Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
William Black

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av William Black » 24 aug 2007 22:46:48

"Keith Willshaw" <nospamforkeith@kwillshaw.nospamdemon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:fanf6b$8tr$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
"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.

Elizabeth wasn't worried about a few hundred 'border prickers' invading.

--
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.

William Black

Re: No "Activist" Interpretation Of The Laws

Legg inn av William Black » 24 aug 2007 22:48:11

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:zcIzi.248$Jp2.1546@eagle.america.net...
Pronounced how in Brit English -- RP Only?

Why not go there and find out?


--
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

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 aug 2007 22:51:27

As for the Maginot Line, it fulfilled its actual function - and was the
last part of France to surrender.

"John Briggs"
-------------------------------------------------------------

Hardly Relevant in the Bigger Picture.

Which Intelligent Folks Are Educated To Appreciate...

Such As Moi...

Vide infra pro sapientia.

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

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:iiIzi.37242$S91.22828@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...

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.)

Which was one of the Major Problems with the Maginot Line.

But OFFENSE had outpaced DEFENSE.

As for the Maginot Line, it fulfilled its actual function - and was the
last part of France to surrender.
--
John Briggs

D. Spencer Hines

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

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 aug 2007 22:58:15

I think Johnson is on to something significant here.

DSH

"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1246.1187988727.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

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

WJhonson

Re: STAWELL/STOWELL COTHELSTONE

Legg inn av WJhonson » 24 aug 2007 23:15:04

<<In a message dated 08/24/07 14:35:25 Pacific Standard Time, arthuri@alphalink.com.au writes:

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. >>
--------------------
Excellent! Then I get the last word.

So far, we have yet to *see* any sensible discussion from you. When asked for your sources all you can do is point at "the net", which does no one any service. Yes we can all find those 3,000 year descents on "the net". In fact, if you would look, you could probably find some of them on the archives of this list / group right here.

Now when you are ready to actually post, actual lines, with actual sources cited, please feel free to do so. I'm sure we'd all be very much enlightened !

Will Johnson

Brad Verity

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

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 24 aug 2007 23:16:03

From: WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com

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.

Because Cawley saying the following, for example:

“RALPH de Stafford, son of EDMUND de Stafford Lord Stafford & his wife
Margaret Basset (24 Sep 1301-31 Aug 1372, bur Tonbridge). He succeeded his
father in 1308 as Lord Stafford. He was created Earl of Stafford 5 Mar
1351.
m firstly ([1326/27]) KATHERINE Hastang, daughter of Sir JOHN Hastang of
Chebsey, Staffordshire & his wife Eve ---.
m secondly (before 6 Jul 1336) MARGARET de Audley, daughter of HUGH de
Audley Earl of Gloucester & his wife Margaret de Clare (-after 28 Jan 1348,
bur Tonbridge). She succeeded her father as Baroness Audley.”

Is not the same as lifting CP word for word and passing it off as his own
writing:

“Ralph (de Stafford), Lord Stafford, s. and h., b. 24 Sep. 1301. On 6 Dec.
1323 he had done homage and was to have his father’s lands. On 16 Apr. 1325
he was in the King’s service with his mother and her 2nd husband Thomas de
Pype, and his own brothers …” etc.

None. Not any citations.

That's a different issue than plagiarism. I don't know why the Stafford
section, for example, has no citations, when Cawley does cite to CP
frequently in the Henry, Duke of Lancaster material, for example.

But it's not plagiarism. He didn't copy and paste verbatim a pedigree from
Stirnet, for example, and pass it off as his own. As far as I know, the
facts of birth, death and marriage for medieval individuals aren't
copyrighted.

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.

He's only presenting portions of it as a finished product with rebuilt
families from primary documents. The section I quoted from is from
post-Conquest England, and is clearly stated to not have been given the
"primary document process" by Cawley yet.

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

Well, I agree with your "false authority" statement, but not because the
post-Conquest England section lacks citation, when it is made fairly clear
it is merely a framework or place-holder until Cawley gets to it at some
future date.

His "false authority" is the problems with his interpretation of the primary
sources and the incorrect conclusions he arrives at as a result.

I’m glad I went to double-check this, Will. I had used the links to
MedLands in the SGM thread you had provided last year. By going on to the
FMG website directly, I see there is a disclaimer:

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/

“The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy is pleased to host these pages, but
has no editorial input to the content, which is entirely the responsibility
of Charles Cawley. The author welcomes feedback, including corrections and
contributions of new, verified data.”

And also a page listing updates.

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/versions.htm

“Medieval Lands is currently at Version 1, released in April 2006. The data
is presented in a series of chapters which are progressively revised.
Current version numbers are at top left of each file, ranging from 1.1 to
1.4. If no version is shown it is the original (1.0).

“List of file updates:

“Recent updates
Apr-May 2007
Jan-Mar 2007
Oct -Dec 2006
Jun-Sep 2006”

Clicking on ‘Recent Updates’ brings up a list of about a half dozen items.
This one is at the top of the list:

“File/Subject: NAVARRE KINGS
“Notes: Many changes from the same cartularies as used in version 1.1 of the
Aragon Kings and Navarre Nobility documents.
“Version: 1.2
“Date Updated: 19/08/2007
“Approx. file size (kB): 617”

This one is at the bottom of it:

“File/Subject: MAINE
“Notes: Includes a complete rewrite of the 10th century Counts of Maine,
identifying a possible missing generation in the generally accepted
genealogy.
“Version: 1.2
“Date Updated: 04/08/2007
“Approx. file size (kB): 543”

Since I wouldn’t know the 10th century Counts of Maine from the 20th century
Dukes of Earl, I’m not qualified to determine if Cawley has improved on his
methodology and interpretation of sources. However, it is good to know that
he has been making updates since June 2006 when the database was launched.

If he's shown no improvement in the area, then I think you're justified in
continuing to view him as a "false authority".

Cheers, -------Brad

_________________________________________________________________
More photos, more messages, more storage—get 2GB with Windows Live Hotmail.
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/ ... ni_2G_0507

WJhonson

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

Legg inn av WJhonson » 24 aug 2007 23:30:41

I think Brad there is a question of "plagarism" versus "copyright infringement".

The main issue behind copyright-infringement is that a author has a significant hit in terms of being able to sell their work. If you, as another author, lift so much of CP as to copy its "heart" into your own work, so that no one need, any longer, to buy CP whatsoever, they'd sue you.

How much of a work can you lift? The ten percent rule has been thrown around but it's not part of the law. The law only addresses significant, substantial, etc kinda vague terms but there you go. It's really a question of finances, and you're suing for damages financially.

Plagarism however doesn't need to be word for word. An idea like "Joan de Burgogyne is the daughter of John de Triers because...." would be an idea. The connection, first proposed by Brad Verity on Gen-Med Jan 8, 2006 is a citation to your idea. If I include your idea even if I word it differently, in my work, *because* I have read your idea, but without citing it as yours, that is plagarism.

It isn't necessarily the birthdates, deathdates, or marriage dates that are copyright or can be plagarized. However, the linkages, condensed in this genealogical fashion, are not "bare facts". They are the result of perhaps hours, days, weeks of study to make those connections.

The first four volumes of CP are out-of-copyright in the U.S. at any rate and can be freely quoted in their entirety, however anyone doing so, should state that their source is CP, and properly (although not necessarily) cite the exact volume, page and family for ease of other researchers. Citation in this way is standard scholarly methodology.

I don't know of any lawsuits over plagarism, I'm not sure it's even against the law (if it is please provide the reference), but it's the standard that scholars use.

Charles Cawley, if he wants to proclaim from the rooftops that he is no scholar, is his perogative, but for FMG to host a work like this, proclaiming it to be something like the penultimate work of its nature and then have it be of such poor scholarly effort does not speak well of them.

Disclaimer or no, they promote it loudly on their site. That is not distancing oneself. If Cawley has five hundreds hours to devote, surely he has the ten bucks a month it costs to have someone ELSE host your web site and FMG should disconnect themselves from it.

Chris distanced himself by shutting up, which, for a person who seems to be scholarly is just as off-putting a performance. And is he still on the advisory board ? You cannot grasp your best friend to you and also proclaim out of the side of your mouth that you don't know him.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

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

Legg inn av WJhonson » 24 aug 2007 23:36:19

<<In a message dated 08/24/07 15:33:15 Pacific Standard Time, WJhonson writes:
I don't know of any lawsuits over plagarism, I'm not sure it's even against the law (if it is please provide the reference), but it's the standard that scholars use. >>

------------------
The above section is ambiguous or misleading.
It appears that I'm either saying that plagarism is the "standard that scholars use" or I'm saying that lawsuits are.

What I was trying to say is that "Proper citation" is the "standard that scholars use" and which Cawley does not. At least in certain sections.

Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson

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

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 24 aug 2007 23:58:22

Dear Michael ~

Yes, you're entirely correct. Sir John Cornwall, Lord Fanhope,
conveyed the great tenement on Thames Street in London in 1434, to
William Londroppe, John Fitz Geoffrey, and Walter Pijou, subject to a
rent charge of 40 marks. It was a rent charge, not a life rent.
Under the terms of his first will dated 1437, the rent charge was to
be used for prayers for Lord Fanhope's soul (may he rest in peace).

If I understand the testimony correctly, however, Lord Fanhope also
held a life estate in the property, in addition to the rent charge.
Needless to say, this is a rather unique situation, but it certainly
is not irregular.

Basically,it shows how the ownership of property consists of a bundle
of rights, which rights can be bought, sold, or leased separately from
each other. Property can be held outright, or held for the term of a
person's life. If a property is held for life, the reversionary
rights can be bought and sold, again and again. A life estate can
also be bought and sold.

In any event, it's definitely an interesting lawsuit. Thank you for
your comments.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
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: Medlands & Chris Phillips (Was Re: Contributions of D.Sp

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 25 aug 2007 00:16:59

You need to THINK and EDIT BEFORE you post.

DSH

"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1251.1187995032.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

In a message dated 08/24/07 15:33:15 Pacific Standard Time, WJhonson
writes:

I don't know of any lawsuits over plagarism, I'm not sure it's even
against the law (if it is please provide the reference), but it's the
standard that scholars use.

------------------
The above section is ambiguous or misleading.
It appears that I'm either saying that plagarism is the "standard that
scholars use" or I'm saying that lawsuits are.

What I was trying to say is that "Proper citation" is the "standard that
scholars use" and which Cawley does not. At least in certain sections.

Will Johnson

D. Spencer Hines

Re: The Perils Of Close Air Support

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 25 aug 2007 00:36:11

"Billzz" <billzzstring@starband.net> wrote in message
news:311d7$46cf674d$9440b19b$28999@STARBAND.NET...

The following is an interesting insight, along the same line. It is not
mine, and unfortunately, in the cut & paste routine, I lost the heading.
But it is still worth reading.........

Lame Excuse.

DSH

I think its fairly clear to anyone who's bothered to read the history
Gunner. When, over the course of the last couple thousand years, have
the "Palestinians" actually run the place? When did they ever establish
a decent republic with civil rights and rule by law?

What the poster is talking about is the administration of a beating so
bad that the alpha males there have a change in their biochemistry,
become, as we so often hear it, "broken". Part of the reason that they
have never been able to run a decent republic is too many chiefs and not
enough Indians. And were the Jews to get out, and move to the USA (which
would certainly be good for them and the USA), they'd be at each other's
throats fighting over the "Holy Land" in no time.

Their whole tradition begins with Joshua doing to the Caananites and
Philistines what we now call genocide, which we can see was justified by
a religion *designed* to pander to the alpha males responsible, and able
to offer 'forgiveness' and expiation. Jackasses like this think that all
men are such sinners. They are not.

It turns out that Aristotle was right, the Semites are hot blooded.
Which is to say, that more of their men suffer from testosterone
overdose, and this makes it difficult, if not impossible, for them to
compromise. As David Hume noted, if what you claim to have, is the
veritable 'word of god', how then can you compromise? So- they resort to
the use of force, now, as they always have. Let them be a lesson to the
rest of us.

Melanin is on the same strand of DNA as adrenalin, seratonin, and other
hormones; but these latter two have a powerful effect on behavior,
quickening reflexes but also making men impulsively aggressive, and
sharpening senses, but also making for poor sleep habits, making men
grouchy. Men with lower levels of melanin tend to be phlegmatic, more
laid back but also more able to think more clearly about what they are,
or intend, to do. Lower levels of adrenalin and higher seratonin give
men more patience and a more subtle sensibility, able to enjoy pleasure
at lower levels of stimulation. They are also more able to form strong
cohesive military units like the Greek Phalanx.

Which kicked ass all over the Semite lands ever since Cyrus brought in
10,000 to deal with rebellious hillbillies. The Ashkenazic Jews who are
kicking ass there now, are not actually Semites, but Aryans.

Peter Stewart

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

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 25 aug 2007 00:36:16

This is a very fair and balanced summary, Brad.

The remark I made about Chris Phillips having been only a "passenger" on SGM
was not fair, and I am sorry for it. He had a way of thinking around
problems, leaving them in the road and intact, that could be somewhat
frustrating for fellow or following travellers, but he did put his shoulder
to the wheel.

He owed SGM one more post, to report on Cawley's version of his absurd
claims about the family of Peter Orseolo, that Phillips claimed could not
have been as silly as I had demonstrated. That would have allowed for an
honourable exit, if he still chose, but this simply didn't happen.

Peter Stewart


"Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187981473.890445.302670@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Once again. congratulations to US Armed Forces!

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 25 aug 2007 00:38:14

Bingo!

