Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
The Highlander

Re: Ping De: "D. Spencer Hines"

Legg inn av The Highlander » 05 sep 2007 03:31:40

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:24:59 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

"Deirdre Sholto Douglas" <finch.enteract@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:46DD6757.7BDB3F01@sbcglobal.net...


Peter Stewart wrote:

I sometimes can't make out odd words.

Why not? Can you make them out if you read the
sentence twice?

No, this is the result of a brain impairment that was acquired in the 1970s.

When I falter on a word, usually a common one, it's a waste of time trying
to resolve the seemingly meaningless jumble into a recognisable series of
letters. I just guess.

My reading and learning processes when I recovered from a period of total
illiteracy were different from before.

Many here have never even gotten *that* far.

O'Hara! Write something with two syllables or more in it!
Peter Stewart



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

Val Adams

Re: Ping De: "D. Spencer Hines"

Legg inn av Val Adams » 05 sep 2007 03:48:24

The Highlander wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:24:59 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

"Deirdre Sholto Douglas" <finch.enteract@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:46DD6757.7BDB3F01@sbcglobal.net...

Peter Stewart wrote:

I sometimes can't make out odd words.
Why not? Can you make them out if you read the
sentence twice?
No, this is the result of a brain impairment that was acquired in the 1970s.

When I falter on a word, usually a common one, it's a waste of time trying
to resolve the seemingly meaningless jumble into a recognisable series of
letters. I just guess.

My reading and learning processes when I recovered from a period of total
illiteracy were different from before.

Many here have never even gotten *that* far.

O'Hara! Write something with two syllables or more in it!
Peter Stewart



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

"temperamental inexactitude?"

(I xposted, I xposted, nyaah,nyaah,nyaah!)
On a more relevant note, is it possible the common words were habitually
'read' as gestalt forms to begin with? Maybe it was only the link to the
picture that was lost and you were seeing the letter-groups for the
first time AS letters?
Fascinating if perhaps slightly horrible experience.
Val

Tim

Re: Most Villainous Mediaeval Villain

Legg inn av Tim » 05 sep 2007 03:50:27

On Sep 4, 10:21 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Ivan 'The Dread' or Ivan 'The Dreaded' is one translation I've seen.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1188958175.553682.143020@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...



As Spencer correctly noticed, "Terrible" is not a precise translation.
"Grozny" means rather "Terrifying". Personally, I like
"Terrible" (Ugasny) more because his reign _was_ terrible both in its
actions and in its consequences: by his actions (including massive
resettlements and years of terror) Ivan managed to pave the way to the
Times of Trouble.

Interestingly enough, he used the same logic in his letters to Prince
Kurbsky (his former close friend who had been smart enough to escape
to Poland) as Henry VIII used in his correspondence with one of _his_
refugees: Why did you run away? If you are not guilty of treason, you
should not be afraid of an execution because after the death you will
go to Heaven as an innocent victim. Surely, the great minds were
thinking alike. He also had 6 wives and was rather well educated so
one may draw interesting parallels. :-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Grozny, the capital of Chechnya in Russia, has been translated into
English as "fearsome" or "terrible", and this is probably the
equivalent of "dreaded". Some of the native Chechens, especially the
ones that are rebelling, don't care for this Russian name and would
prefer something else.

Genghis Khan was cruel but he was shrewd and competent. His cruelty
was meant to intimidate or to eliminate his opponents. He was also
able to inspire loyalty among his supporters. Ivan in his later years
was considered to be somewhat paranoid and mentally ill. (Though maybe
there was some justification for his paranoia). Some of his cruelty
seemed to be wanton though. He evidently beat his daughter-in-law,
causing her to miscarry. Her husband Ivan (Ivan's son) was upset about
this and remonstrated with his father. Ivan became violently angry,
struck his son with his staff, and killed him, probably accidentally.
Ivan's Russian nobles feared him. Later on Ivan evidently tried to
rape another daughter-in-law, probably incurring the secret enmity of
her brother, Boris Godunov, who became Czar after Ivan's death. Ivan
does seem to have had an uncontrollable temper and may have been
mentally unbalanced.

Peter Stewart

Re: Ping De: "D. Spencer Hines"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 05 sep 2007 04:13:58

"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:k05sd3p6s9orn3sribt0sugb974e3ensc8@4ax.com...
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:24:59 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

<snip>

My reading and learning processes when I recovered from a period of total
illiteracy were different from before.

Many here have never even gotten *that* far.

Well, everyone "used to be illiterate" once, in infancy - Hines was
presumably not born reading. I simply had to learn twice, in different ways,
just as some people after accidents have to learn a second time how to walk,
with restricted movement in the legs.

I can't imagine what sort of stunted mind would find this a cause of guilt,
or amusement. The unimaginable, unutterable Hines is trying to demonstrate
it for us, but all we see is his desperation to cover his own
embarrassments, rather than any intelligible thought.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Most Villainous Mediaeval Villain

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 sep 2007 04:14:03

Dear fellow Listers,
If We go for the most villianous medieval
Villian , it couldn`t be a ruler for in medival usage a villien was a peasant.
So We probably have to make do with Wat Tyler or perhaps Robin of the Wode
or William Wallace. The Russian Princes had numerous violent homicidal
individual`s among them, likewise The Wallachian and Moldavian rulers of pre
-unification of Rumania had many. Then there in Chingis Khan and Timur the Lame and a
Islamic Indian Ruler who called himself the World Incinerator. Richard Coeur
de lion of England and Salah- ad- Din of Syria could be equally savage to
their opponents. Edward I of England vacilliated between Killing machine and
negociator. Phillipe IV le Bel of France was so known because He was was
handsome , not because He was just, not a back stabber (figuratively or possibly
literally), because He was. William Comyn, Earl of Buchan was not above
putting political opponents and their families to the sword, nor were his
descendants and most people in similar powerful positions tended to act the same way.
Ahmed I, Sultan of Turkey was merciful because He didn`t execute all his
brothers. He allowed the Idiot Mustafa to live. For several generations when a
Sultan took the throne He had all his brothers executed to cut down on the chance
of rebellions.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



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

Peter Stewart

Re: Ping De: "D. Spencer Hines"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 05 sep 2007 04:25:48

"Val Adams" <va_adams@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:YNoDi.31715$RX.20469@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...

<snip>

On a more relevant note, is it possible the common words were habitually
'read' as gestalt forms to begin with? Maybe it was only the link to the
picture that was lost and you were seeing the letter-groups for the first
time AS letters?

I think it's more-or-less the other way round, Val - I used to be able to
spell out words readily, before I was injured, but now I tend to recognise
them only as whole units. I am the world's worst proof-reader, because if I
understand any word in its context I usually can't tell when it is
misspelled. This is one of the reasons I don't try for consistency with the
names of medieval people. In speaking I sometimes can't form words
accurately, stammering occasionally by adding new syllables instead of a
repetition of the proper ones - but in writing or in speech there is no
pattern to the words this happens with.

Peter Stewart

Val Adams

Re: Ping De: "D. Spencer Hines"

Legg inn av Val Adams » 05 sep 2007 05:13:54

Peter Stewart wrote:
"Val Adams" <va_adams@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:YNoDi.31715$RX.20469@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...

snip

On a more relevant note, is it possible the common words were habitually
'read' as gestalt forms to begin with? Maybe it was only the link to the
picture that was lost and you were seeing the letter-groups for the first
time AS letters?

I think it's more-or-less the other way round, Val - I used to be able to
spell out words readily, before I was injured, but now I tend to recognise
them only as whole units. I am the world's worst proof-reader, because if I
understand any word in its context I usually can't tell when it is
misspelled. This is one of the reasons I don't try for consistency with the
names of medieval people. In speaking I sometimes can't form words
accurately, stammering occasionally by adding new syllables instead of a
repetition of the proper ones - but in writing or in speech there is no
pattern to the words this happens with.

Peter Stewart


heck, another facile theory bites the dust. I was tying it loosely to a

sometimes observation with kids, that they seem to get the saying and
spelling of 'articles' in speech last.

I suppose you have run across that silly 'joke' paragraph that was
floating around for a while which bollixed up the spelling something
awful and yet most folks were able to more or less read it. Depended
entirely on context and word patterns, so I suppose it would have worked
as well for you as for anyone;chuckle; perhaps better, you now having
had so much practice at it!

I must say if you had not mentioned I would not have noticed any hitches
in your getalong. Still dont, for that matter. I dont know that
consistency in medieval or even much later names is a reasonable test,
though, spelling conventions are so amorphous, not to mention the joy of
typos on the net. Fingers running ahead of brains a lot!

re patterns, oh, dont mind me, I am always looking for them;suspect i
have an overdose of right-brain.

Val

Peter Stewart

Re: Byzantine Traditions

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 05 sep 2007 06:45:21

On Sep 5, 7:22 am, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
Dear Don,

Many thanks for this.One more funny thing the necrology for Eirene
the daughter is in Speyer Cathedral, but ES gives she was buried
in Kloster Lorsch.

Her second husband, the German King Philipp, was reburied in Speyer
cathedral in 1213 (originally buried in Bamberg, where he was murdered
in 1208). Other members of his family were also buried and remembered
at Speyer.

Peter Stewart

John Briggs

Re: I Remember Diana, Princess Of Wales

Legg inn av John Briggs » 05 sep 2007 10:59:39

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
"Turenne" wrote
DSH wrote:

Winston Churchill, as a grandson of the 7th Duke of Marlborough,
was an Honourable, or not?

He was a Right Honorable as an MP, right?

Nearly right: Churchill was the son of Lord Randolph Churchill who in
turn was a younger son of The Duke of Marlborough.

Yes, I understand.

Sons of younger sons of dukes aren't 'Hons'.

Got It. But his father, Lord Randolph Churchill WAS an Hon., from
birth, but not THE Hon.?

Younger sons of dukes aren't 'Hons', they are 'Lords' - again, that is just
a courtesy title.

A Right Hon. is a member of the Privy Council and is also the correct
way to address barons, viscounts and earls. So yes, an MP may be a
Right Hon. but only if he is a member of the Privy Council.

How does one officially address Marquises/Marquesses in speech?

My Lord Marquess

Styled in writing: The Most Hon. the Marquess of X

(Except for the Marquess of Lothian, who wishes to be styled The Rt Hon.
Michael Ancram, QC, MP - for some reason.)

How does one officially address baronets and knights in speech?

You can't go far wrong with "Sir John" :-)

But Winston was reportedly a member of the Privy Council from, what,
1907 -- in the reign of Edward VII?

So, from that date he was a Right Hon.?

When an MP, A, refers to another MP, B, as "The Right Hon." that
means that B is a member of the PC?

What is an "ordinary" MP -- who is NOT a member of the PC -- called?

By his name, if he is lucky...

In the third person, usually by another MP, "The Honourable Member for X".
--
John Briggs

SomersetSue

Re: Most Villainous Mediaeval Villain

Legg inn av SomersetSue » 05 sep 2007 11:08:44

If looking for a medieval nasty who wasn't royal then Robert de
Belleme is a good candidate.
He was sadistic and cruel. He enjoyed torturing captives and is said
to have gouged out the eyes of his own young godson with his bare
hands when the child's father annoyed him.

He's also an ancestor of a lot of people who know their medieval
ancestry including me.

Sue

John Briggs

Re: 'Fitz' In Genealogy & History

Legg inn av John Briggs » 05 sep 2007 11:10:23

Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:

The Voice of Reason Speaks Up.

All those with FITZ in their names are NOT Royal Bastards, as
"Normandy" would have it.

I was under the impression that a royal bastard (in England)
was styled "Fitzroy"...and even then it only meant "son of"
or "descendant of" a king. It was merely a way of acknow-
ledging paternity while still protecting the successionary
right of legitimate heirs. (Charles II might have abused the
privilege a bit though.)

Charles II only used "FitzRoy" for one of his families. The others had
different surnames.
--
John Briggs

John Briggs

Re: Hilarious Hines' Comprehensive Abilities

Legg inn av John Briggs » 05 sep 2007 11:13:11

Weatherlawyer wrote:
The protocol with netiquette is to just ignore asses of his ilk. But I
feel that with the parlous state of what passes for democracy in the
world's most dangerous superpower, doing that is not enough.

Whilst that is perfectly true, I nevertheless deprecate the erroneous use of
"ilk".
:-)
--
John Briggs

Jan Böhme

Re: Most Villainous Mediaeval Villain

Legg inn av Jan Böhme » 05 sep 2007 11:29:10

On 5 Sep, 04:50, Tim <A.Windem...@gmail.com> wrote:

Genghis Khan was cruel but he was shrewd and competent. His cruelty
was meant to intimidate or to eliminate his opponents. He was also
able to inspire loyalty among his supporters.

Right. He was an imperialist who expanded his empire by terror
warfare, but who was a very wise, tolerant and just ruler for his
times once the territories were included in his empire.

Jan Böhme

Peter Stewart

Courtesy titles and styles [was: Re: I Remember Diana, Princ

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 05 sep 2007 11:37:38

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:f6vDi.35842$ph7.16323@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
"Turenne" wrote
DSH wrote:

Winston Churchill, as a grandson of the 7th Duke of Marlborough,
was an Honourable, or not?

He was a Right Honorable as an MP, right?

Nearly right: Churchill was the son of Lord Randolph Churchill who in
turn was a younger son of The Duke of Marlborough.

Yes, I understand.

Sons of younger sons of dukes aren't 'Hons'.

Got It. But his father, Lord Randolph Churchill WAS an Hon., from
birth, but not THE Hon.?

Younger sons of dukes aren't 'Hons', they are 'Lords' - again, that is
just a courtesy title.

Lord Randolph Churchill wasn't born the son of a duke, but the grandson -
his father was marquess of Blandford, by courtesy, at the time. As the
younger son of a marquess, he was called Lord Randolph, but this is really a
courtesy style rather than a courtesy title like his father's in 1849. If he
had appeared in the dock as an accused criminal - that was far from an
impossibility with him - the style would have been dropped and he would not
have been called "Lord", as this was not a title.

