Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
John Higgins

Re: Sir James Hamilton of Stonehouse

Legg inn av John Higgins » 19 sep 2007 22:28:43

James Hamilton of Stonehouse AND his son James were both killed in 1548. It
was the elder James who was married first to Margaret Mowat and second to
Grizell Sempill. The sources I've seen are in disagreement as to which wife
was the mother of the younger James (and the other children), but all the
sources agree that both father and son died in 1548 - in a riot in
Edinburgh, not in a battle.

I can't opine as to the birthrange of the elder James (it would only be
guessing, which I'll leave to others). But the fact that the younger James
was married and had a child at the time of his death in 1548 makes it likely
that SP (unlike the other two sources cited) was right in saying that the
younger James was son by Margaret Mowat, since Grizell Sempill was certainly
not married to the elder James in 1532, when "William Wallace of Craigie was
requisitioned to marry her". SP says Grizell married James Hamilton "before
10 March 1539-40" [the date of a charter in their names], but it's unlikely
that they were married sufficiently far in advance of that date to permit
Grizell to be the mother of the younger James.

Unfortumately none of this does anything to establish the maternity of the
daughters of the elder James, especially the one said to have married Mungo
Lockhart of Cleghorn, from whom there are some interesting descents.

----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: Sir James Hamilton of Stonehouse


In a message dated 09/18/07 20:58:03 Pacific Standard Time,
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:
According to another pedigree of this Hamilton
branch, in "The Heraldry of the Hamiltons", by G. Harvey Johnston,
Margaret
Mowat was the first wife (not the mother) of the James Hamilton
[originally
of Raploch} who (with his son James) was killed in 1548 and was married
2nd
to Grizell Sempill.

----------------------------
Just to clarify this, you are quoting this source as stating that the "son
James" who was killed in 1548 and the step-son of Grizzell ? That he was

the son of Margaret Mowat ?
Is that what you're saying ? Perhaps we need to determine what is the
source for the transmission, as, if there was a son, old enough to be in

battle (or whatever) that would greatly narrow the birthrange for the
father.
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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Guarantors & Counsellors

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 19 sep 2007 22:33:02

This "Robert de Roppelay" is a particularly interesting character --
standing on Great-Grandfather King John's side of the field at Runnemede.
<g>

Arthur Edwin Bye tells us that although his name is written that way in
Magna Carta, his name was "undoubtedly Robert de Rokkeley. There seems to
be no such name as Roppelay." <g>

Bye continues by telling us Robert was from Rokeley in Kent and that like
five others who were King John's Counsellors at Runnemede, he joined the
Barons after Runnemede and was taken prisoner by King John's forces at
Rochester Castle in 1216.

The five other turncoats appear to be:

William Longuespee, Earl of Salisbury

William de Warenne, Earl of Surrey

William d'Aubigny, Earl of Arundel

Hugh de Neville, The Chief Forester

Alan de Galloway, Constable of Scotland

All six men deserted King John for the Dauphin of France [later Louis VIII]
and the Baronial Party in June 1216, apparently in the mistaken belief that
Great-Grandfather John's cause was hopelessly lost.

It took the firm hand and wise, steady leadership of the Regent for the
child-King Henry III [nine years old in 1216 when his father King John
died] -- Great-Grandfather William Marshal -- to bring all six men back into
the fold and allegiance to the English Crown -- particularly when they saw
that because of Great-Grandfather William Marshal's wise strategy and
tactics in dealing with both the invading French and the rebellious
Barons -- the English Royalists were WINNING. <g>

William Marshal, of course, won a Great Victory over the French at Lincoln,
in May 1217.

Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent, also had a Great Naval Victory over the
French Fleet off Dover, on 24 August 1217 -- entitling him to be a
respected forerunner of Sir Francis Drake.

These combined Victories forced the Dauphin to accept the Treaty of
Lambeth, with the Regent, William Marshal on 11 September 1217. The Dauphin
renounced his claim to the English Crown and agreed to evacuate his forces
from England and to cease all hostilities.

Hubert de Burgh was also a party to this Treaty.

Source:

Arthur Edwin Bye, _Magna Carta, King John and The Barons_, The Baronial
Order of Magna Carta, 1966, with a Foreword by Samuel Booth Sturgis
--------------------------

Bully!

Deeeeeeeelightful!...

And God Save The King!...

....And his bacon as well.

<G>

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat

Deus Vult

John P. Ravilious

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Guarantors & Counsellors

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 19 sep 2007 23:13:51

Dear Spencer,

Thanks for that post; perhaps some further research may yet find
more details (and possibly descendants) re: Robert de 'Roppelay'.

One quick note: in 1215/16, Prince Louis was heir to the kingdom
of France, but he was not styled Dauphin. The lands of the Dauphine
are found east of the Rhone river, and were part of the territory of
the Holy Roman Empire. Beatrix, comtesse d'Albon, was the stepmother
of the Duke of Burgundy, but she held her lands of the Emperor. The
Dauphine did not become subject to French rule until the 14th century.

Cheers,

John


On Sep 19, 5:33?pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
This "Robert de Roppelay" is a particularly interesting character --
standing on Great-Grandfather King John's side of the field at Runnemede.
g

Arthur Edwin Bye tells us that although his name is written that way in
Magna Carta, his name was "undoubtedly Robert de Rokkeley. There seems to
be no such name as Roppelay." <g

Bye continues by telling us Robert was from Rokeley in Kent and that like
five others who were King John's Counsellors at Runnemede, he joined the
Barons after Runnemede and was taken prisoner by King John's forces at
Rochester Castle in 1216.

The five other turncoats appear to be:

William Longuespee, Earl of Salisbury

William de Warenne, Earl of Surrey

William d'Aubigny, Earl of Arundel

Hugh de Neville, The Chief Forester

Alan de Galloway, Constable of Scotland

All six men deserted King John for the Dauphin of France [later Louis VIII]
and the Baronial Party in June 1216, apparently in the mistaken belief that
Great-Grandfather John's cause was hopelessly lost.

It took the firm hand and wise, steady leadership of the Regent for the
child-King Henry III [nine years old in 1216 when his father King John
died] -- Great-Grandfather William Marshal -- to bring all six men back into
the fold and allegiance to the English Crown -- particularly when they saw
that because of Great-Grandfather William Marshal's wise strategy and
tactics in dealing with both the invading French and the rebellious
Barons -- the English Royalists were WINNING. <g

William Marshal, of course, won a Great Victory over the French at Lincoln,
in May 1217.

Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent, also had a Great Naval Victory over the
French Fleet off Dover, on 24 August 1217 -- entitling him to be a
respected forerunner of Sir Francis Drake.

These combined Victories forced the Dauphin to accept the Treaty of
Lambeth, with the Regent, William Marshal on 11 September 1217. The Dauphin
renounced his claim to the English Crown and agreed to evacuate his forces
from England and to cease all hostilities.

Hubert de Burgh was also a party to this Treaty.

Source:

Arthur Edwin Bye, _Magna Carta, King John and The Barons_, The Baronial
Order of Magna Carta, 1966, with a Foreword by Samuel Booth Sturgis
--------------------------

Bully!

Deeeeeeeelightful!...

And God Save The King!...

...And his bacon as well.

G

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat

Deus Vult

John P. Ravilious

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Et Alii ... Was Hastings

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 19 sep 2007 23:35:19

Dear Rosie,

Many thanks for that citation, and text. Always good to resolve
a disputed identification with documentation.

Cheers,

John



On Sep 19, 3:23?am, Rosie Bevan <rbe...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
On Sep 19, 8:48 am, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:





Dear Spencer, et al.,

Thanks for that post re: Piers fitz Herbert. He certainly is
less well known than many in whose company (e.g. Hubert de Burgh and
the four Earls William) we find him at Runnymede, but we do know some
interesting things.

As to his earliest patrilineal ancestor I can identify, that was
the Herbert 'camerarius' who had a grant from the Archbishop of York
of lands in Londesbrough, Wiverthorpe and elsewhere in Yorkshire which
are still found in Sir Reynold fitz Piers' hands at his death in
1285. He was the father of, among others, Herbert fitz Herbert of
Leckhampstead, co. Bucks., Londesborough and Wiverthorpe, co. Yorks.,
and of William (later St. William), Archbishop of York. He was also
the brother-in-law of King Stephen (if by marriage to his illegitimate
half-sister).

A question comes up which will result in one of us correcting a
standing error. You show below that Alice, wife of Piers, was the
daughter of Roger fitz Richard and Alice de Vere, and the widow of
John fitz Richard the Constable (d. 1190). I show Pier's wife as the
niece of this Alice, and daughter of Robert fitz Roger of Warkworth by
Margaret de Chesney. This is also as given in Leo's website,
Genealogics.org - Alice (wife of Piers, daughter of Robert fitz Roger)
is given ID #I00284745.

I'd be most interested in resolving the question - any evidence
you might have that directly bears on this would be of interest, and
of course any documentation others of the list might have would be
welcome as well.

Cheers,

John

On Sep 18, 1:01?pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

Dear John Ravilous et Alii,

One of the most interesting of these Guarantors & Counsellors of King John
at Runnemede is Piers Fitz Herbert, because he is generally so less well
known than many others.

Here are some additional reported details on Piers:

Piers Fitz Herbert was knight of 15 knights' fees in Berkshire and
Hampshire.

Matthew Paris says he was one of "the evil counsellors of King John".

John certainly favored him with many commissions.

Piers married twice, first in 1204 to Alice, widow of John Fitz Richard,
Constable of Chester, and daughter of Roger Fitz Richard by Alice de Vere,
"Alice of Essex", which made him an uncle by marriage to the Surety John
Fitz Robert and stepgrandfather of the Surety John de Lacy.

Piers de Herbert's second marriage was to Isabel, sister to Henry de
Ferrers.

He died in 1235 and was buried in Reading Abbey.

Among other children, Piers had a son, Reynold Fitz Piers, who carried on
the family line.

Source:

Arthur Edwin Bye, op. cit., p. 186

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Alice was most certainly the daughter of Robert fitz Roger, the
evidence of which is given in a 1203 agreement for dower in the curia
regis rolls.

CRR 3 p. 6

"Euerwikesir' .Sciant presentes et futuri quod ita convenit inter
Herebertum filium Hereberti et Petrum filium ejus de maritagio Alicie
filie Roberti filii Rogeri, quam idem Petrus duxit in uxorem, quod
predictus Herebertus dedit et concessit Petro filio suo ad dotandum
Aliciam predictam uxorem suam totum tenementum suum de
Euerwikesir'...."

Nice to see you posting medieval content, Spencer.

Rosie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

John Briggs

Re: About Myself

Legg inn av John Briggs » 19 sep 2007 23:58:26

Sybilla wrote:
"Eric Stevens" <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:32:29 GMT, "John Briggs"
john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Sybilla wrote:
Some people have enquired about who I am, what group I'm allied
with and what I mean by Senecheal. so, here it is. Sybilla of
Blackwater is a 12th Century disenfranchised noble woman, who's
inheirited [sic] lands,
properties and chattels [sic] were stolen during a coupe [sic]
when she was 11 years old.

Are you sure it wasn't a sedan?

No.

The old regime was swept out with a new brougham.

well actually it was a 64 Ford station wagon, which explains why my
spelling sucks

Speaking of which, "seneschal" may be the word you are looking for -
although heaven knows why...
--
John Briggs

Gjest

Re: Prince Poniatowski & Catherine The Great

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 sep 2007 23:59:26

On Sep 19, 10:39 am, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:JX7Ii.2890$X%4.1666@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...





edespal...@yahoo.fr wrote:
On 19 sep, 02:24, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in
messagenews:5VZHi.200$H_5.1249@eagle.america.net...> And one of his
ancestors was a favorite lover of Catherine The Great?

i know a guy named poniatowski.
when i asked him if he was a member of the polish royal family he
hadn't a
clue about what i talking about.
i told him he should research his family's roots.

The guy poster should know a little bit of a Polish nobility. A well
known name does not mean noble name. You have to have a name with the
coat of arms of ..., and there may exist persons of same name but of
different coat of arms. If somebody is a not royal prince he also may
also have sibblings, who are just of simple nobility. That can be here
the case; furthermore there are always also bastards.

Jewish servants/retainers of Polish noble families often took that
family's
name.
--
John Briggs

He's not jewish- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There are three separate and unrelated noble families in Poland with
the surname Poniatowski. They are unrelated and bear different arms
(Szreniawa, Junosza, and Ciolek). King Stanislaw August (Poniatowski)
used the arms Ciolek. His direct line is extinct except for natural
offspring. There are some other Poniatowski lines with the title of
prince and more who are untitled. Please know that Poniatowski is not
an uncommon name. In the early 1990's Rymut found 2951 individuals in
Poland bearing this surname. Certainly many of them are not noble and
simply have that surname. There are likely even many hundreds more
living outside of Poland. You would expect that your friend would know
his heritage if he were the descendent of one of the historic
Poniatowski lines.
George Lucki
The surname does not mean his family was princely or even of the
untitled nobility.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Guarantors & Counsellors

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 20 sep 2007 00:02:30

Dear John,

Please be assured I was simply reporting what Arthur Bye says re the
Dauphin -- not taking my own position.

