Blount-Ayala
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Re: Guillaume d'Aubelin / Francoise Brachet, a morsel
<<In a message dated 9/26/2007 4:27:58 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
wjhonson@aol.com writes:
you are not showing that this couple are also the parents of that Guillaume
Bude, the famous humanist author born 26 Jan 1468 (not 1467 as many sources
state) who married in 1505 or 1506 to Roberte Lyeur. He died 22 Aug 1546 in
Paris where he was also born. He was the fourth of eighteen children>>
--------------------
I just want to discount the statement that he was the "fourth of eighteen
children". Although this is stated in a biographical dictionary, I'm not at
all convinced that it's accurate. I'd like to see what their source is for
that. A well-known and competent researcher has more details on the family,
which does *not* place Guillaume fourth but rather more like seventh or eighth.
So caveat lecteur
Will Johnson
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
wjhonson@aol.com writes:
you are not showing that this couple are also the parents of that Guillaume
Bude, the famous humanist author born 26 Jan 1468 (not 1467 as many sources
state) who married in 1505 or 1506 to Roberte Lyeur. He died 22 Aug 1546 in
Paris where he was also born. He was the fourth of eighteen children>>
--------------------
I just want to discount the statement that he was the "fourth of eighteen
children". Although this is stated in a biographical dictionary, I'm not at
all convinced that it's accurate. I'd like to see what their source is for
that. A well-known and competent researcher has more details on the family,
which does *not* place Guillaume fourth but rather more like seventh or eighth.
So caveat lecteur
Will Johnson
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-
M. de la Fayette
RE: Settipani's book on Byzantine families
Just received my copy today!
Please, feel free to ask any question about it, if I can help...
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of jluc soler
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 11:40 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Settipani's book on Byzantine families
i 'll receuve my copy tomorrow
)
JL
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> a écrit dans le
message
de news:
nathanieltaylor-08F70C.14565911092007@e ... ernews.net..
..
Please, feel free to ask any question about it, if I can help...
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of jluc soler
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 11:40 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Settipani's book on Byzantine families
i 'll receuve my copy tomorrow
JL
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> a écrit dans le
message
de news:
nathanieltaylor-08F70C.14565911092007@e ... ernews.net..
..
In article <mailman.2163.1189535525.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
"Duvall, Jeffery A" <jduvall@iupui.edu> wrote:
Has anyone seen a copy of Christian Settipani's latest book,
"Continuité
des
élites à Byzance durant les siècles obscurs. Les princes caucasiens
et
l'Empire du VIe au IXe siècle" (2006)? I gather that it's now
available
(http://www.deboccard.com/anglais/Rub/cata.htm), but I don't recall
anyone
mentioning it on the list.
Well spotted! I have not seen it.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
taf obviously fails to understand the differences between:
CROSS POSTING...
And:
SIMUL-POSTING [Simultaneous Posting]
I never Cross Post, I only Simul-Post -- to a small set of relevant
newsgroups and individuals, in my chosen audience, whom I want to see my
posts.
I have no PRIMARY Group and then "CROSS" Post to other groups.
ALL the groups and individuals have Equal Standing in my Designated
Audience...
So I SIMULTANEOUSLY Post To Them.
OTHER members of the COGNOSCENTI here, such as Douglas Richardson, often do
the same thing.
It's the Smart, Catholic, Non-Parochial & Non-Small-Minded Thing To Do.
Let A Thousand Flowers Bloom! [My Improvement On Mao...]
taf needs to get his Terminology straight.
I've explained all this several times before -- taf has forgotten his
lessons and blotted his copybook.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
CROSS POSTING...
And:
SIMUL-POSTING [Simultaneous Posting]
I never Cross Post, I only Simul-Post -- to a small set of relevant
newsgroups and individuals, in my chosen audience, whom I want to see my
posts.
I have no PRIMARY Group and then "CROSS" Post to other groups.
ALL the groups and individuals have Equal Standing in my Designated
Audience...
So I SIMULTANEOUSLY Post To Them.
OTHER members of the COGNOSCENTI here, such as Douglas Richardson, often do
the same thing.
It's the Smart, Catholic, Non-Parochial & Non-Small-Minded Thing To Do.
Let A Thousand Flowers Bloom! [My Improvement On Mao...]
taf needs to get his Terminology straight.
I've explained all this several times before -- taf has forgotten his
lessons and blotted his copybook.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
-
Gjest
Re: Parentage of Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt
Could you address the points raised by Rosie Bevan? They seem most cogent.
The men you claim are "brothers to John", which you named don't appear in
the record until quite some time after John isn't that also true?
Will
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
The men you claim are "brothers to John", which you named don't appear in
the record until quite some time after John isn't that also true?
Will
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-
Gjest
Re: Parentage of Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt
Could you address the points raised by Rosie Bevan? They seem most cogent.
The men you claim are "brothers to John", which you named don't appear in
the record until quite some time after John isn't that also true?
Will
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
The men you claim are "brothers to John", which you named don't appear in
the record until quite some time after John isn't that also true?
Will
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-
Christopher Ingham
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
On Sep 27, 12:48 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
_Cognoscenti_formerly had positive connotations.
Christopher Ingham
ALL the groups and individuals have Equal Standing in my Designated
Audience...
So I SIMULTANEOUSLY Post To Them.
OTHER members of the COGNOSCENTI here, such as Douglas Richardson, often do
the same thing.
_Cognoscenti_formerly had positive connotations.
Christopher Ingham
-
Kay Allen
Re: Sheffields of Yorkshire
Dear Michael etal.,
I have a Simon Rockley married to a Worsborough in the
early thirteenth century. Do you know anything about
this marriage?
TIA
Kay Allen AG
--- mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
I have a Simon Rockley married to a Worsborough in the
early thirteenth century. Do you know anything about
this marriage?
TIA
Kay Allen AG
--- mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Some Sheffield bits and pieces:
HoP tells us that Thomas Sheffield, "grandfather" of
Sir Robert
Rokeley, was living in June 1402 (HoP 1386-1422, vol
4, p 223) when he
sold the manors of Bolsterstone and Penisall for 500
marks.
