
conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:

More seriously though the border as such is more or less as it was long
before the Wars of Indepedence.


I actually don't think the Borders mattered a
curdy one way or another to Scotland or England.
Borders history is the history of some wee gang fights.

That is a worthy addition to the debate.

Allan

I don't agree. The Borderers were a major thorn in the side of England

and Scotland, both of which refused to claim ownership of the area
because of the reparations they would have been forced to pay to the
reivers' victims.

It's why James VI mustered both the English and the Scottish armies to
attack them from both sides of the Border when he became James I of
England.

Fortunately, his efforts were not entirely successful.

The Highlander
Tilgibh smucaid air do làmhan,
togaibh a' bhratach dhubh agus
toisichibh a' geàrradh na sgòrnanan!

Gjest

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 aug 2007 17:50:05

In a message dated 8/24/2007 2:31:08 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
terryjbooth@sbcglobal.net writes:

But Leofric did have a wife whose first name is known from many
primary sources, so his is a different case - unless of course it can be
proved that Godgifu married Leofric too late to have born his son.


-------------
Silence isn't a good argument. However the fact that she evidently lived
through the Conquest might be one. Which seems more probable? That Leofric
had a wife who wasn't recorded, or that Godgifu lived to be in her 70s if not
80s ?

Will



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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 aug 2007 18:00:18

Some are using the terminology _The Borders_ here.

Others are writing _The Borderers_.

Which is "correct" and why?

_The Borderers_ can refer to the turf -- or just to the people?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Cory Bhreckan

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av Cory Bhreckan » 24 aug 2007 18:22:36

suzieflame@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 24, 10:21 am, The Highlander <mich...@shaw.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:48:07 GMT, Dave <d...@knowhere.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:28:26 GMT, The Highlander <mich...@shaw.ca
wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:03:28 GMT, Dave <d...@knowhere.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:14:21 GMT, The Highlander <mich...@shaw.ca
wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 12:39:07 GMT, Dave <d...@knowhere.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 03:38:15 GMT, The Highlander <mich...@shaw.ca
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:35:46 GMT, Dave <d...@knowhere.com> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:16:24 GMT, The Highlander <mich...@shaw.ca
wrote:
Several posters in SCS are descended from the Border Reivers
(Raiders), myself included.
Your mother certainly put it about a bit. If it's not border reivers
it's Bonnie Prince whatsit or Robert the Bruce.
I think you're confusing my mother with your daughter, the wee hoor
who works the sailors down at the docks for five bucks a shot to pay
for her crack habit.
But is she related to William Wallace?
I have no idea who your daughter is related to.
Anglotrash is not my scene.
Funny that since you seem to be related to every other Scottish
historical figure. But as William Wallace supposedly didn't have any
surviving children I guess you must be descended from his idiot
brother. The one they don't like to talk about.
Ach, I can hardly cope with all the clumsy attempts at wit!
I'll bet they think you're "a real card" at your local boozer, down
there in the Great British Slum - England.
Away home your fatherless bastard. God curse you in all your
undertakings and guide your feet to the cliff edge - and over it!
Struck a nerve then? I'll bet you have more English blood in you than
I do after what the redcoats did to your great great grandmother.
Your Scottish lairds did a good job when they cleared the land for
more intelligent life.
Yes, we sure did. Not that I accept any responsibility for my family's
past activities, although I don't mind wallowing in the nastier stuff
like the slave trade which somehow missed you and yours.

How about your family? When did they manage to shake off serf status?
Still having inbreeding problems, or is sleeping with your children a
no-no these days? Oh yes, the night-time habits of the English working
class are well-known despite all the attempts to draw a curtain over
what goes on down there in Anglistan's remoter backwaters.

Disgusting. Like animals.

You haven't Changed a Bit

Hey look Mike, your girlfriend's back.

The Highlander
Tilgibh smucaid air do làmhan,
togaibh a' bhratach dhubh agus
toisichibh a' geàrradh na sgòrnanan!



--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall

William Black

Re: No "Activist" Interpretation Of The Laws

Legg inn av William Black » 24 aug 2007 18:40:17

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:APCzi.206$Jp2.1376@eagle.america.net...
No...

It's Lyndon Baines Johnson.

AND:

"It's probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than
outside
the tent pissing in."

He was referring to legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.

Quoted in _The New York Times_, 31 October 1971.

Black is getting sloppy again...

It's the Socialism [and lack of Good Sense].

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Gdyzi.26026$Db6.14167@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...

Now, now, Mister Black.
How shall we ever keep the pot boiling if you go all reasonable on me?
;=) [sop]

The Socialism (and good sense) usually overwhelms the nationalism.

I've met the English ruling classes.

As a general rule they're charming, ruthless, devious and manipulative.

I rather like them.

But in the words [No] of the late President Lyndon Bains [sic] Johnson
[sic] "I'd rather have them [sic] inside the tent piss [sic] out than
outside the tent pissing in" [sic]

Oh dear.

He's getting all uppity again.

I'm going to have to humiliate him again aren't I...

--
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.

D. Spencer Hines

While England Slept

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 aug 2007 19:23:29

Read Freeman Dyson's _Weapons And Hope_ and his brilliant analysis of the
British General Election of 1935.

That was your Last Chance.

Dyson had the Good Sense to emigrate to America and become a United States
citizen.

Of course you should have paid heed to Cousin Winston's warnings FAR earlier
than you finally did.

But then you were pig-headed, slack-arsed and sort-sighted.

You wanted your Long Holiday and a Little England, "Cultivate-My-Garden"
attitude.

[N.B. Americans had a similar, but shorter holiday in the 1990's. We are
still coming out of it. ]

Pigs DO tend to be slack-arsed and sort-sighted -- and you Brits were no
exceptions, in the 1920's and 1930's.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:oUEzi.29812$rr5.25200@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Amazing...

The British anger and ire against Americans about the debt still
ferments and rankles.

That is because the USA ended World War II twice as rich as when it
started.

If Britain had not been so pig-headed and short-sighted during The
Long Holiday of the 1930's [as were the French] she would not have
found herself in such a precarious situation.

Remind us again what you think should have been done?
--
John Briggs

D. Spencer Hines

Re: No "Activist" Interpretation Of The Laws

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 aug 2007 19:27:18

Bingo!

Black The Blind Boar roots up a truffle.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:NHEzi.55346$vi3.17459@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...

As far as I can remember, and it's years since I read all this stuff up,
the big slaving ports were Bristol, which doesn't care because they've
still got all the money, and Liverpool, which wallows in victim status as
a matter of policy, and never apologises for anything.