So your argument is with Bye.

Cheers,

DSH

"John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1190240031.501636.129680@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...

Dear Spencer,

Thanks for that post; perhaps some further research may yet find
more details (and possibly descendants) re: Robert de 'Roppelay'.

One quick note: in 1215/16, Prince Louis was heir to the kingdom
of France, but he was not styled Dauphin. The lands of the Dauphine
are found east of the Rhone river, and were part of the territory of
the Holy Roman Empire. Beatrix, comtesse d'Albon, was the stepmother
of the Duke of Burgundy, but she held her lands of the Emperor. The
Dauphine did not become subject to French rule until the 14th century.

Cheers,

John

On Sep 19, 5:33?pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

This "Robert de Roppelay" is a particularly interesting character --
standing on Great-Grandfather King John's side of the field at Runnemede.
g

Arthur Edwin Bye tells us that although his name is written that way in
Magna Carta, his name was "undoubtedly Robert de Rokkeley. There seems
to be no such name as Roppelay." <g

Bye continues by telling us Robert was from Rokeley in Kent and that like
five others who were King John's Counsellors at Runnemede, he joined the
Barons after Runnemede and was taken prisoner by King John's forces at
Rochester Castle in 1216.

The five other turncoats appear to be:

William Longuespee, Earl of Salisbury

William de Warenne, Earl of Surrey

William d'Aubigny, Earl of Arundel

Hugh de Neville, The Chief Forester

Alan de Galloway, Constable of Scotland

All six men deserted King John for the Dauphin of France [later Louis
VIII] and the Baronial Party in June 1216, apparently in the mistaken
belief that Great-Grandfather John's cause was hopelessly lost.

It took the firm hand and wise, steady leadership of the Regent for the
child-King Henry III [nine years old in 1216 when his father King John
died] -- Great-Grandfather William Marshal -- to bring all six men back
into the fold and allegiance to the English Crown -- particularly when
they
saw that because of Great-Grandfather William Marshal's wise strategy and
tactics in dealing with both the invading French and the rebellious
Barons -- the English Royalists were WINNING. <g

William Marshal, of course, won a Great Victory over the French at
Lincoln, in May 1217.

Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent, also had a Great Naval Victory over the
French Fleet off Dover, on 24 August 1217 -- entitling him to be a
respected forerunner of Sir Francis Drake.

These combined Victories forced the Dauphin to accept the Treaty of
Lambeth, with the Regent, William Marshal on 11 September 1217. The
Dauphin renounced his claim to the English Crown and agreed to evacuate
his
forces from England and to cease all hostilities.

Hubert de Burgh was also a party to this Treaty.

Source:

Arthur Edwin Bye, _Magna Carta, King John and The Barons_, The Baronial
Order of Magna Carta, 1966, with a Foreword by Samuel Booth Sturgis
--------------------------

Bully!

Deeeeeeeelightful!...

And God Save The King!...

...And his bacon as well.

G

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat

Deus Vult

D. Spencer Hines

Re: About Myself

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 20 sep 2007 00:04:59

She has a Self Identification Problem...

Writ Large.

DSH

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:mQhIi.6842$HW.2700@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...

Sybilla wrote:

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:32:29 GMT, "John Briggs"

john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Sybilla wrote:
Some people have enquired about who I am, what group I'm allied
with and what I mean by Senecheal. so, here it is. Sybilla of
Blackwater is a 12th Century disenfranchised noble woman, who's
inheirited [sic] lands,
properties and chattels [sic] were stolen during a coupe [sic]
when she was 11 years old.

Are you sure it wasn't a sedan?

No.

The old regime was swept out with a new brougham.

well actually it was a 64 Ford station wagon, which explains why my
spelling sucks

Speaking of which, "seneschal" may be the word you are looking for -
although heaven knows why...
--
John Briggs

John Briggs

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Guarantors & Counsellors

Legg inn av John Briggs » 20 sep 2007 00:11:50

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Dear John,

Please be assured I was simply reporting what Arthur Bye says re the
Dauphin -- not taking my own position.

So your argument is with Bye.

Cheers,

or Good Bye?

But you were the one who recommended this ridiculous book - shouldn't you
have been a bit more careful over its historical accuracy?
--
John Briggs

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Guarantors & Counsellors

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 20 sep 2007 01:53:17

Do you Brits prefer _RUNNEMEDE_ -- _RUNNYMEDE_ -- or some other alternative?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

WJhonson

Re: Gilbert of Lancaster

Legg inn av WJhonson » 20 sep 2007 02:41:59

<<In a message dated 09/16/07 11:11:19 Pacific Standard Time, pajunkin@bellsouth.net writes:
A. Hugh de Morville, Contstable of Scotland, d. 1162 by Beatrice Beauchamp had:
\
1. Richard de Morville b.c. 1120’s>>
------------------
How is it, that we know that Richard was born in the 1120s ?

Thanks
Will

WJhonson

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Et Alii ... Was Hastings

Legg inn av WJhonson » 20 sep 2007 04:22:02

<<In a message dated 09/15/07 12:05:19 Pacific Standard Time, panther@excelsior.com writes:
13. Philip Daubeney

Not identified in my database; career and descendants not noted.

He was one of the tutors to Prince Henry, later Henry III. He came directly
from the town of Aubigny, in Normandy, close to Brittany -- and was not
related to the Earls of Arundel.

He held high office under Henry III -- Warden of the Channel Islands,
Seneschal of the Honour of Wallingford and Sheriff of Berkshire. He died in
the Holy Land 1235/6 and was buried there.

He reportedly died sine prole.

His nephew inherited Philip's estate of Petherton and was ancestor of a long
line of Daubeneys. The last male died sine prole in 1548. >>

-----------------------------
Who was the nephew ?

Will

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Gilbert of Lancaster

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 20 sep 2007 06:50:46

I would suggest that he was born somewhat earlier, based on the
ancestry of his wife Beatrice, who was daughter of Robert, younger son
of Hugh de Beauchamp. Her likely approximate birthdate would be
1000x1100, which would suggest that he was born a little earlier.

We don't know his ancestry for sure; Barrow suggested that he was a
younger son of Richard de Morville, of Bradpoole, Dorset, who
witnessed for the de Redvers and whose eldest son William endowed the
Abbey of Montebourg with the church of Bradpoole. The early de
Morvilles were tenants in the earldom of Huntingdon, which is how they
probably came to Scotland in the train of David the Earl, subsequently
David I of Scots.

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Gilbert of Lancaster

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 20 sep 2007 07:01:04

I would suggest that this is about right; I have estimated 1130.
This is based on the ancestry of his mother Beatrice, who was daughter
of Robert, younger son of Hugh de Beauchamp. Her likely approximate
birthdate would be 1000x1100, which would suggest that he was born
about 20/25 years later.

His father Hugh died in 1162 (Bower's Scotichronicon) and he married
Avice de Lancaster and died in 1189. His son Richard was alive in
1195 and his nephew Alan of Galloway (d 1234) was Constable after
him.

We don't know the ancestry for sure; Barrow suggested that Hugh the
first Constable and husband of Beatrice was a
younger son of Richard de Morville, of Bradpoole, Dorset, who
witnessed for the de Redvers and whose eldest son William endowed the
Abbey of Montebourg with the church of Bradpoole. The early de
Morvilles were tenants in the earldom of Huntingdon, which is probably
how they came to Scotland in the train of David the Earl, subsequently
David I of Scots.

Cloudberry@btinternet.com

Re: While England Slept

Legg inn av Cloudberry@btinternet.com » 20 sep 2007 07:43:23

"Vince" <firelaw@firelaw.us> wrote in message
news:B_qdnaFosOlxGE3bnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
The Highlander wrote:

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

Henri Cinque was a French Plantagenet psychopath, blame the French.
actually no

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


will Shakespeare certainly captured the flavor of such a tactic

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



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



Vince




Vince

John Briggs

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Guarantors & Counsellors

Legg inn av John Briggs » 20 sep 2007 09:36:23

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Do you Brits prefer _RUNNEMEDE_ -- _RUNNYMEDE_ -- or some other
alternative?

Are you incapable of looking in the Wikipedia? Or have you been banned for
trolling?
--
John Briggs

Nancy L. Allen

Daughters of Richard FitzRoger and Margaret Banastre

Legg inn av Nancy L. Allen » 20 sep 2007 15:32:01

In searching for information about the Stokeport/Stockport family, I found
the following in a post dated 20 Dec 2005 which states that three of the
daughters of Richard FitzRoger were not known to have been married:

< Therav3@aol.com> wrote in message news: 211.f99546b.30da0e3c@aol.com...
Tuesday, 20 December, 2005
..

..
Richard fitz Roger of Woodplumpton is a bit late to be a good
candidate. He was alive in 1191, and died sometime before 26
Feb 1201; further, of his five daughters, three (Margaret, Quenild,
and Amuria) are not known to have been married, and the husbands for
the other two (Avice m. William de Millom, and Maud m. Robert de
Stockport) do not obviously include Jordan de Thornhill
..

..
The following source gives the names of all five daughters of Richard
FitzRoger and Margaret Banastre:

George Ormerod, compiler, "The Early Connexion of the Anglo-Norman Families
of Stokeport, Fitz-Roger, Banastre, and Gernet," pp. 1-9, Parentalia,
Genealogical Memoirs of Lathom of Bradwall (Printed by Thomas Richards,
1851; not published, given to the Bodleian Library, Oxford, England by the
author in 1856); at books.google.com.

1. MATILDA, eldest, married SIR ROBERT DE STOKEPORT before 1201.
2. MARGARET, unmarried in 1201, and eldest unmarried co-heir in 1205, when
her marriage was purchased by HUGH DE MORET?N.
3. AVICIA, married WILLIAM DE ?ULHUM before 1201.
4. QUENILDA, unmarried in 1201, second wife of SIR ROGER GERNET.
5. AMURIA, unmarried in 1201, wife of THOMAS DE BETHUM in 1206.

Nancy

Leo van de Pas

Re: Orsini of Nola

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 20 sep 2007 15:36:20

Dear Michael,

Genealogics tries to make as much as possible available and give sources as
well.
I think the Orsini family is of Italian origin and pretty early, in fact in
1191, a member of this family became a pope, Celestine III; in 1277 another
Orsini became Pope Nicholas III and in 1724 we find yet another Orsini
Pope, Benedetto XIII. Not bad for one family.
With best wishes
Leo


----- Original Message -----
From: <Millerfairfield@aol.com>
To: <Millerfairfield@aol.com>; <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 12:14 AM
Subject: Re: Orsini of Nola


Apologies- I carelessly mis-transcribed the genealogy from Leo vdP's
website:

3. After his death his daughter Anastasia [the wife of Roberto de Orsini,
according to the trusty Leo vdPas] was restored to the county of Nola by
Charles II of Sicily, and did feudal service for the county while she
lived
4. After Anastasia's death her "nepos"- sc. grandson- the petitioner
Nicholas [her son by Roberto de Orsini, according to Leo vdP] succeeded
to the
county and did the same feudal service

Leo in fact shows Anastasia's husband as Romano de Orsini, Roberto as her
son, and Nicholas as her grandson. Mea culpa, with apologies to Leo
MM







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

Gjest

Re: Orsini of Nola

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 sep 2007 16:21:03

Apologies- I carelessly mis-transcribed the genealogy from Leo vdP's website:

3. After his death his daughter Anastasia [the wife of Roberto de Orsini,
according to the trusty Leo vdPas] was restored to the county of Nola by
Charles II of Sicily, and did feudal service for the county while she lived
4. After Anastasia's death her "nepos"- sc. grandson- the petitioner
Nicholas [her son by Roberto de Orsini, according to Leo vdP] succeeded to the
county and did the same feudal service

Leo in fact shows Anastasia's husband as Romano de Orsini, Roberto as her
son, and Nicholas as her grandson. Mea culpa, with apologies to Leo
MM

Gjest

Re: Orsini of Nola

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 sep 2007 16:22:02

Merilyn Pedrick asked for a translation of the letter of Pope Urban V,
dealing with a petition of Nicholas Orsini, which Douglas Richardson had usefully
posted. It's a long and verbose document, and as posted by Douglas contains
quite a few manifest errors of transcription.
However, the salient allegations emerging from the document are as follows:-
1. Guy de Montfort [a younger son of the famous Simon] was made count of
Nola by Charles I, king of Sicily
2. His right to the county was forfeited by the same king, because of his
alleged involvement in the horrible murder of Henry, son of Richard of
Cornwall, the elected king of the Romans [at Viterbo on 13th March 1171--see the
ODNB]. Later he re-entered the service of king Charles, and died therein, but
the county had already been granted to others to hold by different services
3. After his death his daughter Anastasia [the wife of Roberto de Orsini,
according to the trusty Leo vdPas] was restored to the county of Nola by Charles
II of Sicily, and did feudal service for the county while she lived
4. After Anastasia's death her "nepos"- sc. grandson- the petitioner
Nicholas [her son by Roberto de Orsini, according to Leo vdP] succeeded to the
county and did the same feudal service. But the people to whom the county lands
had been been granted refused to answer to Nicholas for the services which,
they said, they owed to the crown
5. A dispute arose on this point in the reign of Charles II's widow and
successor as queen, and Pope Urban referred the dispute for inquiry to Peter,
Archbishop of Naples- with what result I know not.

