Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
The Highlander

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av The Highlander » 26 aug 2007 13:57:48

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 22:55:52 GMT, "allan connochie"
<conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:

"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


I thought that was very amusing, especially coming from someone whose
country maintains an iron grip on its citizens and who are far more
like serfs than Brits ever were, given that they can scarcely move
without some police agency ordering them to do this and stop doing
that.

Of course, a name like O'Hara tells you instantly that you're dealing
with the descendant of Irish serfs, so I suppose he doesn't actually
understand the difference between being a genuinely free man and being
the property of an overlord, like George Bush, the US Administration
and the multitude of agencies that direct the life of the average
American citizen, right down to the most minute details.

The US is controlled by more police-type aqencies than any European
country. Any uniformed government agent seems to carry a gun and to
have police powers in the US. It is a country where the citizen has a
dozen hands gripping his collar. I suppose that's why so many choose
to live outside the US.

Like the former Soviet Union, "freedon:" is a mantra that they all
chant but which actually has very little basis in reality.

As an example; in Washington State, it's an offence not to have a bag
in your car for the disposal of garbage. How much more can you be
controlled than that! I wouldn't be surprised if they introduced spot
checks to ensure that people are wearing American-made underwear!

Of course with the constant propaganda pouring out night and day about
how free Americans are compared to other countries, and as most
Americans have never been outside the United States, they have no idea
how uncluttered with laws, rules and regulations other countries are.

I might add that most of those agencies seem to a favour a threatening
and bullying approach when dealing with the average citizen and
concepts like the right of the citizen to proceed about his business
without let or hindrance is simply unknown, as most of the police
agencies can stop you and demand that you identify yourself and give
an explanation of what you are doing; some thing completely illegal in
Canada and the UK, unless the police agent has grounds to believe that
you have committed or about to commit a crime. Grounds which yoiu can
challenge.

Yes indeed, serfdom is alive and well in the United States. Yet O'Hara
thinks he's being provocative, completely failing to understand that
he is peering out through the bars, not in, like us!

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

Bob Turcott

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

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 26 aug 2007 13:58:02

Will,

I will take a peek, if indeed a branch of the Brun family migrated from England to France it could have happened during 1066 as migrations of this sort have been known to happen. In Terms of Brun as compared to Le Brun its like saying Malbaie in canada being la malbaie, I think but not certain Brun means Brown
and the same meaning would hold true for Le brun based on a preliminary surname study, There is a more exhaustive part of the meaning for the name Brun in which indeed refers to hair or complexion darkness.

Lets see what happens maybe the surname has two completely different origins or maybe one.

Bob

From: WJhonson@aol.com
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




_________________________________________________________________
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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 26 aug 2007 16:48:40

Former Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, JFK's father, was kept under firm wraps
during the Presidential Campaign of 1960, lest he say something untoward and
remind folks that he was an appeaser in the 1930's and took the attitude
that Britain could not win against Hitler.

Shortly after JFK's Victory, Joe Kennedy suffered a severely disabling
stroke and that solved the problem for good.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

D. Spencer Hines

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 26 aug 2007 16:57:46

Oh, yes, and the garbage bags must be green 30-gallon or larger ones and the
underwear must use approved elastics and cotton free of all Chinese poisons.

We already have all that.

The women must put up with more underwear checks than the men.

<Groak!>

DSH

"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:r8s2d3pe1ea3s26i93pmjptfc9jjma80ci@4ax.com...

As an example; in Washington State, it's an offence not to have a bag
in your car for the disposal of garbage. How much more can you be
controlled than that! I wouldn't be surprised if they introduced spot
checks to ensure that people are wearing American-made underwear!

D. Spencer Hines

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 26 aug 2007 17:07:15

Yes, Joe's Anti-Semitism was an even bigger problem in 1960 because there
were so many Jewish financial contributors to the JFK Campaign and Jewish
Democrat voters.

The last thing the Kennedys wanted to do was remind Jews of Joe's attitude.

So he was kept under tight wraps and did not play an active role in the
Campaign, which ended in a VERY tight race with Nixon and probably hinged on
stolen votes in Illinois.

Peter hasn't told the Gentle Readers the whole story about how George VI
intervened. He should.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:klaAi.26263$4A1.5389@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

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

Hyde Park.

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

Brad Verity

RE: Quantifying The Number Of Distant Ancestors

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 26 aug 2007 17:20:58

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

James,

You are agreeing with Spencer Hines that if, for example, I make a
detailed
list of descendants of Queen Victoria, I cannot mention Prince Albert
"because he does not descend from Victoria", only if Victoria had married
a
son could he be mentioned as a spouse "because he descends from
Victoria"?

Emperor Friedrich III has to be left out and so does Queen Alexandra? The
Queen Mother?


Dear Leo,

I think what James was saying is to, yes, of course, include the spouse of
an individual. But if you are counting out the number of descendants an
individual has, then don't count the spouses of the descendants of that
individual in that number, unless the spouse is also descended from the
individual you are counting from.

For example, you would show Victoria married to Albert, but if you were
counting the descendants of George III, you would only count Victoria, not
Albert.

You would show Edward the Black Prince married to Joan the Fair Maid of
Kent. If you were counting descendants of Edward III, you would only count
the Black Prince. But if you were counting descendants of Edward I, you
would count both the Black Prince and the Fair Maid.

Cheers, -------Brad

_________________________________________________________________
Tease your brain--play Clink! Win cool prizes!
http://club.live.com/clink.aspx?icid=cl ... ltextlink2

D. Spencer Hines

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 26 aug 2007 18:12:33

"After Prohibition ended, Kennedy amassed a large fortune when his company,
Somerset Importers, became the exclusive American agent for Gordon's Dry Gin
and Dewar's Scotch."

"Anticipating the end of Prohibition, he assembled a large inventory of
stock, which he later sold for a profit of millions of dollars when
Prohibition was repealed in 1933. He invested this money in residential and
commercial real estate in New York, and Hialeah Race Track in Hialeah,
Florida. His most important purchase was the largest office building in the
country, Chicago's Merchandise Mart, which gave his family an important base
in that city and an alliance with the Irish-American political leadership
there."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_P._Kennedy,_Sr.>

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vince

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Vince » 26 aug 2007 18:13:57

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Former Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, JFK's father, was kept under firm wraps
during the Presidential Campaign of 1960, lest he say something untoward and
remind folks that he was an appeaser in the 1930's and took the attitude
that Britain could not win against Hitler.

Shortly after JFK's Victory, Joe Kennedy suffered a severely disabling
stroke and that solved the problem for good.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas



Joe Kennedy was in no way kept "under wraps".


"Because Joe Kennedy was always an intensely controversial figure among
liberal Democrats because of his business credentials, his Roman
Catholicism, his opposition to Roosevelt's foreign policy, and his
support for Joseph McCarthy, his prescence in John F. Kennedy's
presidential campaign had to be stymied. Having him in the spotlight
would hurt John, making it look as if it were his father who was running
for president. However, Joe Kennedy still drove the campaign behind the
scenes. He played a central role in planning strategy, fundraising, and
building coalitions and alliances. Joe supervised the spending and to
some degree the overall campaign strategy, helped select advertising
agencies, and was endlessly on the phone with local and state party
leaders, newsmen, and business leaders. He had met thousands of powerful
people in his career, and called in his chips to help his sons. He would
use this to his son's advantage. His father's connections and influence
was turned directly into political capital for the senatorial and
presidential campaigns of John, Robert and Ted"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_P._Kennedy,_Sr.

Yes the fact that he was a right wing anti-semitic fan of Joe McCarthy
would hurt JFK. But JFK was himself a "war hero" and his brother had
been killed in action. The family war record was not an issue

Vince

Tim Cartmell

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

Legg inn av Tim Cartmell » 26 aug 2007 18:20:07

Dear Bob,

Not to dash your enthusiasm, but just keep in mind these le Bruns, lords of Drumburgh in Cumberland were extinct since the late fourteenth century.

Assuming you are looking for the original starting point of the family earlier back to possible origins in France, I have seen Gamel le Brun's name stated as Baviell le Brunn. John Denton stated his name was Gamel le Brun. Keep in mind that their family name was also de la Ferte, or de Feritate, and was suggested [by Du Cange?] that this may indicate places in France.

Their name Brun may have just originated from Brunscaythe a manor in Bowness-upon-Solway which was firstly held by the family named de Feritate at a date subsequent to 1169, and was still held by them in "1281-12 inq. p. m. Robert de Feritate held Brunscaythe of the lord of Liddell."

The very first named was Robert de la Ferted (c. 1130) "attested a very early charter respecting land situated on the river Kernshope, boundary of Liddel." (Cal. Doc. Scot., ii pg. 423). (Source: Transactions, CWAAS, New Series, Vol. 1928, article 'Bowness on Solway', pg. 168, 169.)

See the attached weblink about this le Brun family extinction.

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... y=brun#p98


Good Luck.

Timothy J. Cartmell


Bob Turcott <bobturcott@msn.com> wrote:

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




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


Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now!

Christopher Ingham

Re: Quantifying distant ancestors (and descendants)

Legg inn av Christopher Ingham » 26 aug 2007 18:26:59

On Aug 26, 12:28 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/26/2007 12:30:21 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

christophering...@comcast.net writes:

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).

-------------
But you said "in 1300", "in 1000" or whatever. That's the issue. You
cannot talk about a time period and how many ancestors one would have in that
period without this complex math.

Not to belabor the issue, but I am missing your point. If John Doe,
born in 2000, goes back four generations, to 1900 (allowing that
twenty-five years is the_average_timespan between generations), he
still has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 g-grandparents, and 16 2g-
grandparents. The average age differential of which you speak,
between the male and female parents, is not relevant in this context,
as we are speaking of two parents producing one offspring on the
average of every twenty-five years.

Christopher Ingham

Gjest

Re: Quantifying distant ancestors (and descendants)

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 aug 2007 18:30:06

In a message dated 8/26/2007 12:30:21 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
christopheringham@comcast.net writes:

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).


-------------
But you said "in 1300", "in 1000" or whatever. That's the issue. You
cannot talk about a time period and how many ancestors one would have in that
period without this complex math.



************************************** 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 18:34:03

If you can find proof that sometime in the Conquest period some English
Bruns' moved to France and stayed there you will have accomplished a truly
Herculean task and your name shall shine forever in the annals of genealogical lore.

I.E. Most if not all of these alleged exchanges are spurious.



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

Gjest

Re: While England Slept and George Tenet

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 aug 2007 18:46:51

Can we please drop this thread as well as Geroge Tenet and get back to medieval genealogy?

Jim


-----Original Message-----
From: Ray O'Hara <mary.palmucci@rcn.com>
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:35 pm
Subject: Re: While England Slept




"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:vCiAi.300$Jp2.2410@eagle.america.net...
Joe Kennedy's Anti-Semitism

"Kennedy was (for a while) a close friend with the leading Jewish lawyer

joe kennedy was a well known rat bastard, you are telling us nothing we
don't know.
and it wasn't so much that he was for hitler it is that he held an
irishman's hate of britain.
irish americans are descended from people driven from their homes by the
brits. such things are remembered
its why the IRA always vame to Boston ,NYC and Chitown for fund raisers.
stories of grannies murdered by brits leave deep memories.

whereas your scot reletives are a bunch of slaves and quislings to the
english.



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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Quantifying The Number Of Distant Ancestors

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 26 aug 2007 19:01:35

It is true, that you could probably find some year, in which all 8 of your
great-grandparents were simultaneously living, however, as you go back it
will become more and more difficult to find such a year. And the problem
is increased if you attempt to find a year in which they were all
simultaneously bearing children.

Try it. Report to us a year in which all 8 of your great-grandparents,
at the same time, had a baby in the house.

Nonsense!

1885 will do, in my case.

But there are many other years that would do equally well.

You really need to learn how to THINK before you POST.

Don't fall victim to the Leo Disease.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1348.1188149901.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

That is the entire point. They do not. Although each *individual* couple
may, the combined *group* of couplings, that is, all your ancestors, are
not simultaneously alive in such an ancient time period as you stated
originally.

It is true, that you could probably find some year, in which all 8 of your
great-grandparents were simultaneously living, however, as you go back it
will become more and more difficult to find such a year. And the problem
is increased if you attempt to find a year in which they were all
simultaneously bearing children.

Try it. Report to us a year in which all 8 of your great-grandparents,
at the same time, had a baby in the house.

Christopher Ingham

Re: Quantifying distant ancestors (and descendants)

Legg inn av Christopher Ingham » 26 aug 2007 19:22:07

On Aug 26, 1:37 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
snip

In the year 1200, all of your ancestors, *of the same generation* were not
simultaneously living. Rather they lived in staggered groups spread >out over
perhaps 200 years of time.

