Blount-Ayala
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Merilyn Pedrick
Re: children of Richard, 1st Baron Rich
Dear Brownen
I don't have Edward Rich in my database, but do have Richard Rich married to
Jane Machell, daughter of Sir John Machell, Alderman of London 1553-1556 and
his wife Jane Luddington.
There was also a daughter Anne who married Robert Townsend of Ludlowe. "In
Visitations of Norfolk 1563, 1589, 1613 page 291 "Robert Townsend of Ludlowe
married Anne daughter of John Machell of London, Alderman."
Merilyn Pedrick
-------Original Message-------
From: lostcooper@yahoo.com
Date: 09/10/07 03:35:17
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: children of Richard, 1st Baron Rich
Some families who post their trees on Ancestry.com claim that Richard
Rich (d.1567) and Elizabeth Jenks (d. 1558) had a son, Edward (c.
1550-1600). On the usual credible websites, even Stirnet, I find no
"Edward" listed among the children. Only two sons are listed, neither
of whom show a marriage to "Jane or Ann Machell" as is shown for
"Edward" on the Ancestry site. Does anyone have some special insight
or a crystal ball that suggests Edward may or may not have existed? Or
that he may have existed but with different parents? Or that he might
be a bastard? Thanks - Bronwen
-------------------------------
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
I don't have Edward Rich in my database, but do have Richard Rich married to
Jane Machell, daughter of Sir John Machell, Alderman of London 1553-1556 and
his wife Jane Luddington.
There was also a daughter Anne who married Robert Townsend of Ludlowe. "In
Visitations of Norfolk 1563, 1589, 1613 page 291 "Robert Townsend of Ludlowe
married Anne daughter of John Machell of London, Alderman."
Merilyn Pedrick
-------Original Message-------
From: lostcooper@yahoo.com
Date: 09/10/07 03:35:17
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: children of Richard, 1st Baron Rich
Some families who post their trees on Ancestry.com claim that Richard
Rich (d.1567) and Elizabeth Jenks (d. 1558) had a son, Edward (c.
1550-1600). On the usual credible websites, even Stirnet, I find no
"Edward" listed among the children. Only two sons are listed, neither
of whom show a marriage to "Jane or Ann Machell" as is shown for
"Edward" on the Ancestry site. Does anyone have some special insight
or a crystal ball that suggests Edward may or may not have existed? Or
that he may have existed but with different parents? Or that he might
be a bastard? Thanks - Bronwen
-------------------------------
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: Who Really Came With William The Conqueror In 1066?
More Grist For The Mill...
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Companions of the Conqueror
(person) by aneurin Thu Aug 26 2004 at 20:08:08
C! info: 1 C! given by: legbagede
10 ¶, 38 s, 646 w, 4273 c
The 'Companions of the Conqueror' is the collective name given to those individuals who joined with William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy in the great adventure of the invasion of England in 1066, fought at the Duke's side at the battle of Hastings, and later shared in the spoils of victory.
It later became the case that almost every family of note in England were to claim that one of their ancestors was there at Hastings with the Conqueror and a matter of pride that they could trace their origins back to the founding year of 1066. As time went by the list of alleged companions grew larger and larger with many authenticating their claim by citing as evidence various lists of the 'companions' that had appeared.
The first of these was the Battle Abbey Roll originating from Battle Abbey built by William I on the site of his victory at Hastings. This was as scroll tablet bearing the names of sundry counts, viscounts, barons and knights which was later interpretated as a list of William the Conqueror's companions. The original of this document is no longer extant and it is only known through various sixteenth century copies which often differ in content. (The longest version has 629 names although several of these are believed to be duplicates.)
There was also the similar Falaise Roll originating from Falaise in Normandy which existed in about eight versions and which also listed the names of those hardy souls who set sail with Duke William in 1066. In 1931 the French Government produced an 'authorised' version of the Falaise Roll listing some 315 names which were engraved on the bronze tablet and erected in the Chapel of Falaise Castle in Normandy.
Unfortunately as a guide to identifying the true Companions of the Conqueror neither of these two sources are now regarded as of any value. The Battle Abbey Roll is now believed to be a much later list of families of a generally 'French' origin, and the Falaise Roll is similarly regarded as medieval concoction.
The actual list of names of those undoubted companions who where present with William at the Battle of Hastings is actually quite short and consists of only fifteen names as follows;
a.. 1. Robert de Beaumont, later Earl of Leicester
b.. 2. Eustace of Boulogne, Count of Boulogne
c.. 3. William of Evreux, later Count of Evreux
d.. 4. Geoffrey of Mortagne, later Count of Perche
e.. 5. William Fitz Osbern, later Earl of Hereford
f.. 6. Aimeri de Thouars, Vicomte of Thouars
g.. 7. Hugh de Montfort, seigneur of Montfort-sur-Risle
h.. 8. Walter Giffard, seigneur of Longueville
i.. 9. Ralph de Toeni, seigneur of Conches
j.. 10. Hugh de Grandmesil, seigneur of Grandmesnil
k.. 11. William de Warenne, later Earl of Surrey
l.. 12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville
m.. 13. Odo of Bayeux, Bishop of Bayeux, later Earl of Kent
n.. 14. Turstin Fitz Rou
o.. 15. Engenulf de Laigle, seigneur of Laigle
To this list can be added the names of five more of individuals who where in the Norman invasion force and were therefore very probably at Hastings;
a.. 16. Geoffrey de Montbray, Bishop of Coutances.
b.. 17. Robert of Mortain, Count of Mortain, later Earl of Cornwall.
c.. 18. Wadard, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
d.. 19. Vital, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
e.. 20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay.
All these names are derived from contemporary or near contemporary records as follows; Numbers 1-12, and 16 were named by William of Poitiers, numbers 13, and 17-19 were portrayed in the Bayeux Tapestry, numbers 14, 15 and 20 were named by Orderic Vitalis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCES
The list of twenty names originates from "The Complete Peerage" by George Cockrayne et al, specifically in Volume XII, in the postscript to Appendix L (regarding the 1066 Battle of Hastings), "Companions of the Conqueror," pp. 47-48
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Companions of the Conqueror
(person) by aneurin Thu Aug 26 2004 at 20:08:08
C! info: 1 C! given by: legbagede
10 ¶, 38 s, 646 w, 4273 c
The 'Companions of the Conqueror' is the collective name given to those individuals who joined with William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy in the great adventure of the invasion of England in 1066, fought at the Duke's side at the battle of Hastings, and later shared in the spoils of victory.
It later became the case that almost every family of note in England were to claim that one of their ancestors was there at Hastings with the Conqueror and a matter of pride that they could trace their origins back to the founding year of 1066. As time went by the list of alleged companions grew larger and larger with many authenticating their claim by citing as evidence various lists of the 'companions' that had appeared.
The first of these was the Battle Abbey Roll originating from Battle Abbey built by William I on the site of his victory at Hastings. This was as scroll tablet bearing the names of sundry counts, viscounts, barons and knights which was later interpretated as a list of William the Conqueror's companions. The original of this document is no longer extant and it is only known through various sixteenth century copies which often differ in content. (The longest version has 629 names although several of these are believed to be duplicates.)
There was also the similar Falaise Roll originating from Falaise in Normandy which existed in about eight versions and which also listed the names of those hardy souls who set sail with Duke William in 1066. In 1931 the French Government produced an 'authorised' version of the Falaise Roll listing some 315 names which were engraved on the bronze tablet and erected in the Chapel of Falaise Castle in Normandy.
Unfortunately as a guide to identifying the true Companions of the Conqueror neither of these two sources are now regarded as of any value. The Battle Abbey Roll is now believed to be a much later list of families of a generally 'French' origin, and the Falaise Roll is similarly regarded as medieval concoction.
The actual list of names of those undoubted companions who where present with William at the Battle of Hastings is actually quite short and consists of only fifteen names as follows;
a.. 1. Robert de Beaumont, later Earl of Leicester
b.. 2. Eustace of Boulogne, Count of Boulogne
c.. 3. William of Evreux, later Count of Evreux
d.. 4. Geoffrey of Mortagne, later Count of Perche
e.. 5. William Fitz Osbern, later Earl of Hereford
f.. 6. Aimeri de Thouars, Vicomte of Thouars
g.. 7. Hugh de Montfort, seigneur of Montfort-sur-Risle
h.. 8. Walter Giffard, seigneur of Longueville
i.. 9. Ralph de Toeni, seigneur of Conches
j.. 10. Hugh de Grandmesil, seigneur of Grandmesnil
k.. 11. William de Warenne, later Earl of Surrey
l.. 12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville
m.. 13. Odo of Bayeux, Bishop of Bayeux, later Earl of Kent
n.. 14. Turstin Fitz Rou
o.. 15. Engenulf de Laigle, seigneur of Laigle
To this list can be added the names of five more of individuals who where in the Norman invasion force and were therefore very probably at Hastings;
a.. 16. Geoffrey de Montbray, Bishop of Coutances.
b.. 17. Robert of Mortain, Count of Mortain, later Earl of Cornwall.
c.. 18. Wadard, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
d.. 19. Vital, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
e.. 20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay.
All these names are derived from contemporary or near contemporary records as follows; Numbers 1-12, and 16 were named by William of Poitiers, numbers 13, and 17-19 were portrayed in the Bayeux Tapestry, numbers 14, 15 and 20 were named by Orderic Vitalis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCES
The list of twenty names originates from "The Complete Peerage" by George Cockrayne et al, specifically in Volume XII, in the postscript to Appendix L (regarding the 1066 Battle of Hastings), "Companions of the Conqueror," pp. 47-48
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Who Really Came With William The Conqueror In 1066?
More Grist For The Mill...
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
----------------------------------------------
Companions of the Conqueror (person)
(person) by aneurin Thu Aug 26 2004 at 20:08:08
C! info: 1 C! given by: legbagede
10 ¶, 38 s, 646 w, 4273 c
The 'Companions of the Conqueror' is the collective name given to those individuals who joined with William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy in the great adventure of the invasion of England in 1066, fought at the Duke's side at the battle of Hastings, and later shared in the spoils of victory.
It later became the case that almost every family of note in England were to claim that one of their ancestors was there at Hastings with the Conqueror and a matter of pride that they could trace their origins back to the founding year of 1066. As time went by the list of alleged companions grew larger and larger with many authenticating their claim by citing as evidence various lists of the 'companions' that had appeared.
The first of these was the Battle Abbey Roll originating from Battle Abbey built by William I on the site of his victory at Hastings. This was as scroll tablet bearing the names of sundry counts, viscounts, barons and knights which was later interpretated as a list of William the Conqueror's companions. The original of this document is no longer extant and it is only known through various sixteenth century copies which often differ in content. (The longest version has 629 names although several of these are believed to be duplicates.)
There was also the similar Falaise Roll originating from Falaise in Normandy which existed in about eight versions and which also listed the names of those hardy souls who set sail with Duke William in 1066. In 1931 the French Government produced an 'authorised' version of the Falaise Roll listing some 315 names which were engraved on the bronze tablet and erected in the Chapel of Falaise Castle in Normandy.
Unfortunately as a guide to identifying the true Companions of the Conqueror neither of these two sources are now regarded as of any value. The Battle Abbey Roll is now believed to be a much later list of families of a generally 'French' origin, and the Falaise Roll is similarly regarded as medieval concoction.
The actual list of names of those undoubted companions who where present with William at the Battle of Hastings is actually quite short and consists of only fifteen names as follows;
a.. 1. Robert de Beaumont, later Earl of Leicester
b.. 2. Eustace of Boulogne, Count of Boulogne
c.. 3. William of Evreux, later Count of Evreux
d.. 4. Geoffrey of Mortagne, later Count of Perche
e.. 5. William Fitz Osbern, later Earl of Hereford
f.. 6. Aimeri de Thouars, Vicomte of Thouars
g.. 7. Hugh de Montfort, seigneur of Montfort-sur-Risle
h.. 8. Walter Giffard, seigneur of Longueville
i.. 9. Ralph de Toeni, seigneur of Conches
j.. 10. Hugh de Grandmesil, seigneur of Grandmesnil
k.. 11. William de Warenne, later Earl of Surrey
l.. 12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville
m.. 13. Odo of Bayeux, Bishop of Bayeux, later Earl of Kent
n.. 14. Turstin Fitz Rou
o.. 15. Engenulf de Laigle, seigneur of Laigle
To this list can be added the names of five more of individuals who where in the Norman invasion force and were therefore very probably at Hastings;
a.. 16. Geoffrey de Montbray, Bishop of Coutances.
b.. 17. Robert of Mortain, Count of Mortain, later Earl of Cornwall.
c.. 18. Wadard, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
d.. 19. Vital, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
e.. 20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay.
All these names are derived from contemporary or near contemporary records as follows; Numbers 1-12, and 16 were named by William of Poitiers, numbers 13, and 17-19 were portrayed in the Bayeux Tapestry, numbers 14, 15 and 20 were named by Orderic Vitalis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCES
The list of twenty names originates from "The Complete Peerage" by George Cockrayne et al, specifically in Volume XII, in the postscript to Appendix L (regarding the 1066 Battle of Hastings), "Companions of the Conqueror," pp. 47-48
<http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1672719&displaytype=printable>
DSH
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
----------------------------------------------
Companions of the Conqueror (person)
(person) by aneurin Thu Aug 26 2004 at 20:08:08
C! info: 1 C! given by: legbagede
10 ¶, 38 s, 646 w, 4273 c
The 'Companions of the Conqueror' is the collective name given to those individuals who joined with William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy in the great adventure of the invasion of England in 1066, fought at the Duke's side at the battle of Hastings, and later shared in the spoils of victory.
It later became the case that almost every family of note in England were to claim that one of their ancestors was there at Hastings with the Conqueror and a matter of pride that they could trace their origins back to the founding year of 1066. As time went by the list of alleged companions grew larger and larger with many authenticating their claim by citing as evidence various lists of the 'companions' that had appeared.
The first of these was the Battle Abbey Roll originating from Battle Abbey built by William I on the site of his victory at Hastings. This was as scroll tablet bearing the names of sundry counts, viscounts, barons and knights which was later interpretated as a list of William the Conqueror's companions. The original of this document is no longer extant and it is only known through various sixteenth century copies which often differ in content. (The longest version has 629 names although several of these are believed to be duplicates.)
There was also the similar Falaise Roll originating from Falaise in Normandy which existed in about eight versions and which also listed the names of those hardy souls who set sail with Duke William in 1066. In 1931 the French Government produced an 'authorised' version of the Falaise Roll listing some 315 names which were engraved on the bronze tablet and erected in the Chapel of Falaise Castle in Normandy.
Unfortunately as a guide to identifying the true Companions of the Conqueror neither of these two sources are now regarded as of any value. The Battle Abbey Roll is now believed to be a much later list of families of a generally 'French' origin, and the Falaise Roll is similarly regarded as medieval concoction.