A Right Hon. is a member of the Privy Council and is also the correct
way to address barons, viscounts and earls. So yes, an MP may be a
Right Hon. but only if he is a member of the Privy Council.

How does one officially address Marquises/Marquesses in speech?

My Lord Marquess

Since marquess is a title of rank and not an office, one does not
"officially" address such a specimen. I should think most of them nowadays
have rarely if ever heard "my lord marquess", unless from a pompous social
climber to two. "Lord Winchester", "Lord Hertford", or whatever the
designation happens to be, would be the more usual form of spoken address.

Peter Stewart

Normandy

Re: 'Fitz' In Genealogy & History

Legg inn av Normandy » 05 sep 2007 13:30:51

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
oGmDi.251$YE3.655@eagle.america.net...
The Voice of Reason Speaks Up.

All those with FITZ in their names are NOT Royal Bastards, as "Normandy"
would have it.

DSH

Not all using Fitz were royal bastards but if you are related to the late

Diana, Princess of Wales she was descended from at least 6 royal bastards.

Ws she yur cousin as I have seen said here?

Sinclair

a.spencer3

Re: I Remember Diana, Princess Of Wales

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 05 sep 2007 14:23:43

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:f6vDi.35842$ph7.16323@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
"Turenne" wrote
DSH wrote:

Winston Churchill, as a grandson of the 7th Duke of Marlborough,
was an Honourable, or not?

He was a Right Honorable as an MP, right?

Nearly right: Churchill was the son of Lord Randolph Churchill who in
turn was a younger son of The Duke of Marlborough.

Yes, I understand.

Sons of younger sons of dukes aren't 'Hons'.

Got It. But his father, Lord Randolph Churchill WAS an Hon., from
birth, but not THE Hon.?

Younger sons of dukes aren't 'Hons', they are 'Lords' - again, that is
just
a courtesy title.

A Right Hon. is a member of the Privy Council and is also the correct
way to address barons, viscounts and earls. So yes, an MP may be a
Right Hon. but only if he is a member of the Privy Council.

How does one officially address Marquises/Marquesses in speech?

My Lord Marquess

Styled in writing: The Most Hon. the Marquess of X

(Except for the Marquess of Lothian, who wishes to be styled The Rt Hon.
Michael Ancram, QC, MP - for some reason.)

How does one officially address baronets and knights in speech?

You can't go far wrong with "Sir John" :-)


We have quite a few around here.

They're usually 'Ted' or 'Fred'.

Surreyman

a.spencer3

Re: I Remember Diana, Princess Of Wales

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 05 sep 2007 14:23:43

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:f6vDi.35842$ph7.16323@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
"Turenne" wrote
DSH wrote:

Winston Churchill, as a grandson of the 7th Duke of Marlborough,
was an Honourable, or not?

He was a Right Honorable as an MP, right?

Nearly right: Churchill was the son of Lord Randolph Churchill who in
turn was a younger son of The Duke of Marlborough.

Yes, I understand.

Sons of younger sons of dukes aren't 'Hons'.

Got It. But his father, Lord Randolph Churchill WAS an Hon., from
birth, but not THE Hon.?

Younger sons of dukes aren't 'Hons', they are 'Lords' - again, that is
just
a courtesy title.

A Right Hon. is a member of the Privy Council and is also the correct
way to address barons, viscounts and earls. So yes, an MP may be a
Right Hon. but only if he is a member of the Privy Council.

How does one officially address Marquises/Marquesses in speech?

My Lord Marquess

Styled in writing: The Most Hon. the Marquess of X

(Except for the Marquess of Lothian, who wishes to be styled The Rt Hon.
Michael Ancram, QC, MP - for some reason.)

How does one officially address baronets and knights in speech?

You can't go far wrong with "Sir John" :-)


We have quite a few around here.

They're usually 'Ted' or 'Fred'.

Surreyman

a.spencer3

Re: I Remember Diana, Princess Of Wales

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 05 sep 2007 14:23:43

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:f6vDi.35842$ph7.16323@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
"Turenne" wrote
DSH wrote:

Winston Churchill, as a grandson of the 7th Duke of Marlborough,
was an Honourable, or not?

He was a Right Honorable as an MP, right?

Nearly right: Churchill was the son of Lord Randolph Churchill who in
turn was a younger son of The Duke of Marlborough.

Yes, I understand.

Sons of younger sons of dukes aren't 'Hons'.

Got It. But his father, Lord Randolph Churchill WAS an Hon., from
birth, but not THE Hon.?

Younger sons of dukes aren't 'Hons', they are 'Lords' - again, that is
just
a courtesy title.

A Right Hon. is a member of the Privy Council and is also the correct
way to address barons, viscounts and earls. So yes, an MP may be a
Right Hon. but only if he is a member of the Privy Council.

How does one officially address Marquises/Marquesses in speech?

My Lord Marquess

Styled in writing: The Most Hon. the Marquess of X

(Except for the Marquess of Lothian, who wishes to be styled The Rt Hon.
Michael Ancram, QC, MP - for some reason.)

How does one officially address baronets and knights in speech?

You can't go far wrong with "Sir John" :-)


We have quite a few around here.

They're usually 'Ted' or 'Fred'.

Surreyman

a.spencer3

Re: I Remember Diana, Princess Of Wales

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 05 sep 2007 14:23:43

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:f6vDi.35842$ph7.16323@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
"Turenne" wrote
DSH wrote:

Winston Churchill, as a grandson of the 7th Duke of Marlborough,
was an Honourable, or not?

He was a Right Honorable as an MP, right?

Nearly right: Churchill was the son of Lord Randolph Churchill who in
turn was a younger son of The Duke of Marlborough.

Yes, I understand.

Sons of younger sons of dukes aren't 'Hons'.

Got It. But his father, Lord Randolph Churchill WAS an Hon., from
birth, but not THE Hon.?

Younger sons of dukes aren't 'Hons', they are 'Lords' - again, that is
just
a courtesy title.

A Right Hon. is a member of the Privy Council and is also the correct
way to address barons, viscounts and earls. So yes, an MP may be a
Right Hon. but only if he is a member of the Privy Council.

How does one officially address Marquises/Marquesses in speech?

My Lord Marquess

Styled in writing: The Most Hon. the Marquess of X

(Except for the Marquess of Lothian, who wishes to be styled The Rt Hon.
Michael Ancram, QC, MP - for some reason.)

How does one officially address baronets and knights in speech?

You can't go far wrong with "Sir John" :-)


We have quite a few around here.

They're usually 'Ted' or 'Fred'.

Surreyman

Deirdre Sholto Douglas

Re: 'Fitz' In Genealogy & History

Legg inn av Deirdre Sholto Douglas » 05 sep 2007 15:17:52

John Briggs wrote:
Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:

The Voice of Reason Speaks Up.

All those with FITZ in their names are NOT Royal Bastards, as
"Normandy" would have it.

I was under the impression that a royal bastard (in England)
was styled "Fitzroy"...and even then it only meant "son of"
or "descendant of" a king. It was merely a way of acknow-
ledging paternity while still protecting the successionary
right of legitimate heirs. (Charles II might have abused the
privilege a bit though.)

Charles II only used "FitzRoy" for one of his families. The others had
different surnames.

Aye, for six of his wee bastards as I recall...and used
Fitzcharles for three others (out of Liz Killigrew and
Catherine Pegge respectively)...which left five bastards
to run under different names. No other English monarch
even came close to his totals, hence my comment about
abusing the privilege.

Deirdre

Deirdre Sholto Douglas

Re: 'Fitz' In Genealogy & History

Legg inn av Deirdre Sholto Douglas » 05 sep 2007 15:26:33

Normandy wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
oGmDi.251$YE3.655@eagle.america.net...
The Voice of Reason Speaks Up.

All those with FITZ in their names are NOT Royal Bastards, as "Normandy"
would have it.

DSH

Not all using Fitz were royal bastards but if you are related to the late
Diana, Princess of Wales she was descended from at least 6 royal bastards.

Dig deep enough and you'll find a _lot_ of peers are descended
from bastards (royal or otherwise), as are much of the general
population. So what?

Deirdre

Normandy

Re: 'Fitz' In Genealogy & History

Legg inn av Normandy » 05 sep 2007 16:13:56

Not all using Fitz were royal bastards but if you are related to the late
Diana, Princess of Wales she was descended from at least 6 royal
bastards.

Dig deep enough and you'll find a _lot_ of peers are descended
from bastards (royal or otherwise), as are much of the general
population. So what?

Deirdre

There is an old saying 'a man is only sure of his mother' I am sure that
some where along the line we all have bastard blood.

Sinclair

William Black

Re: I Remember Diana, Princess Of Wales

Legg inn av William Black » 05 sep 2007 16:29:36

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:z5yDi.44808$S91.18321@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:f6vDi.35842$ph7.16323@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...

How does one officially address Marquises/Marquesses in speech?

My Lord Marquess

Styled in writing: The Most Hon. the Marquess of X

Or

Dear Fred...

It depends who you are.




How does one officially address baronets and knights in speech?

You can't go far wrong with "Sir John" :-)


We have quite a few around here.
They're usually 'Ted' or 'Fred'.

My experience as well.

Most people with knighthoods don't use them, or even like using them.

It's like people with PhD's being called doctor.

They're useful for booking tables in restaurants, and that's about all..

--
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.

Gjest

Re: Revell and Comberford

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 sep 2007 16:41:10

On 4 Sep., 16:55, Maytr...@aol.com wrote:
As I understand it Mary Comberford was the daughter Thomas Comberford of
Comberford, Staffordshire and his wife Dorothy Fitzherbert . Thomas Comberford
was the son of John Comberford and Joan Parle. Dorothy Fitzherbert was the
daughter of Raulff Fitzherbert of Norberye and his wife, Elizabeth Marshall of
Upton in Leicestershire.


Rose

Strengthening your note about what seems to be the general view that
Mary Revell was the daughter of Thomas Comberford and Dorothy (nee
Fitzherbert) is the fact that Mary Comberford, wife of Walter Harcourt
(ff 1570s) is said to be the daughter of Humphrey.

I will do some further digging and hopefully find a primary or other
reliable source to place Mrs Revell in the Comberford family.

Cheers, Michael

D. Spencer Hines

Re: 'Fitz' In Genealogy & History

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 05 sep 2007 17:36:02

No, not true.

Henry I had more Royal Bastards than Charles II.

Charles II, however, had ZERO legitimate children and was therefore
succeeded by his brother, the Duke of York, who became James II.

James II also had more bastards than his brother Charles II. Many of them
did not survive to adulthood.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Deirdre Sholto Douglas" <finch.enteract@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:46DEBA8F.AEF817EA@sbcglobal.net...
John Briggs wrote:

Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:

The Voice of Reason Speaks Up.

All those with FITZ in their names are NOT Royal Bastards, as
"Normandy" would have it.

I was under the impression that a royal bastard (in England)
was styled "Fitzroy"...and even then it only meant "son of"
or "descendant of" a king. It was merely a way of acknow-
ledging paternity while still protecting the successionary
right of legitimate heirs. (Charles II might have abused the
privilege a bit though.)

Charles II only used "FitzRoy" for one of his families. The others had
different surnames.

Aye, for six of his wee bastards as I recall...and used
Fitzcharles for three others (out of Liz Killigrew and
Catherine Pegge respectively)...which left five bastards
to run under different names. No other English monarch
even came close to his totals, hence my comment about
abusing the privilege.

Deirdre

The Highlander

Re: Ping De: "D. Spencer Hines"

Legg inn av The Highlander » 05 sep 2007 17:58:50

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 03:25:48 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

"Val Adams" <va_adams@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:YNoDi.31715$RX.20469@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...

snip

On a more relevant note, is it possible the common words were habitually
'read' as gestalt forms to begin with? Maybe it was only the link to the
picture that was lost and you were seeing the letter-groups for the first
time AS letters?

I think it's more-or-less the other way round, Val - I used to be able to
spell out words readily, before I was injured, but now I tend to recognise
them only as whole units. I am the world's worst proof-reader, because if I
understand any word in its context I usually can't tell when it is
misspelled. This is one of the reasons I don't try for consistency with the
names of medieval people. In speaking I sometimes can't form words
accurately, stammering occasionally by adding new syllables instead of a
repetition of the proper ones - but in writing or in speech there is no
pattern to the words this happens with.

Peter Stewart

I can relate to that, having gotten into the habit of using Google as

a spell checker for words I would never have hesitated over a couple
of years ago... Some just don't look "right" from time to time.

Stress? Fear of aging?

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

The Highlander

Re: Ping De: "D. Spencer Hines"

Legg inn av The Highlander » 05 sep 2007 18:00:59

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 04:13:54 GMT, Val Adams <va_adams@pacbell.net>
wrote:

Peter Stewart wrote:
"Val Adams" <va_adams@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:YNoDi.31715$RX.20469@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...

snip

On a more relevant note, is it possible the common words were habitually
'read' as gestalt forms to begin with? Maybe it was only the link to the
picture that was lost and you were seeing the letter-groups for the first
time AS letters?

I think it's more-or-less the other way round, Val - I used to be able to
spell out words readily, before I was injured, but now I tend to recognise
them only as whole units. I am the world's worst proof-reader, because if I
understand any word in its context I usually can't tell when it is
misspelled. This is one of the reasons I don't try for consistency with the
names of medieval people. In speaking I sometimes can't form words
accurately, stammering occasionally by adding new syllables instead of a
repetition of the proper ones - but in writing or in speech there is no
pattern to the words this happens with.

Peter Stewart


heck, another facile theory bites the dust. I was tying it loosely to a
sometimes observation with kids, that they seem to get the saying and
spelling of 'articles' in speech last.