Yes you had ancestors in the 13th century, but no they were not all of the
same generation.

Thank you for the lucid explanation. I leave it to statistical
experts to deal with this factor in quantifying ancestors. Whatever
computational method is used, the numbers rapidly grow large the
further one retrogresses.

Christopher Ingham

Adam Whyte-Settlar

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av Adam Whyte-Settlar » 26 aug 2007 19:24:38

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

where are the apologies from the slaving African
tribes...

Quite so - we paid damn good money for what were often shoddy goods. A great
deal of the product was terminally defunct before it had even crossed the
Atlantic. It should also be born in mind that the chief niggers often sold
their own sons and daughters for profit.
No bloody money-back guarantees in those days either.
We Brits shored up the African west coast economy for centuries.
Ungrateful bastards.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Quantifying The Number Of Distant Ancestors

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 26 aug 2007 19:31:19

"Whatever computational method is used, the numbers rapidly grow large the
further one retrogresses."

Christopher Ingham
-------------------------------------------------

<Duh!>

Hilarious!

Talk about mindless bromides.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Peter Skelton

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av Peter Skelton » 26 aug 2007 19:33:08

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 04:24:38 +1000, "Adam Whyte-Settlar"
<none@none> wrote:

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

where are the apologies from the slaving African
tribes...

Quite so - we paid damn good money for what were often shoddy goods. A great
deal of the product was terminally defunct before it had even crossed the
Atlantic. It should also be born in mind that the chief niggers often sold
their own sons and daughters for profit.
No bloody money-back guarantees in those days either.
We Brits shored up the African west coast economy for centuries.
Ungrateful bastards.

You have a nice line in irony, a silver tongue and the brass to

deliver it smoothly.


Peter Skelton

wjhonson

Re: Quantifying The Number Of Distant Ancestors

Legg inn av wjhonson » 26 aug 2007 19:51:19

On Aug 26, 11:01 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
It is true, that you could probably find some year, in which all 8 of your
great-grandparents were simultaneously living, however, as you go back it
will become more and more difficult to find such a year. And the problem
is increased if you attempt to find a year in which they were all
simultaneously bearing children.

Try it. Report to us a year in which all 8 of your great-grandparents,
at the same time, had a baby in the house.

Nonsense!

1885 will do, in my case.

But there are many other years that would do equally well.

You really need to learn how to THINK before you POST.

Don't fall victim to the Leo Disease.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat

WJhon...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:mailman.1348.1188149901.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...



That is the entire point. They do not. Although each *individual* couple
may, the combined *group* of couplings, that is, all your ancestors, are
not simultaneously alive in such an ancient time period as you stated
originally.

It is true, that you could probably find some year, in which all 8 of your
great-grandparents were simultaneously living, however, as you go back it
will become more and more difficult to find such a year. And the problem
is increased if you attempt to find a year in which they were all
simultaneously bearing children.

Try it. Report to us a year in which all 8 of your great-grandparents,
at the same time, had a baby in the house.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

-----------------
David, your case isn't really that hard to show, all you have to do is
go back one *more* generations to where among your 16 great-
grandparents, Walter Henry Hines b 1809 and his wife Mary Wade also b
1809 are obviously having children much earlier than their generation-
sharing and yet non-contemporary Samuel Spencer b 1834/5 and his wife
Mary Wand b 1835/6.

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

The further back in time you go, the more spread-out each generation
becomes.

Will Johnson

Christopher Ingham

Re: Quantifying The Number Of Distant Ancestors

Legg inn av Christopher Ingham » 26 aug 2007 20:04:23

On Aug 26, 2:31 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
"Whatever computational method is used, the numbers rapidly grow large the
further one retrogresses."

Christopher Ingham
-------------------------------------------------

Duh!

Hilarious!

Talk about mindless bromides.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

The statement was made in the context of my original message on
another thread, to the effect that an additional computational factor
did not negate the essence of my earlier comments. Your superficial
self probably did not pick up on that.

Silly rabbit!

Christopher Ingham

Gjest

Re: Contributions of D. Spencer Hines

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 aug 2007 20:17:04

It's easy to get rid of Hines...there is the delete button. Stop
complaining...delete, delete, delete....

Gen




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

Leo van de Pas

Re: Quantifying The Number Of Distant Ancestors

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 26 aug 2007 20:17:28

Brad,

Who is "counting descendants"?

I said that I had a file and _Amongst_ the descendants. I did not say
_descendants are_
it is very picky not to see that, but then that is what Hines is about, if
only he had stayed at the East Coast of Europe.
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 2:20 AM
Subject: RE: Quantifying The Number Of Distant Ancestors


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

James,

You are agreeing with Spencer Hines that if, for example, I make a
detailed
list of descendants of Queen Victoria, I cannot mention Prince Albert
"because he does not descend from Victoria", only if Victoria had
married
a
son could he be mentioned as a spouse "because he descends from
Victoria"?

Emperor Friedrich III has to be left out and so does Queen Alexandra? The
Queen Mother?


Dear Leo,

I think what James was saying is to, yes, of course, include the spouse of
an individual. But if you are counting out the number of descendants an
individual has, then don't count the spouses of the descendants of that
individual in that number, unless the spouse is also descended from the
individual you are counting from.

For example, you would show Victoria married to Albert, but if you were
counting the descendants of George III, you would only count Victoria, not
Albert.

You would show Edward the Black Prince married to Joan the Fair Maid of
Kent. If you were counting descendants of Edward III, you would only
count
the Black Prince. But if you were counting descendants of Edward I, you
would count both the Black Prince and the Fair Maid.

Cheers, -------Brad

_________________________________________________________________
Tease your brain--play Clink! Win cool prizes!
http://club.live.com/clink.aspx?icid=cl ... ltextlink2


-------------------------------
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 The Number Of Distant Ancestors

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 26 aug 2007 20:17:28

Brad,

Who is "counting descendants"?

I said that I had a file and _Amongst_ the descendants. I did not say
_descendants are_
it is very picky not to see that, but then that is what Hines is about, if
only he had stayed at the East Coast of Europe.
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 2:20 AM
Subject: RE: Quantifying The Number Of Distant Ancestors


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

James,

You are agreeing with Spencer Hines that if, for example, I make a
detailed
list of descendants of Queen Victoria, I cannot mention Prince Albert
"because he does not descend from Victoria", only if Victoria had
married
a
son could he be mentioned as a spouse "because he descends from
Victoria"?

Emperor Friedrich III has to be left out and so does Queen Alexandra? The
Queen Mother?


Dear Leo,

I think what James was saying is to, yes, of course, include the spouse of
an individual. But if you are counting out the number of descendants an
individual has, then don't count the spouses of the descendants of that
individual in that number, unless the spouse is also descended from the
individual you are counting from.

For example, you would show Victoria married to Albert, but if you were
counting the descendants of George III, you would only count Victoria, not
Albert.

You would show Edward the Black Prince married to Joan the Fair Maid of
Kent. If you were counting descendants of Edward III, you would only
count
the Black Prince. But if you were counting descendants of Edward I, you
would count both the Black Prince and the Fair Maid.

Cheers, -------Brad

_________________________________________________________________
Tease your brain--play Clink! Win cool prizes!
http://club.live.com/clink.aspx?icid=cl ... ltextlink2


-------------------------------
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 The Number Of Distant Ancestors

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 26 aug 2007 20:17:28

Brad,

Who is "counting descendants"?

I said that I had a file and _Amongst_ the descendants. I did not say
_descendants are_
it is very picky not to see that, but then that is what Hines is about, if
only he had stayed at the East Coast of Europe.
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 2:20 AM
Subject: RE: Quantifying The Number Of Distant Ancestors


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

James,

You are agreeing with Spencer Hines that if, for example, I make a
detailed
list of descendants of Queen Victoria, I cannot mention Prince Albert
"because he does not descend from Victoria", only if Victoria had
married
a
son could he be mentioned as a spouse "because he descends from
Victoria"?

Emperor Friedrich III has to be left out and so does Queen Alexandra? The
Queen Mother?


Dear Leo,

I think what James was saying is to, yes, of course, include the spouse of
an individual. But if you are counting out the number of descendants an
individual has, then don't count the spouses of the descendants of that
individual in that number, unless the spouse is also descended from the
individual you are counting from.

For example, you would show Victoria married to Albert, but if you were
counting the descendants of George III, you would only count Victoria, not
Albert.

You would show Edward the Black Prince married to Joan the Fair Maid of
Kent. If you were counting descendants of Edward III, you would only
count
the Black Prince. But if you were counting descendants of Edward I, you
would count both the Black Prince and the Fair Maid.

Cheers, -------Brad

_________________________________________________________________
Tease your brain--play Clink! Win cool prizes!
http://club.live.com/clink.aspx?icid=cl ... ltextlink2


-------------------------------
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 The Number Of Distant Ancestors

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 26 aug 2007 20:17:28

Brad,

Who is "counting descendants"?

I said that I had a file and _Amongst_ the descendants. I did not say
_descendants are_
it is very picky not to see that, but then that is what Hines is about, if
only he had stayed at the East Coast of Europe.
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 2:20 AM
Subject: RE: Quantifying The Number Of Distant Ancestors


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

James,

You are agreeing with Spencer Hines that if, for example, I make a
detailed
list of descendants of Queen Victoria, I cannot mention Prince Albert
"because he does not descend from Victoria", only if Victoria had
married
a
son could he be mentioned as a spouse "because he descends from
Victoria"?

Emperor Friedrich III has to be left out and so does Queen Alexandra? The
Queen Mother?


Dear Leo,

I think what James was saying is to, yes, of course, include the spouse of
an individual. But if you are counting out the number of descendants an
individual has, then don't count the spouses of the descendants of that
individual in that number, unless the spouse is also descended from the
individual you are counting from.

For example, you would show Victoria married to Albert, but if you were
counting the descendants of George III, you would only count Victoria, not
Albert.

You would show Edward the Black Prince married to Joan the Fair Maid of
Kent. If you were counting descendants of Edward III, you would only
count
the Black Prince. But if you were counting descendants of Edward I, you
would count both the Black Prince and the Fair Maid.

Cheers, -------Brad

_________________________________________________________________
Tease your brain--play Clink! Win cool prizes!
http://club.live.com/clink.aspx?icid=cl ... ltextlink2


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

Gjest

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 aug 2007 20:18:11

In the US, in the 40s, there was an enormous amount of anti-Semitism, or you
might say anti-Zionism (although such a distinction is itself fraught with
dangers), rampant. Much more than we'd like to acknowledge today.

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 20:19:04

In a message dated 8/26/2007 10:30:45 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
christopheringham@comcast.net writes:

twenty-five years is the_average_timespan between generations), he
still has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 g-grandparents, and 16 2g-
grandparents. The average age differential of which you speak,
between the male and female parents, is not relevant in this context,
as we are speaking of two parents producing one offspring on the
average of every twenty-five years


-------------
That is the entire point. They do not.
Although each *individual* couple may, the combined *group* of couplings,
that is, all your ancestors, are not simultaneously alive in such an ancient
time period as you stated originally.

It is true, that you could probably find some year, in which all 8 of your
great-grandparents were simultaneously living, however, as you go back it will
become more and more difficult to find such a year. And the problem is
increased if you attempt to find a year in which they were all simultaneously
bearing children.

Try it. Report to us a year in which all 8 of your great-grandparents, at
the same time, had a baby in the house.

So although, *today* you can talk about how, you have 8 great-grandparents,
they didn't all have the same life-cycle in the same period of time. That's
the issue.

In the year 1200, all of your ancestors, *of the same generation* were not
simultaneously living. Rather they lived in staggered groups spread out over
perhaps 200 years of time.

Yes you had ancestors in the 13th century, but no they were not all of the
same generation.

Will Johnson



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

John Briggs

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av John Briggs » 26 aug 2007 22:06:42

William Black wrote:
"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?

First Liverpool slave ship set sail in 1699.
--
John Briggs

John Briggs

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av John Briggs » 26 aug 2007 22:12:17

Brian Sharrock wrote:
"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 !"

It was built in 1754. It is difficult to say what other trade there was in
Liverpool at that date, other than slave trading and the sugar trade.
--
John Briggs

Gjest

Re: Quantifying The Number Of Distant Ancestors

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 aug 2007 22:22:06

Dear Leo,
I most sincerely beg pardon for being so obtuse as to
believe for one nano second that You meant "amongst" to mean that They were also to
be counted as descendants which clearly You don`t.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA
PS God help the list if I ever attempt to post in Dutch.



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

Peter Stewart

Re: Attn. Peter Stewart

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 26 aug 2007 23:20:57

Thank you, Dana. My email address for posts is a decoy for spam & filth -
and, unfortunately, in the past that nuisance has come not only from
auto-generated sources but also from newsgroup members.