The actual list of names of those undoubted companions who where present with William at the Battle of Hastings is actually quite short and consists of only fifteen names as follows;
a.. 1. Robert de Beaumont, later Earl of Leicester
b.. 2. Eustace of Boulogne, Count of Boulogne
c.. 3. William of Evreux, later Count of Evreux
d.. 4. Geoffrey of Mortagne, later Count of Perche
e.. 5. William Fitz Osbern, later Earl of Hereford
f.. 6. Aimeri de Thouars, Vicomte of Thouars
g.. 7. Hugh de Montfort, seigneur of Montfort-sur-Risle
h.. 8. Walter Giffard, seigneur of Longueville
i.. 9. Ralph de Toeni, seigneur of Conches
j.. 10. Hugh de Grandmesil, seigneur of Grandmesnil
k.. 11. William de Warenne, later Earl of Surrey
l.. 12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville
m.. 13. Odo of Bayeux, Bishop of Bayeux, later Earl of Kent
n.. 14. Turstin Fitz Rou
o.. 15. Engenulf de Laigle, seigneur of Laigle
To this list can be added the names of five more of individuals who where in the Norman invasion force and were therefore very probably at Hastings;
a.. 16. Geoffrey de Montbray, Bishop of Coutances.
b.. 17. Robert of Mortain, Count of Mortain, later Earl of Cornwall.
c.. 18. Wadard, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
d.. 19. Vital, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
e.. 20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay.
All these names are derived from contemporary or near contemporary records as follows; Numbers 1-12, and 16 were named by William of Poitiers, numbers 13, and 17-19 were portrayed in the Bayeux Tapestry, numbers 14, 15 and 20 were named by Orderic Vitalis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCES
The list of twenty names originates from "The Complete Peerage" by George Cockrayne et al, specifically in Volume XII, in the postscript to Appendix L (regarding the 1066 Battle of Hastings), "Companions of the Conqueror," pp. 47-48
<http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1672719&displaytype=printable>
DSH
-
Gjest
Re: children of Richard, 1st Baron Rich
On Sep 9, 5:21 pm, "Merilyn Pedrick" <pedri...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Marilyn & Tony, thank you both. The question may not be answered in a
definitive way, but it's always good to have more clues to work with.
- Bronwen
Dear Brownen
I don't have Edward Rich in my database, but do have Richard Rich married to
Jane Machell, daughter of Sir John Machell, Alderman of London 1553-1556 and
his wife Jane Luddington.
There was also a daughter Anne who married Robert Townsend of Ludlowe. "In
Visitations of Norfolk 1563, 1589, 1613 page 291 "Robert Townsend of Ludlowe
married Anne daughter of John Machell of London, Alderman."
Merilyn Pedrick
-------Original Message-------
From: lostcoo...@yahoo.com
Date: 09/10/07 03:35:17
To: gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Subject: children of Richard, 1st Baron Rich
Some families who post their trees on Ancestry.com claim that Richard
Rich (d.1567) and Elizabeth Jenks (d. 1558) had a son, Edward (c.
1550-1600). On the usual credible websites, even Stirnet, I find no
"Edward" listed among the children. Only two sons are listed, neither
of whom show a marriage to "Jane or Ann Machell" as is shown for
"Edward" on the Ancestry site. Does anyone have some special insight
or a crystal ball that suggests Edward may or may not have existed? Or
that he may have existed but with different parents? Or that he might
be a bastard? Thanks - Bronwen
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Marilyn & Tony, thank you both. The question may not be answered in a
definitive way, but it's always good to have more clues to work with.
- Bronwen
-
Lockehead
Re: Jasper Tudor's bastard daughter, Ellen, wife of William
On Sep 9, 10:55 am, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
So.....................................................are we still
trying to make a correction to ODNB that says there was only one
child and his name was "Thomas" ?
On Sep 8, 8:43 pm, Lockehead <franklo...@mris.com> wrote:
Here is the proof I was talking about:
"Peter Watson, of London, draper, and William Sybson, husband of
Ellen, late the wife of William Gardyner v the Mayor, Aldermen, and
Sheriffs of London: an action by the children of William Gardyner,
deceased, to recover the portion of his son Thomas, who has entered
Westminster abbey" (C 1/252/12, dated 1501-1502).
We also see from this that William Gardiner had "children", not just
a
son Thomas.
Yes, it is clear that William had more than one child. What it doesn't
show is how many children Ellen had.
taf
So.....................................................are we still
trying to make a correction to ODNB that says there was only one
child and his name was "Thomas" ?
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Why Do Left-Wing Democrats Have Fewer Children?
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2076.1189393657.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Read what I actually wrote -- NOT what you erroneously THINK that I wrote.
I drew no linkage or causal relationship -- claiming that "left-wing
*families* *produce* more homosexuals" -- that's simply Johnson's Red
Herring Strawman.
If I thought that -- and I don't -- I would have written it.
He needs to take a Reading Comprehension For Boneheads 101 course at his
local Community College, report grade and await further instructions.
'Nuff Said.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
------------------------------------
Yes, one sees a lot of speculation about that.
It has been referred to as the Roe-Wade Factor.
Left-wing Loons are, quite often, one-child families who have practiced lots
of contraceptive techniques -- including abortions -- and more homosexuals
ARE Democrats -- no one seriously denies that.
Look at the CLINTONS -- one-child family.
That's one reason why they're so popular with the Red Chinese in Beijing.
Whereas the Romneys have five sons.
The odds against that, of course, are 31 to 1.
So, Mitt Romney is virile too. <g>
Soon we will have the Plan B Solution -- the "Morning After" pills....
In fact it's already here.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
news:mailman.2076.1189393657.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 9/9/2007 1:05:17 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
panther@excelsior.com writes:
Left-wing Loons are, quite often, one-child families who have practiced
lots of contraceptive techniques -- including abortions -- and more
homosexuals ARE Democrats -- no one seriously denies that.
-----------------
The logical flaw is that left-wing *families* *produce* more homosexuals,
versus homosexuals *becoming* left-wing later in life, simply because
left-wing politicians tend to favor homosexual causes.
Will
Read what I actually wrote -- NOT what you erroneously THINK that I wrote.
I drew no linkage or causal relationship -- claiming that "left-wing
*families* *produce* more homosexuals" -- that's simply Johnson's Red
Herring Strawman.
If I thought that -- and I don't -- I would have written it.
He needs to take a Reading Comprehension For Boneheads 101 course at his
local Community College, report grade and await further instructions.
'Nuff Said.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
------------------------------------
Soldier in a Combat Zone wrote:
"The real problem that the democrats have is that they have a very low
birth rate due to abortion, homosexuality and one child families".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, one sees a lot of speculation about that.
It has been referred to as the Roe-Wade Factor.
Left-wing Loons are, quite often, one-child families who have practiced lots
of contraceptive techniques -- including abortions -- and more homosexuals
ARE Democrats -- no one seriously denies that.
Look at the CLINTONS -- one-child family.
That's one reason why they're so popular with the Red Chinese in Beijing.
Whereas the Romneys have five sons.
The odds against that, of course, are 31 to 1.
So, Mitt Romney is virile too. <g>
Soon we will have the Plan B Solution -- the "Morning After" pills....
In fact it's already here.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
taf
Re: Jasper Tudor's bastard daughter, Ellen, wife of William
On Sep 9, 7:57 pm, Lockehead <franklo...@mris.com> wrote:
Perhaps that should be left to trained historians.
It would perhaps be rash to draw any conclusion based solely on this
archival summary. If the action is taken in the interest of the
children, then the acting parties must have been involved on their
behalf, and the children minors. This would leave a narrow window for
children by an earlier marriage still minors in 1500/1, but it would
also seem atypical for Ellen to be acting in the interests of step-
children alone.
taf
On Sep 9, 10:55 am, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
On Sep 8, 8:43 pm, Lockehead <franklo...@mris.com> wrote:
Here is the proof I was talking about:
"Peter Watson, of London, draper, and William Sybson, husband of
Ellen, late the wife of William Gardyner v the Mayor, Aldermen, and
Sheriffs of London: an action by the children of William Gardyner,
deceased, to recover the portion of his son Thomas, who has entered
Westminster abbey" (C 1/252/12, dated 1501-1502).
We also see from this that William Gardiner had "children", not just
a
son Thomas.
Yes, it is clear that William had more than one child. What it doesn't
show is how many children Ellen had.
So.....................................................are we still
trying to make a correction to ODNB that says there was only one
child and his name was "Thomas" ?
Perhaps that should be left to trained historians.
It would perhaps be rash to draw any conclusion based solely on this
archival summary. If the action is taken in the interest of the
children, then the acting parties must have been involved on their
behalf, and the children minors. This would leave a narrow window for
children by an earlier marriage still minors in 1500/1, but it would
also seem atypical for Ellen to be acting in the interests of step-
children alone.
taf
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Why Do Left-Wing Democrats Have Fewer Children?
But I did, just take that course, using the *speed* option and flunked
it! -- <WJhonson@aol.com
1. Hilarious!
2. Well, no surprises over that.
3. He's screwed the pooch again:
He DID clearly indicate my "logic" was wrong, PLUS he took what I said
completely out of context by overzealous snipping.
Here's what I said:
Soldier in a Combat Zone wrote:
"The real problem that the democrats have is that they have a very low
birth rate due to abortion, homosexuality and one child families".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, one sees a lot of speculation about that.
It has been referred to as the Roe-Wade Factor.
Left-wing Loons are, quite often, one-child families who have practiced lots
of contraceptive techniques -- including abortions -- and more homosexuals
ARE Democrats -- no one seriously denies that.
Look at the CLINTONS -- one-child family.
That's one reason why they're so popular with the Red Chinese in Beijing.
Whereas the Romneys have five sons.
The odds against that, of course, are 31 to 1.
So, Mitt Romney is virile too. <g>
Soon we will have the Plan B Solution -- the "Morning After" pills....
In fact it's already here.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2078.1189396197.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 9/9/2007 8:30:14 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
panther@excelsior.com writes:
He needs to take a Reading Comprehension For Boneheads 101 course at his
local Community College, report grade and await further instructions.
---------------------
I didn't say *you* said it
But I did, just take that course, using the *speed* option and flunked
it!
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Why Do Left-Wing Democrats Have Fewer Children?
Have you heard of this Plan B -- popularly known as "The Morning After"
Pills?
Wow, is that going to have some sociological, medical, psychiatric, legal,
genealogical, criminal and demographic repercussions!
<http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/Index.aspx>
No Prescription Required for girls over 17.
Damn, I'd not want to be the Father of a teenage son or daughter today!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Pills?
Wow, is that going to have some sociological, medical, psychiatric, legal,
genealogical, criminal and demographic repercussions!
<http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/Index.aspx>
No Prescription Required for girls over 17.
Damn, I'd not want to be the Father of a teenage son or daughter today!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
Gjest
Re: Why Do Left-Wing Democrats Have Fewer Children?
In a message dated 9/9/2007 1:05:17 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
panther@excelsior.com writes:
Left-wing Loons are, quite often, one-child families who have practiced lots
of contraceptive techniques -- including abortions -- and more homosexuals
ARE Democrats -- no one seriously denies that.
-----------------
The logical flaw is that left-wing *families* *produce* more homosexuals,
versus homosexuals *becoming* left-wing later in life, simply because left-wing
politicians tend to favor homosexual causes.
Will
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
panther@excelsior.com writes:
Left-wing Loons are, quite often, one-child families who have practiced lots
of contraceptive techniques -- including abortions -- and more homosexuals
ARE Democrats -- no one seriously denies that.
-----------------
The logical flaw is that left-wing *families* *produce* more homosexuals,
versus homosexuals *becoming* left-wing later in life, simply because left-wing
politicians tend to favor homosexual causes.
Will
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Why Do Left-Wing Democrats Have Fewer Children?
"Larry Swain" <theswain@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:TJWdnTpEqrcRX3nbnZ2dnUVZ_t2inZ2d@rcn.net...
Hilarious!
Grasping At Straws...
Very Elementary Latin.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
news:TJWdnTpEqrcRX3nbnZ2dnUVZ_t2inZ2d@rcn.net...
Homosexual Civil Unions: A Medieval Tradition?:
http://www.scientificblogging.com/news/ ... _tradition
Hilarious!
Grasping At Straws...
Very Elementary Latin.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
Gjest
Re: Why Do Left-Wing Democrats Have Fewer Children?
In a message dated 9/9/2007 8:30:14 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
panther@excelsior.com writes:
He needs to take a Reading Comprehension For Boneheads 101 course at his
local Community College, report grade and await further instructions.
---------------------
I didn't say *you* said it
But I did, just take that course, using the *speed* option and flunked it!
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
panther@excelsior.com writes:
He needs to take a Reading Comprehension For Boneheads 101 course at his
local Community College, report grade and await further instructions.
---------------------
I didn't say *you* said it
But I did, just take that course, using the *speed* option and flunked it!
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-
Normandy
Re: "Normandy" -- Fraud & Liar Or Genuine?
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
vtWEi.47$DU5.261@eagle.america.net...
How closely related are you to 'Cousin' Diana, 'Cousin' Harry and the future
king 'Cousin' William? Must have missed your answer
Normandy
vtWEi.47$DU5.261@eagle.america.net...
1. "Normandy" <aabbcc@wanadoo.fr> posts hiding behind a pseudonym.
2. "Normandy" claims he is a graduate of Yale College, Class of 1962 --
but won't reveal his Real Name -- and posts cowardly, hiding behind the
pseudonym.
3. I'm calling him on it.
4. "Normandy" either reveals his Real Name, so he can be authenticated,
or he's starkly revealed as a Fraud, a Charlatan and a Liar -- as well as
a sock puppet of course.
'Nuff Said.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
How closely related are you to 'Cousin' Diana, 'Cousin' Harry and the future
king 'Cousin' William? Must have missed your answer
Normandy
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: "Normandy" -- Fraud & Liar Or Genuine?
1. "Normandy" <aabbcc@wanadoo.fr> posts hiding behind a pseudonym.
2. "Normandy" claims he is a graduate of Yale College, Class of 1962 -- but
won't reveal his Real Name -- and posts cowardly, hiding behind the
pseudonym.
3. I'm calling him on it.
4. "Normandy" either reveals his Real Name, so he can be authenticated, or
he's starkly revealed as a Fraud, a Charlatan and a Liar -- as well as a
sock puppet of course.
'Nuff Said.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
----------------------------------------
5. Yep, He's A Fraud, A Charlatan & A Liar...
6. No Surprises There.
7. Game Over.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
2. "Normandy" claims he is a graduate of Yale College, Class of 1962 -- but
won't reveal his Real Name -- and posts cowardly, hiding behind the
pseudonym.
3. I'm calling him on it.
4. "Normandy" either reveals his Real Name, so he can be authenticated, or
he's starkly revealed as a Fraud, a Charlatan and a Liar -- as well as a
sock puppet of course.
'Nuff Said.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
----------------------------------------
5. Yep, He's A Fraud, A Charlatan & A Liar...
6. No Surprises There.
7. Game Over.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
-
Normandy
Re: "Normandy" -- Fraud & Liar Or Genuine?
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
OZ4Fi.80$DU5.369@eagle.america.net...
david, David as phoney as ever.
Normandy
OZ4Fi.80$DU5.369@eagle.america.net...
1. "Normandy" <aabbcc@wanadoo.fr> posts hiding behind a pseudonym.
2. "Normandy" claims he is a graduate of Yale College, Class of 1962 --
but
won't reveal his Real Name -- and posts cowardly, hiding behind the
pseudonym.
3. I'm calling him on it.
4. "Normandy" either reveals his Real Name, so he can be authenticated,
or
he's starkly revealed as a Fraud, a Charlatan and a Liar -- as well as a
sock puppet of course.
'Nuff Said.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
----------------------------------------
5. Yep, He's A Fraud, A Charlatan & A Liar...
6. No Surprises There.
7. Game Over.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
david, David as phoney as ever.