I suppose you have run across that silly 'joke' paragraph that was
floating around for a while which bollixed up the spelling something
awful and yet most folks were able to more or less read it. Depended
entirely on context and word patterns, so I suppose it would have worked
as well for you as for anyone;chuckle; perhaps better, you now having
had so much practice at it!

I must say if you had not mentioned I would not have noticed any hitches
in your getalong. Still dont, for that matter. I dont know that
consistency in medieval or even much later names is a reasonable test,
though, spelling conventions are so amorphous, not to mention the joy of
typos on the net. Fingers running ahead of brains a lot!

re patterns, oh, dont mind me, I am always looking for them;suspect i
have an overdose of right-brain.

Val

That theory, left-brain; right-brain; has just been debunked by some
American researchers, so you can relax!

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

Deirdre Sholto Douglas

Re: 'Fitz' In Genealogy & History

Legg inn av Deirdre Sholto Douglas » 05 sep 2007 19:01:03

Normandy wrote:

Not all using Fitz were royal bastards but if you are related to the late
Diana, Princess of Wales she was descended from at least 6 royal
bastards.

Dig deep enough and you'll find a _lot_ of peers are descended
from bastards (royal or otherwise), as are much of the general
population. So what?

Deirdre

There is an old saying 'a man is only sure of his mother' I am sure that
some where along the line we all have bastard blood.

"'Tis a wise bairn kens his father."

As to "we all have bastard blood", what's the point you're trying
to make about it? If we all have it, which I don't doubt, then it's
hardly a singular or defining characteristic, is it?

Deirdre

Val Adams

Re: Ping De: "D. Spencer Hines"

Legg inn av Val Adams » 05 sep 2007 19:22:52

The Highlander wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 04:13:54 GMT, Val Adams <va_adams@pacbell.net
wrote:

[...]

re patterns, oh, dont mind me, I am always looking for them;suspect i
have an overdose of right-brain.

Val

That theory, left-brain; right-brain; has just been debunked by some
American researchers, so you can relax!

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

Then, I am always looking for patterns with no good reason whatsoever?
Not sure that is more comforting....

The Highlander

Re: Ping De: "D. Spencer Hines"

Legg inn av The Highlander » 05 sep 2007 20:14:11

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 03:13:58 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:k05sd3p6s9orn3sribt0sugb974e3ensc8@4ax.com...
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:24:59 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

snip

My reading and learning processes when I recovered from a period of total
illiteracy were different from before.

Many here have never even gotten *that* far.

Well, everyone "used to be illiterate" once, in infancy - Hines was
presumably not born reading. I simply had to learn twice, in different ways,
just as some people after accidents have to learn a second time how to walk,
with restricted movement in the legs.

I can't imagine what sort of stunted mind would find this a cause of guilt,
or amusement. The unimaginable, unutterable Hines is trying to demonstrate
it for us, but all we see is his desperation to cover his own
embarrassments, rather than any intelligible thought.

Peter Stewart

It's his rather sad need to be taken seriously, given his less than

exalted career. Doing it at the expense of other people is of course
the mark of the juvenile bully. He's very typical of a child from a
high-achieving family who can never catch up and so reverts to
embarrassing and punishing his parents in revenge.

My family were big achievers, sometimes at an international level. A
psychiatrist once told me that my facility with languages may be a
subconscious response, as it was the one area in which my family
achievers had little or no skill, thereby giving me an "edge" and
surprisingly, a fair degree of respect from the family, especially
when they heard me chattering in some weird language to people wearing
turbans or robes.

It is for these reasons that I have a degree of sympathy for Mr.
Hines; something which angered one or two of his compatriots, who
accused me of being too friendly to him.

Like most Scots, I am unable to resist explaining Scottish oddities to
sincere enquirers and Mr. Hines hooked me with a request for more
details after I posted a story about how the teenagers of two villages
in the Highlands had massacred each other, with only one survivor; a
girl, who must have killed the last boy with her knife. They were a
rough lot in the Highlands in those days.

Actually, on reflection, nothing much has changed.


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

Vince

Re: Ping De: "D. Spencer Hines"

Legg inn av Vince » 05 sep 2007 20:32:02

The Highlander wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 03:13:58 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:k05sd3p6s9orn3sribt0sugb974e3ensc8@4ax.com...
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:24:59 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
snip

My reading and learning processes when I recovered from a period of total
illiteracy were different from before.
Many here have never even gotten *that* far.
Well, everyone "used to be illiterate" once, in infancy - Hines was
presumably not born reading. I simply had to learn twice, in different ways,
just as some people after accidents have to learn a second time how to walk,
with restricted movement in the legs.

I can't imagine what sort of stunted mind would find this a cause of guilt,
or amusement. The unimaginable, unutterable Hines is trying to demonstrate
it for us, but all we see is his desperation to cover his own
embarrassments, rather than any intelligible thought.

Peter Stewart

It's his rather sad need to be taken seriously, given his less than
exalted career. Doing it at the expense of other people is of course
the mark of the juvenile bully. He's very typical of a child from a
high-achieving family who can never catch up and so reverts to
embarrassing and punishing his parents in revenge.

My family were big achievers, sometimes at an international level. A
psychiatrist once told me that my facility with languages may be a
subconscious response, as it was the one area in which my family
achievers had little or no skill, thereby giving me an "edge" and
surprisingly, a fair degree of respect from the family, especially
when they heard me chattering in some weird language to people wearing
turbans or robes.

It is for these reasons that I have a degree of sympathy for Mr.
Hines; something which angered one or two of his compatriots, who
accused me of being too friendly to him.

Like most Scots, I am unable to resist explaining Scottish oddities to
sincere enquirers and Mr. Hines hooked me with a request for more
details after I posted a story about how the teenagers of two villages
in the Highlands had massacred each other, with only one survivor; a
girl, who must have killed the last boy with her knife. They were a
rough lot in the Highlands in those days.

Actually, on reflection, nothing much has changed.



I can resist this one


Britain to allow creation of human-animal embryos

8 hours ago

LONDON (AFP) — Britain's fertility regulator decided in principle
Wednesday to allow scientists to create human-animal hybrid embryos for
research purposes, as experts downplayed ethical concerns.

:-)

The scientists are catching up with the sheepshaggers

:-)

Vince

The Highlander

Re: 'Fitz' In Genealogy & History

Legg inn av The Highlander » 05 sep 2007 21:01:39

On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 14:30:51 +0200, "Normandy" <aabbcc@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
oGmDi.251$YE3.655@eagle.america.net...
The Voice of Reason Speaks Up.

All those with FITZ in their names are NOT Royal Bastards, as "Normandy"
would have it.

DSH

Not all using Fitz were royal bastards but if you are related to the late
Diana, Princess of Wales she was descended from at least 6 royal bastards.

Ws she yur cousin as I have seen said here?

Sinclair

Hines claims to be related to anyone of any importance, from Jesus to

the soc.history.medieval toilet cleaner.

Each new claim has us scrambling for our genealogies before breathing
a sigh of grateful relief... He's the ultimate social climber and the
biggest bullshitter who ever breathed.

I've been debating writing a song about him, but am having trouble
finding a suitable rhyme for "Fuckwit".

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

Gjest

Re: C.P. Addition: The kinship of Charles Brandon's wives, M

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 sep 2007 21:20:05

Dear Newsgroup ~

Anne is indeed the daughter of Sir Anthony Browne but by his 1st and
previous wife. That he had a previous wife is clear from his will..He is probably
the same Anthony Browne who m. Eleanor d of Robert Ughtred. This is in Cris
Philips corrections to CP.

Adrian

In a message dated 05/09/2007 19:55:37 GMT Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

Dear Newsgroup ~

Another correction I note for the Complete Peerage account of Charles
Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, is the statement that his first wife,
Margaret Neville, was the aunt of his second wife, Anne Browne.
Margaret Neville is there identified as the daughter and coh. of John
Neville, Marquess of Montagu, whereas Anne Browne is identified as the
"3rd daughter of Sir Anthony Browne, K.G., by Lucy, daughter and coh.
of John (Neville), Marquess of Montagu." [Reference: C.P. 12(1)
(1959): 458-459].

This, of course, is impossible, as the evidence indicates that Anne
Browne was a grown adult with a child by 1508, whereas Sir Anthony
Browne did not marry his known wife, Lucy Neville, until after 27
April 1497 (date of her first husband's will). Also, Anne can not
possibly be the 3rd daughter of Sir Anthony Brtowne. Rather, she can
only be his eldest daughter by an unknown 1st wife. I might note that
the date of Lucy Neville's 1st husband, Thomas Fitzwilliam's will is
found in the same volume of Complete Peerage on page 119, footnote f
sub Southampton. One other thing, I don't believe Anne Browne's
father, Anthony Browne, was a Knight of the Garter as claimed by C.P.
Rather, I believe it was her half-brother and nephew both named
Anthony Browne who were Knighrts of the Garter.

These various inaccurate statements are made in spite of the fact that
the author of the Suffolk piece in Complete Peerage on page 458 quotes
a Papal bull dated 1528 in which Anne Browne is stated to have been
related to Margaret Neville in the 2nd and 3rd degrees of kinship, not
1st and 2nd. This would appear to mean that one of Anne Browne's
grandparents was a sibling to Margaret Neville's father, John
Neville. Anne can not be related through Margaret Neville's mother,
Isabel Ingaldesthorpe, as Isabel was an only child and had no
siblings. Margaret Neville would surely be on the shorter side of the
kinship, as she was aged about 42 in 1508, whereas Anne Browne was
obviously still a young woman. If I understand the Papal bull
correctly, then Anne Browne would necessarily be a great-granddaughter
of Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury,by Alice, daughter and
heiress of Thomas Montagu, 4th Earl of Salisbury.

Sometime ago, Adrian Channing noted that Sir Anthony Browne (father of
Anne Browne) is provided an earlier wife, Alice, in the book, The
Browne's of Betchworth Castle, by Pym Yateman. This statement is not
sourced, so one must be careful. However, checking the Neville family
tree, so far I've found one prospective candidate named Alice who
would fit to be Sir Anthony Browne's first wife, namely Alice Stanley,
daughter of Thomas Stanley, 1st Earl of Derby, by his wife, Eleanor
Neville. As far as I know, Alice Stanley's marital history is
unknown. Thomas Stanley and Eleanor Neville were married about 17
Dec. 1454 (date of their marriage settlement). Thus, Thomas and
Eleanor would fit chronologically to be the maternal grandparents of
Anne Browne who was a young woman with a child in 1508. If this is
the correct set of grandparents, then Anne Browne would be related to
Margaret Neville in the 2nd and 3rd degrees of kinship just as stated
in the Papal bull. This would also mean however, that both of Sir
Anthony Browne's wives were near related to one another as well.

Lastly, previous posters appear to have been unable to find any
contemporary documentation that Anne Browne, 2nd wife of Charles
Brandon, was the daughter of Anthony Browne, Knt. (died 1506), who was
Lieutenant of Calais. In fact, Complete Peerage provides no
documentation whatsoever that Anne Browne was Sir Anthony Browne's
daughter. For late evidence of Anne Browne's parentage, however, see
Dugdale, Vis. of Lancaster 1664-5 3 (Chetham Soc. 88) (1873): 288
(Stanley pedigree), in which Anne Browne, 2nd wife of Charles Brandon,
is specifically called "dau. of Sir Anthony Browne, governor of
Calais."

Comments are invited.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

WJhonson

Re: Revell and Comberford

Legg inn av WJhonson » 05 sep 2007 21:28:11

<<In a message dated 09/05/07 12:49:57 Pacific Standard Time, Maytree4 writes:
Thomas, lord of Comberford, 17. Hen. VII. living 24 Hen. VIII.
First wife: Anne, 9 Hen. VIII. No Issue.
Second wife : Dorothea, daughter of Ralph Fitzherbert, 2nd wife, 19 Hen.
VIII. >>

---------------------
This is *very* useful in squeezing the children down to tiny birthranges.
Can you verify what they mean by "Anne, 9 Hen VIII" does this mean that she was yet living 9H8 ?

If so that's quite useful.

Thanks
Will

WJhonson

Re: Revell and Comberford

Legg inn av WJhonson » 05 sep 2007 21:59:05

This is disturbing, but possibly useful, from Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica

http://books.google.com/books?id=LSrfVS ... #PPA335,M1

Note page 335 where we see that William Babington married Joan "eldest daughter and coheir of John Beaumont of Wednesbury" so we know we're talking about the same people. But then "she was aged six years at her father's death, 21 Sept 21 Hen VIII"....

Can we just recte this to 21 H 7 ? If so, it allows me to shave a dozen more years off the birthrange of Dorothy and Eleanor who were second and third daughter respectively. If we cannot recte this to 21H7, then something is terribly amiss in this family.

Will

george

Re: Ping De: "D. Spencer Hines"

Legg inn av george » 05 sep 2007 21:59:09

On Sep 6, 7:32 am, Vince <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote:

Britain to allow creation of human-animal embryos

See. Now you don't have to be alone

Gjest

Re: Revell and Comberford

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 sep 2007 21:59:56

On 5 Sep., 21:28, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 09/05/07 12:49:57 Pacific Standard Time, Maytree4 writes:
Thomas, lord of Comberford, 17. Hen. VII. living 24 Hen. VIII.
First wife: Anne, 9 Hen. VIII. No Issue.
Second wife : Dorothea, daughter of Ralph Fitzherbert, 2nd wife, 19 Hen.
VIII.

---------------------
This is *very* useful in squeezing the children down to tiny birthranges.
Can you verify what they mean by "Anne, 9 Hen VIII" does this mean that she was yet living 9H8 ?

If so that's quite useful.


Rose -

Thanks very much for this brilliant find. You are a star!

Will - I suspect the reference should be to "9 Hen VII " rather than
VIII; Humphrey, the son of Thomas and Dorothy Fitzherbert, was clearly
born before 1509, as he was a party with his father to a legal suit
dated between 1518 and 1529 - ie he was of age no later than 1529.
Even so, of Anne was living in 1494-5, that narrows down Thomas's
marriage date to Dorothy considerably.

