Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Ray O'Hara

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Ray O'Hara » 28 aug 2007 07:05:51

"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <none@none> wrote in message
news:13d7dhks959uee4@corp.supernews.com...
"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.



oh bullshit. everybody reads DSH, he is the net's most successfull troll.
whether one hates him or loathes him everyone reads him.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Quantifying The Number Of Distant Ancestors

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 28 aug 2007 07:08:44

Yes, that's what I did when I corrected Leo on the Kirk and Michael Douglas
issue.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.1270.1188034593.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Over the years I have made files available to whomever was interested. Why
did I do this? In the first place to share knowledge, these files give
information in a much more compact way, as these files concentrate on a
specific family, than what Genealogics does. By sharing I get feedback,
often corrections and additions and as a result Genealogics benefits.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto's Elimination -- 1943

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 28 aug 2007 07:18:57

Indeed.

Imagine the outcry if it had later been revealed that FDR and the
responsible generals and admirals had the chance to kill Admiral Yamamoto
and flinched.

Similarly, if Truman had flinched and not used the atomic bombs ready for
him in 1945 that would have been unforgivable.

In Wartime we must give our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines every
possible advantage and that means killing or capturing the enemy with skill
and dispatch.

P.S. Admiral Yamamoto's mediaeval genealogy is quite fascinating. [His
birth name was Isoroku Takano.]

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:f8d7d3569aqj31utudnb1cm4ihacrj9jhe@4ax.com...

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 21:11:22 GMT, "Conway Caine"
ccaine@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

Frankly there was something ungentlemanly in the way it was handled.
Yamaoto's [sic] plane was unescorted and had no way to defend itself.
He was a sitting duck.
An execution, I calls it.

Nonsense. Even grossly factually incorrect -- as well as lamely
bleeding-heart emotional trash.

Would you have felt the same way if the passenger had been Adolf
Hitler? Yamamoto was the best the Japanese had. Would you rather he
has escaped to kill more American and British troops?

Yamamoto was a man with superbly honed military instincts. He would
have dismissed your qualms as weakness; he would not have hesitated to
eliminate Admiral Chester Nimitz, and neither would I. There is no
place for sentiment when men's lives and the possibility of defeat are
involved.

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

John Briggs

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av John Briggs » 28 aug 2007 09:36:47

Peter Stewart wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:4fJAi.38922$S91.17592@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
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.)

King George VI's temper and determination were not consistent with any
theory, these were a practical matters that his prime ministers,
foreign secretaries and FDR, amongst others, knew they had to deal
with from time to time.

Arrant nonsense. (You may be thinking of George V.)

Ambassadors to the UK are accredited to the court of St James, and if
the reigning monarch refuses to admit one under his roof ever again,
whatever advice may be received to the contrary, that particular
excellency becomes useless and unqualified for the post.
International embarrassment looms large, unthinkable in wartime -
it's theoretically and constitutionally very straightforward.

The Sovereign only acts (may only act) on the advice of ministers.
--
John Briggs

Peter Stewart

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 28 aug 2007 10:12:05

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:z8RAi.101$F77.74@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:4fJAi.38922$S91.17592@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
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.)

King George VI's temper and determination were not consistent with any
theory, these were a practical matters that his prime ministers,
foreign secretaries and FDR, amongst others, knew they had to deal
with from time to time.

Arrant nonsense. (You may be thinking of George V.)

You should read a biography of George VI - I am not thinking of his father.
The tantrums of George VI are well known. "Arrant nonsense" is not a phrase
to use when you clearly don't know the first thing about a subject. George V
reportedly had a strong temper too, but also had more consistent
self-control than his second son.

Ambassadors to the UK are accredited to the court of St James, and if
the reigning monarch refuses to admit one under his roof ever again,
whatever advice may be received to the contrary, that particular
excellency becomes useless and unqualified for the post.
International embarrassment looms large, unthinkable in wartime -
it's theoretically and constitutionally very straightforward.

The Sovereign only acts (may only act) on the advice of ministers.

The sovereign is master in his own house, and no prime minister - let alone
Churchill, who understood his king - would advise one to receive a man who
had talked himself beyond the pale vis-a-vis Hitler, the Jews and the war
effort. Life is not as tidy or, happily, as tiny as your textbook views.

Peter Stewart

John Briggs

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av John Briggs » 28 aug 2007 10:46:04

Peter Stewart wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:z8RAi.101$F77.74@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:4fJAi.38922$S91.17592@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
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.)

King George VI's temper and determination were not consistent with
any theory, these were a practical matters that his prime ministers,
foreign secretaries and FDR, amongst others, knew they had to deal
with from time to time.

Arrant nonsense. (You may be thinking of George V.)

You should read a biography of George VI - I am not thinking of his
father. The tantrums of George VI are well known. "Arrant nonsense"
is not a phrase to use when you clearly don't know the first thing
about a subject. George V reportedly had a strong temper too, but
also had more consistent self-control than his second son.

Ambassadors to the UK are accredited to the court of St James, and
if the reigning monarch refuses to admit one under his roof ever
again, whatever advice may be received to the contrary, that
particular excellency becomes useless and unqualified for the post.
International embarrassment looms large, unthinkable in wartime -
it's theoretically and constitutionally very straightforward.

The Sovereign only acts (may only act) on the advice of ministers.

The sovereign is master in his own house, and no prime minister - let
alone Churchill, who understood his king - would advise one to
receive a man who had talked himself beyond the pale vis-a-vis
Hitler, the Jews and the war effort. Life is not as tidy or, happily,
as tiny as your textbook views.

That is complete nonsense.
--
John Briggs

Peter Stewart

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 28 aug 2007 11:14:35

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:w9SAi.40301$1G1.37171@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:z8RAi.101$F77.74@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:4fJAi.38922$S91.17592@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
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.)

King George VI's temper and determination were not consistent with
any theory, these were a practical matters that his prime ministers,
foreign secretaries and FDR, amongst others, knew they had to deal
with from time to time.

Arrant nonsense. (You may be thinking of George V.)

You should read a biography of George VI - I am not thinking of his
father. The tantrums of George VI are well known. "Arrant nonsense"
is not a phrase to use when you clearly don't know the first thing
about a subject. George V reportedly had a strong temper too, but
also had more consistent self-control than his second son.

Ambassadors to the UK are accredited to the court of St James, and
if the reigning monarch refuses to admit one under his roof ever
again, whatever advice may be received to the contrary, that
particular excellency becomes useless and unqualified for the post.
International embarrassment looms large, unthinkable in wartime -
it's theoretically and constitutionally very straightforward.

The Sovereign only acts (may only act) on the advice of ministers.

The sovereign is master in his own house, and no prime minister - let
alone Churchill, who understood his king - would advise one to
receive a man who had talked himself beyond the pale vis-a-vis
Hitler, the Jews and the war effort. Life is not as tidy or, happily,
as tiny as your textbook views.

That is complete nonsense.

Complete? Last time it was "arrant", yet you were flat wrong, and
demonstrably ignorant of the facts. You can choose to believe whatever you
like about whatever you like.

I wasn't even born at the time in question, 1940, much less there to see for
myself: but I have no reason not to believe what I was told about a turn of
events that has never been satisfactorily explained otherwise, and your
simplistic assumptions add nothing to change that.

If you don't understand how little regard Churchill had for narrow rules of
conduct, you had better read a biography of him too. There was a famous
occasion when George VI and Churchill disregarded each other's advice,
leaving the UK and going to Normandy in June 1944. Men are not constrained
by book rules at every moment
of their lives, much less in war, in matters of state or in matters of
pride.

Peter Stewart

Andrew Swallow

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Andrew Swallow » 28 aug 2007 11:29:50

Peter Stewart wrote:
[snip]

Ambassadors to the UK are accredited to the court of St James, and if the
reigning monarch refuses to admit one under his roof ever again, whatever
advice may be received to the contrary, that particular excellency becomes
useless and unqualified for the post. International embarrassment looms
large, unthinkable in wartime - it's theoretically and constitutionally very
straightforward.

Churchill will have had little use for a US Ambassador that was both
anti-British and a quitter. Chamberlain probably found him an annoyance
too.

Andrew Swallow

Peter Stewart

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 28 aug 2007 11:59:05

"Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:O72dnf2VUqe7ZE7bnZ2dnUVZ8qWhnZ2d@bt.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
[snip]


Ambassadors to the UK are accredited to the court of St James, and if the
reigning monarch refuses to admit one under his roof ever again, whatever
advice may be received to the contrary, that particular excellency
becomes useless and unqualified for the post. International embarrassment
looms large, unthinkable in wartime - it's theoretically and
constitutionally very straightforward.

Churchill will have had little use for a US Ambassador that was both
anti-British and a quitter. Chamberlain probably found him an annoyance
too.

I can't imagine that Kennedy left the UK before FDR had conferred with
Churchill about the problem - who would of course have known about it within
a short time after the phone call from George VI.

Presumably the newish prime minister found it very convenient to endorse the
king's demand, coolly, in the national interest, and for that matter he may
well have had a hand in bringing about the confrontation that led to it
(though I was not told this).

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Raoul de Faye?

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 28 aug 2007 12:20:11

"Dana S. Leslie" <dsleslie@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:mwyAi.411698$wG2.307790@newsfe17.lga...
In histories and historical fictions, I have frequently seen Raoul de Faye
mentioned as a maternal uncle of Eleanor of Aquitaine, presumedly a
younger(??) brother of Aénor de Châtellérault de Rochefoucauld.
Presumedly, this would make him a son of Ayméric I de Rochefoucauld,
Vicomte of Châtellérault, and Maubergeon/Dangerose de L'Isle-Bouchard. Is
this correct, or is the relationship somehwat more complicated?

Yes, this is correct, the relationship was no more complicated than that.
The given name of the mother was Amalberga, or Amauberge, also called
Dangerosa by her husband. Accounts that the latter was her real name and
that she was nicknamed "la Maubergeonne", or anything similar, is just an
invention.

Petere Stewart

Peter Skelton

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Peter Skelton » 28 aug 2007 12:53:42

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 02:05:51 -0400, "Ray O'Hara"
<mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote:

"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <none@none> wrote in message
news:13d7dhks959uee4@corp.supernews.com...

"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.



oh bullshit. everybody reads DSH, he is the net's most successfull troll.
whether one hates him or loathes him everyone reads him.

Only when I need an emetic



Peter Skelton

William Black

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av William Black » 28 aug 2007 13:08:25

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ZdTAi.27071$4A1.13003@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Presumably the newish prime minister found it very convenient to endorse
the king's demand, coolly, in the national interest, and for that matter
he may well have had a hand in bringing about the confrontation that led
to it (though I was not told this).

It sounds realistic for Churchill to comply but not for the reasons you
give.

The reality was that we were losing the war, or at leas, not winning yet.
Churchill was Prime Minister but was still working up to being completely
politically secure, and he hadn't won an election to secure himself the
Prime Ministership, and was a well know as a lickspittle to royalty anyway.

Kennedy was very well connected indeed.

His connections to defeatists in the 'The Clivden Set' and the Halifax gang,
who probably wanted to surrender, were well known.


--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Richard Casady

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Richard Casady » 28 aug 2007 13:16:41

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 02:05:51 -0400, "Ray O'Hara"
<mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote:

"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <none@none> wrote in message
news:13d7dhks959uee4@corp.supernews.com...

"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.



oh bullshit. everybody reads DSH, he is the net's most successfull troll.
whether one hates him or loathes him everyone reads him.

Oh, I don't know. I had been ignoring H for quite some time, when I
decided he was worthy of a moments attention. So I took a moment
and deleted at least thousand unread posts.

Casady

Richard Casady

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Richard Casady » 28 aug 2007 13:37:39

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:12:05 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

The sovereign is master in his own house, and no prime minister - let alone
Churchill, who understood his king - would advise one to receive a man who
had talked himself beyond the pale

Why would anyone in government want K. in particular? Let alone enough
to annoy the king. over the issue.

Casady

TMOliver

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av TMOliver » 28 aug 2007 17:28:11

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote ..
"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...


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.

Is the battery dead in your irony meter?


After all, seafarers from England, Scotland and elsewhere had likely ceased
snapping up available and suitable Irish youngsters by what date? No later
than 1200 certainly.....("LBL"* *Long before Liverpool)

TMO

John Briggs

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av John Briggs » 28 aug 2007 17:58:59

William Black wrote:
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ZdTAi.27071$4A1.13003@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Presumably the newish prime minister found it very convenient to
endorse the king's demand, coolly, in the national interest, and for
that matter he may well have had a hand in bringing about the
confrontation that led to it (though I was not told this).

It sounds realistic for Churchill to comply but not for the reasons
you give.

The reality was that we were losing the war, or at leas, not
winning yet. Churchill was Prime Minister but was still working up to
being completely politically secure, and he hadn't won an election
to secure himself the Prime Ministership, and was a well know as a
lickspittle to royalty anyway.
Kennedy was very well connected indeed.

His connections to defeatists in the 'The Clivden Set' and the
Halifax gang, who probably wanted to surrender, were well known.

Ambassadors were nothing to do with the King - they are a
government-to-government issue. The story is a complete fantasy.
--
John Briggs

William Black

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av William Black » 28 aug 2007 18:19:58

"TMOliver" <tmoliverjrFIX@hot.rr.comFIX> wrote in message
news:46d44ca0$0$28892$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote ..

"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...


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.

Is the battery dead in your irony meter?

It's been a long hard weekend...

After all, seafarers from England, Scotland and elsewhere had likely
ceased snapping up available and suitable Irish youngsters by what date?
No later than 1200 certainly.....("LBL"* *Long before Liverpool)

Not sure.

There's a lot of assorted general nastiness across the Irish sea from when
the Romans left right up to 1066, at which point the Normans technological
advantage made it all academic.

--
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.

Billzz

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Billzz » 28 aug 2007 18:21:08

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nvYAi.26932$Db6.7466@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
William Black wrote:
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ZdTAi.27071$4A1.13003@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Presumably the newish prime minister found it very convenient to
endorse the king's demand, coolly, in the national interest, and for
that matter he may well have had a hand in bringing about the
confrontation that led to it (though I was not told this).

It sounds realistic for Churchill to comply but not for the reasons
you give.

The reality was that we were losing the war, or at leas, not
winning yet. Churchill was Prime Minister but was still working up to
being completely politically secure, and he hadn't won an election
to secure himself the Prime Ministership, and was a well know as a
lickspittle to royalty anyway.
Kennedy was very well connected indeed.

His connections to defeatists in the 'The Clivden Set' and the
Halifax gang, who probably wanted to surrender, were well known.

Ambassadors were nothing to do with the King - they are a
government-to-government issue. The story is a complete fantasy.
--
John Briggs

I thought that the life of the senior Kennedy was very much known....

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

Also the book, "The Dark Side of Camelot" by Seymour Hirsh, has a brief
history.

Gjest

Re: Sherlock- Einion ap Collwyn -Where do i go from here?

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 aug 2007 18:25:05

In a message dated 8/28/2007 3:30:20 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
david.griffiths@goodrich.com writes:

I've come across an article written in 1900 (unsourced) Kildare,
Ireland, which makes a
connection with my family branch "Cheshire Sherlocks"

It reads " a branch of the family settled in Oxton in Cheshire from
about 1400. They bore the arms " a chevron between three fleurs-de-lis"
attributed to Einion ap Collwyn, and the numerous families descended
from him, and it has been thought that the Sherlocks settled in
Ireland, adopted, or got the heralds to grant them a right to bear
fleurs-de-lis in token of descent from a granddaughter of the same Einion
ap Collwyn."

I'm at a loss regarding what to do next - can anyone advise?


------------------
It seems to me that "what to do next" would be to source that article. If
this unsourced article is the only place where you can find this information,
then you should regard it as legendary, mythical or fictional and shelf it.

Will Johnson



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

John Briggs

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av John Briggs » 28 aug 2007 18:53:06

Billzz wrote:
"John Briggs" wrote

Ambassadors were nothing to do with the King - they are a
government-to-government issue. The story is a complete fantasy.

I thought that the life of the senior Kennedy was very much known....

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

Indeed, that points out that Kennedy's resignation was caused by a shift in
US policy.
--
John Briggs

Nancy L. Allen

Re: Daughters of Roger de Cheadle and Matilda Massey

Legg inn av Nancy L. Allen » 28 aug 2007 19:04:53

Thanks, Paul. What is A2A.org.uk ?

I wonder why there is so little information about Roger de Chedle's second wife Matilda and their daughter Margaret who married Gilbert de Ashton. I checked "The Genealogy of the Dutton Family of Pennsylvania" by Gilbert Cope and it mentions only Sir Roger de Chedill's daughters Clemence and Agnes.

Nancy Allen

----- Original Message -----
From: "paul bulkley" <designeconomic@yahoo.com>
To: <gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 11:51 AM
Subject: Daughters of Roger de Cheadle and Matilda Massey


Dear Nancy Allen:

The following information applies to your query:

1235/27: Richard de Bulkylegh (s) Robert and Felicia
Alsacher (m) Agnes (younger daughter) Sir Roger
Chedle.
Died: 1360
Children: Richard, William (age 3 -1360), possibly a
Hugh
Source: Middlewich Charters.

Evidence of Sir Roger Chedle and daughters:

1370: William Bulkylegh of Chedle (s) Richard in
dispute assize novel disseisin with John and Margaret
Molineux re manor of Chedle.
Dispute centred around inequitable distribution of
property Rock Savage & Clifton between the two
sisters.
Sir Roger Chedle's wife was named Joanna, and their
two daughters were:

Clemence (w) Sir John Molineux, thereafter (w) Sir
John Savage and Margaret (cousin/heir)
Agnes (w) Richard de Bulkylegh - her property
descended to William (s) Richard.

Source: A2A.org.uk

Paul Bulkley



____________________________________________________________________________________
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's
Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222

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

war

Re: Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto's Elimination -- 1943

Legg inn av war » 28 aug 2007 19:59:06

The way the Japanese fought showed that they were savages. Savages don't
deserve any gentlemanly protocol.

Remember people! These savages were eating the liver of our POW's when they
were still alive!

“Kill Japs! Kill Japs! Kill more Japs!â€

WJhonson

Re: Mediaeval monuments in St Mary Redcliffe, Bristol

Legg inn av WJhonson » 28 aug 2007 21:21:17

<<In a message dated 08/28/07 09:40:27 Pacific Standard Time, vance.mead@mead.inet.fi writes:
Will
According to "Lives of the Berkeleys", Maurice Berkeley died in
September 1506 "then of the age of threescore and ten yeares and odd
months" and "fourteene yeares and seaven months" after the death of
his brother William. Taken together with the IPM account, this would
mean that he was born Jan-Feb of 1436 or the very end of 1435.
Vance >>

----------------------
Thanks Vance, these extra bits are very useful. So if he married his wife Isabel Mead when he was thirty that would put their marriage in 1465/7

WJhonson

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

Legg inn av WJhonson » 28 aug 2007 21:41:02

<<In a message dated 08/28/07 13:20:55 Pacific Standard Time, royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
For
example, the closest Pollard can come to determining the death date of
Sir John's father, Christopher Conyers of Hornby, is 1463-65, using >>
--------------
I wonder if this date can be firmly supported? Leo here has this Chris

http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 9&tree=LEO
citing Burkes Peerage 1938 and
The Lineage and Ancestry and HRH Prince Charles 1977

With a very exact death date. It would be instructive to know the underlying details.

Will

WJhonson

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

Legg inn av WJhonson » 28 aug 2007 21:54:01

The chronology I have does not allow William FitzRalph, husband of Joan Greystoke, to be the same William FitzRalph who was father of Alice (FitzWilliam) Bulmer wife of John Bulmer, unless he was significantly older than Joan, and had had a previous wife.

Sir John de Bulmer is known to have died sometime prior to 4 Dec 1299, but certainly already into and perhaps well-into his last half-century. His grandson Sir Henry FitzHenry was probably born about this same time.

Sir John de Bulmer's mother Alice FitzWilliam must have been born at the end of the 12th, or beginning of the 13th century.

William FitzRalph by his wife Joan Greystroke are known to be having children in the middle of the 13th century, towit Sir Ralph Lord FitzWilliam born sometime between 1250 and 1256.

Of course I could have just made this all up.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Raoul de Faye?