It is interesting that the petitioner is referred to as "de filiis Ursi". A
visit to Leo vdP's website gives a long line of Orsini descent back to, and
beyond, one "Orso". This may have been a family of Norman descent, perhaps
related to Reginald fitzUrse, one of Becket's assassins.
MM

norenxaq

Re: Orsini of Nola

Legg inn av norenxaq » 20 sep 2007 16:24:19

Leo van de Pas wrote:

Dear Michael,

Genealogics tries to make as much as possible available and give sources as
well.
I think the Orsini family is of Italian origin and pretty early,

they were Italian and existed before or around 1000 at least

Nancy L. Allen

Re: Daughters of Richard FitzRoger and Margaret Banastre

Legg inn av Nancy L. Allen » 20 sep 2007 16:25:01

It looks like the first husband of Quenilda, the daughter of Richard
FitzRoger and Margaret Banastre, was Jordan de Thornhill. I wasn't looking
for Jordan, but I found the following while researching Roger son of
Ravenkil.

"Townships: Formby," A History of the County of Lancaster: Volume 3 (1907),
pp. 45-52; at http://www.british-history.ac.uk.

"Richard, son of Roger, son of Ravenkil, died in 1200, when his lands were
divided between his four daughters. One of these, Quenilda, wife of Jordan
de Thornhill, was tenant in 1212."

Footnote 18 states "Jordan de Thornhill died without issue, and his widow
Quenilda was by Randle, earl of Chester, married about 1222 to Roger Gernet,
chief forester. She died in 1252 seised of two plough-lands held in chief of
William, Earl Ferrers, by the yearly service of 8s. 4d.; Robert de Stockport
and Ralph de Beetham were her heirs; Inq. and Extents, 116, 191."

Nancy


----- Original Message -----
From: "Nancy L. Allen" <allennl@sbcglobal.net>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 10:32 AM
Subject: Daughters of Richard FitzRoger and Margaret Banastre


In searching for information about the Stokeport/Stockport family, I found
the following in a post dated 20 Dec 2005 which states that three of the
daughters of Richard FitzRoger were not known to have been married:

Therav3@aol.com> wrote in message news: 211.f99546b.30da0e3c@aol.com...
Tuesday, 20 December, 2005
.
.
Richard fitz Roger of Woodplumpton is a bit late to be a good
candidate. He was alive in 1191, and died sometime before 26
Feb 1201; further, of his five daughters, three (Margaret, Quenild,
and Amuria) are not known to have been married, and the husbands for
the other two (Avice m. William de Millom, and Maud m. Robert de
Stockport) do not obviously include Jordan de Thornhill
.
.
The following source gives the names of all five daughters of Richard
FitzRoger and Margaret Banastre:

George Ormerod, compiler, "The Early Connexion of the Anglo-Norman
Families
of Stokeport, Fitz-Roger, Banastre, and Gernet," pp. 1-9, Parentalia,
Genealogical Memoirs of Lathom of Bradwall (Printed by Thomas Richards,
1851; not published, given to the Bodleian Library, Oxford, England by the
author in 1856); at books.google.com.

1. MATILDA, eldest, married SIR ROBERT DE STOKEPORT before 1201.
2. MARGARET, unmarried in 1201, and eldest unmarried co-heir in 1205, when
her marriage was purchased by HUGH DE MORET?N.
3. AVICIA, married WILLIAM DE ?ULHUM before 1201.
4. QUENILDA, unmarried in 1201, second wife of SIR ROGER GERNET.
5. AMURIA, unmarried in 1201, wife of THOMAS DE BETHUM in 1206.

Nancy



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

John Brandon

Re: Sir Thomas Temple's cousins Adolphe Andrews and Katherin

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 sep 2007 17:19:23

OK I see the gauntlet :)

No, no gauntlet. All my clothing is still tightly attached about my
person. :-)~

I think the possible but disputed connection of Anthony Temple to the
Stowe family is a very old quandry or problem in English genealogy.

Ian Wallace

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Guarantors & Counsellors

Legg inn av Ian Wallace » 20 sep 2007 17:59:40

I don't have any specific knowledge of this person, but wonder if he
is Robert de Rokseley (Ruxley, Kent; several variant spellings) rather
than Robert de Rokkeley. At least Ruxley is in Kent.

Pure speculation.

Ian.

On 19 Sep, 22:33, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
This "Robert de Roppelay" is a particularly interesting character --
standing on Great-Grandfather King John's side of the field at Runnemede.
....
Arthur Edwin Bye tells us that although his name is written that way in
Magna Carta, his name was "undoubtedly Robert de Rokkeley. There seems to
be no such name as Roppelay." <g
....
Source:
Arthur Edwin Bye, _Magna Carta, King John and The Barons_, The Baronial
Order of Magna Carta, 1966, with a Foreword by Samuel Booth Sturgis
--------------------------
....
DSH

Gjest

Re: Sir Thomas Temple's cousins Adolphe Andrews and Katherin

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 sep 2007 18:16:03

In a message dated 9/20/2007 7:15:20 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:

Oh, are you talking about the chart on the next page showing Anthony
Temple as ancestor of Lord Palmerston? I think it's not at all
certain how (or even if) this Anthony fits into the Stowe family.

The HOP series has a short (very short) bio. of an Anthony T., Member
of Parliament for Newcastle (or someplace in the north) in the 1570s
or 80s.


------------------
OK I see the gauntlet :)
I'll take a look at what I have and don't have later today and update it.
If I find anything useful, I'll post it here.
Will



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Gjest

Re: Sir Thomas Temple's cousins Adolphe Andrews and Katherin

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 sep 2007 18:17:04

In a message dated 9/20/2007 6:45:55 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:

Don't really understand what you're talking about, since my posting
concerned Col./ Sir Thomas Temple of New England, son of Sir John and
Dorothy (Lee) Temple of the Temple family of Stowe.
Sir William Temple, Anthony Temple, and Martha (Harrison) Temple were
members of the Irish, not the Stowe, Temples (if I'm remembering
correctly).


----------------
The book you linked has a family tree graph. If you look at it, it states
that so-and-so line descends from Anthony Temple. This Temple line went to
Ireland.

I suppose the exact connection between the Temples of Stowe and these
Temples in Ireland needs a firmer foundation that just a tree mentioning them
obliquely, but it's a start.

Will



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Guarantors & Counsellors

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 20 sep 2007 18:37:53

But certainly INTELLIGENT SPECULATION.

Is there a Rokkeley in Kent?

Cheers,

DSH

"Ian Wallace" <shrowl@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190307580.409394.128560@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...

I don't have any specific knowledge of this person, but wonder if he
is Robert de Rokseley (Ruxley, Kent; several variant spellings) rather
than Robert de Rokkeley. At least Ruxley is in Kent.

Pure speculation.

Ian.

On 19 Sep, 22:33, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

This "Robert de Roppelay" is a particularly interesting character --
standing on Great-Grandfather King John's side of the field at Runnemede.
...
Arthur Edwin Bye tells us that although his name is written that way in
Magna Carta, his name was "undoubtedly Robert de Rokkeley. There seems
to
be no such name as Roppelay." <g
...
Source:

Arthur Edwin Bye, _Magna Carta, King John and The Barons_, The Baronial
Order of Magna Carta, 1966, with a Foreword by Samuel Booth Sturgis
--------------------------
...
DSH

Ian Wallace

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Guarantors & Counsellors

Legg inn av Ian Wallace » 20 sep 2007 18:51:57

I notice that King John granted the escheated "land of Robert of
Ruxley, in Ruxley, Kent" to "Adam and Reginald Croc jointly". I do not
have a date for this, but perhaps this is consistent with actions tht
annoyed King John. (Ref "Church, S. D.(1995) "The Rewards of Royal
Service in the Household of King John: A Dissenting Opinion", English
Historical Review, 110:436 p.277 et seq.)

Ian.

Gjest

Re: Sir Thomas Temple's cousins Adolphe Andrews and Katherin

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 sep 2007 18:55:06

Here it is, it comes from Collins which Stirnet is citing as well

_http://books.google.com/books?id=xVI5AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA414&lpg=PA414&dq=collins+%
22viscount+cobham%22&source=web&ots=6lFbbL14Vg&sig=2zEHNFo7w0bH1Jcudi0qfGCxQRw
#PPA410,M1_
(http://books.google.com/books?id=xVI5AA ... q=collins+"viscount+cobham"&source=web&ots=6lFbbL14Vg&sig=2zEHNFo7w0bH1Jcudi0
qfGCxQRw#PPA410,M1)

"...he died at Stow...Anthony the youngest son was father to Sir William
Temple ancestor of the celebrated Sir William Temple and of Lord Palmerstone."


Will Johnson



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Gjest

Re: Sir Thomas Temple's cousins Adolphe Andrews and Katherin

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 sep 2007 19:11:03

And here's something with a little more substance

_http://books.google.com/books?id=ITY2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=stowe+palmerston_
(http://books.google.com/books?id=ITY2AA ... palmerston)

"The Life of Viscount Palmerston", ed Lloyd Charles Sanders 1888


Lloyd gives a long list of sources in his preface but I don't see from where
exactly he gets the genealogical connection to Stowe.

He states that that Sir William Temple who was known to be secretary to Sir
Philip Sidney and afterwards to Essex, withdrew to Ireland after the Essex
rising. His son, Sir John Temple, was Master of the Rolls in Ireland and wrote
an ultra-

and then we apparently lose page 2 and 3 which would have told us more. But
at least it's a start on seeing if this can be actually proven.

Will



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

John Brandon

Re: Sir Thomas Temple's cousins Adolphe Andrews and Katherin

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 sep 2007 19:17:01

"The Life of Viscount Palmerston", ed Lloyd Charles Sanders 1888

Lloyd gives a long list of sources in his preface but I don't see from where
exactly he gets the genealogical connection to Stowe.

He states that that Sir William Temple who was known to be secretary to Sir
Philip Sidney and afterwards to Essex, withdrew to Ireland after the Essex
rising. His son, Sir John Temple, was Master of the Rolls in Ireland and wrote
an ultra-

and then we apparently lose page 2 and 3 which would have told us more. But
at least it's a start on seeing if this can be actually proven.

I don't know, I'm still somewhat skeptical about any connection. But
I did show in January that the Hammond family was a link between the
Irish Temples and the Stowe-Frankton Temples ...

http://tinyurl.com/2h3wcs

John Brandon

Re: Sir Thomas Temple's cousins Adolphe Andrews and Katherin

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 sep 2007 19:28:12

This source incorrectly claims that Thomas Temple of Bourton on the
Water, Gloucs., was a member of the Irish family ....

http://books.google.com/books?id=VtdLPx ... xf5rVv7Gns

John Brandon

Re: Sir Thomas Temple's cousins Adolphe Andrews and Katherin

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 sep 2007 19:40:47

I don't know, I'm still somewhat skeptical about any connection. But
I did show in January that the Hammond family was a link between the
Irish Temples and the Stowe-Frankton Temples ...

http://tinyurl.com/2h3wcs

http://books.google.com/books?id=_swCAA ... ond&pgis=1

In other words, the wife Martha mentioned in the ODNB account of Gen.
Hammond was a second wife.