I know nothing about this Thomas, other than HoP's
comment (op. cit. p
221) that his wife was named Alice, and that his
daughter was also
said to be named Alice - perhaps this is taken from
the 1402 sale
documents. HoP's citation here is probably
Yorkshire Arch. Journal,
vol xii, pp 113-4 & 301, but there are other
citations in the same
unhelpful conglomeration.
There is a small Sheffield genealogy in Vis. Yorks
1563-4 sub
Stapleton:
Agnes, daughter of Sir Bryan Fitzalan, married (1)
Gilbert Stapleton
and (2) Thomas Sheffield, by whom she had:
a. William Sheffield
b. John Sheffield
c. Thomas Sheffield
d. Alexander Sheffield (a clerk)
e. Margaret Sheffield, married John Holme.
Perhaps the Thomas Sheffield listed at (c) above is
our man?
There are a number of surviving Rokeley tombs at
Worsborough, Yorks,
which I hope to visit shortly. They may have
armorial displays that
would assist.
MA-R
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email
to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word
'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
the body of the message
-
Kay Allen
Re: Rockley or Rokeley family
Dear John etal.,
I have a Rockley dtr. married to John Savile (c.
1225-bef. 1276). Can anyone enlighten me about this
connection?
TIA
Kay Allen AG
--- "John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com> wrote:
I have a Rockley dtr. married to John Savile (c.
1225-bef. 1276). Can anyone enlighten me about this
connection?
TIA
Kay Allen AG
--- "John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com> wrote:
Thursday, 27 September, 2007
Dear Michael,
Thanks for bringing up those problems relating
to the Rockley
pedigree. Based on what you have at present, and
minus those things
we do not have to hand (direct evidence as to
several relationships
being the greatest), I agree that Hunter is more
likely correct that
the HoP account.
The following is my poorly documented pedigree
of Rockley as I
have it at present, down to the marriage of Eleanor
Rockley and Robert
Drax. The one thing of substance this may add is
the connection
(courtesy of Alfred S. Ellis) provided by the
marriage of Henry de
Rockley and Constance, daughter of Richard le Tyes
and Alice de
Tankersley. By virtue of this connection, the
Rockleys have an early
collateral relationship with the Wentworths, and
descents from the
Elands, Thornhills, and Adam fitz Swain (via Nevill
of Mirfield and
Redburne, and by my conjecture also via Thornhill).
This may provide
some weak additional chronological basis for further
research on the
Rockleys.
Cheers,
John *
__________________________________
1 Richard le Tyes
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 2 Jan 1328[1]
Father: Richard le Tyes (->1278)
Mother: Ellen de Neville
of Farnley Tyas, co. York
' Richard le Tyays ', witness together with Hugh de
Eland
and others, to Feoffment dated 12 Dec 1284 :
' Between John le Carleton, of the one part, and
Elias de
Midehope, of the other part; of all his Manor of
Pengeshale,
with appurts. in Langsett, Swyndone and Billeclif,
at a rent
of 1d. to the grantor, and 100s to the Abbot and
Convent of
Kyrksteade in Lindesaye.
Witnesses: Franco le Tyays, Nicholas de
Wortelay,
Hugh de Elaunde, Richard le Tyays, Matthew de
Ospring,
Thomas de Irelaunde, Bailiff of Stafford, and
others.'
[Seal: brown wax, on tag, sewn in bag. Endorsed:
Penisalle.
Kareleton. 194. 13.] - A2A, West Yorkshire Archive
Service,
Bradford: Spencer-Stanhope Manuscripts [SpSt/1 -
SpSt/4],
SpSt/4/11/95/3[2]
' Richrd Tyeys', witness (together with Thomas de
Foljambe,
Simon de Kyme, Thomas de Savile and others) in the
IPM of
Richard Foliot and Jordan Foliot, ' made at York,
23 June,
27 Edward (1299), before Mr. Richard de Haveringg',
Escheator,..'
[Yorks. Inqs. III:102-3][3]
presented John de Lekes to the living of Tankersley,
together with Hugh de Eland, on or before 17 Feb.
1289/90:
' John de Lekes instituted 13 kal. Mar. 1290, and
16 kal.
April 1291, on the presentation of Richard Tyas and
Hugh
Eland. ' [Hunter, South Yorkshire II:303][4]
presented Richard le Tyas (possibly his son) to the
living
on or before 24 Apr 1312:
' R. le Tyas, acolitus, 8 kal. May 1312, on the
presentation of Richard Tyas and Alice his wife.
Died here. ' [Hunter, South Yorkshire II:303-4][4]
' Fines, A'o 10 & 12 E. 2 [1317 & 1319] .
H. 35 [vol. 129]. Between John de Wintworth &
Jone his
wife comp't & Richard Tyars & Alice his wife
deforciant of
one Mess'e 30 Acres of Land 3 acres of meadow with
the
Appurtnances in Green in Balne. If John & Jone
died
without issue, remaind'r to the right heires of
Alice. '
[Holmes, YAJ X:351[5], cites ' Mr Gascoigne's
Notes.']
cf. Vis. Yorkshire, pedigree of Wentworth[6]
Ellis, Wapentake of Agbrigg (YAJ VII:132[7],
pedigree
of Teutonicus (Tyas)
____________________
re: his wife:
coheiress8
' Ales = to Richard Tyas. ' [HSP 16:318[6], pedigree
of Thornhill]
Grant dated at Pontefract, Monday, the morrow of the
Circumcision
(Jan. 2), 1328-9:
' Grant in tail, with reversion to her right
heirs, by Alice,
relict of Richard le Tyeis, in her pure widowhood
and lawful power, to
Richard le Tyeis, her son, of all her rent in the
vill of Meltham,
paying a rose on St. John the Baptist's day.