Legg inn av WJhonson » 28 aug 2007 22:27:28

<<In a message dated 08/28/07 04:25:43 Pacific Standard Time, p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
The given name of the mother was Amalberga, or Amauberge, also called
Dangerosa by her husband>>

--------------------
Does this mean something like "dangerous" ?

D. Spencer Hines

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 28 aug 2007 22:39:45

Joe Kennedy was by NO means alone as an upper-class American in his overt
and covert Anti-Semitism in the 1920's, 1930's and 1940's.

My generation of Enlightened Youth saw such insulting remarks made about
Jews, revolted against it and refused to participate in it. That's ONE
reason I chose a Jewish roommate in school -- my choice. He turned out to
be one hell of a Good Guy.

Further, Joe made pictures with Jock Whitney, a certified Yale WASP, and
JW's money. He didn't have to go cap in hand to Jewish financiers in
Hollywood and New York.

The excellent film _Gentleman's Agreement_ [1947] was one significant
turning point.

<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0039416/>

It brought this vicious Anti-Semitism front and center as an American
political and cultural issue.

DSH

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

On Aug 28, 3:50 pm, "TMOliver" <tmoliverjr...@hot.rr.comFIX> wrote:
While Kennedy's Anti-Semitism is much noted and set at a very high level
by
many commentators, British and US, reality and legend may differ. For an
extended period, Joe Kennedy was intimately involved in the making of
movies
(and notoriously kept a Hollywood mistress). Hollywood's studios and
studio
system formed perhaps the world's most exclusive Jewish enclave. From
social life to restaurant tables, Hollywood was the principal venue in
which
Jews did not face or would have accepted much overt prejudice.

It's become a matter of Gospel to accept JK's anti-Semitism....but the
issue
suggests either an enormous ambiguity, a Jewish community willing to
accept
and work intimately with a notorious ant-Semite, or a reality somewhat
different from legend.

The same seems possible with the George VI/persona non grata issue.
History
certainly makes for a case in which the "Boss", FDR, saw one of his
minions,
even though a powerful figure, "ward heeler" and big contributor, as a
loud
and loose and potentially damaging cannon, vocalizing opinions at odds
with
the President's intentions.

As with Highlander's claim about the high educational levels in the
Highlands and the argument against that premise which followed, truth may
depend upon into which set of parish records inquiries are being
made.....

TMO

skddlbyp

Re: The Perils Of Close Air Support

Legg inn av skddlbyp » 28 aug 2007 22:59:08

It turns out that Aristotle was right, the Semites are hot blooded.

Where did he say that? He also said the stars are eternal, but at least
he was close.

Which is to say, that more of their men suffer from testosterone
overdose, and this makes it difficult, if not impossible, for them to
compromise.

Could be that they suffer from Religious Integrity Syndrome (R.I.S.).
Expect a drug for that.

But maybe them near-easterners suffer from high daytime temperatures
overdose, and this makes them irritable. I say, transport them jews to
Hawaii!

Billzz

Re: The Perils Of Close Air Support

Legg inn av Billzz » 28 aug 2007 23:09:36

"skddlbyp" <ghmvdj@fnp.aiu> wrote in message
news:13d96khhgq8s2fd@corp.supernews.com...

It turns out that Aristotle was right, the Semites are hot blooded.

Where did he say that? He also said the stars are eternal, but at
least
he was close.

Which is to say, that more of their men suffer from testosterone
overdose, and this makes it difficult, if not impossible, for them to
compromise.

Could be that they suffer from Religious Integrity Syndrome (R.I.S.).
Expect a drug for that.

But maybe them near-easterners suffer from high daytime temperatures
overdose, and this makes them irritable. I say, transport them jews to
Hawaii!

The original author was not talking about "them jews," he was talking about
the Arabs, who are Semites. In fact he claimed that the returning Jews
(mostly from Europe) were different from the ancient Hebrews who were
Semites, displaced by the Romans. He claimed that the current Jews, in
Israel, were Aryans. I thought that the original author was an
anthropologist, and that he had some interesting things to say (without me
knowing whether they are correct or not) but no one seems able to read what
he wrote. They reply to their pre-conceived ideas, adding heat, and not
light, to the subject.

Peter Stewart

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 28 aug 2007 23:15:01

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nvYAi.26932$Db6.7466@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
William Black wrote:
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ZdTAi.27071$4A1.13003@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Presumably the newish prime minister found it very convenient to
endorse the king's demand, coolly, in the national interest, and for
that matter he may well have had a hand in bringing about the
confrontation that led to it (though I was not told this).

It sounds realistic for Churchill to comply but not for the reasons
you give.

The reality was that we were losing the war, or at leas, not
winning yet. Churchill was Prime Minister but was still working up to
being completely politically secure, and he hadn't won an election
to secure himself the Prime Ministership, and was a well know as a
lickspittle to royalty anyway.
Kennedy was very well connected indeed.

His connections to defeatists in the 'The Clivden Set' and the
Halifax gang, who probably wanted to surrender, were well known.

Ambassadors were nothing to do with the King - they are a
government-to-government issue. The story is a complete fantasy.

The king's guests are a matter for the king - if he refuses to receive
someone, that person cannot sensibly remain an ambassador to his court.

US presidents tend to have fantasies themselves about state visits to the
UK, banquets at Buckingham palace, stays at Windsor, and all the rest. If
the queen today made known that she didn't wish to receive a particular US
ambassador, I dare say there would be a new one double-quick. Reagan didn't
invite her to Rancho del Ciel in order to pass the time of day - she battled
her way there through perilous weather because of a personal regard for the
man, that had nothing to do with fawning on each other's ambassadors.

My understanding is that Churchill had asked the king for help in dealing
with FDR, with whom George VI had struck up a warm personal relationship. It
is more than likely that the PM had already discussed with the king his wish
to see the back of Kennedy.

This commentary from someone who doesn't know the first thing on the record
about George VI is worthy of Hines himself.

Peter Stewart

Robert Peffers.

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av Robert Peffers. » 28 aug 2007 23:18:25

"W. D. Allen" <ballensr@roadrunner.com> wrote in message
news:46d09375$0$16458$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"...constructed after the end of the slave trade from the blood and sweat
of their own exploited countrymen and
women...."

Look into "press gangs" also!

WDA

end

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

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

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

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

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

On 9 December 1999 Liverpool City Council passed a formal motion
apologising for the City's part in the slave trade. It was
unanimously
agreed that Liverpool acknowledges its responsibility for its
involvement in three centuries of the slave trade. The City
Council
has made an unreserved apology for Liverpool's involvement and
the continual effect of slavery on Liverpool's black communities.



And what PC rubbish it all is.


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

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

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


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

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

Do-gooding twitdom personified.

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

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

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

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

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.







The same folks who condemn the slavers seem all too ready to condone the

present UK anti- Trade Union laws aimed at preventing workers from
withdrawing labour. Yet what is the difference between those selling goods
and services and their employees who are selling labour and skills? Are not
the latter as entitled to sell to the highest bidder as the former?
To prevent them withdrawing their labour is very akin to slavery.
--

Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

Peter Stewart

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 28 aug 2007 23:22:56

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:6iZAi.39200$S91.19372@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
Billzz wrote:
"John Briggs" wrote

Ambassadors were nothing to do with the King - they are a
government-to-government issue. The story is a complete fantasy.

I thought that the life of the senior Kennedy was very much known....

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

Indeed, that points out that Kennedy's resignation was caused by a shift
in US policy.

In Wikipedia, so it _must_ be the thruth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth....

Kennedy's "resignation" came about from a change in UK hospitality.

As for US policy, the most notable change after his return was Kennedy's
own, to support for FDR's re-election. Knowledge that the president had
means and opportunity to ruin his own and perhaps his sons' chances of ever
winning high elected office, turning the summit of Kennedy's career in
public service into a laughing stock at best, wouldn't by any chance have
something to do with this? O no, not if Wikipedia doesn't say so....

Peter Stewart

Robert Peffers.

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av Robert Peffers. » 28 aug 2007 23:23:30

"allan connochie" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:Yr2Ai.21928$mo.6320@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
"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

ROTFLOL.

Dana S. Leslie

Re: Raoul de Faye?

Legg inn av Dana S. Leslie » 28 aug 2007 23:26:43

So it is said. Considering that she was the concubine of her daughter's
father-in-law, it isn't surprising that her husband would consider her a
femme fatale. <grin>
"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1443.1188336507.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 08/28/07 04:25:43 Pacific Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
The given name of the mother was Amalberga, or Amauberge, also called
Dangerosa by her husband

--------------------
Does this mean something like "dangerous" ?

Peter Stewart

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 28 aug 2007 23:27:51

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:DQ0Bi.3$YE3.290@eagle.america.net...
Joe Kennedy was by NO means alone as an upper-class American in his overt
and covert Anti-Semitism in the 1920's, 1930's and 1940's.

My generation of Enlightened Youth saw such insulting remarks made about
Jews, revolted against it and refused to participate in it. That's ONE
reason I chose a Jewish roommate in school -- my choice. He turned out to
be one hell of a Good Guy.

Well, fancy that - something to Hines' credit, at last.

Another influence on Joe Kennedy's meekly and silently accepting his own
"resignation" as ambassador was probably his anti-Semitic friend Nancy
Astor, who wouldn't risk her own entree to court for anything or anyone.

Peter Stewart

Robert Peffers.

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av Robert Peffers. » 28 aug 2007 23:29:36

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:CXlAi.26459$Db6.3080@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
William Black wrote:
"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:XRRzi.37415$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


Perhaps we should also say how sorry we are to the Germans for stopping Herr

Hitler?
--

Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

William Black

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av William Black » 28 aug 2007 23:31:42

"Robert Peffers." <peffers@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:kMidnRBq96OpAknbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...

The same folks who condemn the slavers seem all too ready to condone the
present UK anti- Trade Union laws aimed at preventing workers from
withdrawing labour.

No they're not.

That's rather the point.

And, who exactly has had the right to withdraw their labour removed?

--
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.

John Briggs

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av John Briggs » 29 aug 2007 00:05:51

Peter Stewart wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nvYAi.26932$Db6.7466@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
William Black wrote:
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ZdTAi.27071$4A1.13003@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Presumably the newish prime minister found it very convenient to
endorse the king's demand, coolly, in the national interest, and
for that matter he may well have had a hand in bringing about the
confrontation that led to it (though I was not told this).

It sounds realistic for Churchill to comply but not for the reasons
you give.

The reality was that we were losing the war, or at leas, not
winning yet. Churchill was Prime Minister but was still working up
to being completely politically secure, and he hadn't won an
election to secure himself the Prime Ministership, and was a well
know as a lickspittle to royalty anyway.
Kennedy was very well connected indeed.

His connections to defeatists in the 'The Clivden Set' and the
Halifax gang, who probably wanted to surrender, were well known.

Ambassadors were nothing to do with the King - they are a
government-to-government issue. The story is a complete fantasy.

The king's guests are a matter for the king - if he refuses to receive
someone, that person cannot sensibly remain an ambassador to his
court.

Why ever not?

US presidents tend to have fantasies themselves about state visits to
the UK, banquets at Buckingham palace, stays at Windsor, and all the
rest. If the queen today made known that she didn't wish to receive a
particular US ambassador, I dare say there would be a new one
double-quick.

She is not permitted to do such a thing.

Reagan didn't invite her to Rancho del Ciel in order to pass the time of
day - she battled her way there through perilous weather because of a
personal regard for the man, that had nothing to do with fawning on each
other's ambassadors.

She went because it was her job to go - nothing to do with "personal
regard".

My understanding is that Churchill had asked the king for help in
dealing with FDR, with whom George VI had struck up a warm personal
relationship. It is more than likely that the PM had already
discussed with the king his wish to see the back of Kennedy.

This is bizarre nonsense. Whether or not a particular ambassador is
acceptable is a question for the government, not the head of state.

This commentary from someone who doesn't know the first thing on the
record about George VI is worthy of Hines himself.

All I can say is that Gough Whitlam had a firmer grasp of constititional
theory and practice than you do - and look what happened to him!
--
John Briggs

Peter Stewart

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 29 aug 2007 00:43:08

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:jT1Bi.29057$ph7.26615@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nvYAi.26932$Db6.7466@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
William Black wrote:
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ZdTAi.27071$4A1.13003@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Presumably the newish prime minister found it very convenient to
endorse the king's demand, coolly, in the national interest, and
for that matter he may well have had a hand in bringing about the
confrontation that led to it (though I was not told this).

It sounds realistic for Churchill to comply but not for the reasons
you give.

The reality was that we were losing the war, or at leas, not
winning yet. Churchill was Prime Minister but was still working up
to being completely politically secure, and he hadn't won an
election to secure himself the Prime Ministership, and was a well
know as a lickspittle to royalty anyway.
Kennedy was very well connected indeed.

His connections to defeatists in the 'The Clivden Set' and the
Halifax gang, who probably wanted to surrender, were well known.

Ambassadors were nothing to do with the King - they are a
government-to-government issue. The story is a complete fantasy.

The king's guests are a matter for the king - if he refuses to receive
someone, that person cannot sensibly remain an ambassador to his
court.

Why ever not?

Because of the intense embarrassment to himself, his family and his
country - to be barred from royal events, including the annual reception of
the diplomatic corps that is a highlight of the social function of his post;
to be unable to attend any public event where he might be personally snubbed
by the king, to whom he was personally accredited, shaking hands with
everyone else.

US presidents tend to have fantasies themselves about state visits to
the UK, banquets at Buckingham palace, stays at Windsor, and all the
rest. If the queen today made known that she didn't wish to receive a
particular US ambassador, I dare say there would be a new one
double-quick.

She is not permitted to do such a thing.

Permission is for schoolchildren. Sovereigns act, almost invariably,
according to precedents rather than precepts - the very name of "sovereign"
is not entirely without meaning.

Reagan didn't invite her to Rancho del Ciel in order to pass the time of
day - she battled her way there through perilous weather because of a
personal regard for the man, that had nothing to do with fawning on each
other's ambassadors.

She went because it was her job to go - nothing to do with "personal
regard".

She had not visited the private home of a US president, or any other head of
state as far as I recall, before this - it is quite definitely NOT her "job"
to do so.

It is also not the "job" of a US president to issue personal invitations to
other heads of state without prior assurance that these will be acceptable.
You clearly need to add a biography of Reagan to your reading list. As James
Baker has recounted not long ago, and very humorously, Queen Elizabeth and
the president had a warm regard for each other, partly from a common love of
horses - their respective ambassaadors did not figure in this. The queen
ignored urgent advice to turn back rather than risk continuing up the
uncertain road to Reagan's ranch, in a deluge. That especially is not her
"job".

My understanding is that Churchill had asked the king for help in
dealing with FDR, with whom George VI had struck up a warm personal
relationship. It is more than likely that the PM had already
discussed with the king his wish to see the back of Kennedy.

This is bizarre nonsense. Whether or not a particular ambassador is
acceptable is a question for the government, not the head of state.

In the UK the prime minister consults with the sovereign in absolute privacy
at least once a week. If you think it is "bizarre nonsense" to suppose that
Churchill would have made known his negative views on the US ambassador, or
that he would have sought assistance from someone better placed than himself
to deal personally with FDR on some matters, you need to catch up with a
great deal of 20th-century British history.

This commentary from someone who doesn't know the first thing on the
record about George VI is worthy of Hines himself.

All I can say is that Gough Whitlam had a firmer grasp of constititional
theory and practice than you do - and look what happened to him!

Ang again you neatly show that you have no grasp at all of the basis for
your own opnions. Whitlam was famously sacked by a queen's representative
acting _without_ the advice of ministers, indeed actively evading the
possibility of receiving such advice. Look what he was forced to accept had
happened to him, a fait accompli, willy-nilly!

The loose thinking of Whitlam in this respect is shown by his slip of the
tongue in declaring "Well may we say 'God Save the Queen', because nothing
will save the governor-general". This is a non sequitur - you might ask
Hines to explain what that means. Whitlam presumably intended to say "but"
instead of "because". However, this has not prevented people from pretending
that his statement made sense.

You are right that he knew something about constitutions - he knew that
there is no such thing as a written one for the UK, and that Australia's
does not set out petty rules for dealing with rogue ambassadors.

Peter Stewart

Leo van de Pas

Re: Nathaniel Tilden`s Ancestry

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 29 aug 2007 00:43:38

Oh James, how could you?! I had just turned off my working computer as I
have to go out, and then this message appears.
I presume Nathaniel Tilden at the bottom is the one in my system as father
of Sarah and Judith (married to Abraham Preble)?

If that is the case there is _definitely_ a royal ancestor to be found. The
line is to be found in my system, for several generations the line is _very_
thinly recorded, but follow the line and you will find it.

Yuck, I have to go and will be away most of the day.

Many thanks for this anyway (sigh)
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: <Jwc1870@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com>
Cc: <Jwc1870@AOL..com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 9:29 AM
Subject: Nathaniel Tilden`s Ancestry


Dear Will, Spencer and Leo,
Have You seen the Tilden lineage
given at _http://www.bjhughes.org/tilden.html_
(http://www.bjhughes.org/tilden.html) ? It seems a very well constructed
site will many probate records
stretching back to the mid fifteenth century (about 7 generations). No
claims of
probable royal descent but the most of the wives are identified only by
their
given names. Joane Leigh is not one of them, theough there are two or
three
successive Joanes whose maiden names are not given.
Breifly the Lineage is given
1 John Tilden died Sept 12, 1463 Crotehole, Benynden,
Kent
(will) married Joane NN died June 15, 1674 (will)
2 John Tilden died April 1, 1492, Marden , Kent married
Joane NN who died after 1492
3 Thomas Tilden died 1513-1514, Marden, Kent married
Joane
NN who also died after 1492
4 Richard Tilden died 1554-1558 Marden, Kent married
Joane
NN died after 1557
5 Richard Tilden B(bp ?) October 15, 1520, Benynden,
Kent
- died January 26, 1565 /6 (will) married Elizabeth Glover died December
30
1585, Cranbrook, Kent
6 Thomas Tilden died June 6, 1617, Wye, Kent married 1st
Alice Bigge b 1546 died may 13, 1593 , Tenderdon, Kent, 2nd 1593 Ellen /
Eleanor
(Hubbard) Cushman who died before 1603 and 3rd by 1603 Alice who died
before
early 1617 when Thomas made his will.
7 Nathaniel Tilden born 1583 - died 1641, Scituate,
Massachusetts married Lydia Huckstep. Interesting that He was Reverend
Robert Cushman`s
step-brother.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



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

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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 29 aug 2007 00:58:49

FDR had a VERY strong interest in European Royalty and their Genealogy.

He saw them as his kinsmen and kinswomen and spent a good deal of time
working out his relationships to them.

Yes, FDR was interested in Royal Genealogy and his links to Royalty.

There was a cover story firmly in place that when FDR was working on this
genealogical hobby all but his closest intimates were told that the
President was "working on his stamp collection"....

And that is what the Public thought.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

Exitus Acta Probat

D. Spencer Hines

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 29 aug 2007 01:13:10

FDR had a VERY strong interest in European Royalty and their Genealogy.

He saw them as his kinsmen and kinswomen and spent a good deal of time
working out his relationships to them.

All this LONG BEFORE computers and genealogical software made it much
easier, faster and more detailed.

Yes, FDR was interested in Royal Genealogy and his links to Royalty.

There was a cover story firmly in place that when FDR was working on this
genealogical hobby all but his closest intimates were told that the
President was "working on his stamp collection"....

And that is what the Public thought.

FDR, of course, has multiple descents from Edward III, as well as other
Royals.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

Exitus Acta Probat

John Briggs

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av John Briggs » 29 aug 2007 01:19:10

Peter Stewart wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:jT1Bi.29057$ph7.26615@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nvYAi.26932$Db6.7466@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
William Black wrote:
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ZdTAi.27071$4A1.13003@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Presumably the newish prime minister found it very convenient to
endorse the king's demand, coolly, in the national interest, and
for that matter he may well have had a hand in bringing about the
confrontation that led to it (though I was not told this).

It sounds realistic for Churchill to comply but not for the
reasons you give.