D. Spencer Hines

The Perils Of Close Air Support

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 aug 2007 19:34:59

"five-dollar Canadian."

What might that be?

DSH

"Andrew Chaplin" <ab.chaplin@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote in message
news:PqOdnV6Kzoxqg1LbnZ2dnUVZ_ryqnZ2d@giganews.com...

Surely not due to someone properly dignified by the epithet "Scotsman,"
far more probably due to a "five-dollar Canadian."

a.spencer3

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 24 aug 2007 19:38:21

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:MmFzi.225$Jp2.1460@eagle.america.net...
Read Freeman Dyson's _Weapons And Hope_ and his brilliant analysis of the
British General Election of 1935.

That was your Last Chance.

Dyson had the Good Sense to emigrate to America and become a United States
citizen.

Of course you should have paid heed to Cousin Winston's warnings FAR
earlier
than you finally did.

But then you were pig-headed, slack-arsed and sort-sighted.

You wanted your Long Holiday and a Little England, "Cultivate-My-Garden"
attitude.

[N.B. Americans had a similar, but shorter holiday in the 1990's. We are
still coming out of it. ]

Pigs DO tend to be slack-arsed and sort-sighted -- and you Brits were no
exceptions, in the 1920's and 1930's.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:oUEzi.29812$rr5.25200@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Amazing...

The British anger and ire against Americans about the debt still
ferments and rankles.

That is because the USA ended World War II twice as rich as when it
started.

If Britain had not been so pig-headed and short-sighted during The
Long Holiday of the 1930's [as were the French] she would not have
found herself in such a precarious situation.

Remind us again what you think should have been done?
--
John Briggs



Well, the USA slept far longer into WWII.

Twit!

Surreyman

Eugene Griessel

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Eugene Griessel » 24 aug 2007 19:44:30

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

Pigs DO tend to be slack-arsed and sort-sighted -- and you Brits were no
exceptions, in the 1920's and 1930's.

Still pissed off because you failed to qualify as a pig?

"and the pig got up and slowly walked away...."


Eugene L Griessel

Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off NOW!

taf

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av taf » 24 aug 2007 19:49:25

On Aug 23, 8:44 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
I think the problem we'll face is the circularity of the secondaries in
dealing with this family.

A source if it's going to make a statement like that based on oblique clues
should make those clues apparent so we can see that the source is using
*reasoning* to arrive at their conclusion, instead of actually citing some primary
source.

If only. As frustrating as it is to genealogists and scholars, a
historical book which spelled out the logic for each obscure comment
would be virtually unreadable and certainly unmarketable at a level
beyond the smallest circle of scholarly specialists. Publishers _hate_
footnotes particularly detailed ones. (I had to fight to get a couple
of explanatory footnotes into a publication for a historical society.)
With internet publishing this becomes more practical, but the only
book on the subject that I recall to make any attempt to explain the
peripheral issues as you suggest is: it took him 5 volumes, each with
dozens of appendices, and for every issue he clarifies, he raises
several more that could/should be explained. Given publication costs
going up, and library budgets going down, I doubt anyone could get
such a work published today (and if the did it through the subsidy
route, they would end up with an attack full of unsold treasures).


It's quite likely that your secondary, uses the same logic that Godiva must
be the mother, and then works backward to calculate what the ages of the
children must be if she lived through the Conquest.

Maybe, maybe not. It is stated like it is common knowledge.


All we have to do is suppose that possibly she wasn't the mother, and all
that has to be redrawn again.

Maybe, maybe not.


taf

Brad Verity

Re: Medlands & Chris Phillips (Was Re: Contributions of D. S

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 24 aug 2007 19:51:13

From: "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com

I'll post my two cents on the whole matter once I've finished
reading all the threads in the archives and taking a look at the
Medieval Lands database firsthand. I must say that so far Medieval
Lands seems like one big Medieval Mess.

I've read the thread in entirety now, all 137 messages. It's very sad
- I wish I had paid attention to it at the time. I would have tried
to diffuse the exchange, but who knows whether that would have made
any difference. It seems to me from what I read is that it was a
conflict between Peter and Chris that had been building up over 11
months.

I didn't go far into the Medieval Lands database. I did read the
entire 8-page Introduction, which is inoffensive enough to an amateur
genealogist like myself. The stated goals seem worthwhile, the scope
is commendable, and the general format (links, chapters, etc.) user-
friendly. I know nothing about European St(ammishlie? Clearly, I
can't even spell it), and have no idea whether or not it's a decent
secondary source from which to build this database.

From the post-1300 England pages though, it's clear that only
secondary sources were relied on (and from the footnotes, mainly CP it

seems), with many of the flaws and errors they contain carried over.
I don't know what the rush was on the part of Cawley and FMG to get
this out in public view, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of
the doubt that it was with good intentions and would prove useful for
amateur genealogists such as me, perhaps fairly new to medieval era
research, to have all of these families, countries, etc. compiled
together in an easy-to-use format. That said, the post-1300 England
section as currently posted in Medieval Lands I already have from my
own 15-odd years of compilation research. It may be of use to those
just starting out, just as PA3 is a useful bibliography compilation
with a nice format (except for the lack of specific statement
citations). But if it's not going to be upgraded by Cawley for quite
some time, I agree that it's confusing to a casual websurfer and
counter-productive to the stated intent of the Introduction.

As for Douglas Richardson's charges that he was not cited by Cawley -
I agree that he definitely should be in the John of Lancaster case
(which, in my opinion, is the best pre-1500 research Douglas has ever
done). I disagree that he needs to be cited in the Alice Arundel/
Segrave case. He did no research of his own there - merely pointed
out in a newsgroup post that CP had overlooked the work of an earlier
researcher. Pointing this out may be a service to other current
unaware researchers, but doesn't _necessitate_ citation in a footnote
- the proper way is to cite the original research and sources. The
author can choose to say something like "I'd like to thank Douglas
Richardson for bringing my attention to this source", but really that
is probably better withheld unless Douglas approached the author
specifically with the material. An author's general acknowledgement
of the usefulness of PA3 or SGM newsgroup postings - in a section
Introduction or Bibliography - should be enough to cover if those
works pointed to earlier sources.

Plagiarism is something else entirely. If Douglas's posts, or
portions of, are being lifted verbatim without any credit, that is
both illegal and immoral. From the portions of the post-1300 England
sections that I read, however, outright plagiarism doesn't seem to be
occurring.