Witnesses, William de Birton, Alan de le
Storthes, Adam son of
Matthew de Farnley, Roger de Seham of Pontefract,
Adam le Chaumberlayn
of the same. ' [YAS XXXIX:110, no. 304][1]
Spouse: Alice de Tankersley
Death: aft 2 Jan 13281
Father: Sir Richard de Tankersley
Mother: Sarah de Thornhill
Children: Jane, m. John de Wentworth
Richard
Constance (->1316)
1.1 Constance le Tyes
----------------------------------------
Death: aft 13167
cf. Ellis, Wapentake of Agbrigg (YAJ VII:132[7],
pedigree of
Teutonicus (Tyas)
Spouse: Henry de Rockley
Children: Robert
1.1.1 Robert de Rockley
----------------------------------------
Spouse: Cecilia de Oxspring
Children: Sir Robert (>1319-)
1.1.1.1 Sir Robert de Rockley
----------------------------------------
Birth: aft 1319[4]
Spouse: Alice de Sheffield
Children: Sir Robert
1.1.1.1.1 Sir Robert Rockley
----------------------------------------
cf. Foster I: pedigree of Rockley, of Rockley[9]
Spouse: Elizabeth FitzWilliam
Father: Sir William FitzWilliam (-1398)
Mother: Maud Cromwell (->1411)
Children: Robert (-ca1448)
=== message truncated ===
-
edespalais@yahoo.fr
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
On 27 sep, 18:48, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
a cowboy who missed the plain for Irak
taf obviously fails to understand the differences between:
CROSS POSTING...
And:
SIMUL
a cowboy who missed the plain for Irak
-
Bryn
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
In article <UbRKi.10$6q5.24@eagle.america.net>, D. Spencer Hines
<panther@excelsior.com> writes
Rubbish! You are a scurrilous old troll who loves to start a fight
between groups... Then you can feel superior while others fall upon each
other like terriers on a rat.
Hmmm?
Audience? You like the cascade of rotting organic material hurled in
your direction? Dirty old bugger!
None that would own to having you!
Silly old sod!
--
Bryn
Duct tape makes you use your teeth.
<panther@excelsior.com> writes
Rubbish! You are a scurrilous old troll who loves to start a fight
between groups... Then you can feel superior while others fall upon each
other like terriers on a rat.
Hmmm?
taf obviously fails to understand the differences between:
CROSS POSTING...
And:
SIMUL-POSTING [Simultaneous Posting]
I never Cross Post, I only Simul-Post -- to a small set of relevant
newsgroups and individuals, in my chosen audience, whom I want to see my
posts.
Audience? You like the cascade of rotting organic material hurled in
your direction? Dirty old bugger!
I have no PRIMARY Group
None that would own to having you!
and then "CROSS" Post to other groups.
ALL the groups and individuals have Equal Standing in my Designated
Audience...
So I SIMULTANEOUSLY Post To Them.
OTHER members of the COGNOSCENTI here, such as Douglas Richardson, often do
the same thing.
It's the Smart, Catholic, Non-Parochial & Non-Small-Minded Thing To Do.
Let A Thousand Flowers Bloom! [My Improvement On Mao...]
taf needs to get his Terminology straight.
I've explained all this several times before -- taf has forgotten his
lessons and blotted his copybook.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
Silly old sod!
--
Bryn
Duct tape makes you use your teeth.
-
Jack Linthicum
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
On Sep 27, 3:26 pm, "edespal...@yahoo.fr" <edespal...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
No, just an example of the son of a famous father, filled with
bullshit genealogy by a grandmother, unable to actually perform as a
naval officer and forced to broadcast his bile to an ever decreasing
group of people who foolishly believe he has a right to be heard like
anyone else.
On 27 sep, 20:59, Bryn <b...@finhall.gremilinsdemon.co.uk> wrote:
In article <UbRKi.10$6q5...@eagle.america.net>, D. Spencer Hines
pant...@excelsior.com> writes
Rubbish! You are a scurrilous old troll
descendant of a troll comming with Vikings when they came to Northern
America?
No, just an example of the son of a famous father, filled with
bullshit genealogy by a grandmother, unable to actually perform as a
naval officer and forced to broadcast his bile to an ever decreasing
group of people who foolishly believe he has a right to be heard like
anyone else.
-
edespalais@yahoo.fr
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
On 27 sep, 21:31, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
are able to ride a cow?
On Sep 27, 3:26 pm, "edespal...@yahoo.fr" <edespal...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
On 27 sep, 20:59, Bryn <b...@finhall.gremilinsdemon.co.uk> wrote:
In article <UbRKi.10$6q5...@eagle.america.net>, D. Spencer Hines
pant...@excelsior.com> writes
Rubbish! You are a scurrilous old troll
descendant of a troll comming with Vikings when they came to Northern
America?
No, just an example of the son of a famous father, filled with
bullshit
what an exquisite language the cowboys have, one one wonders if they
are able to ride a cow?
-
Turenne
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
DSH wrote:
Whatever it is that you're doing - stop it!
Richard Lichten
I never Cross Post, I only Simul-Post -- to a small set of relevant
newsgroups and individuals, in my chosen audience, whom I want to see my
posts.
Whatever it is that you're doing - stop it!
Richard Lichten
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
How are you folks using the word _COWBOY_?
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
WJhonson
Re: Parentage of Cecily Bardolf, wife of William de Morley,
<<In a message dated 09/27/07 10:15:29 Pacific Standard Time, royalancestry@msn.com writes:
We see that while the charges [three cinquefoils] are the same, the
tinctures are different between the two branches of the Bardolf
family. Thus, it should be relatively easy to determine if Cecily
(Bardolf) Morley was the daughter of Thomas Bardolf, Lord Bardolf, or
John bardolf, of Spixworth, simply by viewing the arms on either of
the two embroideries connected to Cecily (Bardolf) Morley. If
Cecily's arms are blue and gold, then she was the daughter of a Lord
Bardolf. And, if her arms are red and silver, then she is a daughter
of a Bardolf of Spixworth. >>
-------------------------------------------------------
It would of course depend on knowing the reasoning behind the author's identification in the first place. The author states the identification, without showing what evidence supports that identification. When I first saw those statements, my red flag immediately went up, on the possibility of circular reasoning in that identification.