WJhonson

Re: Sir Thomas Temple's cousins Adolphe Andrews and Katherin

Legg inn av WJhonson » 20 sep 2007 20:02:45

<<In a message dated 09/20/07 09:53:39 Pacific Standard Time, WJhonson writes:
Here it is, it comes from Collins which Stirnet is citing as well

_http://books.google.com/books?id=xVI5AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA414&lpg=PA414&dq=collins+%
22viscount+cobham%22&source=web&ots=6lFbbL14Vg&sig=2zEHNFo7w0bH1Jcudi0qfGCxQRw
#PPA410,M1_
(http://books.google.com/books?id=xVI5AA ... q=collins+"viscount+cobham"&source=web&ots=6lFbbL14Vg&sig=2zEHNFo7w0bH1Jcudi0
qfGCxQRw#PPA410,M1)

"...he died at Stow...Anthony the youngest son was father to Sir William
Temple ancestor of the celebrated Sir William Temple and of Lord Palmerstone."

Will Johnson >>
--------------------------------------
I have to correct this slightly and give a shorter book link.

This is not the original Collin's Peerage, but rather the work cited is
http://books.google.com/books?id=xVI5AA ... &lpg=PA410
"Collins's Peerage of England...Greatly Augmented and Continued to the Present Time", by Sir Egerton Brydges, K.J. In Nine Volumes. London. F.C. and J. Rivington, Otridge and Son, (etc etc) 1812.
Vol II, page 410, "Temple Family"

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Gilbert of Lancaster

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 sep 2007 20:09:43

I agree with Alex's dating.
Lawrie suggests: "In 1131 his name appears in the English Pipe Rolls as a proprietor in the countie of Northampton, Huntingdon and Rutland, when he was excused from payment of Danegeld. His son was given as a hostage to England in 1139." By 1135-6 Hugh de Morville given the whole of Cunningham. Barrow suggests that ca. 1139, a group of Devon and Somerset opponents of Stephen had sought refuge at the court of David I. Since the Viponts held lands in Devon, I suspect they were also among these men.
Based on Vipont inheritance, Hugh and his descendants were heir to lands in Bedfordshire and other parts of England, as well. Richard de Morville's sister Maude was the second wife of William de Vipont and dating the birth of her second son, Ivo between 1150 and 1160, she and her brother Richard were probably born between 1120 and 1130, Certainly Richard could have been a 9 year old minor when held as hostage.
What do you have as the date for the birth of Avice de Lancaster, daughter of William I?
Pat
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Alex Maxwell Findlater <maxwellfindlater@hotmail.com>
I would suggest that this is about right; I have estimated 1130.
This is based on the ancestry of his mother Beatrice, who was daughter
of Robert, younger son of Hugh de Beauchamp. Her likely approximate
birthdate would be 1000x1100, which would suggest that he was born
about 20/25 years later.

His father Hugh died in 1162 (Bower's Scotichronicon) and he married
Avice de Lancaster and died in 1189. His son Richard was alive in
1195 and his nephew Alan of Galloway (d 1234) was Constable after
him.

We don't know the ancestry for sure; Barrow suggested that Hugh the
first Constable and husband of Beatrice was a
younger son of Richard de Morville, of Bradpoole, Dorset, who
witnessed for the de Redvers and whose eldest son William endowed the
Abbey of Montebourg with the church of Bradpoole. The early de
Morvilles were tenants in the earldom of Huntingdon, which is probably
how they came to Scotland in the train of David the Earl, subsequently
David I of Scots.




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

Douglas Richardson

I'll bet you a ham sandwich

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 20 sep 2007 20:48:11

< =============================
< This must have just occurred, as DR himself uses Piers many times
over the past few years and in his books. Or perhaps he's insisting
that certain Peters are Piers while their contemporary Peters are just
Peters. It must be a very confusing world, there "modern historians"
occupy.
<
< Will

Will ~

Do you really want to know? I can give you an exact count of the
current PA base manuscript if you desire. It's very easy to do.

For curiosity I just did an all document search for Piers in the
current PA manuscript and found very few entries. In fact, it took
less than 15 seconds to find all the entries. But, perhaps your
meaning of the word "many" is what other people consider to be "few"
or "a handful."

Whatever the case, I'll bet you a ham sandwich that you have more
erroneous "de Botetourt" or "of Botetourt" entries in your database
than I have solitary freestanding entries for "Piers" in my base PA
manuscript. Hint: Don't take the bet. I'll win hands down.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt lake City, Utah

edespalais@yahoo.fr

Re: About Myself

Legg inn av edespalais@yahoo.fr » 20 sep 2007 20:57:30

On 20 sep, 21:29, Sybilla <Sybilla.Blackwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 19, 4:04 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:



She has a Self Identification Problem...

Writ Large.

DSH

"John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:mQhIi.6842$HW.2700@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...


Sybilla wrote:
"Eric Stevens" <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:32:29 GMT, "John Briggs"
john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Sybilla wrote:
Some people have enquired about who I am, what group I'm allied
with and what I mean by Senecheal. so, here it is. Sybilla of
Blackwater is a 12th Century disenfranchised noble woman, who's
inheirited [sic] lands,
properties and chattels [sic] were stolen during a coupe [sic]
when she was 11 years old.

Are you sure it wasn't a sedan?

No.

The old regime was swept out with a new brougham.

well actually it was a 64 Ford station wagon, which explains why my
spelling sucks

Speaking of which, "seneschal" may be the word you are looking for -
although heaven knows why...
--
John Briggs- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm sorry, I don't understand why you seems to take such delight in
denigrating others' posts. Also I am not sure what it is you are
trying to accomplish with such. Certainly if you're attempting humour
you fall rather short, though you hit the irritant mark solidly.
Please explain.
Best explanation, thread has no place here (ATR). Perhaps elsewhere.

Leticia Cluff

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Guarantors & Counsellors

Legg inn av Leticia Cluff » 20 sep 2007 21:09:04

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:37:53 +0100, D. "Spencer" Hines
<panther@excelsior.com> wrote:

But certainly INTELLIGENT SPECULATION.

Is there a Rokkeley in Kent?

The modern spelling is Rockley (you don't find many double-k's in
English nowadays). It's not a big place, as you can see:

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=Roc ... a=N&tab=wl

HTH

TiSH

WJhonson

Re: I'll bet you a ham sandwich

Legg inn av WJhonson » 20 sep 2007 21:28:35

<<In a message dated 09/20/07 12:50:32 Pacific Standard Time, royalancestry@msn.com writes:
Whatever the case, I'll bet you a ham sandwich that you have more
erroneous "de Botetourt" or "of Botetourt" entries in your database
than I have solitary freestanding entries for "Piers" in my base PA
manuscript. Hint: Don't take the bet. I'll win hands down. >>

=============================
I'm quite sure I have more errors in my database then you have in yours or your works.

However *I* unlike some other people I could name (you), don't go around trumpeting how a certain usage "Piers" versus "Peter" or "de Botetourt" versus "Botetourt" is *Correct* and anyone not going along with my dictums is verboten, shunned, declasse, persona non grata, excommunicated and anathema. (It's only too bad the Emperors stopped doing rhinectomies isn't it?)

I unlike you, don't state what "modern historians think" or how CP is erroneous because they don't tow your line on de Botetourt.

I'm sure we're all happy to hear what YOU think of certain cases. The conflict arises when you being to insist that all others must obey your arbitary and frequently demonstrably erroneous rules of thumb, as if you are prosecutor, judge and jury on the case. Which you are not.

The archives are full of cases where you've made quite silly claims like that Countess was a common English name at this time, when of course it was not. And when you are asked to back-up your silly claim, of course you greet us only with silence.

So now that I'm trussed you up like a mad cow, you can mail me that ham sandwich ;)

Will Johnson

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Guarantors & Counsellors

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 20 sep 2007 21:31:44

YIID.

Thank you.

DSH

"Leticia Cluff" <leticia.cluff@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lkk5f3pvm24n7vaudg2084s85g5k3ia5b4@4ax.com...

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:37:53 +0100, D. "Spencer" Hines
panther@excelsior.com> wrote:

But certainly INTELLIGENT SPECULATION.

Is there a Rokkeley in Kent?

The modern spelling is Rockley (you don't find many double-k's in
English nowadays). It's not a big place, as you can see:

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=Roc ... a=N&tab=wl

HTH

TiSH

M. de la Fayette

RE: Orsini of Nola

Legg inn av M. de la Fayette » 20 sep 2007 21:52:18

Check here
http://www.genmarenostrum.com/pagine-le ... Boboni.htm
for the proposed origin of the family, and here for the ORSINI DEL BALZO
E ORSINI DI PITIGLIANO lines
http://www.genmarenostrum.com/pagine-le ... orsini.htm

-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of norenxaq
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 5:24 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Orsini of Nola


Leo van de Pas wrote:

Dear Michael,

Genealogics tries to make as much as possible available and give
sources as
well.
I think the Orsini family is of Italian origin and pretty early,

they were Italian and existed before or around 1000 at least


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

Douglas Richardson

Re: I'll bet you a ham sandwich

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 20 sep 2007 22:46:40

On Sep 20, 2:28 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

< However *I* unlike some other people I could name (you), don't go
around trumpeting how a certain usage "Piers" versus "Peter" or "de
Botetourt" versus
< "Botetourt" is *Correct* and anyone not going along with my dictums
is verboten, shunned, declasse, persona non grata, excommunicated and
anathema. (It's only
< too bad the Emperors stopped doing rhinectomies isn't it?)

Will Johnson

Dear Wil ~

As you're well aware, I merely stated that the correct modern form is
Peter Fitz Herbert (which statement is correct). I also stated
correctly that the surname Botetourt should not take a "de" with it.

The first statement reflects a convention employed by modern
historians. The second statement is based on numerous contemporary
records, of which I have cited an abundance here on the newsgroup.

If this annoys you, good.

Your pal, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

P.S. I didn't think you'd take me up on my wager. Too bad. I was
looking forward to that sandwich. Particularly with cheese. Ham and
cheese. Yummy.

erilar

Re: About Myself

Legg inn av erilar » 20 sep 2007 22:53:31

Sybilla, DSH is a trouble-making troll of the worst sort. Some of us
have had him killfiled for years; others enjoy baiting him. NO ONE takes
anything he says seriously.

--
Mary, biblioholic

bib-li-o-hol-ism : the habitual longing to purchase, read, store,
admire, and consume books in excess.

http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo

WJhonson

Re: I'll bet you a ham sandwich

Legg inn av WJhonson » 20 sep 2007 23:19:21

<<In a message dated 09/20/07 14:50:27 Pacific Standard Time, royalancestry@msn.com writes:
As you're well aware, I merely stated that the correct modern form is
Peter Fitz Herbert (which statement is correct). I also stated
correctly that the surname Botetourt should not take a "de" with it.

The first statement reflects a convention employed by modern
historians. The second statement is based on numerous contemporary
records, of which I have cited an abundance here on the newsgroup. >>

---------------------------------------
Sorry no dice. Peter is not the "Correct modern form". It's merely an option, just as calling the King of France, Louis, Lewis or Louie Louie. Some people prefer the "convention" of calling them what they themselves called themselves.

A "convention" is not "correct", it's merely a convention. As to whether or not "modern historians" have universally adopted this "convention" you've suddenly discovered in the last few days, I will leave that to the College for Determining What Modern Historians Must Do, INC. But that still isn't you.

Whether or not Botetourt *did take* a "de" in some period for some family has no bearing whatsoever on what it *should* do, today, universally. I hope we can all agree on that.

Otherwise I'll have to insist that you start referring to all persons in the same manner in which they referred to themselves, and with all the variants. I'm sure you'd have a merry time "fixing" all the *incorrect* nomenclature in your data and that it would probably keep you busy for a few years.

Will Johnson

D. Spencer Hines

Re: I'll bet you a ham sandwich

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 20 sep 2007 23:41:25

Your pal, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

P.S. I didn't think you'd take me up on my wager. Too bad. I was
looking forward to that sandwich. Particularly with cheese. Ham and
cheese. Yummy

Be Careful of Ham and Cheese Sandwiches From Strangers, Douglas.

There's Always The Risk Of Terrible Trichinosis.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1190324800.306579.227460@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...

On Sep 20, 2:28 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

However *I* unlike some other people I could name (you), don't go
around trumpeting how a certain usage "Piers" versus "Peter" or "de
Botetourt" versus
"Botetourt" is *Correct* and anyone not going along with my dictums
is verboten, shunned, declasse, persona non grata, excommunicated and
anathema. (It's only
too bad the Emperors stopped doing rhinectomies isn't it?)

Will Johnson

Dear Wil ~

As you're well aware, I merely stated that the correct modern form is
Peter Fitz Herbert (which statement is correct). I also stated
correctly that the surname Botetourt should not take a "de" with it.

The first statement reflects a convention employed by modern
historians. The second statement is based on numerous contemporary
records, of which I have cited an abundance here on the newsgroup.

If this annoys you, good.