Normandy
-
Ray O'Hara
Re: "Normandy" -- Fraud & Liar Or Genuine?
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:OZ4Fi.80$DU5.369@eagle.america.net...
you were asked a simple question.
what college did you attend at yale university.
that you at first didn't understand the question, and then done everything
possible to ignore it an change the subject you have proven normandy's
assertion that you are no eli.
LET IT BE KNOWN TO ALL AND SUNDRY THAT DSH IS A BLACKGUARD, FRAUD AND LIAR
news:OZ4Fi.80$DU5.369@eagle.america.net...
1. "Normandy" <aabbcc@wanadoo.fr> posts hiding behind a pseudonym.
2. "Normandy" claims he is a graduate of Yale College, Class of 1962 --
but
won't reveal his Real Name -- and posts cowardly, hiding behind the
pseudonym.
3. I'm calling him on it.
4. "Normandy" either reveals his Real Name, so he can be authenticated,
or
he's starkly revealed as a Fraud, a Charlatan and a Liar -- as well as a
sock puppet of course.
'Nuff Said.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
----------------------------------------
5. Yep, He's A Fraud, A Charlatan & A Liar...
6. No Surprises There.
7. Game Over.
you were asked a simple question.
what college did you attend at yale university.
that you at first didn't understand the question, and then done everything
possible to ignore it an change the subject you have proven normandy's
assertion that you are no eli.
LET IT BE KNOWN TO ALL AND SUNDRY THAT DSH IS A BLACKGUARD, FRAUD AND LIAR
-
The Highlander
Re: "Normandy" -- Fraud & Liar Or Genuine?
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 02:25:35 -0400, "Ray O'Hara"
<mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote:
Pot/kettle/black.
The Highlander
Tilgibh smucaid air do làmhan,
togaibh a' bhratach dhubh agus
toisichibh a' geàrradh na sgòrnanan!
<mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:OZ4Fi.80$DU5.369@eagle.america.net...
1. "Normandy" <aabbcc@wanadoo.fr> posts hiding behind a pseudonym.
2. "Normandy" claims he is a graduate of Yale College, Class of 1962 --
but
won't reveal his Real Name -- and posts cowardly, hiding behind the
pseudonym.
3. I'm calling him on it.
4. "Normandy" either reveals his Real Name, so he can be authenticated,
or
he's starkly revealed as a Fraud, a Charlatan and a Liar -- as well as a
sock puppet of course.
'Nuff Said.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
----------------------------------------
5. Yep, He's A Fraud, A Charlatan & A Liar...
6. No Surprises There.
7. Game Over.
Pot/kettle/black.
you were asked a simple question.
what college did you attend at yale university.
that you at first didn't understand the question, and then done everything
possible to ignore it an change the subject you have proven normandy's
assertion that you are no eli.
LET IT BE KNOWN TO ALL AND SUNDRY THAT DSH IS A BLACKGUARD, FRAUD AND LIAR
The Highlander
Tilgibh smucaid air do làmhan,
togaibh a' bhratach dhubh agus
toisichibh a' geàrradh na sgòrnanan!
-
Gjest
Re: "Normandy" -- Fraud & Liar Or Genuine?
In a message dated 9/9/2007 10:55:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
panther@excelsior.com writes:
"Normandy" either reveals his Real Name, so he can be authenticated, or
he's starkly revealed as a Fraud, a Charlatan and a Liar -- as well as a
sock puppet of course.
--
The other alternative is that he is insane, actually believing something for
which there is no evidence.
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
panther@excelsior.com writes:
"Normandy" either reveals his Real Name, so he can be authenticated, or
he's starkly revealed as a Fraud, a Charlatan and a Liar -- as well as a
sock puppet of course.
--
The other alternative is that he is insane, actually believing something for
which there is no evidence.
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Monarchy In Exile Conference
I concur.
DSH
"Dag T. Hoelseth" <dagtho@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189409613.872979.56950@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
DSH
"Dag T. Hoelseth" <dagtho@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189409613.872979.56950@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 10 Sep, 08:15, CJ Buyers <susuha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Sep 9, 9:49 pm, allanraymond <allan_raym...@btinternet.com> wrote:
Guy
Thanks for the information, I have to confess not having heard of GHIL
until now.
Not to worry, it is the usual Sainty self publicity, that's all.
I don't think Mr. Sainty has any direct connection to the GHIL other
than taking part in one of its conferences. His message is on topic to
this group and surely something many ATR contributors will find
interesting, so I think Mr. Sainty deserves a thank you note rather
than petty criticism for posting this.
Dag T. Hoelseth
--
http://www.geocities.com/dagtho/royalty.html
-
WJhonson
Re: Anna of Arimathea - who is HER husband?
Does it not occur to you, that Anna if such a person even existed, as daughter of a man obviously *living* at least until 30 AD let's say, could not herself be married to a man who was *dead* by 70 BC more than one hundred years previously ?
In a message dated 09/10/07 11:28:22 Pacific Standard Time, dsam@sampubco.com writes:
1. Beli Mawr, "King" of the Britons
bef 162 BC, died 72 BC
In a message dated 09/10/07 11:28:22 Pacific Standard Time, dsam@sampubco.com writes:
1. Beli Mawr, "King" of the Britons
bef 162 BC, died 72 BC
-
WJhonson
Re: Anna of Arimathea - who is HER husband?
<<In a message dated 09/10/07 11:28:22 Pacific Standard Time, dsam@sampubco.com writes:
2. Brian Boru ap Ly Llediaith
(Bran Fendigaid "the blesed" Llediaith ap Llyr, King of Siluria)
born Siluria (now Monmouth), Wales
(grandson of #1 Beli Mawr) >>
----------------
No it's quite silly. The Anna who married Brian Boru was the daughter of James the Just the first Bishop of Jerusalem
Will "giggling hysterically" Johnson
2. Brian Boru ap Ly Llediaith
(Bran Fendigaid "the blesed" Llediaith ap Llyr, King of Siluria)
born Siluria (now Monmouth), Wales
(grandson of #1 Beli Mawr) >>
----------------
No it's quite silly. The Anna who married Brian Boru was the daughter of James the Just the first Bishop of Jerusalem
Will "giggling hysterically" Johnson
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Anna of Arimathea - who is HER husband?
He's not a thinker.
DSH
"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2093.1189450003.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
DSH
"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2093.1189450003.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Does it not occur to you, that Anna if such a person even existed, as
daughter of a man obviously *living* at least until 30 AD let's say, could
not herself be married to a man who was *dead* by 70 BC more than one
hundred years previously ?
In a message dated 09/10/07 11:28:22 Pacific Standard Time,
dsam@sampubco.com writes:
1. Beli Mawr, "King" of the Britons
bef 162 BC, died 72 BC
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Anna of Arimathea - who is HER husband?
"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2094.1189450125.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
RIGHT!
The brother of Jesus of Nazarath. <G>
DSH
> Will "giggling hysterically" Johnson
news:mailman.2094.1189450125.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 09/10/07 11:28:22 Pacific Standard Time,
dsam@sampubco.com writes:
2. Brian Boru ap Ly Llediaith
(Bran Fendigaid "the blesed" Llediaith ap Llyr, King of Siluria)
born Siluria (now Monmouth), Wales
(grandson of #1 Beli Mawr)
----------------
No it's quite silly. The Anna who married Brian Boru was the daughter of
James the Just the first Bishop of Jerusalem
RIGHT!
The brother of Jesus of Nazarath. <G>
DSH
> Will "giggling hysterically" Johnson
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Anna of Arimathea - who is HER husband?
Recte:
"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2094.1189450125.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
RIGHT!
The brother of Jesus of Nazareth. <G>
DSH
Pax Vobiscum
> Will "giggling hysterically" Johnson
"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2094.1189450125.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 09/10/07 11:28:22 Pacific Standard Time,
dsam@sampubco.com writes:
2. Brian Boru ap Ly Llediaith
(Bran Fendigaid "the blesed" Llediaith ap Llyr, King of Siluria)
born Siluria (now Monmouth), Wales
(grandson of #1 Beli Mawr)
----------------
No it's quite silly. The Anna who married Brian Boru was the daughter of
James the Just the first Bishop of Jerusalem
RIGHT!
The brother of Jesus of Nazareth. <G>
DSH
Pax Vobiscum
> Will "giggling hysterically" Johnson
-
WJhonson
Re: children of Richard, 1st Baron Rich
Richard, 1st Baron Rich has a DNB article which lists children and also lists its own sources. They mention two legitimate sons and one illegitimate one, but no Edward.
Will
Will
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Sept 10th 1813
??????
DSH
"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fc48b8$8mn$1@registered.motzarella.org...
DSH
"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fc48b8$8mn$1@registered.motzarella.org...
It must make you very proud that, within a month of the defeat of the
Allied forces at Dresden, the USA was busy stabbing one of them in the
back as the rest of the world fought on to try and stop the tyranny.
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Sept 10th 1813
Pogue Black now wants to drag in the European Napoleonic Wars -- because
he's flummoxed again.
Hilarious!
We Americans had very little interest in your interminable European Wars in
the 18th and 19th Centuries.
When Napoleon was desperate we secured the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and
kept you Perfidious Brits out of an area you clearly wanted to expand into
from Canada.
We finally got sick and tired of being dragged into your interminable
European Wars, in the 20th Century, after winning World Wars I and II for
you, and established NATO, forced you European pogues to ante up with
trained armed forces and equipment -- although we still do most of the heavy
lifting -- and put an American General in charge so you foolish pogues would
feel the whip and the longstaff when appropriate to keep you from
quarrelling with each other again.
We even partially solved your Bosnian Problem for you, which you had allowed
to fester and ferment for decades.
-----------------------------------
??????
DSH
"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fc48b8$8mn$1@registered.motzarella.org...
he's flummoxed again.
Hilarious!
We Americans had very little interest in your interminable European Wars in
the 18th and 19th Centuries.
When Napoleon was desperate we secured the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and
kept you Perfidious Brits out of an area you clearly wanted to expand into
from Canada.
We finally got sick and tired of being dragged into your interminable
European Wars, in the 20th Century, after winning World Wars I and II for
you, and established NATO, forced you European pogues to ante up with
trained armed forces and equipment -- although we still do most of the heavy
lifting -- and put an American General in charge so you foolish pogues would
feel the whip and the longstaff when appropriate to keep you from
quarrelling with each other again.
We even partially solved your Bosnian Problem for you, which you had allowed
to fester and ferment for decades.
-----------------------------------
??????
DSH
"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fc48b8$8mn$1@registered.motzarella.org...
It must make you very proud that, within a month of the defeat of the
Allied forces at Dresden, the USA was busy stabbing one of them in the
back as the rest of the world fought on to try and stop the tyranny.
-
taf
Re: Danish Ordinals (was: Re: Brits vs. Normans [was Re: Why
On Sep 10, 12:56 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
[no, he quoted Jwc as having written]
It has been a couple of years since I looked at this, so I am a little
foggy on precise details, but the dates for Gorm derive in two
different ways. One is based on pretty sketchy reconstructions from
Adam, Saxo, etc. The other basis is the tree-ring dating of what is
thought to be the coffin of his son Harald, combined with claimed
length of reign. As I recall, the two produced different results
(plus there are those who argue that the burial in question is of Gorm
himself and not Harald). As to Gorm's wife, we can make no guess,
other than that he raised a rune stone in her memory, so she must have
died long enough before him at least to get the thing carved.
taf
taf
In a message dated 09/09/07 14:40:13 Pacific Standard Time, farme...@interfold.com writes:
[no, he quoted Jwc as having written]
his son Frotho d 885
succeeded , his son Harald II died 899 succeeded and his son is given as Gorm died
936 died as King sof all Denmark.
-----------------
I wonder if this date of "died 936" can be supported.
I note other sources give Gorm more exploits long after this date and suggest he died "probably about 958". His *wife* however is possibly meant by "died 936" as she is known to have predeceased her husband.
It has been a couple of years since I looked at this, so I am a little
foggy on precise details, but the dates for Gorm derive in two
different ways. One is based on pretty sketchy reconstructions from
Adam, Saxo, etc. The other basis is the tree-ring dating of what is
thought to be the coffin of his son Harald, combined with claimed
length of reign. As I recall, the two produced different results
(plus there are those who argue that the burial in question is of Gorm
himself and not Harald). As to Gorm's wife, we can make no guess,
other than that he raised a rune stone in her memory, so she must have
died long enough before him at least to get the thing carved.
taf
taf
-
Ray O'Hara
Re: Sept 10th 1813
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:eDhFi.103$DU5.278@eagle.america.net...
pogue hines shows us his lack of historical knowledge by being befuddled by
a reference to the 1813 battle of dresden between the french and the
agressor sixth coalition of prussia, russia and austria, england while a
member was not present at the battle. it had a token force in iberia but it
maily used its money to bribe officials of continental countries to fool
them into warring with france while they took over vast swaths of the
subcontinent and trading colonies world wide.
blackguard seems to think that america objecting to britain interfering with
its trade and refusing to evacuate areas of america per the treaty of paris
1783, and its continual inciting of indians to attack american settlements
{and then abandoning said idians in classic pefidiousness} is stabbing them
in the bck.
news:eDhFi.103$DU5.278@eagle.america.net...
??????
DSH
"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fc48b8$8mn$1@registered.motzarella.org...
It must make you very proud that, within a month of the defeat of the
Allied forces at Dresden, the USA was busy stabbing one of them in the
back as the rest of the world fought on to try and stop the tyranny.
pogue hines shows us his lack of historical knowledge by being befuddled by
a reference to the 1813 battle of dresden between the french and the
agressor sixth coalition of prussia, russia and austria, england while a
member was not present at the battle. it had a token force in iberia but it
maily used its money to bribe officials of continental countries to fool
them into warring with france while they took over vast swaths of the
subcontinent and trading colonies world wide.
blackguard seems to think that america objecting to britain interfering with
its trade and refusing to evacuate areas of america per the treaty of paris
1783, and its continual inciting of indians to attack american settlements
{and then abandoning said idians in classic pefidiousness} is stabbing them
in the bck.
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Who Really Came With William The Conqueror In 1066?
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 22:05:30 -0700, David <dsalo@softhome.net> wrote:
Probably there were several of William's followers who were not
actually at the battle, but who were otherwise occupied during the
invasion or joined their duke in the days or months after the battle, who
could later have been supposed, or have been remembered by their
descendants, as being present at Hastings (with more honesty than
accuracy). -- ???? -- DSH
---------------------------------------------
Nope...
No Sale.
A Companion of the Conqueror has to have made the crossing with Guillaume,
duc de Normandie and been present somewhere at the Battle of Hastings,
Saturday, 14 October 1066 -- where he became Guillaume le Conquerant.
Someone who shared the extreme risks with the Conqueror at this World
Historical Event that sounds echoes to this very day.
Sorry you can't find at least one CoC of your own. Emphasis on CONQUERING
those ruddy English at Hastings.
Of course, as we have discovered, if you have one Companion of the Conqueror
you probably have a dozen or so in your bag, after a successful grouse hunt.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
-
David
Re: Who Really Came With William The Conqueror In 1066?
On Sep 10, 3:52 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Heh. I'm not looking for a "CoC" -- not being even slightly English
-- or Norman-French, or Flemish, or Breton -- they would look quite
out of place in my family tree!