Cawley's competence in fulfilling the task he's set forth (as laid out
in his Introduction) has been shown to be extremely lacking, by
Stewart Baldwin, Peter Stewart, Francisco Tavera (?), Todd Farmerie
and several other SGM participants. The fact that it's been a year
and we still have only the 1st Edition online, with no apparent
updates, doesn't bode well.

From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com
On any rational assessment there must have been at least two
persons
to blame for his disappearance: myself _and_ Phillips.

From: "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com
Peter doesn't have the power to ban anyone from SGM, a fact which
all the trolls delight in and exploit. Chris chose to leave the
group. Leaving off reading the posts Peter was making at the time
may have helped Chris make that choice, but in the end, it was his
choice.

Yes, here is Chris's last statement on the newsgroup:

"I have been responding to your stream of vitriolic personal attacks
and insults with as much patience as I've been able to muster, but we
all have our limits. I've reached my limit, and I just don't have the
patience to continue responding politely while you keep insulting me.
Obviously it was a mistake to try. I should have ignored you from the
start. So I am not going to post any more here on this subject. It's
very sad that it's no longer possible to take part in discussions here
without being called a liar and a hundred other names, and I must
admit I don't have much appetite for any further participation in this
forum. But I'll think about that."

To be fair to Peter, at no point in the heated exchange beforehand did
he tell Chris to leave SGM, stop posting, or say he wished that Chris
would go away. He did make this one comment after Chris made the
statement above:

"SGM will lose nothing but a passenger if you do depart."

And I'm going to have to strongly disagree with Peter here. Chris
Phillips was a longtime participant on SGM, who brought his enthusiasm
and logical thinking to many a complex topic. His website is an
amazing resource for those doing research in the field - a compilation
of hundreds of online resources for the medieval English period. He
used his thorough knowledge of the scope of what he'd compiled to
point SGM participants to sources that would help further their
research. And if he had an interest in a topic discussed, he
frequently took the time to track down an otherwise unavailable
primary source (from the National Archives for example) and post it
online for everyone following the topic to benefit.

He has a handful of personal original research topics he pursues, but
those, as he's admitted, aren't his main focus. He, like me and many
others on SGM, was a compiler, as his website ably demonstrates. One
of his pet projects is his page of Corrections to CP, and he takes it
responsibly and seriously. He doesn't take anything at face value and
just post whatever is brought in front of him - he won't post a
correction until he has followed it up himself and determines if it is
sound.

From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com
I was irate and unkind, admittedly,

Thank you for making that admission, Peter. I'm only halfway
through reading the thread on Medieval Lands that Will Johnson
linked to yesterday, but, yes, I do agree with your self-assessment.

I don't want to overwhelm with examples of a heated exchange that took
place a year ago. There's a lot of water under the bridge since.
I'll just bring up, in addition to your statement above, this other
one, which you made in a previous post.

"As I have said several times, this is the most disgraceful episode of
hypocrisy and wishful denial of the obvious that I can recall on SGM.
You have degraded yourself in front of everyone for the sake of
clinging to your dishonest presentation of a product that I advised
you
11 months ago to be nothing like the claims made for it."

Hyperbole from the heat of the moment aside, this does sum up the root
of your side of the argument. Chris clearly had much more enthusiasm
for Medieval Lands than you did, and seemed eager to present it to SGM
once it was up on FMG's website (and after their AGM meeting when
Cawley gave a presentation of it). Then because of issues with
content and Cawley's misinterpretation of several sources, lots of
people in SGM proceeded to rain on the parade, with you eventually
being the loudest thundercloud.

I don't know that Chris deserves "wishful denial of the obvious",
"hypocrisy", and "dishonest presentation" since, as he said repeatedly
over and over, it was the scope of the project he was excited about,
and never once touted the competency of the person behind it. In
fact, as the incompetence of Cawley became more and more clear, from
more and more people, Chris never took to arguing that the mistakes
weren't so (he even said he didn't have the expertise to do so).

His argument with you eventually (once it reached the Peter Orsino's
wives material) boiled down to the level of Cawley's self-awareness of
his incompetence. Granted this could be viewed as obtuse (like
arguing over the speed of the train bearing down on you while you're
tied to the tracks), but I feel Chris's point did get lost in the heat
of the exchange (and the clear weight of Cawley's incompetence). If
someone is unaware of their own or someone else's incompetence, how
can they be dishonest? Chris believed in the worth of the Medieval
Lands project despite your (valid) reservations that you had shared
with FMG in the post you later shared with SGM. You had said to FMG
(being unaware of the scope of Cawley's incompetence) that there was
some value in putting it on their website. They chose not to follow
your recommendations on how they should present it (which was
unfortunate), they presented it, and Chris told SGM about it.
Misguided, as it turns out, but not dishonest. Chris is no expert on
pre-Conquest non-English genealogy, and wouldn't be in a position to
judge whether Cawley was a competent enough researcher or not to reach
the goals he had set for himself with this database.

but that doesn't alter the fact
that he was deliberately obtuse, irresponsible at first and evasive
later, or the inexcusable aftermath that he has not fronted up
since -
publicly or privately, either of which would have put an end to the
matter - with the outcome of his promised consultation with Charles
Cawley.

I wrote couple days ago:
"Heated debates on the newsgroup can be exhausting. I know firsthand
- I've had enough of my own with Douglas. And if they become
emotional and personal, I completely understand leaving the newsgroup
altogether. Once that happens, life has a way of taking over and
steering one off onto new pursuits."

Peter, you've admitted to becoming irate (an emotion) during the
exchange, and Chris certainly got emotional as well. In fact, I was
surprised at how strong his tone during it became - he is usually a
truly gentle man. I hold to what I said and respect his decision to
stop participating in SGM altogether. I do hope and wish that someday
he will choose to return.

I also hold that Peter is not responsible for Chris's decision to
leave SGM, though he certainly was the trigger. You can't hold the
storm responsible for a person's decision to take shelter from it.

As to how this all boils down to Peter's current tactic with Hines and
Brandon, which is why I piped in with my original two (and now a
million and two) cents to begin with - he can try and trigger their
leaving SGM as long as he wants. I'm skeptical it'll work because I
believe that they take the newsgroup much less seriously than Chris
did, and Peter himself does. But if he achieves his stated goal - SGM
will certainly be better for it.

It's not a battle that I choose to follow closely, and not one that I
suspect many SGM members wish to follow at all. So, as Peter says
repeatedly, use your delete button or kill-file option, and the
channel will suddenly turn back to medieval genealogy.