There is no need to thank me for responses, I am lucky to have access to
many sources & happy to provide any help that I can.

Peter Stewart


"Dana S. Leslie" <dsleslie@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:L9iAi.52761$lZ7.47623@newsfe20.lga...
Peter,

Each time I've tried to thank you, in private emails, for your help, my
messages have bounced back to me. So, now, I'll thank you publicly,
instead.
--


Blessed Be,

Dana

D. S. Leslie, née C. R. Guttman
Email: DSLeslie@alumni.princeton.edu
Skype: dsleslie
Web: ÞE OL' PHILOSOPHIE SHOPPE
Your Source for Discounted Ideas
http://members.cox.net/dsleslie2/

Peter Stewart

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 26 aug 2007 23:29:19

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1349.1188150330.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In the US, in the 40s, there was an enormous amount of anti-Semitism, or
you
might say anti-Zionism (although such a distinction is itself fraught with
dangers), rampant. Much more than we'd like to acknowledge today.

You might say that anti-Semitism is somehow the same as anti-Zionism, but
you would be wrong and - knowingly or not - repeating a lie.

There are many anti-Zionist Jews, and always have been. These include some
ultra-orthodox religionists, as well as secularists, athesists and others.
Another facile lie is that such Jews are themselves anti-Semitic.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 26 aug 2007 23:56:32

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:zzhAi.295$Jp2.2272@eagle.america.net...
Yes, Joe's Anti-Semitism was an even bigger problem in 1960 because there
were so many Jewish financial contributors to the JFK Campaign and Jewish
Democrat voters.

The last thing the Kennedys wanted to do was remind Jews of Joe's
attitude.

So he was kept under tight wraps and did not play an active role in the
Campaign, which ended in a VERY tight race with Nixon and probably hinged
on stolen votes in Illinois.

Peter hasn't told the Gentle Readers the whole story about how George VI
intervened. He should.

The full story can't be told without an offensive term, used by Kennedy,
that is not appropriate here. A bowdlerised version might give a wrong
impression of the response.

The story is in any case not mine to tell. I understand that it has been
placed on record and will surface in due time.

Peter Stewart

CE Wood

Re: de Montforts, again

Legg inn av CE Wood » 27 aug 2007 00:03:24

I believe Amaury IV, son of Simon I and his 3rd wife, Agnes d'Evreux,
and father, by Agnes de Garlande, of Simon III, is called Amaury III
by Leo.

Amaury IV (III) was full brother to Simon II. I presume Leo does not
include him because he had no descendants.

CE Wood

On Aug 26, 9:13 am, "Dana S. Leslie" <dsles...@alumni.princeton.edu>
wrote:
In Leo's database, I can't find either Simon II de montfort or Amaury IV de
Montfort. Given Leo's system for numbering the de Montforts, who in the
database counts as these, or are they missing, altogether?

Thank you.
--

Blessed Be,

Dana

D. S. Leslie, née C. R. Guttman
Email: DSLes...@alumni.princeton.edu
Skype: dsleslie
Web: ÞE OL' PHILOSOPHIE SHOPPE
Your Source for Discounted Ideashttp://members.cox.net/dsleslie2/

Andrew Swallow

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av Andrew Swallow » 27 aug 2007 00:55:11

John Briggs wrote:
Brian Sharrock wrote:
"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 !"

It was built in 1754. It is difficult to say what other trade there was in
Liverpool at that date, other than slave trading and the sugar trade.

Importing tobacco and exporting manufactured goods like plates and
cooking pots.

Andrew Swallow

Richard Smyth at Road Run

Re: Our Troll Problem

Legg inn av Richard Smyth at Road Run » 27 aug 2007 01:14:57

He doesn't understand the difference between a medium of pain (the nerves)
and its cause (a pin),

I do not know of any sense of the word "medium" in which the nerves are a medium of pain; the term suggests that Stewart thinks that the pain travels along or through the nerves from its origin with the pin which is its solitary cause (according to his theory). However, since Peter mention the nerves perhaps, his theory being that the solitary cause of the pain that is experienced is the pin, he would care to explain what characteristics of the signal to the brain are the basis for the perception of the location of the pain. Unless he is familiar with von Bekesy's work and its sequel, I daresay he does not know the answer to that question.

But, of course, what I really want to hear from him is the evidence that his troll postings can have desirable effects. That is the real issue that divides us and that should concern the list.

Regards,

Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com

Gordon Johnson

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av Gordon Johnson » 27 aug 2007 01:18:20

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

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

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

*** That is quite correct theoretically, but in practice very few
schools existed outside the burghs for many centuries. Indeed, many of
my Angus fisherfolk ancestors in the mid-1800s were still illiterate.
By early 1700s things were so bad that the S.S.P.C.K. was set up as an
organisation to provide schools and teachers for rural parts of Scotland
- not just the Highlands, and it did its work until 1872 or so.
The situation was the same with baptism and marriage registers: the
local churches were ordered to maintain such registers, but had to be
reminded time and time again because of poor compliance with the
instructions of the General Assembly.
Gordon.

Bob Turcott

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

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 27 aug 2007 02:46:10

Tim,



Thanks! I will take all the advise and will look over the extinction docs.
It is understood I am looking into 2 origins one French and the other English.
The scope will be to look at the french liniage in france to see if there would be a noble
line in france that may not necissarily connect to the english root, never the less I think this
line will be interesting to reaserch anyway as it seemsit may be an unresearced frontier!!
I will research this with an open mind, as far as I am concerned my branch will be considered
of French origin until such evidance comes along that a glamorous sparking piece of paper
shows the french liniage connected to that the english branch, however I find your Le brun
extinction to be very interesting, so in searching for an english connection will be low priority, but the french root will take priority to find out if there may be an unrelated noble family in france, who knows maybe the french Le brun could be the commoners and the english the blue bloods!!! Interestingly I got this from the dreaded ancestry.com about the le brun surname.

Lebrun

French: variant of Brun (‘brown’), with the definite article le. This is a name associated with the Huguenots in the U.S.
Dictionary of American Family Names, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-508137-4


brun

French: descriptive nickname, le Brun ‘the brown one’, from Old French brun, referring to the color of the hair, complexion, or clothing (see Brown). This name is also Catalan and Swiss (in the French as well as the German speaking parts).
North German and Scandinavian: nickname Germanic bruna ‘brown’, referring to the color of the hair, complexion, or clothing or from a Germanic personal name, Bruno, with the same meaning. See also Braun.
Dictionary of American Family Names, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-508137-4


Brown

English, Scottish, and Irish: generally a nickname referring to the color of the hair or complexion, Middle English br(o)un, from Old English brun or Old French brun. This word is occasionally found in Old English and Old Norse as a personal name or byname. Brun- was also a Germanic name-forming element. Some instances of Old English Brun as a personal name may therefore be short forms of compound names such as Brungar, Brunwine, etc. As a Scottish and Irish name, it sometimes represents a translation of Gaelic Donn. As an American family name, it has absorbed numerous surnames from other languages with the same meaning.
Dictionary of American Family Names, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-508137-4




________________________________
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:15:48 -0400
From: inver1000@yahoo.ca
Subject: RE: The le Brun family of Bothel & Torpenhow in Cumberland
To: bobturcott@msn.com; GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com

Dear Bob,

Not to dash your enthusiasm, but just keep in mind these le Bruns, lords of Drumburgh in Cumberland were extinct since the late fourteenth century.

Assuming you are looking for the original starting point of the family earlier back to possible origins in France, I have seen Gamel le Brun's name stated as Baviell le Brunn. John Denton stated his name was Gamel le Brun. Keep in mind that their family name was also de la Ferte, or de Feritate, and was suggested [by Du Cange?] that this may indicate places in France.

Their name Brun may have just originated from Brunscaythe a manor in Bowness-upon-Solway which was firstly held by the family named de Feritate at a date subsequent to 1169, and was still held by them in "1281-12 inq. p. m. Robert de Feritate held Brunscaythe of the lord of Liddell."

The very first named was Robert de la Ferted (c. 1130) "attested a very early charter respecting land situated on the river Kernshope, boundary of Liddel." (Cal. Doc. Scot., ii pg. 423). (Source: Transactions, CWAAS, New Series, Vol. 1928, article 'Bowness on Solway', pg. 168, 169.)

See the attached weblink about this le Brun family extinction.

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... y=brun#p98


Good Luck.

Timothy J. Cartmell


Bob Turcott wrote:

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




_________________________________________________________________
Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger 
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch ... ailtagline

Peter Stewart

Re: Our Troll Problem

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 27 aug 2007 03:14:46

"Richard Smyth at Road Runner" <smyth@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1359.1188174026.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

[I had written:]
He doesn't understand the difference between a medium of pain (the nerves)
and its cause (a pin),

I do not know of any sense of the word "medium" in which the nerves are
a medium of pain; the term suggests that Stewart thinks that the pain
travels
along or through the nerves from its origin with the pin which is its
solitary
cause (according to his theory).

Of course not - it is stimulus that the nerves convey, as a medium, from the
cause (sitting on a pin) to the receptor (a functioning brain). The
experience of this accident, the cause, is manifested in a normal organism
as pain. To insist that the product is the cause is like saying that Charlie
Chaplin's acting in _Modern Times_ was the cause of the screenplay for that
movie.

However, since Peter mention the nerves perhaps, his theory being that
the solitary cause of the pain that is experienced is the pin, he would
care
to explain what characteristics of the signal to the brain are the basis
for the
perception of the location of the pain. Unless he is familiar with von
Bekesy's work and its sequel, I daresay he does not know the answer to
that question.

Appeals to authority won't help you out: it is a bogus question. I said that
_sitting on the pin_ was the sole, proximate cause of the pain. A
synaesthesiac might experience it as a sound or a smell more than a sharp
twinge, but that only menas that contributory factors to the sensation are
acting differently. A paraplegic or diabet migth not feel anthing at all,
but then might develop an infection later that was far more serious than the
original cause: that is why the healthy body has evolved to feel and locate
the source, the cause, of such injuries. This is SO tedious and unnecessary
to have to waste time on.

But, of course, what I really want to hear from him is the evidence that
his
troll postings can have desirable effects. That is the real issue that
divides us
and that should concern the list.

And I have been referring to this evidence from the start: look at the
posting profile.

Hines says that he absented huimself from SGM because he had become bored
with this forum after obtaining all that he wanted for his own ancestor
study - patent bunkum, he had been blathering here about subjects other than
genealogy for years - and that he had other priorities for his time.
However, look at the data for his presence on Internet newsgroups:

In April 2007 Hines made 1,950 posts altogether, but only 2 of these were
posted to SGM (these numbers must include multiples from crosspostings, I
assume); n May he made 2,893 posts but only 28 to SGM; in June he made 1,563
posts, but only 5 to SGM; in July 463 posts but only 2 to SGM; and then in
August when he felt emboldened to try his chances here again with his
Plantagenet piece he made 1,611 posts altogether of which 283 have lobbed
into SGM.

Now account for THAT except by admitting that Hines felt enough discomfort
from his past experience here to stay away for a time.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Our Troll Problem

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 27 aug 2007 03:14:46

"Richard Smyth at Road Runner" <smyth@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1359.1188174026.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

[I had written:]
He doesn't understand the difference between a medium of pain (the nerves)
and its cause (a pin),

I do not know of any sense of the word "medium" in which the nerves are
a medium of pain; the term suggests that Stewart thinks that the pain
travels
along or through the nerves from its origin with the pin which is its
solitary
cause (according to his theory).

Of course not - it is stimulus that the nerves convey, as a medium, from the
cause (sitting on a pin) to the receptor (a functioning brain). The
experience of this accident, the cause, is manifested in a normal organism
as pain. To insist that the product is the cause is like saying that Charlie
Chaplin's acting in _Modern Times_ was the cause of the screenplay for that
movie.

However, since Peter mention the nerves perhaps, his theory being that
the solitary cause of the pain that is experienced is the pin, he would
care
to explain what characteristics of the signal to the brain are the basis
for the
perception of the location of the pain. Unless he is familiar with von
Bekesy's work and its sequel, I daresay he does not know the answer to
that question.

Appeals to authority won't help you out: it is a bogus question. I said that
_sitting on the pin_ was the sole, proximate cause of the pain. A
synaesthesiac might experience it as a sound or a smell more than a sharp
twinge, but that only menas that contributory factors to the sensation are
acting differently. A paraplegic or diabet migth not feel anthing at all,
but then might develop an infection later that was far more serious than the
original cause: that is why the healthy body has evolved to feel and locate
the source, the cause, of such injuries. This is SO tedious and unnecessary
to have to waste time on.