Your pal, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

P.S. I didn't think you'd take me up on my wager. Too bad. I was
looking forward to that sandwich. Particularly with cheese. Ham and
cheese. Yummy

Ian Wallace

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Guarantors & Counsellors

Legg inn av Ian Wallace » 20 sep 2007 23:57:06

On 20 Sep, 21:09, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:37:53 +0100, D. "Spencer" Hines

pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

The modern spelling is Rockley (you don't find many double-k's in
English nowadays). It's not a big place, as you can see:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=Roc ... TF-8&sa=...

HTH

TiSH

That is not a place, it is an address.

I don't know what Rockley actually represents but it is situated on a
road called Parkway which I believe to be a modern development (late
20th century).
I'll check it out tomorrow as I am working very close to there (just
off Heath lane the other side of the A2).
Note that Parkway is off Tile Kiln Lane, a very old place mentioned in
1544 "Henry Cooke of London merchant tailor Grant in fee for £20 - 10d
of house called le Tyle Kill etc in tenure of Miles Dylcooke in
Bexley Kent and the land leased with it on the south side of the
highway from Bawde Wynnes to Bexley..." (Letters & pprs Foreign &
Domestic Henry VIII Vol XIX, part 2, p.83; 36 Henry VIII).
The next road to the west is Faesten Way, which is also a modern road
but takes its name from the Faestendic (Faesten Dyke), the ditch and
bank built in the summer of 457* to mark the boundary between the part
of Kent under control of Jutish (?) immigrants and the part still held
by the Britons.
* 457 is a best estimate but alternative interpretations of very
incomplete evidence place it a few years later.

Ruxley as a parish ceased to exist in 1557 when it was merged into
North Cray. By some chance the parish church still survives, after
hundreds of years of use as a barn, and stands now in the grounds of
Ruxley Manor Garden Centre. For several years a sign on it has
announces the obtaining of money for its restoration but not much
seems to have happened.

The ancient spellings of Ruxley are not forgotten, as evidenced by the
name of a house at the most easterly point of Rectory Lane, Sidcup.

I recall some references to the de Rokesly family in Hasted's History
of Kent, no doubt in vol.2.

Ruxley was a parish, and also a hundred within the lathe of Sutton at
Hoo.

Ian.

taf

Re: I'll bet you a ham sandwich

Legg inn av taf » 21 sep 2007 01:43:52

On Sep 20, 2:46 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Sep 20, 2:28 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

However *I* unlike some other people I could name (you), don't go
around trumpeting how a certain usage "Piers" versus "Peter" or "de
Botetourt" versus
"Botetourt" is *Correct* and anyone not going along with my dictums
is verboten, shunned, declasse, persona non grata, excommunicated and
anathema.


As you're well aware, I merely stated that the correct modern form is
Peter Fitz Herbert (which statement is correct).

No, that statement is _not_ correct. It is certainly _A_ correct
modern form, but "the" correct modern form implies that there is some
governing body that determines such things, rather than the personal
whims of authors.

The first statement reflects a convention employed by modern
historians.

Employed by _those modern historians you choose to emulate_, and not
employed by others. There is no such convention of modern
historians. Just try to get a room full of historians to agree to
representing anything in a uniform way and you will certainly have
earned your ham sandwich.

Do an Amazon search for Peter Gaveston and you get 41 entries. Do it
for Piers Gaveston and you get . . . 41 entries. Admittedly, Amazon is
not an archive of solely scholarly works, but still, 41 & 41. By the
way - to address the accuracy of such generalities, statistics are the
appropriate data, as you have been told. Listing specific historians
that use your preferred form does not help, so don't bother.

If this annoys you, good.

Is this civility?


taf

Louise Staley

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Et Alii ... Was Hastings

Legg inn av Louise Staley » 21 sep 2007 02:45:03

<<In a message dated 09/15/07 12:05:19 Pacific Standard Time,
panther@excelsior.com writes:
13. Philip Daubeney

Not identified in my database; career and descendants not noted.

He was one of the tutors to Prince Henry, later Henry III. He came
directly
from the town of Aubigny, in Normandy, close to Brittany -- and was not
related to the Earls of Arundel.

He held high office under Henry III -- Warden of the Channel Islands,
Seneschal of the Honour of Wallingford and Sheriff of Berkshire. He
died in
the Holy Land 1235/6 and was buried there.

He reportedly died sine prole.

His nephew inherited Philip's estate of Petherton and was ancestor of a
long
line of Daubeneys. The last male died sine prole in 1548. >>

-----------------------------
Who was the nephew ?

Will

Séimí mac Liam

Re: I'll bet you a ham sandwich

Legg inn av Séimí mac Liam » 21 sep 2007 03:53:18

WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in
news:mailman.2583.1190320098.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com:

I'm quite sure I have more errors in my database then you have in
yours or your works.


Now if you could just learn to use line-wrap.

--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99

WJhonson

Re: I'll bet you a ham sandwich

Legg inn av WJhonson » 21 sep 2007 03:59:12

<<In a message dated 09/20/07 19:55:19 Pacific Standard Time, gwyddon@comcast.nospam.net writes:
Now if you could just learn to use line-wrap. >>
------------------------------------
I do not control that. It's automatic.

edespalais@yahoo.fr

Re: About Myself

Legg inn av edespalais@yahoo.fr » 21 sep 2007 05:25:55

On 20 sep, 23:53, erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
Sybilla, DSH is a trouble-making troll
A cowboy was writing, instead of being on duty in Iracq or what ever

that Mesopotanian country is correctly written

Douglas Richardson

Re: I'll bet you a ham sandwich

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 21 sep 2007 05:56:24

My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Sep 20, 4:19 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

< Sorry no dice. Peter is not the "Correct modern form". It's merely
an option, just as calling the King of France, Louis, Lewis or Louie
Louie. Some people prefer
< the "convention" of calling them what they themselves called
themselves.

You evidently don't understand the word "convention," Will. It has
nothing to do with dice or gambling.

< Whether or not Botetourt *did take* a "de" in some period for some
family has no bearing whatsoever on what it *should* do, today,
universally. I hope we can all
< agree on that.

If this statement is made to explain away the numerous in your own
database, I simply can't agree. I've posted numerous examples of
Boutetourt without the "de." These are records generated by various
members of the Botetourt family themselves taken from contemporary
records. Also, F.N. Craig who wrote the definite article in TAG on
the parentage of John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt, refers to him and
his father, Guy, as Botetourt with no "de." I suppose you don't read
The American Genealogist either. Why doesn't that surprise me?

On the whole, you're displaying a decided lack of understanding of
commonplace genealogical and historical principles. What is your
training in again?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salrt Lake, City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Re: I'll bet you a ham sandwich

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 21 sep 2007 06:15:22

My comments are below. DR

On Sep 20, 6:43 pm, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:

< Employed by _those modern historians you choose to emulate_, and not
< employed by others. There is no such convention of modern
< historians. Just try to get a room full of historians to agree to
< representing anything in a uniform way and you will certainly have
< earned your ham sandwich.
<
< Do an Amazon search for Peter Gaveston and you get 41 entries. Do it
< for Piers Gaveston and you get . . . 41 entries. Admittedly, Amazon
is
< not an archive of solely scholarly works, but still, 41 & 41. By
the
way - to address the accuracy of such generalities, statistics are the
appropriate data, as you have been told. Listing specific historians

< that use your preferred form does not help, so don't bother.
<
< taf

If taf had bothered to read my earlier post, he would have seen that I
specifically stated that Piers de Gavaston is the singular exception
to the convention employed by modern historians of treating Peter as
the correct form of Piers.

Why don't they bother to read my posts? And then misrepresent what I
say? Probably because they don't want to learn anything I suppose.
Frankly I'm tired of people lying about me.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Guarantors & Counsellors

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 21 sep 2007 06:24:58

Dear Spencer (and John) ~

His name was Robert de Roppesley, not "Roppelay." And, he has no
connection whatsoever with Ruxley, Kent.

See the following weblinks:

http://books.google.com/books?id=wHZcIR ... ESKdDcHS7s

http://books.google.com/books?id=aCMLAA ... ppesley%22

http://books.google.com/books?id=FPoyAA ... ppesley%22

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Sep 19, 4:13 pm, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
< Dear Spencer,
<
< Thanks for that post; perhaps some further research may yet
find
< more details (and possibly descendants) re: Robert de 'Roppelay'.
<
< Cheers, John

Douglas Richardson

Re: I'll bet you a ham sandwich

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 21 sep 2007 06:30:53

On Sep 20, 11:18 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
Will

And, what is your training in again? Please tell us. Don't dodge
the question.

DR

Gjest

Re: I'll bet you a ham sandwich

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 sep 2007 07:21:03

In a message dated 9/20/2007 10:00:25 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

You evidently don't understand the word "convention," Will. It has
nothing to do with dice or gambling.


=============
Yes "convention" means a form in common or standard use.
It does not mean "the correct form" as you want it to.

Will



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Leo van de Pas

Re: I'll bet you a ham sandwich

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 21 sep 2007 07:28:04

Douglas Richardson does not give any inspiration to read his posts, as he
himself does not seem to take them serious either.

When he makes statements and is not willing to discuss, let alone provide
prove, why say anything at all?

I am still waiting to see an example of a British medieval woman being
called Countess.

Douglas Richardson made a statement, which if correct, would re-write a
history accepted for about 700 years.
He maintains that Edward III and Alice Perrers had a child several years
_before_ Queen Philippa died, then the "convention" that Edward III was
faithful to his Queen is obviously wrong. Surely this would make a
reputation for Richardson, and so, you said it, provide proof.

Richardson was fishing to see whether anyone knew whether and how Bishop
Stafford was related to Richard II and indicated where he thought the link
could be found. I sent him an e-mail telling him in which degree they were
related and that he had seclected the correct family via which the link
worked. This collegial, friend making, telling others off when they are not
polite enough, trained genealogist and historian has not bothered to
acknowledge to me that I tried to help him.

How to record names of people who lived so long ago is a very difficult
subject. I struggle with it on a regular basis. I suppose the most important
thing is to establish for whom the details are collected. If it is for your
own usage, does it matter? You do no harm. But if the knowledge is shared,
either in print or on a website, it is a different matter. To put it
awkwardly, "who is the public"? If they are mainly English speaking
Americans, that could be one way to go, Anglocise the lot. But if you hope
to make sense to people from a different background, you have to think
again.

The main attitude to have, I think, is not to be dogmatic. There are cases
where even within a family members spell their name differently. I think
when you see that, you should use what those people themselves called
themselves. To say we had a "convention" and we have decided that Jose Smit,
living in 1300 is really Joseph Smith. Who the hell are we to tell someone
else what they should call themselves?

Sometimes it is awkward when dealing with Byzantine and Russian families,
usually we get the information filtered through French or German, and that
makes a difference. At the moment I am very grateful to someone who is
trying to help me clean up Scandinavian families, and that is a pretty big
job.

I feel Richardson should come off his high horse or his pedastal, or both,
and come down to earth.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: I'll bet you a ham sandwich


In a message dated 9/20/2007 10:20:37 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

Why don't they bother to read my posts? And then misrepresent what I
say? Probably because they don't want to learn anything I suppose.
Frankly I'm tired of people lying about me.


--------------------------
And how should we feel about you being a catty bitch or a pompous
blow-hard
? Good? No I don't think so.

So maybe you can look in the mirror and see why people don't treat you
with
the respect you think you deserve.

Will



************************************** See what's new at
http://www.aol.com

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

Gjest

Re: I'll bet you a ham sandwich

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 sep 2007 07:31:02

In a message dated 9/20/2007 10:20:37 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

Why don't they bother to read my posts? And then misrepresent what I
say? Probably because they don't want to learn anything I suppose.
Frankly I'm tired of people lying about me.


--------------------------
And how should we feel about you being a catty bitch or a pompous blow-hard
? Good? No I don't think so.

So maybe you can look in the mirror and see why people don't treat you with
the respect you think you deserve.

Will



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

taf

Re: I'll bet you a ham sandwich

Legg inn av taf » 21 sep 2007 09:40:37

On Sep 20, 10:15 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

If taf had bothered to read my earlier post, he would have seen that I
specifically stated that Piers de Gavaston is the singular exception
to the convention employed by modern historians of treating Peter as
the correct form of Piers.

Let me get this straight. 'Modern historians' have a convention to
use the modern form (except when they don't), so that means Peter is
The Correct Form (except when it isn't). Clear (as mud).


Why don't they bother to read my posts?

One can only stomach so much.


And then misrepresent what I
say? Probably because they don't want to learn anything I suppose.

We _do_ think highly of ourselves, don't we professor? Tell me, are
you here to learn, or only to teach?


Frankly I'm tired of people lying about me.

Setting aside the whining, let me just point out that respect is not
commanded, it is earned.