Cheers, ------Brad

taf

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av taf » 24 aug 2007 20:03:36

On Aug 24, 8:46 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/24/2007 2:31:08 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

terryjbo...@sbcglobal.net writes:

But Leofric did have a wife whose first name is known from many
primary sources, so his is a different case - unless of course it can be
proved that Godgifu married Leofric too late to have born his son.

-------------
Silence isn't a good argument. However the fact that she evidently lived
through the Conquest might be one. Which seems more probable? That Leofric
had a wife who wasn't recorded, or that Godgifu lived to be in her 70s if not
80s ?

I don't see a pampered Anglo-Saxon woman living to her 70s being so
ridiculous as to require an earlier wife. Sure, it didn't happen to
to everyone, but it is hardly such an anomaly as to necessitate such a
revision.

If you give 20 year generations, which is not out of the question
going from an heiress (I don't think anyone knows when Anglo-Saxon
daughters consumated their marriages, but I don't think 16 or 17 is
that extreme, so that gives her the chance for an heir and a spare by
20) to an eldest son and heir to another eldest son and heir, then you
only need to add 40 years to her grandson's age. If Edwin was 25, that
makes her 65. Given shorter generations and a younger Edwin, she could
even be <50. If Griffith did have a daughter by Ealdgyth, then this
would prevent the number going too low, but the chronology doesn't
need to be nearly as extreme as you are casting it.

taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 aug 2007 20:15:08

Hilarious!

The mountain gives birth to a mouse.

This is what I mean by Thumb-Sucking Genealogical Trivia.

Indeed it's a Sterling Exemplar of same.

DSH

"taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:1187981365.754079.214180@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

It's quite likely that your secondary, uses the same logic that Godiva
must be the mother, and then works backward to calculate what the
ages of the children must be if she lived through the Conquest.

Maybe, maybe not. It is stated like it is common knowledge.

All we have to do is suppose that possibly she wasn't the mother, and all
that has to be redrawn again.

Maybe, maybe not.

taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 aug 2007 20:16:14

The United States was not DIRECTLY threatened.

We had an OCEAN between us and the European Nazis and Fascists -- to protect
us and our Vital Sea Lanes and give us FAR longer to PREPARE and sort out
our political differences.

YOU British pogues did NOT.

Geography is a Primary Determinant of DESTINY -- AND National Security
Planning.

Pig-headed, slack-arsed, short-sighted Brits wanted their Long Holiday and
wallowed in a Little England, "Cultivate-My-Garden" attitude -- AND didn't
listen to Cousin Winston.

The Wages Of Idiocy Are Pain & Suffering...

As Brits Soon Found Out.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:xAFzi.29819$rr5.1068@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

> Well, the USA slept far longer into WWII.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 aug 2007 20:42:55

A Delightful, Informative Read...

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

"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:h7rtc3tq4kpdeao02g63okfaio0kfrek5c@4ax.com...

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 07:42:59 -0700, Duwop <tutall@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 20, 11:16 am, The Highlander <mich...@shaw.ca> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:59:11 +0100, Bryn

SNIP very informative entertaining post

My personal picture of a Border Reiver is that of a man sitting on a
horse, leaning on a spear with his shoulder which is pinning an
enemy messenger to the ground through the neck, while the rider *reads*
the message he was carrying.

Let's see the PICTURE.

Ahh, you had me going there for a minute, till you'd have us believe
that Reivers were literate. Most likely he was holding the paper
thinking "Hey! This'll be better than a clump of grass".

That suggestion would have been a great deal truer of England than
Scotland.

The reality is that starting with the Scottish Education Act of 1496,
the country was completely literate by the late 1700s, with small
villages featuring lending libraries available to all - and from the
records of who took out books and what sort of books they read, about
50% were religious in nature, while the rest included novels,
educational books and surprisingly, literature about social and
political matters. Borrowers listed included maids, blacksmiths, farm
workers, etc.

The reason for this interest in literacy was the determination of John
Knox, the firebrand Protestant preacher and later Scotland's Ayatollah
Khomeini, that every Christian should be able to read the Bible; in
contrast to those of the Catholic faith, whose Bible was read to them
by their priests in unintelligible Latin.

John Knox. Great Man Indeed -- And Great Scot.

By his order, every village was forced to establish a school and pay
for a teacher. Some were magnificent in what they achieved; others
were little more than pathetic gestures.

Notwithstanding, the thirst for learning became such a force that a
large segment of the population of the time worked in the papermaking
industry and books poured out of Scotland. This helped to spread
Scottish ideas on what constituted a liveable society and was the basis
of Voltaire's remark that "We look to Scotland for all our ideas of
civilization". To this day, a Scottish education is considered among
the best to be found, and the Scottish obsession with education is
underlined by the fact that anyone can get a free university education
in Scotland if they meet the qualifications, regardless of their
nationality. I consider Scotland to be one of the great civilized
countries for that reason alone.

It gave us Adam Smith as well -- and Andrew Carnegie. Capital!

In contrast England was not declared literate until 1888, just over
100 years ago.

Scottish literacy of course did not include the Highlands of Scotland
where Gaelic was and in many places still is the primary language and
where Knox's authority did not run. Even so, many Highlanders sent
their children south to university, traditionally with a sack of
oatmeal to sustain them; the Highlands being at that time one of the
poorest parts of Europe.

Citation?

The Highland people, like the Welsh, correctly recognized that
education could ensure their survival; and in Gaelic-speaking
Scotland in particular, it seems to be a rare family that does not
have one member with a degree. As a result, one meets Gaels all over
the world in positions of authority, such as my buddy Murdo here in
Vancouver - just voted the most liveable city in the world yet again -
who was captain of Vancouver's fireboat for many years; a very visible
and critical position, as Vancouver's harbour is one of the largest
and busiest on the North American Pacific coast and has had its share
of major incidents.

Indeed. The only pity is that Vancouver is not part of the United States.

Indeed, only last night, I listened to an interview on Radio Alba
(Gaelic radio) with an American from Seattle in Washington State,
called Andreas Wolf who is currently on the Isle of Skye at Sabhal Mòr
Ostaig, Scotland's Gaelic college, a man who speaks excellent Gaelic
with a strong American accent and despite the rapidfire and highly
regional accent of the interviewer, never once had to ask for a
question to be repeated - indeed, he began to take on the
interviewer's pronunciations; those of the Isle of Lewis!

Capital!