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 22:05:30 -0700, David <ds...@softhome.net> wrote:
Probably there were several of William's followers who were not
actually at the battle, but who were otherwise occupied during the
invasion or joined their duke in the days or months after the battle, who
could later have been supposed, or have been remembered by their
descendants, as being present at Hastings (with more honesty than
accuracy). -- ???? -- DSH
---------------------------------------------
Nope...
No Sale.
A Companion of the Conqueror has to have made the crossing with Guillaume,
duc de Normandie and been present somewhere at the Battle of Hastings,
Saturday, 14 October 1066 -- where he became Guillaume le Conquerant.
Someone who shared the extreme risks with the Conqueror at this World
Historical Event that sounds echoes to this very day.
Sorry you can't find at least one CoC of your own. Emphasis on CONQUERING
those ruddy English at Hastings.
Heh. I'm not looking for a "CoC" -- not being even slightly English
-- or Norman-French, or Flemish, or Breton -- they would look quite
out of place in my family tree!
-
WJhonson
Re: Who Really Came With William The Conqueror In 1066?
<<In a message dated 09/10/07 11:46:05 Pacific Standard Time, mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:
This leaves three,
Grantmesnil, Montfort, and Conches (Tosni). I get those three
through Ironmonger, a not very common gateway. How do others get them? >>
---------------------
Hugh de Grantmesnil comes through Joan of Acre's daughter Alianor who m Hugh Despencer, Earl Winchester for one. I think many people have Joan as an ancestor.
One line to the colonies is through that John Throckmorton who d 1684 Middletown, New Jersey
Will Johnson
This leaves three,
Grantmesnil, Montfort, and Conches (Tosni). I get those three
through Ironmonger, a not very common gateway. How do others get them? >>
---------------------
Hugh de Grantmesnil comes through Joan of Acre's daughter Alianor who m Hugh Despencer, Earl Winchester for one. I think many people have Joan as an ancestor.
One line to the colonies is through that John Throckmorton who d 1684 Middletown, New Jersey
Will Johnson
-
WJhonson
Re: Brits vs. Normans [was Re: Why This Continuing Loony Inf
<<n a message dated 09/10/07 14:00:54 Pacific Standard Time, dsalo@softhome.net writes:
It would be
nice to say that the English crossed the North Sea just to shake hands
with the British, and the British welcomed them with open arms, and
then they all intermarried and just coincidentally happened to always
teach their children English, so that the British magically turned
into the English over one or two generations. It's a happy little
story without any tears, and the children can be tucked in safely
without nightmares. Its drawback, if we can call it that, is that
it's certainly not true. >>
-------------------
Combating unsourced statements by more unsourced statements is not likely to win anyone over to an argument.
It would be
nice to say that the English crossed the North Sea just to shake hands
with the British, and the British welcomed them with open arms, and
then they all intermarried and just coincidentally happened to always
teach their children English, so that the British magically turned
into the English over one or two generations. It's a happy little
story without any tears, and the children can be tucked in safely
without nightmares. Its drawback, if we can call it that, is that
it's certainly not true. >>
-------------------
Combating unsourced statements by more unsourced statements is not likely to win anyone over to an argument.
-
WJhonson
Re: Who Really Came With William The Conqueror In 1066?
<<In a message dated 09/09/07 19:50:29 Pacific Standard Time, therav3 writes:
Spouse: Juliana of Perche[5]
Death: aft 1108[1]
Father: Geoffrey II, count of Perche (-1100)
Mother: Beatrice de Roucy (->1129) >>
-------------------
On Juliana's death date, you may be interested in the exchange which is in the archives dated 10 Jan 2006 whereby both Douglas and Leo state she was living in 1127 and/or 1132.
Will
Spouse: Juliana of Perche[5]
Death: aft 1108[1]
Father: Geoffrey II, count of Perche (-1100)
Mother: Beatrice de Roucy (->1129) >>
-------------------
On Juliana's death date, you may be interested in the exchange which is in the archives dated 10 Jan 2006 whereby both Douglas and Leo state she was living in 1127 and/or 1132.
Will
-
Ray O'Hara
Re: Sept 10th 1813
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:gShFi.105$DU5.315@eagle.america.net...
pogue hinesquaters now wants to pretend he knew what blackguard meant when
he mentioned the battle of dresden.
we all know hinesquaters was thinking of the WWII terror bombing by the
allies,\\
hinesquaters, what a maroon, what a poltroon, he's a poltroonish maroon.
news:gShFi.105$DU5.315@eagle.america.net...
Pogue Black now wants to drag in the European Napoleonic Wars -- because
he's flummoxed again.
pogue hinesquaters now wants to pretend he knew what blackguard meant when
he mentioned the battle of dresden.
we all know hinesquaters was thinking of the WWII terror bombing by the
allies,\\
hinesquaters, what a maroon, what a poltroon, he's a poltroonish maroon.
-
Peter Jason
Re: Anna of Arimathea - who is HER husband?
Does it not occur to you, that Anna if
such a person even existed, as daughter of
a man obviously *living* at least until 30
AD let's say, could not herself be married
to a man who was *dead* by 70 BC more than
one hundred years previously ?
Then it *must* be necrophilia.
-
WJhonson
Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S
Some time past, under similar suspicion, Rosie Bevan kindly posted the following which again proves the descent, Richard, Richard, William, Richard as specified
Will Johnson
--------------------------
Subj: Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord
Date: 9/1/05 9:34:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: rbevan@paradise.net.nz (Rosie Bevan)
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
In 1365 Richard de Vernon was sued for the next presentation of the church of Appleby. He said that Richard de Vernon his great grandfather ("proavus") was seised of the manor of Parva Appleby to which the advowson was appurtenant, in the time of King Henry, and from the said Richard the manor descended to one Richard as son and heir, and from the last Richard to one William his son and heir, who was under age, and from the said William to Richard the plaintiff as son and heir. [Wm Salt 13:50]
Will Johnson
--------------------------
Subj: Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord
Date: 9/1/05 9:34:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: rbevan@paradise.net.nz (Rosie Bevan)
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
In 1365 Richard de Vernon was sued for the next presentation of the church of Appleby. He said that Richard de Vernon his great grandfather ("proavus") was seised of the manor of Parva Appleby to which the advowson was appurtenant, in the time of King Henry, and from the said Richard the manor descended to one Richard as son and heir, and from the last Richard to one William his son and heir, who was under age, and from the said William to Richard the plaintiff as son and heir. [Wm Salt 13:50]
-
SomersetSue
Re: Who Really Came With William The Conqueror In 1066?
For most of us doing our family history in England it isn't that easy
to trace ancestry back to mediaeval ancestors. If we can find lines
which are traceable via parish records to the 16th or 17th century
then we would normally think we were doing really well. So many
records are lost or damaged and so many ancestors left little trace. A
number of mine appear once only on the census in 1841 and were born
out of county so are proving very difficult to track down.
If a researcher is lucky enough to find a line which leads back to
early royalty this can be from a surprising source. My only discovered
mediaeval line so far comes from the ancestors of a Sarah Ann Fines.
Those turned out to have been Clinton Fiennes. The descendants of
Sarah Ann were agricultural labourers so that line hadn't looked
promising.
Discovering ancestors from the Middle Ages and then finding that there
are many thousands of ancestors shared by millions of us, is exciting
and fascinating. It is one thing to know in theory that most of us
ought to be descended from William the Conqueror and another thing
entirely to discover that you know perhaps many ways of proving such a
descent.
Multiple descents do at least mean that, even if one is in error, it
is unlikely that they all are. In a strange way then we can probably
be more confident that a particular mediaeval person is an ancestor
than someone from a hundred years or so ago.
A lot of the more recent ancestors on my tree are simply names in
parish records. I may know their occupation if I am lucky. The much
earlier ones can be historical figures whose lives are well documented
and they may have left buildings or tombs I can see.
I'm not sure at what point family stops being family. How many
generations back? A 25x great grandfather is still a direct ancestor.
Being a modern day descendant of very early royals seems to be the
norm but that doesn't alter the fact that I don't think many people
realise that. I also think it would be a bit sad if we all forgot the
excitement of first discovering the fact.
I think what I am finding fascinating is how the the various early
families from all over Europe are linked and I'm learning a lot about
the early history of a lot of different countries.
Sue
to trace ancestry back to mediaeval ancestors. If we can find lines
which are traceable via parish records to the 16th or 17th century
then we would normally think we were doing really well. So many
records are lost or damaged and so many ancestors left little trace. A
number of mine appear once only on the census in 1841 and were born
out of county so are proving very difficult to track down.
If a researcher is lucky enough to find a line which leads back to
early royalty this can be from a surprising source. My only discovered
mediaeval line so far comes from the ancestors of a Sarah Ann Fines.
Those turned out to have been Clinton Fiennes. The descendants of
Sarah Ann were agricultural labourers so that line hadn't looked
promising.
Discovering ancestors from the Middle Ages and then finding that there
are many thousands of ancestors shared by millions of us, is exciting
and fascinating. It is one thing to know in theory that most of us
ought to be descended from William the Conqueror and another thing
entirely to discover that you know perhaps many ways of proving such a
descent.
Multiple descents do at least mean that, even if one is in error, it
is unlikely that they all are. In a strange way then we can probably
be more confident that a particular mediaeval person is an ancestor
than someone from a hundred years or so ago.
A lot of the more recent ancestors on my tree are simply names in
parish records. I may know their occupation if I am lucky. The much
earlier ones can be historical figures whose lives are well documented
and they may have left buildings or tombs I can see.
I'm not sure at what point family stops being family. How many
generations back? A 25x great grandfather is still a direct ancestor.
Being a modern day descendant of very early royals seems to be the
norm but that doesn't alter the fact that I don't think many people
realise that. I also think it would be a bit sad if we all forgot the
excitement of first discovering the fact.
I think what I am finding fascinating is how the the various early
families from all over Europe are linked and I'm learning a lot about
the early history of a lot of different countries.
Sue
-
WJhonson
Re: William Malet to QE II (was: Who Really Came with Willia
<<In a message dated 09/10/07 15:20:20 Pacific Standard Time, JohnH4999@hotmail.com writes:
Francis Greville, Earl Brooke, Baron brooke of Beauchamps court, Earl of
Warwick de Brooke, etc. 1719 - 1773. >>
----------------
The Greville, Earls Brooke descend from the Malet's of Enmore, Somerset
This line can be traced back to Sir Baldwin Malet, Knt of Enmore, Somerset who was dead by 1426 when Amice is mentioned as a widow
*Whether* or *how* these Malet's might go back further, I know not.
Will Johnson
Francis Greville, Earl Brooke, Baron brooke of Beauchamps court, Earl of
Warwick de Brooke, etc. 1719 - 1773. >>
----------------
The Greville, Earls Brooke descend from the Malet's of Enmore, Somerset
This line can be traced back to Sir Baldwin Malet, Knt of Enmore, Somerset who was dead by 1426 when Amice is mentioned as a widow
*Whether* or *how* these Malet's might go back further, I know not.
Will Johnson
-
WJhonson
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
<<In a message dated 09/10/07 15:20:31 Pacific Standard Time, the_verminator@comcast.net writes:
What man in his right mind wants to deal with 12 (TWELVE!) Mothers-in
law ?? !!! >>
--------------
Simple. Marry orphans!
What man in his right mind wants to deal with 12 (TWELVE!) Mothers-in
law ?? !!! >>
--------------
Simple. Marry orphans!
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Who Really Came With William The Conqueror In 1066?
"SomersetSue" <SueBurne@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1189463147.968911.135060@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Yes, Americans with Southern or New England Colonial Ancestors often have a
somewhat easier task than do many Brits.
Those female lines often reveal Real Treasures.
Precisely!
Yes, with qualifications...
Yes, they have left a record one can study. That's a Major Motivation --
NOT "Royalty & Noble Collection for egotistic purposes -- but for the FUN
of it and the LEARNING.
True.
I agree -- it's far from a purely dry-as-dust, sociological Marxist approach
to History where only "trends" and economic factors have prominence and the
role of individuals and Great Men & Women is often trashcanned unless we are
looking at Lenin, Castro or Mao.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
news:1189463147.968911.135060@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
For most of us doing our family history in England it isn't that easy
to trace ancestry back to mediaeval ancestors. If we can find lines
which are traceable via parish records to the 16th or 17th century
then we would normally think we were doing really well. So many
records are lost or damaged and so many ancestors left little trace. A
number of mine appear once only on the census in 1841 and were born
out of county so are proving very difficult to track down.
Yes, Americans with Southern or New England Colonial Ancestors often have a
somewhat easier task than do many Brits.
If a researcher is lucky enough to find a line which leads back to
early royalty this can be from a surprising source. My only discovered
mediaeval line so far comes from the ancestors of a Sarah Ann Fines.
Those turned out to have been Clinton Fiennes. The descendants of
Sarah Ann were agricultural labourers so that line hadn't looked
promising.
Those female lines often reveal Real Treasures.
Discovering ancestors from the Middle Ages and then finding that there
are many thousands of ancestors shared by millions of us, is exciting
and fascinating. It is one thing to know in theory that most of us
ought to be descended from William the Conqueror and another thing
entirely to discover that you know perhaps many ways of proving such a
descent.
Precisely!
Multiple descents do at least mean that, even if one is in error, it
is unlikely that they all are. In a strange way then we can probably
be more confident that a particular mediaeval person is an ancestor
than someone from a hundred years or so ago.
Yes, with qualifications...
A lot of the more recent ancestors on my tree are simply names in
parish records. I may know their occupation if I am lucky. The much
earlier ones can be historical figures whose lives are well documented
and they may have left buildings or tombs I can see.
Yes, they have left a record one can study. That's a Major Motivation --
NOT "Royalty & Noble Collection for egotistic purposes -- but for the FUN
of it and the LEARNING.
I'm not sure at what point family stops being family. How many
generations back? A 25x great grandfather is still a direct ancestor.
Being a modern day descendant of very early royals seems to be the
norm but that doesn't alter the fact that I don't think many people
realise that. I also think it would be a bit sad if we all forgot the
excitement of first discovering the fact.
True.
I think what I am finding fascinating is how the various early
families from all over Europe are linked and I'm learning a lot about
the early history of a lot of different countries.
Sue
I agree -- it's far from a purely dry-as-dust, sociological Marxist approach
to History where only "trends" and economic factors have prominence and the
role of individuals and Great Men & Women is often trashcanned unless we are
looking at Lenin, Castro or Mao.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
WJhonson
Re: children of Richard, 1st Baron Rich
The DNB is online in Google Books, all it says is that one of the illegitimate sons is Richard Rich the father of Sir Nathaniel Rich.
This Nathaniel was living, and an adult in 1635 when he appears in an indenture with Sir Thomas Cheeke of Pirgo et al.
Will
This Nathaniel was living, and an adult in 1635 when he appears in an indenture with Sir Thomas Cheeke of Pirgo et al.
Will
-
Lockehead
Re: Jasper Tudor's bastard daughter, Ellen, wife of William
On Sep 9, 11:39 pm, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
Yes, it should be left to someone more trained than I. I agree
wholeheartedly.
On Sep 9, 7:57 pm, Lockehead <franklo...@mris.com> wrote:
On Sep 9, 10:55 am, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
On Sep 8, 8:43 pm, Lockehead <franklo...@mris.com> wrote:
Here is the proof I was talking about:
"Peter Watson, of London, draper, and William Sybson, husband of
Ellen, late the wife of William Gardyner v the Mayor, Aldermen, and
Sheriffs of London: an action by the children of William Gardyner,
deceased, to recover the portion of his son Thomas, who has entered
Westminster abbey" (C 1/252/12, dated 1501-1502).