Now, back to the subject at hand. This convention for the
standardization of names. When was it developed? What historians
agreed to it? Using statistics, what proportion of all modern
historians follow this convention? How about some specific examples.
Let's start with the 11th century Ealdorman, son of Eathelweard the
Historian. Does your 'convention' require this man (known to 'pre-
modern historians' as AEthelmaer) to be called Elmer? How about the
king of England after AEthelred II (sorry, Elred II)? Is he now Newt?
No, I thought not. Yet more cases of picking and choosing. If I want
to learn about name usage, I will not take this knowledge from someone
masking his personal preference in make believe conventions.



taf

taf

Re: I'll bet you a ham sandwich

Legg inn av taf » 21 sep 2007 09:57:21

On Sep 20, 10:30 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Sep 20, 11:18 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:

Will

And, what is your training in again? Please tell us. Don't dodge
the question.

[and even this pettiness is crossposted to four groups - what, pray
tell, is the relevance of Will's training to alt.talk.royalty? Is
Will a member of one of the crowned houses of Europe?]

I guess if you can't convince them with the strength of your argument,
you can always try to bludgeon your critics into silence with the
letters after your name.

taf

Douglas Richardson

Re: I'll bet you a ham sandwich

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 21 sep 2007 10:33:15

Modern historians use Peter as a standardized name form for Englishmen
except in rare instances such as Piers de Gavaston and Geoffrey Fitz
Piers. They handle these individuals differently because these men
are famous in their own right and their traditional name forms are
known to many people. Even so, Geoffrey Fitz Piers is starting to
appear regularly in the literature as Geoffrey Fitz Peter. My guess
is that it will probably take another century to evolve Piers de
Gavaston into Peter de Gavaston in the literature. Other than those
exceptions, historians are using Peter instead of Piers in most major
works. I won't say all, as there are always exceptions.

The movement towards the standardization and modernization of name
forms has been going on a long time. I didn't invent this convention,
but I do agree with it. It certainly saves a lot of confusion. Among
other things, Latin name forms have all but been replaced by
vernacular forms in the modern literature, except for rare given names
such as Bogo or Ebulo. There are also a few other hangovers such as
the ever popular Latin form Matilda.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

taf

Re: I'll bet you a ham sandwich

Legg inn av taf » 21 sep 2007 12:09:45

[sigh. newsgroups again removed]

On Sep 21, 2:33 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Modern historians use Peter as a standardized name form for Englishmen
except in rare instances such as Piers de Gavaston and Geoffrey Fitz
Piers.

Just repeating it doesn't make it true.

The movement towards the standardization and modernization of name
forms has been going on a long time. I didn't invent this convention,

Perhaps this is part of the problem. You seem to be under the
misimpression that 'trend' and 'convention' are synonyms, just as you
misapply 'correct' to that 'convention' alias 'trend'.

Oh, and in the 'what's good for the goose' category. Google let's me
use any name form I choose. If you don't like this, take it up with
Google. (See how silly this argument is? It is blatantly
hypocritical to insist that your idiosyncratic naming 'conventions' be
followed, while flaunting USENET conventions concerning crossposting?)

taf

Gjest

Re: Botetourte?

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 sep 2007 17:57:02

In a message dated 9/21/2007 2:10:13 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

Why don't people like you read these explanations and learn from them?
To quote a poster to this group, "Probably because they don't want to
learn anything I suppose."


--------------
Todd you're very silly.
Why learn when you can preach and dictate ?

Will



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Gjest

Re: Botetourte?

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 sep 2007 17:58:02

In a message dated 9/21/2007 2:00:20 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

I occasionally repost the message with the necessary
correction(s). I then remove the original message from the Google
Archives


----------------
Isn't that pointless? The original message and it's clone are both
preserved in the separate archives of Gen-Medievel aren't they?

Will



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

D. Spencer Hines

Re: I'll Bet You A Ham Sandwich

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 21 sep 2007 19:15:46

taf needs a Good Laxative -- it will cure his problem and he won't need to
post prissy notes such as this to USENET.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:1190372985.946653.50130@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

[sigh. newsgroups again removed]

On Sep 21, 2:33 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Modern historians use Peter as a standardized name form for Englishmen
except in rare instances such as Piers de Gavaston and Geoffrey Fitz
Piers.

Just repeating it doesn't make it true.

The movement towards the standardization and modernization of name
forms has been going on a long time. I didn't invent this convention,

Perhaps this is part of the problem. You seem to be under the
misimpression that 'trend' and 'convention' are synonyms, just as you
misapply 'correct' to that 'convention' alias 'trend'.

Oh, and in the 'what's good for the goose' category. Google let's me
use any name form I choose. If you don't like this, take it up with
Google. (See how silly this argument is? It is blatantly
hypocritical to insist that your idiosyncratic naming 'conventions' be
followed, while flaunting USENET conventions concerning crossposting?)

taf

Séimí mac Liam

Re: I'll bet you a ham sandwich

Legg inn av Séimí mac Liam » 21 sep 2007 19:44:38

Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in
news:1190367195.893937.75100@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:

Modern historians use Peter as a standardized name form for Englishmen
except in rare instances such as Piers de Gavaston and Geoffrey Fitz
Piers. They handle these individuals differently because these men
are famous in their own right and their traditional name forms are
known to many people. Even so, Geoffrey Fitz Piers is starting to
appear regularly in the literature as Geoffrey Fitz Peter. My guess
is that it will probably take another century to evolve Piers de
Gavaston into Peter de Gavaston in the literature. Other than those
exceptions, historians are using Peter instead of Piers in most major
works. I won't say all, as there are always exceptions.

The movement towards the standardization and modernization of name
forms has been going on a long time. I didn't invent this convention,
but I do agree with it. It certainly saves a lot of confusion. Among
other things, Latin name forms have all but been replaced by
vernacular forms in the modern literature, except for rare given names
such as Bogo or Ebulo. There are also a few other hangovers such as
the ever popular Latin form Matilda.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


The purpose of names is to identify individuals. Only to the extent that
modernization enhances that basic function is it a good thing.

--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99

Séimí mac Liam

Re: I'll bet you a ham sandwich

Legg inn av Séimí mac Liam » 21 sep 2007 19:59:17

WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in
news:mailman.2591.1190343540.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com:

In a message dated 09/20/07 19:55:19 Pacific Standard Time,
gwyddon@comcast.nospam.net writes: Now if you could just learn to use
line-wrap. >> ------------------------------------
I do not control that. It's automatic.

Anyone familiar with this: AOL Openride 1.3.79.1
who can tell him how to not have his lines go on beyond 70 characters?

--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99

WJhonson

Re: I'll bet you a ham sandwich

Legg inn av WJhonson » 21 sep 2007 20:12:23

<<In a message dated 09/21/07 12:00:29 Pacific Standard Time, gwyddon@comcast.nospam.net writes:
Anyone familiar with this: AOL Openride 1.3.79.1
who can tell him how to not have his lines go on beyond 70 characters? >>
---------------------------
Are other people having this issue with my postings?
I do not see any problems when I read my own postings nor those of others sent to Gen-Med.

Thanks
Will

WJhonson

Re: Genealogics : Linking the Cradocks

Legg inn av WJhonson » 21 sep 2007 23:16:19

Thank you Will for that excellent post.

Might I add the remark, that although Leo does not tell us who were the parents of Thomas Slingsby, 2nd Bart (husband of Dorothy Cradock), they were per this work

http://books.google.com/books?id=26sBAA ... 2+beheaded

Henry Slingsby the first bart by his wife Barbara Bellasyne daughter of Viscount Fauconberg

and so we can now give this family many royal ascents in both Leo's and my database

Will Johnson

Ian Wallace

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Guarantors & Counsellors

Legg inn av Ian Wallace » 21 sep 2007 23:24:57

On 20 Sep, 23:57, Ian Wallace <shr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"I'll check it out tomorrow as I am working very close to there (just
off Heath lane the other side of the A2)."

I went to Rockley this afternoon.

As Letitia said, its not a big place. In fact Rockley is just the name
of a semi-detached house. Four or five bedrooms I would guess, built
within the last thirty years.

The houses on Parkway are not numbered but are identified by names.

Ian.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Guarantors & Counsellors

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 21 sep 2007 23:39:57

<G>

DSH

"Ian Wallace" <shrowl@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190413497.266656.174720@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

On 20 Sep, 23:57, Ian Wallace <shr...@hotmail.com> wrote:

"I'll check it out tomorrow as I am working very close to there
(just off Heath lane the other side of the A2)."

I went to Rockley this afternoon.

As Letitia said, its not a big place. In fact Rockley is just the
name of a semi-detached house. Four or five bedrooms I
would guess, built within the last thirty years.

The houses on Parkway are not numbered but are identified by names.

Ian.

John Briggs

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Guarantors & Counsellors

Legg inn av John Briggs » 21 sep 2007 23:57:36

Ian Wallace wrote:
On 20 Sep, 23:57, Ian Wallace <shr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"I'll check it out tomorrow as I am working very close to there (just
off Heath lane the other side of the A2)."

I went to Rockley this afternoon.

As Letitia said, its not a big place. In fact Rockley is just the name
of a semi-detached house. Four or five bedrooms I would guess, built
within the last thirty years.

The houses on Parkway are not numbered but are identified by names.

That's because Google Maps is searching postal addresses. Rockley is in
Wiltshire. Early spellings of Ruxley (Kent) are typically "Rokesley".
Ropley is in Hampshire, and Ropsley is in Lincolnshire
--
John Briggs

Leo van de Pas

Re: Genealogics : Linking the Cradocks

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 22 sep 2007 00:14:08

Thomas Slingsby (in my system) has now been attached to his parents. As a
result he has at least 15 lines to King Edward III.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 8:16 AM
Subject: Re: Genealogics : Linking the Cradocks


Thank you Will for that excellent post.

Might I add the remark, that although Leo does not tell us who were the
parents of Thomas Slingsby, 2nd Bart (husband of Dorothy Cradock), they
were per this work

http://books.google.com/books?id=26sBAA ... 2+beheaded

Henry Slingsby the first bart by his wife Barbara Bellasyne daughter of
Viscount Fauconberg

and so we can now give this family many royal ascents in both Leo's and my
database

Will Johnson

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

WJhonson

Re: Peter Or Piers?

Legg inn av WJhonson » 22 sep 2007 00:24:47

In a message dated 09/21/07 16:20:16 Pacific Standard Time, mary.palmucci@rcn.com writes:
all america has ever asked of any immigrant is to become an american.
nowadays people come here and they want to keep acting like they are still
in the old country.
======================
Yeah!! What kind of name is Palmucci anyhow? Sounds foreign.
You better change your surname to something plain like Smith.

Ian Wallace

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Guarantors & Counsellors

Legg inn av Ian Wallace » 22 sep 2007 00:26:42

On 21 Sep, 06:24, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Spencer (and John) ~

His name was Robert de Roppesley, not "Roppelay." And, he has no
connection whatsoever with Ruxley, Kent.

Yes, this seems to make sense, maybe.

I had a look this evening at what Hasted had to say about the de
Ruxley family. Although he gives a fragmentary family history
including a rather doubtful Doomsday ancestor, he does not mention a
Robert de Ruxley at the appropriate time.
However this does not explain the reference I posted yesterday
regarding the de Ruxley landholdings.
Nor does it explain why "Arthur Edwin Bye tells us that although his
name is written that way in
Magna Carta, his name was 'undoubtedly Robert de Rokkeley'." and " Bye
continues by telling us Robert was from Rokeley in Kent.", however
maybe Bye was just mistaken.

On the other hand, if the correct reading of Magna Carta is Robert de
Roppesley (maybe Roberti de Roppeleia originally), in view of the
company he is among in Magna Carta it should be possible to identify a
man of this standing fairly conclusively.

E. A. Greening Lamborn in 1944 suggested ."Robert de Roppele. Roppele
is Ropsley in Lincolnshire, and the Testa de Nevill shows him holding
it at the inquest of 1212, with Frampton and Wykes, two knightsfees in
Oxon and lands in Hertfordshire. Lambert de Roppesley succeeded him
but his descendants have not been traced." Is this identification
generally accepted? Does what is known of Robert de Roppele suggest
he was a man close to the King and with substantial political
standing?

As someone who had no particular interest in this matter until last
night I would like to see this discussion continue, as unlike so many
other medieval issues is seems to be likely to reach a definite
conclusion, simply because Robert was clearly a man of considerable
importance.

Ian

Ref: Greening Lamborn, E.A. (1944) "Mr Churchill and the barons of
Magna Carta", Notes and Queries, 186, pp.64-69.

taf

Re: I'll bet you a ham sandwich

Legg inn av taf » 22 sep 2007 00:33:36

On Sep 21, 12:12 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 09/21/07 12:00:29 Pacific Standard Time, gwyd...@comcast.nospam.net writes:
Anyone familiar with this: AOL Openride 1.3.79.1
who can tell him how to not have his lines go on beyond 70 characters?
---------------------------
Are other people having this issue with my postings?
I do not see any problems when I read my own postings nor those of others sent to Gen-Med.