I know that Seattle is a prominent Gaelic centre, but to listen to
someone with no Highland background speak such perfect Gaelic was
rather a surprise! I might add that Donald Trump, whose mother was
from the Isle of Lewis, appears to have only a smattering of the
language.~

Sin a mar a tha! (Shin ah mar ah ha) That's the way of it! - a common
Gaelic expression when accepting a reality or the inevitable.

Worth Remembering. Sin a mar a tha! [Shin ah mar ah ha.] Similar to the
Japanese "Shikata ga nai!"

To hear this interview, go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/alba/
and click on "Èisd a-rithist"(Listen again). then scroll down to
"Prògram Choinnich" select FRI (Friday)

So, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that many reivers may have
been literate.

Still, enjoyable read.

Well, thank you! As the Norman proverb says, "à brebis tondue Dieu
mesure le vent" - the Lord tempers the wind to the shorn lamb.

<G>

I ran into a strange English proverb the other day - Daub yourself
with honey and you'll never want for flies.

<G>

If there is a need for flies in England, the entire Highlands will
unite in sending you their share of the bounty - some of the worst
blood-sucking insects you've ever met in your life - of course, apart
from the Inland Revenue or whatever the tax people call themselves
these days.

I suspect that a co-poster will be along shortly to assure you that
the Highland people and the insects/midges have everything in common
when it comes to blood-sucking... It is an ancient Highland art and
quite painless if done with the usual consummate skill and cunning...

There - that should annoy AWS at having missed his chance for a good
wallow in the evils of Highlanders!

The Highlander
Tilgibh smucaid air do làmhan,
togaibh a' bhratach dhubh agus
toisichibh a' geàrradh na sgòrnanan!

D. Spencer Hines

Re: July 20, 1944 Plot To Kill Hitler

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 aug 2007 20:45:48

Arrant Errant Twaddle!

DSH

"Brian Sharrock" <b.sharrock@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3gEzi.25275$ph7.12645@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...

The only acknowledgement I've seen of the US Merchant ship involvement of
shipping goods to Murmansk was a Humphrey Bogart & Raymond Massey movie
(1943) .... perhaps there were others?

D. Spencer Hines

Re: No "Activist" Interpretation Of The Laws

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 aug 2007 20:48:15

Have you been to the Isle of Man?

DSH

"Conway Caine" <ccaine@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:AqGzi.52045$ax1.27940@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

(BTW, my great grandfather, the Manxman, served in the British Army and
was stationed in India)

D. Spencer Hines

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 aug 2007 21:10:11

The Global War On Islamofascist, Jihadist Terrorism has a PRICE and
Geography Alone is no longer a protection.

How many friendly fire incidents does this woman think there were in World
War II?...

Is she stupid and ignorant enough to think every one of them was reported
with screaming headlines in the newspapers as a concerted strategy by
Left-Wingers and Cut & Runners in the Media to orchestrate a Precipitous
Pullout?

Pull Up Your Socks & Continue The March, Wobbly Brits...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

"Janet Crawford" <reojan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1244.1187983759.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

On 8/24/07, D. Spencer Hines <panther@excelsior.com> wrote:
The United States was not DIRECTLY threatened.

We had an OCEAN between us and the European Nazis and Fascists -- to
protect us and our Vital Sea Lanes and give us FAR longer to PREPARE
and sort out our political differences.

YOU British pogues did NOT.

Geography is a Primary Determinant of DESTINY -- AND National Security
Planning.

Pig-headed, slack-arsed, short-sighted Brits wanted their Long Holiday
and wallowed in a Little England, "Cultivate-My-Garden" attitude -- AND
didn't listen to Cousin Winston.

The Wages Of Idiocy Are Pain & Suffering...

As Brits Soon Found Out.

DSH

This is a highly inappropriate comment made on the day when the US has
killed three MORE UK soldiers by "friendly fire".

D. Spencer Hines

Re: July 20, 1944 Plot To Kill Hitler

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 aug 2007 21:11:46

Hilarious!

USENET at its most comical.

DSH

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:NLGzi.25289$ph7.22396@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...

Conway Caine wrote:

"Brian Sharrock" <b.sharrock@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
"Conway Caine" <ccaine@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

My father risked his life twice on the Murmansk run to insure
Russia had some of the wherewithal necessary to continue fighting
the Germans.

I don't know. "Insure" sounds pretty good to me.
We here in the Colonies employ that usage quite often.

You probably meant to say _assure_, rather than insure.

He meant "ensure".
--
John Briggs

Keith Willshaw

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av Keith Willshaw » 24 aug 2007 21:29:03

"junction5@msn.com" <robt.black@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:NKqdnZHK7tSy1lPbnZ2dnUVZ8tWnnZ2d@bt.com...
"allan connochie" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:rBmyi.19084$ph7.3270@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...

"Leticia Cluff" <leticia.cluff@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hnnjc39hljfi8ko2v3tifb75ldfi0me8s9@4ax.com...
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:15:19 GMT, "allan connochie"
conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:

More seriously though the border as such is more or less as it was long
before the Wars of Indepedence.


I actually don't think the Borders mattered a
curdy one way or another to Scotland or England.
Borders history is the history of some wee gang fights.


They mattered enough for Elizabeth I, a ruler with a reputation for penury,
to
spend vast sums on the fortification of Berwick On Tweed. The defensive
system built their is one of the finest in Britain.

Keith

WJhonson

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av WJhonson » 24 aug 2007 21:43:09

But you neatly sidestep my point, which isn't "Is it possible that Godiva lived into her 60s, 70s, or 80s"

but my point is rather, which is more probable?
A) That she had a longer life than the average or
B) That Leofric had a wife or partner whose name isn't recorded?

It's a two-part question. And the standard interpretation is less than a hundred-years old as can be seen by DNB's insinuation that Godiva *might* have been a widow at the time she married Leofric, and then retracting it later, based on no authority, that this was someone else.

Digging down to the root sources, we can't really determine which case is correct today it seems. Only that the question shouldn't be swept under the table in this fashion, but rather laid out in full view for scrutiny.

Does Keats-Rohan address these holdings in Domesday that Godiva *had* held ?

Will

WJhonson

Re: Medlands & Chris Phillips (Was Re: Contributions of D. S

Legg inn av WJhonson » 24 aug 2007 21:50:59

<<In a message dated 08/24/07 11:55:41 Pacific Standard Time, royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
From the portions of the post-1300 England
sections that I read, however, outright plagiarism doesn't seem to be
occurring. >>
-----------------------------------
Brad how can you say this after reading entire sections which have no citations whatsoever.

None. Not any citations.

I can see the case in casual exchange, such as on this newsgroup, or draft research, such as on my website, where you would not give a citation until you can find a good one, while using something like the IGI or OWT as a temporary guideline until that time.