The best proof, and perhaps the basis of proofs should be, not some author's identification of what somebody used, but rather an existing seal on a document signed by that person. Statements within modern editions, not specifically about the subject, should always be viewed with skepticism and can never be the ultimate evidence of a contentious genealogical connection.
Will Johnson
We see that while the charges [three cinquefoils] are the same, the
tinctures are different between the two branches of the Bardolf
family. Thus, it should be relatively easy to determine if Cecily
(Bardolf) Morley was the daughter of Thomas Bardolf, Lord Bardolf, or
John bardolf, of Spixworth, simply by viewing the arms on either of
the two embroideries connected to Cecily (Bardolf) Morley. If
Cecily's arms are blue and gold, then she was the daughter of a Lord
Bardolf. And, if her arms are red and silver, then she is a daughter
of a Bardolf of Spixworth. >>
-------------------------------------------------------
It would of course depend on knowing the reasoning behind the author's identification in the first place. The author states the identification, without showing what evidence supports that identification. When I first saw those statements, my red flag immediately went up, on the possibility of circular reasoning in that identification.
The best proof, and perhaps the basis of proofs should be, not some author's identification of what somebody used, but rather an existing seal on a document signed by that person. Statements within modern editions, not specifically about the subject, should always be viewed with skepticism and can never be the ultimate evidence of a contentious genealogical connection.
Will Johnson
-
Ray O'Hara
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:UbRKi.10$6q5.24@eagle.america.net...
is posting to multiple groups.
that is what you do
news:UbRKi.10$6q5.24@eagle.america.net...
taf obviously fails to understand the differences between:
CROSS POSTING...
is posting to multiple groups.
that is what you do
-
Ray O'Hara
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:IMUKi.20$6q5.45@eagle.america.net...
originally cowboy was a term of derision for lowfiles in the old west.
the gang led by ike clanton and wiped out by the earps were called "the
cowboys"
news:IMUKi.20$6q5.45@eagle.america.net...
How are you folks using the word _COWBOY_?
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
originally cowboy was a term of derision for lowfiles in the old west.
the gang led by ike clanton and wiped out by the earps were called "the
cowboys"
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
Be that as it may...
COWBOYS and the COWBOY persona are an integral part of the American Culture.
Consider John Wayne in _Red River_, for example (and in many other films) or
the current _3:10 To Yuma_.
The Tradition & The Character Of The Cowboy Are Alive & Well.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:_b6dnaiQu-tpgGHbnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@rcn.net...
COWBOYS and the COWBOY persona are an integral part of the American Culture.
Consider John Wayne in _Red River_, for example (and in many other films) or
the current _3:10 To Yuma_.
The Tradition & The Character Of The Cowboy Are Alive & Well.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:_b6dnaiQu-tpgGHbnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@rcn.net...
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:IMUKi.20$6q5.45@eagle.america.net...
How are you folks using the word _COWBOY_?
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
originally cowboy was a term of derision for lowfiles in the old west.
the gang led by ike clanton and wiped out by the earps were called "the
cowboys"
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
taf, and many others here, obviously fail to understand the differences
between:
CROSS POSTING...
And:
SIMUL-POSTING [Simultaneous Posting]
I never Cross Post, I only Simul-Post -- to a small set of relevant
newsgroups and individuals, in my chosen audience, with whom I want to
converse and/or interact -- on various levels.
I have no PRIMARY Group and then "CROSS" Post to other groups.
ALL the groups and individuals have Equal Standing in my Designated
Audience...
So I SIMULTANEOUSLY Post To Them -- my Chosen Few -- the Cognoscenti -- OR
those who serve on USENET solely for my Entertainment and that of Other
Members of the Cognoscenti.
OTHER members of the COGNOSCENTI here, such as Douglas Richardson, often do
the same thing -- for the same reasons.
It's the Smart, Catholic, Non-Parochial & Non-Small-Minded Thing To Do.
Any Intelligent Person Should Understand That -- Understand The Medium of
USENET -- And Act Accordingly.
We are Not Divided Up into a Number of Isolated CLASSROOMS here -- but the
Mediocre Academics Among Us, Including taf, are Most Comfortable With That
Antiquated Academic Model -- Which Is Totally Inapplicable To USENET.
Let A Thousand Flowers Bloom! [My Improvement On Mao...]
taf needs to get his Terminology straight.
I've explained all this several times before -- taf has forgotten his
lessons and blotted his copybook.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
between:
CROSS POSTING...
And:
SIMUL-POSTING [Simultaneous Posting]
I never Cross Post, I only Simul-Post -- to a small set of relevant
newsgroups and individuals, in my chosen audience, with whom I want to
converse and/or interact -- on various levels.
I have no PRIMARY Group and then "CROSS" Post to other groups.
ALL the groups and individuals have Equal Standing in my Designated
Audience...
So I SIMULTANEOUSLY Post To Them -- my Chosen Few -- the Cognoscenti -- OR
those who serve on USENET solely for my Entertainment and that of Other
Members of the Cognoscenti.
OTHER members of the COGNOSCENTI here, such as Douglas Richardson, often do
the same thing -- for the same reasons.
It's the Smart, Catholic, Non-Parochial & Non-Small-Minded Thing To Do.
Any Intelligent Person Should Understand That -- Understand The Medium of
USENET -- And Act Accordingly.
We are Not Divided Up into a Number of Isolated CLASSROOMS here -- but the
Mediocre Academics Among Us, Including taf, are Most Comfortable With That
Antiquated Academic Model -- Which Is Totally Inapplicable To USENET.
Let A Thousand Flowers Bloom! [My Improvement On Mao...]
taf needs to get his Terminology straight.
I've explained all this several times before -- taf has forgotten his
lessons and blotted his copybook.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
-
Bryn
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
In article <_b6dnaiQu-tpgGHbnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@rcn.net>, Ray O'Hara
<mary.palmucci@rcn.com> writes
In Brit parlance it means an unqualified person lacking the skills to do
the job he claims to be capable of...