They do come through as uninterupted text, so when quoting, only the
first line of each paragraph has a chevron. I have to either add the
carriage returns and chevrons myself, or else leave it and hope it is
clear that the whole paragraph is what is being quoted. Fortunately,
my reader automatically wraps your text, but I have seen some readers
present paragraphs like yours as a single line running off the right
side of the screen and requiring several pages of scrolling to read.

It is really a conflict of two different conventions - traditionally,
email and USENET posts were not continuous text but had carriage
returns automatically inserted at a particular line length. This
allowed for different software at different technical levels all to be
able to process the information similarly, and the conventions for
quoting the post to which one is responding are tailored to this
convention. Then Microsoft came along and decided an email should be
continuous text so it could pop seamlessly in and out of a word
processor, which was probably correct in concept but in application
meant (perhaps not a coincidence) that only those using a Microsoft
reader could appropriately interpret and manipulate these messages (Of
course, Microsoft's solution was simply that everyone buy there
product, and then there are no compatibility problems.) For various
reasons, this is one that Microsoft didn't win, but won't admit defeat
either, and so traditional USENET standard used by most older
software, some competing software, and most web-based readers (such as
that at Google Groups) continues to be poorly compatible with
Microsoft standard (which is basically what you are using in modified
form).

taf

Ian Wallace

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Guarantors & Counsellors

Legg inn av Ian Wallace » 22 sep 2007 00:45:05

On 21 Sep, 23:57, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

That's because Google Maps is searching postal addresses.
John Briggs

Exactly.

By chance today I came across some old notes of a 1553 marriage
settlement and noticed that it included Ruxley, spelled "Rokysley". It
is a place with multitude of alternative spellings.

Ian.

WJhonson

Re: I'll bet you a ham sandwich

Legg inn av WJhonson » 22 sep 2007 00:50:37

In a message dated 09/21/07 16:35:20 Pacific Standard Time, farmerie@interfold.com writes:
<<reasons, this is one that Microsoft didn't win, but won't admit defeat
either, and so traditional USENET standard used by most older
software, some competing software, and most web-based readers (such as
that at Google Groups) continues to be poorly compatible with
Microsoft standard (which is basically what you are using in modified
form). >>

-----------------------------------------
Actually Todd I am manually adding the starting and ending chevrons and then a dashed-line *so that* it's a little more clear. What I actually see when I quote is merely a blue-line on the left of what I've quoted, and that it's indented. I'm fairly certain, after reflection, that the blue line is only something that would show up in an advanced email reader and so I can understand that this is not sufficient to indicate what's being quoted.

Since people complained that they couldn't tell what I was quoting and what I was adding, I began about a month or so ago to add the chevrons and a dashed-line and then write my response below it.

Normally I read and respond by email using the Gen-Medieval@rootsweb.com mailing list. However, when I *read* my own postings, done by that method, but now reading them by going directly to Google Groups, I still see no problem. The text wraps as I expected and I don't see these long right-scrolling screens to which you refer.

Perhaps it's only a problem for people who use News readers that do not automatically wrap lines? Maybe Google Groups does wrap lines? Or maybe in the hoary past I set some options there to do it? Perhaps there is a setting in other news readers *to* automatically wrap lines?

Will "You know more than I do" Johnson

taf

Re: I'll bet you a ham sandwich

Legg inn av taf » 22 sep 2007 01:43:59

On Sep 21, 4:50 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

Perhaps it's only a problem for people who use News readers that do not automatically wrap lines? Maybe Google Groups does wrap lines? Or maybe in the hoary past I set some options there to do it? Perhaps there is a setting in other news readers *to* automatically wrap lines?


Everything you describe is as expected. That blue line you see on
your mail editor is a hallmark of the Microsoft way of doing things.
When you look at your text in Google Groups, it is autowrapped, but
without carriage returns added. When someone else quotes it, it look
like above - one chevron at the beginning, then autowrapped text.
However, when I submit my post quoting yours, Google will then add the
line breaks, so were you to quote it in turn, your first line would
have two chevrons, and the rest would have just one, thereby appearing
to be my words.

You are right that it is the older highly specialized software that
lacks the autowrap and would represent the biggest problem.

It is nothing that you misset - it is the default setting of your
software - as a said, an attempt by the original designers to replace
the existing global standard with a new Microsoft standard. You should
have something in the preferences that lets you change it, if you feel
so inclined. It is less likely that other software would have a
setting to convert it to Microsoft standard.

taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: I'll bet you a ham sandwich

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 22 sep 2007 01:51:23

More Twaddle From taf...

I'm using Microsoft Software -- and have no such problem.

He can just put a dotted line above and below his text to indicate what he
wrote.

DSH

"taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:1190421839.138769.135820@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

On Sep 21, 4:50 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

Perhaps it's only a problem for people who use News readers that do not
automatically wrap lines? Maybe Google Groups does wrap lines? Or maybe
in the hoary past I set some options there to do it? Perhaps there is a
setting in other news readers *to* automatically wrap lines?


Everything you describe is as expected. That blue line you see on
your mail editor is a hallmark of the Microsoft way of doing things.
When you look at your text in Google Groups, it is autowrapped, but
without carriage returns added. When someone else quotes it, it look
like above - one chevron at the beginning, then autowrapped text.
However, when I submit my post quoting yours, Google will then add the
line breaks, so were you to quote it in turn, your first line would
have two chevrons, and the rest would have just one, thereby appearing
to be my words.

You are right that it is the older highly specialized software that
lacks the autowrap and would represent the biggest problem.

It is nothing that you misset - it is the default setting of your
software - as a said, an attempt by the original designers to replace
the existing global standard with a new Microsoft standard. You should
have something in the preferences that lets you change it, if you feel
so inclined. It is less likely that other software would have a
setting to convert it to Microsoft standard.

taf

WJhonson

Re: Fw: I'll bet you a ham sandwich

Legg inn av WJhonson » 22 sep 2007 02:04:58

<<In a message dated 09/21/07 17:49:36 Pacific Standard Time, leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
If I am not wrong Will was selling real-estate? Perhaps I am wrong and that
was somebody else? >>
------------------------
Only as an investor, I don't have a real estate license so I've never sold anyone else's property.

I have a B.A. from Northwestern University in Computer Studies and Math, a dual-major.

I originally went to get a degree in Astrophysics but it was too much Physics and not enough Astro for me, so I switched to Math. Then I learned that Math degrees have a hardway in the world today, getting stuck teaching grade-school or else turning into Accountants.

Didn't sound so charming, so I switched again to Computer Science. By that time I'd already had half the Math requirements done, so I doubled it and took a degree in both at the same time.

It was only in my last two years that I discovered that I really enjoy History much more then computers, but by that time I could not get a degree in that. But I did take 12 courses which qualifies as a "Minor" in any other University, except Northwestern doesn't have Minors.

I have a library of several hundred books, almost entirely non-fiction, mostly concentrated on science, math, religion (wait I said non-fiction !!), and the classics (I mean the old classics, Sophocles, Euripides, St Augustine, etc.)

I've been doing genealogy for 30 years, but only in the past five or so have I been doing it professionally. The only income I derive other than from my stock market or real estate investments, is by my genealogy services.

I was born in 1963, I am a Virgo, I have all my limbs, hair and eyesight (no glasses!). I've had two long-term relationships (each more than 8 years), no children, no pets.

My office is a typical disaster in stacked books and papers all over the place which I don't have time to organize.

When people tail-gate me I take my foot off the gas, if that doesn't work I squirt my rear-window washing fluid. If I'm really pissed I will slam on the brakes, then take off.

That's what I do for fun.

So that's me.

Will Johnson

Leo van de Pas

Re: Fw: I'll bet you a ham sandwich

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 22 sep 2007 02:13:03

Dear Will,

How could you? You are not a "trained" historian? But then wasn't Johnson's
doctorate an honorary one? Well, then you are in good company.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas


----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: I'll bet you a ham sandwich


In a message dated 09/21/07 17:49:36 Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
If I am not wrong Will was selling real-estate? Perhaps I am wrong and
that
was somebody else?
------------------------
Only as an investor, I don't have a real estate license so I've never sold
anyone else's property.

I have a B.A. from Northwestern University in Computer Studies and Math, a
dual-major.

I originally went to get a degree in Astrophysics but it was too much
Physics and not enough Astro for me, so I switched to Math. Then I
learned that Math degrees have a hardway in the world today, getting stuck
teaching grade-school or else turning into Accountants.

Didn't sound so charming, so I switched again to Computer Science. By
that time I'd already had half the Math requirements done, so I doubled it
and took a degree in both at the same time.

It was only in my last two years that I discovered that I really enjoy
History much more then computers, but by that time I could not get a
degree in that. But I did take 12 courses which qualifies as a "Minor" in
any other University, except Northwestern doesn't have Minors.

I have a library of several hundred books, almost entirely non-fiction,
mostly concentrated on science, math, religion (wait I said non-fiction
!!), and the classics (I mean the old classics, Sophocles, Euripides, St
Augustine, etc.)

I've been doing genealogy for 30 years, but only in the past five or so
have I been doing it professionally. The only income I derive other than
from my stock market or real estate investments, is by my genealogy
services.

I was born in 1963, I am a Virgo, I have all my limbs, hair and eyesight
(no glasses!). I've had two long-term relationships (each more than 8
years), no children, no pets.

My office is a typical disaster in stacked books and papers all over the
place which I don't have time to organize.

When people tail-gate me I take my foot off the gas, if that doesn't work
I squirt my rear-window washing fluid. If I'm really pissed I will slam
on the brakes, then take off.

That's what I do for fun.

So that's me.

Will Johnson

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

Séimí mac Liam

Re: I'll bet you a ham sandwich

Legg inn av Séimí mac Liam » 22 sep 2007 03:30:44

taf <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in
news:1190417616.875853.61590@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:

On Sep 21, 12:12 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 09/21/07 12:00:29 Pacific Standard Time,
gwyd...@comcast.nospam.net writes: Anyone familiar with this: AOL
Openride 1.3.79.1 who can tell him how to not have his lines go on
beyond 70 characters? >> ---------------------------
Are other people having this issue with my postings?
I do not see any problems when I read my own postings nor those of
others sent to Gen-Med.


They do come through as uninterupted text, so when quoting, only the
first line of each paragraph has a chevron. I have to either add the
carriage returns and chevrons myself, or else leave it and hope it is
clear that the whole paragraph is what is being quoted. Fortunately,
my reader automatically wraps your text, but I have seen some readers
present paragraphs like yours as a single line running off the right
side of the screen and requiring several pages of scrolling to read.

It is really a conflict of two different conventions - traditionally,
email and USENET posts were not continuous text but had carriage
returns automatically inserted at a particular line length. This
allowed for different software at different technical levels all to be
able to process the information similarly, and the conventions for
quoting the post to which one is responding are tailored to this
convention. Then Microsoft came along and decided an email should be
continuous text so it could pop seamlessly in and out of a word
processor, which was probably correct in concept but in application
meant (perhaps not a coincidence) that only those using a Microsoft
reader could appropriately interpret and manipulate these messages (Of
course, Microsoft's solution was simply that everyone buy there
product, and then there are no compatibility problems.) For various
reasons, this is one that Microsoft didn't win, but won't admit defeat
either, and so traditional USENET standard used by most older
software, some competing software, and most web-based readers (such as
that at Google Groups) continues to be poorly compatible with
Microsoft standard (which is basically what you are using in modified
form).

taf



If it is as you say, why are his the only posts(currently) for which I
must toggle the auto-wrap function in my news client to get them to
display properly?

--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99

D. Spencer Hines

Re: I'll Bet You A Ham Sandwich

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 22 sep 2007 03:41:50

....Because taf simply saw a golden chance to bash Microsoft -- with a
blanket condemnation -- indulging in a little hissy fit -- and roundly
screwed the pooch.

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

"Séimí mac Liam" <gwyddon@comcast.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Xns99B2BC4FADF44Sim@216.196.97.136...

taf <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in
news:1190417616.875853.61590@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:

<baldersnip>

If it is as you say, why are his the only posts (currently) for which I
must toggle the auto-wrap function in my news client to get them to
display properly?