But Cawley presents this as a finished product, with loads of scholarly citations and rebuilding of families from the primary documents, and yet then produces pages of data with no citations at all, which are obviously gleaned not from 100 different primary A2A documents for example, but rather, lifted intact from someplace like stirnet or CP without citation.

That is the underlying main issue I have with his work. It bleeds "false authority" all over it.

Will Johnson

John Briggs

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av John Briggs » 24 aug 2007 21:54:48

Keith Willshaw wrote:
"junction5@msn.com" <robt.black@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:NKqdnZHK7tSy1lPbnZ2dnUVZ8tWnnZ2d@bt.com...

"allan connochie" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:rBmyi.19084$ph7.3270@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...

"Leticia Cluff" <leticia.cluff@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hnnjc39hljfi8ko2v3tifb75ldfi0me8s9@4ax.com...
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:15:19 GMT, "allan connochie"
conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:

More seriously though the border as such is more or less as it
was long before the Wars of Indepedence.


I actually don't think the Borders mattered a
curdy one way or another to Scotland or England.
Borders history is the history of some wee gang fights.

They mattered enough for Elizabeth I, a ruler with a reputation for
penury, to spend vast sums on the fortification of Berwick On Tweed.

They started under Mary - who was even more penurious. The cost from 1558 to
1570 inclusive was £128,648 5s 9 1/2 d. (From 1571 until 1603 it was
between £1,000 and £2,000 per annum.)

The defensive system built their is one of the finest in Britain.

Only in architectural terms. Militarily, it was completely useless.
--
John Briggs

Gjest

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Wills of Sir John Cornwall, L

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 aug 2007 21:58:56

On 24 Aug., 20:35, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 253254 (sub Fanhope) includes a good
account of the life history of Sir John Cornwall, Lord Fanhope, who
died in 1443. According to Complete Peerage, Lord Fanhope left a will
dated 10 December 1443, directing burial in the Friars Preachers,
Ludgate.

According to the source cited below, however, Lord Fanhope actually
left two wills, one dated dated 1 April 1437 and the other dated 10
Dec. 1443, both of which were probated. Under the terms of the first
will, a life rent of 40 marks payable out of certain London properties
was devoted to prayers for his soul.

Dear Douglas

That is interesting; thank you.

One slight correction: the bequest was not a life rent, but a rent-
charge, designed to last for ever, but in fact extinguished during the
Reformation.

Regards, Michael

D. Spencer Hines

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 aug 2007 21:59:41

As far as I can remember, and it's years since I read all this stuff up,
the big slaving ports were Bristol, which doesn't care because they've
still got all the money, and Liverpool, which wallows in victim status
as a matter of policy, and never apologises for anything.

William Black -- Alias Black The Red, Pogue Black & Black The Blind Boar
----------------------------------------------------------------

Hilarious!

It turns out that Black The Blind Boar did NOT root up a truffle -- just a
petar -- which has hoist him.

KAWHOMP!

KERSPLAT!

Vide infra pro risibus.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

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

"Brian Sharrock" <b.sharrock@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:u9Hzi.29827$rr5.7129@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
As far as I can remember, and it's years since I read all this stuff up,
the big slaving ports were Bristol, which doesn't care because they've
still got all the money, and Liverpool, which wallows in victim status
as a matter of policy, and never apologises for anything.

However:

http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/ism/srd/srd3.asp

extract

On 9 December 1999 Liverpool City Council passed a formal motion
apologising for the City’s part in the slave trade. It was unanimously
agreed that Liverpool acknowledges its responsibility for its
involvement in three centuries of the slave trade. The City Council
has made an unreserved apology for Liverpool’s involvement and
the continual effect of slavery on Liverpool’s black communities.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: The Perils Of Close Air Support

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 aug 2007 22:02:58

Thank you kindly.

Most Informative.

Aloha,

DSH

"Andrew Chaplin" <ab.chaplin@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote in message
news:a6-dnVOkRowX2VLbnZ2dnUVZ_s6mnZ2d@giganews.com...

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:yxFzi.227$Jp2.999@eagle.america.net...

"Andrew Chaplin" <ab.chaplin@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote in message
news:PqOdnV6Kzoxqg1LbnZ2dnUVZ_ryqnZ2d@giganews.com...

Surely not due to someone properly dignified by the epithet "Scotsman,"
far more probably due to a "five-dollar Canadian."

"five-dollar Canadian."

What might that be?

Someone who has paid for a Canadian citizenship certificate, typically an
immigrant. The fee for the issue of a citizenship certificate back in the
1950s was about CAD 5. Those who held a Canadian birth certificate (which
cost whatever the issuing province wanted, and certainly more than five
bucks) generally did not get them. The fee is certainly more than that
now.

AFAIK, Conrad, Baron Black of Crossharbour, is one of the few people with
a Canadian birth certificate who cannot enter Canada. Because of the
obstruction of the Chrétien ministry, he renounced his Canadian
citizenship in order to be named a peer in the UK. He has since been
convicted of fraud in Illinois and cannot, as a convicted felon who is not
a citizen, enter Canada without a minister's authority. The Harper
ministry is very "law-'n-order" and is in a quandary, and is hoping he
will ask to serve his sentence in the UK. Black, or "Lord Tubby" as the
scandal sheets call him, still owns a home in the Toronto area but is seen
as a very unsympathetic character.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 aug 2007 22:16:27

The defensive system built their [sic] is one of the finest in Britain.

Only in architectural terms. Militarily, it was completely useless.
--
John Briggs

<G>

Similar to the Maginot Line?

DSH

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:sAHzi.20449$mo.217@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...

Keith Willshaw wrote:
"junction5@msn.com" <robt.black@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:NKqdnZHK7tSy1lPbnZ2dnUVZ8tWnnZ2d@bt.com...

"allan connochie" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:rBmyi.19084$ph7.3270@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...

"Leticia Cluff" <leticia.cluff@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hnnjc39hljfi8ko2v3tifb75ldfi0me8s9@4ax.com...
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:15:19 GMT, "allan connochie"
conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:

More seriously though the border as such is more or less as it
was long before the Wars of Indepedence.


I actually don't think the Borders mattered a
curdy one way or another to Scotland or England.
Borders history is the history of some wee gang fights.

They mattered enough for Elizabeth I, a ruler with a reputation for
penury, to spend vast sums on the fortification of Berwick On Tweed.