DSH

"Colin Campbell" <activated_95b@gmail.com (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:nbquc31ltrsh2eqa1liagvkg0bgud23oru@4ax.com...
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:12:22 -0700, redc1c4
redc1c4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:

The Highlander wrote:

Reuters
Published: Friday, August 24, 2007

Three British soldiers killed in suspected friendly fire.

LONDON -- Three British soldiers have been killed in southern
Afghanistan in a suspected "friendly fire" incident, the Ministry of
Defence said on Friday. Two other soldiers were injured.

"Their patrol was attacked by Taliban insurgents and during the
intense engagement that ensued, close air support was called in from
two U.S. F15 aircraft to repel the enemy. A single bomb was dropped
and it is believed the explosion killed all three soldiers who were
declared dead at the scene," the ministry said in a statement.

undoubtedly due to the poor english skills of a scotsman.

I'm waiting to find out if those British troops were in the same place
as the pilot was told.

It seems to be a common theme that when British troops are killed in
this type of incident - they are somewhere other that at the position
they were supposed to be.

But - the British will once again blame the Americans.

Personally - I think that the British should start flying their own
close air support. Lets see if they can do better at a task so hard
they leave it to the Americans.


--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 25 aug 2007 00:54:29

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:QXJzi.25720$4A1.327@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

This is a very fair and balanced summary, Brad.

The remark I made about Chris Phillips having been only a "passenger" on
SGM was not fair, and I am sorry for it.

Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!

When he sobers up, Peter realizes - occasionally - that he screwed the
pooch.

But only occasionally.

DSH

Lux e Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitavi Asinum

taf

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av taf » 25 aug 2007 01:09:14

On Aug 24, 1:43 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
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?


I didn't sidestep it. I just didn't give you the answer in the form
you wanted. You seem to think that it is more likely that she was a
second wife than that she lived a long life. I don't find the question
all that useful because it appears to me to be a false duality - I
think there is nothing in the historical record that would stop her
from having been the only wife _and_ not having lived a life that was
exceptionally long. This third possibility renders a comparison of the
other two moot, there being then no reason to look for alternative
explanations for her presence in the record at a date perceived to be
late.

As we all know, medieval genealogy is full of reconstructions based on
scant evidence. In many cases we have only one or two references to a
wife, during the entire duration of the marriage, and if there is no
evidence to the contrary and no good reason to think otherwise, we
assume that this one documented wife is the mother of the children.
In many of these cases, we could posit an additional wife prior to the
documented one who was really mother of the children, but there is no
reason to do this unless there is some anomaly that necessitates it.
You have set up the chronology so as to suggest such an anomaly, but I
have tried to show that by another reasonable reconstruction, there is
no such anomaly, and hence no justification for introducing additional
entities into the equation. It is Occam at work - we shouldn't make
it more complex than it needs to be. Could there have been an earlier
wife? sure, but there need not have been, so you need some good reason
to introduce one, and I don't think the chronology is sufficiently out
of order to demand this.

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.


Based on no _given_ authority, but it does leave us guessing. On the
other hand, there doesn't seem to be any good authority for giving
Godiva an earlier husband either, or they wouldn't have taken it out.


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.


I am not trying to sweep it under the carpet, just pointing out that
with the information currently on the table, I see no need for a more
complex arrangement. (tables, carpets . . . time for an interior
decorator)

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


If you mean in DD and DP, its hard to tell. Her format doesn't really
make such a search by holder at the time of the Confessor all that
easy.

taf

Peter Stewart

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 25 aug 2007 01:13:53

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:rdKzi.257$Jp2.1441@eagle.america.net...
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:QXJzi.25720$4A1.327@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

This is a very fair and balanced summary, Brad.

The remark I made about Chris Phillips having been only a "passenger" on
SGM was not fair, and I am sorry for it.

Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!

When he sobers up, Peter realizes - occasionally - that he screwed the
pooch.

But only occasionally.

I was sober then and I am now - I admit to my mistakes freely, always.

The environment of Usenet, and that means SGM in my particular case, is
different from everyday life in that people come together who mostly do not
know each other, even necessarily by real names, so that personalities are
secondary to issues in our exchanges.

The outcomes that I am here to promote are truth and accuracy. Hines has
broken with one and probably can't remember when he last cared about the
other.

I made an unkind remark to Chris Phillips, and make no excuse for this - not
insobriety, not emotion, not haste. I was wrong and I regret this. It didn't
change the issue that was under discussion at the time, and it doesn't lead
to a different outcome of this now.

DSH

Lux e Veritas et Libertas

A difference here would save Hines from continuing embarrassment...

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: The Perils Of Close Air Support

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 aug 2007 01:29:16

Can we please stop this thread.? It is not medieval genealogy
..

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: D. Spencer Hines <panther@excelsior.com>
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 6:36 pm
Subject: Re: The Perils Of Close Air Support



"Billzz" <billzzstring@starband.net> wrote in message
news:311d7$46cf674d$9440b19b$28999@STARBAND.NET...

The following is an interesting insight, along the same line. It is not
mine, and unfortunately, in the cut & paste routine, I lost the heading.
But it is still worth reading.........

Lame Excuse.

DSH

I think its fairly clear to anyone who's bothered to read the history
Gunner. When, over the course of the last couple thousand years, have
the "Palestinians" actually run the place? When did they ever establish
a decent republic with civil rights and rule by law?

What the poster is talking about is the administration of a beating so
bad that the alpha males there have a change in their biochemistry,
become, as we so often hear it, "broken". Part of the reason that they
have never been able to run a decent republic is too many chiefs and not
enough Indians. And were the Jews to get out, and move to the USA (which
would certainly be good for them and the USA), they'd be at each other's
throats fighting over the "Holy Land" in no time.

Their whole tradition begins with Joshua doing to the Caananites and
Philistines what we now call genocide, which we can see was justified by
a religion *designed* to pander to the alpha males responsible, and able
to offer 'forgiveness' and expiation. Jackasses like this think that all
men are such sinners. They are not.

It turns out that Aristotle was right, the Semites are hot blooded.
Which is to say, that more of their men suffer from testosterone
overdose, and this makes it difficult, if not impossible, for them to
compromise. As David Hume noted, if what you claim to have, is the
veritable 'word of god', how then can you compromise? So- they resort to
the use of force, now, as they always have. Let them be a lesson to the
rest of us.

Melanin is on the same strand of DNA as adrenalin, seratonin, and other
hormones; but these latter two have a powerful effect on behavior,
quickening reflexes but also making men impulsively aggressive, and
sharpening senses, but also making for poor sleep habits, making men
grouchy. Men with lower levels of melanin tend to be phlegmatic, more
laid back but also more able to think more clearly about what they are,
or intend, to do. Lower levels of adrenalin and higher seratonin give
men more patience and a more subtle sensibility, able to enjoy pleasure
at lower levels of stimulation. They are also more able to form strong
cohesive military units like the Greek Phalanx.

Which kicked ass all over the Semite lands ever since Cyrus brought in
10,000 to deal with rebellious hillbillies. The Ashkenazic Jews who are
kicking ass there now, are not actually Semites, but Aryans.



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


________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com

WJhonson

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

Legg inn av WJhonson » 25 aug 2007 01:34:50

<<In a message dated 08/24/07 17:12:28 Pacific Standard Time, :
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) >>
------------------------
The mother of Sir Christopher Curwen of Workington has also been identified as "Margaret Croft". What proof is that that Elena le Brun was his mother instead?
Thanks
Will Johnson

WJhonson

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

Legg inn av WJhonson » 25 aug 2007 01:52:29

<<In a message dated 08/24/07 17:41:46 Pacific Standard Time, WJhonson writes:
<<In a message dated 08/24/07 17:12:28 Pacific Standard Time, :
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) >>
------------------------
The mother of Sir Christopher Curwen of Workington has also been identified as "Margaret Croft". What proof is that that Elena le Brun was his mother instead?
Thanks
Will Johnson >>

-----------------------
Will the problem is evidently more complicated than that.
Leo shows here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 8&tree=LEO
stating that Sir Christopher Curwen's mother was Margaret Croft
citing The Royal Lineage of Our Noble and Gentle Families, London, 1884, Foster, Joseph, Reference: 132
--------------------
Stirnet gives a confusing hoy-polloi here
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... rwen01.htm
saying this his father was Thomas... or maybe Gilbert and doesn't show a William in this area whatsoever ( red flag alert !)

So it appears we have another case of dueling secondary sources.

We know of course from the lawsuit that a William Culwen (or Curwen) existed. We just have to figure out where he goes and why he seems to have been overlooked above. And if there are any primary references to who Sir Christopher Curwen's father was.

Will you might be interested to know that Sir Christopher has a
Monument at St. Michael's Church, Workington, Cumbria
although I don't know what it says, if anything.

Will Johnson

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 aug 2007 02:13:02

Dear Timothy,

Thank you so much for your post. I'm quite astounded at the detail you have
found, the lines of Shelly comes to mind "Look on my works, ye mighty, and
despair!", well I guess I will plod on.

best regards,
Adrian



In a message dated 24/08/2007 02:12:28 GMT Standard Time, inver1000@yahoo.ca
writes:

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

Gjest

Re: Cecil monuments at Stamford (ping Will Johnson)

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 aug 2007 02:49:03

Michael,

I have a rubbing of the John and Margery Browne brass pinned up in my loo.
His brother, William, founded the Hospital (or poor house) in Stamford, now a
museum.

Did you notice the strange architecture of All Saints church. It looks as
though an external side of the church was originally internal, suggesting that
at one time it would have been much larger, but I was assured by the vicar
that this was not the case.

Regards,
Adrian

In a message dated 23/08/2007 19:35:19 GMT Standard Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<snip>

I also saw the Brown brasses in All Saints church; they date from the
latter part of the 15th century, and commemorate a local mercantile
family.

Again, happy to pass on photos to anyone interested.

Cheers, Michael

Gjest

Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 aug 2007 03:03:50

On Aug 24, 1:10 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
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" <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 [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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have an uncanny knack for describing yourself and then tacking the
description on someone else who does not fit it.

John Briggs

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av John Briggs » 25 aug 2007 03:10:17

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
"John Briggs"

As for the Maginot Line, it fulfilled its actual function - and was
the last part of France to surrender.

Hardly Relevant in the Bigger Picture.

Well, the German army went around the Maginot Line. And this brought
Guderian up against the man whose theories of armoured warfare he had
translated - Charles de Gaulle.
--
John Briggs

Bob Turcott

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

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 25 aug 2007 05:43:48

To all: Does anyone know if the MARIE-MADELEINE BRUN mentioned below is somehow related
to Richard Brun. I have not researched this, but are very curious to see if anyone knew of any
kind of kinship? Would this be a worthwhile effort to research if not certain?

regards,
Bob Turcott


JEAN1 DOIRON was born Bet. 1647 - 1649 in Rochefort, France, and died Abt. 1735 in Pisiquid, Nouvelle Ecosse, Canada.. He married (1) MARIE-ANNE DE CANOL 1671 in l'Acadie. She was born 1651 in France, and died Unknown in Prob. Port Royale, Nouvelle Ecosse, Canada.. He married (2) MARIE TRAHAN Abt. 1693 in Pisiquit, l'Acadie., daughter of GUILLAUME TRAHAN and MARIE-MADELEINE BRUN. She was born 1672 in Port Royale, l'Acadie., and died 1710 in Pisiquit, l'Acadie..





Dear Timothy,

Thank you so much for your post. I'm quite astounded at the detail you have
found, the lines of Shelly comes to mind "Look on my works, ye mighty, and
despair!", well I guess I will plod on.

best regards,
Adrian



In a message dated 24/08/2007 02:12:28 GMT Standard Time, inver1000@yahoo.ca
writes:

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









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

_________________________________________________________________
Discover the new Windows Vista
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=wi ... &form=QBRE

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Medlands & Chris Phillips (defining and spotting plagiar

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 25 aug 2007 05:49:17

In article <mailman.1250.1187994769.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:

I think Brad there is a question of "plagarism" versus "copyright
infringement".

The main issue behind copyright-infringement is that a author has a
significant hit in terms of being able to sell their work. If you, as
another author, lift so much of CP as to copy its "heart" into your own work,
so that no one need, any longer, to buy CP whatsoever, they'd sue you.

How much of a work can you lift? The ten percent rule has been thrown around
but it's not part of the law. The law only addresses significant,
substantial, etc kinda vague terms but there you go. It's really a question
of finances, and you're suing for damages financially.

Plagarism however doesn't need to be word for word. An idea like "Joan de
Burgogyne is the daughter of John de Triers because...." would be an idea.
The connection, first proposed by Brad Verity on Gen-Med Jan 8, 2006 is a
citation to your idea. If I include your idea even if I word it differently,
in my work, *because* I have read your idea, but without citing it as yours,
that is plagarism.

It isn't necessarily the birthdates, deathdates, or marriage dates that are
copyright or can be plagarized. However, the linkages, condensed in this
genealogical fashion, are not "bare facts". They are the result of perhaps
hours, days, weeks of study to make those connections.

I think your attempt to define plagiarism is somewhat missing the mark,
and not just because you are consistently misspelling it. Plagiarism,
especially how it relates to genealogical writing, has been discussed in
this forum explicitly several times over the years; so has copyright and
fair-use doctrine. These concepts and their legal and ethical contexts
are all a bit muddled above.