We also see from this that William Gardiner had "children", not just
a
son Thomas.
Yes, it is clear that William had more than one child. What it doesn't
show is how many children Ellen had.
So.....................................................are we still
trying to make a correction to ODNB that says there was only one
child and his name was "Thomas" ?
Perhaps that should be left to trained historians.
It would perhaps be rash to draw any conclusion based solely on this
archival summary. If the action is taken in the interest of the
children, then the acting parties must have been involved on their
behalf, and the children minors. This would leave a narrow window for
children by an earlier marriage still minors in 1500/1, but it would
also seem atypical for Ellen to be acting in the interests of step-
children alone.
taf- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, it should be left to someone more trained than I. I agree
wholeheartedly.
-
Merilyn Pedrick
Re: children of Richard, 1st Baron Rich
Was Richard who married Jane Machell one of the sons Will?
Merilyn
-------Original Message-------
From: WJhonson
Date: 09/11/07 04:43:18
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: children of Richard, 1st Baron Rich
Richard, 1st Baron Rich has a DNB article which lists children and also
lists its own sources. They mention two legitimate sons and one illegitimate
one, but no Edward.
Will
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Merilyn
-------Original Message-------
From: WJhonson
Date: 09/11/07 04:43:18
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: children of Richard, 1st Baron Rich
Richard, 1st Baron Rich has a DNB article which lists children and also
lists its own sources. They mention two legitimate sons and one illegitimate
one, but no Edward.
Will
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
WJhonson
Re: Descent From Edward III For Dowsabel Burton, heiress of
In a message dated 09/10/07 18:35:28 Pacific Standard Time, A.Windemere@gmail.com writes:
Just incidentally, Edward III's mother, Isabella of France, was
descended from the Byzantine Emperor Constantine IX Monomachus. .... So anyone descended from Edward III also has descents from
Byzantium, as well as from King Harold II.
---------------
But can you prove it?
Just incidentally, Edward III's mother, Isabella of France, was
descended from the Byzantine Emperor Constantine IX Monomachus. .... So anyone descended from Edward III also has descents from
Byzantium, as well as from King Harold II.
---------------
But can you prove it?
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
I agree.
We see a lot of that.
DSH
"Kay Allen" <allenk@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.2120.1189478855.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
We see a lot of that.
DSH
"Kay Allen" <allenk@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.2120.1189478855.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
You would be surprised at the number of people who
spout off about the LDS Church and don't have a clue
about that which they are spouting.
Frequently it is a case of "my mind is made up, don't
confuse me with the facts."
Kay Allen AG
-
WJhonson
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
<<In a message dated 09/10/07 19:43:49 Pacific Standard Time, allenk@pacbell.net writes:
Why don't you read some histories of the LDS Church
written by the people who lived it. Then you might
have a more realistic view from their side of the
story? >>
-------------------
I have. Far too many.
Are you an apologist for Joseph Smith now as well?
Why don't you read some histories of the LDS Church
written by the people who lived it. Then you might
have a more realistic view from their side of the
story? >>
-------------------
I have. Far too many.
Are you an apologist for Joseph Smith now as well?
-
WJhonson
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
<<In a message dated 09/10/07 20:06:49 Pacific Standard Time, allenk@pacbell.net writes:
And what qualifies you to speak as a LDS historian?
You are probably as butt ignorant as to the history
and tenents of the LDS Church as are most people. >>
-----------------
Evidently the same thing that qualifies you
And what qualifies you to speak as a LDS historian?
You are probably as butt ignorant as to the history
and tenents of the LDS Church as are most people. >>
-----------------
Evidently the same thing that qualifies you
-
WJhonson
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
<<In a message dated 09/10/07 20:12:10 Pacific Standard Time, allenk@pacbell.net writes:
Only if you happen to be a member of the LDS Church!
Are you?
----------------
Faith based on mythology has no business in historical studies.
If you can't study the history of your own religion impartially, then you shouldn't comment on those who can.
Only if you happen to be a member of the LDS Church!
Are you?
----------------
Faith based on mythology has no business in historical studies.
If you can't study the history of your own religion impartially, then you shouldn't comment on those who can.
-
Gjest
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
On Sep 10, 8:14 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
The original post was regarding Romney. I have all kinds of reasons
for not considering a vote for him but his religion honestly is not
one of him. I also do not hold it against him that he is a white male.
With his political viewpoint, who needs the lives of his ancestors and
his personal beliefs as a reason to oppose him?
In a message dated 09/10/07 20:12:10 Pacific Standard Time, all...@pacbell.net writes:
Only if you happen to be a member of the LDS Church!
Are you?
----------------
Faith based on mythology has no business in historical studies.
If you can't study the history of your own religion impartially, then you shouldn't comment on those who can.
The original post was regarding Romney. I have all kinds of reasons
for not considering a vote for him but his religion honestly is not
one of him. I also do not hold it against him that he is a white male.
With his political viewpoint, who needs the lives of his ancestors and
his personal beliefs as a reason to oppose him?
-
Gjest
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
On Sep 10, 8:14 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
And, anyway, ALL religions are based on mythology.
Faith based on mythology has no business in historical studies.
If you can't study the history of your own religion impartially, then you shouldn't comment on those who can.
And, anyway, ALL religions are based on mythology.
-
WJhonson
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
It may be instructive to hear, in her own words what Joseph Smith's *first* wife thought of all this plural marriage business.
Since Kay is the resident Smith apologist, we can see if she knows.
Since Kay is the resident Smith apologist, we can see if she knows.
-
Gjest
Re: Who Really Came With William The Conqueror In 1066?
Dear Will, Paul, Todd and others,
1. Aimery IV d 1093 Viscount
of Thouars m Aurengarde de Mauleon
2. Eleanor of Thouars
married Boso II Viscount of Chastellerault d 1092
3. Aimery I, Viscount of
Chastellerault d 1151 as a monk married Amalburga (called Dangerose) de
L`isle-Bouchard who became mistress of William (Guilhem) VII and IX, Count of Poitou
and Duke of Aquitaine
4 Eleanor of Chastellerault
married William (Guilhem) VIII and X, Count of Poitou and Duke of Aquitaine
died 1137
5 Eleanor of Aquitaine b
1123?- 1204 married 1st Louis VII , King of France, 2nd Henry II, King of
England
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine
USA
(See Genealogics.org)
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
1. Aimery IV d 1093 Viscount
of Thouars m Aurengarde de Mauleon
2. Eleanor of Thouars
married Boso II Viscount of Chastellerault d 1092
3. Aimery I, Viscount of
Chastellerault d 1151 as a monk married Amalburga (called Dangerose) de
L`isle-Bouchard who became mistress of William (Guilhem) VII and IX, Count of Poitou
and Duke of Aquitaine
4 Eleanor of Chastellerault
married William (Guilhem) VIII and X, Count of Poitou and Duke of Aquitaine
died 1137
5 Eleanor of Aquitaine b
1123?- 1204 married 1st Louis VII , King of France, 2nd Henry II, King of
England
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine
USA
(See Genealogics.org)
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-
WJhonson
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
<<In a message dated 09/10/07 20:23:39 Pacific Standard Time, allenk@pacbell.net writes:
Gov. Lilburn Boggs "Order of Extermination" which were
perpetrated by the august Christian bigots on innocent
people just because of their religion.>>
--------------
Um yes. And I did know that the LDS teaches this myth.
That still does not make it true. Perhaps you'd like to read what Lilburn Boggs wrote about why he signed that order? Any chance you've actually read the actual newspaper accounts of what led UP TO that order ?
Gov. Lilburn Boggs "Order of Extermination" which were
perpetrated by the august Christian bigots on innocent
people just because of their religion.>>
--------------
Um yes. And I did know that the LDS teaches this myth.
That still does not make it true. Perhaps you'd like to read what Lilburn Boggs wrote about why he signed that order? Any chance you've actually read the actual newspaper accounts of what led UP TO that order ?
-
WJhonson
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
<<In a message dated 09/10/07 20:25:32 Pacific Standard Time, lostcooper@yahoo.com writes:
On Sep 10, 8:14 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
And, anyway, ALL religions are based on mythology. >>
-------------------------------------
Setting that aside for the moment. I have nothing against LDS any more than any other religion. What we're discussing however is the history of the religion, not its *current* religious views.
On Sep 10, 8:14 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Faith based on mythology has no business in historical studies.
If you can't study the history of your own religion impartially, then you shouldn't comment on those who can.
And, anyway, ALL religions are based on mythology. >>
-------------------------------------
Setting that aside for the moment. I have nothing against LDS any more than any other religion. What we're discussing however is the history of the religion, not its *current* religious views.
-
WJhonson
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
<<In a message dated 09/10/07 20:27:08 Pacific Standard Time, allenk@pacbell.net writes:
there are all too many bigots in the
world, and I count you as one of them. >>
----------------------
Get your head out of the sand Kay and take your fingers out of your ears.
Try to answer the question.
there are all too many bigots in the
world, and I count you as one of them. >>
----------------------
Get your head out of the sand Kay and take your fingers out of your ears.
Try to answer the question.
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
Tell us about the LDS Church, Kay -- the Real Story.
DSH
"Kay Allen" <allenk@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.2132.1189481207.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
DSH
"Kay Allen" <allenk@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.2132.1189481207.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
You betcha Red Rider. I am a true blue, through and
through LDS. You can't stand it, tough tiddlywinks.
Unfortunately, there are all too many bigots in the
world, and I count you as one of them.
Kay Allen AG
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 09/10/07 19:43:49 Pacific
Standard Time, allenk@pacbell.net writes:
Why don't you read some histories of the LDS Church
written by the people who lived it. Then you might
have a more realistic view from their side of the
story?
-------------------
I have. Far too many.
Are you an apologist for Joseph Smith now as well?
-
Kay Allen
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
You would be surprised at the number of people who
spout off about the LDS Church and don't have a clue
about that which they are spouting.
Frequently it is a case of "my mind is made up, don't
confuse me with the facts."
Kay Allen AG
--- Ray O'Hara <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote:
spout off about the LDS Church and don't have a clue
about that which they are spouting.
Frequently it is a case of "my mind is made up, don't
confuse me with the facts."
Kay Allen AG
--- Ray O'Hara <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in
message
news:8zYEi.56$DU5.340@eagle.america.net...
Interesting...
Now let's see some in-depth family research of
this sort on the
Clintons --
both of them, since hers will be a Co-Presidency
-- 2 for 1, you know.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful
Mitt Romney's Family Tree
Saturday , February 24, 2007
FoxNews
While Mitt Romney condemns polygamy and its prior
practice by his Mormon
church, the Republican presidential candidate's
great-grandfather had five
wives and at least one of his great-great
grandfathers had 12.
and what relevence does that have. we all know the
history of the mormons.
the main reason for polygamy was the fact that the
early mormons had many
more women than men.
mitt has one wife and as he lives in massachusetts
he probably won't get any
more.
and so what if he does. if some guys wants 12 wives
and 12 women are fine
with it then power to them. it in no way affects me
or anybody else.
.
-------------------------------
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: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
<<In a message dated 09/10/07 20:47:29 Pacific Standard Time, allenk@pacbell.net writes:
I have tried to answer your questions.
------------
Actually Kay, what you did was ignore the issues and just start calling everyone bigots. It's not a very productive way to demonstrate the *truth* of your faith is it?
I have tried to answer your questions.
------------
Actually Kay, what you did was ignore the issues and just start calling everyone bigots. It's not a very productive way to demonstrate the *truth* of your faith is it?
-
Thomas Benjamin Hertzel
Re: William Malet to QE II (was: Who Really Came with Willia
John et al,
Would you have Margery Bardolf's parents?
Benjamin
1.1.1a.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Agnes de Rokesley9
----------------------------------------
Death: 13465
coheiress of her mother
Spouse: Sir Thomas de Poynings
Death: 10 Oct 1339, k. at Hunycourt, Vermandois, France
Father: Sir Michael de Poynings (-1314)
Mother: Margery Bardolf
Would you have Margery Bardolf's parents?
Benjamin
-
taf
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
[post picked at random - it could have been any]
Well, congratulations. You have all now given the him the pleasure of
having started a Holy War in this group. He has been trying to get us
going for some time - spew enough crap to enough groups and eventually
someone will say something offensive enough that it all blows up.
Whatever your opinion of Joseph Smith, Parley Pratt, Mitt Romney,
Hilary Clinton . . . . . . NONE OF THEM ARE MEDIEVAL.
Nothing useful can come of this discussion - NOTHING.
Please stop. Now.
taf
Well, congratulations. You have all now given the him the pleasure of
having started a Holy War in this group. He has been trying to get us
going for some time - spew enough crap to enough groups and eventually
someone will say something offensive enough that it all blows up.
Whatever your opinion of Joseph Smith, Parley Pratt, Mitt Romney,
Hilary Clinton . . . . . . NONE OF THEM ARE MEDIEVAL.
Nothing useful can come of this discussion - NOTHING.
Please stop. Now.
taf
-
WJhonson
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
<<In a message dated 09/10/07 20:58:35 Pacific Standard Time, allenk@pacbell.net writes:
I could spend the rest of my life trying to justify my
faith and you could spend just as long derogating it. >>
----------------
But I'm not denigrating your faith. I'm attempting to discuss historical points. All of which you're ignoring because you don't want to address them.
I could spend the rest of my life trying to justify my
faith and you could spend just as long derogating it. >>
----------------
But I'm not denigrating your faith. I'm attempting to discuss historical points. All of which you're ignoring because you don't want to address them.
-
Kay Allen
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
You must remember that in that day and age a woman had
to have a "protecter." In some peoples' minds a woman
was legally incompetent.
Many of Brigham Young's wives were in that category, I
believe that
Joseph Smith's wives were also in that category.
As to the fact of some men having none, a LDS women
couldn't be forced to marry a man who was not to her
likeing just to have a husband.
Emmeline Wells married a husband in the East. He
returned home and was never seen again. So she married
Newell Whitney as a plural wife.
He died, leaving her alone, once again. She went to a
friend of her husband's friends and virtually begged
him to marry her, which he reluctantly did. He
provided her with a home. Later his finances failed
and Emmeline was able to lend him some, as she had
become the editor of one of the early newspapers. And
it is recorded that in their later years, they
conducted themselves like teenagers.
Kay Allen AG
--- Ray O'Hara <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote:
to have a "protecter." In some peoples' minds a woman
was legally incompetent.
Many of Brigham Young's wives were in that category, I
believe that
Joseph Smith's wives were also in that category.
As to the fact of some men having none, a LDS women
couldn't be forced to marry a man who was not to her
likeing just to have a husband.
Emmeline Wells married a husband in the East. He
returned home and was never seen again. So she married
Newell Whitney as a plural wife.
He died, leaving her alone, once again. She went to a
friend of her husband's friends and virtually begged
him to marry her, which he reluctantly did. He
provided her with a home. Later his finances failed
and Emmeline was able to lend him some, as she had
become the editor of one of the early newspapers. And
it is recorded that in their later years, they
conducted themselves like teenagers.
Kay Allen AG
--- Ray O'Hara <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote:
"Séimí mac Liam" <gwyddon@comcast.nospam.net> wrote
in message
news:Xns99A78BECF37A1Sim@216.196.97.136...