"Henry DD" in the above stemma was the recusant priest who was deposed
from the deanery of Lichfield and died a prisoner under Elizabeth I,
being accounted one of the Catholic martyrs of England.

MAR

Val Adams

Re: 'Fitz' In Genealogy & History

Legg inn av Val Adams » 05 sep 2007 22:09:28

The Highlander wrote:
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 14:30:51 +0200, "Normandy" <aabbcc@wanadoo.fr
wrote:

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
oGmDi.251$YE3.655@eagle.america.net...
The Voice of Reason Speaks Up.

All those with FITZ in their names are NOT Royal Bastards, as "Normandy"
would have it.

DSH

Not all using Fitz were royal bastards but if you are related to the late
Diana, Princess of Wales she was descended from at least 6 royal bastards.

Ws she yur cousin as I have seen said here?

Sinclair

Hines claims to be related to anyone of any importance, from Jesus to
the soc.history.medieval toilet cleaner.

Each new claim has us scrambling for our genealogies before breathing
a sigh of grateful relief... He's the ultimate social climber and the
biggest bullshitter who ever breathed.

I've been debating writing a song about him, but am having trouble
finding a suitable rhyme for "Fuckwit".

The Highlander
Tilgibh smucaid air do làmhan,
togaibh a' bhratach dhubh agus
toisichibh a' geàrradh na sgòrnanan!
Odeer-I know you dont like us Yanks to bring in Merkan politics,

but... Bushit?

WJhonson

Re: Revell and Comberford

Legg inn av WJhonson » 05 sep 2007 22:18:00

Yes but it doesn't make me happy.

Now we have *two* different sources both stating events occurred in H8 that should have occurred in H7 if this family is constructed properly.

I can see its *possible* that two different authors could both make this mistake, but it makes me awfully suspicious that perhaps there isn't some other mistake that's produced these waiting to be dug up.

Will

WJhonson

Re: Revell and Comberford

Legg inn av WJhonson » 05 sep 2007 22:21:43

<<In a message dated 09/05/07 14:19:35 Pacific Standard Time, mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
Rosie Bevan has emailed me to say that Dorothy Fitzherbert was married to Thomas Comberford by 1490, based on the testimony of her mother's will; she is sending me further particulars. It would seem that the dates for "Anne" that Rose posted may be in error.>>
-------------------
Argh! death and stabbing ! much stabbing of the screen!

Just when I had almost gotten them in order.....

D. Spencer Hines

Re: 'Fitz' In Genealogy & History

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 05 sep 2007 22:26:28

For some folks the stain of bastardy is much more recent.

DSH

"Deirdre Sholto Douglas" <finch.enteract@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:46DEEEDE.39D26C47@sbcglobal.net...

Dig deep enough and you'll find a _lot_ of peers are descended
from bastards (royal or otherwise), as are much of the general
population. So what?

Deirdre

There is an old saying 'a man is only sure of his mother' I am sure that
some where along the line we all have bastard blood.

"'Tis a wise bairn kens his father."

As to "we all have bastard blood", what's the point you're trying
to make about it? If we all have it, which I don't doubt, then it's
hardly a singular or defining characteristic, is it?

Deirdre

Gjest

Re: Revell and Comberford

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 sep 2007 22:48:56

Michael,

Much appreciated. I have come across a Comberford pedigree In Shaw's istory
& Antiquities of Staffordshire (1801) which gives its sources as being from
the Visitations of Staffordshire, 1883-1614. Mus. Brit. Bibl. Harl. 6128.
f.67; and from Comberford deeds collected by Erdeswick,.

The pedigree shows

Thomas, lord of Comberford, 17. Hen. VII. living 24 Hen. VIII.
First wife: Anne, 9 Hen. VIII. No Issue.
Second wife : Dorothea, daughter of Ralph Fitzherbert, 2nd wife, 19 Hen.
VIII.

Issue by Dorothea Fitzherbert :

1) Margareta, wife of Will. Stanley. Issue : Dorothy, wife of Chr.
Heningham

2) Mary, wife of John Revelle. No issue shown.

3) Humfry, son and heir, 15 and 24 Hen. VIII. died Dec. 23, 2 and 3 Phil.
and Mary. Married Dorothy, 2nd da. and co-heir of John Beaument, lord of
Wednesbury. Issue : a ) Humfry, b) Thomas, lord of Comberford and Wednesbury,
ob. 1597. c) Mary wife of Walter Harcourt of Tamworth, 1563, d) Isabell,
wife of Gervase Rolleston.

4) Matilda, wife of Everard, co. Stafford. No Issue shown.

5) Henry, D.D.

6) Richard, fervillus ad le-gem. Married : unknown, with Issue a)
Dorothy, b) Elizabeth, c) Frances.

7) John, married Ann, dau. of Beawlott. Issue : a) Alice, wife of Walter
Littleton, b) Katherine, wife of John Badiligh.



Kind Regards,

Rose
Surrey / UK

Gjest

Re: Revell and Comberford

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 sep 2007 22:49:26

On 5 Sep., 22:18, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Yes but it doesn't make me happy.

Now we have *two* different sources both stating events occurred in H8 that should have occurred in H7 if this family is constructed properly.

I can see its *possible* that two different authors could both make this mistake, but it makes me awfully suspicious that perhaps there isn't some other mistake that's produced these waiting to be dug up.

Will

At least one of the sources (the one stating John Beaumont died on 21
September "21 Henry VIII") is manifestly wrong - we know it was 1502
because I have posted the references to the original IPM of 18 Henry
VII (PRO E 150/128/8-10).

I will post again when I have time to look through the Harleian MS
cited by Rose's source, and the probate records that Rosie has kindly
referred to. Unless I stumble across both of these on the slopes of
Vesuvius, I am unlikely to do so before the end of next week!

MAR

Gjest

Re: Most Villainous Mediaeval Villain

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 sep 2007 23:09:25

On Sep 5, 5:29 am, Jan Böhme <jan.bo...@sh.se> wrote:
On 5 Sep, 04:50, Tim <A.Windem...@gmail.com> wrote:

Genghis Khan was cruel but he was shrewd and competent. His cruelty
was meant to intimidate or to eliminate his opponents. He was also
able to inspire loyalty among his supporters.

Right. He was an imperialist who expanded his empire by terror
warfare, but who was a very wise, tolerant and just ruler for his
times once the territories were included in his empire.

Jan Böhme

It's funny, but this is not an entirely uncommon occurrence throughout
history. If I understand correctly, Caesar Augustus could similarly
be characterized (after his violent conquests, he was surprisingly
lenient and magnanimous to his new subjects in the expanded empire
afterward).

Jack Linthicum

Re: 'Fitz' In Genealogy & History

Legg inn av Jack Linthicum » 05 sep 2007 23:33:05

On Sep 5, 5:26 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
For some folks the stain of bastardy is much more recent.

DSH

"Deirdre Sholto Douglas" <finch.enter...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in messagenews:46DEEEDE.39D26C47@sbcglobal.net...

Dig deep enough and you'll find a _lot_ of peers are descended
from bastards (royal or otherwise), as are much of the general
population. So what?

Deirdre

There is an old saying 'a man is only sure of his mother' I am sure that
some where along the line we all have bastard blood.

"'Tis a wise bairn kens his father."

As to "we all have bastard blood", what's the point you're trying
to make about it? If we all have it, which I don't doubt, then it's
hardly a singular or defining characteristic, is it?

Deirdre

In some it is dominant, mostly in their manners and amour propre

WJhonson

Re: Possible C.P. Addition: Margaret Neville's marriage to J

Legg inn av WJhonson » 05 sep 2007 23:40:15

<<In a message dated 09/05/07 15:35:36 Pacific Standard Time, p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
Even where the surname and title happen to be the same, as with Earl Rivers,
name and title are still distinct from each other in usage and it is wrong
to speak, for instance, of Anthony, earl Rivers as "Earl Anthony Rivers". >>
----------------------------
As a follow-up issue, perhaps someone can touch on when one uses
X, Earl OF Y

versus

X, Earl Y

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Fw: 'Fitz' In Genealogy & History

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 sep 2007 00:25:06

Dear Sinclair,
For an American to be related to Diana Frances
Spencer, Princess of Wales is hardly uncommon as one of her Great Grandparents
Frances Eleanor Burke - Roche (nee Work) was the daughter of Franklin H and Ellen
Work (nee Wood) of New York. No Royal Bastard descent required.

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: Fw: 'Fitz' In Genealogy & History

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 06 sep 2007 00:50:13

Bingo!

DSH

<Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1876.1189030786.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Dear Sinclair,

For an American to be related to Diana Frances
Spencer, Princess of Wales is hardly uncommon as one of her Great
Grandparents Frances Eleanor Burke - Roche (nee Work) was the
daughter of Franklin H and Ellen Work (nee Wood) of New
York. No Royal Bastard descent required.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

The Highlander

Re: 'Fitz' In Genealogy & History

Legg inn av The Highlander » 06 sep 2007 00:50:39

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:09:28 -0700, Val Adams <va_adams@pacbell.net>
wrote:

The Highlander wrote:
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 14:30:51 +0200, "Normandy" <aabbcc@wanadoo.fr
wrote:

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
oGmDi.251$YE3.655@eagle.america.net...
The Voice of Reason Speaks Up.

All those with FITZ in their names are NOT Royal Bastards, as "Normandy"
would have it.

DSH

Not all using Fitz were royal bastards but if you are related to the late
Diana, Princess of Wales she was descended from at least 6 royal bastards.

Ws she yur cousin as I have seen said here?

Sinclair

Hines claims to be related to anyone of any importance, from Jesus to
the soc.history.medieval toilet cleaner.

Each new claim has us scrambling for our genealogies before breathing
a sigh of grateful relief... He's the ultimate social climber and the
biggest bullshitter who ever breathed.

I've been debating writing a song about him, but am having trouble
finding a suitable rhyme for "Fuckwit".

The Highlander
Tilgibh smucaid air do làmhan,
togaibh a' bhratach dhubh agus
toisichibh a' geàrradh na sgòrnanan!
Odeer-I know you dont like us Yanks to bring in Merkan politics,
but... Bushit?

Wonderful!

I was also just thought of "duck shit". I think my writer's block may
be breaking up!

Hines is hard to write about because there are REAMS of material to
choose from!

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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: 'Fitz' In Genealogy & History

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 06 sep 2007 00:55:41

Not Surprising...

Pogue Highlander blew his nose and cleared lots of that DS out of his
sinuses.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:hbfud3d7im90jmhumib1vq7tclemenggf7@4ax.com...

I was also just thought [sic] of "duck shit". I think my writer's block
may be breaking up!

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Royal & Noble Bastard Descents -- A Fertile Subject

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 06 sep 2007 01:08:41

Aye, for six of his wee bastards as I recall...and used
Fitzcharles for three others (out of Liz Killigrew and
Catherine Pegge respectively)...which left five bastards
to run under different names. No other English monarch
even came close to his totals, hence my comment about
abusing the privilege.

Deirdre Sholto Douglas
------------------------------------------------------


No, not true.

Henry I had more Royal Bastards than Charles II.

Charles II, however, had ZERO legitimate children and was therefore
succeeded by his brother, the Duke of York, who became James II.

James II also had more bastards than his brother Charles II. Many of them
did not survive to adulthood.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Deirdre Sholto Douglas" <finch.enteract@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:46DEBA8F.AEF817EA@sbcglobal.net...
John Briggs wrote:

Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:

The Voice of Reason Speaks Up.

All those with FITZ in their names are NOT Royal Bastards, as
"Normandy" would have it.

I was under the impression that a royal bastard (in England)
was styled "Fitzroy"...and even then it only meant "son of"
or "descendant of" a king. It was merely a way of acknow-
ledging paternity while still protecting the successionary
right of legitimate heirs. (Charles II might have abused the
privilege a bit though.)

Charles II only used "FitzRoy" for one of his families. The others had
different surnames.

Aye, for six of his wee bastards as I recall...and used
Fitzcharles for three others (out of Liz Killigrew and
Catherine Pegge respectively)...which left five bastards
to run under different names. No other English monarch
even came close to his totals, hence my comment about
abusing the privilege.

Deirdre

Gjest

Re: 'Fitz' In Genealogy & History

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 sep 2007 01:10:04

Dear Deirdre,
I have to disagree as to Charles II abusing the
"privelege ' of giving his bastard children names. It is no more than any father had
ought to do for offspring He was certain he had begotten under whatever
circumstances. I doubt many monarchs were as honest about the extent of such
offspring or probable offspring as the case may be.
Sincerely,
James
W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



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

Val Adams

Re: 'Fitz' In Genealogy & History

Legg inn av Val Adams » 06 sep 2007 01:23:21

The Highlander wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:09:28 -0700, Val Adams <va_adams@pacbell.net
wrote:

The Highlander wrote:
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 14:30:51 +0200, "Normandy" <aabbcc@wanadoo.fr
wrote:

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
oGmDi.251$YE3.655@eagle.america.net...
The Voice of Reason Speaks Up.

All those with FITZ in their names are NOT Royal Bastards, as "Normandy"
would have it.

DSH

Not all using Fitz were royal bastards but if you are related to the late
Diana, Princess of Wales she was descended from at least 6 royal bastards.

Ws she yur cousin as I have seen said here?

Sinclair

Hines claims to be related to anyone of any importance, from Jesus to
the soc.history.medieval toilet cleaner.

Each new claim has us scrambling for our genealogies before breathing
a sigh of grateful relief... He's the ultimate social climber and the
biggest bullshitter who ever breathed.

I've been debating writing a song about him, but am having trouble
finding a suitable rhyme for "Fuckwit".

The Highlander
Tilgibh smucaid air do làmhan,
togaibh a' bhratach dhubh agus
toisichibh a' geàrradh na sgòrnanan!
Odeer-I know you dont like us Yanks to bring in Merkan politics,
but... Bushit?