Classically defined, plagiarism is the appropriation of the discourse of
another and its false presentation as original. It has to do with
language and / or argument. Something which purports to be a
genealogical compilation or reference work (like any scholarly reference
work) should theoretically not be vulnerable to a charge of plagiarism,
since it should consist entirely of restatements of facts (vital events)
and assertions of fact (filiations) which have been stated elsewhere.

If at some place in such a reference the compiler were to write out an
argument about why a particular genealogical assertion must be so--for
example, discussing why p must be the son of q--and if that argument is
reproduced (either verbatim or paraphrased) without attribution from
somewhere else, then that would be plagiarism. But merely to reproduce
the end-point of that argument (say, simply to state that p is son of q)
without attribution is poor scholarship, not plagiarism.

So, if in the context of some enormous webpage of stuff, I read the
statement "p is the son of q" without citation, I understand the
compiler to be saying "I have read somewhere that p is the son of q."
if he does not indicate where, then the compileation is essentially
useless. I would not read such a statement as implying "I, the
compiler, have myself discovered that p must be the son of q and am
presenting my argument about why it is so here for the first time and
claiming credit for it."

Please note I am not trying to defend Cawley's product. [Like many
other naive, ambitious but unschooled genealogists he set out to create
something that was both a comprehensive reference work and a showcase of
original research, and has done neither well.] I just don't like to see
the specter of plagiarism raised without careful definition.

As a college-level history teacher I don't (often) review genealogies
submitted as student work, but I do know the difference between flunking
students for not producing worthwhile scholarly discourse, and having
them expelled for intellectual dishonesty. [I have done both.]

A very clear case of plagiarism in medieval genealogy was discussed at
great length here back in 2002: the publisher of a genealogical journal
reprinted, verbatim and without attribution, many hundred words of
detailed genealogical argument previously posted to this list by one of
our most brilliant genealogists.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Peter Stewart

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 25 aug 2007 05:52:25

I haven't been following this discussion - however, the post below from Todd
deserves to be carved in stone for SGM newcomers.

It sent me back some way into the thread, but there are too many messages
for my limited time to catch up. Although I'm not sure what the questions
are about Godiva, I can provide the text from _Liber Eliensis_ that Will was
asking for. The only mention of a lady of this name is as follows (book II,
chapter 81):

"In diebus Leofrici abbatis, regnante Canuto, quedam femina, Godiva nomine,
cuiusdam comitis derelicta fuit, que post ipsius obitum bona sua ecclesiis
divisit, ut ad meritorum suorum participes forent apud Deum. Ad sponsam
domini Iesu Æðeldreðam orationum excubias actitans, loci amenitate et
fratrum devotione in maximum erga eos ascenditur amorem, unde de suo iure
aliqua rura, sed precipua, beate virgini et Deo illic ministrantibus donavit
et in testamento Anglice confirmavit, quorum hic nomina memorantur: Æstre,
Fanbrege, Terlinges" [edited by E.O. Blake (London, 1962) p. 150].

(In the time of Abbot Leofric, in the reign of Canute, there was a certain
woman named Godiva, widow of an earl, who after his death divided her
possessions amongst churches so that they might partake in her merits before
God. She often attended the prayer vigils for Ætheldreth, and from the
amenity of the place and the devotion of the monks increased in her very
great love for them, out of which she gave some lands that she held in her
own right, special properties, to those serving the blessed Virgin and God
in that house, and confirmed this in her testament, written in English; the
names of these estates are recorded here: (High) Easter, (South) Fambridge,
Terling [all in Essex].)

Blake noted that "If the references to Abbot Leofric and Cnut are correct
the bequest must have been made between c.1022 and c.1029 and this cannot be
the famous Godgifu, the wife of Earl Leofric of Mercia, as he did not die
before 1057, nor the Godgifu, wife of Earl Siward". However, _Liber
Eliensis_ was composed late in the 12th century, so that accuracy of
chronological detail long before is hardly to be expected.

There is no other reference to this lady in the text, and none at all to
Earl Leofric.

Peter Stewart

"taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:1188000554.521017.10490@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 24, 1:43 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
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?


I didn't sidestep it. I just didn't give you the answer in the form
you wanted. You seem to think that it is more likely that she was a
second wife than that she lived a long life. I don't find the question
all that useful because it appears to me to be a false duality - I
think there is nothing in the historical record that would stop her
from having been the only wife _and_ not having lived a life that was
exceptionally long. This third possibility renders a comparison of the
other two moot, there being then no reason to look for alternative
explanations for her presence in the record at a date perceived to be
late.

As we all know, medieval genealogy is full of reconstructions based on
scant evidence. In many cases we have only one or two references to a
wife, during the entire duration of the marriage, and if there is no
evidence to the contrary and no good reason to think otherwise, we
assume that this one documented wife is the mother of the children.
In many of these cases, we could posit an additional wife prior to the
documented one who was really mother of the children, but there is no
reason to do this unless there is some anomaly that necessitates it.
You have set up the chronology so as to suggest such an anomaly, but I
have tried to show that by another reasonable reconstruction, there is
no such anomaly, and hence no justification for introducing additional
entities into the equation. It is Occam at work - we shouldn't make
it more complex than it needs to be. Could there have been an earlier
wife? sure, but there need not have been, so you need some good reason
to introduce one, and I don't think the chronology is sufficiently out
of order to demand this.


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.


Based on no _given_ authority, but it does leave us guessing. On the
other hand, there doesn't seem to be any good authority for giving
Godiva an earlier husband either, or they wouldn't have taken it out.


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.


I am not trying to sweep it under the carpet, just pointing out that
with the information currently on the table, I see no need for a more
complex arrangement. (tables, carpets . . . time for an interior
decorator)

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


If you mean in DD and DP, its hard to tell. Her format doesn't really
make such a search by holder at the time of the Confessor all that
easy.

taf

WJhonson

Re: Medlands & Chris Phillips (defining and spotting plagiar

Legg inn av WJhonson » 25 aug 2007 05:59:21

<<In a message dated 08/24/07 21:50:11 Pacific Standard Time, nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net writes:
Something which purports to be a
genealogical compilation or reference work (like any scholarly reference
work) should theoretically not be vulnerable to a charge of plagiarism,
since it should consist entirely of restatements of facts (vital events)
and assertions of fact (filiations) which have been stated elsewhere. >>

---------------------
Many of the statements in CP are in fact original statements.
Nat you can see that point I'm sure.

Peter Stewart

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 25 aug 2007 06:14:29

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:dAOzi.25836$4A1.23258@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
I haven't been following this discussion - however, the post below from
Todd deserves to be carved in stone for SGM newcomers.

It sent me back some way into the thread, but there are too many messages
for my limited time to catch up. Although I'm not sure what the questions
are about Godiva, I can provide the text from _Liber Eliensis_ that Will
was asking for. The only mention of a lady of this name is as follows
(book II, chapter 81):

"In diebus Leofrici abbatis, regnante Canuto, quedam femina, Godiva
nomine, cuiusdam comitis derelicta fuit, que post ipsius obitum bona sua
ecclesiis divisit, ut ad meritorum suorum participes forent apud Deum. Ad
sponsam domini Iesu Æðeldreðam orationum excubias actitans, loci amenitate
et fratrum devotione in maximum erga eos ascenditur amorem, unde de suo
iure aliqua rura, sed precipua, beate virgini et Deo illic ministrantibus
donavit et in testamento Anglice confirmavit, quorum hic nomina
memorantur: Æstre, Fanbrege, Terlinges" [edited by E.O. Blake (London,
1962) p. 150].

I missed a few words in my translation, that for literal completeness should
read:

(In the time of Abbot Leofric, in the reign of Canute, there was a certain
woman named Godiva, widow of an earl, who after his death divided her
possessions amongst churches so that they might partake in her merits before
God. She often attended the prayer vigils for Ætheldreth, bride of the lord
Jesus, and from the amenity of the place and the devotion of the monks
increased in her very great love for them, out of which she gave some lands
that she held in her own right, special properties, to those serving the
blessed Virgin and God in that house, and confirmed this in her testament,
written in English; the names of these estates are recorded here: (High)
Easter, (South) Fambridge, Terling [all in Essex].)

Peter Stewart

WJhonson

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

Legg inn av WJhonson » 25 aug 2007 06:14:43

<<In a message dated 08/24/07 21:44:49 Pacific Standard Time, bobturcott@msn.com writes:
He married (2) MARIE TRAHAN Abt. 1693 in Pisiquit, l'Acadie., daughter of GUILLAUME TRAHAN and MARIE-MADELEINE BRUN. She was born 1672 in Port Royale, l'Acadie., and died 1710 in Pisiquit, l'Acadie.. >>

-------------------------
You know that the Acadians were all French. The name should probably be writen "Le Brun" instead of Brun.

They were all French, that's why the English governor deported them a few generations after your Marie died, because he didn't trust them, because they wouldn't swear allegiance to King George.

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Medlands & Chris Phillips (defining and spotting plagiar

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 25 aug 2007 06:25:16

In article <mailman.1260.1188018011.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:

In a message dated 08/24/07 21:50:11 Pacific Standard Time,
nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net writes:
Something which purports to be a
genealogical compilation or reference work (like any scholarly reference
work) should theoretically not be vulnerable to a charge of plagiarism,
since it should consist entirely of restatements of facts (vital events)
and assertions of fact (filiations) which have been stated elsewhere.

---------------------
Many of the statements in CP are in fact original statements.

Yes, CP (2d ed.) is one of the positive exceptions to this rule of
thumb--a big reference work which also embodies considerable original
scholarship. But perhaps you missed my point here. The originality of
the information in CP does not materially affect whether we judge
something derived from it to be plagiarism. It has to do with what and
how the derivative borrows from its sources.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

WJhonson

Re: Medlands & Chris Phillips (defining and spotting plagiar

Legg inn av WJhonson » 25 aug 2007 06:45:25

<<In a message dated 08/24/07 22:30:23 Pacific Standard Time, nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net writes:
But perhaps you missed my point here. The originality of
the information in CP does not materially affect whether we judge
something derived from it to be plagiarism. It has to do with what and
how the derivative borrows from its sources. >>

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

Perhaps you could give an example, more clearly exactly how you can borrow from one of CP's original statements and not have it be plagiarism and how you can borrow and *have* it be plagiarism?

Thanks.
Will

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 25 aug 2007 06:50:50

Why would someone even look for an opening to quibble over what I meant,
skewing both my original statement and my amplification of this?

Peter Stewart -- referring to Richard Smyth
---------------------------------------------------------------

Hell, that's an easy one.

Richard Smyth is a PHILOSOPHER. He listened to HEIDEGGER lecture.

He LOVES Platonic Dialogues wherein he gets to play Plato on the other end
of a log from a perhaps dull student, but one willing to learn.

But then Peter may be a dull student but he's NOT willing to learn.

Ay, there's the rub.

We already knew Peter was not too bright -- or able to read clearly -- but
he demonstrates some REAL obtuseness here.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

Peter Stewart

Re: Medlands & Chris Phillips (defining and spotting plagiar

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 25 aug 2007 06:59:49

"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1264.1188020772.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 08/24/07 22:30:23 Pacific Standard Time,
nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net writes:
But perhaps you missed my point here. The originality of
the information in CP does not materially affect whether we judge
something derived from it to be plagiarism. It has to do with what and
how the derivative borrows from its sources.

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

Perhaps you could give an example, more clearly exactly how you can borrow
from one of CP's original statements and not have it be plagiarism and how
you
can borrow and *have* it be plagiarism?

Nat already gave exactly what you are now asking for.

If CP presented new evidence or agument to show that P was son of Q, and
this now established fact is given (with or without the evidence itself,
that is today in the public domain) by another writer absent citation to the
original publication of it, that would be shoddy scholarship but not
plagiarism.

However, if the discussion or argument in CP were to be substantially copied
or paraphrased, and presented without citation as if the later compiler's
own work, that would be plagiarism.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 25 aug 2007 07:11:29

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:PrPzi.267$Jp2.1421@eagle.america.net...
Why would someone even look for an opening to quibble over what I meant,
skewing both my original statement and my amplification of this?

Peter Stewart -- referring to Richard Smyth
---------------------------------------------------------------

Hell, that's an easy one.

Richard Smyth is a PHILOSOPHER. He listened to HEIDEGGER lecture.

He LOVES Platonic Dialogues wherein he gets to play Plato on the other end
of a log from a perhaps dull student, but one willing to learn.

But then Peter may be a dull student but he's NOT willing to learn.

Ay, there's the rub.

We already knew Peter was not too bright -- or able to read clearly -- but
he demonstrates some REAL obtuseness here.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

A double fail grade in Latin and in logic, Hines.

A philosopher with competence and self-respect does not look for an opening
to a discussion and then seize on a false or illegitimate premise for this,
confusing the sole and absolute cause in his misunerstanding with a
contributory and relative one in the statment of another person.

A bright person also doesn't post buffoonish ridicule of a misplaced letter
"d" from me while losing a "t" himself. Remenber this?

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:u8Kzi.256$Jp2.1584@eagle.america.net...
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:MMJzi.25712$4A1.22878@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Another ground-hod [sic] day in Honolulu.

Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!

DSH

Lux e [sic] Veritas et Libertas

Not even "able to read clearly" in his Hawaiian glass house.

Pewter Stewart
(have a go at that)

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Medlands & Chris Phillips (defining and spotting plagiar

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 25 aug 2007 07:25:57

Nat Taylor teaches, or used to teach, at Harvard University.

DSH

"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-CE0CBE.00491725082007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...

As a college-level history teacher I don't (often) review genealogies
submitted as student work, but I do know the difference between flunking
students for not producing worthwhile scholarly discourse, and having
them expelled for intellectual dishonesty. [I have done both.]