--
Bryn
Here's to you Jonathan Briley, not falling but flying.
<mary.palmucci@rcn.com> writes
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:IMUKi.20$6q5.45@eagle.america.net...
How are you folks using the word _COWBOY_?
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
originally cowboy was a term of derision for lowfiles in the old west.
the gang led by ike clanton and wiped out by the earps were called "the
cowboys"
In Brit parlance it means an unqualified person lacking the skills to do
the job he claims to be capable of...
--
Bryn
Here's to you Jonathan Briley, not falling but flying.
-
William Black
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
"Bryn" <bryn@finhall.gremilinsdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:X2XF5CA1LC$GFwbH@finhall.demon.co.uk...
Or a Victorian agricultural labourer with a horse, but only if working
somewhere on the Western side of the Atlantic Ocean.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
news:X2XF5CA1LC$GFwbH@finhall.demon.co.uk...
In article <_b6dnaiQu-tpgGHbnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@rcn.net>, Ray O'Hara
mary.palmucci@rcn.com> writes
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:IMUKi.20$6q5.45@eagle.america.net...
How are you folks using the word _COWBOY_?
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
originally cowboy was a term of derision for lowfiles in the old west.
the gang led by ike clanton and wiped out by the earps were called "the
cowboys"
In Brit parlance it means an unqualified person lacking the skills to do
the job he claims to be capable of...
Or a Victorian agricultural labourer with a horse, but only if working
somewhere on the Western side of the Atlantic Ocean.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
-
Susan Johanson
Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 1300
Charles,
Thanks for the packet of information on Thomas Pridmore. It was
interesting to get all of his children's information especially the
names of Tempe Pridmore Neel's children which I didn't have. I found
Julia Neal Keel in the 1880 census, and her husband was named Arnold Keel.
The only mystery is Susannah Pridmore Roddy who is not mentioned
anywhere. Was she really a child of Thomas and Nancy? Was she disowned
for some reason? Below is a copy of the email that I got several years
ago from her descendant-
I'll keep the ** by her name stating that I am not sure of her parentage.
Thanks again,
Susan
--
---
Susan C. Johanson, Haymarket, VA
http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb. ... b=johanson
http://www.familytreemaker.com/users/j/ ... -Johanson/
...Searching for footprints in the sands of time...
Thanks for the packet of information on Thomas Pridmore. It was
interesting to get all of his children's information especially the
names of Tempe Pridmore Neel's children which I didn't have. I found
Julia Neal Keel in the 1880 census, and her husband was named Arnold Keel.
The only mystery is Susannah Pridmore Roddy who is not mentioned
anywhere. Was she really a child of Thomas and Nancy? Was she disowned
for some reason? Below is a copy of the email that I got several years
ago from her descendant-
Well, yes, I am researching the Pridmore line. However, I really don't
know much about it. All I know is that my ancestor, Susannah "Susan"
PRIDMORE was born 18 October 1818 in SC and died 28 March 1905 near
Pelham, SC. She was married to Nimrod B. RODDY (married - 28 Dec.
1837). Nimrod was apprximately 16 and Susan was approximately 19 when
they married. I have a copy of a journal that was kept by Nimrod that
states that his wife was the daughter of Thomas PRIDMORE and Nancy
UNKNOWN of Union County, SC.
Both Susan and Nimrod are buried at the Ebeneezer Methodist Church,
Batesville (near Pelham) in Greenville Co., SC. Susan and Nimrod had
9 children.
I only found mention of Thomas PRIDMORE once in the 1820 (? - off the
top of my head) in Union County, SC.
So you see, I don't know much. I did receive an email from a Kathy
Burrow one time saying that she was researching the family of Thomas
PRIDMORE "believed to be the son of John PRID[E]MORE of Union Co.,
SC." "He died in Union Co. after 1850 and bought the planation of
John PRID[E]MORE in UnionCo. abt 1822 when his father moved to Pickens
Co., Alabama." I emailed herback but never heard from her again.
Susan and Nimrod's children's names were: Mary Jane, William Pinckney
(my ancestor), John James, Perry Franklin, Elizabeth Ann, Thomas
Tinsley, Andrew Crumpton, David Washington and Joseph Henry. See any
familiar family names?
Of interest, Susan and Nimrod shared a long and apparently loving
marriage. Their tombstones both have pictures of a man and woman's
hand clasping theother with endearing epitaphs that say a lot about
their loving lives. Hissays "Farewell my wife and children all, from
you a father Christ dothcall." Hers says "A tender mother and a
faithful friend."
Nimrod was a farmer and horseman in Greenville/Spartanburg County. He
joined the Confederate Army late in 1864 and went straight to
Petersburg where he arrived just in time to participate in Lee's
Retreat and is listed on the Honor Roll of Parolees at Appamattox. He
was 43 years at the time and three sons also serving. What a horrible
time it must have been for Susan.
I hope this is of some help to you and I hope to hear from you
soon. Andagain, thank you for being so persistent in getting in
touch with me.
Rhita Wood Reynolds
I'll keep the ** by her name stating that I am not sure of her parentage.
Thanks again,
Susan
--
---
Susan C. Johanson, Haymarket, VA
http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb. ... b=johanson
http://www.familytreemaker.com/users/j/ ... -Johanson/
...Searching for footprints in the sands of time...
-
Susan Johanson
Wrong address-
Sorry for the previous message- It was sent to the wrong address-
--
---
Susan C. Johanson, Haymarket, VA
http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb. ... b=johanson
http://www.familytreemaker.com/users/j/ ... -Johanson/
...Searching for footprints in the sands of time...
--
---
Susan C. Johanson, Haymarket, VA
http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb. ... b=johanson
http://www.familytreemaker.com/users/j/ ... -Johanson/
...Searching for footprints in the sands of time...
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
In Brit parlance it means an unqualified person lacking the skills to do
the job he claims to be capable of...