The reality was that we were losing the war, or at leas, not
winning yet. Churchill was Prime Minister but was still working up
to being completely politically secure, and he hadn't won an
election to secure himself the Prime Ministership, and was a well
know as a lickspittle to royalty anyway.
Kennedy was very well connected indeed.

His connections to defeatists in the 'The Clivden Set' and the
Halifax gang, who probably wanted to surrender, were well known.

Ambassadors were nothing to do with the King - they are a
government-to-government issue. The story is a complete fantasy.

The king's guests are a matter for the king - if he refuses to
receive someone, that person cannot sensibly remain an ambassador
to his court.

Why ever not?

Because of the intense embarrassment to himself, his family and his
country - to be barred from royal events, including the annual
reception of the diplomatic corps that is a highlight of the social
function of his post; to be unable to attend any public event where
he might be personally snubbed by the king, to whom he was personally
accredited, shaking hands with everyone else.

This is a bizarre fantasy.

US presidents tend to have fantasies themselves about state visits
to the UK, banquets at Buckingham palace, stays at Windsor, and all
the rest. If the queen today made known that she didn't wish to
receive a particular US ambassador, I dare say there would be a new
one double-quick.

She is not permitted to do such a thing.

Permission is for schoolchildren. Sovereigns act, almost invariably,
according to precedents rather than precepts - the very name of
"sovereign" is not entirely without meaning.

They act on the advice of ministers.

Reagan didn't invite her to Rancho del Ciel in order to pass the
time of day - she battled her way there through perilous weather
because of a personal regard for the man, that had nothing to do
with fawning on each other's ambassadors.

She went because it was her job to go - nothing to do with "personal
regard".

She had not visited the private home of a US president, or any other
head of state as far as I recall, before this - it is quite
definitely NOT her "job" to do so.

It is also not the "job" of a US president to issue personal
invitations to other heads of state without prior assurance that
these will be acceptable. You clearly need to add a biography of
Reagan to your reading list. As James Baker has recounted not long
ago, and very humorously, Queen Elizabeth and the president had a
warm regard for each other, partly from a common love of horses -
their respective ambassaadors did not figure in this.

Why on earth would ambassadors figure?

The queen
ignored urgent advice to turn back rather than risk continuing up the
uncertain road to Reagan's ranch, in a deluge. That especially is not
her "job".
My understanding is that Churchill had asked the king for help in
dealing with FDR, with whom George VI had struck up a warm personal
relationship. It is more than likely that the PM had already
discussed with the king his wish to see the back of Kennedy.

This is bizarre nonsense. Whether or not a particular ambassador is
acceptable is a question for the government, not the head of state.

In the UK the prime minister consults with the sovereign in absolute
privacy at least once a week. If you think it is "bizarre nonsense"
to suppose that Churchill would have made known his negative views on
the US ambassador, or that he would have sought assistance from
someone better placed than himself to deal personally with FDR on
some matters, you need to catch up with a great deal of 20th-century
British history.

Why on earth would George VI be "better placed than himself to deal
personally with FDR on some matters"?

This commentary from someone who doesn't know the first thing on the
record about George VI is worthy of Hines himself.

All I can say is that Gough Whitlam had a firmer grasp of
constititional theory and practice than you do - and look what
happened to him!

Ang again you neatly show that you have no grasp at all of the basis
for your own opnions. Whitlam was famously sacked by a queen's
representative acting _without_ the advice of ministers, indeed
actively evading the possibility of receiving such advice. Look what
he was forced to accept had happened to him, a fait accompli,
willy-nilly!

Simple question: could the Queen herself have sacked him?
Another one: could Whitlam have sacked the Governor-General?

The loose thinking of Whitlam in this respect is shown by his slip of
the tongue in declaring "Well may we say 'God Save the Queen',
because nothing will save the governor-general". This is a non
sequitur - you might ask Hines to explain what that means. Whitlam
presumably intended to say "but" instead of "because". However, this
has not prevented people from pretending that his statement made
sense.
You are right that he knew something about constitutions - he knew
that there is no such thing as a written one for the UK, and that
Australia's does not set out petty rules for dealing with rogue
ambassadors.

It actually doesn't explicitly set out the reserve powers of the
Governor-General.
--
John Briggs

Peter Stewart

Re: Raoul de Faye?

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 29 aug 2007 01:26:37

"Dana S. Leslie" <dsleslie@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:zi1Bi.54533$lZ7.42056@newsfe20.lga...
So it is said. Considering that she was the concubine of her daughter's
father-in-law, it isn't surprising that her husband would consider her a
femme fatale. <grin
"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1443.1188336507.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 08/28/07 04:25:43 Pacific Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
The given name of the mother was Amalberga, or Amauberge, also called
Dangerosa by her husband

--------------------
Does this mean something like "dangerous" ?

Not exactly - her husband used the name in a perfectly straightforward way
("ego Aimericus, Castri Araudi vicecomes...una cum consilio matris mee
Adenordis et uxoris mee Dangerose" - I, Aimery, viscount of
Châtellerault...at one with the counsel of my mother Adenordis and my wife
Dangerosa). The same alternative name occurs for other women. Such nicknames
were usually acquired in childhood - "Werra" is a famous example, meaning
feisty or literally "warlike".

In the case of Dangerosa [Da(u)ngereuse] the meaning was probably "hard to
please" or "disobedient". The adjective occurs in French with these meanings
down to the 15th century at least. The word for "dangerous" in the sense of
a femme fatale would more likely have been "periculosa".

Peter Stewart

WJhonson

Re: Descents From Edward III For John Beverley of Jervaulx A

Legg inn av WJhonson » 29 aug 2007 02:11:03

<<In a message dated 08/28/07 17:10:19 Pacific Standard Time, cancertech7@yahoo.com writes:
According to an article by Brent Tarter in the Virginia Genealogical
Quarterly, volume 31, No. 3, August 1993, Major Robert Beverley's
parents were Peter Beverley and Susannah Hollis (or Hollice) of Hull,
probably married circa 1633. Therefore it is highly unlikely that
Major Robert Beverley could have been a descendant of Robert Beverley
and Frances Fairfax. It would be interesting to explore Major Robert
Beverley's roots to see how he may be related to the other Beverley
families of Yorkshire. >>
---------------------------
I'm missing how naming Robert's parents, precludes who his grandparents could be. Also unless you're leaving out something, I'm missing how this particular identification was cemented.

Will

Peter Stewart

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 29 aug 2007 02:15:39

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:2Y2Bi.39331$S91.3750@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:jT1Bi.29057$ph7.26615@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nvYAi.26932$Db6.7466@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
William Black wrote:
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ZdTAi.27071$4A1.13003@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Presumably the newish prime minister found it very convenient to
endorse the king's demand, coolly, in the national interest, and
for that matter he may well have had a hand in bringing about the
confrontation that led to it (though I was not told this).

It sounds realistic for Churchill to comply but not for the
reasons you give.

The reality was that we were losing the war, or at leas, not
winning yet. Churchill was Prime Minister but was still working up
to being completely politically secure, and he hadn't won an
election to secure himself the Prime Ministership, and was a well
know as a lickspittle to royalty anyway.
Kennedy was very well connected indeed.

His connections to defeatists in the 'The Clivden Set' and the
Halifax gang, who probably wanted to surrender, were well known.

Ambassadors were nothing to do with the King - they are a
government-to-government issue. The story is a complete fantasy.

The king's guests are a matter for the king - if he refuses to
receive someone, that person cannot sensibly remain an ambassador
to his court.

Why ever not?

Because of the intense embarrassment to himself, his family and his
country - to be barred from royal events, including the annual
reception of the diplomatic corps that is a highlight of the social
function of his post; to be unable to attend any public event where
he might be personally snubbed by the king, to whom he was personally
accredited, shaking hands with everyone else.

This is a bizarre fantasy.

Your eloquence is as great as your commonsense. Kings can act on their
principles, like everyone else. George VI's rages and stubbornness were not
fantasies, but a fact of life for his household and ministers, however much
you would like others to believe in your own ignorance.

US presidents tend to have fantasies themselves about state visits
to the UK, banquets at Buckingham palace, stays at Windsor, and all
the rest. If the queen today made known that she didn't wish to
receive a particular US ambassador, I dare say there would be a new
one double-quick.

She is not permitted to do such a thing.

Permission is for schoolchildren. Sovereigns act, almost invariably,
according to precedents rather than precepts - the very name of
"sovereign" is not entirely without meaning.

They act on the advice of ministers.

And taking refuge in this shibboleth is supposed to answer every possible
question or circumstance....How on earth do you know, as I certainly don't
pretend to know, whether or not George VI had Churchill's advice PRIOR to
acting in this matter?

Reagan didn't invite her to Rancho del Ciel in order to pass the
time of day - she battled her way there through perilous weather
because of a personal regard for the man, that had nothing to do
with fawning on each other's ambassadors.

She went because it was her job to go - nothing to do with "personal
regard".

She had not visited the private home of a US president, or any other
head of state as far as I recall, before this - it is quite
definitely NOT her "job" to do so.

It is also not the "job" of a US president to issue personal
invitations to other heads of state without prior assurance that
these will be acceptable. You clearly need to add a biography of
Reagan to your reading list. As James Baker has recounted not long
ago, and very humorously, Queen Elizabeth and the president had a
warm regard for each other, partly from a common love of horses -
their respective ambassaadors did not figure in this.

Why on earth would ambassadors figure?

Your view appears to be that George VI could never telephone FDR and sort
out a point of bitter contention with the US ambassador, but that any
problem would have to be dealt with from the start only through the
respective government channels - as obviously in the end it was.

The queen
ignored urgent advice to turn back rather than risk continuing up the
uncertain road to Reagan's ranch, in a deluge. That especially is not
her "job".
My understanding is that Churchill had asked the king for help in
dealing with FDR, with whom George VI had struck up a warm personal
relationship. It is more than likely that the PM had already
discussed with the king his wish to see the back of Kennedy.

This is bizarre nonsense. Whether or not a particular ambassador is
acceptable is a question for the government, not the head of state.

In the UK the prime minister consults with the sovereign in absolute
privacy at least once a week. If you think it is "bizarre nonsense"
to suppose that Churchill would have made known his negative views on
the US ambassador, or that he would have sought assistance from
someone better placed than himself to deal personally with FDR on
some matters, you need to catch up with a great deal of 20th-century
British history.

Why on earth would George VI be "better placed than himself to deal
personally with FDR on some matters"?

Because George VI had the advantage of a personal friendship and
understanding with Roosevelt, developed during the state visit of the king
and queen to th USA in mid-1939. Churchill on the other hand was viewed from
the White House with some suspicion before & after becoming prime minister
in May 1940, and he knew it. Why do you think he had not been able to rid
himself of Kennedy, associated with everything WSC had been most strenuously
opposing for years, beforehand?

This commentary from someone who doesn't know the first thing on the
record about George VI is worthy of Hines himself.

All I can say is that Gough Whitlam had a firmer grasp of
constititional theory and practice than you do - and look what
happened to him!

Ang again you neatly show that you have no grasp at all of the basis
for your own opnions. Whitlam was famously sacked by a queen's
representative acting _without_ the advice of ministers, indeed
actively evading the possibility of receiving such advice. Look what
he was forced to accept had happened to him, a fait accompli,
willy-nilly!

Simple question: could the Queen herself have sacked him?

Of course not, while she had a governor-general in place. Obviously in
theory she had the power to sack the G-G, Kerr, first and then the PM,
Whitlam, but that is a bizarre fantasy indeed. However, she could have
sacked Kerr - that is precisely what Whitlam was relying on until he was
out-manoeuvred, and that is what he expected to happen if he won the
election forced by his sacking.

Another one: could Whitlam have sacked the Governor-General?

Only through the queen, as both men had contemplated he might do.

The loose thinking of Whitlam in this respect is shown by his slip of
the tongue in declaring "Well may we say 'God Save the Queen',
because nothing will save the governor-general". This is a non
sequitur - you might ask Hines to explain what that means. Whitlam
presumably intended to say "but" instead of "because". However, this
has not prevented people from pretending that his statement made
sense.
You are right that he knew something about constitutions - he knew
that there is no such thing as a written one for the UK, and that
Australia's does not set out petty rules for dealing with rogue
ambassadors.

It actually doesn't explicitly set out the reserve powers of the
Governor-General.

Quite - these are a matter of precedent, not precept. This does not support
your dwindling argument.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 29 aug 2007 02:50:25

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%M3Bi.27344$4A1.19347@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Why on earth would George VI be "better placed than himself to deal
personally with FDR on some matters"? [sop]

Because George VI had the advantage of a personal friendship and
understanding with Roosevelt, developed during the state visit of the king
and queen to th [sic] USA in mid-1939.
--------------------------------------------------------------


True...

On SOME MATTERS.

HOWEVER:

"Author Will Swift has suggested that a strong bond of friendship was forged
between the King and Queen and President and First Lady during the 1939
Royal Tour, which had major significance in the relations between the United
States and Great Britain through the war years."

"However, there have never been credible suggestions that the King took any
strategic role in the war; his frequent letters to the President were mostly
unanswered, and it was Roosevelt's relationship with Churchill that was
critical."

"Eleanor Roosevelt took a wry view of the utility of kings and queens and
the substance of George and Elizabeth ("a little self-consciously regal,"
was her verdict on Elizabeth)."

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

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Britannicus Traductus Sum

The Highlander

Re: The Perils Of Close Air Support

Legg inn av The Highlander » 29 aug 2007 03:05:38

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:59:08 -0500, "skddlbyp" <ghmvdj@fnp.aiu> wrote:


It turns out that Aristotle was right, the Semites are hot blooded.

Where did he say that? He also said the stars are eternal, but at least
he was close.

Which is to say, that more of their men suffer from testosterone
overdose, and this makes it difficult, if not impossible, for them to
compromise.

Could be that they suffer from Religious Integrity Syndrome (R.I.S.).
Expect a drug for that.

But maybe them near-easterners suffer from high daytime temperatures
overdose, and this makes them irritable. I say, transport them jews to
Hawaii!

Boy. what a loser! Half the US must be out on parole this week!


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

Peter Stewart

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 29 aug 2007 04:04:16

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:4j4Bi.10$YE3.316@eagle.america.net...
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%M3Bi.27344$4A1.19347@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Why on earth would George VI be "better placed than himself to deal
personally with FDR on some matters"? [sop]

Because George VI had the advantage of a personal friendship and
understanding with Roosevelt, developed during the state visit of the
king
and queen to th [sic] USA in mid-1939.
--------------------------------------------------------------

True...

On SOME MATTERS.

HOWEVER:

"Author Will Swift has suggested that a strong bond of friendship was
forged
between the King and Queen and President and First Lady during the 1939
Royal Tour, which had major significance in the relations between the
United
States and Great Britain through the war years."

"However, there have never been credible suggestions that the King took
any
strategic role in the war; his frequent letters to the President were
mostly
unanswered, and it was Roosevelt's relationship with Churchill that was
critical."

Maybe that is why George VI didn't write to FDR on this occasion. I wouldn't
call it "taking a strategic role in the war", first because the matter could
only be called tactical at most, and secondly because it didn't aim to alter
anything but the representative of US policies in London. Kennedy was trying
to alter these, not George VI or FDR - at that point anyway - on a mere
question of personnel.

"Eleanor Roosevelt took a wry view of the utility of kings and queens and
the substance of George and Elizabeth ("a little self-consciously regal,"
was her verdict on Elizabeth)."

That is interesting. I don't know how much they had to do with each other
during or after the war, or as widows. The account of Kennedy's reception in
Albany was supposed to have come from Eleanor Roosevelt, but I have no way
to verify this.

The issue with John Briggs is really about his insistence that power is
always exercised strictly in the way he has learned from books that it ought
to be; but I don't know that it is ever worth reading a book about
statecraft without an understanding of human foibles.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

The Highlander

Re: Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto's Elimination -- 1943

Legg inn av The Highlander » 29 aug 2007 04:13:02

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:59:06 -0700, war <war@corpse.invalid> wrote:

The way the Japanese fought showed that they were savages. Savages don't
deserve any gentlemanly protocol.

Remember people! These savages were eating the liver of our POW's when they
were still alive!

Huh! Have you seen what the US Army is doing in Iraq?

I'd keep my trap shut if I were you.
“Kill Japs! Kill Japs! Kill more Japs!”
“The only good Jap is one that’s been dead six months.”
-- Halsey


D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Indeed.

Imagine the outcry if it had later been revealed that FDR and the
responsible generals and admirals had the chance to kill Admiral Yamamoto
and flinched.

Similarly, if Truman had flinched and not used the atomic bombs ready for
him in 1945 that would have been unforgivable.

In Wartime we must give our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines every
possible advantage and that means killing or capturing the enemy with
skill and dispatch.

P.S. Admiral Yamamoto's mediaeval genealogy is quite fascinating. [His
birth name was Isoroku Takano.]

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:f8d7d3569aqj31utudnb1cm4ihacrj9jhe@4ax.com...

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 21:11:22 GMT, "Conway Caine"
ccaine@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

Frankly there was something ungentlemanly in the way it was handled.
Yamaoto's [sic] plane was unescorted and had no way to defend itself.
He was a sitting duck.
An execution, I calls it.

Nonsense. Even grossly factually incorrect -- as well as lamely
bleeding-heart emotional trash.

Would you have felt the same way if the passenger had been Adolf
Hitler? Yamamoto was the best the Japanese had. Would you rather he
has escaped to kill more American and British troops?

Yamamoto was a man with superbly honed military instincts. He would
have dismissed your qualms as weakness; he would not have hesitated to
eliminate Admiral Chester Nimitz, and neither would I. There is no
place for sentiment when men's lives and the possibility of defeat are
involved.

The Highlander
Tilgibh smucaid air do l?an,
togaibh a' bhratach dhubh agus
toisichibh a' ge?adh na sg?nan!


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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 29 aug 2007 04:55:43

Fair Enough.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Qm5Bi.27365$4A1.17539@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:4j4Bi.10$YE3.316@eagle.america.net...

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%M3Bi.27344$4A1.19347@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Why on earth would George VI be "better placed than himself to deal
personally with FDR on some matters"? [sop]

Because George VI had the advantage of a personal friendship and
understanding with Roosevelt, developed during the state visit of the
king and queen to th [sic] USA in mid-1939.
--------------------------------------------------------------

True...

On SOME MATTERS.

HOWEVER:

"Author Will Swift has suggested that a strong bond of friendship was
forged between the King and Queen and President and First Lady during the
1939 Royal Tour, which had major significance in the relations between
the United States and Great Britain through the war years."

"However, there have never been credible suggestions that the King took
any strategic role in the war; his frequent letters to the President were
mostly unanswered, and it was Roosevelt's relationship with Churchill
that was critical."

Maybe that is why George VI didn't write to FDR on this occasion. I
wouldn't call it "taking a strategic role in the war", first because the
matter could only be called tactical at most, and secondly because it
didn't aim to alter anything but the representative of US policies in
London. Kennedy was trying to alter these, not George VI or FDR - at that
point anyway - on a mere question of personnel.

"Eleanor Roosevelt took a wry view of the utility of kings and queens and
the substance of George and Elizabeth ("a little self-consciously regal,"
was her verdict on Elizabeth)."

That is interesting. I don't know how much they had to do with each other
during or after the war, or as widows. The account of Kennedy's reception
in Albany was supposed to have come from Eleanor Roosevelt, but I have no
way to verify this.

The issue with John Briggs is really about his insistence that power is
always exercised strictly in the way he has learned from books that it
ought to be; but I don't know that it is ever worth reading a book about
statecraft without an understanding of human foibles.

Peter Stewart

Kay Allen

Re: Sargent, Bath? to Massachusetts

Legg inn av Kay Allen » 29 aug 2007 05:14:34

This family is from Oxfordshire and has a medieval
descent. It was written up by George Andrews Moriarty
in one of the English journals, many years ago. I am
sure someone on the list will have this at hand.

K Allen AG
--- "pj.evans" <pj.evans.gen@usa.net> wrote:

I have this set of people in my sister-in-law's
line, and I'd like to
know how wildly wrong it is:
1. Charles Sargent (b 31 Jan 1673/74 in Amesbury,
Mass)
2. William Sargent (b 2 Jan 1645/46 Salisbury,
Mass; d 31 May 1712
Amesbury, Mass; m Mary Colby)
3. William Sargent (b 28 Jun 1606 Bath, Somerset; d
Mar 1674/75
Salem, Mass; m Elizabeth Perkins)
4. Richard Sargent (b abt 1576 Bath, Somerset; m
Katherine Stevens)

I've seen claims that this is the same Sargent
family as Rev. William
Sargent, but I can't tell from here whether that's
even reasonable,
let alone true.