Wonderful!

I was also just thought of "duck shit". I think my writer's block may
be breaking up!

Hines is hard to write about because there are REAMS of material to
choose from!

The Highlander
Tilgibh smucaid air do làmhan,
togaibh a' bhratach dhubh agus
toisichibh a' geàrradh na sgòrnanan!
I should think a good reaming might help... OO

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Most Villainous Mediaeval Villain

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 06 sep 2007 02:05:03

And don't forget his mother, the charming Mabel Talvas.
Merilyn Pedrick
My notes below (unsourced, sorry) on her say:

"We have already heard of William Talvas, the Lord of Belesme, who cursed
the Conqueror in his cradle (vide p. 9, ante). Roger de Montgomeri married,
in 1048, Mabel, the daughter of that William, and niece of Ivo de Belesme,
Bishop of Séez from 1035 to 1070. By this match he acquired a large portion
of the domains of his father-in-law, and by the advice of Bishop lvo, his
wife's uncle, transferred the Church of St. Martin of Séez to Theodoric,
Abbot of St. Evroult, and, in conjunction with his wife, earnestly entreated
the Bishop to erect a monastery there, which it appears he did. Now this
Mabel, the chronicler tells us, was both powerful and politic, shrewd and
fluent, but extremely cruel. Still she had a high regard for the excellent
Theodoric, and in some things submitted to his admonitions, although in
general averse to religious men.
"This lady," he subsequently tells us, "maliciously caused many troubles to
the monks of St. Evroult, on account of the hatred she bore to the family of
Giroie, founders of that abbey, but as her husband, Roger de Montgomeri,
loved and honoured the monks, she did not venture to exhibit any open signs
of her vindictive feeling. She therefore made the abbey her frequent resort,
attended by numerous bands of armed retamers, under pretence of claiming the
hospitality of the brotherhood, but to their great oppression, in
consequence of their poverty through the barrenness of their land. At one
time, when she had taken up her abode at the abbey with a hundred
men-at-arms, and was remonstrated with by Abbot Theodoric on the sinful
absurdity of coming with such a splendid retinue to the dwelling of poor
anchorites, she exclaimed, in great wrath, 'When I come again my followers
shall be still more numerous!' The abbot replied, 'Trust me, unless you
repent of this iniquity, you will suffer what will be very painful to you.'
And so it happened, for the very night following she was attacked by a
disorder which caused her great suffering. Upon this she gave instant orders
for being carried forth from the abbey, and flying in a state of alarm from
the territory of St. Evroult, passed by the dwelling of a certain farmer
named Roger Suissar, whose newly-born child she stopped for a few moments to
suckle, with a hope of obtaining relief. It caused her severe pain at the
time, but she reached home, we are told, completely restored to health, the
unfortunate infant dying shortly afterwards."
Of course the honest monk who believes "each strange tale devoutly true" has
no suspicion that the abbot took care that his prophecy should be fulfilled,
and gave the very inconvenient visitor a dose which would not kill her, but
cure her of coming to the abbey. The death of the baby, if it did die, was a
coincidence too tempting not to be made the most of.
In 1063 Arnould d'Eschafour, son of William Giroie, the founder of the Abbey
of St. Evroult, against whose family a deadly hatred had been continually
cherished by that of Belesme, and who by the machinations of Mabel had been
banished Normandy, presented himself at the Court of the Duke, and offering
him a magnificent mantle, humbly entreated that his inheritance might he
restored to him. The Duke, at that moment being in want of brave soldiers
for his wars with the Manceaux and the Bretons, with his usual policy
accepted the gift, and promised to restore him his estates (the greater
proportion of which Mabel had contrived to obtain for her husband), giving
him meanwhile free passage through his territories for a limited time.
Returning from the Court in company with Gilbert de Montgomeri, brother of
Roger, he stopped at his Castle of Eschafour, then in the possession of
Roger and Mabel, whose attendants pressed him earnestly to partake of some
refreshments their lady had ordered them to set before him. He had, however,
received from a friend a hint of some treachery, and remembering the warning
steadily refused to touch either the meat or the wine. Gilbert, who had
ridden there with him, quite unconscious of the foul design, took a cup
without dismounting from his horse, and draining its poisoned contents, died
three days afterwards at Remalord. Thus, observes Orderic, this perfidious
woman, attempting to destroy her husband's rival, caused the death of his
only surviving brother, who was in the flower of his youth, and much
distinguished for his chivalrous gallantry. Foiled in this attempt, she
shortly afterwards made another, as deadly and unfortunately more successful
By means of entreaties and promises she induced Roger Gulafre, the
chamberlain of Arnould, to become the instrument of her murderous designs.
Arnould being at Gourville, near Châtres, with his relatives, Giroie de
Courville and William, surnamed Gouet de Montmirail, the traitor Gulafre
took an opportunity of serving to his master and the other two nobles the
poisoned beverage he had received from Mabel: Giroie and William de
Montmirail survived the effects of the poison, but Arnould, after
languishing for some days, expired on the 1st of January, 1064. After his
decease the great family of Giroie gradually fell to decay, and for
twenty-six years their lands remained in the possession of that of
Montgomeri.
A truly terrible fate, however, awaited this infamous woman, who, according
to the chronicler, had caused many great lords to be disinherited and to beg
their bread in foreign lands. Amongst her victims was Hugh de la Roche d'lgé
in the Canton de Belesme, from whom she had wrested his castle on the rock,
and had deprived of the inheritance of the lands of his fathers. In the
extremity of his distress he undertook a desperate enterprise. With the
assistance of his three brothers, men of undaunted courage, he forced an
entry by night into the chamber of the Countess (for such was her rank at
that time) at a place called Bures, on the Dive, near Froarn, and severed
her head from her body as she lay in bed after having taken a bath. Their
vengeance satiated, they lost no time in making good their retreat. Hugh de
Montgomeri, her second son, who was in the castle with sixteen men-at-arms,
on hearing of his mother's murder, instantly took horse and pursued the
assassins, but was unable to overtake them, as they had taken the precaution
to break down behind them the bridges over the rivers, which, being flooded
and the night dark, presented such obstacles in the way of the pursuers that
the four brothers succeeded in crossing the frontiers of Normandy, and took
unmolested the road to Apulia.
Mabel was buried at Froarn on the 5th of December, 1082, Durandus being at
that time the abbot who disgraced himself by causing a fulsome epitaph,
preserved by Orderic, to be inscribed on the tomb of a detestable murderess.



-------

From: SomersetSue
Date: 09/05/07 19:40:16
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most Villainous Mediaeval Villain

If looking for a medieval nasty who wasn't royal then Robert de
Belleme is a good candidate.
He was sadistic and cruel. He enjoyed torturing captives and is said
to have gouged out the eyes of his own young godson with his bare
hands when the child's father annoyed him.

He's also an ancestor of a lot of people who know their medieval
ancestry including me.

Sue



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

Rosie Bevan

Re: Revell and Comberford

Legg inn av Rosie Bevan » 06 sep 2007 03:28:51

John Beaumont died on 21 September 1502 and his ipms were held on 2
(Staffordshire) & 4 (Derbyshire) May 1503 (18 Henry VII). His heirs
were his daughters - Joan aged 6 and more, Dorothy aged 4 and more,
and Eleanor aged 3 and more [CIPM 2nd series, Henry VII, vol.2, nos
582, 583]

In 15 Henry VII he had demised the manor of Timmor to Thomas
Comberford and David Rochford at 10 pounds rent for 12 years.

Cheers

Rosie

On Sep 6, 8:59 am, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
This is disturbing, but possibly useful, from Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica

http://books.google.com/books?id=LSrfVS ... nesbury+...

Note page 335 where we see that William Babington married Joan "eldest daughter and coheir of John Beaumont of Wednesbury" so we know we're talking about the same people. But then "she was aged six years at her father's death, 21 Sept 21 Hen VIII"....

Can we just recte this to 21 H 7 ? If so, it allows me to shave a dozen more years off the birthrange of Dorothy and Eleanor who were second and third daughter respectively. If we cannot recte this to 21H7, then something is terribly amiss in this family.

Will

CJ Adams

Re: 'Fitz' In Genealogy & History

Legg inn av CJ Adams » 06 sep 2007 04:33:07

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
For some folks the stain of bastardy is much more recent.

DSH


Self-applied?

Cheers
CJ Adams
Arte et Marte

Normandy

Re: Fw: 'Fitz' In Genealogy & History

Legg inn av Normandy » 06 sep 2007 05:35:42

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
5hHDi.285$YE3.679@eagle.america.net...
Bingo!

DSH

Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1876.1189030786.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Dear Sinclair,

For an American to be related to Diana Frances
Spencer, Princess of Wales is hardly uncommon as one of her Great
Grandparents Frances Eleanor Burke - Roche (nee Work) was the
daughter of Franklin H and Ellen Work (nee Wood) of New
York. No Royal Bastard descent required.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

When do you stop calling a relation cousin?

Normandy
>

The Highlander

Re: Ping De: "D. Spencer Hines"

Legg inn av The Highlander » 06 sep 2007 05:52:33

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 18:22:52 GMT, Val Adams <va_adams@pacbell.net>
wrote:

The Highlander wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 04:13:54 GMT, Val Adams <va_adams@pacbell.net
wrote:

[...]

re patterns, oh, dont mind me, I am always looking for them;suspect i
have an overdose of right-brain.

Val

That theory, left-brain; right-brain; has just been debunked by some
American researchers, so you can relax!

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

Then, I am always looking for patterns with no good reason whatsoever?
Not sure that is more comforting....

It's normal, a subsconscious desire to bring order to your universe.

We all need boundaries to feel safe, especially when we sleep at
night. That's why humans instinctively seek rocks to sleep among, or
vehicles to sleep under, rather than lie exposed in the open. Even a
flimsy one-man tent gives you a sense of security and protection. A
need far older than civilization itself; an ancestral hand reaching
out across the millenia to reassure you that you're safe from attack.
Patterns control our lives and most of us use them to make our lives
feel orderly and normal.

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

Andrew Inge Lancaster

RE: Revisit: Ivo de Vipont's wife

Legg inn av Andrew Inge Lancaster » 06 sep 2007 06:58:52

Dear Pat

Just a few quick comments.

1. The only theory I've ever seen about Isabel de Lancaster is that she is a
daughter of either William de Lancaster I or II.

2. You mention William de Lancaster I's cousin Uchtred, the son of Ketel,
who was an uncle of William. On the one hand no member of that family ever
used the surname Lancaster and a charter by William de Lancaster I's grand
daughter mentions that he took up the surname within his lifetime.

3. On the other hand, for whatever reason, land which had been in the
possession of Ketel's family was sometimes granted by William's family
later. Most relevant perhaps are the cases where William de Lancaster II
granted land which had been Uchtred. For example Uchtred's moiety of the
manor of Sockbridge went to his illegitimate son Gilbert de Lancaster. (See
CWAAS 1910 "De Lancaster".) A similar thing might have happened at Levens I
believe?

4. I believe the testament(s) which confirm the identity of Ivo de Viponts
wife are reproduced somewhere in CWAAS? I think there is an article on the
Eastern Fells which contains a section on Blencarn.

I'd be interested to hear more from you about what you find out. Any more
information about Thoresby, son of Pate?

Best Regards
Andrew Lancaster

-----Original Message-----
From: pajunkin@bellsouth.net [mailto:pajunkin@bellsouth.net]
Sent: 04 September 2007 00:29
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Revisit: Ivo de Vipont's wife

Gjest

Re: C.P. Addition: The kinship of Charles Brandon's wives, M

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 sep 2007 07:25:04

In a message dated 9/5/2007 10:00:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

The 1528 Papal bull which Complete Peerage quotes in
extenso in its Suffolk account stipulates that Anne Browne, the 2nd
wife of Charles Brandon, was related in the 2nd and 3rd degrees of
kindred to his first wife, Margaret Neville [see Complete Peerage,
12(1) (1959): 458, footnote g]. This can ONLY mean that Anne Browne
was a granddaughter of one of Margaret Neville's paternal uncles or
aunts, as Margaret Neville's mother was an only child. We can be
fairly certain the the short side of the kinship was on Margaret
Neville's side as Margaret was aged about 42 in 1508, whereas Anne
Browne was obviously a still young woman in that year.


-----------------
How is it that we know that Anne Browne was a young woman in that year?
And not to quibble but when Charles "was a young man" he was bethrothed to
"Anne"
So apparently they were of-the-same-age

Will



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

Gjest

Re: C.P. Addition: The kinship of Charles Brandon's wives, M

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 sep 2007 08:00:04

"ac etiam ex eo [quod] avia tua et genitor olim conjugis dictae Margaretae
frater et soror fuerant."

Are you sure you've understood the evidence he presented?

*He* and his wife were in the second and third degree of affinity, Margaret
and Anne were within the prohibited degree of consanguinity. Perhaps you
could quote what you're reading, and their underlying source as well so we could
see what the Latin actually states.

Will



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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: 'Fitz' In Genealogy & History

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 06 sep 2007 08:18:29

Fletcher Christian [1764-1793] of HMS Bounty, charming fellow -- and a
cousin.

Julian Richards seems to be related to him as well.

Any others here?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Gjest

Re: Revell and Comberford

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 sep 2007 10:24:06

I have copied it exactely how it is written in the pedigree. I wondered
about this as I was typing it and can only assume that she was said to be living
at that date.

Rose
Surrey / UK

Gjest

Re: Revell and Comberford

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 sep 2007 10:35:03

The Comberford pedigree definitely states 9 Hen. VIII for this Anne - of
course Erdeswick might have made an error.

Kind Regards,

Rose
Surrey / UK

Researching in Pembrokeshire: DAVIES (of St. Ishmael's/Talbenny), FEILD,
FERRIOR, ELLIOT (of Steynton/Amroth), THOMAS (of Marloes/Llanstadwell), CORNOCK,
HIER, ROWE (of Penally) and far too many others to list.