"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in
news:g7Gdne_jdIedAHjbnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@rcn.net:
he main reason for polygamy was the fact that
the early mormons had many
more women than men.
Who fed you that pparticular bit of bullshit?
no society is going to let one man have 34
wives{joe smith} while others
have none. those with none will get ugly.
-------------------------------
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
-
Kay Allen
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
And what qualifies you to speak as a LDS historian?
You are probably as butt ignorant as to the history
and tenents of the LDS Church as are most people.
Kay Allen AG
--- Séimí mac Liam <gwyddon@comcast.nospam.net> wrote:
You are probably as butt ignorant as to the history
and tenents of the LDS Church as are most people.
Kay Allen AG
--- Séimí mac Liam <gwyddon@comcast.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in
news:g7Gdne_jdIedAHjbnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@rcn.net:
he main reason for polygamy was the fact that the
early mormons had many
more women than men.
Who fed you that pparticular bit of bullshit?
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
-------------------------------
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
-
Christopher Ingham
Re: Brits vs. Normans [was Re: Why This Continuing Loony Inf
On Sep 10, 9:29 pm, David <ds...@softhome.net> wrote:
If the invasion of Britain is seen as an inexorable ongoing process
rather than a sudden cataclysmic event, then it is appropriate to
consider the earlier presence of Saxons as evidence of the initial
phase. The_litus Saxonicum_, the defensive system developed by the
Romans in the fourth century against Saxon raiders on the coasts of
Gaul and Britain, is indicative of the urgency of the threat they
posed. After the Roman abandonment of the island in 410, the urban
upper class of_curiales_, occupying the administrative posts left
vacant, most likely took barbarian merceneries under contract, as in
the Gallic kingdoms. Other barbarian bands successfully established
footholds on the coast, after which further migrations ensued; a
pattern seen elsewhere in peripheral regions of the Roman Empire.
The history of Britain between 350 and 600 is obscure. The
subjugation of the native inhabitants, occurring over a sustained
period, doubtless required a variety of methods, depending on place
and circumstances. As in all wars, atrocities must have been
committed; the exodus to Armorica did take place. Yet Gilda's account
is hyperbolic. Archaeological evidence reveals an overall continuity
in land cultivation. Smallholders probably continued to hold land as
before, only now taxes will have gone to enrich the new overlords.
The material decline of urban centers, especially in the western
empire, is a main attribute of late antiquity. Britain, alone of the
provinces in requiring administrative costs exceeding her revenues,
was in an impoverished state by the fifth century. The claim that the
Anglo-Saxons brought about the destruction of urban Roman civilization
in Britain is an overstatement.
Christopher Ingham
On Sep 10, 4:13 pm, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:
"David" <ds...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:1189457880.269982.163930@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
But catastrophes *do* occur, and genocides *do* happen, very
unhappily. One doesn't want to resort to them as the first
explanation of historical phenomena, and they are certainly not
extremely common; but they should never be ruled out. It would be
nice to say that the English crossed the North Sea just to shake hands
with the British, and the British welcomed them with open arms, and
then they all intermarried and just coincidentally happened to always
teach their children English, so that the British magically turned
into the English over one or two generations. It's a happy little
story without any tears, and the children can be tucked in safely
without nightmares. Its drawback, if we can call it that, is that
it's certainly not true.
It certainly isn't true.
For a start there were many Germanics here before the Romans left.
That's like saying that there were Danes in England before 865. It's
true, but from a demographic point of view, trivial. Various peoples,
including Saxons, invaded Roman Britain from the 4th century on; but
the vast majority of Angles and Saxons were later-comers, from about
the mid-5th century, after Britain's legions had left to get involved
in the general collapse of the Western Empire.
The nature of the argument escapes me anyway. It's hardly to be
doubted, in this age, that the Americans (of the United States)
practiced an effectively genocidal warfare against the American
Indians of North America from the early 19th century on, which
resulted, very quickly -- in less than a century -- in the wholesale
extermination of entire nations and the deportation of others to tiny
reservations. What sort of argument against that claim would it be to
point out that the Americans' ancestors had been occupying coastal
fortresses and towns, for two hundred years previously? Does the one
preclude the other? Of course not. The construction of Boston and
Philadelphia is one historical event, the near-annihilation of the
Plains Indians is another, and the former, while perhaps a
precondition for the latter, doesn't explain it. Just so, the
presence of Saxons (in small numbers) in Britain in the 4th century
doesn't explain the absolute overthrow and destruction of the urban
Romano-Celtic civilization in the 5th-6th centuries.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
If the invasion of Britain is seen as an inexorable ongoing process
rather than a sudden cataclysmic event, then it is appropriate to
consider the earlier presence of Saxons as evidence of the initial
phase. The_litus Saxonicum_, the defensive system developed by the
Romans in the fourth century against Saxon raiders on the coasts of
Gaul and Britain, is indicative of the urgency of the threat they
posed. After the Roman abandonment of the island in 410, the urban
upper class of_curiales_, occupying the administrative posts left
vacant, most likely took barbarian merceneries under contract, as in
the Gallic kingdoms. Other barbarian bands successfully established
footholds on the coast, after which further migrations ensued; a
pattern seen elsewhere in peripheral regions of the Roman Empire.
The history of Britain between 350 and 600 is obscure. The
subjugation of the native inhabitants, occurring over a sustained
period, doubtless required a variety of methods, depending on place
and circumstances. As in all wars, atrocities must have been
committed; the exodus to Armorica did take place. Yet Gilda's account
is hyperbolic. Archaeological evidence reveals an overall continuity
in land cultivation. Smallholders probably continued to hold land as
before, only now taxes will have gone to enrich the new overlords.
The material decline of urban centers, especially in the western
empire, is a main attribute of late antiquity. Britain, alone of the
provinces in requiring administrative costs exceeding her revenues,
was in an impoverished state by the fifth century. The claim that the
Anglo-Saxons brought about the destruction of urban Roman civilization
in Britain is an overstatement.
Christopher Ingham
-
Kay Allen
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
That assertion a a pile of male bovine fecal matter. I
think you have confused Joseph Smith with Warren Jeffs
of the Fundamentalist LDS Church.
Why don't you read some histories of the LDS Church
written by the people who lived it. Then you might
have a more realistic view from their side of the
story?
Kay Allen AG
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
think you have confused Joseph Smith with Warren Jeffs
of the Fundamentalist LDS Church.
Why don't you read some histories of the LDS Church
written by the people who lived it. Then you might
have a more realistic view from their side of the
story?
Kay Allen AG
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 09/10/07 12:41:13 Pacific
Standard Time, mary.palmucci@rcn.com writes:
and what relevence does that have. we all know the
history of the mormons.
the main reason for polygamy was the fact that the
early mormons had many
more women than men.
------------------------
I dispute this theory.
I believe the main reason was that Joseph Smith had
a position of divine authority and a hankering to go
after the young women.
It's a theme that is repeated over thousands of
years don't ya know.
Nothing new here.
-------------------------------
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
-
Kay Allen
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
Only if you happen to be a member of the LDS Church!
Are you?
Kay Allen AG
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
Are you?
Kay Allen AG
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 09/10/07 20:06:49 Pacific
Standard Time, allenk@pacbell.net writes:
And what qualifies you to speak as a LDS historian?
You are probably as butt ignorant as to the history
and tenents of the LDS Church as are most people.
-----------------
Evidently the same thing that qualifies you
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Who Really Came With William The Conqueror In 1066?
Nope...
No Sale.
A Companion of the Conqueror has to have made the crossing with Guillaume,
duc de Normandie and been present somewhere, even in the rear, at the Battle
of Hastings, Saturday, 14 October 1066 -- where he became Guillaume le
Conquerant.
Someone who shared the extreme risks and rewards with William The Conqueror
at this World Historical Event that sounds echoes to this very day.
Brothers in Arms, or Praying or Support Personnel, Specialists, et alii --
but THERE for the Battle of Hastings on 14 October 1066.
NOT someone who "came over later" or guarded the fort in Normandie.
Sorry you can't find at least one Companion of the Conqueror of your own.
Emphasis on CONQUERING those ruddy, scruffy English at Hastings.
Of course, as we have discovered, if you have one Companion of the Conqueror
you probably have a dozen or so in your grouse bag, after a successful
shoot.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
No Sale.
A Companion of the Conqueror has to have made the crossing with Guillaume,
duc de Normandie and been present somewhere, even in the rear, at the Battle
of Hastings, Saturday, 14 October 1066 -- where he became Guillaume le
Conquerant.
Someone who shared the extreme risks and rewards with William The Conqueror
at this World Historical Event that sounds echoes to this very day.
Brothers in Arms, or Praying or Support Personnel, Specialists, et alii --
but THERE for the Battle of Hastings on 14 October 1066.
NOT someone who "came over later" or guarded the fort in Normandie.
Sorry you can't find at least one Companion of the Conqueror of your own.
Emphasis on CONQUERING those ruddy, scruffy English at Hastings.
Of course, as we have discovered, if you have one Companion of the Conqueror
you probably have a dozen or so in your grouse bag, after a successful
shoot.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 22:05:30 -0700, David <dsalo@softhome.net> wrote:
Probably there were several of William's followers who were not
actually at the battle, but who were otherwise occupied during the
invasion or joined their duke in the days or months after the battle, who
could later have been supposed, or have been remembered by their
descendants, as being present at Hastings (with more honesty than
accuracy).
-
Kay Allen
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
You betcha Red Rider. I am a true blue, through and
through LDS. You can't stand it, tough tiddlywinks.
Unfortunately, there are all too many bigots in the
world, and I count you as one of them.
Kay Allen AG
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
through LDS. You can't stand it, tough tiddlywinks.
Unfortunately, there are all too many bigots in the
world, and I count you as one of them.
Kay Allen AG
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 09/10/07 19:43:49 Pacific
Standard Time, allenk@pacbell.net writes:
Why don't you read some histories of the LDS Church
written by the people who lived it. Then you might
have a more realistic view from their side of the
story?
-------------------
I have. Far too many.
Are you an apologist for Joseph Smith now as well?
-
Kay Allen
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
And I guess that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are
your intellectually dishonest pols of choice.
Politics are OT here as they generally generate a
large flaming bonfire.
K Allen AG
--- lostcooper@yahoo.com wrote:
your intellectually dishonest pols of choice.
Politics are OT here as they generally generate a
large flaming bonfire.
K Allen AG
--- lostcooper@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sep 10, 8:14 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com
wrote:
In a message dated 09/10/07 20:12:10 Pacific
Standard Time, all...@pacbell.net writes:
Only if you happen to be a member of the LDS
Church!
Are you?
----------------
Faith based on mythology has no business in
historical studies.
If you can't study the history of your own
religion impartially, then you shouldn't comment on
those who can.
The original post was regarding Romney. I have all
kinds of reasons
for not considering a vote for him but his religion
honestly is not
one of him. I also do not hold it against him that
he is a white male.
With his political viewpoint, who needs the lives of
his ancestors and
his personal beliefs as a reason to oppose him?
-------------------------------
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
-
Kay Allen
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
Maybe to a UC Berkeley liberal anthropologist!
You can have your lack of faith and I can have my
faith, and that doesn't make either of us the better
for it; just different.
K
--- lostcooper@yahoo.com wrote:
You can have your lack of faith and I can have my
faith, and that doesn't make either of us the better
for it; just different.
K
--- lostcooper@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sep 10, 8:14 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com
wrote:
Faith based on mythology has no business in
historical studies.
If you can't study the history of your own
religion impartially, then you shouldn't comment on
those who can.
And, anyway, ALL religions are based on mythology.
-------------------------------
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
-
Kay Allen
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
And since you are the resident bigot, why don't you
tell us. Polygamy was a large step for these more or
less conventional people, so not everybody was pleased
with it, of course. And many people did leave the
Church because of it.
K
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
tell us. Polygamy was a large step for these more or
less conventional people, so not everybody was pleased
with it, of course. And many people did leave the
Church because of it.
K
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
It may be instructive to hear, in her own words what
Joseph Smith's *first* wife thought of all this
plural marriage business.
Since Kay is the resident Smith apologist, we can
see if she knows.
-
Kay Allen
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
Will, grow up and get a life. This is definitely OT.
so why don't we stuff a sock in it, so we don't
totally bore our friends on this list.
I have tried to answer your questions. But nothing I
say is going to convince you and nothing you say is
going to convince me. we could go on like this, each
of us citing our own sources, which the other does not
accept. So this discussion is absolutely pointless and
fruitless.
K
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
so why don't we stuff a sock in it, so we don't
totally bore our friends on this list.
I have tried to answer your questions. But nothing I
say is going to convince you and nothing you say is
going to convince me. we could go on like this, each
of us citing our own sources, which the other does not
accept. So this discussion is absolutely pointless and
fruitless.
K
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 09/10/07 20:27:08 Pacific
Standard Time, allenk@pacbell.net writes:
there are all too many bigots in the
world, and I count you as one of them.
----------------------
Get your head out of the sand Kay and take your
fingers out of your ears.
Try to answer the question.
-
Kay Allen
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
And do you believe everything that is and was printed
in the press. If you do, more fool you.
K
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
in the press. If you do, more fool you.
K
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 09/10/07 20:23:39 Pacific
Standard Time, allenk@pacbell.net writes:
Gov. Lilburn Boggs "Order of Extermination" which
were
perpetrated by the august Christian bigots on
innocent
people just because of their religion.
--------------
Um yes. And I did know that the LDS teaches this
myth.
That still does not make it true. Perhaps you'd
like to read what Lilburn Boggs wrote about why he
signed that order? Any chance you've actually read
the actual newspaper accounts of what led UP TO that
order ?
-
WJhonson
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
<<In a message dated 09/10/07 21:55:25 Pacific Standard Time, allenk@pacbell.net writes:
And I am tired of dealing with an opinionated
bigot. or is that an oxymoron. Or maybe just moron. >>
-----------------------------------------------------
Well let's see, on my side I've presented at least two cases that contradict what you've said. On your side you've blasted out your slander and presented nothing.
So I win.
Go me!
And I am tired of dealing with an opinionated
bigot. or is that an oxymoron. Or maybe just moron. >>
-----------------------------------------------------
Well let's see, on my side I've presented at least two cases that contradict what you've said. On your side you've blasted out your slander and presented nothing.
So I win.
Go me!
-
Kay Allen
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
You should read the works of Joseph Campbell, you two
have much in common.
My faith is my faith and the Constitution grants me
the right to pursue that faith as I see fit. It also
guarantees that you can utter foolish things to your
hearts content and be a bigot.
The only possible relationship to medieval genealogy
is that Joseph Smith, five US preidents, and myself
descend fron Henry Howland of Fenny Stanton.
Kay Allen AG
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
have much in common.
My faith is my faith and the Constitution grants me
the right to pursue that faith as I see fit. It also
guarantees that you can utter foolish things to your
hearts content and be a bigot.
The only possible relationship to medieval genealogy
is that Joseph Smith, five US preidents, and myself
descend fron Henry Howland of Fenny Stanton.
Kay Allen AG
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 09/10/07 20:12:10 Pacific
Standard Time, allenk@pacbell.net writes:
Only if you happen to be a member of the LDS Church!
Are you?
----------------
Faith based on mythology has no business in
historical studies.
If you can't study the history of your own religion
impartially, then you shouldn't comment on those who
can.