Gjest

Re: Cecil monuments at Stamford (ping Will Johnson)

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 aug 2007 07:26:09

On 25 Aug., 01:46, ADRIANCHANNIN...@aol.com wrote:
Michael,

I have a rubbing of the John and Margery Browne brass pinned up in my loo.
His brother, William, founded the Hospital (or poor house) in Stamford, now a
museum.

Did you notice the strange architecture of All Saints church. It looks as
though an external side of the church was originally internal, suggesting that
at one time it would have been much larger, but I was assured by the vicar
that this was not the case.

Regards,
Adrian


Thanks, Adrian - no I missed that. The church was a bit strange, in
that it had piped music; presumably designed to make visitors feel
welcome, it was just creepy as far as I was concerned. There were no
church guides or postcards, and no signs of anyone there. I thought
of you when I saw all the Browns!

The sign-posting in the town was shockingly bad, including several
public amenities that appear to have been demolished, but I did note
the Browns' merchant mark on one of the older buildings and wondered
why it was there - perhaps that was the museum.

Nevertheless, Stamford is a magnificent town, and its churches are all
kept open [I regret not having got to St George's, but it was not in
my list].

Cheers, Michael

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stuyvesant

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 25 aug 2007 07:31:40

Good!

We have clearly resolved this one.

Leo is NOT really serious about having an open discussion focused on his
file concerning the descendants of Pieter Stuyvesant, the last Dutch
Director-General of the colony of New Netherland, which included New
Amsterdam -- called New York City today -- and his family.

Leo only sends his files to people of whom he approves -- and I, for one, am
not on the approved list.

Hilarious!

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

Enjoy!

It's always DEEEEELIGHTFUL exposing an Old Hypocrite.

Interesting bits about Pieter Stuyvesant:

Prior to his appointment as Director-General of New Netherland, Stuyvesant
was a Dutch West India Company director in charge of the so-called 'abc
islands' of Aruba, Bonaire and Curaçao. For the latter he had been
appointed as Governor. He lost his right leg in a battle with the Spanish
over the island of Saint Maarten and wore a pegleg for most of his adult
life, leading the Native Americans to dub him "Father Wooden Leg".

Stuyvesant is credited with introducing tea to the United States.

The last direct descendant of Pieter Stuyvesant to bear his surname was
Augustus van Horne Stuyvesant, Jr., who died a bachelor in 1953 at the age
of 83 in his Cass Gilbert-designed mansion at 2 East 79th Street.

Rutherford Stuyvesant, the 19th century New York developer, and his
descendants are also descended from Pieter Stuyvesant. However, Rutherford
Stuyvesant changed his name from Stuyvesant Rutherford in 1863 to satisfy
the terms of a will.

Other descendants of Stuyvesant include Hamilton Fish and Tom Kean, both
governors of New Jersey and musician Loudon
Wainwright III, and his son Rufus Wainwright.

Descendants of Pieter Stuyvesant's sister included Congressman James A.
Bayard, actor Michael Douglas, and poet Harry Crosby.

A Dutch cigarette brand is named Pieter Stuyvesant after him. These are
popular in Australia, Greece and South Africa, where they are known as
'Stuyvos' and 'Stuyvies' respectively.

Stuyvesant was given the nickname "Old Silver Nails" because he used as a
prosthetic limb a stick of wood driven full of silver nails.

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

DSH

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

A very kind person helped me with information about the Stuyvesant family, I
have digested this and made a file just to see what it brought together and
it is quite amazing (to me) who are to be found amongst the descendants of
this family. Kirk Douglas, Montgomery Clift, Eleanor Roosevelt, Robert
Traill Spence Lowel IV, Adam von Trott zu Solz (involved in the conspiracy
against Hitler), Princess Maria Antonia de Braganca, Infanta of Portugal,
and many others.

If anyone is interested, let me know and I will send it.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
--------------------------------------------------------------

MICHAEL Douglas is cited above as a descendant of Pieter's SISTER -- NOT
KIRK Douglas.

But is Kirk also a descendant of said sister -- or did Leo confuse KIRK, the
father, with MICHAEL, the son?

The World Wonders...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stuyvesant

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 25 aug 2007 07:34:55

YES, it does appear that Leo has confused KIRK, the father, with MICHAEL
Douglas, the son.

Here is what Gary Boyd Roberts has:

<http://www.newenglandancestors.org/education/articles/research/special_guests/gary_boyd_roberts/next_page_659_46901.asp>

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

WJhonson

Re: Peter Stuyvesant

Legg inn av WJhonson » 25 aug 2007 07:42:12

<<In a message dated 08/24/07 23:35:27 Pacific Standard Time, panther@excelsior.com writes:
Other descendants of Stuyvesant include Hamilton Fish and Tom Kean, both
governors of New Jersey and musician Loudon
Wainwright III, and his son Rufus Wainwright. >>

----------------------
The second husband of Julia Lynch Olin
http://countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/ind ... Lynch_Olin

was Lewis Stuyvesant Chanler, at that time ex Lieut Gov of New York.

He also descends from the Stuyvesant family.


I haven't fully documented it here yet, but Julia is most well-known as a leader in the Baha'i Faith eventually ex-communited by Shoghi Effendi.

cf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Lynch_Olin


Will Johnson

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Stuyvesant

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 25 aug 2007 07:43:12

17. Hamilton Fish, 1808-1893, governor of New York, U.S. senator, U.S.
secretary of state, and his wife, Julia Kean; Nicholas Fish & Elizabeth
Stuyvesant, Peter Kean & Sarah Sabina Morris; Peter Stuyvesant & Margaret
Livingston, John Kean & Susan Livingston, Jacob Morris & Mary Coxe; Gilbert
Livingston & Cornelia Beekman (parents of Margaret), Peter Van Brugh
Livingston & Mary Alexander (parents of Susan), Lewis Morris III
(Revolutionary statesman and signer of the Declaration of Independence), &
Mary Walton; RL elder & Alida Schuyler (parents of Gilbert and Philip),
Philip Livingston & Catherine Van Brugh (parents of Peter Van Brugh
Livingston), Jacob Walton & Maria Beekman; William Walton & Mary Santvoort;
Thomas Walton & Mary (probably) Lawrence; Thomas Lawrence of Long Island,
N.Y., & Mary ----.

35. Kirk Douglas (Issur Danielovitch Demsky), b. 1916, actor and movie
producer (first wife, Diana [Love] Dill, div. 1950; Thomas Melville Dill &
Ruth Rapalje Neilson; Nicholas Bayard Neilson & Sarah Gifford Chapman;
Theodore Grant Neilson & Catherine Bayard Rutgers; Anthony Rutgers & Sarah
Alexander Johnson; Gerard Rutgers & Margaret Sarah Bayard, Robert Charles
Johnson & Katharine Anne Bayard; Nicholas Bayard & Catherine Livingston;
Peter Van Brugh Livingston & Mary Alexander, see #17 above.

34.. Michael [Kirk] Douglas, b. 1944, actor, film producer and director,
son of #33 above & Diana Dill.

<http://www.newenglandancestors.org/education/articles/research/special_guests/gary_boyd_roberts/next_page_659_46901.asp>

It seems that Diana DILL, Kirk's first wife and MOTHER of Michael, has the
Olde New York and New Amsterdam ancestors and the linkage to Pieter
Stuyvesant NOT Kirk Douglas himself.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 25 aug 2007 07:48:14

A bright person also doesn't post buffoonish ridicule of a misplaced letter
"d" from me while losing a "t" himself. Remenber [sic] this?"

Peter Stewart
------------------------------------

Hilarious!

Hoist With His Own Petar Yet Again.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Peter Stewart

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 25 aug 2007 08:23:39

Hines didn't even get the point of my earlier post, where I miswrote about
writing exactly what I mean.

This typo below has none of the same amusement. I was pointing out the folly
of Hines in carping about other people's typos when making one himself.
Unlike him, I don't pretend to be a compulsive sub-editor while actually
being a demented hypocrite.

But obviously Hines with the unerring instinct of a scavenging, sadistic
creep has found himself yet another dead horse to flog. This is his idea of
seeking "detente" with someone he has been desperately trying and abjectly
failing to wound for the past week or so.

He would be better employed learning the basics of Latin (see below).

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:ehQzi.272$Jp2.1678@eagle.america.net...
A bright person also doesn't post buffoonish ridicule of a misplaced letter
"d" from me while losing a "t" himself. Remenber [sic] this?"

Peter Stewart
------------------------------------

Hilarious!

Hoist With His Own Petar Yet Again.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

People who obsess about laguage ought to know how to use conjunctions, one
of the most elementary lessons that any pre-schoolchild should receive in
Latin.

Hines has clearly never progessed as far as -que, atque, ac, vel, necnon,
simple locutions to avoid the illiterate repetition of "et" where (though
not in his phoney slogan) a second conjunction is actually required.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 25 aug 2007 08:58:36

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%NQzi.25875$4A1.22317@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

People who obsess about laguage [sic]...
--------------------------------------------------------


Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Illegitimatis Non Carborundum

allan connochie

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av allan connochie » 25 aug 2007 09:00:43

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:clIzi.20946$mZ5.14515@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
"Keith Willshaw" <nospamforkeith@kwillshaw.nospamdemon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:fanf6b$8tr$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...

"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.

Elizabeth wasn't worried about a few hundred 'border prickers' invading.

Both sides encouraged their various Borderers to be marshall, warlike and
self sufficient. Especially as in England's case the border was so far away
from central power and the likes of Henry VIII intentionally tried to stir
things up in the area.. However during the reign of James V the Scots
decided to make a real attempt to pacify the Scottish Borders. It probably
mattered to him because not only was Edinburgh so much closer to the area
but also the chief Borderers were more of a direct threat to the Scottish
crown. He made an expedition into the area and arrested many of the chiefs.
Some notable malefactors were hanged. On a second raid into Armstrong
territory, which resulted in the execution of Johnie Armstrong, his force
was reputed to be around 10,000 strong. He certainly will have needed a
large number as Sim Armstrong could supposedly put 3,000 in the saddle never
mind their Elliot allies etc.

Likewise other families/clans could put hundreds or even thousands in the
saddle. The Maxwell/Johnstone feud came to its highest point at Dryfe Sands
when again up to possibly about 3000 men were involved in the affray.

On the English side the monarchs used the Tynedale and Redesdale contingents
as a buffer. You are right of course in that Elizabeth didn't strengthen the
fortifications of Berwick because of reivers. Besides the eastern Scottish
march was normally the quiet one. However Elizabethan England did try and
quiten their own side and she took an interst in it. The reason was that the
two realms were now on reasonable terms and heading towards a closer
alliance. One of the main things that could scupper the relationship was
trouble on the border itself.

Allan

Peter Stewart

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 25 aug 2007 09:25:25

Oooh, he's up to "n" - soon he will reach "t" and be able to cackle about
his own latest typo.

Has anyone thought of trying to get a windfall out of D.S. Hines? Surely the
animators at Pixar would be ready to pay for a concept & storyline about
Usenet's very own cross between Wile E. Coyote and Yosemite Sam....the
ignorance, the aggro, the slapstick, the hysteria, the come-uppance, the
distress, the self-pity...."Please make it stop, can't we have detente now".

Peter Stewart



"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:8jRzi.273$Jp2.1742@eagle.america.net...
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%NQzi.25875$4A1.22317@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

People who obsess about laguage [sic]...
--------------------------------------------------------

Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Illegitimatis Non Carborundum

Bob Turcott

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

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 25 aug 2007 09:28:47

WJ,

Yes indeed true, however I am compelled to research a connection to Sir Robert le Brun, Knt. (d: bef 1342)
what do you think.


From: wjhonson@aol.com
<>
-------------------------
You know that the Acadians were all French. The name should probably be writen "Le Brun" instead of Brun.

They were all French, that's why the English governor deported them a few generations after your Marie died, because he didn't trust them, because they wouldn't swear allegiance to King George.

_________________________________________________________________
Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. It's easy!
http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?w ... &mkt=en-us

a.spencer3

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 25 aug 2007 09:36:07

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:HFHzi.244$Jp2.1540@eagle.america.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.

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.



And what PC rubbish it all is.

Surreyman

Keith Willshaw

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av Keith Willshaw » 25 aug 2007 09:49:30

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:sAHzi.20449$mo.217@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
Keith Willshaw wrote:


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



The fact that it was never attacked in her time doesnt mean it was useless.
By the standards of the day it was state of the art with a classic
artillery proof layout using earthern banks for defense and
caponiers, glacis and ramparts to allow crossfire on any attackers.

Keith

a.spencer3

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 25 aug 2007 09:50:41

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:K8Gzi.232$Jp2.1482@eagle.america.net...
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.



We entered the war on behalf of others, not waiting until we were under
attack ourselves.

Meanwhile you had the problem of your London Ambassador loving Hitler and
hating the Jews.

Step carefully, Hines.

Twit!

Surreyman
(By no means anti-USA, just anti-Hines idiocy)

a.spencer3

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 25 aug 2007 09:54:04

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:MWGzi.240$Jp2.1325@eagle.america.net...
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".



In both Iraq & Afghanistan wars:

How many 'friendly' deaths came from USA fire?
How many 'friendly' deaths came from UK fire?

Twit!

Surreyman

allan connochie

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av allan connochie » 25 aug 2007 10:10:23

"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:2u1uc3tkson0lojmd1i804nbg6lficlpui@4ax.com...
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.

I don't agree with him either. I was suggesting his post wasn't a worthy
addition to the debate!