But, of course, what I really want to hear from him is the evidence that
his
troll postings can have desirable effects. That is the real issue that
divides us
and that should concern the list.

And I have been referring to this evidence from the start: look at the
posting profile.

Hines says that he absented huimself from SGM because he had become bored
with this forum after obtaining all that he wanted for his own ancestor
study - patent bunkum, he had been blathering here about subjects other than
genealogy for years - and that he had other priorities for his time.
However, look at the data for his presence on Internet newsgroups:

In April 2007 Hines made 1,950 posts altogether, but only 2 of these were
posted to SGM (these numbers must include multiples from crosspostings, I
assume); n May he made 2,893 posts but only 28 to SGM; in June he made 1,563
posts, but only 5 to SGM; in July 463 posts but only 2 to SGM; and then in
August when he felt emboldened to try his chances here again with his
Plantagenet piece he made 1,611 posts altogether of which 283 have lobbed
into SGM.

Now account for THAT except by admitting that Hines felt enough discomfort
from his past experience here to stay away for a time.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Our Troll Problem

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 27 aug 2007 03:14:46

"Richard Smyth at Road Runner" <smyth@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1359.1188174026.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

[I had written:]
He doesn't understand the difference between a medium of pain (the nerves)
and its cause (a pin),

I do not know of any sense of the word "medium" in which the nerves are
a medium of pain; the term suggests that Stewart thinks that the pain
travels
along or through the nerves from its origin with the pin which is its
solitary
cause (according to his theory).

Of course not - it is stimulus that the nerves convey, as a medium, from the
cause (sitting on a pin) to the receptor (a functioning brain). The
experience of this accident, the cause, is manifested in a normal organism
as pain. To insist that the product is the cause is like saying that Charlie
Chaplin's acting in _Modern Times_ was the cause of the screenplay for that
movie.

However, since Peter mention the nerves perhaps, his theory being that
the solitary cause of the pain that is experienced is the pin, he would
care
to explain what characteristics of the signal to the brain are the basis
for the
perception of the location of the pain. Unless he is familiar with von
Bekesy's work and its sequel, I daresay he does not know the answer to
that question.

Appeals to authority won't help you out: it is a bogus question. I said that
_sitting on the pin_ was the sole, proximate cause of the pain. A
synaesthesiac might experience it as a sound or a smell more than a sharp
twinge, but that only menas that contributory factors to the sensation are
acting differently. A paraplegic or diabet migth not feel anthing at all,
but then might develop an infection later that was far more serious than the
original cause: that is why the healthy body has evolved to feel and locate
the source, the cause, of such injuries. This is SO tedious and unnecessary
to have to waste time on.

But, of course, what I really want to hear from him is the evidence that
his
troll postings can have desirable effects. That is the real issue that
divides us
and that should concern the list.

And I have been referring to this evidence from the start: look at the
posting profile.

Hines says that he absented huimself from SGM because he had become bored
with this forum after obtaining all that he wanted for his own ancestor
study - patent bunkum, he had been blathering here about subjects other than
genealogy for years - and that he had other priorities for his time.
However, look at the data for his presence on Internet newsgroups:

In April 2007 Hines made 1,950 posts altogether, but only 2 of these were
posted to SGM (these numbers must include multiples from crosspostings, I
assume); n May he made 2,893 posts but only 28 to SGM; in June he made 1,563
posts, but only 5 to SGM; in July 463 posts but only 2 to SGM; and then in
August when he felt emboldened to try his chances here again with his
Plantagenet piece he made 1,611 posts altogether of which 283 have lobbed
into SGM.

Now account for THAT except by admitting that Hines felt enough discomfort
from his past experience here to stay away for a time.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Our Troll Problem

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 27 aug 2007 03:14:46

"Richard Smyth at Road Runner" <smyth@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1359.1188174026.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

[I had written:]
He doesn't understand the difference between a medium of pain (the nerves)
and its cause (a pin),

I do not know of any sense of the word "medium" in which the nerves are
a medium of pain; the term suggests that Stewart thinks that the pain
travels
along or through the nerves from its origin with the pin which is its
solitary
cause (according to his theory).

Of course not - it is stimulus that the nerves convey, as a medium, from the
cause (sitting on a pin) to the receptor (a functioning brain). The
experience of this accident, the cause, is manifested in a normal organism
as pain. To insist that the product is the cause is like saying that Charlie
Chaplin's acting in _Modern Times_ was the cause of the screenplay for that
movie.

However, since Peter mention the nerves perhaps, his theory being that
the solitary cause of the pain that is experienced is the pin, he would
care
to explain what characteristics of the signal to the brain are the basis
for the
perception of the location of the pain. Unless he is familiar with von
Bekesy's work and its sequel, I daresay he does not know the answer to
that question.

Appeals to authority won't help you out: it is a bogus question. I said that
_sitting on the pin_ was the sole, proximate cause of the pain. A
synaesthesiac might experience it as a sound or a smell more than a sharp
twinge, but that only menas that contributory factors to the sensation are
acting differently. A paraplegic or diabet migth not feel anthing at all,
but then might develop an infection later that was far more serious than the
original cause: that is why the healthy body has evolved to feel and locate
the source, the cause, of such injuries. This is SO tedious and unnecessary
to have to waste time on.

But, of course, what I really want to hear from him is the evidence that
his
troll postings can have desirable effects. That is the real issue that
divides us
and that should concern the list.

And I have been referring to this evidence from the start: look at the
posting profile.

Hines says that he absented huimself from SGM because he had become bored
with this forum after obtaining all that he wanted for his own ancestor
study - patent bunkum, he had been blathering here about subjects other than
genealogy for years - and that he had other priorities for his time.
However, look at the data for his presence on Internet newsgroups:

In April 2007 Hines made 1,950 posts altogether, but only 2 of these were
posted to SGM (these numbers must include multiples from crosspostings, I
assume); n May he made 2,893 posts but only 28 to SGM; in June he made 1,563
posts, but only 5 to SGM; in July 463 posts but only 2 to SGM; and then in
August when he felt emboldened to try his chances here again with his
Plantagenet piece he made 1,611 posts altogether of which 283 have lobbed
into SGM.

Now account for THAT except by admitting that Hines felt enough discomfort
from his past experience here to stay away for a time.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Our Troll Problem

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 27 aug 2007 03:20:49

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:qsqAi.26491$4A1.15051@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

<snip>

In April 2007 Hines made 1,950 posts altogether, but only 2 of these were
posted to SGM (these numbers must include multiples from crosspostings, I
assume); n May he made 2,893 posts but only 28 to SGM; in June he made
1,563 posts, but only 5 to SGM; in July 463 posts but only 2 to SGM; and
then in August when he felt emboldened to try his chances here again with
his Plantagenet piece he made 1,611 posts altogether of which 283 have
lobbed into SGM.

Now account for THAT except by admitting that Hines felt enough discomfort
from his past experience here to stay away for a time.

I should add, the scarce posts to SGM from Hines in the months before August
were not in threads that originated in this forume - they were just
crossposted irruptions of political and social commentary from other
discussion groups, of a kind that he knows tend to be ignored here. Like a
mangy, battered lion coming back to leave a pathetic stink marker in his
former territory.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Our Troll Problem

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 27 aug 2007 03:54:20

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:qsqAi.26491$4A1.15051@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Richard Smyth at Road Runner" <smyth@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1359.1188174026.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

[I had written:]
He doesn't understand the difference between a medium of pain (the
nerves)
and its cause (a pin),

I do not know of any sense of the word "medium" in which the nerves are
a medium of pain; the term suggests that Stewart thinks that the pain
travels
along or through the nerves from its origin with the pin which is its
solitary
cause (according to his theory).

Of course not - it is stimulus that the nerves convey, as a medium, from
the cause (sitting on a pin) to the receptor (a functioning brain). The
experience of this accident, the cause, is manifested in a normal organism
as pain. To insist that the product is the cause is like saying that
Charlie Chaplin's acting in _Modern Times_ was the cause of the screenplay
for that movie.

To forestall another boring sidetrack excursion, let me clarify that by
"Charlie Chaplin's acting in _Modern Times_" I mean his finished performance
in the film, not the prospect of this.

Absent the screenplay, he could have performed in a different film at that
time, or taken a holdiay instead; absent a person's sitting on a pin, the
nervous system and brain could operate to produce a different sensation from
some other cause, or none at all if there happened to be no stimulus.

Peter Stewart

Richard Smyth at UNC-CH

Re: Our Troll Problem

Legg inn av Richard Smyth at UNC-CH » 27 aug 2007 04:11:28

He doesn't understand the difference between a medium of pain (the nerves)
and its cause (a pin),

I do not know of any sense of the word "medium" in which the nerves are
a medium of pain; the term suggests that Stewart thinks that the pain
travels
along or through the nerves from its origin with the pin which is its
solitary
cause (according to his theory).

Of course not - it is stimulus that the nerves convey, as a medium, from the
cause (sitting on a pin) to the receptor (a functioning brain
.. . .
Appeals to authority won't help you out: it is a bogus question. I said that
_sitting on the pin_ was the sole, proximate cause of the pain.

I selected the location of the pain for two reasons. First, because everyone recognizes that the question "Where does it hurt" is a good way to identify one important property of the pain. (And this is true even when the pain is mislocated.) The second reason I picked this property is because it cannot be accounted for by whatever the properties of the pin are, information about which is transmitted to the brain. In fact, a key element in localization is what is not transmitted---it is inhibition of signals, and nothing about the pin or its properties will account for that phenomenon.
What I am saying is true or false, and no appeal to authority is involved.

You may think that the assemblage of facts you produce about Hines's behavior is evidence for the efficacy of your interventions. I do not agree.

Regards,

Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com

Gjest

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 aug 2007 04:47:03

Dear Gordon,
John Knox would not become a force to be reckoned with
in Scotland until nearly fifty years had passed. He declared himself a
protestant in 1545 and began his career. In 1496 the person responsible for the
interest in literacy was King James I V who had a mind as enquiring as that of
his great grandson King James VI though probably of a far less superstitious
nature. In Addition to English, French, Latin, Greek , German and Danish, James
IV apparently spoke Gaelic being the last Scots King to do so. He had a huge
warship built called the Great Michael supposedly superior to any ship any of
the other countries had to that date produced and took a personal interest in
medicine and dentistry, the courtiers with toothache soon learning to give him
a wide berth, lest the offending tooth be yanked out, roots and all.He lost
the Battle of Flodden Field because James Hamilton, Earl of Arran was too busy
pirating the coast of England aboard Great Michael to blockade the badly
needed supplies and stop them from reaching the English army and because He still
believed in the code of Chivalry. Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, the English
commander challenged that if the Scots were true knights They would abandon
their advantageous postion atop Braxton Hill, Northumberland and come down into
the field. Old Archibald Douglas, Earl of Angus urged the King to hold his
position and James insulted him, calling him as frightened as an old woman. The
Earl withdrew but ordered his son and heir George and the rest of his fighting
men to remain and serve the king. They did and many died. That was September
9, 1513 shortly before John Knox was born and in the very year of Knox`s
mentor George Wishart`s birth..\
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



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

Gjest

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 aug 2007 04:54:04

Dear Gordon,
John Knox would not become a force to be reckoned with
in Scotland until nearly fifty years had passed. He declared himself a
protestant in 1545 and began his career. In 1496 the person responsible for the
interest in literacy was King James I V who had a mind as enquiring as that of
his great grandson King James VI though probably of a far less superstitious
nature. In Addition to English, French, Latin, Greek , German and Danish, James
IV apparently spoke Gaelic being the last Scots King to do so. He had a huge
warship built called the Great Michael supposedly superior to any ship any of
the other countries had to that date produced and took a personal interest in
medicine and dentistry, the courtiers with toothache soon learning to give him
a wide berth, lest the offending tooth be yanked out, roots and all.He lost
the Battle of Flodden Field because James Hamilton, Earl of Arran was too busy
pirating the coast of England aboard Great Michael to blockade the badly
needed supplies and stop them from reaching the English army and because He still
believed in the code of Chivalry. Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, the English
commander challenged that if the Scots were true knights They would abandon
their advantageous postion atop Braxton Hill, Northumberland and come down into
the field. Old Archibald Douglas, Earl of Angus urged the King to hold his
position and James insulted him, calling him as frightened as an old woman. The
Earl withdrew but ordered his son and heir George and the rest of his fighting
men to remain and serve the king. They did and many died. That was September
9, 1513 shortly before John Knox was born and in the very year of Knox`s
mentor George Wishart`s birth..\
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



************************************** 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 » 27 aug 2007 06:14:59

Hilarious!

Johnson tries to root around in my personal Genealogy, makes many errors and
then, in desperation, tries to shift the goalposts.