-
Kay Allen
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
I could spend the rest of my life trying to justify my
faith and you could spend just as long derogating it.
There are none so blind as they who shall not hear and
none so deaf as those who will not here.
As I pointed out earlier, Neither of us is going to
dent the others opinion. So why don't we just agree to
disagree?
Good Night.
K
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
faith and you could spend just as long derogating it.
There are none so blind as they who shall not hear and
none so deaf as those who will not here.
As I pointed out earlier, Neither of us is going to
dent the others opinion. So why don't we just agree to
disagree?
Good Night.
K
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 09/10/07 20:47:29 Pacific
Standard Time, allenk@pacbell.net writes:
I have tried to answer your questions.
------------
Actually Kay, what you did was ignore the issues and
just start calling everyone bigots. It's not a very
productive way to demonstrate the *truth* of your
faith is it?
-
Séimí mac Liam
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
Kay Allen <allenk@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:mailman.2124.1189479994.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com:
Well for one thing, I'm a descendant of John Doyle Lee, woh had 18 wives.
For another, three of my four grandparents were descended from Utah
Pioneers. For a third I grew up in a predominately LDS community. For a
fourth one of my Great grandmothers was the first President of the Relief
Society in Rexburg, Idaho. For a fifth, My mothers paternal Grandfather
and his father built half the churches in southern Utah. For a sixth,
while attending the University of Utah, I stayed in the home of a
polygamist family from which you could look across City Creek Canyon to
the Capitol Building. Shall I go on?
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
news:mailman.2124.1189479994.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com:
And what qualifies you to speak as a LDS historian?
You are probably as butt ignorant as to the history
and tenents of the LDS Church as are most people.
Kay Allen AG
--- Séimí mac Liam <gwyddon@comcast.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in
news:g7Gdne_jdIedAHjbnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@rcn.net:
he main reason for polygamy was the fact that the
early mormons had many
more women than men.
Who fed you that pparticular bit of bullshit?
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
-------------------------------
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
Well for one thing, I'm a descendant of John Doyle Lee, woh had 18 wives.
For another, three of my four grandparents were descended from Utah
Pioneers. For a third I grew up in a predominately LDS community. For a
fourth one of my Great grandmothers was the first President of the Relief
Society in Rexburg, Idaho. For a fifth, My mothers paternal Grandfather
and his father built half the churches in southern Utah. For a sixth,
while attending the University of Utah, I stayed in the home of a
polygamist family from which you could look across City Creek Canyon to
the Capitol Building. Shall I go on?
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
-
Séimí mac Liam
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
Kay Allen <allenk@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:mailman.2120.1189478855.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com:
Which is exactly the reaction of most Saints if I try to tell them the
things I know about the early church.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
news:mailman.2120.1189478855.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com:
Frequently it is a case of "my mind is made up, don't
confuse me with the facts."
Which is exactly the reaction of most Saints if I try to tell them the
things I know about the early church.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
-
Kay Allen
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
Firstly, you might like to spell Mormon correctly. I
never claimed perfection for the Saints.
If you want mythologizing, see the Jon Voight movie
concerning the Mountain Meadows massacre.
Did you know that until Gov. Christopher Bond of
Missouri, it was technically illegal for a member of
the LDS Church to own property in Missouri? Do you
know about the burning of homes, murder, rape , and
Gov. Lilburn Boggs "Order of Extermination" which were
perpetrated by the august Christian bigots on innocent
people just because of their religion. It ranks right
up there with lynching of Afro-Americans in the South.
It was a little known era of religious persecution
about which few people know or care.
Might I recommend fairlds.org for the other side of
the story.
Kay Allen AG
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
never claimed perfection for the Saints.
If you want mythologizing, see the Jon Voight movie
concerning the Mountain Meadows massacre.
Did you know that until Gov. Christopher Bond of
Missouri, it was technically illegal for a member of
the LDS Church to own property in Missouri? Do you
know about the burning of homes, murder, rape , and
Gov. Lilburn Boggs "Order of Extermination" which were
perpetrated by the august Christian bigots on innocent
people just because of their religion. It ranks right
up there with lynching of Afro-Americans in the South.
It was a little known era of religious persecution
about which few people know or care.
Might I recommend fairlds.org for the other side of
the story.
Kay Allen AG
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
And it will be remembered that Parley Pratt was
murdered by a man, whose wife had left him *in order
to marry* Pratt as a plural wife.
Eleanor McLean was not yet divorced from Hector
McLean.
So much for your high values and mythologizing or
new-speaking early Mormen history.
-
Séimí mac Liam
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
Kay Allen <allenk@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:mailman.2150.1189487366.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com:
Sure you did...after laying about you like a fish wife, challenging
berating and insulting all and sundry. Now I suppose you are perfectly
willing to let all the verbage end quietly. Typical.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
news:mailman.2150.1189487366.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com:
If you noticed, I did stop it. I also
pointed out its non-germane topic. Again, my
apologies.
Sure you did...after laying about you like a fish wife, challenging
berating and insulting all and sundry. Now I suppose you are perfectly
willing to let all the verbage end quietly. Typical.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
Dear Kay,
The LDS folks allegedly take their guidance on polygamy from Biblical and
Mediaeval Practice in various cultures and they are VERY interested in
Mediaeval Genealogy -- for several reasons.
Many Mormons spend lots of time connecting to their Mediaeval Ancestors and
trying to work out the Genealogical Connections.
So, this is CERTAINLY on-topic for SGM as well as SHM, ATR and AHB.
Please tell those of us who are NOT bigoted about the Church Of LDS what you
think.
Aloha,
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Kay Allen" <allenk@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.2147.1189486513.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
The LDS folks allegedly take their guidance on polygamy from Biblical and
Mediaeval Practice in various cultures and they are VERY interested in
Mediaeval Genealogy -- for several reasons.
Many Mormons spend lots of time connecting to their Mediaeval Ancestors and
trying to work out the Genealogical Connections.
So, this is CERTAINLY on-topic for SGM as well as SHM, ATR and AHB.
Please tell those of us who are NOT bigoted about the Church Of LDS what you
think.
Aloha,
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Kay Allen" <allenk@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.2147.1189486513.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Dear DSH,
Thank you for the invitation, but this is definitely
OT. Nothing would be solved. And I am tired of
dealing with an opinionated bigot. or is that an
oxymoron. Or maybe just moron.
Good night all.
K
--- "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote:
Tell us about the LDS Church, Kay -- the Real Story.
DSH
-
Kay Allen
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
Dear DSH,
Thank you for the invitation, but this is definitely
OT. Nothing would be
solved. And I am tired of dealing with an opinionated
bigot. or is that an oxymoron. Or maybe just moron.
Good night all.
K
--- "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote:
Thank you for the invitation, but this is definitely
OT. Nothing would be
solved. And I am tired of dealing with an opinionated
bigot. or is that an oxymoron. Or maybe just moron.
Good night all.
K
--- "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote:
Tell us about the LDS Church, Kay -- the Real Story.
DSH
"Kay Allen" <allenk@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.2132.1189481207.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
You betcha Red Rider. I am a true blue, through
and
through LDS. You can't stand it, tough
tiddlywinks.
Unfortunately, there are all too many bigots in
the
world, and I count you as one of them.
Kay Allen AG
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 09/10/07 19:43:49 Pacific
Standard Time, allenk@pacbell.net writes:
Why don't you read some histories of the LDS
Church
written by the people who lived it. Then you
might
have a more realistic view from their side of the
story?
-------------------
I have. Far too many.
Are you an apologist for Joseph Smith now as
well?
-------------------------------
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
-
Séimí mac Liam
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
Kay Allen <allenk@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:mailman.2150.1189487366.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com:
Keep the private e-mails to yourself or I will lodge a complaint with
your ISP. This woman has seen fit to bring this discussion to private e-
mail. I will discuss this only on usenet.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
news:mailman.2150.1189487366.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com:
My apologies. If you noticed, I did stop it. I also
pointed out its non-germane topic. Again, my
apologies.
K
K
--- taf <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:
[post picked at random - it could have been any]
Well, congratulations. You have all now given the
him the pleasure of
having started a Holy War in this group. He has
been trying to get us
going for some time - spew enough crap to enough
groups and eventually
someone will say something offensive enough that it
all blows up.
Whatever your opinion of Joseph Smith, Parley Pratt,
Mitt Romney,
Hilary Clinton . . . . . . NONE OF THEM ARE
MEDIEVAL.
Nothing useful can come of this discussion -
NOTHING.
Please stop. Now.
taf
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email
to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word
'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
the body of the message
Keep the private e-mails to yourself or I will lodge a complaint with
your ISP. This woman has seen fit to bring this discussion to private e-
mail. I will discuss this only on usenet.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
-
Kay Allen
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
My apologies. If you noticed, I did stop it. I also
pointed out its non-germane topic. Again, my
apologies.
K
K
--- taf <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:
pointed out its non-germane topic. Again, my
apologies.
K
K
--- taf <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:
[post picked at random - it could have been any]
Well, congratulations. You have all now given the
him the pleasure of
having started a Holy War in this group. He has
been trying to get us
going for some time - spew enough crap to enough
groups and eventually
someone will say something offensive enough that it
all blows up.
Whatever your opinion of Joseph Smith, Parley Pratt,
Mitt Romney,
Hilary Clinton . . . . . . NONE OF THEM ARE
MEDIEVAL.
Nothing useful can come of this discussion -
NOTHING.
Please stop. Now.
taf
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email
to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word
'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
the body of the message
-
Séimí mac Liam
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
Kay Allen <allenk@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:mailman.2127.1189480261.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com:
Like Fawn Bodie?
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
news:mailman.2127.1189480261.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com:
Why don't you read some histories of the LDS Church
written by the people who lived it. Then you might
have a more realistic view from their side of the
story?
Like Fawn Bodie?
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
-
Séimí mac Liam
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
"Séimí mac Liam" <gwyddon@comcast.nospam.net> wrote in
news:Xns99A7E1B308D41Sim@216.196.97.136:
Excuse the typo. Brodie no Bodie.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
news:Xns99A7E1B308D41Sim@216.196.97.136:
Kay Allen <allenk@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:mailman.2127.1189480261.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com:
Why don't you read some histories of the LDS Church
written by the people who lived it. Then you might
have a more realistic view from their side of the
story?
Like Fawn Bodie?
Excuse the typo. Brodie no Bodie.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
-
Séimí mac Liam
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in news:D1qFi.114$DU5.239
@eagle.america.net:
Actually it was from divine revelation as given to the Prophet Joesph
Smith.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
@eagle.america.net:
The LDS folks allegedly take their guidance on polygamy from Biblical and
Mediaeval Practice in various cultures
Actually it was from divine revelation as given to the Prophet Joesph
Smith.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
-
Linley Hooper
RE: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
Argue away if you must, but PLEASE take this off the MEDIEVAL GENEALOGY site
Linley
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Kay Allen
Sent: 11 September 2007 1:23 PM
To: WJhonson; Ray O'Hara; gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt
Romney'sFamily Tree
Firstly, you might like to spell Mormon correctly. I
never claimed perfection for the Saints.
If you want mythologizing, see the Jon Voight movie
concerning the Mountain Meadows massacre.
Did you know that until Gov. Christopher Bond of
Missouri, it was technically illegal for a member of
the LDS Church to own property in Missouri? Do you
know about the burning of homes, murder, rape , and
Gov. Lilburn Boggs "Order of Extermination" which were
perpetrated by the august Christian bigots on innocent
people just because of their religion. It ranks right
up there with lynching of Afro-Americans in the South.
It was a little known era of religious persecution
about which few people know or care.
Might I recommend fairlds.org for the other side of
the story.
Kay Allen AG
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
-------------------------------
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
Linley
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Kay Allen
Sent: 11 September 2007 1:23 PM
To: WJhonson; Ray O'Hara; gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt
Romney'sFamily Tree
Firstly, you might like to spell Mormon correctly. I
never claimed perfection for the Saints.
If you want mythologizing, see the Jon Voight movie
concerning the Mountain Meadows massacre.
Did you know that until Gov. Christopher Bond of
Missouri, it was technically illegal for a member of
the LDS Church to own property in Missouri? Do you
know about the burning of homes, murder, rape , and
Gov. Lilburn Boggs "Order of Extermination" which were
perpetrated by the august Christian bigots on innocent
people just because of their religion. It ranks right
up there with lynching of Afro-Americans in the South.
It was a little known era of religious persecution
about which few people know or care.
Might I recommend fairlds.org for the other side of
the story.
Kay Allen AG
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
And it will be remembered that Parley Pratt was
murdered by a man, whose wife had left him *in order
to marry* Pratt as a plural wife.
Eleanor McLean was not yet divorced from Hector
McLean.
So much for your high values and mythologizing or
new-speaking early Mormen history.
-------------------------------
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
-
William Black
Re: Brits vs. Normans [was Re: Why This Continuing Loony Inf
"Christopher Ingham" <christopheringham@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1189483775.168947.25250@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
The_litus Saxonicum_, the defensive system developed by the
Except it seems that it was manned by Saxons as well as defending against
Saxons.
The name may refer to the Saxons employed to act as soldiers on the coastal
defences.
Certainly some of the Roman officers buried at Sancton have Saxon religious
symbols attached to their uniforms.
--
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.
news:1189483775.168947.25250@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
The_litus Saxonicum_, the defensive system developed by the
Romans in the fourth century against Saxon raiders on the coasts of
Gaul and Britain, is indicative of the urgency of the threat they
posed.
Except it seems that it was manned by Saxons as well as defending against
Saxons.
The name may refer to the Saxons employed to act as soldiers on the coastal
defences.
Certainly some of the Roman officers buried at Sancton have Saxon religious
symbols attached to their uniforms.
--
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.
-
Séimí mac Liam
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
taf <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in news:1189482950.245958.232210
@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Get back to me after you have explained the difference between usenet
newsgroups and lists and private e-mail to the woman who is now isulting
me on e-mail, K? You know the one...Kay Allen, the Mormon tarbaby.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
[post picked at random - it could have been any]
Well, congratulations. You have all now given the him the pleasure of
having started a Holy War in this group. He has been trying to get us
going for some time - spew enough crap to enough groups and eventually
someone will say something offensive enough that it all blows up.
Whatever your opinion of Joseph Smith, Parley Pratt, Mitt Romney,
Hilary Clinton . . . . . . NONE OF THEM ARE MEDIEVAL.
Nothing useful can come of this discussion - NOTHING.
Please stop. Now.
taf
Get back to me after you have explained the difference between usenet
newsgroups and lists and private e-mail to the woman who is now isulting
me on e-mail, K? You know the one...Kay Allen, the Mormon tarbaby.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
-
taf
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
On Sep 11, 4:49 am, "Linley Hooper" <linle...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
Yes, quite. One poster has made the ludicrous argument that because
modern Mormons are interested in medieval people or because 19th
century Mormons had a medieval influence on their practices, then
other aspects of Mormonism and things of interest to Mormons in
general, (including US election politics, apparently) are on-topic. I
guess this is the level of logic we have come to expect, and has been
demonstrated by the individual's posting history, but this is just a
self-justification disguising the utterly selfish concept that this
group is intended to talk about whatever the specific poster wishes,
the wishes of all other posters and readers be damned.