They started under Mary - who was even more penurious. The cost from 1558
to 1570 inclusive was £128,648 5s 9 1/2 d. (From 1571 until 1603 it was
between £1,000 and £2,000 per annum.)

The defensive system built their is one of the finest in Britain.

Only in architectural terms. Militarily, it was completely useless.
--
John Briggs

Brad Verity

Re: Descents From Edward III For Father Albert Babthorpe (16

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 24 aug 2007 22:16:51

On May 4, 4:14 pm, Brad Verity <royaldesc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

The next Sir WilliamBabthorpe(1528-1581)...took a second wife
Frances Dawnay (not descended from Edward I) and had a third daughter
(Christian, married to John Girlington).

I want to thank John Ravilious (another SGM participant whose posts I
always read) for kindly pointing out that I made a mistake in the
above statement. Frances Dawnay was a descendant of Edward I, and
indeed of Edward III thru Joan Beaufort.

So her daughter Christian Babthorpe Girlington has the following two
descents from Joan Beaufort.

Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland (c.1379-1440), had, in addition
to the 3 daughters (A1, B1 & C1) given in the original post, a son
(D1) and an another daughter (E1).

D1) George Nevill, 1st Lord Latimer (c.1411-1469), who had
D2) Sir Henry Nevill (d. 1469) m. Joan Bourchier (d. 1470, descended
from Edward III but not thru Joan Beaufort), and had
D3) Richard Nevill, 2nd Lord Latimer (1468-1530) m. 1)1483 Anne
Stafford, and had
D4) Dorothy Nevill (1496-1532) m. 1514 Sir John Dawnay of Sessay (d.
1553), and had
D5) Sir Thomas Dawnay of Sessay (d. 1566) m. Edith Darcy (see E7
below), and had
D6) Frances Dawnay (d. 1605) m. 1)by 1565 Sir William Babthorpe of
Babthorpe (1528-1561), and had
D7) Christian Babthorpe (d. bef.1612) m. c.1590 John Girlington of
Hackforth, Yorks. and Thurland Castle, Lancs. (d. 1612)

E1) Elizabeth Ferrers, Lady Greystoke (1393-1434), who had
E2) Joan Greystoke (c.1410-aft. 1472) m. Sir John Darcy of Temple
Hurst, Yorks. (1404-1458), and had
E3) Richard Darcy (c.1424-c.1450) m. Eleanor Scrope, and had
E4) Sir William Darcy of Temple Hurst (1443-1488) m. 1461 Euphemia
Langton, and had
E5) Thomas Darcy, 1st Lord Darcy (c.1467-1537), m. 1)Dowsabel Tempest,
and had
E6) George Darcy, 1st Lord Darcy of Aston (d. 1558) m. 1511 Dorothy
Melton (c.1505-1557), and had
E7) Edith Darcy m. Sir Thomas Dawnay of Sessay (see D5 above)

Cheers, --------Brad

Gjest

Re: Descents From Edward III For Father Albert Babthorpe (16

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 aug 2007 22:28:52

On 24 Aug., 22:16, Brad Verity <royaldesc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 4, 4:14 pm, Brad Verity <royaldesc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

The next Sir WilliamBabthorpe(1528-1581)...took a second wife
Frances Dawnay (not descended from Edward I) and had a third daughter
(Christian, married to John Girlington).

I want to thank John Ravilious (another SGM participant whose posts I
always read) for kindly pointing out that I made a mistake in the
above statement. Frances Dawnay was a descendant of Edward I, and
indeed of Edward III thru Joan Beaufort.

So her daughter Christian Babthorpe Girlington has the following two
descents from Joan Beaufort.

Brad

Thanks for another interesting and clearly expressed post. Your
project is very useful, and I enjoy reading the fruits of it. I am
grateful that you share them with the group.

Kind regards, Michael

D. Spencer Hines

Re: July 20, 1944 Plot To Kill Hitler

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 aug 2007 22:31:58

Very Good...

But it's LIGHTNING -- not LIGHTENING.

Straighten Up & Fly Right...

Lest you be struck by LIGHTNING.

<G>

However, excellent analysis below.

DSH

"Brian Sharrock" <b.sharrock@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:2VHzi.29835$rr5.28803@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
"Conway Caine" <ccaine@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:NiGzi.52034$ax1.37993@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Brian Sharrock" <b.sharrock@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3gEzi.25275$ph7.12645@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...

"Conway Caine" <ccaine@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:ZpAzi.51545$ax1.45956@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...


snip

My father risked his life twice on the Murmansk run to insure Russia
had some of the wherewithal necessary to continue fighting the Germans.

******************************************************
I don't know. "Insure" sounds pretty good to me.
We here in the Colonies employ that usage quite often.

Big problem with you comprehension

One _insures_ against something that _might_ happen; house being struck by
lightnening; [sic] being run over by a car; etc. etc.

One _assures _ that something that _will_ happen.
1. To make sure or certain; to render confident by a promise, declaration,
or other evidence

Thus I've had period Life _Assurance_ which paid out on retirement; and
Life _Insurance_ to cover the outstanding morgage on my house.

EXCELLENT!

The anecdotal ' employ that usage quite often' doesn't make the ignorance
acceptable
A useful tip; which you may well know; is to enter the term 'Define:
" -note the colon- space $word into Google's search. It will return a
defintion of the word; try 'insure'; 'Assure' or perhaps even _ensure_.


You probably meant to say _assure_, rather than insure.
The only acknowledgement I've seen of the US Merchant ship involvement
of shipping goods to Murmansk was a Humphrey Bogart & Raymond Massey
movie (1943) .... perhaps there were others?


I repeat "The only acknowledgement I've seen of the US Merchant ship
involvement of shipping goods to Murmansk was a Humphrey Bogart & Raymond
Massey movie (1943) .... perhaps there were others ?" was a _Statement_
that _I_ wasn't aware that the general population in the USA was aware of
the involvement of the USA Merhcnatment in hauling war materiel to the
Soviet harbours.

*****************************************

You've not done your research then.
Try a Google before displaying your ignorance before the entire world.
And a little respect for brave men who sailed into very dangerous waters
to aid in the defeat of the Nazis.

That would of course include my own father and his brother and the man who
married my Aunt to become my Uncle. All of whom served on the Atlantic
Convoys.

Quite a number of American merchant vessels were sunk going to Murmansk
and Archangle and quite a number of American Merchant Seamen died there
in the North Atlantic. At least eighty American Merchant Vessels were
sunk attempting to get supplies to Murmansk.
Not bad for a Humphrey Bogard Merchant navy, no?