No Sale...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Liberta

Deus Vult

It is true, that you could probably find some year, in which all 8 of your
great-grandparents were simultaneously living, however, as you go back it
will become more and more difficult to find such a year. And the problem
is increased if you attempt to find a year in which they were all
simultaneously bearing children. -- W. J. Johnson

Try it. Report to us a year in which all 8 of your great-grandparents,
at the same time, had a baby in the house.

Nonsense!

1885 will do, in my case.

But there are many other years that would do equally well.

You really need to learn how to THINK before you POST.

Don't fall victim to the Leo Disease.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1348.1188149901.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

That is the entire point. They do not. Although each *individual* couple
may, the combined *group* of couplings, that is, all your ancestors, are
not simultaneously alive in such an ancient time period as you stated
originally.

It is true, that you could probably find some year, in which all 8 of your
great-grandparents were simultaneously living, however, as you go back it
will become more and more difficult to find such a year. And the problem
is increased if you attempt to find a year in which they were all
simultaneously bearing children.

Try it. Report to us a year in which all 8 of your great-grandparents,
at the same time, had a baby in the house.

Don Stone

Re: Filtering out crossposts

Legg inn av Don Stone » 27 aug 2007 06:28:00

Don Stone wrote:
During the past 12 hours, I received 55 messages from GEN-MEDIEVAL. Of
these, 14 (more than a third) went into Inbox-Crossposts;
Sorry. 14 is more than a quarter of 55. I was focusing more on filters

than arithmetic.

-- Don

D. Spencer Hines

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 27 aug 2007 06:32:22

Hilarious!

Peter plays Peek-A-Boo Posting again -- one of his favorite games -- and a
favorite among the limp-wristed crowd.

He tells PART of a story, a teaser, and then draws the curtain -- a
veritable Catch Me -- F--K Me sort of scenario.

He allegedly has the story second or third hand from one of the Royals.

If it's "ON RECORD" it shouldn't be such a Great Secret.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:AynAi.26430$4A1.504@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:zzhAi.295$Jp2.2272@eagle.america.net...

Yes, Joe's Anti-Semitism was an even bigger problem in 1960 because there
were so many Jewish financial contributors to the JFK Campaign and Jewish
Democrat voters.

The last thing the Kennedys wanted to do was remind Jews of Joe's
attitude.

So he was kept under tight wraps and did not play an active PUBLIC role
in the Campaign, which ended in a VERY tight race with Nixon and probably
hinged on stolen votes in Illinois.

Of COURSE Joe operated artfully BEHIND the scenes -- with Bobby Kennedy [the
Kennedy most like Joe in temperament and the ability to hate and get even as
a skillful infighter] and they made a Great Team.

Peter hasn't told the Gentle Readers the whole story about how George VI
intervened. He should.

The full story can't be told without an offensive term, used by Kennedy,
that is not appropriate here. A bowdlerised version might give a wrong
impression of the response.

The story is in any case not mine to tell. I understand that it has been
placed on record and will surface in due time.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Quantifying The Number Of Distant Ancestors

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 27 aug 2007 06:44:10

Leo, intensely embarrassed at his gaffe, is trying to confuse the Gentle
Readers with bafflegab mixed with backing and filling and weasel wording in
order to make folks forget what he actually wrote so he can run away from it

He's also throwing out red herrings aplenty -- as a diversionary tactic.

Here it is again, the version he wants us to forget about, as he walks the
cat back and throws out the red herrings:

"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."

Leo is incorrect, Kirk Douglas is NOT a Stuyvesant Descendant -- although
his son Michael, born 1944 is.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Illegitimatis Non Carborundum

Leo van de Pas

Re: de Montforts, again

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 27 aug 2007 06:46:55

You may have misunderstood a remark I made. People with descendants have
"priority" but regularly I try to enter all children of an individual, I
haven't got around to this lot as yet, but one day I will----::-)
Leo


----- Original Message -----
From: "CE Wood" <wood_ce@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: de Montforts, again


I believe Amaury IV, son of Simon I and his 3rd wife, Agnes d'Evreux,
and father, by Agnes de Garlande, of Simon III, is called Amaury III
by Leo.

Amaury IV (III) was full brother to Simon II. I presume Leo does not
include him because he had no descendants.

CE Wood

On Aug 26, 9:13 am, "Dana S. Leslie" <dsles...@alumni.princeton.edu>
wrote:
In Leo's database, I can't find either Simon II de montfort or Amaury IV
de
Montfort. Given Leo's system for numbering the de Montforts, who in the
database counts as these, or are they missing, altogether?

Thank you.
--

Blessed Be,

Dana

D. S. Leslie, née C. R. Guttman
Email: DSLes...@alumni.princeton.edu
Skype: dsleslie
Web: ÞE OL' PHILOSOPHIE SHOPPE
Your Source for Discounted Ideashttp://members.cox.net/dsleslie2/



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

Peter Stewart

Re: Our Troll Problem

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 27 aug 2007 06:50:53

"Richard Smyth at UNC-CH" <smyth@email.unc.edu> wrote in message
news:mailman.1375.1188184312.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

He doesn't understand the difference between a medium of pain (the nerves)
and its cause (a pin),

I do not know of any sense of the word "medium" in which the nerves are
a medium of pain; the term suggests that Stewart thinks that the pain
travels
along or through the nerves from its origin with the pin which is its
solitary
cause (according to his theory).

Of course not - it is stimulus that the nerves convey, as a medium, from
the
cause (sitting on a pin) to the receptor (a functioning brain
.. . .
Appeals to authority won't help you out: it is a bogus question. I said
that
_sitting on the pin_ was the sole, proximate cause of the pain.

I selected the location of the pain for two reasons. First, because
everyone recognizes that the question "Where does it hurt" is a good way to
identify one important property of the pain. (And this is true even when the
pain is mislocated.) The second reason I picked this property is because it
cannot be accounted for by whatever the properties of the pin are,
information about which is transmitted to the brain. In fact, a key element
in localization is what is not transmitted---it is inhibition of signals,
and nothing about the pin or its properties will account for that
phenomenon.
What I am saying is true or false, and no appeal to authority is involved.

You may think that the assemblage of facts you produce about Hines's
behavior is evidence for the efficacy of your interventions. I do not
agree.

Regards,

Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Parsing Stewart's Reply

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 27 aug 2007 07:09:10

"In a recent posting Hines imagined that I have some affinity for Plato, who
[sic] I actually rather loath."

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

A Yale man should be able to write a better sentence than that.

Smyth -- A Philosopher [retired Chapel Hill prof] who loathes Plato.

Hilarious!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Peter Stewart

Re: Our Troll Problem

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 27 aug 2007 07:13:52

"Richard Smyth at UNC-CH" <smyth@email.unc.edu> wrote in message
news:mailman.1375.1188184312.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

[I had written:]
He doesn't understand the difference between a medium of pain (the
nerves)
and its cause (a pin),

I do not know of any sense of the word "medium" in which the nerves
are a medium of pain; the term suggests that Stewart thinks that the
pain travels along or through the nerves from its origin with the pin
which is its solitary cause (according to his theory).

Of course not - it is stimulus that the nerves convey, as a medium, from
the
cause (sitting on a pin) to the receptor (a functioning brain
. . .
Appeals to authority won't help you out: it is a bogus question. I said
that
_sitting on the pin_ was the sole, proximate cause of the pain.

I selected the location of the pain for two reasons. First, because
everyone
recognizes that the question "Where does it hurt" is a good way to
identify
one important property of the pain. (And this is true even when the pain
is
mislocated.) The second reason I picked this property is because it
cannot
be accounted for by whatever the properties of the pin are, information
about which is transmitted to the brain. In fact, a key element in
localization
is what is not transmitted---it is inhibition of signals, and nothing
about the
pin or its properties will account for that phenomenon. What I am saying
is
true or false, and no appeal to authority is involved.

What you are saying now is dull and beside the point. This controversy
started because you failed to grasp the definition of terms, and read
fuzzily. When I wrote of sitting on the pin as the "sole, proximate cause"
of the pain, I was obviously not stating that it was the same as the pain -
a thing cannot be both proximate and identical to another (even in quantum
physics, as far as I know, although it would neither surprise nor interest
me to hear that scientists, for want of a better description, had stated
something roughly contrary to that commonsense observation of the real
world).

You are insisting on a crabbed understanding of "cause" from a limited and
uncommon frame of reference, as if this were a technical term of
philosophical enquiry rather than a straightforward English word. Then you
are assuming that "cause" must include all the processes contributing to an
effect, rather than just the instigation of these.

Going on with the dialogu is not going to benefit either of us, or anyone
else here. I am sure there must be other newsgroups where you could find
people interested in the topic.

You may think that the assemblage of facts you produce about Hines's
behavior is evidence for the efficacy of your interventions. I do not
agree.

Yes, I may - and Oh, indeed. So you, who purportedly wanted to talk over
issues concerning the behaviour of trolls and how best to deal with them,
when given the evidence you demanded and had not bothered to seek out or
contemplate for yourself, try to dismiss this with an airy "I do not agree".
Why not add "'Nuff said", to complete your impersonation of DS Hines, as
obfuscator and evader of inconvenient realities?

I took the trouble to provide you with the relevant and readily accessible
data that you had chosen to overlook, and then if you recall challenged you
to respond with an alternative interpretation of it ("Now account for THAT
except by admitting that Hines felt enough discomfort from his past
experience here to stay away for a time".) Your breezy hot air ("I do not
agree") doesn't begin to cut it.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Filtering Out Crossposts

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 27 aug 2007 07:26:33

Damn!

Another college professor who is Innumerate.

Hilarious!

DSH

"Don Stone" <don@donstonetech.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1380.1188194121.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Don Stone wrote:

During the past 12 hours, I received 55 messages from GEN-MEDIEVAL. Of
these, 14 (more than a third) went into Inbox-Crossposts;

Sorry. 14 is more than a quarter of 55. I was focusing more on filters
than arithmetic.

-- Don

Peter Stewart

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 27 aug 2007 07:30:24

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:1mtAi.312$Jp2.2403@eagle.america.net...
Hilarious!

Peter plays Peek-A-Boo Posting again -- one of his favorite games -- and a
favorite among the limp-wristed crowd.

He tells PART of a story, a teaser, and then draws the curtain -- a
veritable Catch Me -- F--K Me sort of scenario.

He allegedly has the story second or third hand from one of the Royals.

If it's "ON RECORD" it shouldn't be such a Great Secret.

If you are so keen to get this out, you were told the whole story as I heard
it, including the individual source, in a private email from me in January
or February 2004, and you were given permission in August 2007 to publicise
any or all of my emails to you. So what's stopping you? Playing "Peek-A-Boo
Posting"?

It is not my place to tell the full story publicly, and I won't do so for
the additional reason that it can't be told without using a term that would
give offense to some readers, probably rather more than it would
enlightenment to others.

The person who told it to me, as it happens, set down the story
independently for the record. I was not the only other person to hear about
it, probably by a long stretch I would guess considering the interest of it
and the time elapsed before it got to me in the 1970s. When this will be
released is not for me to decide.

The nub of the matter, that can be known to lots of Americans, is that Joe
Kennedy made some remarks that got him summarioly turfed out of the UK and
consequently out of his job as ambassador. He obviously didn't want this
disgrace to be widely known, and nor just as evidently did FDR or the
British.

History doesn't all have to be told in full detail today.

Your repellent bathhouse scenario above is only enlightening about your own
anxieties and projections, Hines, not about information I gave and what I
didn't add.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Our Troll Problem

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 27 aug 2007 07:41:14

This story would be much better if you two pogues used the image of a
princess with a pea under her mattress.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:qsqAi.26491$4A1.15051@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Richard Smyth at Road Runner" <smyth@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1359.1188174026.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

[I had written:]

He doesn't understand the difference between a medium of pain (the
nerves)
and its cause (a pin),

I do not know of any sense of the word "medium" in which the nerves are
a medium of pain; the term suggests that Stewart thinks that the pain
travels
along or through the nerves from its origin with the pin which is its
solitary
cause (according to his theory).

Of course not - it is stimulus that the nerves convey, as a medium, from
the cause (sitting on a pin) to the receptor (a functioning brain). The
experience of this accident, the cause, is manifested in a normal organism
as pain. To insist that the product is the cause is like saying that
Charlie Chaplin's acting in _Modern Times_ was the cause of the screenplay
for that movie.

However, since Peter mention the nerves perhaps, his theory being that
the solitary cause of the pain that is experienced is the pin, he would
care
to explain what characteristics of the signal to the brain are the basis
for the
perception of the location of the pain. Unless he is familiar with von
Bekesy's work and its sequel, I daresay he does not know the answer to
that question.