WAY off the mark.
DSH
"Bryn" <bryn@finhall.gremilinsdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:X2XF5CA1LC$GFwbH@finhall.demon.co.uk...
In article <_b6dnaiQu-tpgGHbnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@rcn.net>, Ray O'Hara
mary.palmucci@rcn.com> writes
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:IMUKi.20$6q5.45@eagle.america.net...
How are you folks using the word _COWBOY_?
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
originally cowboy was a term of derision for lowfiles in the old west.
the gang led by ike clanton and wiped out by the earps were called "the
cowboys"
In Brit parlance it means an unqualified person lacking the skills to do
the job he claims to be capable of...
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
COWBOY
Were Brits so using the word prior to GWB's Presidency?
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
In Brit parlance it means an unqualified person lacking the skills to do
the job he claims to be capable of...
Were Brits so using the word prior to GWB's Presidency?
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
John Briggs
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
You're now an expert on British parlance? Is there no subject you leave
untouched?
--
John Briggs
In Brit parlance it means an unqualified person lacking the skills
to do the job he claims to be capable of...
WAY off the mark.
You're now an expert on British parlance? Is there no subject you leave
untouched?
--
John Briggs
-
Ray O'Hara
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:MoVKi.21$6q5.185@eagle.america.net...
bullshit here.
"yankee ingenuity" is the american way it's home is new england
.
..
news:MoVKi.21$6q5.185@eagle.america.net...
Be that as it may...
COWBOYS and the COWBOY persona are an integral part of the American
Culture.
i live in massachsetts next to boston. we don't buy into that cowboy
bullshit here.
"yankee ingenuity" is the american way it's home is new england
.
..
-
Ray O'Hara
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:JEWKi.16073$yN2.276@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
even in america a cowboy is someone who shoots first and thinks later.
news:JEWKi.16073$yN2.276@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
In Brit parlance it means an unqualified person lacking the skills
to do the job he claims to be capable of...
WAY off the mark.
You're now an expert on British parlance? Is there no subject you leave
untouched?
--
John Briggs
even in america a cowboy is someone who shoots first and thinks later.
-
Molesworth
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
In article <1190924998.997091.315920@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Turenne <richard.lichten1@virgin.net> wrote:
'Turenne' was a character in 'The Blockhouse'. Is that where you got
that name from?
EMKTK
--
Molesworth
Turenne <richard.lichten1@virgin.net> wrote:
DSH wrote:
I never Cross Post, I only Simul-Post -- to a small set of relevant
newsgroups and individuals, in my chosen audience, whom I want to see my
posts.
Whatever it is that you're doing - stop it!
Richard Lichten
'Turenne' was a character in 'The Blockhouse'. Is that where you got
that name from?
EMKTK
--
Molesworth
-
Gjest
Re: Nasrids
Dear Ford,
You`ll find several lines through Muhammmad XI Boabdil, the
last Nasirid ruler of Granada on Genealogics.org. Doubtless Leo included the
discussion in his sources.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
You`ll find several lines through Muhammmad XI Boabdil, the
last Nasirid ruler of Granada on Genealogics.org. Doubtless Leo included the
discussion in his sources.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-
Ray O'Hara
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
"Molesworth" <ukmole@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ukmole-04803B.19430627092007@news.gazeta.pl...
Turenne was a great french general of the 17th century.
news:ukmole-04803B.19430627092007@news.gazeta.pl...
In article <1190924998.997091.315920@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Turenne <richard.lichten1@virgin.net> wrote:
DSH wrote:
I never Cross Post, I only Simul-Post -- to a small set of relevant
newsgroups and individuals, in my chosen audience, whom I want to see
my
posts.
Whatever it is that you're doing - stop it!
Richard Lichten
'Turenne' was a character in 'The Blockhouse'. Is that where you got
that name from?
Turenne was a great french general of the 17th century.
-
Ford Mommaerts-Browne
Re: Nasrids
Found it. Thank you James.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Jwc1870@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com>
Cc: <Jwc1870@AOL..com>
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: Nasrids
: Dear Ford,
: You`ll find several lines through Muhammmad XI Boabdil, the
: last Nasirid ruler of Granada on Genealogics.org. Doubtless Leo included the
: discussion in his sources.
: Sincerely,
:
: James W Cummings
:
: Dixmont, Maine USA
:
:
:
: ************************************** 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
----- Original Message -----
From: <Jwc1870@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com>
Cc: <Jwc1870@AOL..com>
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: Nasrids
: Dear Ford,
: You`ll find several lines through Muhammmad XI Boabdil, the
: last Nasirid ruler of Granada on Genealogics.org. Doubtless Leo included the
: discussion in his sources.