P J Evans


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

WJhonson

Re: Giving Constantia Ernle a Royal Ascent

Legg inn av WJhonson » 29 aug 2007 06:54:15

<<In a message dated 08/28/07 08:04:53 Pacific Standard Time, starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
http://books.google.com/books?id=CQMIAA ... A74-IA2,M1>>
------------
Thanks to John Brandon for the above which shows us more details about the Ernle line, et al

The image is odd , almost as if a fan-fold page is not out-folded and so at a crucial juncture we see

John Ernle of Whetham, Esq bapt at Calne 18 Jan 1598
bur'd at do. 1684?

About his wife we see Philadelp...Hopton...set, Knt...Calne...dat

That's rather annoying isn't it? The Hopton name set me off and throwing various combinations at A2A I finally got
--------------------
Wiltshire and Swindon Record Office: Money-Kyrle Family
THE MONEY - KYRLE FAMILY
Catalogue Ref. 1720
Creator(s): Money-Kyrle family of Whetham, Wiltshire
Kyrle, Money-, family of Whetham, Wiltshire
FAMILY, PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD
CORRESPONDENCE
FILE [no title] - ref. 1720/791 - date: 1648
[from Scope and Content] Letter to John Ernle from his brother-in-law Arthur Hopton in London asking him to serve as a trustee to assist in the payment of his debts. "By reason of the trouble of the times I have bin advised not to remove from hence."
---------------------------------
Throwing John Ernle at the IGI I found

John Ernle to Philadelphia Hopton 21 May 1616 at Calne (Patron Sheets)

Patron Sheets is a poor source but it would appear someone else thinks John's wife was a Hopton, which explains why Sir Arthur Hopton (died 6 Mar 1649/50 bur at Black Bourton) would call him brother-in-law
---------------
Finally stirnet
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... pton03.htm

agrees claiming to be citing Vis Som 1623 "Hopton" and BE1883

All of which gives Constantia, instead of the long 24 steps to Italy royal line; a much shorter 14 steps to England

Specifically to Edward III (ping brad verity)

Will Johnson

WJhonson

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

Legg inn av WJhonson » 29 aug 2007 07:37:27

Timothy thank you for your helpful post.
One point, surely we don't know that Christopher Curwen was born *in* 1382, but rather the argument that he had custody of his father's lands in 1403 and was not held as a minor should tell us he was born *by* 1382. But could have been born earlier as well.

Or is there a document we can cite that states his age ?

Will

Tim Cartmell

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

Legg inn av Tim Cartmell » 29 aug 2007 07:56:02

Dear Will and SGM Listers,

In response to your questions about Sir William Culwen and his family:

In the published book 'Cumberland Families and Heraldry', by C. Roy Hudleston, & R. S. Boumphrey and J Hughes, published 1978, pg. 79, Curwen family, it states "Sir William (d: 1403), High Sheriff 1397, married Elena, sister and coheir of Robert le Brun, q.v. Their son Sir Christopher (c. 1382-1453) was High Sheriff 1415, 1423, 1427, 1433, 1437 and 1444." Their sources referenced are the following three published Curwen family histories;

- Papers and Pedigrees Mainly Relating to Cumberland and Westmorland, by William Jackson, published 1892, article, 'The Curwens of Workington Hall'.

- Transactions, CWAAS, New Series, Vol. 1914, article 'de Culwen', by Rev. Frederick W. Ragg.

- 'A History of the Ancient House of Curwen', by JF Curwen, published 1928.

Regarding Sir William Culwen [Curwen] of Workington, he had two wives, 1stly Elena le Brun, and 2ndly Margaret Croft. All three of the aforementioned Curwen family histories state this.

I believe where the idea originated that Margaret Croft was the mother of Sir William's sons, was from the burial monument at St. Michael's Church in Workington. On the monument are the arms for Curwen impaling Croft, and as such, I think an assumption has been made that this meant she was the mother. William Jackson also stated in his book that Margaret Croft was the mother of Sir William's two sons, and that she was the second wife.

On the other hand, Rev. Frederick W. Ragg put his mind to this problem, and argued against Margaret Croft being the mother. He stated that Margaret Croft was the second wife of Sir William, and therefore could not possibly have been the mother of Christopher Curwen. Ragg stated that Elena was a widow when she married Sir William (sometime after 1369) and that she was still living in 1394 (proven by her claim against Sir Nicholas Harington). He went on to state that even if Sir William did marry Margaret Croft in the same year 1394, it could not be possible that she was the mother of Christopher, because he is recorded as being burgess of Appleby in 21 Richard II (1397-1398). Ragg further argued, Christopher had to be of age (21 yrs.) in 1403, as he wasn't held as a minor in custody of the Percies, and he had possession of his father's lands. Ragg also stated that Christopher would have to be of considerable experience, strength and reputation to be one of the six english
champions chosen to fight six scottish knights, in tournament at Carlisle in the year 1417. Finally, JF Curwen in his book, shows that Christopher is first named as being lord Christopher Curwen, Knt. in a land settlement regarding the manor of Thornthwaite in Westmorland, dated 1404. Sir Christopher Curwen was named Knight of the Shire of Cumberland firstly in 1414, and then Sheriff of Cumberland in 1415, etc.

Maybe the Croft coat of arms on the tomb at St. Michael's church, just simply meant that she was the last wife of Sir William Culwen [Curwen]?

Interestingly, with Sir William's marriage to Elena le Brun, the Curwens continued to quarter their coat of arms as 1 and 4 Curwen, with 2 and 3 le Brun. These coat of arms are supposedly shown in Tonge's Visitation of Cumberland in 1530, in Robert Glover's Visitation of Yorkshire in 1584, and in Richard St. George's, Visitation of Cumberland in 1615. Le Brun, being azure, a lion rampart argent, charged with five lozenges gules or billetee instead (Source: A History of the Ancient House of Curwen, by JF Curwen, published 1928, pg. 70.)


Now to make a comment on your statement "a William Culwen existed" in 1394. It was not "a William Culwen", but was "the William Culwen". I had failed to include a listing of William's lands that were recorded as being granted in 1395 along with Elena's (at the time I was just focusing on her lands). William's lands granted along with Elena's were recorded as being Workington, Seaton, Thornthwaite in Derwent Fells, Thornthwaite in Westmorland, Shap, Bampton Patrick, Bampton Cundal, Holme in Kendale, Dearham, etc. So he was indeed Sir William Curwen, Knt. of Workington. Ragg gives the full charter agreement in both latin and the english translation. (Source: CWAAS, New Series, Vol. 1914, article 'de Culwen', by Rev. Frederick W. Ragg, pgs. 398-400.)

Sir William Curwen, his father Sir Gilbert, and two brothers Hugh and Giles all died of the plauge in 1403, "the year of the great pestilence in the north". (Source: A History of the Ancient House of Curwen, by JF Curwen, published 1928, pgs. 66, 71.) Ragg believed that Margaret Croft likely died of the plague as well.

2). Now to your last quandary about the Stirnet website, I can say that it is incorrect. They are missing three generations of Curwens. There were four Sir Gilbert Curwens, then William, then Christopher, then Thomas, then Christopher II, etc.

Yes, there is a primary source giving all three generations together, Sir William de Curwen, his father Sir Gilbert de Curwen, and Christopher de Curwen, William's son. It is a re-enfeoff indenture agreement made at Warkworth by the earl of Northumberland, along with his son Sir Henry de Percy, dated 8 May 1401, regarding the Curwen family lands formerly held under Maud de Lucy who died in 1398, specifically, the manors of Workington, Seaton, and Thornthwaite in Derwentfells in Cumberland. This indenture is from the Lowther documents supplied by the Earl of Lonsdale to Rev. Frederick W. Ragg. The indenture names specifically, "Sir Gilbert de Curwen father of the said Sir William....etc.", and "......the said earl shall make a secure estate for Christopher de Curwen, son of the said Sir William...etc". Ragg has copied out the indenture in full, both in latin and with the english translation. (Source: CWAAS, New Series, Vol. 1914, article 'de Culwen', by Rev. Frederick W.
Ragg, pgs. 402-405. Also, A History of the Ancient House of Curwen, by JF Curwen, published 1928, pgs. 68, 69.)

In closing, just a point of interest in case anyone was wondering, Sir Christopher Curwen did win his match in the tournament at Carlisle in 1417. JF Curwen stated, "Sir Christopher threw his adversary, Sir Halyburton, from his horse, severely hurt in his neck." He sourced this back to Dugdale, Baronage, vol. i, pg. 342.


Regards,

Timothy J. Cartmell


WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
<<iii). Elena le Brun (d: c.1395)
father: Richard Brun
Married 1stly, Sir Thomas Whitrigg (of Branthwaite & Little Bampton in
Cumberland); married 2ndly, Sir William Culwen [Curwen], Knt. of Workington in
Cumberland. (Source: le Brun family, CWAAS, 'Cumberland Families and Heraldry,'
published 1978, pg. 44.)

Children: Sir Christopher Curwen of Workington (d: 1453)
John Curwen of Porchester Castle (d: 1441) >>
------------------------
The mother of Sir Christopher Curwen of Workington has also been identified as "Margaret Croft". What proof is that that Elena le Brun was his mother instead?
Thanks
Will Johnson >>

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

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

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

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

Will Johnson

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



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

Adam Whyte-Settlar

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Adam Whyte-Settlar » 29 aug 2007 08:47:34

"Peter Skelton" <skeltonp@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:m538d3hst831s5tlbq23t3od26f8g44bqs@4ax.com...
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 02:05:51 -0400, "Ray O'Hara"
mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote:


"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <none@none> wrote in message
news:13d7dhks959uee4@corp.supernews.com...

"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.



oh bullshit. everybody reads DSH, he is the net's most successfull troll.
whether one hates him or loathes him everyone reads him.

Only when I need an emetic

I never read him. The only time I and hundreds of others see his laughably
ill-informed rubbish is when newby idiots repost it.


Peter Skelton

Brian Sharrock

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av Brian Sharrock » 29 aug 2007 08:58:51

"Robert Peffers." <peffers@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:zK2dnRi0K7RJPEnbRVnytwA@bt.com...
snip



Perhaps we should also say how sorry we are to the Germans for stopping
Herr Hitler?
--

Robert Peffers,

The man from Fife has already said that there will _not_ be a referendum on
the European Constitution ^W^W modified treaty ..... Merkel has told him!
We didn't stop anything ... they just waited sixty odd years.


--

Brian

Ken Ozanne

Re: SHERLOCK

Legg inn av Ken Ozanne » 29 aug 2007 09:17:21

David,
No mention of any Sherlock in the 1580 Visitation of Cheshire.

One pair of father and daughter in the 1613 Visitation - but they are
in the 17th century. And the 1663 Visitation holds nothing of consequence
either.

I second Will's advice.

Best,
Ken


On 29/8/07 2:25, "gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com"
<gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com> wrote:

From: WJhonson@aol.com
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:23:12 EDT
To: david.griffiths@goodrich.com, gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Cc: von@yvonnepurdy.free.online.co.uk
Subject: Re: Sherlock- Einion ap Collwyn -Where do i go from here?


In a message dated 8/28/2007 3:30:20 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
david.griffiths@goodrich.com writes:

I've come across an article written in 1900 (unsourced) Kildare,
Ireland, which makes a
connection with my family branch "Cheshire Sherlocks"

It reads " a branch of the family settled in Oxton in Cheshire from
about 1400. They bore the arms " a chevron between three fleurs-de-lis"
attributed to Einion ap Collwyn, and the numerous families descended
from him, and it has been thought that the Sherlocks settled in
Ireland, adopted, or got the heralds to grant them a right to bear
fleurs-de-lis in token of descent from a granddaughter of the same Einion
ap Collwyn."

I'm at a loss regarding what to do next - can anyone advise?


------------------
It seems to me that "what to do next" would be to source that article. If
this unsourced article is the only place where you can find this information,
then you should regard it as legendary, mythical or fictional and shelf it.

Will Johnson

John Briggs

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av John Briggs » 29 aug 2007 10:43:53

Peter Stewart wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:2Y2Bi.39331$S91.3750@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:jT1Bi.29057$ph7.26615@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nvYAi.26932$Db6.7466@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
William Black wrote:
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ZdTAi.27071$4A1.13003@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Presumably the newish prime minister found it very convenient
to endorse the king's demand, coolly, in the national
interest, and for that matter he may well have had a hand in
bringing about the confrontation that led to it (though I was
not told this).

It sounds realistic for Churchill to comply but not for the
reasons you give.

The reality was that we were losing the war, or at leas, not
winning yet. Churchill was Prime Minister but was still working
up to being completely politically secure, and he hadn't won an
election to secure himself the Prime Ministership, and was a
well know as a lickspittle to royalty anyway.
Kennedy was very well connected indeed.

His connections to defeatists in the 'The Clivden Set' and the
Halifax gang, who probably wanted to surrender, were well known.

Ambassadors were nothing to do with the King - they are a
government-to-government issue. The story is a complete fantasy.

The king's guests are a matter for the king - if he refuses to
receive someone, that person cannot sensibly remain an ambassador
to his court.

Why ever not?

Because of the intense embarrassment to himself, his family and his
country - to be barred from royal events, including the annual
reception of the diplomatic corps that is a highlight of the social
function of his post; to be unable to attend any public event where
he might be personally snubbed by the king, to whom he was
personally accredited, shaking hands with everyone else.

This is a bizarre fantasy.

Your eloquence is as great as your commonsense. Kings can act on their
principles, like everyone else. George VI's rages and stubbornness
were not fantasies, but a fact of life for his household and
ministers, however much you would like others to believe in your own
ignorance.
US presidents tend to have fantasies themselves about state visits
to the UK, banquets at Buckingham palace, stays at Windsor, and
all the rest. If the queen today made known that she didn't wish
to receive a particular US ambassador, I dare say there would be
a new one double-quick.

She is not permitted to do such a thing.

Permission is for schoolchildren. Sovereigns act, almost invariably,
according to precedents rather than precepts - the very name of
"sovereign" is not entirely without meaning.

They act on the advice of ministers.

And taking refuge in this shibboleth is supposed to answer every
possible question or circumstance....How on earth do you know, as I
certainly don't pretend to know, whether or not George VI had
Churchill's advice PRIOR to acting in this matter?

Take a wild guess.

Reagan didn't invite her to Rancho del Ciel in order to pass the
time of day - she battled her way there through perilous weather
because of a personal regard for the man, that had nothing to do
with fawning on each other's ambassadors.

She went because it was her job to go - nothing to do with
"personal regard".

She had not visited the private home of a US president, or any other
head of state as far as I recall, before this - it is quite
definitely NOT her "job" to do so.

It is also not the "job" of a US president to issue personal
invitations to other heads of state without prior assurance that
these will be acceptable. You clearly need to add a biography of
Reagan to your reading list. As James Baker has recounted not long
ago, and very humorously, Queen Elizabeth and the president had a
warm regard for each other, partly from a common love of horses -
their respective ambassaadors did not figure in this.

Why on earth would ambassadors figure?

Your view appears to be that George VI could never telephone FDR and
sort out a point of bitter contention with the US ambassador, but
that any problem would have to be dealt with from the start only
through the respective government channels - as obviously in the end
it was.

Finally, you get something right.

The queen
ignored urgent advice to turn back rather than risk continuing up
the uncertain road to Reagan's ranch, in a deluge. That especially
is not her "job".
My understanding is that Churchill had asked the king for help in
dealing with FDR, with whom George VI had struck up a warm
personal relationship. It is more than likely that the PM had
already discussed with the king his wish to see the back of
Kennedy.

This is bizarre nonsense. Whether or not a particular ambassador
is acceptable is a question for the government, not the head of
state.

In the UK the prime minister consults with the sovereign in absolute
privacy at least once a week. If you think it is "bizarre nonsense"
to suppose that Churchill would have made known his negative views
on the US ambassador, or that he would have sought assistance from
someone better placed than himself to deal personally with FDR on
some matters, you need to catch up with a great deal of 20th-century
British history.

Why on earth would George VI be "better placed than himself to deal
personally with FDR on some matters"?

Because George VI had the advantage of a personal friendship and
understanding with Roosevelt, developed during the state visit of the
king and queen to th USA in mid-1939. Churchill on the other hand was
viewed from the White House with some suspicion before & after
becoming prime minister in May 1940, and he knew it. Why do you think
he had not been able to rid himself of Kennedy, associated with
everything WSC had been most strenuously opposing for years,
beforehand?

Because Kennedy was appointed by Roosevelt, perhaps?

This commentary from someone who doesn't know the first thing on
the record about George VI is worthy of Hines himself.

All I can say is that Gough Whitlam had a firmer grasp of
constititional theory and practice than you do - and look what
happened to him!

Ang again you neatly show that you have no grasp at all of the basis
for your own opnions. Whitlam was famously sacked by a queen's
representative acting _without_ the advice of ministers, indeed
actively evading the possibility of receiving such advice. Look what
he was forced to accept had happened to him, a fait accompli,
willy-nilly!

Simple question: could the Queen herself have sacked him?

Of course not, while she had a governor-general in place. Obviously in
theory she had the power to sack the G-G, Kerr, first and then the PM,
Whitlam, but that is a bizarre fantasy indeed. However, she could have
sacked Kerr - that is precisely what Whitlam was relying on until he
was out-manoeuvred, and that is what he expected to happen if he won
the election forced by his sacking.

Stop blathering: the simple answer is "No". Whitlam's mistake was assuming
that the Governor-General did not have the power either. He knew perfectly
well that she did not have this power, either in the UK or in Australia.

Another one: could Whitlam have sacked the Governor-General?

Only through the queen, as both men had contemplated he might do.

The answer is "Yes". He could have requested that she appoint another
Governor-General, and she could not have refused.

The loose thinking of Whitlam in this respect is shown by his slip
of the tongue in declaring "Well may we say 'God Save the Queen',
because nothing will save the governor-general". This is a non
sequitur - you might ask Hines to explain what that means. Whitlam
presumably intended to say "but" instead of "because". However, this
has not prevented people from pretending that his statement made
sense.
You are right that he knew something about constitutions - he knew
that there is no such thing as a written one for the UK, and that
Australia's does not set out petty rules for dealing with rogue
ambassadors.

It actually doesn't explicitly set out the reserve powers of the
Governor-General.

Quite - these are a matter of precedent, not precept. This does not
support your dwindling argument.

Not exactly, the point is that the Australian Constitution has had the
effect of preserving for the Governor-General the reserve powers of the
Sovereign as they existed in 1900, not as they exist now (or as they existed
in 1940, which is the point of the excursus.)
--
John Briggs

Peter Stewart

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 29 aug 2007 11:59:23

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:tdbBi.27035$Db6.16578@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:2Y2Bi.39331$S91.3750@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:jT1Bi.29057$ph7.26615@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nvYAi.26932$Db6.7466@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
William Black wrote:
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ZdTAi.27071$4A1.13003@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Presumably the newish prime minister found it very convenient
to endorse the king's demand, coolly, in the national
interest, and for that matter he may well have had a hand in
bringing about the confrontation that led to it (though I was
not told this).

It sounds realistic for Churchill to comply but not for the
reasons you give.

The reality was that we were losing the war, or at leas, not
winning yet. Churchill was Prime Minister but was still working
up to being completely politically secure, and he hadn't won an
election to secure himself the Prime Ministership, and was a
well know as a lickspittle to royalty anyway.
Kennedy was very well connected indeed.

His connections to defeatists in the 'The Clivden Set' and the
Halifax gang, who probably wanted to surrender, were well known.

Ambassadors were nothing to do with the King - they are a
government-to-government issue. The story is a complete fantasy.

The king's guests are a matter for the king - if he refuses to
receive someone, that person cannot sensibly remain an ambassador
to his court.

Why ever not?

Because of the intense embarrassment to himself, his family and his
country - to be barred from royal events, including the annual
reception of the diplomatic corps that is a highlight of the social
function of his post; to be unable to attend any public event where
he might be personally snubbed by the king, to whom he was
personally accredited, shaking hands with everyone else.