Once again; - "The only acknowledgement I've seen of the US Merchant ship
involvement of shipping goods to Murmansk was a Humphrey Bogart & Raymond
Massey movie (1943) .... perhaps there were others?

How well known to your fellow USAians are these facts? I know of them ,
from my relatives! Nothing I've written indicated that I didn't know. Why
are you so tetchy? Are the efforts of your father not acknowledged by your
countrymen?
BTW; what does "risked his life twice on the Murmansk run " mean? Two
voyages?
"

England was not the only nation receiving our supplies.
(BTW, thanks for the full payment of your WW2 obligations to us)

FYI; the UK discharged the 'full payment' for war supplies almost
immediatley after the declaration of Victory. {2 Sept 1945}
************************************************

FYI, I believe you guys were making annual payments for quite a while
after the war.

The USA Government demanded immediate repayment to the dismay of the UK
Government.
You should. for consistency, give 'thanks for the full payment of your
WW2 obligations to us'.

A bit obscure, Brian. On the drink again?

Lets try to make it easy for you;-
The USA government demanded immediate repayment of the War Loan.
The UK Government attempted to ask for 'terms' but was refused. The UK
Government repaid the government -to-government loan. All this in 1945.

In 1945 a consotium of USA financiers arranged a loan to UK - which the UK
handed over to the USA government to discharge the 'War Loan'.

The loan was for fifty years (with options to defer annual payments) at
then commercial rates.
It was this loan that was finally discharged.


It basically bankrupted Britian, kept rationing imposed for a decade and
mdke me believe that 'Export Reject' was an opportunity for my mother to
buy something in the shops without 'coupons'.

Yes but you are speaking English today, are you not?

As does your country?

What happened was that a consortium of USA financiers allowed UK to
incur a huge debt at (then) commerical rates payable over fifty(?) years
with facility to take a payment holiday if required. It was _that _ debt
which was discharged -finally- .

Did you not just write "FYI; the UK discharged the 'full payment' for war
supplies almost immediately after the declaration of Victory. {2 Sept
1945"?
How then did you come up with the above paragraph?

Read, read again and I'm assured you'll understand it.

A very short attention span?

Is that what you've been diagnosed with?
Consistency, please.
Or sober up before posting.

WHy do you display such poor reading comprehension?
I'll try to make it easier for you:-
A builder builds a house .... he wants lots-a-money for it.
You want to live in / posses the house. but you can't afford what the
builder demands
You borrow money off a Bank/Morgage Lender ...
They pay the money to the builder. Who's now gots lots-a-money.
You repay the borrowed money to the Lender over decades - It's not a
problem to the builder.

The USA government loaned money to UK to fight wars.
The USA government demanded that UK repay the money instantly
The UK borrowed money off banks/Lenders and repaid the USA government
_instantly_
The UK repaid the Banks/Lender over decades.


BTW, Mister Churchill was happy enough to receive the aid regardless of
the cost and conditions.


Nobody has disputed that ! But your original inclusion of the statement
"(BTW, thanks for the full payment of your WW2 obligations to us)"
indicates that you didn't understand that the UK wasn't paying "your WW2
obligations to us" but we were paying off a mortgage form
Banks/Financiers.

--

Brian

Gjest

Re: STAWELL/STOWELL COTHELSTONE

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 aug 2007 22:34:03

On Aug 25, 1:23 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/24/2007 12:40:29 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

arth...@alphalink.com.au writes:

I come back to the point that no one in this group has given any
indication of their qualifications, particularly in regard to their
right to criticise what I have done, not even you. And you continue to
pass criticism on my work.

---------------------
I criticize all work which does not meet the level of genealogical research
to which we strive. Since you don't want to look in the archives for that, I
will mention that on-list I've criticized Ancestral Roots, Plantagenet
Ancestry, Dictionary of National Biography, Encyclopaedia Brittanica and well as
many, many posters here.

The points are the same. You do not need any special qualifications to
point out the holes in ones research. You merely need a healthy skepticism and a
discerning ability.

You can see some of my work on my web site
_http://www.countyhistorian.com_(http://www.countyhistorian.com)

Take a look, criticize me to the skies. Its your perogative.

My criticism gets more pointed the more a person protests. People who
refuse to learn are not tolerated, they are berated. There are sources which are
"good" or "better" and then ones which are "worse" or even "worthless". You,
ME, and others learn which are which.

I do not know everything about genealogy, I probably only know one percent
of that. But I'm willing to learn the other ninety-nine percent. Hopefully
that is why YOU are here as well.

So learn that web sites with no sources are worthless as proofs, no matter
how many MILLIONS of people parrot what they say.

Will Johnson

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

G'day Will,
So the truth comes out at last. You are only a troublemaker, with no
understanding of the topic that you are criticising.

You postulate that I should use books for my researches. What benefits
do they have over looking at and assessing what is published on the
'Net? There can be as many, and even more, fairy tales in any given
book, as there are on any Web Site. At least by looking at what others
have extracted from the books and put up in accessible Web Sites, I
can look at many sites in one hour, whereas it will take me weeks, if
not months, to find the same fairy tales written in books. I know
which way I will go.

And I will use my intelligence (something which you seem to lack) and
experience to judge the veracity or otherwise of what I find.

This will be my final post on this subject, as I have no desire to
indulge in verbal fisticuffs. I do not mind sensible discussion, but
random ravings are simply a waste of my time and effort.

Keep well and happy, as I am.
Happy Hunting ;-)
Rfer & Hue

D. Spencer Hines

Re: No "Activist" Interpretation Of The Laws

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 aug 2007 22:37:19

Pronounced how in Brit English -- RP Only?

DSH

But Pondicherry (now Puducherry, but it sounds the same)
remained French and Goa remained Portugese. [sic]

Black The Blind Boar

John Briggs

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av John Briggs » 24 aug 2007 22:43:42

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
The defensive system built their [sic] is one of the finest in
Britain.

Only in architectural terms. Militarily, it was completely useless.

G

Similar to the Maginot Line?

"No" is the simplest answer.

The works needed to cover a wider area to be effective (this was said at the
time by every expert who studied them.)

As for the Maginot Line, it fulfilled its actual function - and was the last
part of France to surrender.
--
John Briggs

William Black

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av William Black » 24 aug 2007 22:45:58

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:2VHzi.246$Jp2.1472@eagle.america.net...
The defensive system built their [sic] is one of the finest in Britain.

Only in architectural terms. Militarily, it was completely useless.
--
John Briggs

G

Similar to the Maginot Line?

It's not linear...

--
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.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»