: Sincerely,
:
: James W Cummings
:
: Dixmont, Maine USA
:
:
:
: ************************************** 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
-
WJhonson
Re: Edward Sutton, gent., of Rushton Spencer, Staffs. fl. 1
<<In a message dated 09/24/07 10:20:51 Pacific Standard Time, ToddWhitesides writes:
A couple of years ago I saw a reference that claimed that Margaret Stanley,
daughter of Thomas Stanley (1507-1560), 2nd Lord Monteagle, married as her
first husband, William Sutton, esq., of Rushton Spencer. I do not remember where
I saw this claim at my local library. Does anyone know of any support or
refutation for this? >>
-----------------------
Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Archive Service, Staffordshire Record Office: Antrobus papers
The contents of this catalogue are the copyright of Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Archive Service, Staffordshire Record Office
Rights in the Access to Archives database are the property of the Crown, © 2001-2007
To find out more about the archives described below, contact Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Archive Service, Staffordshire Record Office
Antrobus Papers
Catalogue Ref. D(W)1761
Creator(s):
Antrobus family of Congleton, Cheshire
Title
Staffordshire Estates - ref. D(W)1761/A/4
Rushton Spencer Manor
FILE [no title] - ref. D(W)1761/A/4/149 - date: 3 July 1596
[from Scope and Content] Agreement relating to the conveyance of the manor of Rushton Spencer between Sir John Savage, John Savage, Sir Edward Savage and Francis Savage, Edward Stanley, William Rode, Francis Higginbottom and Edmund Sutton, Thomas Wyche, James Stoddarte, Hugh Horderne William Sutton, Matthew Bowthe, Thomas Goodefelowe and Rauffe Tofte: Complex agreement prior to the sale of the manor of Rushton Spencer:
A couple of years ago I saw a reference that claimed that Margaret Stanley,
daughter of Thomas Stanley (1507-1560), 2nd Lord Monteagle, married as her
first husband, William Sutton, esq., of Rushton Spencer. I do not remember where
I saw this claim at my local library. Does anyone know of any support or
refutation for this? >>
-----------------------
Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Archive Service, Staffordshire Record Office: Antrobus papers
The contents of this catalogue are the copyright of Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Archive Service, Staffordshire Record Office
Rights in the Access to Archives database are the property of the Crown, © 2001-2007
To find out more about the archives described below, contact Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Archive Service, Staffordshire Record Office
Antrobus Papers
Catalogue Ref. D(W)1761
Creator(s):
Antrobus family of Congleton, Cheshire
Title
Staffordshire Estates - ref. D(W)1761/A/4
Rushton Spencer Manor
FILE [no title] - ref. D(W)1761/A/4/149 - date: 3 July 1596
[from Scope and Content] Agreement relating to the conveyance of the manor of Rushton Spencer between Sir John Savage, John Savage, Sir Edward Savage and Francis Savage, Edward Stanley, William Rode, Francis Higginbottom and Edmund Sutton, Thomas Wyche, James Stoddarte, Hugh Horderne William Sutton, Matthew Bowthe, Thomas Goodefelowe and Rauffe Tofte: Complex agreement prior to the sale of the manor of Rushton Spencer:
-
Ray O'Hara
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
"Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fdhmuu$7qa$1@reader1.panix.com...
he'll also say things like
"hoist on his own petar"
hilarious
and appeals to victoria
news:fdhmuu$7qa$1@reader1.panix.com...
Silly old sod!
It doesn't even understand the difference between
cross-posting and what it calls "simultaneous
posting".
What it does is cross-post. There are a whole bunch
of newsgroups up at the top of his posts. Anybody
from any of those newsgroups who responds has their
posting appear in all of the newsgroups.
Simultaneous posting is when one posts *separate
messages* to a list of newsgroups. The messages
may in fact be indentical, but each goes to only
one newsgroup. Anybody who responds then responds
only in *that* newsgroup, not all of them.
Now it will waffle and bluster about all sorts of
things including my ancestry, job title, and my
supposed predelictions. But that does not matter.
he'll also say things like
"hoist on his own petar"
hilarious
and appeals to victoria
-
Ken Ozanne
Re: TREFRY
Michael,
Yes please. I fancy these will be my ancestors.
Was it you that wanted something from the 1611 Visitation of
Derbyshire? If so, please refresh my memory as to what. I have only the
first batch as yet, but they are in no kind of alphabetical order so may
include what you wanted.
Best,
Ken
On 27/9/07 21:55, "gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com"
<gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com> wrote:
Yes please. I fancy these will be my ancestors.
Was it you that wanted something from the 1611 Visitation of
Derbyshire? If so, please refresh my memory as to what. I have only the
first batch as yet, but they are in no kind of alphabetical order so may
include what you wanted.
Best,
Ken
On 27/9/07 21:55, "gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com"
<gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com> wrote:
From: mjcar@btinternet.com
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 04:03:41 -0700
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Treffry monuments at Fowey, Cornwall
I am just back from a week in sunny Cornwall, where I visited Fowey
and photographed the early Tudor monuments to the Treffry family in
the south aisle of the church.
If anyone would like copies, I would be happy to forward them.
Regards, Michael
-
Paul J Gans
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
In alt.history.british Bryn <bryn@finhall.gremilinsdemon.co.uk> wrote:
It doesn't even understand the difference between
cross-posting and what it calls "simultaneous
posting".
What it does is cross-post. There are a whole bunch
of newsgroups up at the top of his posts. Anybody
from any of those newsgroups who responds has their
posting appear in all of the newsgroups.
Simultaneous posting is when one posts *separate
messages* to a list of newsgroups. The messages
may in fact be indentical, but each goes to only
one newsgroup. Anybody who responds then responds
only in *that* newsgroup, not all of them.
Now it will waffle and bluster about all sorts of
things including my ancestry, job title, and my
supposed predelictions. But that does not matter.
The point is that it is not even doing what he says
he is doing. Just another in an endless stream of
fictions.
PS: This posting is cross-posted. It originates
in alt.history.british. Anyone seeking to respond
to me alone can thus limit the newsgroups.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
In article <UbRKi.10$6q5.24@eagle.america.net>, D. Spencer Hines
panther@excelsior.com> writes
Rubbish! You are a scurrilous old troll who loves to start a fight
between groups... Then you can feel superior while others fall upon each
other like terriers on a rat.
Hmmm?
taf obviously fails to understand the differences between:
CROSS POSTING...
And:
SIMUL-POSTING [Simultaneous Posting]
I never Cross Post, I only Simul-Post -- to a small set of relevant
newsgroups and individuals, in my chosen audience, whom I want to see my
posts.
Audience? You like the cascade of rotting organic material hurled in
your direction? Dirty old bugger!
I have no PRIMARY Group
None that would own to having you!
and then "CROSS" Post to other groups.
ALL the groups and individuals have Equal Standing in my Designated
Audience...
So I SIMULTANEOUSLY Post To Them.
OTHER members of the COGNOSCENTI here, such as Douglas Richardson, often do
the same thing.
It's the Smart, Catholic, Non-Parochial & Non-Small-Minded Thing To Do.
Let A Thousand Flowers Bloom! [My Improvement On Mao...]
taf needs to get his Terminology straight.
I've explained all this several times before -- taf has forgotten his
lessons and blotted his copybook.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
Silly old sod!