Researching in Ireland : Wexford - Ballycanew area: CRANWILL / CRANWELL,
KEEGAN, CONNORS / CONNOR.

Researching in Ireland : ST. LEGER & HEVENINGHAM

Gjest

Re: Revell and Comberford

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 sep 2007 10:36:03

Definitely looks like Erdeswick made a mistake!


Rose
Surrey / UK

Val Adams

Re: Ping De: "D. Spencer Hines"

Legg inn av Val Adams » 06 sep 2007 16:07:13

The Highlander wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 18:22:52 GMT, Val Adams <va_adams@pacbell.net
wrote:

The Highlander wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 04:13:54 GMT, Val Adams <va_adams@pacbell.net
wrote:

[...]
re patterns, oh, dont mind me, I am always looking for them;suspect i
have an overdose of right-brain.

Val
That theory, left-brain; right-brain; has just been debunked by some
American researchers, so you can relax!

The Highlander
Tilgibh smucaid air do làmhan,
togaibh a' bhratach dhubh agus
toisichibh a' geàrradh na sgòrnanan!
Then, I am always looking for patterns with no good reason whatsoever?
Not sure that is more comforting....

It's normal, a subsconscious desire to bring order to your universe.

We all need boundaries to feel safe, especially when we sleep at
night. That's why humans instinctively seek rocks to sleep among, or
vehicles to sleep under, rather than lie exposed in the open. Even a
flimsy one-man tent gives you a sense of security and protection. A
need far older than civilization itself; an ancestral hand reaching
out across the millenia to reassure you that you're safe from attack.
Patterns control our lives and most of us use them to make our lives
feel orderly and normal.

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

Loth as I am to accede to a characteristic labeled 'normal', that makes
a certain amount of sense. (drawing a stack of books and Important
Documents a little closer and peering over the top.. )

Gjest

Re: C.P. Addition: The kinship of Charles Brandon's wives, M

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 sep 2007 16:21:03

Dear Douglas Richardson,
I think it would be as well not to read too much into the papal bull. The
information contained in it would presumable be based on depositions made by
Charles Brandon, and his history shows that he was not the most honest of
men. I can quite easily imagine him making use of Sir Anthony’s second marriage
to claim false kinship, if caught, he could claim it was a mistake. In any
event the rules re “in-lawsâ€

Gjest

Re: C.P. Addition: The kinship of Charles Brandon's wives, M

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 sep 2007 17:06:03

I will repeat my message, since the formatting was poor (also one
correction). By the way, I have only just read Brad's message, part of my argument is
similar, but written independently of his message.


I think it would be as well not to read too much into the papal bull. The
information contained in it would presumable be based on depositions made by
Charles Brandon, and his history shows that he was not the most honest of men.
I can quite easily imagine him making use of Sir Anthony’s second marriage
to claim false kinship, if caught, he could claim it was a mistake. In any
event the rules re “in-lawsâ€

Gjest

Re: C.P. Addition: The kinship of Charles Brandon's wives, M

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 sep 2007 17:09:03

In a message dated 9/6/2007 7:12:29 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
ADRIANCHANNING02@aol.com writes:

I think it would be as well not to read too much into the papal bull


-------
I already posted on this. It was Charles and Margaret who were related in
the 2nd and 3rd degree of *affinity*. Margaret and Anne were related "within
the proscribed degree of consanguinity".

This does not specify how or what only "within".

Since two secondary sources now conflict (evidently, since I quoted, but I
don't see the other quote anywhere), we cannot rely on them, and must go to the
primary source.

Will



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

Douglas Richardson

Re: C.P. Addition: The kinship of Charles Brandon's wives, M

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 06 sep 2007 18:03:42

Complete Peerage, 12 Pt. 1 (1959(); 458, footnote g, quotes the 1528
papal bull which recites that Charles Brandon and his 1st wife,
Margaret Neville, were related in the 2nd and 3rd degrees of
affinity. It explains the exact nature of the affinity, namely that
Charles Brandon's grandmother was the brother of the father of a
former husband of Margaret Neville. This can only mean that Margaret
Neville had a previous unknown 1st marriage to a Wingfield or a Darcy,
which fact is totally ignored by Complete Peerage.

The papal bull also states that Margaret Neville and Charles Brandon's
2nd wife, Anne Browne, were related within the 2nd and 3rd degrees of
consanguinity. Since Margaret was so much older than either Charles
or Anne, the short side of the kinship would surely be on Margaret's
side. If correct, then this means that Anne Browne was a grandchild
of a brother or sister of Margaret Neville's father, John Neville,
Marquess of Montagu. Anne Browne can not be related through Margaret
Neville's mother, Isabel Ingaldesthorpe, as Isabel had no siblings.

Complete Peerage bungles this part as well as it makes that Anne
Browne the niece of Margaret Neville, rather than first cousin once
removed. The evidence clearly shows that Anne Browne can not have
been Margaret Neville's niece. Anne Browne's father was married to
Margaret Neville's sister, but long after Anne Browne was born. In
any event, if Margaret and Anne had been aunt and niece, the kinship
would have been 1st and 2nd degrees of kindred, not 2nd and 3rd as
stated in the papal bull.

This also means that Anne Browne was not the daughter of Sir Anthony
Browne, by Eleanor Ughtred, as Eleanor Ughtred was not near related to
Margaret Neville. Whoever Anne Browne's mother was, she would have
had to have been near related to Margaret Neville. Since Eleanor
Ughtred does not fit this qualification, Adrian Channing's theory
about Eleanor Ughtred being Anne Browne's mother fails. Back to
square one. Time for a correction to Chris Philips' correction of
Complete Peerage.

Comments are invited.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

gro

Re: Most Villainous Mediaeval Villain

Legg inn av gro » 06 sep 2007 18:21:13

On Sep 5, 6:09?pm, jkeel_2...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sep 5, 5:29 am, Jan B hme <jan.bo...@sh.se> wrote:

On 5 Sep, 04:50, Tim <A.Windem...@gmail.com> wrote:

Genghis Khan was cruel but he was shrewd and competent. His cruelty
was meant to intimidate or to eliminate his opponents. He was also
able to inspire loyalty among his supporters.

Right. He was an imperialist who expanded his empire by terror
warfare, but who was a very wise, tolerant and just ruler for his
times once the territories were included in his empire.

Jan B hme

It's funny, but this is not an entirely uncommon occurrence throughout
history. If I understand correctly, Caesar Augustus could similarly
be characterized (after his violent conquests, he was surprisingly
lenient and magnanimous to his new subjects in the expanded empire
afterward).

Mention must be made of Gilles de Rais, though his having been Joan of
Arc's comrade in arms made have redeemed him a bit.

WJhonson

Re: C.P. Addition: The kinship of Charles Brandon's wives, M

Legg inn av WJhonson » 06 sep 2007 18:57:03

<<n a message dated 09/06/07 10:05:28 Pacific Standard Time, royalancestry@msn.com writes:
The papal bull also states that Margaret Neville and Charles Brandon's
2nd wife, Anne Browne, were related within the 2nd and 3rd degrees of
consanguinity.>

--------------------
I suggest this is an error.
The idea that all three marriage triangle partners would be related "in the 2nd and 3rd degree" simultaneously (although by affinity, and then by consanguinity) is a bit remote.

It's much more likely that this is a misunderstanding of the underlying evidence. I have already cited another secondary source (which CP is as well) stating that this exact relationship is *not* stated, or rather stating a problem without stating the exact relationship of consanguinity.

Thus the two sources, albeit partly from silence, disagree. We cannot resolve this issue by repeating the argument. The only resolution is to look up the bull itself and quote what it says in Latin.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: C.P. Addition: The kinship of Charles Brandon's wives, M

Legg inn av WJhonson » 06 sep 2007 19:24:48

As a follow-up, I should point out that this papal bull "...granted apparently on an ex parte statement set forth by the Duke himself," although dated 1528, asserts that a "divorce" had been granted *at the time* and therefore that the Duke's subsequent two *marriages* were legal and children legitimate.

The bull merely "corrects" any deficiencies which might exist, the Duke asserted essentially that there shouldn't be any.

However, obviously if Procat has a document wherein Margaret Mortimer's daughter is called "natural" then Margaret herself could not have held the view of non-deficiency else she would have married Robert Horne and Anne would be a legitimate daughter.

In addition, it's likely this document dates from before the bull, or that the bull was wholely unknown to Margaret at the time. Seems a bit peculiar to obtain such a bull without a full investigation of all parties considering that Margaret Mortymer was yet living, but there you go. Charles Brandon and Mary Tudor had such power.

The bull also prevents Margaret from making any claim contra the bull as it provides ecclesiastical censure if she should !

Will

WJhonson

Re: Revell and Comberford

Legg inn av WJhonson » 06 sep 2007 19:50:33

Thanks to Steven Perkins for graciously pointing out to me that in my post I had misquoted my source. They do not say "21 Sept 21 H VIII" but rather they say "21 Sept 18 H VIII"

Which still leaves us with two different secondary sources both "apparently?" making the same mistake using H8 instead of H7.

Alternatively, the family is all screwed up !

Will

WJhonson

Re: C.P. Addition: The kinship of Charles Brandon's wives, M

Legg inn av WJhonson » 06 sep 2007 19:55:42

Further on this front, there is evidently some primary material quoted in a work that *appears* to be called something like "Letters and Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII" in four volumes.

The relevant bits we need are apparently called II 529 and IV 5859
These items are referred to, in part, as evidence in the summary I'm quoting.

I certainly hope that 5859 does not refer to a page number !
Rather it must be some charter number or something.

At least these gives us something to follow-up on, if anyone can locate such a creature.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Fw: Con Mor O'Neill, who married Elizabeth Fitzgerald -

Legg inn av WJhonson » 06 sep 2007 19:57:39

<<In a message dated 09/06/07 11:55:15 Pacific Standard Time, sir_crispin_gaylord@yahoo.co.uk writes:
You have in effect denied all of ancient history. >>

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

There are historians and chroniclers who are contemporary with the events they describe, just not for Ireland.

WJhonson

Re: C.P. Addition: The kinship of Charles Brandon's wives, M

Legg inn av WJhonson » 06 sep 2007 20:09:30

<<In a message dated 09/06/07 11:56:22 Pacific Standard Time, WJhonson writes:
Further on this front, there is evidently some primary material quoted in a work that *appears* to be called something like "Letters and Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII" in four volumes. >>
-------------------------
Thank you Will for your excellent post. As usual we can count on you to root around in the garbage dump of genealogy. You will be enlightened to know that the work you refer to above is actually called
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/2601015&re ... ef_results
"Letters and papers, foreign and domestic, of the reign of Henry VIII, preserved in the Public Record Office, the British Museum, and elsewhere. by J S Brewer; Robert Henry Brodie; James Gairdner; Great Britain. Public Record Office."
Any person going to the WorldCat link I've provided, providing that they have entered their own zip code, can see which libraries closest to them, have this particular work. I see that it exists at 136 libraries.
Will Johnson

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Duke of Buccleuch Dies

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 06 sep 2007 21:24:54

So, a relative of Cousin Diana...

With a bastard descent from Charles II.

DSH

"Dag T. Hoelseth" <dagtho@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189109280.428002.179550@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

On Sep 4, 6:12 pm, David <ds...@softhome.net> wrote:

John Scott, the ninth Duke ofBuccleuch, a descendant of King Charles
II, has died:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scot ... /6978528...

His heir is Richard Scott, hitherto Earl of Dalkeith.

Obituary in The Daily Telegraph 5 September 2007:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... db0501.xml

Dag T. Hoelseth
--
http://www.geocities.com/dagtho/royalty.html

Brad Verity

Re: C.P. Addition: The kinship of Charles Brandon's wives, M

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 06 sep 2007 21:47:43

On Sep 6, 10:03 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

Complete Peerage, 12 Pt. 1 (1959(); 458, footnote g, quotes the 1528
papal bull which recites that Charles Brandon and his 1st wife,
Margaret Neville, were related in the 2nd and 3rd degrees of
affinity. It explains the exact nature of the affinity, namely that
Charles Brandon's grandmother was the brother of the father of a
former husband of Margaret Neville.

I understand you meant that the Duke's grandmother was a sister of the
father of a former husband of Margaret Nevill.

This can only mean that Margaret
Neville had a previous unknown 1st marriage to a Wingfield or a Darcy,
which fact is totally ignored by Complete Peerage.

Or it could mean that the Duke (Charles Brandon) was willing to say
anything to get the 1528 papal bull.

The papal bull also states that Margaret Neville and Charles Brandon's
2nd wife, Anne Browne, were related within the 2nd and 3rd degrees of
consanguinity. Since Margaret was so much older than either Charles
or Anne, the short side of the kinship would surely be on Margaret's
side.

You keep repeating this point over and over - is it because it's the
one point in this topic on which nobody has challenged you? Yes,
clearly, the short side of the kinship would be the elder woman,
Margaret. Excellent deduction.

If correct,

There's the rub. As Will and Adrian have pointed out, we have a whole
bunch of evidence available to us - today - that the papal bureaucrat
behind the bull either didn't have, or didn't even care to have, in
1528.

This was not a one-off papal dispensation for a young kindred couple
to wed. The motivation behind the 1528 bull was a poltically powerful
man wishing to a) insure that his marriage to the king's sister
remained valid and legal in every sense; and b) if at all possible,
prevent his two daughters by Anne Browne from having their legitmacy
removed in any legal sense.

Since the stated relationships in the 1528 papal bull seem to
contradict the known genealogy of the individuals involved, rather
than rushing to have those genealogies re-written, isn't it more
likely the results of the 1528 bull were as politically 'tweaked' as
most decrees coming out of governments today, in 2007?

then this means that Anne Browne was a grandchild
of a brother or sister of Margaret Neville's father, John Neville,
Marquess of Montagu. Anne Browne can not be related through Margaret
Neville's mother, Isabel Ingaldesthorpe, as Isabel had no siblings.