Gjest

Re: Gilbert of Lancaster

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 sep 2007 04:17:23

Dear Pat,
Who`s is to say that He didn`t accompany David I to Scotland
in 1124 before the whole mess with Stephen, whose wife Maud of Boulogne was
interestingly enough every bit as much David`s niece as was Empress Maud, their
mothers having been sisters.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Gjest

Re: Gilbert of Lancaster

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 sep 2007 04:17:23

Dear Pat,
Who`s is to say that He didn`t accompany David I to Scotland
in 1124 before the whole mess with Stephen, whose wife Maud of Boulogne was
interestingly enough every bit as much David`s niece as was Empress Maud, their
mothers having been sisters.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Gjest

Re: Gilbert of Lancaster

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 sep 2007 04:17:23

Dear Pat,
Who`s is to say that He didn`t accompany David I to Scotland
in 1124 before the whole mess with Stephen, whose wife Maud of Boulogne was
interestingly enough every bit as much David`s niece as was Empress Maud, their
mothers having been sisters.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Gjest

Re: Gilbert of Lancaster

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 sep 2007 04:17:23

Dear Pat,
Who`s is to say that He didn`t accompany David I to Scotland
in 1124 before the whole mess with Stephen, whose wife Maud of Boulogne was
interestingly enough every bit as much David`s niece as was Empress Maud, their
mothers having been sisters.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Ian Wallace

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Guarantors & Counsellors

Legg inn av Ian Wallace » 22 sep 2007 11:16:53

On 19 Sep, 22:33, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
This "Robert de Roppelay" is a particularly interesting character --
....
Arthur Edwin Bye tells us that although his name is written that way in
Magna Carta, his name was "undoubtedly Robert de Rokkeley....





As far as I can make out, what is actually written in one of the
British Library's copies of Magna Carta is "Roberti de Roppel".

Ian.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Guarantors & Counsellors

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 22 sep 2007 11:51:49

Good Show!

DSH

"Ian Wallace" <shrowl@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190456213.535354.204400@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

On 19 Sep, 22:33, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

This "Robert de Roppelay" is a particularly interesting character --
...
Arthur Edwin Bye tells us that although his name is written that way in
Magna Carta, his name was "undoubtedly Robert de Rokkeley....

As far as I can make out, what is actually written in one of the
British Library's copies of Magna Carta is "Roberti de Roppel".

Ian.

Gjest

Re: I'll bet you a ham sandwich

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 sep 2007 14:13:02

Dear Douglas,
If Peter is the" modern" historian`s translation of
Piers, how do They account for the modern name Pierce ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Leticia Cluff

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Guarantors & Counsellors

Legg inn av Leticia Cluff » 22 sep 2007 15:43:51

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 03:16:53 -0700, Ian Wallace <shrowl@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On 19 Sep, 22:33, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
This "Robert de Roppelay" is a particularly interesting character --
...
Arthur Edwin Bye tells us that although his name is written that way in
Magna Carta, his name was "undoubtedly Robert de Rokkeley....





As far as I can make out, what is actually written in one of the
British Library's copies of Magna Carta is "Roberti de Roppel".


Yes, and that is variously translated as Robert de Roppeley
http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/translation.html
suggesting Ropley in Hampshire.

or as Robert of Ropsley
http://www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/magnacarta.html
suggesting Ropsley in Lincolnshire.


Why should this name "undoubtedly" be Rokkely at all? Isn't it the
wrong time and place for the difference between P and Q Celtic to be
operating?


What is the connection, if any, with Simon de Roppel? Google for that
name and you will find a man in Lincoln in 1236, in the reign of Henry
III:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2 ... +roppel%22

Ropsley near Grantham was a grange belonging to the abbot of Vaudey in
Lincolnshire:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... ry=ropsley


Sorry if I led you on a wild goose chase, Ian. My pinpointing of
Rockley to that street in Kent was intended as a joke.

Tish

Praeterea censeo Hinem esse delendum

Gjest

Re: A new line of living progeny off Robert, 3rd Lord Semphi

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 sep 2007 16:24:03

Dear Will,
You may not be looking for a Lord Porterfield. but a Laird
Porterfield. There appear to have been at lest two such families. A John
Porterfield, 1st laird of Duchil married Beatrix Cunninghame of Craigends,
daughter of William Cunninghame, 2nd of Craigends by his wife Egidia /Giles/ Jill,
daughterb of John Campbell of Loudou , Marion Cunninghame , daughter of
William Cunninghame , 7th of Craigends married Alexander Porterfield of Fullwood
and her niece Elizabeth Cunninghame, daughter of William, 8th of Craigends and
his 2nd wife Christian, daughter of John Colquohoun of Luss married Gabriel
Porterfield of Hapland (see Stirnet Cunninghame 03. Note Agnes, daughter of John
and Isobel (Boyd)Blair married Alexander Porterfield of Fullwood and had 3
sons John, William and Alexander and a daughter Grissel who married John
Semple. See Richard Cardell (_gen32207@yahoo.com_ (mailto:gen32207@yahoo.com) )
Cardell, Roberts, Francis and Elliott
_http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=gen32207&id=1519_
(http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bi ... 07&id=1519)
Sincerely.
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine
USA




************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Gilbert of Lancaster

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 22 sep 2007 16:35:28

I would expect that de Morville was in Scotland probably as early as
1124 and that it was because he was established in Cunningham and
perhaps Lauderdale by 1135, that he invited disaffected in the West
Country to Scotland. Remember that Hugh de Morville, the elder son of
this first Hugh was a murderer of Becket in 1170 along with FitzUrse
of Williton N Somerset.

taf

Re: I'll bet you a ham sandwich

Legg inn av taf » 22 sep 2007 16:59:55

On Sep 21, 7:30 pm, "Séimí mac Liam" <gwyd...@comcast.nospam.net>
wrote:

If it is as you say, why are his the only posts(currently) for which I
must toggle the auto-wrap function in my news client to get them to
display properly?

Were I to guess (and that is all it is), your software is
sophisticated enough to make sense of normal MS format, but his AOL
version is an imperfect mimic which yours isn't set to handle. I don't
know that anyone else is using what Will is.

taf

Apple

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Guarantors & Counsellors

Legg inn av Apple » 22 sep 2007 17:09:51

By chance today I came across some old notes of a 1553 marriage
settlement ....

And how does one come across old notes from 1553? Lucky!

D. Spencer Hines

Re: I'll Bet You A Ham Sandwich

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 22 sep 2007 18:16:23

Were I to guess (and that is all it is), your software is
sophisticated enough to make sense of normal MS format, but his AOL
version is an imperfect mimic which yours isn't set to handle. I don't
know that anyone else is using what Will is.

taf
-------------------------------------------------------------------

SO, that's an indictment of AOL -- NOT of Microsoft.

taf retreats from his previous positions with his tail between his legs.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:1190476795.933628.131480@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...

On Sep 21, 7:30 pm, "Séimí mac Liam" <gwyd...@comcast.nospam.net>
wrote:

If it is as you say, why are his the only posts(currently) for which I
must toggle the auto-wrap function in my news client to get them to
display properly?

Were I to guess (and that is all it is), your software is
sophisticated enough to make sense of normal MS format, but his AOL
version is an imperfect mimic which yours isn't set to handle. I don't
know that anyone else is using what Will is.

taf

Ian Wallace

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Guarantors & Counsellors

Legg inn av Ian Wallace » 22 sep 2007 18:25:53

On 22 Sep, 17:09, Apple <applefruitgl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
And how does one come across old notes from 1553? Lucky!

"old notes of a 1553 marriage settlement ...."

The crucial word is "of" - not from.
Old is relative. Rough notes made in June 2007, became 'old' after
being neatly transcribed!

Ian.

Gjest

Re: Genealogics: Giving some background to Sir Thomas Palmer

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 sep 2007 22:25:03

From notes I took from 'The History and Topographical Survey of the Count of
Kent' by Edward Hasted 1797 - 1801 (reprint 1972), this Sir Henry Palmer of

Wingham was the son of Sir Edward Palmer of Angmerin, Sussex being 7th
generation from Ralph Palmer of Angmerin temp Edward II. Sir Edward's daughter was
Elizabeth Palmer (PCC Will 1573) who married Robert Browne (1492/3 - bfr
Apr 1565) grandfather of Sir Robert Browne 1st Bart of Walcot.

Adrian




In a message dated 22/09/2007 03:16:58 GMT Standard Time, wjhonson@aol.com
writes:

Here on Leo's great web site
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 0&tree=LEO

we see that Sir Thomas Palmer of Wingham, 1st Bart who m Margaret Poley and
they both died in 1625 and are buried at Wingham.

No parents are given for him.

Initially Tudorplace.com.ar gave me the indication that his parentage was
known or at least suspected and today while mousing around I found a good
reference for that.

He has a DNB entry
http://books.google.com/books?id=myYJAA ... palmer%22+
beheaded#PPA161,M1
DNB, "Palmer, Sir Thomas (1540-1626)"

In which they state that he was the third son of Sir Henry Palmer, Knt of
Wingham, Kent and Bailiff of Guisnes in 1539 (among other offices) by his wife
Jane Windebank daughter of Sir Richard Windebank, Knt of Guisnes

Furthermore they state that Sir Henry left three sons Thomas, Arnold and
Edward.

Continuining with DNB we find another Sir Thomas Palmer who was the uncle of
this first one. This Sir Thomas Palmer was *executed* on Tower Hill for his
complicity with the Duke of Northumberland. The execution is mentioned in

http://books.google.com/books?id=plILAA ... %22thomas+
palmer%22+beheaded&source=web&ots=JtrsUm05gc&sig=fjUGcajSFey9gdLB9Ro2gagTJAY
"Fox's Book of Martyrs"

Where they say it occurred on 22 Aug 1553

I serendipitously came across this collection of persons while I was reading
about the Manor of Atcham. Apparently this Thomas Palmer who was executed
is the same one who 2E6 was granted that Manor. Him being the same one
executed is again repeated here

http://books.google.com/books?id=nDgGAA ... 1#PPA44,M1
"Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological and Natural History Society",
Vol VI 1883. Shrewsbury: Adnitt and Naunton
"Donington Church", page 44

Will Johnson

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Critical Thinking -- How Soon We Forget

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 23 sep 2007 00:00:53

William Graham Sumner, one of America's and Yale's Greatest Professors.

He was a Real Liberal -- as compared to the gaggles of Faux "Liberal"
college professors we have today on many American campuses.

DSH

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

William Graham Sumner (1840-1910), was an American academic and professor at
Yale College. For many years he had a reputation as one of the most
influential teachers there. He was a polymath with numerous books and essays
on American history, economic history, political theory, sociology, and
anthropology.

His popular essays gave him a wide audience for his laissez-faire: advocacy
of free markets, anti-imperialism, and the gold standard. He was a president
of American Sociological Association from 1908 to 1909.

He graduated from Yale College in 1863, where he had been a member of Skull
& Bones. Later he was appointed to the newly created Chair of Political and
Social Science at Yale. As a sociologist, his major accomplishments were
developing the concepts of diffusion, folkways, and ethnocentrism. Sumner's
work with folkways led him to conclude that attempts at government-mandated
reform were useless. He was a staunch advocate of laissez-faire economics.

Sumner was active in the intellectual promotion of free-trade classical
liberalism, and in his heyday and after there were Sumner Clubs here and
there. He heavily criticized socialism/communism. One adversary he mentioned
by name was Edward Bellamy, whose national variant of socialism was set
forth in Looking Backward, published in 1888, and the sequel Equality.

Like many classical liberals at the time, including Edward Atkinson,
Moorfield Storey, and Grover Cleveland, Sumner opposed the Spanish American
War and the subsequent U.S. effort to quell the insurgency in the
Philippines. He was a vice president of the Anti-Imperialist League which
had been formed after the war to oppose the annexation of territories. In
his speech "The Conquest of the United States by Spain," he lambasted
imperialism as a betrayal of the small government ideals of anti-militarism,
the gold standard, and free trade. According to Sumner, imperialism would
enthrone a new group of "plutocrats," or businesspeople who depended on
government subsidies and contracts.

In the 1870s Sumner was strongly influenced by the English evolutionary
thinker Herbert Spencer; after 1885 or so Spencer's influence faded. Among
Sumner's students were the anthropologist Albert Galloway Keller, the
economist Irving Fisher, and the champion of an anthropological approach to
economics, Thorstein Bunde Veblen.

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

William Graham Sumner offers a useful summary of critical thinking:

The critical habit of thought, if usual in society, will pervade all its
mores, because it is a way of taking up the problems of life.

Men educated in it cannot be stampeded by stump orators ... They are slow
to believe.

They can hold things as possible or probable in all degrees, without
certainty and without pain. They can wait for evidence and weigh evidence,
uninfluenced by the emphasis or confidence with which assertions are made
on one side or the other.

They can resist appeals to their dearest prejudices and all kinds of
cajolery. Education in the critical faculty is the only education of which
it can be truly said that it makes good citizens.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»