Allan

allan connochie

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av allan connochie » 25 aug 2007 10:26:16

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:P8Ezi.217$Jp2.1368@eagle.america.net...
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?

Borderers are people who live in the Borders. What exactly the Borders are
is a different matter and depends on who you ask and time period etc. In the
historic period in question the Borders were the areas covered north and
south of the border by the Border March law system. Both sides had an east,
middle and west march. The Scottish side basically equated more or less to
the current Scottish Borders Region (ie Roxburghshire, Berwickshire,
Selkirkshire and Peeblesshire) along with the eastern portion of Dumfries
and Galloway Region perhaps up to the Nith, perhaps somewhat beyond it.

In a modern sense again it depends on who you ask. Most people from the UK
would probably hink of this same said area. However people from my area have
another more exclusive idea of what they regard as a Borderer. The current
Scottish Borders Region is a modern construct and is a more defined area.
Most folk from here when asked what is a Borderer would probably think of
the Scottish Borders Region itself, places like Langholm and Broughton as
well Berwick and the English villages on the southern banks of The Tweed.
Basically the rugby mad region. Hence that is a different idea from the
wider probably more proper definition.

Allan

William Black

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av William Black » 25 aug 2007 10:29:17

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:XRRzi.37415$S91.28284@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:HFHzi.244$Jp2.1540@eagle.america.net...

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.



And what PC rubbish it all is.


I was wondering more about the 'three centuries' stuff.

Assuming Liverpool didn't operate illegally as a matter of course after 1807
it means they think they've been slaving since about 1500.

Isn't that a touch early for any English involvement?


--
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.

Brian Sharrock

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av Brian Sharrock » 25 aug 2007 10:35:08

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:NDSzi.37486$S91.35150@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:XRRzi.37415$S91.28284@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:HFHzi.244$Jp2.1540@eagle.america.net...

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.



And what PC rubbish it all is.


I was wondering more about the 'three centuries' stuff.

Assuming Liverpool didn't operate illegally as a matter of course after
1807 it means they think they've been slaving since about 1500.

Isn't that a touch early for any English involvement?


--
William Black

According to wikipedia - (must be true)- the composition of the Liverpool
Council after the election held on 6 May 1999 was ; - Liberal Democrats=22;
Labour=7; Liberal=2; 'Others'=2; .... Conservatives=0.
I'd guess that lot of Guardian readers would make an 'unreserved apology'
for the buses using diesel engines; the ferries crossing the Mersey and the
lack of observable occurrences of the Liver Bird flapping its wings ..... .

--

Brian

a.spencer3

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 25 aug 2007 10:38:08

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:NDSzi.37486$S91.35150@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:XRRzi.37415$S91.28284@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:HFHzi.244$Jp2.1540@eagle.america.net...

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.



And what PC rubbish it all is.


I was wondering more about the 'three centuries' stuff.

Assuming Liverpool didn't operate illegally as a matter of course after
1807
it means they think they've been slaving since about 1500.

Isn't that a touch early for any English involvement?


I think they're talking about the poor deprived souls who are still
suffering so terribly.

My various Caribbean & African friends also seem to think all these
'apologies' are pathetic, meaningless and, anyway, totally misunderstanding.
They ask, for instance, where are the apologies from the slaving African
tribes ... the Arabs (who were at it long before Europeans), etc., etc.

Do-gooding twitdom personified.

Surreyman

William Black

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av William Black » 25 aug 2007 11:00:39

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:4MSzi.29895$rr5.7055@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:NDSzi.37486$S91.35150@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:XRRzi.37415$S91.28284@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:HFHzi.244$Jp2.1540@eagle.america.net...

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.



And what PC rubbish it all is.


I was wondering more about the 'three centuries' stuff.

Assuming Liverpool didn't operate illegally as a matter of course after
1807
it means they think they've been slaving since about 1500.

Isn't that a touch early for any English involvement?


I think they're talking about the poor deprived souls who are still
suffering so terribly.

My various Caribbean & African friends also seem to think all these
'apologies' are pathetic, meaningless and, anyway, totally
misunderstanding.
They ask, for instance, where are the apologies from the slaving African
tribes ... the Arabs (who were at it long before Europeans), etc., etc.

Do-gooding twitdom personified.

I have an idea it's more to do with a sort of generalised guilt felt by the
educated middle classes who live mainly in places endowed with large and
handsome public buildings that they feel someone has suffered to build.

That these buildings were almost invariably constructed after the end of the
slave trade from the blood and sweat of their own exploited countrymen and
women is an irrelevance.

The Liver Building itself was completed within the last hundred years but I
myself have been present when someone made a speech bemoaning the fact that
it was paid for by the blood of African slaves...

Liverpool Town Hall, it must be added, was almost certainly built on the
profits of slave trading...

--
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.

Richard Smyth at UNC-CH

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av Richard Smyth at UNC-CH » 25 aug 2007 11:56:00

Stewart:

I promised myself and Leo that I would back out of this argument with you. However, you seem to be determined to provoke me.

You write: "A philosopher with competence and self-respect does not look for an opening to a discussion and then seize on a false or illegitimate premise for this, confusing the sole and absolute cause in his misunderstanding with a contributory and relative one in the statement of another person."

Your injection of this distinction between absolute and contributory causes into the discussion is a red herring. In the real world there are no examples of causal connections that are not discussions of causes which will only be partial, relative, or contributory. "The moon's gravitational attraction causes tides on earth." "False", says Stewart, "it is only a relative or contributory cause." This is all just baloney.

The issue between us is this. You believe you know something about the probable or at least possible effects of your words on Hines's behavior while I believe that I do not know about any such effects---total, partial, necessary, probable or even just possible. Since you believe you are in possession of that knowledge, you have no motive to seek ways to find out the truth of the matter. Your state of belief is as perfect as inquiry could make and I am perfectly content to leave the matter there.

Regards,

Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com

allan connochie

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av allan connochie » 25 aug 2007 12:11:17

"allan connochie" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:YASzi.25550$ph7.10204@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
In a modern sense again it depends on who you ask. Most people from the UK
would probably hink of this same said area. However people from my area
have another more exclusive idea of what they regard as a Borderer. The
current Scottish Borders Region is a modern construct and is a more
defined area. Most folk from here when asked what is a Borderer would
probably think of the Scottish Borders Region itself, places like Langholm
and Broughton

I meant to write Biggar.

Allan

Francisco Tavares de Alme

Re: July 20, 1944 Plot To Kill Hitler (Hawaiian dialect?)

Legg inn av Francisco Tavares de Alme » 25 aug 2007 12:38:03

<Especially cousin Colonel Claus Schenk Count von Stauffenberg>

German: Oberst Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg
English: Colonel Claus Schenk Count of Stauffenberg

[If Wikipedia was more accurate, should have:
Graf Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg (reserving Graf von Stauffenberg to
the Head of the Family) and in that case Count Claus Schenk von
Stauffenberg would have been correct.]

If Colonel Claus was indeed your cousin we are also cousins in the
time frame of this newsgroup. Not flattering of course but, since Leo
van de Pas has published my relationship with Marshall Goering,
Commander Hines can just become another of those cases...

Best regards,
Francisco





On 22 Ago, 07:07, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070821190229.85c66zlt&show_ar...

"Tom Cruise is starring as Count Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg, an
aristocratic Nazi officer who mounted a failed plot to assassinate Adolf
Hitler in 1944 as Germany was losing World War II." -- _Valkyrie_ is the
projected name of the film.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_20_Plot

God Bless The Men Who Tried To Kill Adolf Hitler On This Date 63 Years
Ago....

Especially cousin Colonel Claus Schenk Count von Stauffenberg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_Sche ... auffenberg

His Genealogy is especially fascinating.

RIP

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Peter Stewart

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 25 aug 2007 13:47:45

Rubbish.

I was not trying to provoke you. I was referring to an earlier post in which
I had asked "Why would someone even look for an opening to quibble over what
I meant,
skewing both my original statement and my amplification of this?"

Hines commented on my question. and I clarified my puzzlement. It is because
I don't know why you would do what you are now doing again that I asked the
question. I supposed you to be a competent and self-respecting philosopher
(although you are doing your best to cast this into doubt), and that is why
I don't know what you are up to.

Your analogy to the moon and tides is indeed "all just baloney" - an evasive
and objectionable misrepresentation. We are not talking about scientific,
physical facts but about human motivations. These are complicated, and
different or complementary factors are relative to each other.

I have said before that I consider the main, immediate reason for Hines'
departure last time was embarrassment that he had hitched his wagon to the
credibility of Richardson, who he ludicrously claimed to be a reformed
character and scholar after his own falling out with me. There is no
earthly - or lunar - way I could have caused this stupidity in Hines.

Read my earlier posts in a more steady and professional state of mind, and
stop trying to win some imaginary contest. You made a simple mistake, but
this is no kind of warrant to represent yourself as knowing what I think
better than I can.

Peter Stewart


"Richard Smyth at UNC-CH" <smyth@email.unc.edu> wrote in message
news:mailman.1272.1188039361.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Stewart:

I promised myself and Leo that I would back out of this argument with you.
However, you seem to be determined to provoke me.

You write: "A philosopher with competence and self-respect does not look
for an opening to a discussion and then seize on a false or illegitimate
premise for this, confusing the sole and absolute cause in his
misunderstanding with a contributory and relative one in the statement of
another person."

Your injection of this distinction between absolute and contributory causes
into the discussion is a red herring. In the real world there are no
examples of causal connections that are not discussions of causes which will
only be partial, relative, or contributory. "The moon's gravitational
attraction causes tides on earth." "False", says Stewart, "it is only a
relative or contributory cause." This is all just baloney.

The issue between us is this. You believe you know something about the
probable or at least possible effects of your words on Hines's behavior
while I believe that I do not know about any such effects---total, partial,
necessary, probable or even just possible. Since you believe you are in
possession of that knowledge, you have no motive to seek ways to find out
the truth of the matter. Your state of belief is as perfect as inquiry
could make and I am perfectly content to leave the matter there.

Regards,

Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com

Peter Stewart

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 25 aug 2007 14:15:02

"Richard Smyth at UNC-CH" <smyth@email.unc.edu> wrote in message
news:mailman.1272.1188039361.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

<snip>

In the real world there are no examples of causal connections that
are not discussions of causes which will only be partial, relative, or
contributory.

This bizarre statement resonates in a sort of intellectual chamber of
mirrors, taking on distorted shapes & angles whichever way you look at it.

It's maybe closer to theosophy than philosophy - I'm reminded of a famous
limmerick:

"There was a faith healer of Deal
Who said, "Although pain isn't real,
When I sit on a pin
And it punctures my skin,
I dislike what I fancy I feel."

When I sit on a pin, I know what a sole, proximate cause is. I don't think I
have sat on a "partial, relative or contributory cause" and I must consult
with Richard Smyth to learn more about it.

Peter Stewart

Richard Smyth at UNC-CH

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av Richard Smyth at UNC-CH » 25 aug 2007 14:53:14

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say in this last exchange. I have two simple requests.

First, could you answer this question with a simple "yes" or "no"? Do you believe that your postings about Hines might have effects that you would regard as desirable? I assume you understand what my next question would be, were you to answer "yes".

Secondly, could we please take the question of my competence as a philosopher to discuss causation off the table. Causation is a subject which has accumulated a vast literature in contemporary philosophy. Even had I been competent to discuss the matter when I retired, I have not kept up with that subject. I am willing to stipulate that anything that I say in this exchange has only whatever weight the words themselves convey. I would hope that we can avoid being pushed in a direction that Hines's words were intended to push us. It was he, not you and not I, who made that an issue.

Regards,

Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message news:RxVzi.26011$4A1.23294@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Rubbish.

I was not trying to provoke you. I was referring to an earlier post in which
I had asked "Why would someone even look for an opening to quibble over what
I meant,
skewing both my original statement and my amplification of this?"

Hines commented on my question. and I clarified my puzzlement. It is because
I don't know why you would do what you are now doing again that I asked the
question. I supposed you to be a competent and self-respecting philosopher
(although you are doing your best to cast this into doubt), and that is why
I don't know what you are up to.

Your analogy to the moon and tides is indeed "all just baloney" - an evasive
and objectionable misrepresentation. We are not talking about scientific,
physical facts but about human motivations. These are complicated, and
different or complementary factors are relative to each other.

I have said before that I consider the main, immediate reason for Hines'
departure last time was embarrassment that he had hitched his wagon to the
credibility of Richardson, who he ludicrously claimed to be a reformed
character and scholar after his own falling out with me. There is no
earthly - or lunar - way I could have caused this stupidity in Hines.

Read my earlier posts in a more steady and professional state of mind, and
stop trying to win some imaginary contest. You made a simple mistake, but
this is no kind of warrant to represent yourself as knowing what I think
better than I can.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 25 aug 2007 18:35:55

Thank you, Allan.

DSH

"allan connochie" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:YASzi.25550$ph7.10204@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:P8Ezi.217$Jp2.1368@eagle.america.net...

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?

Borderers are people who live in the Borders. What exactly the Borders are
is a different matter and depends on who you ask and time period etc. In
the historic period in question the Borders were the areas covered north
and south of the border by the Border March law system. Both sides had an
east, middle and west march. The Scottish side basically equated more or
less to the current Scottish Borders Region (ie Roxburghshire,
Berwickshire, Selkirkshire and Peeblesshire) along with the eastern
portion of Dumfries and Galloway Region perhaps up to the Nith, perhaps
somewhat beyond it.