Appeals to authority won't help you out: it is a bogus question. I said
that _sitting on the pin_ was the sole, proximate cause of the pain. A
synaesthesiac might experience it as a sound or a smell more than a sharp
twinge, but that only menas that contributory factors to the sensation are
acting differently. A paraplegic or diabet migth not feel anthing at all,
but then might develop an infection later that was far more serious than
the original cause: that is why the healthy body has evolved to feel and
locate the source, the cause, of such injuries. This is SO tedious and
unnecessary to have to waste time on.

But, of course, what I really want to hear from him is the evidence that
his
troll postings can have desirable effects. That is the real issue that
divides us
and that should concern the list.

And I have been referring to this evidence from the start: look at the
posting profile.

Hines says that he absented huimself from SGM because he had become bored
with this forum after obtaining all that he wanted for his own ancestor
study - patent bunkum, he had been blathering here about subjects other
than genealogy for years - and that he had other priorities for his time.
However, look at the data for his presence on Internet newsgroups:

In April 2007 Hines made 1,950 posts altogether, but only 2 of these were
posted to SGM (these numbers must include multiples from crosspostings, I
assume); n May he made 2,893 posts but only 28 to SGM; in June he made
1,563 posts, but only 5 to SGM; in July 463 posts but only 2 to SGM; and
then in August when he felt emboldened to try his chances here again with
his Plantagenet piece he made 1,611 posts altogether of which 283 have
lobbed into SGM.

Now account for THAT except by admitting that Hines felt enough discomfort
from his past experience here to stay away for a time.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 27 aug 2007 07:50:02

Good Post!

DSH

<Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1373.1188182780.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Dear Gordon,

John Knox would not become a force to be reckoned with
in Scotland until nearly fifty years had passed. He declared himself a
protestant in 1545 and began his career. In 1496 the person responsible
for the
interest in literacy was King James I V who had a mind as enquiring as
that of
his great grandson King James VI though probably of a far less
superstitious
nature. In Addition to English, French, Latin, Greek , German and Danish,
James
IV apparently spoke Gaelic being the last Scots King to do so. He had a
huge
warship built called the Great Michael supposedly superior to any ship
any of
the other countries had to that date produced and took a personal interest
in
medicine and dentistry, the courtiers with toothache soon learning to give
him
a wide berth, lest the offending tooth be yanked out, roots and all.He
lost
the Battle of Flodden Field because James Hamilton, Earl of Arran was too
busy
pirating the coast of England aboard Great Michael to blockade the badly
needed supplies and stop them from reaching the English army and because
He still
believed in the code of Chivalry. Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, the
English
commander challenged that if the Scots were true knights They would
abandon
their advantageous postion atop Braxton Hill, Northumberland and come down
into
the field. Old Archibald Douglas, Earl of Angus urged the King to hold his
position and James insulted him, calling him as frightened as an old
woman. The
Earl withdrew but ordered his son and heir George and the rest of his
fighting
men to remain and serve the king. They did and many died. That was
September
9, 1513 shortly before John Knox was born and in the very year of
Knox`s
mentor George Wishart`s birth..\
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Ross and Lynn Humphreys

Re: Filtering out crossposts

Legg inn av Ross and Lynn Humphreys » 27 aug 2007 07:52:56

Don , I don't think you cab do that with digests ( unluckily ) .
Regards , Lynn
PS Who is the listowner ?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Stone" <don@donstonetech.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 1:58 PM
Subject: Filtering out crossposts


This is just a reminder that it is easy to segregate or discard all
messages that are crossposts to multiple newsgroups (and are thus likely
to be off-topic). If you are reading GEN-MEDIEVAL, tell your mail
reader to send all incoming messages whose Newsgroups header contains a
comma to a folder (that you will create) called something like
Inbox-Crossposts. (Or tell it to send these messages to Trash.)
Similarly, if you are reading soc.genealogy.medieval, tell your
newsreader to look for Newsgroups headers containing a comma.

During the past 12 hours, I received 55 messages from GEN-MEDIEVAL. Of
these, 14 (more than a third) went into Inbox-Crossposts; these included
posts about politics and military history, but none about genealogy.
The remaining 41 went into Inbox-GEN-MED (because of a filter looking
for a To containing GEN-MEDIEVAL or a Cc containing GEN-MEDIEVAL). Note
that this latter filter allows me to view GEN-MEDIEVAL messages grouped
together in threads, a solution for those who don't want their Inbox
"cluttered" with individual GEN-MEDIEVAL messages.

-- Don Stone


Leo van de Pas

To be Obtuse or not to be :-) Re: Quantifying The Number Of

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 27 aug 2007 09:40:16

Dear James,
Can I forgive you for being obtuse? When you use such an interesting word,
of course I can :-)

You want to become involved with "Double Dutch"?---- I wouldn't, if I were
you. Dutch Courage is bad enough.

In the mean time, the number of Stuyvesant descendants is growing, I can
count the actual number of individual descendants recorded at the moment,
but I cannot count the number of spouses, nor the in-laws, and all those
together makes a pretty large family. I am finding several Vanderbilts
linked as well, I was surprised but of course I should have expected that.

I am also finding all kinds of interesting stories. One descendant was
declared insane in one State, he went to another State and had himself found
sane. Then a few years later a younger brother by divorcing almost
bankrupted himself. The elder brother sent a message which was somehow
leaked "Who is the Looney now?"

One link someone alerted me to, will bring a fair number of aristocracy
living in England to the total number. I wish a day had 48 hours :-)

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: <Jwc1870@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com>
Cc: <Jwc1870@AOL..com>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 5:33 AM
Subject: Re: Quantifying The Number Of Distant Ancestors


Dear Leo,
I most sincerely beg pardon for being so obtuse as to
believe for one nano second that You meant "amongst" to mean that They
were also to
be counted as descendants which clearly You don`t.
Sincerely,
James
W
Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA
PS God help the list if I ever attempt to post in Dutch.



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

Brian Sharrock

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Brian Sharrock » 27 aug 2007 09:46:38

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:1mtAi.312$Jp2.2403@eagle.america.net...
Hilarious!

Peter plays Peek-A-Boo Posting again -- one of his favorite games -- and a
favorite among the limp-wristed crowd.

He tells PART of a story, a teaser, and then draws the curtain -- a
veritable Catch Me -- F--K Me sort of scenario.

He allegedly has the story second or third hand from one of the Royals.

If it's "ON RECORD" it shouldn't be such a Great Secret.


Non-sequitor; many things are 'On Record' but are 'Sealed' (ipso facto
'Secret') ;




DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult


--

Brian

Peter Stewart

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 27 aug 2007 10:04:03

"Brian Sharrock" <b.sharrock@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ObwAi.26621$Db6.838@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:1mtAi.312$Jp2.2403@eagle.america.net...
Hilarious!

Peter plays Peek-A-Boo Posting again -- one of his favorite games -- and
a favorite among the limp-wristed crowd.

He tells PART of a story, a teaser, and then draws the curtain -- a
veritable Catch Me -- F--K Me sort of scenario.

He allegedly has the story second or third hand from one of the Royals.

If it's "ON RECORD" it shouldn't be such a Great Secret.


Non-sequitor; many things are 'On Record' but are 'Sealed' (ipso facto
'Secret') ;

Hines is trying to deceive again - by "on record" he wants to imply the
journalist's jargon for something that can be reported and sourced, whereas
he knows perfectly well that I meant simply set down for later.

I doubt somehow that he will venture to correct your typo for "non
sequitur", Brian (that was maybe deliberate on your part). The term has
particularly unhappy memories for Hines.

The only one playing "peek-a-boo" is himself, of course, busily revealing
that there is more to be told, while not mentioning that he was told as much
about this in 2004 as he wants repeated now.

Peter Stewart

CE Wood

Re: de Montforts, again

Legg inn av CE Wood » 27 aug 2007 17:16:11

There was an Amaury III. He was also a son of Simon I, but with wife
#1, Isabel de Broyes (Bardoul), Dame de Nogent. Amaury III was born
in 1056, and died about 1089, in a fight in the land of William de
Breteuil.

CE Wood



On Aug 27, 5:24 am, "Dana S. Leslie" <dsles...@alumni.princeton.edu>
wrote:
"Dana S. Leslie" <dsles...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in messagenews:jczAi.172872$g86.42483@newsfe14.lga...>I realize that Leo calls the son of Simon I, and father of Simon III,
Amaury III, NOT Iv. What I want to know is if the Amaurys V-Vii, who also
appear in Leo's database, should be renumbered downward, or if there is
another individual, in some other branch of the family that Leo has not yet
entered, who is properly styled Amaury Iv.

Or is there an earlier individual who should be styled Amaury III, and Leo's
III (the father of Simon III) renumbered to Iv?

Don Stone

Re: Filtering out crossposts

Legg inn av Don Stone » 27 aug 2007 17:19:52

Ross and Lynn Humphreys wrote:
Don , I don't think you cab do that with digests ( unluckily ).

So why not switch to individual messages? With modern mail reading

programs and tools, there is less motivation for digests than previously.
Regards , Lynn
PS Who is the listowner ?

Todd Farmerie and I are co-listowners.


-- Don Stone
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Stone" <don@donstonetech.com
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 1:58 PM
Subject: Filtering out crosspost
This is just a reminder that it is easy to segregate or discard all
messages that are crossposts to multiple newsgroups (and are thus likely
to be off-topic). If you are reading GEN-MEDIEVAL, tell your mail
reader to send all incoming messages whose Newsgroups header contains a
comma to a folder (that you will create) called something like
Inbox-Crossposts. (Or tell it to send these messages to Trash.)
Similarly, if you are reading soc.genealogy.medieval, tell your
newsreader to look for Newsgroups headers containing a comma.

During the past 12 hours, I received 55 messages from GEN-MEDIEVAL. Of
these, 14 (more than a third) went into Inbox-Crossposts; these included
posts about politics and military history, but none about genealogy.
The remaining 41 went into Inbox-GEN-MED (because of a filter looking
for a To containing GEN-MEDIEVAL or a Cc containing GEN-MEDIEVAL). Note
that this latter filter allows me to view GEN-MEDIEVAL messages grouped
together in threads, a solution for those who don't want their Inbox
"cluttered" with individual GEN-MEDIEVAL messages.

-- Don Stone

D. Spencer Hines

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 27 aug 2007 18:02:29

Peter Stewart, boy adventurer, erstwhile friend of The Royals, has the full
story on this, not I.

I have no personal proof that anything of the sort happened between George
VI, Joe Kennedy and FDR. It's not my story.

So if Stewart has the story -- from a reliable source -- who had it from the
horse's mouth -- and he can tell MOI -- then he can certainly stop playing
limp-wristed peek-a-boo games with the Gentle Readers of SGM, et alia, and
tell them what he knows.

'Nuff Said.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Illegitimatis Non Carborundum

Dave

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av Dave » 27 aug 2007 18:32:20

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 21:12:17 GMT, "John Briggs"
<john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Brian Sharrock wrote:
"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 !"

It was built in 1754. It is difficult to say what other trade there was in
Liverpool at that date, other than slave trading and the sugar trade.

Coal and Salt.

http://www.mersey-gateway.org/server.ph ... pterId=289

John Briggs

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av John Briggs » 27 aug 2007 19:04:35

Dave wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 21:12:17 GMT, "John Briggs"
john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Brian Sharrock wrote:
"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 !"

It was built in 1754. It is difficult to say what other trade there
was in Liverpool at that date, other than slave trading and the
sugar trade.

Coal and Salt.

http://www.mersey-gateway.org/server.ph ... pterId=289

If you read the link, you will find that the coal trade began after 1754.
--
John Briggs

The Highlander

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av The Highlander » 27 aug 2007 19:12:35

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 01:18:20 +0100, Gordon Johnson
<gordon@kinhelp.co.uk> wrote:

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

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

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

*** That is quite correct theoretically, but in practice very few
schools existed outside the burghs for many centuries. Indeed, many of
my Angus fisherfolk ancestors in the mid-1800s were still illiterate.
By early 1700s things were so bad that the S.S.P.C.K. was set up as an
organisation to provide schools and teachers for rural parts of Scotland
- not just the Highlands, and it did its work until 1872 or so.
The situation was the same with baptism and marriage registers: the
local churches were ordered to maintain such registers, but had to be
reminded time and time again because of poor compliance with the
instructions of the General Assembly.
Gordon.

Thanks for the correction - I was depending on book references rather
than local experience, although among the Gaels, education was much
sought after. The highest compliment one can be paid in
Gaelic-speaking Scotland is to be called "a Gaelic scholar". It
implies a deep and precise knowledge of the language.