This is a bizarre fantasy.

Your eloquence is as great as your commonsense. Kings can act on their
principles, like everyone else. George VI's rages and stubbornness
were not fantasies, but a fact of life for his household and
ministers, however much you would like others to believe in your own
ignorance.
US presidents tend to have fantasies themselves about state visits
to the UK, banquets at Buckingham palace, stays at Windsor, and
all the rest. If the queen today made known that she didn't wish
to receive a particular US ambassador, I dare say there would be
a new one double-quick.

She is not permitted to do such a thing.

Permission is for schoolchildren. Sovereigns act, almost invariably,
according to precedents rather than precepts - the very name of
"sovereign" is not entirely without meaning.

They act on the advice of ministers.

And taking refuge in this shibboleth is supposed to answer every
possible question or circumstance....How on earth do you know, as I
certainly don't pretend to know, whether or not George VI had
Churchill's advice PRIOR to acting in this matter?

Take a wild guess.

I don't guess about things I can't know or establish by deduction. Churchill
was a crafty operator. George VI and Kennedy were brought togther in
extraordinary circumstances and something extraordinary resulted. Trying to
pretend to knowledge without evidence, one way or the other, is wild. As I
have said before, I don't know when the recorded account of the event by an
eye-witness will be available to historians, nor do I know what contemporary
records are still withheld, but I'm perfectly content to wait on this.
Making dismissive one-line responses is no way to debate any point: since
you believe this to be wrong and will offer no rationale except your
categorical say-so, there is no value in a discussion.

Reagan didn't invite her to Rancho del Ciel in order to pass the
time of day - she battled her way there through perilous weather
because of a personal regard for the man, that had nothing to do
with fawning on each other's ambassadors.

She went because it was her job to go - nothing to do with
"personal regard".

She had not visited the private home of a US president, or any other
head of state as far as I recall, before this - it is quite
definitely NOT her "job" to do so.

It is also not the "job" of a US president to issue personal
invitations to other heads of state without prior assurance that
these will be acceptable. You clearly need to add a biography of
Reagan to your reading list. As James Baker has recounted not long
ago, and very humorously, Queen Elizabeth and the president had a
warm regard for each other, partly from a common love of horses -
their respective ambassaadors did not figure in this.

Why on earth would ambassadors figure?

Your view appears to be that George VI could never telephone FDR and
sort out a point of bitter contention with the US ambassador, but
that any problem would have to be dealt with from the start only
through the respective government channels - as obviously in the end
it was.

Finally, you get something right.

If you seriously believe that everything is invariably done in the most prim
& proper way in the exercise of power and diplomacy, you are in for some
huge surprises as - or if - you ever begin to learn how the world actually
works.

The queen
ignored urgent advice to turn back rather than risk continuing up
the uncertain road to Reagan's ranch, in a deluge. That especially
is not her "job".
My understanding is that Churchill had asked the king for help in
dealing with FDR, with whom George VI had struck up a warm
personal relationship. It is more than likely that the PM had
already discussed with the king his wish to see the back of
Kennedy.

This is bizarre nonsense. Whether or not a particular ambassador
is acceptable is a question for the government, not the head of
state.

In the UK the prime minister consults with the sovereign in absolute
privacy at least once a week. If you think it is "bizarre nonsense"
to suppose that Churchill would have made known his negative views
on the US ambassador, or that he would have sought assistance from
someone better placed than himself to deal personally with FDR on
some matters, you need to catch up with a great deal of 20th-century
British history.

Why on earth would George VI be "better placed than himself to deal
personally with FDR on some matters"?

Because George VI had the advantage of a personal friendship and
understanding with Roosevelt, developed during the state visit of the
king and queen to th USA in mid-1939. Churchill on the other hand was
viewed from the White House with some suspicion before & after
becoming prime minister in May 1940, and he knew it. Why do you think
he had not been able to rid himself of Kennedy, associated with
everything WSC had been most strenuously opposing for years,
beforehand?

Because Kennedy was appointed by Roosevelt, perhaps?

What has that to do with how welcome he was to Churchill? If meaningful,
this would mean that no ambassador could ever become persona non grata, yet
it plainly happens from time to time. Politics can be played out across the
Atlantic as well as one each side. You are in for another big surprise if
you don't, or won't, understand this.

This commentary from someone who doesn't know the first thing on
the record about George VI is worthy of Hines himself.

All I can say is that Gough Whitlam had a firmer grasp of
constititional theory and practice than you do - and look what
happened to him!

Ang again you neatly show that you have no grasp at all of the basis
for your own opnions. Whitlam was famously sacked by a queen's
representative acting _without_ the advice of ministers, indeed
actively evading the possibility of receiving such advice. Look what
he was forced to accept had happened to him, a fait accompli,
willy-nilly!

Simple question: could the Queen herself have sacked him?

Of course not, while she had a governor-general in place. Obviously in
theory she had the power to sack the G-G, Kerr, first and then the PM,
Whitlam, but that is a bizarre fantasy indeed. However, she could have
sacked Kerr - that is precisely what Whitlam was relying on until he
was out-manoeuvred, and that is what he expected to happen if he won
the election forced by his sacking.

Stop blathering: the simple answer is "No". Whitlam's mistake was
assuming that the Governor-General did not have the power either. He knew
perfectly well that she did not have this power, either in the UK or in
Australia.

I was not "blathering", you are. Whitlam knew perfectly well that the
governor-general could withdraw his commission: that possibility was part of
the discussion at the time, before it happened, and has been acknowledged
consistently since. He didn't think Kerr would go so far as to do it, but
that is beside the point as to whether or not he had the power. The _only_
reason the queen of Australia didn't have it equally is becasue she had
appointed a representative to exercise the plenitude of sovereign power -
absent him, she could in theory have done the same deed herself, even in the
same devious way, with the same practical outcome. Whitlam was a fool in
many ways, but not so naive as you represent.

Another one: could Whitlam have sacked the Governor-General?

Only through the queen, as both men had contemplated he might do.

The answer is "Yes". He could have requested that she appoint another
Governor-General, and she could not have refused.

She could have delayed, and it has been made known that this would have been
the advice from her private secretary. She is not bound to obey a minister
instantly, and time was of the essence in Whitlam's predicament, as he
perfectly well knew.

The loose thinking of Whitlam in this respect is shown by his slip
of the tongue in declaring "Well may we say 'God Save the Queen',
because nothing will save the governor-general". This is a non
sequitur - you might ask Hines to explain what that means. Whitlam
presumably intended to say "but" instead of "because". However, this
has not prevented people from pretending that his statement made
sense.
You are right that he knew something about constitutions - he knew
that there is no such thing as a written one for the UK, and that
Australia's does not set out petty rules for dealing with rogue
ambassadors.

It actually doesn't explicitly set out the reserve powers of the
Governor-General.

Quite - these are a matter of precedent, not precept. This does not
support your dwindling argument.

Not exactly, the point is that the Australian Constitution has had the
effect of preserving for the Governor-General the reserve powers of the
Sovereign as they existed in 1900, not as they exist now (or as they
existed in 1940, which is the point of the excursus.)

George VI was not purporting to exercise ANY power, sovereign, reserve or
otherwise, in asking FDR to exercise HIS presidential power over HIS
ambassadorial appointee. All he did was to say that he would have nothing
further to do with the man. If FDR has decided to keep Kennedy in the post,
I presume he would have stayed in the UK, absurdly, as persona non grata in
the court to which he was accredited. George VI did not have the power of
Yea or Nay over the presence of an individual in his kingdom.

Peter Stewart

Vance Mead

Re: SHERLOCK

Legg inn av Vance Mead » 29 aug 2007 12:35:47

On Aug 29, 11:17 am, Ken Ozanne <kenoza...@bordernet.com.au> wrote:
David,
No mention of any Sherlock in the 1580 Visitation of Cheshire.

One pair of father and daughter in the 1613 Visitation - but they are
in the 17th century. And the 1663 Visitation holds nothing of consequence
either.

I second Will's advice.

Best,
Ken

On 29/8/07 2:25, "gen-medieval-requ...@rootsweb.com"



gen-medieval-requ...@rootsweb.com> wrote:
From: WJhon...@aol.com
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:23:12 EDT
To: david.griffi...@goodrich.com, gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Cc: v...@yvonnepurdy.free.online.co.uk
Subject: Re: Sherlock- Einion ap Collwyn -Where do i go from here?

In a message dated 8/28/2007 3:30:20 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
david.griffi...@goodrich.com writes:

I've come across an article written in 1900 (unsourced) Kildare,
Ireland, which makes a
connection with my family branch "Cheshire Sherlocks"

It reads " a branch of the family settled in Oxton in Cheshire from
about 1400. They bore the arms " a chevron between three fleurs-de-lis"
attributed to Einion ap Collwyn, and the numerous families descended
from him, and it has been thought that the Sherlocks settled in
Ireland, adopted, or got the heralds to grant them a right to bear
fleurs-de-lis in token of descent from a granddaughter of the same Einion
ap Collwyn."

I'm at a loss regarding what to do next - can anyone advise?

------------------
It seems to me that "what to do next" would be to source that article. If
this unsourced article is the only place where you can find this information,
then you should regard it as legendary, mythical or fictional and shelf it.

Will Johnson- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There are some Sherlock wills in the Cheshire database, but they don't
look armigerous.
Henry Sherlock Oxton 1607
John SHERLOCK Oxton Husbandman 1613
Henry SHERLOCK Oxton Yeoman 1637

John Briggs

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av John Briggs » 29 aug 2007 13:27:46

Peter Stewart wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:tdbBi.27035$Db6.16578@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:2Y2Bi.39331$S91.3750@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:jT1Bi.29057$ph7.26615@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nvYAi.26932$Db6.7466@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
William Black wrote:
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ZdTAi.27071$4A1.13003@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Presumably the newish prime minister found it very convenient
to endorse the king's demand, coolly, in the national
interest, and for that matter he may well have had a hand in
bringing about the confrontation that led to it (though I was
not told this).

It sounds realistic for Churchill to comply but not for the
reasons you give.

The reality was that we were losing the war, or at leas, not
winning yet. Churchill was Prime Minister but was still
working up to being completely politically secure, and he
hadn't won an election to secure himself the Prime
Ministership, and was a well know as a lickspittle to
royalty anyway. Kennedy was very well connected indeed.

His connections to defeatists in the 'The Clivden Set' and the
Halifax gang, who probably wanted to surrender, were well
known.

Ambassadors were nothing to do with the King - they are a
government-to-government issue. The story is a complete
fantasy.

The king's guests are a matter for the king - if he refuses to
receive someone, that person cannot sensibly remain an
ambassador to his court.

Why ever not?

Because of the intense embarrassment to himself, his family and
his country - to be barred from royal events, including the annual
reception of the diplomatic corps that is a highlight of the
social function of his post; to be unable to attend any public
event where he might be personally snubbed by the king, to whom
he was personally accredited, shaking hands with everyone else.

This is a bizarre fantasy.

Your eloquence is as great as your commonsense. Kings can act on
their principles, like everyone else. George VI's rages and
stubbornness were not fantasies, but a fact of life for his
household and ministers, however much you would like others to
believe in your own ignorance.
US presidents tend to have fantasies themselves about state
visits to the UK, banquets at Buckingham palace, stays at
Windsor, and all the rest. If the queen today made known that
she didn't wish to receive a particular US ambassador, I dare
say there would be a new one double-quick.

She is not permitted to do such a thing.

Permission is for schoolchildren. Sovereigns act, almost
invariably, according to precedents rather than precepts - the
very name of "sovereign" is not entirely without meaning.

They act on the advice of ministers.

And taking refuge in this shibboleth is supposed to answer every
possible question or circumstance....How on earth do you know, as I
certainly don't pretend to know, whether or not George VI had
Churchill's advice PRIOR to acting in this matter?

Take a wild guess.

I don't guess about things I can't know or establish by deduction.
Churchill was a crafty operator. George VI and Kennedy were brought
togther in extraordinary circumstances and something extraordinary
resulted. Trying to pretend to knowledge without evidence, one way or
the other, is wild. As I have said before, I don't know when the
recorded account of the event by an eye-witness will be available to
historians, nor do I know what contemporary records are still
withheld, but I'm perfectly content to wait on this. Making
dismissive one-line responses is no way to debate any point: since
you believe this to be wrong and will offer no rationale except your
categorical say-so, there is no value in a discussion.

Well, you are prudently not offering your "evidence" to public scrutiny (and
derision.)

Reagan didn't invite her to Rancho del Ciel in order to pass the
time of day - she battled her way there through perilous weather
because of a personal regard for the man, that had nothing to do
with fawning on each other's ambassadors.

She went because it was her job to go - nothing to do with
"personal regard".

She had not visited the private home of a US president, or any
other head of state as far as I recall, before this - it is quite
definitely NOT her "job" to do so.

It is also not the "job" of a US president to issue personal
invitations to other heads of state without prior assurance that
these will be acceptable. You clearly need to add a biography of
Reagan to your reading list. As James Baker has recounted not long
ago, and very humorously, Queen Elizabeth and the president had a
warm regard for each other, partly from a common love of horses -
their respective ambassaadors did not figure in this.

Why on earth would ambassadors figure?

Your view appears to be that George VI could never telephone FDR and
sort out a point of bitter contention with the US ambassador, but
that any problem would have to be dealt with from the start only
through the respective government channels - as obviously in the end
it was.

Finally, you get something right.

If you seriously believe that everything is invariably done in the
most prim & proper way in the exercise of power and diplomacy, you
are in for some huge surprises as - or if - you ever begin to learn
how the world actually works.

Actually, it is surprising how much is.

The queen
ignored urgent advice to turn back rather than risk continuing up
the uncertain road to Reagan's ranch, in a deluge. That especially
is not her "job".
My understanding is that Churchill had asked the king for help
in dealing with FDR, with whom George VI had struck up a warm
personal relationship. It is more than likely that the PM had
already discussed with the king his wish to see the back of
Kennedy.

This is bizarre nonsense. Whether or not a particular ambassador
is acceptable is a question for the government, not the head of
state.

In the UK the prime minister consults with the sovereign in
absolute privacy at least once a week. If you think it is
"bizarre nonsense" to suppose that Churchill would have made
known his negative views on the US ambassador, or that he would
have sought assistance from someone better placed than himself to
deal personally with FDR on some matters, you need to catch up
with a great deal of 20th-century British history.

Why on earth would George VI be "better placed than himself to deal
personally with FDR on some matters"?

Because George VI had the advantage of a personal friendship and
understanding with Roosevelt, developed during the state visit of
the king and queen to th USA in mid-1939. Churchill on the other
hand was viewed from the White House with some suspicion before &
after becoming prime minister in May 1940, and he knew it. Why do
you think he had not been able to rid himself of Kennedy,
associated with everything WSC had been most strenuously opposing
for years, beforehand?

Because Kennedy was appointed by Roosevelt, perhaps?

What has that to do with how welcome he was to Churchill? If
meaningful, this would mean that no ambassador could ever become
persona non grata, yet it plainly happens from time to time.

Please stop using the term "persona non grata", which has a precise
technical meaning.

Politics can be played out across the Atlantic as well as one each side.
You
are in for another big surprise if you don't, or won't, understand this.

I'm not losing any sleep over it.

This commentary from someone who doesn't know the first thing on
the record about George VI is worthy of Hines himself.

All I can say is that Gough Whitlam had a firmer grasp of
constititional theory and practice than you do - and look what
happened to him!

Ang again you neatly show that you have no grasp at all of the
basis for your own opnions. Whitlam was famously sacked by a
queen's representative acting _without_ the advice of ministers,
indeed actively evading the possibility of receiving such advice.
Look what he was forced to accept had happened to him, a fait
accompli, willy-nilly!

Simple question: could the Queen herself have sacked him?

Of course not, while she had a governor-general in place. Obviously
in theory she had the power to sack the G-G, Kerr, first and then
the PM, Whitlam, but that is a bizarre fantasy indeed. However, she
could have sacked Kerr - that is precisely what Whitlam was relying
on until he was out-manoeuvred, and that is what he expected to
happen if he won the election forced by his sacking.

Stop blathering: the simple answer is "No". Whitlam's mistake was
assuming that the Governor-General did not have the power either. He knew
perfectly well that she did not have this power, either in
the UK or in Australia.

I was not "blathering", you are. Whitlam knew perfectly well that the
governor-general could withdraw his commission: that possibility was
part of the discussion at the time, before it happened, and has been
acknowledged consistently since.

The situation is as I stated. If Whitlam had thought that there was the
remotest chance of Kerr having the power to sack him he would have had Kerr
replaced. In fact, you have it exactly the wrong way round - Kerr was
worried that Whitlam would sack him, whereas Whitlam did not seriously
consider the reverse possibility. In any case, he thought he had that
covered by refusing Kerr's request to consult the (hostile) Chief Justice.

He didn't think Kerr would go so far
as to do it, but that is beside the point as to whether or not he had
the power. The _only_ reason the queen of Australia didn't have it
equally is becasue she had appointed a representative to exercise the
plenitude of sovereign power - absent him, she could in theory have
done the same deed herself, even in the same devious way, with the
same practical outcome.

No, she doesn't have that power. ("As we understand the situation here, the
Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the Crown in
the hands of the Governor-General as the representative of the Queen of
Australia.")

Whitlam was a fool in many ways, but not so naive as you represent.

Again, you seem to have that exactly the wrong way round.

Another one: could Whitlam have sacked the Governor-General?

Only through the queen, as both men had contemplated he might do.

The answer is "Yes". He could have requested that she appoint
another Governor-General, and she could not have refused.

She could have delayed, and it has been made known that this would
have been the advice from her private secretary. She is not bound to
obey a minister instantly, and time was of the essence in Whitlam's
predicament, as he perfectly well knew.

She is obliged to act on such a request. But it wasn't something Whitlam was
seriously intending to do.

The loose thinking of Whitlam in this respect is shown by his slip
of the tongue in declaring "Well may we say 'God Save the Queen',
because nothing will save the governor-general". This is a non
sequitur - you might ask Hines to explain what that means. Whitlam
presumably intended to say "but" instead of "because". However,
this has not prevented people from pretending that his statement
made sense.
You are right that he knew something about constitutions - he knew
that there is no such thing as a written one for the UK, and that
Australia's does not set out petty rules for dealing with rogue
ambassadors.

It actually doesn't explicitly set out the reserve powers of the
Governor-General.

Quite - these are a matter of precedent, not precept. This does not
support your dwindling argument.

Not exactly, the point is that the Australian Constitution has had
the effect of preserving for the Governor-General the reserve powers
of the Sovereign as they existed in 1900, not as they exist now (or
as they existed in 1940, which is the point of the excursus.)

George VI was not purporting to exercise ANY power, sovereign,
reserve or otherwise, in asking FDR to exercise HIS presidential
power over HIS ambassadorial appointee. All he did was to say that he
would have nothing further to do with the man. If FDR has decided to
keep Kennedy in the post, I presume he would have stayed in the UK,
absurdly, as persona non grata in the court to which he was
accredited.

I would be intrigued to learn about this "court" of which you speak.

George VI did not have the power of Yea or Nay over the presence of an
individual in his kingdom.

Careful, there is some danger of enlightenment creeping in :-)
--
John Briggs

Tim Cartmell

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

Legg inn av Tim Cartmell » 29 aug 2007 17:12:10

Dear Will,

Yes, you are correct.

I was quoting Cumberland Families and Heraldry, they said c. 1382.

Rev. Ragg stated that Sir Christopher Curwen was born no later than 1382.

Thanks,

Timothy J. Cartmell

WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:

Timothy thank you for your helpful post.
One point, surely we don't know that Christopher Curwen was born *in* 1382, but rather the argument that he had custody of his father's lands in 1403 and was not held as a minor should tell us he was born *by* 1382. But could have been born earlier as well.

Or is there a document we can cite that states his age ?

Will

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



---------------------------------
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.

Kay Allen

Re: Sargent, Bath? to Massachusetts

Legg inn av Kay Allen » 29 aug 2007 17:18:02

Thank you Leslie,

Who is the Sargent about whom G. Andrews Moriarty
wrote? His descent is similar in spots to Alice
Freeman Thompson Parke.