Once again, a point that no one has challenged.

Complete Peerage bungles this part as well as it makes that Anne
Browne the niece of Margaret Neville, rather than first cousin once
removed.

Yes, those horrible editors and researchers of CP - how dare they make
such errors! Thank goodness we have you, today, a "trained
historian", re-tracing their steps with the vast amount of online
catalogues and databases (of which the editors of CP working in the
early 20th century could never have dreamed), and the geographical
proximity to the greatest collection of genealogical material in
western history, or at least in U.S. history. You are so superior to
them in intellect and research ability.

Is that what you want us to say?

The evidence clearly shows that Anne Browne can not have
been Margaret Neville's niece. Anne Browne's father was married to
Margaret Neville's sister, but long after Anne Browne was born. In
any event, if Margaret and Anne had been aunt and niece, the kinship
would have been 1st and 2nd degrees of kindred, not 2nd and 3rd as
stated in the papal bull.

Yes, repeat again the point that no one has challenged you on. Say it
one more time, just for fun.

This also means that Anne Browne was not the daughter of Sir Anthony
Browne, by Eleanor Ughtred, as Eleanor Ughtred was not near related to
Margaret Neville.

Prove it. I dare you.

Whoever Anne Browne's mother was, she would have
had to have been near related to Margaret Neville. Since Eleanor
Ughtred does not fit this qualification, Adrian Channing's theory
about Eleanor Ughtred being Anne Browne's mother fails. Back to
square one. Time for a correction to Chris Philips' correction of
Complete Peerage.

Or time for exposure of your flawed research and deductions once
again.

Comments are invited.

Only if they're in agreement with your conclusions. Any challenges,
as have come up, won't be addressed.

Cheers, --------Brad

WJhonson

Re: C.P. Addition: The kinship of Charles Brandon's wives, M

Legg inn av WJhonson » 06 sep 2007 22:13:42

<<In a message dated 09/05/07 23:10:18 Pacific Standard Time, royalancestry@msn.com writes:
We know
that Anne Browne had already borne him a child out of wedlock when
they married and also that he had previously contracted to marry her
before he married his 1st wife, Margaret Neville.>>

-------------------------
I am not sure that we know that she had borne him a child out-of-wedlock. I think this is an assumption based on other things. He certainly does not imply, in his own hand, that this was the case. Rather what he says is that he went to divorce his wife and *then* married Anne.

The dates I have don't argue against what he says. Of course he could be lying, but I have seen no primary document that indicates he is or isn't. Just a lot of secondary author's opinions on the matter. If Anne Brandon were born between 1508 and 1512 she would have been an age-match for her husband Edward Grey, 4th Lord Grey of Powis (d 2 Jul 1551)

Similarly Mary Brandon born in 1510 is an age-match for her husband Thomas Stanley, 2nd Lord Monteagle (b 1507, d 1560)

So I see no impediment there to allowing what Charles said to be true. I believe it's probably NOT true, but then that doesn't make it proven.

What we would need to see is a *primary* document calling Anne his "natural daughter" or something of that sort.

The author mispeaks when he states that the bull *legitimized* the children, since Charles states or implies that they were divorced before he married Anne. That Charles may have had doubts as to whether he had done everything properly and that he wanted to *assure* himself that the Pope himself retroactively annulled the first marriage, makes sense, it just may not be true.

So that's where things are until we can see some quotes from the primaries themselves.

Will

WJhonson

Re: C.P. Addition: The kinship of Charles Brandon's wives, M

Legg inn av WJhonson » 06 sep 2007 22:36:02

Thank you Adrian for an excellent post.

Are there more details about the life of Anthony Ughtred, Marshall of Tournai in 1514 ?
Was he Elizabeth Seymour's first husband? He must have been a bit older ?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Richard Casady

Re: 'Fitz' In Genealogy & History

Legg inn av Richard Casady » 06 sep 2007 23:09:51

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 20:01:39 GMT, The Highlander <micheil@shaw.ca>
wrote:

I've been debating writing a song about him, but am having trouble
finding a suitable rhyme for "Fuckwit".

Duckshit?

Casady

Gjest

Re: Peter Stewart's Reading, Writing, Comprehension & Family

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 sep 2007 23:10:19

Peter Stewart wrote
Hines evidently sees his own past through a "glory hole". So now do
we...but without the distortions of his Narcissistic Personality and
Obsessive-Compulsive disorders.
-----------------------------

good gosh, Peter Stewart must be crazy !!!
his traffic accident does explain a few things, I will try to keep
that in mind when reading his posts which are always good for a laugh
- he fancies himself to be someone of importance, but that is self
deception - needless to say that he is delusional which is self-
evident when one reads his posts - his posts can be so silly that I am
stunned at times at what he says

pip phillips

Gjest

Re: Fw: 'Fitz' In Genealogy & History

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 sep 2007 01:08:02

Dear Sinclair,
At What point do you stop referring to a relative as a
cousin is an excellent question. It used to be common usage to say second to
fourth cousin was the normal ending point. I believe that the Geneticists
currently are of the opinion that your any signifigant portion of your DNA would
descend to you from your fourth Great Grandparents. No further back. That
would mean you should to be able to prove kinship to no further than your fifth
cousin.
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: Peter Stewart's Reading, Writing, Comprehension & Family

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 sep 2007 02:26:12

On Sep 6, 3:10 pm, PIPPHILLIP...@AOL.com wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote> Hines evidently sees his own past through a "glory hole". So now do
we...but without the distortions of his Narcissistic Personality and
Obsessive-Compulsive disorders.

-----------------------------
good gosh, Peter Stewart must be crazy !!!
his traffic accident does explain a few things, I will try to keep
that in mind when reading his posts which are always good for a laugh
- he fancies himself to be someone of importance, but that is self
deception - needless to say that he is delusional which is self-
evident when one reads his posts - his posts can be so silly that I am
stunned at times at what he says

pip phillips

Oh look - another Hiney love child!

Tony Ingham

Re: Jane (Joan) Botiler d 1489

Legg inn av Tony Ingham » 07 sep 2007 02:32:06

Hello Will,

You are on the right tram here. Joan's I.P.M. follows.

Inquisitions Post Mortem for London p. 7.
Joan, wife of John Stanford.
Inquisition taken at London, 16 September, 5 Henry VII before Robert
Tate, Mayor and escheator. The jurors say that :
Joan, who was the wife of John Stanford, was seised of the moiety of
5 tenements in the parish of St. Botolph next Billyngisgate, 3 whereof
are situated in Thamystrete, and 2 in Botolphslane ; also of the 6th
part of the 16th part of another tenement called the Oldwolkey situate
in the parish of the Blessed Mary of Barkyng.
So seised, the said Joan married John Stanford, esq., and they had
issue John Stanford who died thereof seised. The said John Stanford the
father still survives : after the death of his said son he was seised of
the moiety and 6th part for his life.
The premises are held of the King in free burbage : the moiety of the
said 3 messuages in Thamystrete is worth per ann., clear, 66s. 8d., the
moiety of the said 2 messuages in Botolphslane, 13s. 4d., and the said
6th part, 26s. 8d.
Joan Stanford died 22 July, 4 Henry VII [1489] ; Thomas Leventhorp,
son of John Leventhorp, junior, is her son and next heir, and is aged 24
years and more.
Inq. p. m. 5
Henry VII, No. 135.

All the best,

Tony Ingham



WJhonson wrote:
Joan Botiler married John Leventhorpe the younger. And she died in 1489

Is it known whether she is the same Joan Botiler who married John Stanford ?
It seems possible.

Thanks
Will Johnson

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



WJhonson

Re: Jane (Joan) Botiler d 1489

Legg inn av WJhonson » 07 sep 2007 02:43:26

Thanks Tony I've had to rearrange my notes on this but now I have

Joan Boteler, daughter of Sir John Boteler, Knt of Bewsey by his wife Isabel Harrington

She married firstly John Leventhorpe the younger by whom a son Thomas Leventhorpe of Meppershall born 1464-1467 "aged 24 by his mother's IPM dated 5H7"; Thomas died 20 Jul 1498; heir apparent to his mother's properties

She married secondly John Stanford, Esq, who after her death, in her 1489/90 IPM was holding part of his dead wife Joan's properties for life. By this union a son John Stanford heir of his mother but d.v.p. whereupon his portion reverted to his father for life.

Also by this last union a daughter Elizabeth Stanford (d 1537) who m William Cornwallis (d 1519)

Elizabeth Stanford descends from the throne of Scotland in 10 steps, whereas William Cornwallis from England in nine steps.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: C.P. Addition: The kinship of Charles Brandon's wives, M

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 sep 2007 02:50:04

Will,

Thanks for your kind remarks.

All I have of Anthony Ughtred is given in CP Vol XII/ii p 165

"VII. 1510. 7.{th Baron] Sir Robert Ughtred, s and h., was b. 1498. (fn k)
In May 1520 he sold his manors of Skagglethorpe and Redhouse to his
great-uncle, Sir Anthony Ughtred; (fn a) .....

Then under footnote:
(a) He also sold the manor of Moor Monkton to him, Mar. 1522/3 (Yorks Arch.
Soc., Rec. Ser., vol. 1, pp 125-26, 162). This Sir Anthony was a yr. s. of
Robert (d. 1487) and is mentioned in the latter's will (L.and P. Hen VIII, vol.
iv, no 388 (4); see p. 164, note "c" above). He was knighted, 1512-13,
became Marshal of Tournai, Capt. of Berwick, &c., and attained a position of
considerable importance. He m. Elizabeth Seymour, sister of Jane Seymour, 3rd
wife of Henry VIII, and of the Protector Somerset, and d. in 1534 (L. and P.
Hen VIII, vols. i-vii, passim; ante vol. ii, sub CROMWELL [1540]; Dict. Nat
Biog.)

Concise DNB says he was Marshal of Tournai in 1514, Capt of Berwick in
1223-8 and also gov of Jersey.

Under Cromwell:
Gregory Cromwell ... He m., before 1538, [Vol XIV between 17 July and 3 Aug
1537] Elizabeth, widow of Sir Anthony Oughtred, sister of Edward, Duke of
Somerset, and da of Sir John Seymour, of Wolfhall, Wilts, by Margery, da. of Sir
Henry Wentworth, K.B. He d. at Launde, co. Leicester, 4, and was bur. 7
July 1551, in the Abbey there. (fn) Inq. p.m. 25 Sep. 1551. His widow m., as
his 2nd wife, John (Paulet or Powlett), 2nd Marquess of Winchester, who d. 4
Nov. 1576. She, who was living 25 Oct. 1552, at Launde, was bur. in Basing
Church.

Don't know Anthony Ughtred eldest brother Robert's dob, but he had a son b
1477. Anthony must have been born before 1487 (date of his father's death)
but considering his nephew's dob, probably quite a bit earlier. Don't know
Elizabeth Seymour dob, I have c1509-1537 for Jane Seymour, so it does look likely
that Sir Anthony was probably a good 20 years older that his wife.

ODNB would presumably have more on him (could be under "O" or "U")

Best regards,
Adrian


In a message dated 06/09/2007 22:36:42 GMT Standard Time, wjhonson@aol.com
writes:

Thank you Adrian for an excellent post.

Are there more details about the life of Anthony Ughtred, Marshall of
Tournai in 1514 ?
Was he Elizabeth Seymour's first husband? He must have been a bit older ?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Jane Margaret Laight

Re: 'Fitz' In Genealogy & History

Legg inn av Jane Margaret Laight » 07 sep 2007 03:32:26

On Sep 5, 4:01 pm, The Highlander <mich...@shaw.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 14:30:51 +0200, "Normandy" <aab...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:







"D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
oGmDi.251$YE3....@eagle.america.net...
The Voice of Reason Speaks Up.

All those with FITZ in their names are NOT Royal Bastards, as "Normandy"
would have it.

DSH

Not all using Fitz were royal bastards but if you are related to the late
Diana, Princess of Wales she was descended from at least 6 royal bastards.

Ws she yur cousin as I have seen said here?

Sinclair

Hines claims to be related to anyone of any importance, from Jesus to
the soc.history.medieval toilet cleaner.

Each new claim has us scrambling for our genealogies before breathing
a sigh of grateful relief... He's the ultimate social climber and the
biggest bullshitter who ever breathed.

I've been debating writing a song about him, but am having trouble
finding a suitable rhyme for "Fuckwit".

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

- Show quoted text -

Weel, if you are trying for a rhyme for that, try "glaikit" (for non-
Scots speakers it is a descriptive word meaning stupid or foolish)

As for discussions of the bar sinister, I have to disclose that nearly
all Scottish Laights (not that many left) are descended from the
result of a roll in the hay (or glen) between an Ayrshire farm girl
and some unknown male--for some reason the kid decided to call himself
"Lait" although his mother was a Crawford--my uncle always figured he
named himself after a ruined castle in the neighborhood that may have
belonged to one of the Crawfords of Auchinames, who could have been
his dad; I have wondered if he was trying to make a joke or something.
A few generations later, the spelling was changed by a descendant who
opened a dry goods emporium in the city of Carlisle and probably
figured that "Laight" looked better on a signboard.

JML
Now Gods, stand up for bastards!

John Higgins

Re: Query: Frideswide Frowicke "aged 9" 1507

Legg inn av John Higgins » 07 sep 2007 04:49:36

You are correct. For further information on Frideswide and her father, see
"The Ancestry of Mary Isaac", by Walter Goodwin Davis [1955].

Sir Thomas Cheney of Shurland had a daughter Anne who was married (as his
1st wife) to Sir John Perrott, who is often claimed to be a natural son of
King Henry VIII. Davis in the work cited above says that Anne was a
daughter of Frideswide Frowicke (without citing a specific source), as do
some visitation pedigrees, but other sources (not necessarily reliable) say
that she was a daughter of Anne Broughton. Does anyone have any more
definitive evidence to resolve the question of Anne Cheney's maternity?