In a modern sense again it depends on who you ask. Most people from the UK
would probably hink of this same said area. However people from my area
have another more exclusive idea of what they regard as a Borderer. The
current Scottish Borders Region is a modern construct and is a more
defined area. Most folk from here when asked what is a Borderer would
probably think of the Scottish Borders Region itself, places like Langholm
and Broughton as well Berwick and the English villages on the southern
banks of The Tweed. Basically the rugby mad region. Hence that is a
different idea from the wider probably more proper definition.

Allan

a.spencer3

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 25 aug 2007 19:12:53

"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:-PudnQtPuNvrq03bnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@rcn.net...
"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:4MSzi.29895$rr5.7055@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

My various Caribbean & African friends also seem to think all these
'apologies' are pathetic, meaningless and, anyway, totally
misunderstanding.
They ask, for instance, where are the apologies from the slaving African
tribes ... the Arabs (who were at it long before Europeans), etc., etc.

Do-gooding twitdom personified.

Surreyman



where are the appologies from the african chiefs who sold their "excess"
subjects into slavery.

as to the arabs. they still practice black slavery.



And so do some West African nations.

Surreyman

Dave

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av Dave » 25 aug 2007 19:36:09

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:21:11 GMT, The Highlander <micheil@shaw.ca>
wrote:


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?

They're still working on it.

Still having inbreeding problems, or is sleeping with your children a
no-no these days?

Better than eating them, I suppose.

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.

And who would know better.
The Highlander

Pòg mo thòn

Brian Sharrock

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av Brian Sharrock » 25 aug 2007 19:56:28

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Fi_zi.21890$mo.19974@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:-PudnQtPuNvrq03bnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@rcn.net...

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:4MSzi.29895$rr5.7055@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

My various Caribbean & African friends also seem to think all these
'apologies' are pathetic, meaningless and, anyway, totally
misunderstanding.
They ask, for instance, where are the apologies from the slaving
African
tribes ... the Arabs (who were at it long before Europeans), etc., etc.

Do-gooding twitdom personified.

Surreyman



where are the appologies from the african chiefs who sold their "excess"
subjects into slavery.

as to the arabs. they still practice black slavery.



And so do some West African nations.

Surreyman


That tickled some nureons to fire; - very recently Mauritania. passed al law
prohibiting slavery - although it was declared illegal in 1981- no
Mauritinain seemd to notice.

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6938032.stm>

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


--

Brian

The Highlander

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av The Highlander » 25 aug 2007 20:33:00

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 08:50:41 GMT, "a.spencer3"
<a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:K8Gzi.232$Jp2.1482@eagle.america.net...
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.



We entered the war on behalf of others, not waiting until we were under
attack ourselves.

Meanwhile you had the problem of your London Ambassador loving Hitler and
hating the Jews.

Step carefully, Hines.

Twit!

Surreyman
(By no means anti-USA, just anti-Hines idiocy)

Stop pussyfooting! The US would bomb London today if they thought

there was oil under the Thames.
Surely you haven't forgotten that this was the first and only country

ever to launch an atomic attack against helpless, unarmed civiians?

The helpless, unarmed civilian pattern continues in Baghdad and the
nuclear part will probably drag us into full participation as George
Bush starts WW3 by nuking Tehran. I can't believe we'll be on bin
Ladin's side, but I can't see any other alliance that makes sense.

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

The Highlander

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av The Highlander » 25 aug 2007 20:36:37

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 10:02:30 -0400, "Ray O'Hara"
<mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote:

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:4MSzi.29895$rr5.7055@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

My various Caribbean & African friends also seem to think all these
'apologies' are pathetic, meaningless and, anyway, totally
misunderstanding.
They ask, for instance, where are the apologies from the slaving African
tribes ... the Arabs (who were at it long before Europeans), etc., etc.

Do-gooding twitdom personified.

Surreyman



where are the appologies from the african chiefs who sold their "excess"
subjects into slavery.

as to the arabs. they still practice black slavery.

Are you implying that the US doesn't, in its own inimitable way?


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

Vince

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Vince » 25 aug 2007 20:41:25

The Highlander wrote:

Surely you haven't forgotten that this was the first and only country
ever to launch an atomic attack against helpless, unarmed civiians?


actually no

We destroyed helpless unarmed civilians to convince the savage vicious
warmongering government that ruled them that it had better surrender or
we would destroy their civilization completely


will Shakespeare certainly captured the flavor of such a tactic

KING HENRY V
How yet resolves the governor of the town?
This is the latest parle we will admit;
Therefore to our best mercy give yourselves;
Or like to men proud of destruction
Defy us to our worst: for, as I am a soldier,
A name that in my thoughts becomes me best,
If I begin the battery once again,
I will not leave the half-achieved Harfleur
Till in her ashes she lie buried.
The gates of mercy shall be all shut up,
And the flesh'd soldier, rough and hard of heart,
In liberty of bloody hand shall range
With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass
Your fresh-fair virgins and your flowering infants.
What is it then to me, if impious war,
Array'd in flames like to the prince of fiends,
Do, with his smirch'd complexion, all fell feats
Enlink'd to waste and desolation?
What is't to me, when you yourselves are cause,
If your pure maidens fall into the hand
Of hot and forcing violation?
What rein can hold licentious wickedness
When down the hill he holds his fierce career?
We may as bootless spend our vain command
Upon the enraged soldiers in their spoil
As send precepts to the leviathan
To come ashore. Therefore, you men of Harfleur,
Take pity of your town and of your people,
Whiles yet my soldiers are in my command;
Whiles yet the cool and temperate wind of grace
O'erblows the filthy and contagious clouds
Of heady murder, spoil and villany.
If not, why, in a moment look to see
The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand
Defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters;
Your fathers taken by the silver beards,
And their most reverend heads dash'd to the walls,
Your naked infants spitted upon pikes,
Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused
Do break the clouds, as did the wives of Jewry
At Herod's bloody-hunting slaughtermen.
What say you? will you yield, and this avoid,
Or, guilty in defence, be thus destroy'd?



Savage baby killing virgin rapers, those English
and proud of it



Vince




Vince

W. D. Allen

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av W. D. Allen » 25 aug 2007 21:39:27

"...constructed after the end of the slave trade from the blood and sweat of
their own exploited countrymen and
women...."

Look into "press gangs" also!

WDA

end

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b5Tzi.29900$rr5.13056@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:4MSzi.29895$rr5.7055@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:NDSzi.37486$S91.35150@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:XRRzi.37415$S91.28284@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:HFHzi.244$Jp2.1540@eagle.america.net...

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.



And what PC rubbish it all is.


I was wondering more about the 'three centuries' stuff.

Assuming Liverpool didn't operate illegally as a matter of course after
1807
it means they think they've been slaving since about 1500.

Isn't that a touch early for any English involvement?


I think they're talking about the poor deprived souls who are still
suffering so terribly.

My various Caribbean & African friends also seem to think all these
'apologies' are pathetic, meaningless and, anyway, totally
misunderstanding.
They ask, for instance, where are the apologies from the slaving African
tribes ... the Arabs (who were at it long before Europeans), etc., etc.

Do-gooding twitdom personified.

I have an idea it's more to do with a sort of generalised guilt felt by
the educated middle classes who live mainly in places endowed with large
and handsome public buildings that they feel someone has suffered to
build.

That these buildings were almost invariably constructed after the end of
the slave trade from the blood and sweat of their own exploited countrymen
and women is an irrelevance.

The Liver Building itself was completed within the last hundred years but
I myself have been present when someone made a speech bemoaning the fact
that it was paid for by the blood of African slaves...

Liverpool Town Hall, it must be added, was almost certainly built on the
profits of slave trading...

--
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.





Brian Sharrock

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av Brian Sharrock » 25 aug 2007 22:57:11

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b5Tzi.29900$rr5.13056@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

snip


The Liver Building itself was completed within the last hundred years
.....

Acttually ninety six (completed 1911) ... but whose counting ?

but I myself have been present when someone made a speech bemoaning the
fact that it was paid for by the blood of African slaves...


Why didn't you walk away from that lying speechifier?

The Liver Building was paid for by the members of the _mutual_ organisation
called the
Royal Liver Freindly society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Live ... ly_Society

<extract> Liverpool Burial Society was founded by a group of working men
from Liverpool in the "Lyver Inn" on 24 July 1850 to "provide for the decent
interment of deceased members". By 1857 the Society had moved to its fourth
head office and had expanded throughout the United Kingdom. By the end of
the 1890’s a decision was taken to build what would become the Royal Liver
Building it opened on 19 July 1911. </extract>

See; "group of working men" ... not a penny from 'the blood of African
Slaves'!

Those deceased members would be turning in the 'decent internments' if they
realised the calumnies spread by anomymous 'bemonaer' who didn't know of
what they spoke.

Liverpool Town Hall, it must be added, was almost certainly built on
the profits of slave trading...


' .... almost certainly built ... " equates to;- 'I have no proof... but
I'll toss in some hyperbole !"


--
William Black


--

Brian

The Highlander

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av The Highlander » 25 aug 2007 23:17:40

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:28:56 -0000, 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

How very reassuring.

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


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

Christopher Ingham

Quantifying distant ancestors (and descendants)

Legg inn av Christopher Ingham » 25 aug 2007 23:29:18

On Aug 24, 11:09 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/24/2007 7:52:05 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

jacklinthi...@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.

Are there accepted statistical studies which allow one to ascertain
approximately the number of his/her lineal ancestors? Or the probable
number of ones descendants within determined timeframes? Allowing for
four generations per century (and not factoring in the phenomenon of
pedigree collapse by relative intermarriage), the amount of
grandparents soon increases exponentially (e.g., multiply sixteen to
determine the number of forebears living 100 years prior to those
alive at any given date). Thus a person born in 2000 would have 1.01
million grandparents living in 1500, 268 million living in 1300, and
1.1 trillion[!] alive in 1000.

This question is probably too simplistic, I guess, as numerical
results must vary depending on relationship patterns within a
particular cultural group.

Christopher Ingham

Alan Williams

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

Legg inn av Alan Williams » 25 aug 2007 23:33:07

Douglas Richardson 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.

Why were both wills probated? It's normal now for a will to state that
it voids all previous wills; did the will of 1443 not void the one of
1437? It could make for some horrendous court cases if there are
multiple valid wills.

Alan

Christopher Ingham

Re: Quantifying distant ancestors (and descendants)

Legg inn av Christopher Ingham » 25 aug 2007 23:38:00

On Aug 25, 6:29 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
wrote:
Thus a person born in 2000 would have 1.01
million grandparents living in 1500, 268 million living in 1300, and
1.1 trillion[!] alive in 1000.

The last number should have read 1.01 trillion (1,099,509,067,776).

Christopher Ingham

TJ Booth

Re: Lady Godiva

Legg inn av TJ Booth » 25 aug 2007 23:40:03

taf's invocation of Occam's Razor is a simple but wise answer to whether
Leofric had an uncited first wife. there is also a simple answer to whether
Godgifu lived to be 70 - she didn't have to, per items cited below.

While we can't prove her b. and m. dates, Domesday Book provides proof she
d. aft 14 Oct 1066 Battle of Hastings. "[Nottingham Domesday], i, 249r
(11-37) Robert of Stafford; Madeley (in Checkley). TRW Robert of Stafford
holds a half hide in Madeley, and Wulfheah holds from him. Godgifu held it
TRE. She even held it after the coming of King William into England, but she
could not withdraw from her land." If the translation can be trusted, this
proves she d. after Harold's death at Hastings. The statement also proves
her ownership status was sharply reduced after the conquest (suggesting her
lands had been confiscated). See
http://books.google.com/books?id=YpI9-3 ... #PPA240,M1

The Lincolnshire Domesday Book starts with a notable statement of the king's
special laws (and 1086 real estate tax rate) applicable to all properties in
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. It also has this very important statement
"Here is noted who had [i.e. TRE] soke and sake and toll and team and the
king's custom of two pennies [i.e. full property rights]; the Archbishop of
York over his manors; the Countess Godgifu over Newark Wapentake; Ulf Fenisc
over his land; the Abbot of Perborough over Collingham; the Abbot of Burton;
Earl Hugh over Markheaton (Derbysh.); the Bishop of Chester; Toki; Swein son
of Svavic; Siward Barn; Wulfric Cild; Alsige of Illing; Leofwine son of
ASlwine; Azur son of Svala; Countess Aelfgifu; Countess Gode; Alsige son of
Karski over Worksop; Henry de Ferrers over Ednaston [Derbysh],Doveridge
[Derbysh]and Brailsford [Derbysh]; Walter d'Aincourt over Branby, Morton
[Derbysh] and Pilsley (in North Wingfield) [Derbysh]; [total of 19 owners
with some interesting associations]. Of these, none could have the earl's
[presumably earl Harold, who was never identified as king in Domesday] third
penny TRE, unless by his consent, and that for as long as he should live,
except for the Archbishop of York, Ulf Fenisc and Countess Godgifu." This
proves Godgifu survived her son Aelfgar, and that
she held superior rights to every other property owner except two - the
Archbishop of York and Ulf Fenisc. [Related question - who was Ulf Fenisc to
be so highly ranked?] To hold the earl's third pennie would seem to date the
record to the short-lived reign of 'earl' Harold. Aelfgar's widow, Countess
Aelfgifu, is also proven to be alive on the date of this record. See
http://books.google.com/books?id=YpI9-3 ... #PPA217,M1.