Thank you.

K
--- lmahler@att.net wrote:

On Aug 28, 7:14 pm, Kay Allen <all...@pacbell.net
wrote:
This family is from Oxfordshire and has a medieval
descent. It was written up by George Andrews
Moriarty
in one of the English journals, many years ago. I
am
sure someone on the list will have this at hand.

K Allen AG



William Sargent of Charlestown, Mass. was from co.
Northampton
(not Oxfordshire), according to an item in
Aspinwall's notarial
records.

He is a different person than William Sargent, who
married Elizabeth
Perkins. This William is of unknown ancestry - see
the Great Migration
Begins & Holman's Pillsbury Ancestry.

Leslie



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

Adam Whyte-Settlar

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av Adam Whyte-Settlar » 29 aug 2007 18:23:43

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

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

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

Do-gooding twitdom personified.

Surreyman



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

as to the arabs. they still practice black slavery.



And so do some West African nations.

So do almost all European nations
In absolute numbers there are more slaves today than at any time in history.

Adam Whyte-Settlar

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av Adam Whyte-Settlar » 29 aug 2007 18:34:10

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

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.
he is peering out through the bars, not in, like us!

You beat me to it.
And some of the more gullible genuinely believe that the rest of the world
hate them because we are 'jealous of their freedoms'!!!
LOL. Of course - it couldn't possibly have anything to do with their
government's foreign policies could it?
I wouldn't even change planes there - I always fly via KL or Hong Kong -
roughly equal in levels of freedom but at least the customs officers and
police have basic manners.

William Black

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av William Black » 29 aug 2007 19:21:03

"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <none@none> wrote in message
news:13dbat9cimpaa2f@corp.supernews.com...
"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Fi_zi.21890$mo.19974@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...

"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:-PudnQtPuNvrq03bnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@rcn.net...

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

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

Do-gooding twitdom personified.

Surreyman



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

as to the arabs. they still practice black slavery.



And so do some West African nations.

So do almost all European nations
In absolute numbers there are more slaves today than at any time in
history.


Would you care to expand on that please?

We are talking about chattel slavery here.

--
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.

skddlbyp

Re: The Perils Of Close Air Support

Legg inn av skddlbyp » 29 aug 2007 19:23:46

.. he claimed that the returning Jews
(mostly from Europe) were different from the ancient Hebrews who were
Semites, displaced by the Romans. He claimed that the current Jews, in
Israel, were Aryans.

So, we're back to Artistotle, are we?

Aryans are the Master Race
The Germans are Aryans
The current jews, in Israel, are Aryans
Jews are inferior
Hitler was an Aryan
Hitler may have had a jewish ancestor
Hitler was a Jew
Hitler was a German
Hitler exterminated the jews, who were not Aryans.
Therefore, the Jews were not Germans.
Therefore, Jews in Israel are the Master Race.
Therefore, Jews are not inferior.
Therefore, Hitler should have stuck to what he did best - painting.

Jack Granade

Re: The Perils Of Close Air Support

Legg inn av Jack Granade » 29 aug 2007 19:26:13

"skddlbyp" <ghmvdj@fnp.aiu> wrote in message
news:13dbecnj9838ab9@corp.supernews.com...
. he claimed that the returning Jews
(mostly from Europe) were different from the ancient Hebrews who were
Semites, displaced by the Romans. He claimed that the current Jews, in
Israel, were Aryans.

So, we're back to Artistotle, are we?

Aryans are the Master Race
The Germans are Aryans
The current jews, in Israel, are Aryans
Jews are inferior
Hitler was an Aryan
Hitler may have had a jewish ancestor
Hitler was a Jew
Hitler was a German
Hitler exterminated the jews, who were not Aryans.
Therefore, the Jews were not Germans.
Therefore, Jews in Israel are the Master Race.
Therefore, Jews are not inferior.
Therefore, Hitler should have stuck to what he did best - painting.


You must be off your meds.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Weekend's Re-Enactment In Sheffield, England

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 29 aug 2007 22:07:34

Did you wear the New Model Army haircut?...

Or a wig?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:khkBi.24560$mZ5.15279@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...

I do have to add that I spent the weekend in the company of a Catholic
Irish piper taking the part of a extreme protestant New Model Army soldier
part of the time.

He was charming company...

Billzz

Re: The Perils Of Close Air Support

Legg inn av Billzz » 29 aug 2007 22:22:07

I guess that you are responding to my original post, although you've cut out
the point that the original author was making and talking about something
else, so you can keep whatever point you are trying to make. I won't be
talking to you anymore.

"skddlbyp" <ghmvdj@fnp.aiu> wrote in message
news:13dbecnj9838ab9@corp.supernews.com...
. he claimed that the returning Jews
(mostly from Europe) were different from the ancient Hebrews who were
Semites, displaced by the Romans. He claimed that the current Jews, in
Israel, were Aryans.

So, we're back to Artistotle, are we?

Aryans are the Master Race
The Germans are Aryans
The current jews, in Israel, are Aryans
Jews are inferior
Hitler was an Aryan
Hitler may have had a jewish ancestor
Hitler was a Jew
Hitler was a German
Hitler exterminated the jews, who were not Aryans.
Therefore, the Jews were not Germans.
Therefore, Jews in Israel are the Master Race.
Therefore, Jews are not inferior.
Therefore, Hitler should have stuck to what he did best - painting.


WJhonson

Re: The Magna Charta Barons and their American Descendants

Legg inn av WJhonson » 29 aug 2007 22:53:32

You might hope that more recent books would be more accurate, using the older books as references. That isn't always the case.

The best approach to this book, would be to cite and quote what it says, and then check some later sources to see if they mention the connections cited as well.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Sir John Tunstall of Croydon, Surrey help is needed

Legg inn av WJhonson » 29 aug 2007 23:29:21

The original poster on this thread, has sent me several rather abusive missives.

From their content, since I *dared* to ask her for a bibliographic citation, I surmise that that person doesn't actually want to contribute to the knowledge, but rather to abuse the knowledge of this list to cover up her own sloppy research practices. Which evidently includes lots of copying of unsourced data, but no actual research.

The query did however cause me to do some searching, whereby I found a work which details the Colonial Ancestry of FDR, so at least it was worthwhile in that regard.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Nathaniel Tilden`s Ancestry

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 aug 2007 23:47:03

Dear Leo,
While True that Walter G Davis found no royal ancestor for
Nathaniel Tilden , it does not automatically follow that none exist. We have
much superior and ready access to known primary records compared to those He had
available to him. On the down side years have passed and valuable resources
He might have seen no longer exist in our time. WGD wasn`t infallible either.
He brushed aside as a remote possibility scarce worth investigating that
Percival Lowle was Edmund Perceval who married Eleanor Lutterell`s grandson. Douglas
Richardson and Brendan Frann did so .We have an obvious gentry family several
of whose wive`s maiden surnames are unknown as is the ancestry of Sir
Percival Leigh , father of one of the Joans. Was it the first Richard who is said
to have married Her?
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: Counting Descendants

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 29 aug 2007 23:50:31

"I had only very little [sic] on the Stuyvesant family but then the
unconnected parts began to fall into place and I made a file. I did not
count how many descendants were in that file, and I have not kept it. My
guess is that there were about 100 people recorded (plus spouses and
in-laws)."

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

Hilarious!

Leo, FINALLY admits -- although by the back door -- that SPOUSES, as in Kirk
Douglas -- are NOT automatically Stuyvesant DESCENDANTS.

Too Late Smart...

But I temporarily unbollixed Leo's brain with that sharp blow upside the
head with a sturdy 2 by 4.

All's Well That Ends Well...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat opus

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Gjest

Re: Sir John Tunstall of Croydon, Surrey help is needed

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 aug 2007 00:33:05

On Aug 29, 6:29 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
The original poster on this thread, has sent me several rather abusive missives.

From their content, since I *dared* to ask her for a bibliographic citation, I surmise that that person doesn't actually want to contribute to the knowledge, but rather to abuse the knowledge of this list to cover up her own sloppy research practices. Which evidently includes lots of copying of unsourced data, but no actual research.

The query did however cause me to do some searching, whereby I found a work which details the Colonial Ancestry of FDR, so at least it was worthwhile in that regard.

Will Johnson

As you must all know by now, Will Johnson is not only an abrasive
individual but also a liar.
I sent Mr. Johnson one rather short reply to his rather obnoxious and
pompous email which he initiated. Sort of like answering Spencer..
This place is turning into a circus. Where do these nuts come
from????

WJhonson

Re: Sir John Tunstall of Croydon, Surrey help is needed

Legg inn av WJhonson » 30 aug 2007 00:37:48

<<In a message dated 08/29/07 16:35:17 Pacific Standard Time, focalpt1@comcast.net writes:
I sent Mr. Johnson one rather short reply to his rather obnoxious and
pompous email which he initiated.>>
--------------------
Unlike the above claim, all listers can *see* for themselves, that all I did was ask you for a full bibliographic citation where you riduculously stated simply "diary" ...."diary"

As if "diary" is a proper citation!

Your private response to me was abusive and confrontational. It's quite obvious you have no idea how to behave when your own research is scrutinized. Behaving as if people are launching personal attacks against *your person* when they are merely asking for sources for *your "research"*

There is a rock with your name on it.

Have a nice day.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

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

Legg inn av WJhonson » 30 aug 2007 00:41:02

<<In a message dated 08/29/07 14:20:14 Pacific Standard Time, inver1000@yahoo.ca writes:
Dear Will,
Yes, you are correct.
I was quoting Cumberland Families and Heraldry, they said c. 1382.
Rev. Ragg stated that Sir Christopher Curwen was born no later than 1382.
Thanks,
Timothy J. Cartmell >>

--------------------
Thanks Tim, much appreciated.

Will

WJhonson

Re: Genealogics update: Ancestry of Margeret (Locke) Taylor

Legg inn av WJhonson » 30 aug 2007 00:43:24

<<In a message dated 08/29/07 11:45:40 Pacific Standard Time, jvans@dsl.pipex.com writes:
I think you've done fantastic work - and if it's any consolation I
always sound off about the first thing I read and have to amplify or
correct it when I've read the rest! >>
----------------------
Thanks. It's always nice to have a little sugar with my vinegar.

Will

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Counting Descendants

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 30 aug 2007 00:44:31

Leo needs another lesson in humility....

I'm always happy to oblige, with my sturdy, well-seasoned 2 by 4....

Leo, intensely embarrassed at his gaffe, is trying to confuse the Gentle
Readers with bafflegab mixed with backing, filling and weasel wording -- in
order to make folks FORGET what he foolishly 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 Original Leo Version he wants us to FORGET about, as
he walks the cat back and throws out the red herrings.

Posted Verbatim:

"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 van de Pas
--------------------------------------------

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

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat opus

WJhonson

Re: Experts who will not correct errors..

Legg inn av WJhonson » 30 aug 2007 01:13:00

There is a difference between a person who, citing their sources, cites and quotes what that source says; and this same person creating a new fact not known from any source.

It appears this expert is quoting from the book you mentioned. So the error is the author's error, not the experts error.

Peter Stewart

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 30 aug 2007 01:55:16

This exchange is getting messey on screen - I will extract the few slightly
more substantial comments that John Briggs has finally made:

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:6DdBi.39537$S91.8644@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
Peter Stewart wrote:

I don't guess about things I can't know or establish by deduction.
Churchill was a crafty operator. George VI and Kennedy were brought
togther in extraordinary circumstances and something extraordinary
resulted. Trying to pretend to knowledge without evidence, one way or
the other, is wild. As I have said before, I don't know when the
recorded account of the event by an eye-witness will be available to
historians, nor do I know what contemporary records are still
withheld, but I'm perfectly content to wait on this. Making
dismissive one-line responses is no way to debate any point: since
you believe this to be wrong and will offer no rationale except your
categorical say-so, there is no value in a discussion.

Well, you are prudently not offering your "evidence" to public scrutiny
(and derision.)

I have reported the gist of what I was told, whereas you have "prudently"
not given any rationale for dismissing this: all you keep repeating is your
consideration for deciding that a chain of events _should_ not have
happened, while offering none to the effect that it _could_ not have
happened. You misrepresent these as the same, while logically they are as
different as human beings are from ideals. If you wanted a phrase to
characterise the history of the British monarchy, you wouldn't go far wrong
with "How the rules were made and how they were broken".

At the same time you patently knew nothing about the personal life and
character of George VI, when you suggested I might have him confised with
his own father. The rages of Geoge VI are a matter of public record, and his
implacability towards people who had offended him is also not open to
debate: just recall the instance of his own elder brother, forced to live
abroad largely due to the humiliation that his wife would not be received at
court or accorded his rank of "Royal Highness" by the king. This was not on
advice from ministers. As for sovereigns acting without such advice, the
case of Edward VIII (who unlike his younger brother George VI had been
trained in kingcraft) is apposite: just a few years before 1940 he had
publicly declared "Something must be done", without reference to his
ministers who were appalled at this breach of propriety. Things simply don't
always happen as they should, in royal minds and in royal emotions that can
get out of control.

Now to the specific background: the account I was given came from a person I
have no reason to distrust (but also had no cause to cross-examine) who was
present when Kennedy gave offense to George VI, and arranged for the king to
be called out of the room in order to avoid to the explosion of anger that
was evidently impending. What happened elsewhere afterwards could only be
described to me at a remove, from hearsay and long after George VI was dead,
and this may be far from the full story, as I have suggested. The king might
have had prior discussions with Churchill, or he might have immediately
called him at 10 Downing Street before doing anything else. The conversation
as reported would certainly have had to be made known by the king to his
prime minister sooner rather than later. Then WSC might have spoken to
Roosevelt before the king did, or not - you can't know, I can't know, and my
informant may never have known either. But the version I heard is that
George VI personally spoke to FDR, and events unfolded subsequently in line
with his wishes - Kennedy left the UK, quickly, and a new ambassador was
sent from the USA.

You can deride this to your heart's content, it will make no difference to
what did or did not happen, could or should not have happened, nearly 70
years ago.

<snip>

If you seriously believe that everything is invariably done in the
most prim & proper way in the exercise of power and diplomacy, you
are in for some huge surprises as - or if - you ever begin to learn
how the world actually works.

Actually, it is surprising how much is.

No, this is _not_ surprising at all to anyone with a grain of sense and
familiarity with the inglorious history of unimaginative diplomacy - my
point is that it is not invariable, not everything.

<snip>

Stop blathering: the simple answer is "No". Whitlam's mistake was
assuming that the Governor-General did not have the power either. He
knew perfectly well that she did not have this power, either in
the UK or in Australia.

I was not "blathering", you are. Whitlam knew perfectly well that the
governor-general could withdraw his commission: that possibility was
part of the discussion at the time, before it happened, and has been
acknowledged consistently since.

The situation is as I stated. If Whitlam had thought that there was the
remotest chance of Kerr having the power to sack him he would have had
Kerr replaced. In fact, you have it exactly the wrong way round - Kerr
was worried that Whitlam would sack him, whereas Whitlam did not seriously
consider the reverse possibility. In any case, he thought he had that
covered by refusing Kerr's request to consult the (hostile) Chief Justice.

I am afraid you have this wrong, and you have the opportunity to check from
published accounts. Whitlam knew that Kerr had the power to dismiss him,
that is evident from his acceptance of the fact once it occurred - he went
back to the Lodge and had lunch, then went into the house of
representatives, not to the chambers of his lawyer. He didn't think in
advance that Kerr would resort to using the power, but he didn't doubt its
reality.

He didn't think Kerr would go so far
as to do it, but that is beside the point as to whether or not he had
the power. The _only_ reason the queen of Australia didn't have it
equally is becasue she had appointed a representative to exercise the
plenitude of sovereign power - absent him, she could in theory have
done the same deed herself, even in the same devious way, with the
same practical outcome.

No, she doesn't have that power. ("As we understand the situation here,
the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the
Crown in the hands of the Governor-General as the representative of the
Queen of Australia.")

That is right, and consistent with what I said in the first place. However,
the point you are missing is what would she have done if Whitlam had phoned
Buckingham palace - as he has acknowledged he contemplated - asking her to
sack Sir John Kerr as governor-general: we know that she would have been
advised by her private secretary to defer compliance. She has the right to
be informed, comprehensively, and to warn - to fulfil this duty, she has the
right to assess a situation before complying with advice from a minister. In
this case, Whitlam did not have a nominee ready to recommend to her for
appointment in Kerr's place: the role and reserve powers of the
governor-general would then have passed immediately to the senior state
governor (unlesss perhaps the queen was bizarrely advised to appoint herself
or her private secretary to the office, temporarily, on the spot). Whitlam
did not know how that official would act, nor did the queen: the crisis
might have continued and spun out of the prime minister's control, since
state governors are not appointed at his pleasure. She would have been
obliged to consider the outcome and to confer about any apprehensions with
the prime minister before acting as - hypothetically - asked.

<snip>

George VI was not purporting to exercise ANY power, sovereign,
reserve or otherwise, in asking FDR to exercise HIS presidential
power over HIS ambassadorial appointee. All he did was to say that he
would have nothing further to do with the man. If FDR has decided to
keep Kennedy in the post, I presume he would have stayed in the UK,
absurdly, as persona non grata in the court to which he was
accredited.

I would be intrigued to learn about this "court" of which you speak.

The court of St James, the monarch's official residence in London, to which
all ambassadors to the UK are accredited. They take up their posts on
presenting their credentials to the head of state, not to the prime
minister - embassies are a matter of state and not only of government. The
disparity between Churchill and Roosevelt in this respect was one of the
reasons that the former, especially early on in his prime ministership,
relied on George VI for some communications with the president.

One small amendment to my statement above: to be as pedantic as John Briggs
may require to understand, I should have written "George VI was not
purporting to exercise ANY power, sovereign, reserve or otherwise, beyond
the power of speech, in asking FDR to exercise HIS presidential power over
HIS ambassadorial appointee".

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Nathaniel Tilden`s Ancestry

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 aug 2007 02:49:03

Dear Leo,
For Percival read ' Peter / Piers Legh / Leigh. Children
attributed to them on Stirnet incude Piers/Peter, Margaret, James and John. No
mention of a Joan there. Lydia Tilden (nee Huckstep)`s ancestry through her mother
Winfred Huckstep (nee Hatch) at bjhughes.org is similarly lengthy (six
generations) Winifred`s parents are given as Thomas Hatche and Joan Brissenden.
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: Sir John Tunstall of Croydon, Surrey help is needed

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 aug 2007 03:12:12

On Aug 29, 7:37 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 08/29/07 16:35:17 Pacific Standard Time, focal...@comcast.net writes:
I sent Mr. Johnson one rather short reply to his rather obnoxious and
pompous email which he initiated.
--------------------
Unlike the above claim, all listers can *see* for themselves, that all I did was ask you for a full bibliographic citation where you riduculously stated simply "diary" ...."diary"

As if "diary" is a proper citation!

Your private response to me was abusive and confrontational. It's quite obvious you have no idea how to behave when your own research is scrutinized. Behaving as if people are launching personal attacks against *your person* when they are merely asking for sources for *your "research"*

There is a rock with your name on it.

Have a nice day.

Will Johnson

Ah..But they can't *see* the emails you send to people and then lie
about. LIAR!
I never claimed to be a researcher simply a searcher. LIAR!
Unpublished 17C "diaries" or "journals" have no "proper" citation.
LIAR!
This is all an excellent example of why people go astray when
searching for reliable information. They meet up with these nuts who
love to LIE and DISTORT a simple question asked. People who postulate
rather than assist.
There is a much larger rock out there with your name on it Will. It's
pretty obvious to all readers that you lost all credibility many moons
ago on this board. Bug off!

Adam Whyte-Settlar

Re: British Apologies For The Slave Trade

Legg inn av Adam Whyte-Settlar » 30 aug 2007 04:52:26

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jOiBi.24541$mZ5.12300@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <none@none> wrote in message
news:13dbat9cimpaa2f@corp.supernews.com...

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Fi_zi.21890$mo.19974@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...

"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:-PudnQtPuNvrq03bnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@rcn.net...

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

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

Do-gooding twitdom personified.

Surreyman



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

as to the arabs. they still practice black slavery.



And so do some West African nations.

So do almost all European nations
In absolute numbers there are more slaves today than at any time in
history.