----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 7:42 PM
Subject: Query: Frideswide Frowicke "aged 9" 1507


Query: That Frideswide Frowicke "aged 9" in the IPM of her father Thomas
dated 3 Feb 22H7 is that *same* Frideswide Frowicke who m as 1st wife Thomas

Cheney of Shurland
Thomas afterward m2 Anne Broughton thus becoming parents of that Henry,
1st Baron Cheney of Toddington.

Tis so ?

Thanks
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

Normandy

Re: Duke of Buccleuch Dies

Legg inn av Normandy » 07 sep 2007 06:35:25

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
LmZDi.311$YE3.666@eagle.america.net...
So, a relative of Cousin Diana...

With a bastard descent from Charles II.

DSH


How closely were you related to 'Cousin Diana'? How closely was the late
Duke of Buccleuch related to Diana? How closely are you related to that
family?

Normandy

Leo van de Pas

Re: Duke of Buccleuch Dies

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 07 sep 2007 07:21:54

----- Original Message -----
From: "Normandy" <aabbcc@wanadoo.fr>
Newsgroups: alt.celebrities, alt.history.british,
alt.politics.british,alt.talk.royalty, soc.genealogy.medieval,
soc.history.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: Duke of Buccleuch Dies
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> a écrit dans le message de
news: LmZDi.311$YE3.666@eagle.america.net...
So, a relative of Cousin Diana...

With a bastard descent from Charles II.

DSH

How closely were you related to 'Cousin Diana'? How closely was the late
Duke of Buccleuch related to Diana? How closely are you related to that
family?

Normandy
===========Hermann Goring is a tenth cousin four times removed of Lady

Diana, but that bastard is not a descendant of Charles II.
But he is a "Plantagenet Cousin" as he descends from Geoffrey of Anjou,
because of this he is one of the subjects of my book "Plantagenet Cousins"
but you don't have to buy the book as his small biography can be found on my
website http://www.genealogics.org
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia





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


-------------------------------
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: Diana, Princess Of Wales's Descents From Charles II

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 07 sep 2007 08:24:01

Mary Crofts.

She was never acknowledged by Charles II.

Back when Leo was a Reasonable Man.

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

"Dear Spencer,

Mary is not a daughter of Charles II. Her mother, Lucy Walter, is mother of
the Duke of Monmouth and even his paternity is slightly, but only slightly,
shaky. After Monmouth was born Charles II quickly discarded her as she had
roving eyes. When Lucy Walter died, Charles II took James Scott, Duke of
Monmouth, to bring him up. He did not take Mary Crofts. Mary was fathered by
Henry Bennet, 1st Earl of Arlington, and the Crofts surname comes from Henry
Bennet's mother.

The other two lines are spot on.

Have a look in my data base and ask for Lucy Walter, she has a few
biographical remarks about this."

Leo van de Pas ---- 9 September 2003
-----------------------------------------------------------

Mary Crofts? Was her father actually Henry Bennet, 1st Earl of Arlington,
Viscount Thetford, b. abt 1618, Middlesex? -- DSH

From: "José Verheecke" <jose.verheecke@pandora.be>

Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval

Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 12:00 PM

Subject: Re: Lines From Charles II To Diana, Princess Of Wales [1961-1997]

| According to an excellent article by Philip Hall(a)
| Lucy Walter's daughter Mary(°Den Haag,Holland ..-5-1651)
| was fathered by Theobald,2nd Viscount Taaffe(+1677)....
| (a)Philip Hall:"Charles II's Noble descendants"(Genealogist's
| Magazine vol 22:7 [Sept 1987],col.487-500)
|
| José Verheecke

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

Thanks.

How about the descent from Nell Gwynn?

A tree...

DSH

"William Reitwiesner" <wmaddams@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:wmaddams-46EAA7.22264705092007@news.supernews.com...

In article <1188996157.250031.217200@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Turenne <richard.lichten1@virgin.net> wrote:

On 5 Sep, 09:35, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

How does Diana descend from Charles II and Lucy Walter and Charles II
and Nell Gwynn?

The descents from James Crofts-Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth or another
alleged child of Lucy Walter, Mary -- and Charles Beauclerk, Duke of
Saint Albans, the son by Nell Gwynn.

Thank you.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

See:

http://worldroots.com/brigitte/dianalines.htm

Or

http://geneweb.inria.fr/roglo?lang=en;m ... 2=0;dag=on

So, if Leo is correct -- WAR must be wrong.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

a.spencer3

Re: Duke of Buccleuch Dies

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 07 sep 2007 12:46:01

"Normandy" <aabbcc@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:46e0e321$0$5080$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:
LmZDi.311$YE3.666@eagle.america.net...
So, a relative of Cousin Diana...

With a bastard descent from Charles II.

DSH


How closely were you related to 'Cousin Diana'? How closely was the late
Duke of Buccleuch related to Diana? How closely are you related to that
family?


Probably even further away than are we Spencers, by the distance between
Surrey & Hawaii, which must be as far away as one can be, thank goodness.

Surreyman

Gjest

Re: Browne Matters in Michael Questier's Catholicism and Com

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 sep 2007 12:55:05

All the same, someone has erred, being about 80 years out.

Adrian


In a message dated 07/09/2007 02:35:26 GMT Standard Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

[ill-considered crosspost removed]

On Sep 6, 4:05 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

Mr. Questier makes at least two mistakes in his discussion of the
Browne family. He states on page 69 that Sir Anthony Browne and his
wife, Lucy Neville, were married "about 1580," citing as his source
BL, Additional MS 5726 E. 5, fo. 22r. The truth, however, is far from
this date.

This is a mistake if, AND ONLY IF, BL Additional MS 5726E, fo. 22r
does not say that they were married at this time. Additional
information may allow more precision or more accuracy, but that does
not make it a "mistake" to report what a source says.

Surely your training taught you the importance of using precise
language.

taf

taf

Re: Browne Matters in Michael Questier's Catholicism and Com

Legg inn av taf » 07 sep 2007 13:34:20

On Sep 7, 3:53 am, ADRIANCHANNIN...@aol.com wrote:
All the same, someone has erred, being about 80 years out.


Yes. The information is quite wrong, but it is not like Questier
consciously, or even subconsciously, selected bad information over
good.

As an example of what I am getting at, I could name a book that says a
certain Bastard of Exeter was beheaded weeks before the Battle of
Towton, and then a few lines later suggests that the same Bastard of
Exeter may have been one of the two who died in the Battle. That the
author did not know that the source claiming two bastards of Exeter
died in the Battle is incorrect is not a mistake, just inaccurate
information derived from a flawed primary source - that kind of thing
can happen to anyone and does not imply that the researcher is poorly
trained, or worse, is a (gasp) typical historian. On the other hand,
that the author has the same man dying at two different times and
places, several weeks apart, - THAT is a mistake.

Anyone who makes a specialized study of genealogical minutiae is bound
to delve into the records more deeply and find more precise
information than the historical researcher for whom the detail in
question is peripheral to their focus (perhaps even a 'throw-away'
aside). While meriting correction or amendment, this is hardly
legitimate grounds for censuring the historian for "blunders" and
"mistakes".

taf

Gjest

Re: Most Villainous Mediaeval Villain

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 sep 2007 13:45:04

On Sep 5, 6:29 am, Jan Böhme <jan.bo...@sh.se> wrote:
On 5 Sep, 04:50, Tim <A.Windem...@gmail.com> wrote:

Genghis Khan was cruel but he was shrewd and competent. His cruelty
was meant to intimidate or to eliminate his opponents. He was also
able to inspire loyalty among his supporters.

Right. He was an imperialist who expanded his empire by terror
warfare, but who was a very wise, tolerant and just ruler for his
times once the territories were included in his empire.

Relatively recent Chinese-Mongolian miniseries 'Ghengis Khan'
sometimes make it difficult to distinguish him from Mother
Theresa. :-)

Funny, but it looks like the modern Mongols can't use the bows while
riding: when it comes to shooting, the archers are always on foot.
There is also an usual confusion about artillery: a lot of (early)
modern guns are shown during the conquest of Northern China but when
it comes to Khwaresm, they are replaced with pre-gunpowder equipment.

Normandy

Re: Duke of Buccleuch Dies

Legg inn av Normandy » 07 sep 2007 14:08:16

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
ZRaEi.38114$ph7.13097@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
"Normandy" <aabbcc@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:46e0e321$0$5080$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:
LmZDi.311$YE3.666@eagle.america.net...
So, a relative of Cousin Diana...

With a bastard descent from Charles II.

DSH


How closely were you related to 'Cousin Diana'? How closely was the late
Duke of Buccleuch related to Diana? How closely are you related to that
family?


Probably even further away than are we Spencers, by the distance between
Surrey & Hawaii, which must be as far away as one can be, thank goodness.

Surreyman

Always been interested in where names came from. Looked up Spencer "In a
castle a chamberlain was an important official. The surname Chambers comes
from the same source, a man who looked after the king's or a noble's private
chambers. The man who dispensed stores was a spencer. Other officials were
the parker who looked after the game park and the warriner who looked after
rabbit warrens. From him we get the surname Warner. The reeve was an
important official in a Medieval village. Bailey is a
corruption of bailiff, another important official

http://www.localhistories.org/surnames.html

Normandy

a.spencer3

Re: Duke of Buccleuch Dies

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 07 sep 2007 15:00:29

"Normandy" <aabbcc@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:46e14d44$0$25927$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
ZRaEi.38114$ph7.13097@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...

"Normandy" <aabbcc@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:46e0e321$0$5080$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:
LmZDi.311$YE3.666@eagle.america.net...
So, a relative of Cousin Diana...

With a bastard descent from Charles II.

DSH


How closely were you related to 'Cousin Diana'? How closely was the
late
Duke of Buccleuch related to Diana? How closely are you related to that
family?


Probably even further away than are we Spencers, by the distance between
Surrey & Hawaii, which must be as far away as one can be, thank
goodness.

Surreyman

Always been interested in where names came from. Looked up Spencer "In a
castle a chamberlain was an important official. The surname Chambers comes
from the same source, a man who looked after the king's or a noble's
private
chambers. The man who dispensed stores was a spencer. Other officials were
the parker who looked after the game park and the warriner who looked
after
rabbit warrens. From him we get the surname Warner. The reeve was an
important official in a Medieval village. Bailey is a
corruption of bailiff, another important official

http://www.localhistories.org/surnames.html

Normandy

Yep, but the first de Spenser in the UK, I think, was also a 'steward' in

the sense of being a right hand man of William I (but after the Conquest).
A family with many consequent beheadings for treason, castle-buildings and
banishments - they were an odd lot.
Our branch came down through whichever lot were Lords of the Manor of
Wimbledon, so I had the benefit of being 'Spencer of Spencer Hill' when
living in Wimbledon as a kid!!
And another lot (or maybe the same) were, coincidentally, Lords of the Manor
from 1272 of my current home area. But these were largely absent LOMs out
here, also including Edward the Confessor and the Beauforts.
However, it's all inevitably very convoluted and from whichever side of the
blanket.
Something I must get into better when I retire properly!

Surreyman

Normandy

Re: Duke of Buccleuch Dies

Legg inn av Normandy » 07 sep 2007 15:57:28

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1QcEi.45712$S91.12211@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
"Normandy" <aabbcc@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:46e14d44$0$25927$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
ZRaEi.38114$ph7.13097@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...

"Normandy" <aabbcc@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:46e0e321$0$5080$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:
LmZDi.311$YE3.666@eagle.america.net...
So, a relative of Cousin Diana...

With a bastard descent from Charles II.

DSH


How closely were you related to 'Cousin Diana'? How closely was the
late
Duke of Buccleuch related to Diana? How closely are you related to
that
family?


Probably even further away than are we Spencers, by the distance
between
Surrey & Hawaii, which must be as far away as one can be, thank
goodness.

Surreyman

Always been interested in where names came from. Looked up Spencer "In a
castle a chamberlain was an important official. The surname Chambers
comes
from the same source, a man who looked after the king's or a noble's
private
chambers. The man who dispensed stores was a spencer. Other officials
were
the parker who looked after the game park and the warriner who looked
after
rabbit warrens. From him we get the surname Warner. The reeve was an
important official in a Medieval village. Bailey is a
corruption of bailiff, another important official

http://www.localhistories.org/surnames.html

Normandy

Yep, but the first de Spenser in the UK, I think, was also a 'steward' in
the sense of being a right hand man of William I (but after the Conquest).
A family with many consequent beheadings for treason, castle-buildings and
banishments - they were an odd lot.
Our branch came down through whichever lot were Lords of the Manor of
Wimbledon, so I had the benefit of being 'Spencer of Spencer Hill' when
living in Wimbledon as a kid!!
And another lot (or maybe the same) were, coincidentally, Lords of the
Manor
from 1272 of my current home area. But these were largely absent LOMs out
here, also including Edward the Confessor and the Beauforts.
However, it's all inevitably very convoluted and from whichever side of
the
blanket.
Something I must get into better when I retire properly!

Surreyman

The Falaise Roll records a d'spencer but the Caen table does not. Since
William sailed from Falaise I would think that more accurate. The Churchills
claimed descent from the companion of William the Conqueror.by way of
d'Spencer down to Sir John Spencer who had flourished as a grazier in Surry
on rented property. Sir John becmae a Lord of the Manor. Whilst the roll at
Falaise does not capitalise d'spencer by the time Winston Leonard Spencer
Churchill was born the 's' had long been capitalised.

Spencer of Spencer Hill bit of all right


This is probably old stuff to you and we are probably very close cousins.
Best guess 78 th cousins 14 times removed. That is, of course if we trace
our lines back to Adam and Eve. But if we are going through Lucy of Africa I
am afraid that the relationship may be a bit more distant. My cousin do you
think I may be pulling your leg? Would I do a thing like that?

Normandy






























































































































>

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»