Godgifu held a Newark on Trent Nottingham property TRE that was owned by the
Bishop of Lincoln TRW (i.e. Domesday 1086). See
http://books.google.com/books?id=YpI9-3 ... #PPA218,M1.
We are left to guess how the Bishop acquired the property - does anyone know
of other evidence for the Bishop's date and manner of acquisition?

There appear to be no Domesday or other records that Countess Godgifu was
alive 20 years later in 1086. The Domesday record for Madeley (above) does
prove she d. aft 14 Oct 1066. This is consistent with the DNB 2004,
Vol 22, page 575 statement - clearly not contemporary but based on early
records - that "In the thirteenth century her death was commemorated on 10
Sep and was believed to have occurred in 1067, which seems plausible. "
While I don't have the original source for this, at least the year is
apparently stated on page 32 of Lancaster's 1967 book on Godiva (not seen),
and Lancaster's original source may be a list of obituaries on 'Plate I,
Oxford,
Bodleian Library, Douce 139, folio 1v' (also not seen).

In a different thread 'Dates for Earl Aelgar', 23 Aug, is proof that
Aelfgar's was b. bef 1025. Dependent on the birthdates assigned to his sons
Eadwine and Morcar, that date might reasonably moved to be closer to 1020.
Given these dates for Aelfgar, it would seem reasonable to require that
Godgifu be b. by 1005 or even 1000. This would in turn suggest she was at
least age 61 or 66 at the time of the conquest. As there is no proof - or
even tradition - she was alive much after that date, there would seem no
reason to require that Godgifu have lived to age 70, much less to age 80.
Since Godgifu's husband would seem to have lived to age 60 and beyond, it is
also not unreasonable that Godgifu could have been upwards of 60 - even 66
or 67 - when she d.

No doubt others will have different interpretations and translations of
these records.

Terry Booth
Chicago, Illinois


----- Original Message -----
From: "taf" <farmerie@interfold.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: Lady Godiva


On Aug 24, 1:43 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
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?


I didn't sidestep it. I just didn't give you the answer in the form
you wanted. You seem to think that it is more likely that she was a
second wife than that she lived a long life. I don't find the question
all that useful because it appears to me to be a false duality - I
think there is nothing in the historical record that would stop her
from having been the only wife _and_ not having lived a life that was
exceptionally long. This third possibility renders a comparison of the
other two moot, there being then no reason to look for alternative
explanations for her presence in the record at a date perceived to be
late.

As we all know, medieval genealogy is full of reconstructions based on
scant evidence. In many cases we have only one or two references to a
wife, during the entire duration of the marriage, and if there is no
evidence to the contrary and no good reason to think otherwise, we
assume that this one documented wife is the mother of the children.
In many of these cases, we could posit an additional wife prior to the
documented one who was really mother of the children, but there is no
reason to do this unless there is some anomaly that necessitates it.
You have set up the chronology so as to suggest such an anomaly, but I
have tried to show that by another reasonable reconstruction, there is
no such anomaly, and hence no justification for introducing additional
entities into the equation. It is Occam at work - we shouldn't make
it more complex than it needs to be. Could there have been an earlier
wife? sure, but there need not have been, so you need some good reason
to introduce one, and I don't think the chronology is sufficiently out
of order to demand this.


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.


Based on no _given_ authority, but it does leave us guessing. On the
other hand, there doesn't seem to be any good authority for giving
Godiva an earlier husband either, or they wouldn't have taken it out.


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.


I am not trying to sweep it under the carpet, just pointing out that
with the information currently on the table, I see no need for a more
complex arrangement. (tables, carpets . . . time for an interior
decorator)

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


If you mean in DD and DP, its hard to tell. Her format doesn't really
make such a search by holder at the time of the Confessor all that
easy.

taf


-------------------------------
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: Quantifying distant ancestors (and descendants)

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 25 aug 2007 23:47:21

Dear Christopher,

In a way, you could ask how long is a piece of string. The theoretical
number of ancestors you can work out, 2 parents, four grandparents and so
on. After a number of generations they _must_ be intermarriage, reducing the
actual number of ancestors, and this differs for every person.

Do you know one of my favourite books, with the dreary title of "Your family
Tree"? In one of the forewords they talk about every adult twentieth-century
descendant of Isabel de Vermandois had in her time, the twelfth century, the
theoretical number of 67,108,862 ancestors.

Further down in this foreword:
"This, however, has led us to figures manifestly impossible in view of the
fact that the total population of England in 1100 did not exceed two
millions, and that probably not one-tenth of these, beset as they were by
war and pestilence, left permanent lines of descendants."

Two million, ten percent is 200,000 and those 200,000 have produced, is it
68 million today in England? Add to those the Anglo-Saxon descendants in the
USA, Canada, Australia, South Africe, New Zealand and so on.

Another interesting observation is (in 1929) "Every one of us is descended
from William the Conqueror, and Anglo-Saxons are, all of us, at least
thirtieth cousins to each other". If this applies to Anglo-Saxon people, I
suppose all people with European continental ancestors just all have to be
descendants of Charlemagne----- the hard part, for most, is to find the
links.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Ingham" <christopheringham@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 8:29 AM
Subject: Quantifying distant ancestors (and descendants)


On Aug 24, 11:09 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/24/2007 7:52:05 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

jacklinthi...@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.

Are there accepted statistical studies which allow one to ascertain
approximately the number of his/her lineal ancestors? Or the probable
number of ones descendants within determined timeframes? Allowing for
four generations per century (and not factoring in the phenomenon of
pedigree collapse by relative intermarriage), the amount of
grandparents soon increases exponentially (e.g., multiply sixteen to
determine the number of forebears living 100 years prior to those
alive at any given date). Thus a person born in 2000 would have 1.01
million grandparents living in 1500, 268 million living in 1300, and
1.1 trillion[!] alive in 1000.

This question is probably too simplistic, I guess, as numerical
results must vary depending on relationship patterns within a
particular cultural group.

Christopher Ingham




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

allan connochie

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av allan connochie » 25 aug 2007 23:55:52

"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:a7OdnRiNqMrbFE3bnZ2dnUVZ_oaonZ2d@rcn.net...
"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:9411d3522fdqtkavtoflv9esfi2qqnurcu@4ax.com...
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 10:02:30 -0400, "Ray O'Hara"
mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote:


"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:4MSzi.29895$rr5.7055@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

My various Caribbean & African friends also seem to think all these
'apologies' are pathetic, meaningless and, anyway, totally
misunderstanding.
They ask, for instance, where are the apologies from the slaving
African
tribes ... the Arabs (who were at it long before Europeans), etc.,
etc.

Do-gooding twitdom personified.

Surreyman



where are the appologies from the african chiefs who sold their "excess"
subjects into slavery.

as to the arabs. they still practice black slavery.

Are you implying that the US doesn't, in its own inimitable way?

yes.
while scotland is an enslaved country
don't get me wrong. there are plenty of fine scotsman , jackie stewart and
craig ferguson come to mind.
dario franchitti too. but on the whole the scots at best serfs to their
english overlords.

Serfs you say! Christ I'd better write to the Prime Minister and complain.
But then again Gordon Brown is Scottish, as is a fair percentage of the
cabinet, so no point moaning to him. Ok I'll write to the opposition leaders
instead! Maybe Menzies Campbell would help. Oh no! The leader of the Lib
Dems is Scottish too. Can't moan to him. So the only one left is the leader
of the Tory Party but David Cameron, doesn't that sound a tad Scottish too?
Well blow me down Dave's auld faither is frae Inverness! He always did say
that Dave, being a serf, would never get on in English politics..........at
least no further than leader of the official opposition. Ach well Michael
Ancram only got to deputy leader of the Tories so I'd best write to their
last leader. After all the last two Labour leaders were both born in
Scotland and the one before that was a serf too - though a Welsh serf! Then
the Lib Dems. Their last leader was also a Scot! The one before that was a
mixture but more Irish than anything else. The the one before that! Oh no
that was wee Steely, another bloody Scot.

Right then I'll go right to the top and complain to Betty Windsor. But then
again I suppose being Scottish never did her mum any harm either.




Allan

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Quantifying distant ancestors (and descendants)

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 26 aug 2007 00:09:35

I'm afraid you lost the thread here, Leo, and posted gibberish.

What is it you are trying to say?

DSH

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.1322.1188082092.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Do you know one of my favourite books, with the dreary title of "Your
family Tree"? In one of the forewords they talk about every adult
twentieth-century descendant of Isabel de Vermandois had in her time, the
twelfth century, the theoretical number of 67,108,862 ancestors. [sic]

Paul J. Adam

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Paul J. Adam » 26 aug 2007 00:11:40

In message <B_qdnaFosOlxGE3bnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@comcast.com>, Vince
<firelaw@firelaw.us> writes
Savage baby killing virgin rapers, those English
and proud of it

Actually, Henry was warning Harfleur that he was sending the Irish in to
get them if they didn't surrender :)

It's a philosophically interesting point. When you're attacking a dug-in
enemy position, you focus on the need to win the firefight, get the
assault group as close as possible on a favourable route, then keep the
enemy pinned until their position wins a grenade immediately followed by
a furiously determined soldier who will shoot, bayonet, kick and bite
any occupants to death. You are not expecting a surrender or planning to
receive it by that point.

At what point is it too late to say "I surrender! Sorry! Didn't mean
it!"?


From "The History of the Irish Guards in the Second World War",
describing action in Italy in 1943 -

"[Lance-Sergeant] Weir was shot through the shoulder, but the bullet
only stopped him for a moment while he recovered his balance. He led his
men full-tilt into the Germans and they killed those who delayed their
surrender with the traditional comment, 'Too late, chum!'"



In the case of Harfleur, it's a detailed articulation of a generally
accepted rule of the times: a fortified town was entirely within its
rights to fight until the attackers gave up, a relief force arrived, the
stored food ran out or a practicable breach was made in its wall; in the
case of the last, the choice was presented: surrender, or fight on.
There was a definite incentive for the attacker to make sure that a town
that surrendered was treated gently, just as there were strong reasons
to encourage the wildest excesses of brutality when the defenders chose
to fight, and lost: forcing the breach was a fairly dreadful affair.

Morality was rather pragmatic back then, of course...


--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)co<dot>uk

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Quantifying The Number Of Distant Ancestors

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 26 aug 2007 00:43:46

You've bollixed the math, and the explanation, here Leo, OR misquoted what
you read.

Can't you do the math yourself and present a coherent paragraph -- instead
of what you have clumsily posted below?

Secondly, did you finally get straight on the genealogical differences
between Kirk Douglas and his son, Michael Douglas?

Or, are you still confused on that one too?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
------------------------------------------------------

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.1323.1188084817.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

As far as I am concerned our Petty Officer has outstayed his welcome. From
now on his e-mails will receive the "Brandon" treatment.

----- Original Message -----

From: "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: Quantifying distant ancestors (and descendants)

I'm afraid you lost the thread here, Leo, and posted gibberish.

What is it you are trying to say?

DSH

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.1322.1188082092.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Do you know one of my favourite books, with the dreary title of "Your
family Tree"? In one of the forewords they talk about every adult
twentieth-century descendant of Isabel de Vermandois had in her time,
the
twelfth century, the theoretical number of 67,108,862 ancestors. [sic]

Vince

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Vince » 26 aug 2007 01:23:35

Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message <B_qdnaFosOlxGE3bnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@comcast.com>, Vince
firelaw@firelaw.us> writes
Savage baby killing virgin rapers, those English
and proud of it

Actually, Henry was warning Harfleur that he was sending the Irish in to
get them if they didn't surrender :)


Irish girl

help help I was raped by an Englishman !!!

Constable

how did you know he was English?

Irish Girl

Cause I had to show him how thats why!!!!!!!!!!

Vince

Peter Stewart

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 26 aug 2007 02:25:31

"Richard Smyth at UNC-CH" <smyth@email.unc.edu> wrote in message
news:mailman.1286.1188050321.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say in this last
exchange.

Fine by me - then despite previous showing you don't claim to know more
about my thought processes than I do.

I have two simple requests.

First, could you answer this question with a simple "yes" or "no"?

Yes.

Do you believe that your postings about Hines might have effects that
you would regard as desirable?

Yes.

I assume you understand what my next question would be, were you
to answer "yes".

No I don't, nor do I care. My preference would be never to hear from Richard
Smyth again - this is not a name I can associate with a SINGLE point of
medieval genealogy, ever, that is the reason I come here in the first place.

Secondly, could we please take the question of my competence as a
philosopher to discuss causation off the table.

Perhaps, if you don't insist on putting it back there.

Causation is a subject which has accumulated a vast literature in
contemporary
philosophy. Even had I been competent to discuss the matter when I
retired, I
have not kept up with that subject. I am willing to stipulate that
anything that
I say in this exchange has only whatever weight the words themselves
convey.

Well, your words "In the real world there are no examples of causal
connections that are not discussions of causes which will only be partial,
relative, or contributory" convey to me that there is no apparent reason why
you wouldn't read my posts in light of that professed belief. If so, you
would assume that any time I spoke of the cause for some outcome I was
referring to a "partial, relative, or contributory" factor, so that there
could always be others operating to the same effect; and therefore
nominating two or more in different contexts would not be inconsistent. Yet
this is PRECISELY the line that you took in trying to "parse" my remarks and
my first reply to your commentary.

I would hope that we can avoid being pushed in a direction that Hines's
words were intended to push us. It was he, not you and not I, who made
that an issue.