Would you care to expand on that please?

Not really. It's self-explanatory and the info is readily available if you
look.
The last estimate I saw of total numbers worldwide was 27 million.

Here's a good article to start from - can't say the CSM is my favourite mag
but in this case they have done their homework IMO
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0901/p16s01-wogi.html

Lockehead

Re: Fwd: William Gardiner and Helen Tudor

Legg inn av Lockehead » 30 aug 2007 05:04:16

On Aug 23, 2:30 pm, "Janet Crawford" <reo...@gmail.com> wrote:
How might this man be related please?:

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

Janet

On 8/23/07, WJhon...@aol.com <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 at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

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

- Show quoted text -

All of my information (for the most part) comes from "Gardiner:
Generations and Relations" by Thomas Richard Gardiner, self-published
1991. Here is what he has to say:

"Wyllyam Gardynyr, son of (father unknown) and of (mother unknown),
born in 1450 in Midlands, Oxfordshire, England; died 1495 in The Bank,
Surrey, England. He married in 1485, in London, England to Helen
Tudor, daughter of Jasper Tudor. William Gardiner, who was born circa
1450, married Helen Tudor, first cousin to Henry VII, as found on
Betham's Genealogical Table DCX in Guildhall Library, London, England.
William Gardiner and his wife, Helen Tudor, resided on the south bank
of the Thames River just accross from the walled city of London, prior
to the establishment of any town, in an area that was then known
simply as "The Bank". His magnificent home was located somewhere
between the more recent towns of Bermondey and Southwalk in the county
of Surrey. He also retained many of his holdings in the Midlands near
Oxon Ford, now known as Oxford.

Children of Wyllyam and Heln (Tudor) Gardynyr were as follows:

2. i. Richard Gardiner, born 1486 in London, England; died 1548 in
London, England. This Richard Gardiner may have been the eldest son of
William Gardiner and Helen Tudor. There is no document to prove this
assumption. He may have also been the father of Germain Gardiner (b.
1505) and also of Richard (b. 1507) Sargeant at Arms to Henry VIII,
who was reported to have been executed for alloegedly witholding
testimony in the trial of Anne Bolyn. Since I am unable to identifyn
this person more fully, I have not included him and his two sons to
definitely be in the line of descent from William Gardiner and Helen
Tudor, although in the book, STEPHEN GARDINER AND THE TUDOR REACTION,
the author mentions Germain as the nephew of Stephen. In another bit
of information on Germain, he was spoken of as a cousin of Stephen, so
the exact identity of these three individuals are not clear.

+3. ii. William Gardiner, born 1488

4. iii. Steven Gardiner, born 1490 in Holborn, London, England; died
12 Nov 1555 in Whitehall, Southwark, Surrey, England. See a special
section on this Steven Gardiner. Steven has sometimes been named as
the son of John Gardiner of Bury St. Edmunds, England but there are
several things that do not fit into place on this Stephen. First of
all his first name is spelled differently. The Letters and Papers of
Henry VIII, in the manuscript section of the British Museum use the
spelling "Steven Gardynyr" just the way Steven signed his name. The
man who spelled his name Stephen was almost out of the time frame in
which "Steven" was estimated by historians to have been born. But, the
greatest bit of evidence supporting "Steven" vs. "Stephen" as the
Bishop of Winchester, is James Betham's Genealogical Table, DCX (610)
in the Guildhall Library, London, which gives Steven's parents as
William Gardiner and Helen Tudor. Although the Gardiner family name
has undergone a number of changes down through the ages, as have all
other families, the name is being carried in the computer as Gardiner,
to reduce the possibility of error in the programing of an ancestral
line.

3. WIlliam Gardiner, (Wyllyam), born 1488 in London, Live awhile in
Hertfordshire, England; died 1549 in The Grange, Bermondsey, Surrey,
England. He married 1520, in England to Elizabeth Mitchell. There
seems to be onlya alinited amount of information available on this
William Gardiner, brother of Steven, Bishop of Winchester. It is
believed that he may have been the presbyter at Canterbury whom Steven
Gardiner stopped by to visit on one of his trips back from France
which is mentioned under Steven Gardiner in this book. It was also
brought to the attention of those sitting in judgement at the
Excommunication trial of Steven Gardiner, that he had a brother
William, and this William lived for a while in Herefordshire. William
married Elizabeth Mitchell, of Yorkshire, and died in Bermondsey,
Surrey. It is quite probable that William had an older brother since
it is an Old English custom to name the second son after his father
and the eldest son after the grandfather, which this Gardiner family
has followed with remarkable consistancy down through the generations.
The grandfather could come from either side of the family, as this
was not followed quite as closely as in the use of the father's name.
The was a Richard Gardiner, born about 1486 who was quite prominent in
the London area, who may have been an older member of this family,
which I have listed as a probability since I cna find no other who
would more easily fit the situation. He was listed in the service of
Henry VIII as "Seargent at Arms"."

Lockehead

Re: William Gardiner and Helen Tudor

Legg inn av Lockehead » 30 aug 2007 05:06:43

On Aug 27, 10:06 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 08/27/07 19:00:16 Pacific Standard Time, franklo...@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

yes, it would be best, wouldn't it? :

All of my information (for the most part) comes from "Gardiner:
Generations and Relations" by Thomas Richard Gardiner, self-published
1991. Here is what he has to say:

"Wyllyam Gardynyr, son of (father unknown) and of (mother unknown),
born in 1450 in Midlands, Oxfordshire, England; died 1495 in The Bank,
Surrey, England. He married in 1485, in London, England to Helen
Tudor, daughter of Jasper Tudor. William Gardiner, who was born circa
1450, married Helen Tudor, first cousin to Henry VII, as found on
Betham's Genealogical Table DCX in Guildhall Library, London, England.
William Gardiner and his wife, Helen Tudor, resided on the south bank
of the Thames River just accross from the walled city of London, prior
to the establishment of any town, in an area that was then known
simply as "The Bank". His magnificent home was located somewhere
between the more recent towns of Bermondey and Southwalk in the county
of Surrey. He also retained many of his holdings in the Midlands near
Oxon Ford, now known as Oxford.

Children of Wyllyam and Heln (Tudor) Gardynyr were as follows:

2. i. Richard Gardiner, born 1486 in London, England; died 1548 in
London, England. This Richard Gardiner may have been the eldest son of
William Gardiner and Helen Tudor. There is no document to prove this
assumption. He may have also been the father of Germain Gardiner (b.
1505) and also of Richard (b. 1507) Sargeant at Arms to Henry VIII,
who was reported to have been executed for alloegedly witholding
testimony in the trial of Anne Bolyn. Since I am unable to identifyn
this person more fully, I have not included him and his two sons to
definitely be in the line of descent from William Gardiner and Helen
Tudor, although in the book, STEPHEN GARDINER AND THE TUDOR REACTION,
the author mentions Germain as the nephew of Stephen. In another bit
of information on Germain, he was spoken of as a cousin of Stephen, so
the exact identity of these three individuals are not clear.

+3. ii. William Gardiner, born 1488

4. iii. Steven Gardiner, born 1490 in Holborn, London, England; died
12 Nov 1555 in Whitehall, Southwark, Surrey, England. See a special
section on this Steven Gardiner. Steven has sometimes been named as
the son of John Gardiner of Bury St. Edmunds, England but there are
several things that do not fit into place on this Stephen. First of
all his first name is spelled differently. The Letters and Papers of
Henry VIII, in the manuscript section of the British Museum use the
spelling "Steven Gardynyr" just the way Steven signed his name. The
man who spelled his name Stephen was almost out of the time frame in
which "Steven" was estimated by historians to have been born. But, the
greatest bit of evidence supporting "Steven" vs. "Stephen" as the
Bishop of Winchester, is James Betham's Genealogical Table, DCX (610)
in the Guildhall Library, London, which gives Steven's parents as
William Gardiner and Helen Tudor. Although the Gardiner family name
has undergone a number of changes down through the ages, as have all
other families, the name is being carried in the computer as Gardiner,
to reduce the possibility of error in the programing of an ancestral
line.

3. WIlliam Gardiner, (Wyllyam), born 1488 in London, Live awhile in
Hertfordshire, England; died 1549 in The Grange, Bermondsey, Surrey,
England. He married 1520, in England to Elizabeth Mitchell. There
seems to be onlya alinited amount of information available on this
William Gardiner, brother of Steven, Bishop of Winchester. It is
believed that he may have been the presbyter at Canterbury whom Steven
Gardiner stopped by to visit on one of his trips back from France
which is mentioned under Steven Gardiner in this book. It was also
brought to the attention of those sitting in judgement at the
Excommunication trial of Steven Gardiner, that he had a brother
William, and this William lived for a while in Herefordshire. William
married Elizabeth Mitchell, of Yorkshire, and died in Bermondsey,
Surrey. It is quite probable that William had an older brother since
it is an Old English custom to name the second son after his father
and the eldest son after the grandfather, which this Gardiner family
has followed with remarkable consistancy down through the generations.
The grandfather could come from either side of the family, as this
was not followed quite as closely as in the use of the father's name.
The was a Richard Gardiner, born about 1486 who was quite prominent in
the London area, who may have been an older member of this family,
which I have listed as a probability since I cna find no other who
would more easily fit the situation. He was listed in the service of
Henry VIII as "Seargent at Arms"."

WJhonson

Re: Experts Who Will Not Correct Errors...

Legg inn av WJhonson » 30 aug 2007 05:33:12

Leo corrects errors all the time. I send him updates and he adds the details with my citations, or I send him the link and he reads the Google Book himself.

As for whether a person's ancestry is private or public. A person does not own their ancestors. If DR for example, published his own line, which he did, anyone can quote and cite it, including his own name and biographic details.

For persons who have never published their own line themselves, it's perhaps a bit of a trickier question. If Peter Stewart has let slip who his parents are, or who his grandparents are, and the rest can be looked up in Who's Who or some other source like that, should we be barred from publishing that line simply because one of the descendents doesn't want it published?

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Sir John Tunstall of Croydon, Surrey help is needed

Legg inn av WJhonson » 30 aug 2007 05:37:06

In a message dated 08/29/07 19:15:15 Pacific Standard Time, focalpt1@comcast.net writes:
Your private response to me was abusive and confrontational.

Ah..But they can't *see* the emails you send to people and then lie
about. LIAR!
I never claimed to be a researcher simply a searcher. LIAR!
Unpublished 17C "diaries" or "journals" have no "proper" citation.
LIAR!
This is all an excellent example of why people go astray when
searching for reliable information. They meet up with these nuts who
love to LIE and DISTORT a simple question asked. People who postulate
rather than assist. >>
---------------------------------------
Well I'm certainly glad you made your response public this time, so everyone can see the sort of person you are. I asked for your source so I could assist you. It's pretty obvious you have no source and this sort of attack only underscores that you are so lazy that you cannot be called upon to even search Google Books, *where you will find published* part of the answer to your original question, won't you? No of course *you* won't, because you're a searcher....

Will Johnson

Lockehead

Re: William Gardiner and Helen Tudor

Legg inn av Lockehead » 30 aug 2007 05:40:02

On Aug 30, 12:06 am, Lockehead <franklo...@mris.com> wrote:
On Aug 27, 10:06 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

In a message dated 08/27/07 19:00:16 Pacific Standard Time, franklo...@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

yes, it would be best, wouldn't it? :

All of my information (for the most part) comes from "Gardiner:
Generations and Relations" by Thomas Richard Gardiner, self-published
1991. Here is what he has to say:

"Wyllyam Gardynyr, son of (father unknown) and of (mother unknown),
born in 1450 in Midlands, Oxfordshire, England; died 1495 in The Bank,
Surrey, England. He married in 1485, in London, England to Helen
Tudor, daughter of Jasper Tudor. William Gardiner, who was born circa
1450, married Helen Tudor, first cousin to Henry VII, as found on
Betham's Genealogical Table DCX in Guildhall Library, London, England.
William Gardiner and his wife, Helen Tudor, resided on the south bank
of the Thames River just accross from the walled city of London, prior
to the establishment of any town, in an area that was then known
simply as "The Bank". His magnificent home was located somewhere
between the more recent towns of Bermondey and Southwalk in the county
of Surrey. He also retained many of his holdings in the Midlands near
Oxon Ford, now known as Oxford.

Children of Wyllyam and Heln (Tudor) Gardynyr were as follows:

2. i. Richard Gardiner, born 1486 in London, England; died 1548 in
London, England. This Richard Gardiner may have been the eldest son of
William Gardiner and Helen Tudor. There is no document to prove this
assumption. He may have also been the father of Germain Gardiner (b.
1505) and also of Richard (b. 1507) Sargeant at Arms to Henry VIII,
who was reported to have been executed for alloegedly witholding
testimony in the trial of Anne Bolyn. Since I am unable to identifyn
this person more fully, I have not included him and his two sons to
definitely be in the line of descent from William Gardiner and Helen
Tudor, although in the book, STEPHEN GARDINER AND THE TUDOR REACTION,
the author mentions Germain as the nephew of Stephen. In another bit
of information on Germain, he was spoken of as a cousin of Stephen, so
the exact identity of these three individuals are not clear.

+3. ii. William Gardiner, born 1488

4. iii. Steven Gardiner, born 1490 in Holborn, London, England; died
12 Nov 1555 in Whitehall, Southwark, Surrey, England. See a special
section on this Steven Gardiner. Steven has sometimes been named as
the son of John Gardiner of Bury St. Edmunds, England but there are
several things that do not fit into place on this Stephen. First of
all his first name is spelled differently. The Letters and Papers of
Henry VIII, in the manuscript section of the British Museum use the
spelling "Steven Gardynyr" just the way Steven signed his name. The
man who spelled his name Stephen was almost out of the time frame in
which "Steven" was estimated by historians to have been born. But, the
greatest bit of evidence supporting "Steven" vs. "Stephen" as the
Bishop of Winchester, is James Betham's Genealogical Table, DCX (610)
in the Guildhall Library, London, which gives Steven's parents as
William Gardiner and Helen Tudor. Although the Gardiner family name
has undergone a number of changes down through the ages, as have all
other families, the name is being carried in the computer as Gardiner,
to reduce the possibility of error in the programing of an ancestral
line.

3. WIlliam Gardiner, (Wyllyam), born 1488 in London, Live awhile in
Hertfordshire, England; died 1549 in The Grange, Bermondsey, Surrey,
England. He married 1520, in England to Elizabeth Mitchell. There
seems to be onlya alinited amount of information available on this
William Gardiner, brother of Steven, Bishop of Winchester. It is
believed that he may have been the presbyter at Canterbury whom Steven
Gardiner stopped by to visit on one of his trips back from France
which is mentioned under Steven Gardiner in this book. It was also
brought to the attention of those sitting in judgement at the
Excommunication trial of Steven Gardiner, that he had a brother
William, and this William lived for a while in Herefordshire. William
married Elizabeth Mitchell, of Yorkshire, and died in Bermondsey,
Surrey. It is quite probable that William had an older brother since
it is an Old English custom to name the second son after his father
and the eldest son after the grandfather, which this Gardiner family
has followed with remarkable consistancy down through the generations.
The grandfather could come from either side of the family, as this
was not followed quite as closely as in the use of the father's name.
The was a Richard Gardiner, born about 1486 who was quite prominent in
the London area, who may have been an older member of this family,
which I have listed as a probability since I cna find no other who
would more easily fit the situation. He was listed in the service of
Henry VIII as "Seargent at Arms"."

Another source is a wildly wonderful little book, "Blood Royal from
thr time of Alexander the Great to Queen Elizabeth II" A Golden
Jubilee memoir, 2952-2002 by Charles Mosley published by Smith's
Peerage Limited 2002

page 208:

"2 Jasper Tudor or "of Hatfield" 1st and last Earl of Pembroke 23 Nov
1452X20 Jan 1452/3-8 Sep 1468, 1470-71 and 1485-95 and 1st and last
Duke of Bedford, so cr 27 Oct 1485, KG 1459, PC 1485; b. Hatfield,
herts, c. 1431; ktd 1449; Lancastrian First Battle St. Albans 22 May
1455; defeated by Edward IV Mortimer's Cross 2 or 3 Feb 1460/1 but
escaped; attainted by Edward IV's parl 29 Dec 1461 and again on
Edward's restoration 1471; briefly invaded Wales July 1468 in
Lancastrian's cause, landing with three ships and 50 men near Harlech
Castle but after sacking Denbigh was beaten off and returned to
France; Ch Justice S Wales 1485; Lt Calais and Ld Lt Ireland
(absentee) 1486-94; Earl Marshal 1492; took leading part inb victory
of Stoke 16 Jun 1487 and invasion of France 1492; m 2 Nov 1483x7 Nov
1485 Catherine (m 3rd Sir Richard Wingfield), yst dau of 1st Earl
Rivers and sis of Edward IV's w, also widow of 2nd Duke of Buckingham,
and dsp by her 21 or 26 Dec 1495, when his titles expired, leaving
illegitimately by an unknown woman:

1(a) Helen; m William Gardiner, a Londoner and had:

1b Stephen Gardiner; b c 1483; sec to his cousin Henry VIII 1528-33;
Bp Winchester 1531-51 and 1553-22; Amb France 1535-38; promoted Henry
VIII's marriage to Catherine Howard; incarcerated FLeet Prison 1547-48
and Tower London 1548-53; Ld Chllr 1553-55 (as which called by foreign
diplomats 'prime minister', perhaps the earliest use of the term and
one which by his ascendancy he more or less earned) and Chllr Oxford
and Cambridge Us; author De Vera Obedientia ('On True Obedience')
(1535) and translation of Greek New Testament; d 12 Nov 1555"

WJhonson

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Jasper Tudor's bastard daughter

Legg inn av WJhonson » 30 aug 2007 05:45:42

<<In a message dated 08/29/07 21:05:32 Pacific Standard Time, franklocke@mris.com writes:
His main source is Betham's Genealogical Table. I am not familiar with
this document. >>

----------------------------
Betham's Genealogical Tables of the Sovereigns of the World

It's a rather old book and so any bit that is challenged should probably be set-aside, in light of more modern critical analysis.

For example, you could do worse than consulting the free copy of DNB which is on Google Books.

DR states that the ODNB (the new version) does not allege this connection. And so that should take precedence unless you're willing to scrutinize it's underlying and cited sources.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Another C.P. Correction: Jasper Tudor's bastard daughter

Legg inn av WJhonson » 30 aug 2007 05:52:04

<<Another source is a wildly wonderful little book, "Blood Royal from
thr time of Alexander the Great to Queen Elizabeth II" A Golden
Jubilee memoir, 2952-2002 by Charles Mosley published by Smith's
Peerage Limited 2002

page 208:

"2 Jasper Tudor or "of Hatfield" 1st and last Earl of Pembroke 23 Nov
1452X20 Jan 1452/3-8 Sep 1468, 1470-71 and 1485-95 and 1st and last
Duke of Bedford, so cr 27 Oct 1485, KG 1459, PC 1485; b. Hatfield,
herts, c. 1431; ktd 1449; Lancastrian First Battle St. Albans 22 May
1455; defeated by Edward IV Mortimer's Cross 2 or 3 Feb 1460/1 but
escaped; attainted by Edward IV's parl 29 Dec 1461 and again on
Edward's restoration 1471; briefly invaded Wales July 1468 in
Lancastrian's cause, landing with three ships and 50 men near Harlech
Castle but after sacking Denbigh was beaten off and returned to
France; Ch Justice S Wales 1485; Lt Calais and Ld Lt Ireland
(absentee) 1486-94; Earl Marshal 1492; took leading part inb victory
of Stoke 16 Jun 1487 and invasion of France 1492; m 2 Nov 1483x7 Nov
1485 Catherine (m 3rd Sir Richard Wingfield), yst dau of 1st Earl
Rivers and sis of Edward IV's w, also widow of 2nd Duke of Buckingham,
and dsp by her 21 or 26 Dec 1495, when his titles expired, leaving
illegitimately by an unknown woman:

1(a) Helen; m William Gardiner, a Londoner and had:

1b Stephen Gardiner; b c 1483; sec to his cousin Henry VIII 1528-33;
Bp Winchester 1531-51 and 1553-22; Amb France 1535-38; promoted Henry
VIII's marriage to Catherine Howard; incarcerated FLeet Prison 1547-48
and Tower London 1548-53; Ld Chllr 1553-55 (as which called by foreign
diplomats 'prime minister', perhaps the earliest use of the term and
one which by his ascendancy he more or less earned) and Chllr Oxford
and Cambridge Us; author De Vera Obedientia ('On True Obedience')
(1535) and translation of Greek New Testament; d 12 Nov 1555" >>
-----------------------------------------

This second source would appear to state this fact, deriving it from a previous secondary source. And so for this fact, should be set-aside. It provides no new underlying source citation for this claim and so is most likely dependent on Betham again, or CP.