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

The Highlander

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av The Highlander » 27 aug 2007 19:18:33

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 09:10:23 GMT, "allan connochie"
<conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:

"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

I beg your pardon. Perhaps I should mention my wife's remark when

asked what it was like to be married to a Highlander - "Nice-looking
men; thick as two planks." (No offence to Highlanders intended, or
indeed to those of Highland ancestry, like yourself! She simply
couldn't pass up the opportunity to get the boot in on yours truly!)

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

The Highlander

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av The Highlander » 27 aug 2007 19:21:33

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:29:03 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
<nospamforkeith@kwillshaw.nospamdemon.co.uk> wrote:

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

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

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

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


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


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

Keith

And if you ever visit York Cathedral, ask to see the armoury in the

basement, filled with equipment for the locals to use in the event
case of a Scottish (reivers') attack.

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

Dave

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av Dave » 27 aug 2007 19:22:45

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:04:35 GMT, "John Briggs"
<john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 21:12:17 GMT, "John Briggs"
john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Brian Sharrock wrote:
"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 !"

It was built in 1754. It is difficult to say what other trade there
was in Liverpool at that date, other than slave trading and the
sugar trade.

Coal and Salt.

http://www.mersey-gateway.org/server.ph ... pterId=289

If you read the link, you will find that the coal trade began after 1754.

Then there was tobacco.

The Highlander

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av The Highlander » 27 aug 2007 19:24:39

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 08:00:43 GMT, "allan connochie"
<conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:

"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

Excellent series of posts!


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

John Briggs

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av John Briggs » 27 aug 2007 19:27:04

The Highlander wrote:
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:29:03 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
nospamforkeith@kwillshaw.nospamdemon.co.uk> wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

And if you ever visit York Cathedral, ask to see the armoury in the
basement, filled with equipment for the locals to use in the event
case of a Scottish (reivers') attack.

It's "York Minster", it's "crypt", and there isn't an "armoury". Apart from
that...
--
John Briggs

John Briggs

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av John Briggs » 27 aug 2007 19:29:44

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:04:35 GMT, "John Briggs"
john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 21:12:17 GMT, "John Briggs"
john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Brian Sharrock wrote:
"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 !"

It was built in 1754. It is difficult to say what other trade there
was in Liverpool at that date, other than slave trading and the
sugar trade.

Coal and Salt.

http://www.mersey-gateway.org/server.ph ... pterId=289

If you read the link, you will find that the coal trade began after
1754.

Then there was tobacco.

The early import trade was tobacco and sugar. Who did the work to produce
the tobacco?
--
John Briggs

Dave

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av Dave » 27 aug 2007 19:43:02

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:29:44 GMT, "John Briggs"
<john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:04:35 GMT, "John Briggs"
john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 21:12:17 GMT, "John Briggs"
john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Brian Sharrock wrote:
"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 !"

It was built in 1754. It is difficult to say what other trade there
was in Liverpool at that date, other than slave trading and the
sugar trade.

Coal and Salt.

http://www.mersey-gateway.org/server.ph ... pterId=289

If you read the link, you will find that the coal trade began after
1754.

Then there was tobacco.

The early import trade was tobacco and sugar. Who did the work to produce
the tobacco?

Convicts.

Gjest

Re: Mediaeval Herefordshire: Mortimer and other tombs at Muc

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 aug 2007 20:30:47

On 27 Aug., 20:24, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
I visited Much Marcle in the Herefordshire borders this morning and
photographed the following tombs

(5) Elizabeth Kyrle nee Boughton (c1576-1623), a wall brass.

Recte: Elizabeth Boughton nee Kyrle: wife of Stephen Boughton and
daughter of John Kyrle of Hereford (the guidebook misleadingly calls
her Elizabeth Stephanie Boughton).

William Black

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av William Black » 27 aug 2007 22:39:03

"TMOliver" <tmoliverjrFIX@hot.rr.comFIX> wrote in message
news:46d30f26$0$18961$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrotet...

"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 must be referring to having practiced the trade upon the
closest available candidates, the Erse.....

In 1500!

You'll have to do better than that bald statement.

--
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: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av William Black » 27 aug 2007 22:39:03

"Brian Sharrock" <b.sharrock@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:XA1Ai.21921$mo.412@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...

"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?

A free dinner.

--
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: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av William Black » 27 aug 2007 22:39:04

"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:vd56d3ld36si0br9rvi43uigf5gjeshqsj@4ax.com...

And if you ever visit York Cathedral, ask to see the armoury in the
basement, filled with equipment for the locals to use in the event
case of a Scottish (reivers') attack.

1. It's 'York Minster', not York 'Cathedral'.

2. I was down in the crypt not long ago. There are no arms there at all.
There's a rather nice series of models showing the history of the structure,
the treasury, including some nice fifteenth century stuff and a shrine to
the founding saint of the place.

So you've been caught lying yet again.

I do have to add that York has a number of medieval structures far more
suited to the storing of weapons than the Minster...

--
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.

WJhonson

Re: Mediaeval monuments in St Mary Redcliffe, Bristol

Legg inn av WJhonson » 27 aug 2007 23:09:47

What is the source for this specific marriage year ?
Thanks
Will


In a message dated 08/27/07 05:30:16 Pacific Standard Time, vance.mead@mead.inet.fi writes:
Philip Mede's daughter Isabel / Elizabeth married Maurice Lord
Berkeley in 1460.

Peter Stewart

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 27 aug 2007 23:41:41

Hines is being flatly dishonest again.

He was already told all that I could tell again. He had the story in 2004 as
fully as I heard it, from an eye-witness, long after the events. He has been
cleared to post it (or anything else written to him by me when I was foolish
enough to correspond briefly with him) in my words if he really thought it
necessary as well as appropriate to offend people with every last detail.

I have recounted all that was relevant to the thread in the first place -
Joe Kennedy's anti-Semitism and Nazi sympathies got the better of him in the
wrong company, this outraged King George VI, who demanded of FDR that the
man should be removed from the UK immediately, and so it happened.

Peter Stewart


"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:3vDAi.332$Jp2.2275@eagle.america.net...
Peter Stewart, boy adventurer, erstwhile friend of The Royals, has the
full story on this, not I.

I have no personal proof that anything of the sort happened between George
VI, Joe Kennedy and FDR. It's not my story.

So if Stewart has the story -- from a reliable source -- who had it from
the horse's mouth -- and he can tell MOI -- then he can certainly stop
playing limp-wristed peek-a-boo games with the Gentle Readers of SGM, et
alia, and tell them what he knows.

'Nuff Said.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Illegitimatis Non Carborundum

WJhonson

Re: Daughters of Roger de CHEADLE and Matilda MASSEY

Legg inn av WJhonson » 28 aug 2007 00:04:38

<<In a message dated 08/26/07 17:34:05 Pacific Standard Time, allennl@sbcglobal.net writes:
Gilbert de ASHTON married Margaret, the daughter of Roger de
CHEADLE, and their daughter Hawise was married in childhood to
Henry son of John de TRAFFORD of Newcroft. After Hawise and
Henry divorced, he married Joan de WORSLEY, and Hawise de
ASHTON married John, the son and heir of William VENABLES.
This is stated in footnote 15 in "Townships: Urmston" in A History
of the County of Lancaster: Volume 5 (1911), at
http://www.british-history.ac.uk.

The 1580 Visitation of Cheshire has a pedigree under "Pro Leigh de
Lyme" which shows that Roger de CHEDLE, the son of Edwardus de
CHEDLE, married Mathildis and their daughters were Clementia who
married William, the son of Robert de BAGGULEGH ("Clementia
nupta Will'mo filio Robt de BAGGULEGH) and and Agnes, the wife of
Richard, the son of Robert de BULKLEIGH ("Agnes vxor Ric'i filij
Rob'ti de BULKLEIGH).

Can anyone tell me if the above two sources are about the same
Roger de CHEADLE? Most researchers show that Roger de
CHEADLE and Matilda MASSEY were the parents of either
Clementia or Agnes or both but they don't include Margaret who
married Gilbert de ASHTON.

Nancy Allen >>

----------------------------
Nancy I direct your attention to this post from the archives
Subj: Identity of Isabella (d. 1364), Mother of Margaret Danyers, Heiress of Clifton
Date: 5/25/06 8:45:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: ToddWhitesides@aol.com (Todd Whitesides)
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sir Peter Leycester (1614-1678) in his work Some Antiquities Touching Cheshire Faithfully Collected out of Authentique Hiftories, Old Deeds, Records, and Evidences (London, 1672) on pages 230 and 364 of Part IV identifies the mother of Margaret (Danyers) Radcliffe-Savage-Legh (1348-1428) as Isabella (Baggiley) Danyers, daughter of William Baggiley and Clemence Chedle. As far as I know the 1364 IPM of "Isabella quae fuit ux' Thomae Danyers" only identifies her deceased husband and her daughter "Margar' ux' Johis de Radclif." But in "Pedigrees From the Plea Rolls" in The Genealogist, n.s., 12:112 a different father is given for Margaret. According to Chester Plea Roll, No. 72, 42-43 Edw. III the following pedigree was presented with an addendum from 44 Edw. III:
1. Roger de Chedle married twice: to Joan and to Matilda. By Joan he was the father of two daughters and co-heiresses:
1-A. Clemence de Chedle who married first to William de Baggelegh, and then to John de Molyneux, Kt.
1-B. Agnes de Chedle, wife of Richard de Bulkelegh.
The only heirs of Clemence de Chedle (1-A) were three children by her second husband John de Molyneux, Kt.: (1-A-1) Robert de Molyneux (d.s.p.), (1-A-2) Joan de Molyneux (d.s.p.), and (1-A-3) Isabella de Molyneux. The heir male of Agnes de Chedle (1-B) was William de Bulkylegh (1-B-1), the plaintiff who was seeking a moiety of the manors of Clyfton and Chedle. The defendant was John de Radclyfe and his wife Margaret, the heiress of Isabella de Molyneux (1-A-3). The addendum adds that in 44 Edw. III, John de Radclyffe was dead and Margaret was re-married to John Savage, Kt. It would appear that the pedigree as presented by Leycester and Ormerod needs to be re-addressed, and the identity of John de Molyneux, Kt., fixed. Was he of the Sefton Molyneuxs? Thank you for any assistance.

John Briggs

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av John Briggs » 28 aug 2007 00:37:36

Peter Stewart wrote:
Hines is being flatly dishonest again.

He was already told all that I could tell again. He had the story in
2004 as fully as I heard it, from an eye-witness, long after the
events. He has been cleared to post it (or anything else written to
him by me when I was foolish enough to correspond briefly with him)
in my words if he really thought it necessary as well as appropriate
to offend people with every last detail.
I have recounted all that was relevant to the thread in the first
place - Joe Kennedy's anti-Semitism and Nazi sympathies got the
better of him in the wrong company, this outraged King George VI, who
demanded of FDR that the man should be removed from the UK
immediately, and so it happened.

This is, of course, not consistent with British constitutional theory and
practice. (A similar mistake is made in the Declaration of Independence.)
--
John Briggs

D. Spencer Hines

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 28 aug 2007 00:55:59

Amusing...

Peter Stewart, serial prevaricator and boy adventurer in his own mind,
erstwhile friend of The Royals, has the full story on this alleged incident
involving Joe Kennedy, George VI and FDR, not I.

Joe Kennedy -- AND George VI have been dead for MANY years. No one needs to
worry about protecting them.

If his source is The Queen Mother [second or third hand] HER reputation will
not suffer either.

Yes, Peter and I corresponded in the past -- frequently and certainly not
briefly, indeed quite extensively;

I have no personal proof that anything of the sort happened between George
VI, Joe Kennedy and FDR. It's not my story.

Stewart shared all sorts of scandalous stories with me about British Royals,
Australians, New Zealanders, Generals, Prime Ministers [two of whom were his
ancestors] and other gossipy trivia.

Peter LOVES a Good Salacious Story and tells them well and with relish --
when he so chooses to do.

I don't give a damn what he says about my having "his permission" to post
anything he has told me.

Hines doesn't operate on that Very Slippery & Meretricious Moral Code.

I don't retail someone else's Pet Story [ no doubt embellished and sweetened
over the years] simply because they say I am welcome to do so.

As I've mentioned previously, Stewart himself has told me people, some of
them VERY close to him, would be severely hurt, injured and embarrassed if
SOME of his stories were retailed.

Yet he retails them to me -- and I have no doubt to others -- including Leo
van de Pas, who also enjoys this light-in-the loafers sort of meretricious
gossip.

So if Stewart has the story -- from a reliable source -- who had it from the
horse's mouth -- and he can tell MOI -- then he can certainly stop playing
limp-wristed peek-a-boo games with the Gentle Readers of SGM, et alia, and
tell them what he knows...

Omitting those non-essential details which would hurt, injure and embarrass
his closest relatives.