Your initial entry into the fracas seemed to me most readily explicable as
running interference for Hines. Since I didn't think that plausible, I was
at a loss to account for it. I still am.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Quantifying distant ancestors (and descendants)

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 aug 2007 05:10:47

On Aug 25, 3:47 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
Dear Christopher,

In a way, you could ask how long is a piece of string. The theoretical
number of ancestors you can work out, 2 parents, four grandparents and so
on. After a number of generations they _must_ be intermarriage, reducing the
actual number of ancestors, and this differs for every person.

Do you know one of my favourite books, with the dreary title of "Your family
Tree"? In one of the forewords they talk about every adult twentieth-century
descendant of Isabel de Vermandois had in her time, the twelfth century, the
theoretical number of 67,108,862 ancestors.

Further down in this foreword:
"This, however, has led us to figures manifestly impossible in view of the
fact that the total population of England in 1100 did not exceed two
millions, and that probably not one-tenth of these, beset as they were by
war and pestilence, left permanent lines of descendants."

Two million, ten percent is 200,000 and those 200,000 have produced, is it
68 million today in England?

The population of England today, though, is far more than the number
produced by those whose ancestors were actually in England in 1100.
The various colonies around the globe have contributed tens of
thousands (or more?) to the modern population, not to mention
immigrants from places not colonized by England. Best, Bronwen

Gjest

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 aug 2007 05:15:17

On Aug 24, 12:28 pm, "Janet Crawford" <reo...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/24/07, D. Spencer Hines <pant...@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".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, absolutely. How much more "friendly fire" can our allies take? I
guess Hiney got bored with attacking individuals so now he has turned
his attention to entire nations. Figures.

Gjest

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 aug 2007 05:23:16

On Aug 25, 1:50 am, "a.spencer3" <a.spenc...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in messagenews:K8Gzi.232$Jp2.1482@eagle.america.net...





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

Well, the USA slept far longer into WWII.

We entered the war on behalf of others, not waiting until we were under
attack ourselves.

Meanwhile you had the problem of your London Ambassador loving Hitler and
hating the Jews.

Step carefully, Hines.

Twit!

Surreyman
(By no means anti-USA, just anti-Hines idiocy)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Our entry into WW II was the result of Pearl Harbor - in more ways
than one. The US invaded and took over Hawaii, forcing its king to
turn over Pearl Harbor and then later imprisoning the queen. All this
in 1897. The Pacific colonialism of the US was challenged by another
colonial power in the Pacific, also busy invading and taking over
indigenous nations, Japan. It was one arrogant colonial power against
another. The entry of the US into the European theater as an active
participant (as opposed to supplying arms etc. to allies like England)
was an outgrowth of the attack on Pearl Harbor which led to a
declaration of war against the US by Germany (since Japan was already
part of the Axis).

Peter Stewart

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 26 aug 2007 05:43:36

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:B3Szi.26226$Db6.16824@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:K8Gzi.232$Jp2.1482@eagle.america.net...
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.



We entered the war on behalf of others, not waiting until we were under
attack ourselves.

Meanwhile you had the problem of your London Ambassador loving Hitler and
hating the Jews.

Joe Kennedy solved that problem himself, by going too far in the wrong
company. He left the UK as "persona non grata", declared so in the most
direct way possible, an enraged telephone call from King George VI to
President Roosevelt.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Quantifying The Number Of Distant Ancestors

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 26 aug 2007 06:24:11

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.1324.1188086710.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

"Amongst descendants" belong spouses, as otherwise there would be no next
generation.

------------------Cordon Sanitaire------------------------------------

Hilarious!

That's about the dumbest genealogical statement I've ever seen.

Leo thinks all the SPOUSES of the descendants of a given individual X should
also be considered to be descendants of X.

Leo has truly lost the bubble.

He has been living in Australia and speaking English regularly since 1968,
or so, so he should certainly understand that SPOUSES of a descendant are
not considered to be descendants themselves,

Any competent genealogist should understand that.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.1324.1188086710.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

"Amongst descendants" belong spouses, as otherwise there would be no next
generation.

Gjest

Re: The Peerage... is it updated?

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 aug 2007 06:35:04

In a message dated 8/25/2007 12:35:43 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
doloresc.phifer@comcast.net writes:

Good Afternoon. Is The Peerage.com updated when contrary research found?
Who decides if the new conflicting research will override what is in The
Peerage?


--------------
The web site thepeerage.com is maintained by one person. I believe his
identify is specified on the main page, and there is an email address to send him
mail directly.

Will



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

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 aug 2007 06:36:02

In a message dated 8/25/2007 1:30:03 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
bobturcott@msn.com writes:


Yes indeed true, however I am compelled to research a connection to Sir
Robert le Brun, Knt. (d: bef 1342)
what do you think.


--------------------
I have grave doubts that you'll find any connection between the French le
Brun family and the English Brun family. But go ahead and try. You might turn
up some new and useful resources in your hunt.

Will



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

Gjest

Re: Quantifying distant ancestors (and descendants)

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 aug 2007 06:37:02

In a message dated 8/25/2007 3:30:29 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
christopheringham@comcast.net writes:

Thus a person born in 2000 would have 1.01
million grandparents living in 1500, 268 million living in 1300, and
1.1 trillion[!] alive in 1000.


------
It's not that simple. Men tend to have children later, than do women. So
the strictly paternal line 50 generations ago would be significantly further
back in time, than the strictly maternal line 50 generations ago.

You can take about how many ancestors a person had 50 generations ago, but
to talk about a specific time period, you need to consider this seperation.

Will Johnson



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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Quantifying The Number Of Distant Ancestors

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 26 aug 2007 06:58:12

Do you know one of my favourite books, with the dreary title of "Your
family Tree"? In one of the forewords they talk about every adult
twentieth-century descendant of Isabel de Vermandois had in her time,
the twelfth century, the theoretical number of 67,108,862
ancestors. [sic]

Leo van de Pas
-----------------------------------------------------

You've bollixed the math, and the explanation, here Leo, AND/OR misquoted
what you read.

Can't you do the math yourself and present a coherent paragraph -- instead
of what you have clumsily posted above?

Look closely at that number and consider the calculation for a descendant of
Isabel de Vermandois, such as Peter, or perhaps yourself.

Then tell us if the number is correct -- AND what your assumptions that go
into said calculation are.

Don't just post something you don't even understand yourself -- and then try
to run away from it.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Parsing Stewart's Red Herring

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 26 aug 2007 07:51:29

Causation is a subject which has accumulated a vast literature in
contemporary philosophy. Even had I been competent to discuss
the matter when I retired, I have not kept up with that subject.
I am willing to stipulate that anything that I say in this exchange
has only whatever weight the words themselves convey.

Richard Smyth
-------------------------------------------------

Richard Smyth has hinted he was pretty much up to scratch on Causation as a
subject in Philosophy, when he retired, but doesn't know much about recent
developments.

I should think Causal Theory in Philosophy has been pretty well rung out
over the last 2,500 years or so.

What's New?

Applications To Mediaeval Genealogy?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Peter Stewart

Re: Quantifying The Number Of Distant Ancestors

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 26 aug 2007 07:57:20

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:IJ8Ai.287$Jp2.2246@eagle.america.net...
Do you know one of my favourite books, with the dreary title of "Your
family Tree"? In one of the forewords they talk about every adult
twentieth-century descendant of Isabel de Vermandois had in her time,
the twelfth century, the theoretical number of 67,108,862
ancestors. [sic]

Leo van de Pas
-----------------------------------------------------

You've bollixed the math, and the explanation, here Leo, AND/OR misquoted
what you read.

Can't you do the math yourself and present a coherent paragraph -- instead
of what you have clumsily posted above?

Look closely at that number and consider the calculation for a descendant
of Isabel de Vermandois, such as Peter, or perhaps yourself.

Then tell us if the number is correct -- AND what your assumptions that go
into said calculation are.

Don't just post something you don't even understand yourself -- and then
try to run away from it.

I'm darned if I can see the problem - Leo's book was evidently calculating
that the average 20th-century descendant of Isabel is (or was) 26
generations in descent from her, so that they would have 67,108,862 (or
should this be 67,108,864?) ancestors in the same degree.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Leo is to correct his arithmetic, but Hines refuses to correct his Latin, or
even to address the issue - running away from it, indeed, each and every
time he fails to do one or the other.

Peter Stewart

Christopher Ingham

Re: Quantifying distant ancestors (and descendants)

Legg inn av Christopher Ingham » 26 aug 2007 08:13:45

On Aug 25, 6:47 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:

After a number of generations they _must_ be intermarriage, reducing the
actual number of ancestors, and this differs for every person.

I realize that every person has a singular genealogical profile of
which the numbers are only partially recoverable but ultimately
unknowable in toto. I was wondering more specifically if there are
plausible statistical models for arriving at averages.

[Quoting_Your Family Tree_:]
"This, however, has led us to figures manifestly impossible in view of the
fact that the total population of England in 1100 did not exceed two
millions...."

Right. The astronomically large numbers arrived at by simple
multiplication are sharply in divergence with those deduced through
demographic studies; a dramatic confirmation of the extensive
interrelatedness within the human population.

Another interesting observation is (in 1929) "Every one of us is descended
from William the Conqueror, and Anglo-Saxons are, all of us, at least
thirtieth cousins to each other". If this applies to Anglo-Saxon people, I
suppose all people with European continental ancestors just all have to be
descendants of Charlemagne----- the hard part, for most, is to find the
links.

As far as those who lived in the remote past, it might be more
pertinent to ask, "What is the probability that such and such person
is or is not a grandparent?"

Apropos of this, your "Genealogics" website, apart from being an
excellent source for genealogical research, will also be seen more and
more as among the invaluable databases for historians,
anthropologists, and other social scientists.

Christopher Ingham

Christopher Ingham

Re: Quantifying distant ancestors (and descendants)

Legg inn av Christopher Ingham » 26 aug 2007 08:25:57

On Aug 26, 12:29 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/25/2007 3:30:29 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

christophering...@comcast.net writes:

Thus a person born in 2000 would have 1.01
million grandparents living in 1500, 268 million living in 1300, and
1.1 trillion[!] alive in 1000.

------
It's not that simple. Men tend to have children later, than do women. So
the strictly paternal line 50 generations ago would be significantly further
back in time, than the strictly maternal line 50 generations ago.

You can take about how many ancestors a person had 50 generations ago, but
to talk about a specific time period, you need to consider this seperation.

Will Johnson

Yet I would think that once an average generational timespan is
deduced, the same numbers bear out irrespective of the ages of the
pairing units (=set of parents).

Christopher Ingham

Brian Sharrock

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Brian Sharrock » 26 aug 2007 08:37:32

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Yx7Ai.26196$4A1.7217@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:B3Szi.26226$Db6.16824@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:K8Gzi.232$Jp2.1482@eagle.america.net...
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.



We entered the war on behalf of others, not waiting until we were under
attack ourselves.

Meanwhile you had the problem of your London Ambassador loving Hitler and
hating the Jews.

Joe Kennedy solved that problem himself, by going too far in the wrong
company. He left the UK as "persona non grata", declared so in the most
direct way possible, an enraged telephone call from King George VI to
President Roosevelt.

Peter Stewart

Not quite; you've described the _solution_ (persona non grata) Jack's Dad's
pro-Nazi attitude remained a _problem_.

--

Brian

Peter Stewart

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 26 aug 2007 08:54:56

"Brian Sharrock" <b.sharrock@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:05aAi.26369$Db6.9639@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Yx7Ai.26196$4A1.7217@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:B3Szi.26226$Db6.16824@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...

<snip>

We entered the war on behalf of others, not waiting until we were under
attack ourselves.

Meanwhile you had the problem of your London Ambassador loving Hitler
and
hating the Jews.

Joe Kennedy solved that problem himself, by going too far in the wrong
company. He left the UK as "persona non grata", declared so in the most
direct way possible, an enraged telephone call from King George VI to
President Roosevelt.

Peter Stewart

Not quite; you've described the _solution_ (persona non grata) Jack's
Dad's pro-Nazi attitude remained a _problem_.

I don't quite follow - Joe Kennedy ceased to be the US ambassador in London,
so the problem of the US having a Nazi-loving anti-Semite as ambassador in
London was solved.

I don't think he made much trouble for FDR once home in (semi-secret)
disgrace, though I haven't looked into this.

Roosevelt was reportedly so angry with Kennedy that he wouldn't even receive
him - not at the White House, but his own place in Albany, NY (?) - on
return, and instead sent Eleanor to meet him off the train and drive around
with him until he could be sent away on the next one.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Fw: Quantifying The Number Of Distant Ancestors

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 aug 2007 12:35:06

Dear Leo,
I have to agree with Spencer on the point that not every
spouse among the descendants of an individual should be counted as themselves a
descendant. no matter whom the Father or the Mother may be. Some are (In this
case [Isabel de Vermandois] it is likely that several couples are in fact both
descended from her, yet several is not all.
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



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

Leo van de Pas

Re: Fw: Quantifying The Number Of Distant Ancestors

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 26 aug 2007 13:10:29

Dear James,

You are seriously proposing that in the list of Stuyvesant descendants I was
offering, I should omit _spouses_?

What does Isabel de Vermandois have to do with the Stuyvesant descendants?

You have mistified me here, do explain.

With best wishes
Leo


----- Original Message -----
From: <Jwc1870@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com>
Cc: <Jwc1870@AOL..com>
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Quantifying The Number Of Distant Ancestors


Dear Leo,
I have to agree with Spencer on the point that not every
spouse among the descendants of an individual should be counted as
themselves a
descendant. no matter whom the Father or the Mother may be. Some are (In
this
case [Isabel de Vermandois] it is likely that several couples are in fact
both
descended from her, yet several is not all.
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



************************************** 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

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»