Douglas has already stated that CP has no evidence of this relationship, and I believe is probably once again dependent on the earlier work.

Once you peel off all the secondary sources duplicating each other, if there is no primary document to support the connection, then the connection must fail.

Will Johnson

Leo van de Pas

Re: Experts Who Will Not Correct Errors...

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 30 aug 2007 05:54:00

On a daily basis I receive additions and corrections and about once a month
these are transferred to my data base. On a few occassions I have been asked
by a person concerned to be removed but much more often people have said "my
details are missing, here are my details". It is automitaclly built in the
system that anmyone born in 1900 or after is _not_ displayed, unless the
source is a public source.

Poor old Hines, he eagerly wanted a file and when he did not get it, he
throws a tantrum and goes on a fault finding excursion. If I had given him
that file my data base would have been held up as a shining example.
Hilarious describes him correctly.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
in Canberra not in Brisbane, originally from the West Coast of Europe, not
the East Coast :-)


----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: Experts Who Will Not Correct Errors...


Leo corrects errors all the time. I send him updates and he adds the
details with my citations, or I send him the link and he reads the Google
Book himself.

As for whether a person's ancestry is private or public. A person does
not own their ancestors. If DR for example, published his own line, which
he did, anyone can quote and cite it, including his own name and
biographic details.

For persons who have never published their own line themselves, it's
perhaps a bit of a trickier question. If Peter Stewart has let slip who
his parents are, or who his grandparents are, and the rest can be looked
up in Who's Who or some other source like that, should we be barred from
publishing that line simply because one of the descendents doesn't want it
published?

Will Johnson

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

Peter Stewart

Re: Experts Who Will Not Correct Errors...

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 30 aug 2007 06:04:17

"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1512.1188448476.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Leo corrects errors all the time. I send him updates and he adds the
details with my citations, or I send him the link and he reads the
Google Book himself.

As for whether a person's ancestry is private or public. A person does
not own their ancestors. If DR for example, published his own line,
which he did, anyone can quote and cite it, including his own name and
biographic details.

For persons who have never published their own line themselves, it's
perhaps a bit of a trickier question. If Peter Stewart has let slip who
his parents are, or who his grandparents are, and the rest can be looked
up in Who's Who or some other source like that, should we be barred
from publishing that line simply because one of the descendents doesn't
want it published?

No, but you might refrain from publishing that particular line for lack of
interest.

If people choose to print their own ancestries, as in the example of Douglas
Richardson, they do not need to obtain permission from any & all siblings,
who may be otherwise known or actually stated to share it but might not wish
to have this detailed. Ancestry can't very well be the private preserve of
anyone who isn't from a line of only children on both sides.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 30 aug 2007 06:53:37

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:UzoBi.27793$4A1.7619@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:6DdBi.39537$S91.8644@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...

Peter Stewart wrote:

I have reported the gist of what I was told, whereas you have "prudently"
not given any rationale for dismissing this: all you keep repeating is
your consideration for deciding that a chain of events _should_ not have
happened, while offering none to the effect that it _could_ not have
happened. You misrepresent these as the same, while logically they are as
different as human beings are from ideals. If you wanted a phrase to
characterise the history of the British monarchy, you wouldn't go far
wrong with "How the rules were made and how they were broken".

Yes, Briggs is practicing "Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda" History.

Briggs also makes one of the CARDINAL mistakes of the very young and
inexperienced [as well as academics] that if they can conceptualize a
"LOGICAL" way that something must have happened then that is most probably
the way it DID happen.

It saves them [both the young and inexperienced and the academics] of
actually having to do the hard work of gathering, sifting, winnowing and
UNDERSTANDING the FACTS.

Pogue Gans, an academic, displays this same crippling failing -- in
abundance,

At the same time you patently knew nothing about the personal life and
character of George VI, when you suggested I might have him confused with
his own father. The rages of George VI are a matter of public record, and
his implacability towards people who had offended him is also not open to
debate: just recall the instance of his own elder brother, forced to live
abroad largely due to the humiliation that his wife would not be received
at court or accorded his rank of "Royal Highness" by the king. This was
not on advice from ministers. As for sovereigns acting without such
advice, the case of Edward VIII (who unlike his younger brother George VI
had been trained in kingcraft) is apposite: just a few years before 1940
he had publicly declared "Something must be done", without reference to
his ministers who were appalled at this breach of propriety. Things simply
don't always happen as they should, in royal minds and in royal emotions
that can get out of control.

"Something must be done" about what?

When did George VI say it and what did he intend?

Now to the specific background: the account I was given came from a person
I have no reason to distrust (but also had no cause to cross-examine) who
was present when Kennedy gave offense to George VI, and arranged for the
king to be called out of the room in order to avoid to the explosion of
anger that was evidently impending.

Please note ALL, that Peter, NOW that he has cooled down, does not reveal
the IDENTITY of that person. He told me I COULD ---- I DO know who it
WAS -- but I did not ---- because I have a cooler and wiser head than Peter
and knew it would have been TOTALLY inappropriate for me to DO so --
regardless of Peter's "PERMISSION".

That comes from INTELLIGENCE, WISDOM, GOOD MANNERS, PROTOCOL, SENSITIVITY
and GOOD JUDGMENT -- EVEN when severely PROVOKED.

A Lesson Peter Needs To Learn...

What happened elsewhere afterwards could only be described to me at a
remove, from hearsay and long after George VI was dead, and this may be
far from the full story, as I have suggested. The king might have had
prior discussions with Churchill, or he might have immediately called him
at 10 Downing Street before doing anything else. The conversation as
reported would certainly have had to be made known by the king to his
prime minister sooner rather than later. Then WSC might have spoken to
Roosevelt before the king did, or not - you can't know, I can't know, and
my informant may never have known either. But the version I heard is that
George VI personally spoke to FDR, and events unfolded subsequently in
line with his wishes - Kennedy left the UK, quickly, and a new ambassador
was sent from the USA.

Peter is quite correct. Kennedy could NOT possibly stay on as ambassador in
a status of _persona non grata_. In addition, FDR had a personal
relationship with King George VI for reasons I've previously detailed.

You can deride this to your heart's content, it will make no difference to
what did or did not happen, could or should not have happened, nearly 70
years ago.

Indeed Not...

"Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda" History is rarely if ever useful -- especially as
practiced by a tyro such as Briggs.

Stop blathering: the simple answer is "No". Whitlam's mistake was
assuming that the Governor-General did not have the power either. He
knew perfectly well that she did not have this power, either in
the UK or in Australia.

RED-HERRING STRAWMAN ALERT!

Briggs, the naïf, knowing he has been flummoxed, continually tries to shift
the argument to an entirely different case -- and set of facts -- concerning
Gough Whitlam and Sir John Kerr in 1975.

[...]

George VI was not purporting to exercise ANY power, sovereign,
reserve or otherwise, in asking FDR to exercise HIS presidential
power over HIS ambassadorial appointee. All he did was to say that he
would have nothing further to do with the man. If FDR has decided to
keep Kennedy in the post, I presume he would have stayed in the UK,
absurdly, as persona non grata in the court to which he was
accredited.

Clearly Impossible On The Face Of It.

Churchill had no fondness or use for Joe Kennedy either.

I would be intrigued to learn about this "court" of which you speak.

Here Briggs Simply Bares His Arse & Puts His Incorrigible Ignorance On
Starkly Remarkable Display.

The court of St James, the monarch's official residence in London, to
which all ambassadors to the UK are accredited. They take up their posts
on presenting their credentials to the head of state, not to the prime
minister - embassies are a matter of state and not only of government. The
disparity between Churchill and Roosevelt in this respect was one of the
reasons that the former, especially early on in his prime ministership,
relied on George VI for some communications with the president.

Precisely... Knowing that the King and FDR had already established a warm
personal relationship AND that FDR, the Eager Genealogist, would be
flattered by a personal call from the King...

For SOME COMMUNICATIONS.

George VI was FDR's 14th cousin, once removed -- at the least -- and there
may be closer relationships. Whereas, both George VI and Queen Elizabeth
were 13th cousins to ELEANOR -- somewhat closer. <g>

However, FDR trumped that with an 11th cousin, once removed relationship to
Queen Elizabeth. <g>

Which is NOT to say he KNEW all those facts.

One small amendment to my statement above: to be as pedantic as John
Briggs may require to understand, I should have written "George VI was not
purporting to exercise ANY power, sovereign, reserve or otherwise, beyond
the power of speech, in asking FDR to exercise HIS presidential power over
HIS ambassadorial appointee".

Peter Stewart

Fair Enough... But a purely cosmetic correction. Kings are allowed to
speak to Presidents -- other Heads of State.

Also A Good Story for FDR to tell Eleanor -- and over the martinis at
cocktail hour to his inner circle, especially Harry Hopkins -- who also
lived in the White House Residence -- "above the store" -- in a suite once
used for President Abraham Lincoln's study.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Experts Who Will Not Correct Errors...

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 30 aug 2007 07:09:33

Patently False...

Leo considers as a "Public Source" anything someone feeds him -- or he finds
displayed on the Internet by some other renegade.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.1516.1188449699.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

It is automitaclly [sic] built in the system that anmyone [sic] born in
1900 or after is _not_ displayed, unless the source is a public source.

Leo, Posting While Drunk Again?

DSH

Volucris

Re: Counting Descendants

Legg inn av Volucris » 30 aug 2007 07:24:42

DSH

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, [knip]

Being Dutch I often struggle for an appropriate English translation of
a word or a phrase.
My English/Dutch dictionary shows under 'amongst' the meanings:
onder, tussen, te midden van, met ons, evengoed als, behoren tot.

Ít is not strange to see that Leo van de Pas, being a born Dutchman
(and getting older ;-), occasionly slips back in a elder train of
thought. With the diverse meanings of 'amongst' I can see no fault
in his including Kirk Douglas amongst the descendants even though the
man is no actual blood descendant. Being married to one he is to be
found 'te midden van' (in de company of) etc. etc. I might have used
the phrase myselve.

Anyone who keeps insisting on a more correct descripton (or finding
faults in other one's) should firstly be beyond reproach himself. I
can't say that you are even near this category. Go change the world
and start with yourself, you're just nitpicking.

Hans Vogels


On 30 aug, 01:44, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Leo needs another lesson in humility....

I'm always happy to oblige, with my sturdy, well-seasoned 2 by 4....

Leo, intensely embarrassed at his gaffe, is trying to confuse the Gentle
Readers with bafflegab mixed with backing, filling and weasel wording -- in
order to make folks FORGET what he foolishly 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 Original Leo Version he wants us to FORGET about, as
he walks the cat back and throws out the red herrings.

Posted Verbatim:

"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 van de Pas
--------------------------------------------

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

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat opus

D. Spencer Hines

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 30 aug 2007 07:27:59

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:UzoBi.27793$4A1.7619@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:6DdBi.39537$S91.8644@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...

Peter Stewart wrote:

I have reported the gist of what I was told, whereas you have "prudently"
not given any rationale for dismissing this: all you keep repeating is
your consideration for deciding that a chain of events _should_ not have
happened, while offering none to the effect that it _could_ not have
happened. You misrepresent these as the same, while logically they are as
different as human beings are from ideals. If you wanted a phrase to
characterise the history of the British monarchy, you wouldn't go far
wrong with "How the rules were made and how they were broken".

Yes, Briggs is practicing "Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda" History.

Briggs also makes one of the CARDINAL mistakes of the very young and
inexperienced [as well as academics] that if they can CONCEPTUALIZE a
"LOGICAL" way that something must have happened then that is most probably
the way it DID happen.

It saves them [both the young and inexperienced and the academics] of
actually having to do the hard work of gathering, sifting, winnowing and
UNDERSTANDING the FACTS.

Pogue Gans, an academic, displays this same crippling failing -- in
abundance,

At the same time you patently knew nothing about the personal life and
character of George VI, when you suggested I might have him confused with
his own father. The rages of George VI are a matter of public record, and
his implacability towards people who had offended him is also not open to
debate: just recall the instance of his own elder brother, forced to live
abroad largely due to the humiliation that his wife would not be received
at court or accorded his rank of "Royal Highness" by the king. This was
not on advice from ministers. As for sovereigns acting without such
advice, the case of Edward VIII (who unlike his younger brother George VI
had been trained in kingcraft) is apposite: just a few years before 1940
he had publicly declared "Something must be done", without reference to
his ministers who were appalled at this breach of propriety. Things simply
don't always happen as they should, in royal minds and in royal emotions
that can get out of control.

"Something must be done" about what?

When did George VI say it and what did he intend?

Now to the specific background: the account I was given came from a person
I have no reason to distrust (but also had no cause to cross-examine) who
was present when Kennedy gave offense to George VI, and arranged for the
king to be called out of the room in order to avoid to the explosion of
anger that was evidently impending.

Please note ALL, that Peter, NOW that he has cooled down, does not reveal
the IDENTITY of that person. He told me I COULD ---- I DO know who it
WAS -- but I did not ---- because I have a cooler and wiser head than Peter
and knew it would have been TOTALLY inappropriate for me to DO so --
regardless of Peter's "PERMISSION".

That comes from INTELLIGENCE, WISDOM, GOOD MANNERS, PROTOCOL, SENSITIVITY
and GOOD JUDGMENT -- EVEN when severely PROVOKED.

A Lesson Peter Needs To Learn...

What happened elsewhere afterwards could only be described to me at a
remove, from hearsay and long after George VI was dead, and this may be
far from the full story, as I have suggested. The king might have had
prior discussions with Churchill, or he might have immediately called him
at 10 Downing Street before doing anything else. The conversation as
reported would certainly have had to be made known by the king to his
prime minister sooner rather than later. Then WSC might have spoken to
Roosevelt before the king did, or not - you can't know, I can't know, and
my informant may never have known either. But the version I heard is that
George VI personally spoke to FDR, and events unfolded subsequently in
line with his wishes - Kennedy left the UK, quickly, and a new ambassador
was sent from the USA.

Peter is quite correct. Kennedy could NOT possibly stay on as ambassador in
a status of _persona non grata_. In addition, FDR had a personal
relationship with King George VI for reasons I've previously detailed.

You can deride this to your heart's content, it will make no difference to
what did or did not happen, could or should not have happened, nearly 70
years ago.

Indeed Not...

"Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda" History is rarely if ever useful -- especially as
practiced by a tyro such as Briggs.

Stop blathering: the simple answer is "No". Whitlam's mistake was
assuming that the Governor-General did not have the power either. He
knew perfectly well that she did not have this power, either in
the UK or in Australia.

RED-HERRING STRAWMAN ALERT!

Briggs, the naïf, knowing he has been flummoxed, continually tries to shift
the argument to an entirely different case -- and set of facts -- concerning
Gough Whitlam and Sir John Kerr in 1975.

[...]

George VI was not purporting to exercise ANY power, sovereign,
reserve or otherwise, in asking FDR to exercise HIS presidential
power over HIS ambassadorial appointee. All he did was to say that he
would have nothing further to do with the man. If FDR has decided to
keep Kennedy in the post, I presume he would have stayed in the UK,
absurdly, as persona non grata in the court to which he was
accredited.

Clearly Impossible On The Face Of It.

Churchill had no fondness or use for Joe Kennedy either.

I would be intrigued to learn about this "court" of which you speak.

Here Briggs Simply Bares His Arse & Puts His Incorrigible Ignorance On
Starkly Remarkable Display.

The court of St James, the monarch's official residence in London, to
which all ambassadors to the UK are accredited. They take up their posts
on presenting their credentials to the head of state, not to the prime
minister - embassies are a matter of state and not only of government. The
disparity between Churchill and Roosevelt in this respect was one of the
reasons that the former, especially early on in his prime ministership,
relied on George VI for some communications with the president.

For SOME COMMUNICATIONS...

Precisely... Knowing that the King and FDR had already established a warm
personal relationship AND that FDR, the Eager Genealogist, would be
flattered by a personal call from the King...

For SOME COMMUNICATIONS.

George VI was FDR's 14th cousin, once removed -- at the least -- and there
may be closer relationships. Whereas, both George VI and Queen Elizabeth
were 13th cousins to ELEANOR -- somewhat closer. <g>

However, FDR trumped that with an 11th cousin, once removed relationship to
Queen Elizabeth. <g>

Which is NOT to say he KNEW all those facts.

One small amendment to my statement above: to be as pedantic as John
Briggs may require to understand, I should have written "George VI was not
purporting to exercise ANY power, sovereign, reserve or otherwise, beyond
the power of speech, in asking FDR to exercise HIS presidential power over
HIS ambassadorial appointee".

Peter Stewart

Fair Enough... But a purely cosmetic correction. Kings are allowed to
speak to Presidents -- other Heads of State.

Also A Good Story for FDR to tell Eleanor -- and over the martinis at
cocktail hour to his inner circle, especially Harry Hopkins, his closest
advisor on foreign policy -- who also lived in the White House Residence --
"above the store" -- in a suite once used for President Abraham Lincoln's
study.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Counting Descendants

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 30 aug 2007 07:38:52

Leo needs another lesson in humility....

I'm always happy to oblige, with my sturdy, well-seasoned [rhetorical] 2 by
4....

"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 van de Pas

All the others Leo names above [and below] ARE allegedly descendants of
someone in the Stuyvesant Family -- but NOT Kirk Douglas.

In one moment of unguarded candor, Leo actually confessed he put Kirk there
because he is MORE FAMOUS than Michael Douglas.

Hilarious!

If Leo claims to be a Genealogist and writes in ENGLISH he should know what
a DESCENDANT is.

Leo, intensely embarrassed at his gaffe, is trying to confuse the Gentle
Readers with bafflegab mixed with backing, filling and weasel wording -- in
order to make folks FORGET what he foolishly 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 Original Leo Version he wants us to FORGET about, as
he walks the cat back and throws out the red herrings.

Posted Verbatim:

"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 van de Pas
--------------------------------------------

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

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat opus

Peter Stewart

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 30 aug 2007 08:02:22

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:RatBi.56$YE3.401@eagle.america.net...
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:UzoBi.27793$4A1.7619@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

[to John Briggs:]
At the same time you patently knew nothing about the personal life and
character of George VI, when you suggested I might have him confused with
his own father. The rages of George VI are a matter of public record, and
his implacability towards people who had offended him is also not open to
debate: just recall the instance of his own elder brother, forced to live
abroad largely due to the humiliation that his wife would not be received
at court or accorded his rank of "Royal Highness" by the king. This was
not on advice from ministers. As for sovereigns acting without such
advice, the case of Edward VIII (who unlike his younger brother George VI
had been trained in kingcraft) is apposite: just a few years before 1940
he had publicly declared "Something must be done", without reference to
his ministers who were appalled at this breach of propriety. Things
simply
don't always happen as they should, in royal minds and in royal emotions
that can get out of control.

"Something must be done" about what?

When did George VI say it and what did he intend?

This was said by Edward VIII, not by George VI - the Wikipedia article on
Edward at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VII ... ed_Kingdom
says:

"Edward caused unease in government circles with actions that were
interpreted as interference in political matters. On visiting the depressed
coal mining villages in South Wales the King's observation that "something
must be done" for the unemployed coal miners was seen as directly critical
of the Government, though it has never been clear whether the King had
anything in particular in mind. Government ministers were also reluctant to
send confidential documents and state papers to Fort Belvedere because it
was clear that Edward was paying little attention to them and because of the
perceived danger that Mrs. Simpson and other house guests might see them".

This is maybe not deliberately ambiguous, but I like the idea that the
Government ministers thought Edward was paying too little attention to
themselves, and were afraid that Mrs Simpson or another house guest might
spy one of them and make off with him. You enver know, in those circles....

Peter Stewart

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»