Now, just think about what would happen to this group if everyone just
talked about anything they wanted to? There are general discussion
groups, where people can do just that, but this is a group for the
discussion of Medieval Genealogy, and it falls on everyone to keep it
useful for that purpose by resisting the various provocations to go
off topic. Likewise, as I have said before and as I will repeat now,
crossposts are an invitation to people who don't care about medieval
genealogy to come here and talk about their interests, not ours.
If someone goes off topic, don't respond in kind even if it means
absorbing an attack on something you hold dear - take one for the
team. If someone crossposts, do not respond unless you have removed
the crosspost. It takes just a few more seconds, and it eliminates
this invitation to others to disrupt the group. It is understood that
sometimes people will lose their temper, will drift, will fire off a
quick post without thinking, or will have a technical glitch - no one
can be perfect, and I occasionally screw up as well, but the quality
of this group is entirely in the hands of its participants.
taf
Argue away if you must, but PLEASE take this off the MEDIEVAL GENEALOGY site
Yes, quite. One poster has made the ludicrous argument that because
modern Mormons are interested in medieval people or because 19th
century Mormons had a medieval influence on their practices, then
other aspects of Mormonism and things of interest to Mormons in
general, (including US election politics, apparently) are on-topic. I
guess this is the level of logic we have come to expect, and has been
demonstrated by the individual's posting history, but this is just a
self-justification disguising the utterly selfish concept that this
group is intended to talk about whatever the specific poster wishes,
the wishes of all other posters and readers be damned.
Now, just think about what would happen to this group if everyone just
talked about anything they wanted to? There are general discussion
groups, where people can do just that, but this is a group for the
discussion of Medieval Genealogy, and it falls on everyone to keep it
useful for that purpose by resisting the various provocations to go
off topic. Likewise, as I have said before and as I will repeat now,
crossposts are an invitation to people who don't care about medieval
genealogy to come here and talk about their interests, not ours.
If someone goes off topic, don't respond in kind even if it means
absorbing an attack on something you hold dear - take one for the
team. If someone crossposts, do not respond unless you have removed
the crosspost. It takes just a few more seconds, and it eliminates
this invitation to others to disrupt the group. It is understood that
sometimes people will lose their temper, will drift, will fire off a
quick post without thinking, or will have a technical glitch - no one
can be perfect, and I occasionally screw up as well, but the quality
of this group is entirely in the hands of its participants.
taf
-
Séimí mac Liam
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
taf <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in
news:1189528057.971169.295850@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
You could to two things to limit the problem: Name the individual in
question and limit the feed to the list to not include usenet posts
crossposted to more than, say, three groups. You could also as list-
owner of the list, explain to the subscribers how to use the list and the
differences between usenet and listservers. I apologise for missing the
crosspost to soc.genealogy.medieval in my reply to Ray O'Hara psted from
alt.history.british, had a caught it, I would have left SGM off the
distribution. That said, the major infamer of this thread was your list
member, Kay Allen, who jumped in with both feet and hit the ground
running, insulting all and sundry, by and large with out cause as both I
and Mr. Johnson were taking O'Hara to task for his assesment of the
causes of polygamy in the early church.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
news:1189528057.971169.295850@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 11, 4:49 am, "Linley Hooper" <linle...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
Argue away if you must, but PLEASE take this off the MEDIEVAL
GENEALOGY site
Yes, quite. One poster has made the ludicrous argument that because
modern Mormons are interested in medieval people or because 19th
century Mormons had a medieval influence on their practices, then
other aspects of Mormonism and things of interest to Mormons in
general, (including US election politics, apparently) are on-topic. I
guess this is the level of logic we have come to expect, and has been
demonstrated by the individual's posting history, but this is just a
self-justification disguising the utterly selfish concept that this
group is intended to talk about whatever the specific poster wishes,
the wishes of all other posters and readers be damned.
Now, just think about what would happen to this group if everyone just
talked about anything they wanted to? There are general discussion
groups, where people can do just that, but this is a group for the
discussion of Medieval Genealogy, and it falls on everyone to keep it
useful for that purpose by resisting the various provocations to go
off topic. Likewise, as I have said before and as I will repeat now,
crossposts are an invitation to people who don't care about medieval
genealogy to come here and talk about their interests, not ours.
If someone goes off topic, don't respond in kind even if it means
absorbing an attack on something you hold dear - take one for the
team. If someone crossposts, do not respond unless you have removed
the crosspost. It takes just a few more seconds, and it eliminates
this invitation to others to disrupt the group. It is understood that
sometimes people will lose their temper, will drift, will fire off a
quick post without thinking, or will have a technical glitch - no one
can be perfect, and I occasionally screw up as well, but the quality
of this group is entirely in the hands of its participants.
taf
You could to two things to limit the problem: Name the individual in
question and limit the feed to the list to not include usenet posts
crossposted to more than, say, three groups. You could also as list-
owner of the list, explain to the subscribers how to use the list and the
differences between usenet and listservers. I apologise for missing the
crosspost to soc.genealogy.medieval in my reply to Ray O'Hara psted from
alt.history.british, had a caught it, I would have left SGM off the
distribution. That said, the major infamer of this thread was your list
member, Kay Allen, who jumped in with both feet and hit the ground
running, insulting all and sundry, by and large with out cause as both I
and Mr. Johnson were taking O'Hara to task for his assesment of the
causes of polygamy in the early church.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP ...
In article <Xns99A859DE64ACESim@216.196.97.136>,
"Séimí mac Liam" <gwyddon@comcast.nospam.net> wrote:
The real 'major infamer' of this thread (Freudian slip, perhaps) is the
person who made the original post, which had no business being made here
in the first place. The disingenuous, inflammatory, off-topic post was
intended as nothing more than a seed pearl--an irritant to the forums to
which it was (cross)posted.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
"Séimí mac Liam" <gwyddon@comcast.nospam.net> wrote:
... the major infamer of this thread was your list
member, Kay Allen, who jumped in with both feet and hit the ground
running, insulting all and sundry...
The real 'major infamer' of this thread (Freudian slip, perhaps) is the
person who made the original post, which had no business being made here
in the first place. The disingenuous, inflammatory, off-topic post was
intended as nothing more than a seed pearl--an irritant to the forums to
which it was (cross)posted.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
Séimí mac Liam
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP ...
Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:nathanieltaylor-DD0048.13183111092007@earthlink.vsrv-
sjc.supernews.net:
Agreed, but with this caveat: It has been traditional on this group to
work up genealogies of potential Presidents in the past and to that
extent, even though off topic, such has in the past been acceptable.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
news:nathanieltaylor-DD0048.13183111092007@earthlink.vsrv-
sjc.supernews.net:
In article <Xns99A859DE64ACESim@216.196.97.136>,
"Séimí mac Liam" <gwyddon@comcast.nospam.net> wrote:
... the major infamer of this thread was your list
member, Kay Allen, who jumped in with both feet and hit the ground
running, insulting all and sundry...
The real 'major infamer' of this thread (Freudian slip, perhaps) is the
person who made the original post, which had no business being made
here
in the first place. The disingenuous, inflammatory, off-topic post was
intended as nothing more than a seed pearl--an irritant to the forums
to
which it was (cross)posted.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Agreed, but with this caveat: It has been traditional on this group to
work up genealogies of potential Presidents in the past and to that
extent, even though off topic, such has in the past been acceptable.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Who Really Came With William The Conqueror In 1066?
<G>
DSH
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2160.1189530548.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
DSH
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2160.1189530548.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 9/11/2007 8:15:29 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:
So far I've never been hit directly, but only glancing blows.
Even then it once knocked me down into the prairie grass, thankfully.
These are very small deer, of course; we don't have big ones around here.
--------
One time I was hit by a midget deer as well.
It was a stuffed midget deer being wielded by the Queen Mother.
I said she was pudgy and had no style and she took offense.
Imagine!
-
Séimí mac Liam
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
Kay Allen <allenk@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:mailman.2161.1189531636.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com:
Quote my scurrilous remarks issued before you said I was butt ignorant if
you please.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
news:mailman.2161.1189531636.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com:
Prithee good sire, slime mcSlimey, thou speakest as
serpant with forked tongue. You post this list under a
preposterous pseudonym, without facing up with the
courage of your convictions.
Thou posteth me in private. And it seems you speaketh
out of both sides of digestive oriface.
I didn' just jump in with two feet. You and Will
Johnson had made scurrilous remarks before I even
entered the fray. And you kept on making them.
Academic speech is one thing. Hate speech is quite
another. So, it seems to me that you were imflaming,
before I ever came on the scene. Please note that the
word you were trying for was inflamer, not infamer.
And calling someone butt ignorant seems to be a common
place on this list; but Mormon Tarbaby is a first. And
not particularly original.
So I maintain that you are not nearly so innocent as
you would like to paint yourself, with paint brushes
dangling from both sides of your toothy oriface. I
have apologized both publically and privately.
Are you man enough to do the same and take
responsibility for your part?
You fellows seem to take it in stride in the various
testosterone-laden
rants which seem to occur on this list with
unfortuante frequency. But let a woman call you to
task and you seem to take unusually extreme umbrage.
And by-the-way you have made one contradictory
statement. Privately, you said that there was no list
owner, and in this post you admit there is one.
I have tried to retire from this senseless
"discussion". I hope every one else involved will
have the courage and the sense to do like-wise.
Kay Allen AG
--- Séimí mac Liam <gwyddon@comcast.nospam.net> wrote:
taf <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in
news:
You could to two things to limit the problem: Name
the individual in
question and limit the feed to the list to not
include usenet posts
crossposted to more than, say, three groups. You
could also as list-
owner of the list, explain to the subscribers how to
use the list and the
differences between usenet and listservers. I
apologise for missing the
crosspost to soc.genealogy.medieval in my reply to
Ray O'Hara psted from
alt.history.british, had a caught it, I would have
left SGM off the
distribution. That said, the major infamer of this
thread was your list
member, Kay Allen, who jumped in with both feet and
hit the ground
running, insulting all and sundry, by and large with
out cause as both I
and Mr. Johnson were taking O'Hara to task for his
assesment of the
causes of polygamy in the early church.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
-------------------------------
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
Quote my scurrilous remarks issued before you said I was butt ignorant if
you please.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
The Latter Day Saints [Mormons] have done a GREAT DEAL to further the
ability of Americans and citizens of other Nations to pursue their Mediaeval
Ancestors and to bag them.
The Latter Day Saints have established a wonderful resource for Genealogical
Research in Salt Lake City -- the Family History Library where Douglas
Richardson and Paul Reed, among many others, do their daily work in
ferreting out new mediaeval genealogical links and polishing old ones.
The Latter Day Saints have also established over 3,400 Family History
Centers worldwide.
Family History Centers are branch facilities of the Family History Library
in Salt Lake City. Centers provide access to most of the microfilms and
microfiche in the Family History Library to help patrons identify their
ancestors. Everyone is welcome to come to the centers and use Family
History Center resources.
<http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Library/FHC/frameset_fhc.asp>
<http://www.genhomepage.com/FHC/>
For those reasons ALONE a discussion of the beliefs, practices, priorities
and contributions of Latter Day Saints to Mediaeval Royal and Noble
Genealogy and History is CERTAINLY on topic.
Since Latter Day Saints ALSO allegedly take their guidance on polygamy from
Biblical and Mediaeval Practices in various cultures that is also ANOTHER
important reason why this discussion is on topic for ALL these newsgroups --
which should NOT be hermetically sealed off from each other -- as if they
were merely separate classrooms in a high school or university.
Many Mormons spend lots of time connecting to their Mediaeval Ancestors and
trying to work out the Genealogical Connections as well as studying the
History of those same Mediaeval Ancestors.
So, this topic is CERTAINLY on-topic for SGM as well as SHM, ATR and AHB.
Please tell those of us who are NOT bigoted about the Church Of LDS what you
think, those of you, especially Kay Allen, who are Mormons -- because this
understanding of what Mormons believe and are trying to contribute to the
study of Royal and Noble Genealogy and History should be of vital interest
to all of us.
Further, since Mitt Romney is probably the most prominent Mormon in America
today and will be even more so if wins some early Presidential primaries and
perhaps even becomes the candidate for President of one of our two major
political parties -- he will be carrying the LDS banner, whether he wants to
or not, and will be watched VERY closely about his Religion -- just as John
F. Kennedy, our first Roman Catholic President, was.
Therefore Governor Romney is the linchpin, the vital center of our
discussions here in that respect and will engender continuing discussions of
the constructive role of Mormons in American life -- from both Genealogical
and Historical Perspectives.
Those who are NOT interested in these important matters can just not read
the thread.
Let's NOT be small-minded, bigoted and parochial about these matters, as
some misguided souls here would have us be.
Aloha me ke pumehana,
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Exitus Acta Probat
ability of Americans and citizens of other Nations to pursue their Mediaeval
Ancestors and to bag them.
The Latter Day Saints have established a wonderful resource for Genealogical
Research in Salt Lake City -- the Family History Library where Douglas
Richardson and Paul Reed, among many others, do their daily work in
ferreting out new mediaeval genealogical links and polishing old ones.
The Latter Day Saints have also established over 3,400 Family History
Centers worldwide.
Family History Centers are branch facilities of the Family History Library
in Salt Lake City. Centers provide access to most of the microfilms and
microfiche in the Family History Library to help patrons identify their
ancestors. Everyone is welcome to come to the centers and use Family
History Center resources.
<http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Library/FHC/frameset_fhc.asp>
<http://www.genhomepage.com/FHC/>
For those reasons ALONE a discussion of the beliefs, practices, priorities
and contributions of Latter Day Saints to Mediaeval Royal and Noble
Genealogy and History is CERTAINLY on topic.
Since Latter Day Saints ALSO allegedly take their guidance on polygamy from
Biblical and Mediaeval Practices in various cultures that is also ANOTHER
important reason why this discussion is on topic for ALL these newsgroups --
which should NOT be hermetically sealed off from each other -- as if they
were merely separate classrooms in a high school or university.
Many Mormons spend lots of time connecting to their Mediaeval Ancestors and
trying to work out the Genealogical Connections as well as studying the
History of those same Mediaeval Ancestors.
So, this topic is CERTAINLY on-topic for SGM as well as SHM, ATR and AHB.
Please tell those of us who are NOT bigoted about the Church Of LDS what you
think, those of you, especially Kay Allen, who are Mormons -- because this
understanding of what Mormons believe and are trying to contribute to the
study of Royal and Noble Genealogy and History should be of vital interest
to all of us.
Further, since Mitt Romney is probably the most prominent Mormon in America
today and will be even more so if wins some early Presidential primaries and
perhaps even becomes the candidate for President of one of our two major
political parties -- he will be carrying the LDS banner, whether he wants to
or not, and will be watched VERY closely about his Religion -- just as John
F. Kennedy, our first Roman Catholic President, was.
Therefore Governor Romney is the linchpin, the vital center of our
discussions here in that respect and will engender continuing discussions of
the constructive role of Mormons in American life -- from both Genealogical
and Historical Perspectives.
Those who are NOT interested in these important matters can just not read
the thread.
Let's NOT be small-minded, bigoted and parochial about these matters, as
some misguided souls here would have us be.
Aloha me ke pumehana,
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Exitus Acta Probat
-
Séimí mac Liam
Re: Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romn
Kay Allen <allenk@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:mailman.2161.1189531636.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com:
Show me a lie.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
news:mailman.2161.1189531636.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com:
Prithee good sire, slime mcSlimey, thou speakest as
serpant with forked tongue.
Show me a lie.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99