But:

He demurs and slinks away like the sniveling little coward he is -- when it
comes to ADMITTING he has been selectively retailing these meretricious
little limp-wristed GOSSIP PIECES for YEARS...

And, has now been caught by the short hairs and given a good slam upside the
head with a 2 by 4.

Deeeeelightful!

'Nuff Said.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Illegitimatis Non Carborundum

Ken Wood

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av Ken Wood » 28 aug 2007 01:02:49

On Aug 25, 8:02 am, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
"a.spencer3" <a.spenc...@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 black depopulation.

Peter Jason

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av Peter Jason » 28 aug 2007 01:10:55

"Ken Wood" <ken_wood56@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:1188259369.027685.308870@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 25, 8:02 am, "Ray O'Hara"
mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
"a.spencer3" <a.spenc...@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 black depopulation.

These days they branched out into people
smuggling, and hundreds of their victims
drown in the Atlantic and Mediterranean.

WJhonson

Re: Daneys of Huntingdonshire, Rutland and Somerset

Legg inn av WJhonson » 28 aug 2007 01:19:06

<<In a message dated 08/27/07 00:16:49 Pacific Standard Time, mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
Brice le
Daneys started his career as ward of John Beauchamp, who seems to have
been his family's feudal overlord in Somerset. This indicates that he
suceeded as a minor. This may relate to the first date I have so far
encountered for him (1272), and seems to make the chronology easier:
his father, who sued in 1261, could have been born as late as 1240. >>
------------------
Not sure I understand this. Brice was "holding the Manor of Sock Denis" in 1272

In the above it seems you're saying his father could have been born as late as 1240.

Not sure those two statements can jive.

Will

Gjest

Re: To be Obtuse or not to be :-) Re: Quantifying The Number

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 aug 2007 01:27:03

Dear Leo,
I thought so. "relative denseness " also seems to suit my
earlier posts on this subject quite well/ My Dutch is strictly limited to
Mynheer and Vrouw and I may not even have those correct.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



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

Conway Caine

Re: Culloden & The Aftermath

Legg inn av Conway Caine » 28 aug 2007 02:09:42

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:YHEAi.40237$1G1.15698@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
The Highlander wrote:
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:29:03 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
nospamforkeith@kwillshaw.nospamdemon.co.uk> wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

And if you ever visit York Cathedral, ask to see the armoury in the
basement, filled with equipment for the locals to use in the event
case of a Scottish (reivers') attack.

It's "York Minster", it's "crypt", and there isn't an "armoury". Apart
from that...

A gentle and kind man you are, John Briggs.

Ray O'Hara

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av Ray O'Hara » 28 aug 2007 02:25:24

"Dave" <dave@knowhere.com> wrote in message
news:7n66d3d7ghg8jk46563c7acoggenavnv3s@4ax.com...
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:29:44 GMT, "John Briggs"
john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:04:35 GMT, "John Briggs"
john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 21:12:17 GMT, "John Briggs"
john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Brian Sharrock wrote:
"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 !"

It was built in 1754. It is difficult to say what other trade there
was in Liverpool at that date, other than slave trading and the
sugar trade.

Coal and Salt.


http://www.mersey-gateway.org/server.ph ... pterId=289

If you read the link, you will find that the coal trade began after
1754.

Then there was tobacco.

The early import trade was tobacco and sugar. Who did the work to
produce
the tobacco?

Convicts.

nope. tobacco and sugar were picked and cut by slaves.
slavery was accepted back then by all parties except the enslaved.
ironically the descendents of the slaves are generally better off today than
those left behind in africa.

Ray O'Hara

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av Ray O'Hara » 28 aug 2007 02:30:10

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:CXlAi.26459$Db6.3080@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
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?

First Liverpool slave ship set sail in 1699.
--
John Briggs



the first slaves in the british american colonies were 20 brought to
jamestown virginia in 1619 by a dutch ship.

The Highlander

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av The Highlander » 28 aug 2007 02:41:40

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 21:12:17 GMT, "John Briggs"
<john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Brian Sharrock wrote:
"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 !"

It was built in 1754. It is difficult to say what other trade there was in
Liverpool at that date, other than slave trading and the sugar trade.

Isn't the Chinese slave trade still operating near there? I seem to
remember a bunch of Chinese cockle pickers being drowned in that area
recently.

The Chinese/Vietnamese slave trade is alive and well in Vancouver.
MOst of them don't want to be rescued because their families back home
are the security for paying off their "fares" to Canada, i.e. all the
money they earn. Most of the rescued ones owe more than they make,
because they get charged for everything at extortionate rates,
including the filthy basements and roof spaces they're crammed into.
Poor people, hoping to drag themselves out of poverty. Unfortunately
the local Chinese are terrified of the triads and informants are few
and far between.

There have been several shootings recently as the various triads
struggle for total control. The public doesn't care as long as they
shoot each other and not innocent passersby. The biggest criminal
outfit was the Hell's Angels, but most of them were busted recently.

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

Lockehead

Re: William Gardiner and Helen Tudor

Legg inn av Lockehead » 28 aug 2007 02:55:41

On Aug 23, 1:16 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/23/2007 10:10:26 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

d_sew...@verizon.net writes:

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

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

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

Will Johnson

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


Thank you for responding. We descend through the Gardiners. I am
really trying to find out whether it is William or John Gardiner who
married Helen Tudor.Working backward, I had never uncovered any other
link in my line to Jasper Tudor, except through his daughter, Helen.
Is your thought that William Gardiner married Helen and John Gardiner
married Joan?

WJhonson

Re: William Gardiner and Helen Tudor

Legg inn av WJhonson » 28 aug 2007 03:06:50

<<In a message dated 08/27/07 19:00:16 Pacific Standard Time, franklocke@mris.com writes:
Is your thought that William Gardiner married Helen and John Gardiner
married Joan? >>
------------------------------------------
It would be best if you uncovered some source, cited and quoted it.

Then we'd have a basis from which to work.

Will

Nancy L. Allen

Re: Daughters of Roger de CHEADLE and Matilda MASSEY

Legg inn av Nancy L. Allen » 28 aug 2007 05:05:26

Thank you, Will. I hadn't found Todd's post which states that Roger de CHEDLE married twice - to Joan and to Matilda and that Clemence and Agnes were his daughters by Joan. Over 80 contributors at worldconnect have Roger de CHEDLE/CHEADLE and Matilda as the parents of Clemence and Agnes. No one has Joan as their mother. One person shows Margaret as the daughter of Roger and Matilda.

Nancy Allen
----- Original Message -----
From: WJhonson
To: Nancy L. Allen ; gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: Daughters of Roger de CHEADLE and Matilda MASSEY


<<In a message dated 08/26/07 17:34:05 Pacific Standard Time, allennl@sbcglobal.net writes:
Gilbert de ASHTON married Margaret, the daughter of Roger de
CHEADLE, and their daughter Hawise was married in childhood to
Henry son of John de TRAFFORD of Newcroft. After Hawise and
Henry divorced, he married Joan de WORSLEY, and Hawise de
ASHTON married John, the son and heir of William VENABLES.
This is stated in footnote 15 in "Townships: Urmston" in A History
of the County of Lancaster: Volume 5 (1911), at
http://www.british-history.ac.uk.

The 1580 Visitation of Cheshire has a pedigree under "Pro Leigh de
Lyme" which shows that Roger de CHEDLE, the son of Edwardus de
CHEDLE, married Mathildis and their daughters were Clementia who
married William, the son of Robert de BAGGULEGH ("Clementia
nupta Will'mo filio Robt de BAGGULEGH) and and Agnes, the wife of
Richard, the son of Robert de BULKLEIGH ("Agnes vxor Ric'i filij
Rob'ti de BULKLEIGH).

Can anyone tell me if the above two sources are about the same
Roger de CHEADLE? Most researchers show that Roger de
CHEADLE and Matilda MASSEY were the parents of either
Clementia or Agnes or both but they don't include Margaret who
married Gilbert de ASHTON.

Nancy Allen >>

----------------------------
Nancy I direct your attention to this post from the archives
Subj: Identity of Isabella (d. 1364), Mother of Margaret Danyers, Heiress of Clifton

Date: 5/25/06 8:45:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time

From: ToddWhitesides@aol.com (Todd Whitesides)

To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com

Sir Peter Leycester (1614-1678) in his work Some Antiquities Touching Cheshire Faithfully Collected out of Authentique Hiftories, Old Deeds, Records, and Evidences (London, 1672) on pages 230 and 364 of Part IV identifies the mother of Margaret (Danyers) Radcliffe-Savage-Legh (1348-1428) as Isabella (Baggiley) Danyers, daughter of William Baggiley and Clemence Chedle. As far as I know the 1364 IPM of "Isabella quae fuit ux' Thomae Danyers" only identifies her deceased husband and her daughter "Margar' ux' Johis de Radclif." But in "Pedigrees From the Plea Rolls" in The Genealogist, n.s., 12:112 a different father is given for Margaret. According to Chester Plea Roll, No. 72, 42-43 Edw. III the following pedigree was presented with an addendum from 44 Edw. III:

1. Roger de Chedle married twice: to Joan and to Matilda. By Joan he was the father of two daughters and co-heiresses:

1-A. Clemence de Chedle who married first to William de Baggelegh, and then to John de Molyneux, Kt.

1-B. Agnes de Chedle, wife of Richard de Bulkelegh.

The only heirs of Clemence de Chedle (1-A) were three children by her second husband John de Molyneux, Kt.: (1-A-1) Robert de Molyneux (d.s.p.), (1-A-2) Joan de Molyneux (d.s.p.), and (1-A-3) Isabella de Molyneux. The heir male of Agnes de Chedle (1-B) was William de Bulkylegh (1-B-1), the plaintiff who was seeking a moiety of the manors of Clyfton and Chedle. The defendant was John de Radclyfe and his wife Margaret, the heiress of Isabella de Molyneux (1-A-3). The addendum adds that in 44 Edw. III, John de Radclyffe was dead and Margaret was re-married to John Savage, Kt. It would appear that the pedigree as presented by Leycester and Ormerod needs to be re-addressed, and the identity of John de Molyneux, Kt., fixed. Was he of the Sefton Molyneuxs? Thank you for any assistance.

Thomas Benjamin Hertzel

Re: Descents From Edward III For Anketil Bulmer (1634-1718)

Legg inn av Thomas Benjamin Hertzel » 28 aug 2007 05:19:04

Brad,

The Bulmers are believed to have been a Northern England family of
Anglo-Saxon origin who managed to retain their holdings after the
Norman Conquest.

According to Yorkshire Pedigrees, a John Bulmer (son of another John Bulmer)
who died ca. 1265 was married to Alice FitzWilliam, the daughter of William
FitzRalph. John and Alice had at least one son, John, married to Theophania
de Morevic.

Do you have anything further on the Bulmer spouse? I'm curious about Alice
FitzWilliam's ancestry, as I have nothing further on her at all. Do you
know if she related to the William FitzRalph who married Joan Greystoke (the
daughter of Thomas Greystoke and Christian de Vipont)?

Thank you.

Benjamin

WJhonson

Re: Daughters of Roger de CHEADLE and Matilda MASSEY

Legg inn av WJhonson » 28 aug 2007 05:19:18

<<In a message dated 08/27/07 21:06:34 Pacific Standard Time, allennl@sbcglobal.net writes:
Over 80 contributors at worldconnect have Roger de CHEDLE/CHEADLE and Matilda as the parents of Clemence and Agnes. No one has Joan as their mother. One person shows Margaret as the daughter of Roger and Matilda. >>
---------------------------
Remembering how easy it is to merge a GEDCOM into your database, you have to realize that 79 of those entries are automatic copies not separate research.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Mediaeval monuments in St Mary Redcliffe, Bristol

Legg inn av WJhonson » 28 aug 2007 06:39:45

<<In a message dated 08/27/07 22:35:28 Pacific Standard Time, vance.mead@mead.inet.fi writes:
Sorry that should have been 1465. The source is Smyth's "Lives of the
Berkeleys", where he says that Maurice Berkeley was married "in the
30th year of his age."
Vance >>
----------------
Thanks Vance, that's explains our discrepancy, as I have Maurice born 1434/5, and a marriage year of 1465. So I suppose the follow-up question is going to depend on quoting what the sources are on his birth or age.

I have Genealogics and also I have Living Descendents Vol2 "Whiteley" so I'll have to look that up again tomorrow and quote it.

Will

Adam Whyte-Settlar

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Adam Whyte-Settlar » 28 aug 2007 06:44:14

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Y3MAi.26896$4A1.18472@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
The post below from Hines is typically ludicrous,

You don't need to convince anyone here.
He is mostly only read by newbies anyway - those who havn't yet killfiled
the raving idiot.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»