It doesn't even understand the difference between
cross-posting and what it calls "simultaneous
posting".
What it does is cross-post. There are a whole bunch
of newsgroups up at the top of his posts. Anybody
from any of those newsgroups who responds has their
posting appear in all of the newsgroups.
Simultaneous posting is when one posts *separate
messages* to a list of newsgroups. The messages
may in fact be indentical, but each goes to only
one newsgroup. Anybody who responds then responds
only in *that* newsgroup, not all of them.
Now it will waffle and bluster about all sorts of
things including my ancestry, job title, and my
supposed predelictions. But that does not matter.
The point is that it is not even doing what he says
he is doing. Just another in an endless stream of
fictions.
PS: This posting is cross-posted. It originates
in alt.history.british. Anyone seeking to respond
to me alone can thus limit the newsgroups.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
-
Ken Ozanne
Re: 13th-c biblical genealogy scroll online
Nat,
Thank you, that is brilliant. I seem to have downloaded the highest
resolution by viewing at that before downloading the complete document.
Best,
Ken
On 28/9/07 3:50, "gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com"
<gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com> wrote:
Thank you, that is brilliant. I seem to have downloaded the highest
resolution by viewing at that before downloading the complete document.
Best,
Ken
On 28/9/07 3:50, "gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com"
<gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com> wrote:
From: Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:03:53 -0400
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: 13th-c biblical genealogy scroll online
Hi.
For those interested in what genealogies looked like in the middle ages,
I just noticed that one of the rare scroll-format versions of Peter of
Poitiers' _Historical compendium in the [form of the] genealogy of
Christ_ (_Compendium historiae in genealogia Christi_) is online. It is
Houghton Library MS Typ 216.
This is a compiled scroll, first made about 1200, representing Old
Testament (and secular ancient) history, from the Creation to the
Incarnation, laid out as a vertical timeline anchored by the genealogy
from Matthew. They were apparently first made for use as teaching aids
at the University of Paris (where Peter was a master, then chancellor).
There are about a half dozen of these scrolls extant, probably made
within a few years of each other.
Harvard's digitized medieval manuscripts website --
http://hcl.harvard.edu/libraries/hought ... uscripts/i
ndex.html
-- presents five photographs covering the complete scroll at:
http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/3710795
The first image shows the scroll's opening, containing schematic tables
for use in calculating consanguinity and affinity, etc. The last picture
shows the Nativity of Jesus, and the Holy Family (maternal kinship) at
the bottom.
You can download the whole thing as a single five-image pdf. In the
browser viewer you can zoom to get higher-res. images than the pdf
contains, but the higher-res versions only include the first 2400 pixels
(vertically) of the larger image: I don't seem to be able to get the
bottom of the image in high-res.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
WJhonson
Re: Genealogics: Giving some background to Sir Thomas Palmer
<<In a message dated 09/22/07 12:36:20 Pacific Standard Time, ADRIANCHANNING02 writes:
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. >>
-------------------
Thanks Adrian, that sent me off on a three-hour loop through the families of Browne and also Palmes, as Robert Browne the 1st Bart married secondly Elizabeth Doyley who after his 1623 death married secondly Sir Guy Palmes of Ashwell WHICH Sir Guy had a daughter Anne by his first marriage to Anne Stafford (solemnized 11 Jun 1598 at St Margaret, Westminster).
This Anne Palmes being *that same one* who then married that same Thomas Brown, 2nd Bart of Walcott, the step-son of Guy's new wife Elizabeth Doyley.
Another cozy little family! Hey how bought your daughter marrying my step-son and then no matter who dies, I can still live in my beautiful house here? How bout it?
So anyway, in my meanderings I noticed there are two famous Guy Palmes, not one. The earlier one was a Sergeant at Law and his Will is published naming his eldest son and heir as Bryan and also his own brother as another Bryan.
Our Guy Palmes about a hundred years later, also names his son Bryan. So presumably there's a direct line from them... to them. I don't know it yet.
Will
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. >>
-------------------
Thanks Adrian, that sent me off on a three-hour loop through the families of Browne and also Palmes, as Robert Browne the 1st Bart married secondly Elizabeth Doyley who after his 1623 death married secondly Sir Guy Palmes of Ashwell WHICH Sir Guy had a daughter Anne by his first marriage to Anne Stafford (solemnized 11 Jun 1598 at St Margaret, Westminster).
This Anne Palmes being *that same one* who then married that same Thomas Brown, 2nd Bart of Walcott, the step-son of Guy's new wife Elizabeth Doyley.
Another cozy little family! Hey how bought your daughter marrying my step-son and then no matter who dies, I can still live in my beautiful house here? How bout it?
So anyway, in my meanderings I noticed there are two famous Guy Palmes, not one. The earlier one was a Sergeant at Law and his Will is published naming his eldest son and heir as Bryan and also his own brother as another Bryan.
Our Guy Palmes about a hundred years later, also names his son Bryan. So presumably there's a direct line from them... to them. I don't know it yet.
Will
-
WJhonson
Re: Genealogics: Giving some background to Sir Thomas Palmer
Thank again Adrian. Sir James Palmer of Dorney Court just happens to have a DNB entry which I just stumbled upon.
They repeat that he was married twice, first to Martha Gerard dau of William of Dorny, Bucks who can only be that same one who m Elizabeth Rowe, versus his father who'd be too old.
They call her however "heiress of her father" and I don't think that George Gerard called second son here
http://books.google.com/books?id=ASIIAA ... Glemham%22
would take that too kindly. Maybe however she was "eventual heir in her issue" or something like that.
At any rate, his second wife, as you say was Catherine Herbert and they only call her father "William Lord Herbert" without further specification.
They repeat that he was married twice, first to Martha Gerard dau of William of Dorny, Bucks who can only be that same one who m Elizabeth Rowe, versus his father who'd be too old.
They call her however "heiress of her father" and I don't think that George Gerard called second son here
http://books.google.com/books?id=ASIIAA ... Glemham%22
would take that too kindly. Maybe however she was "eventual heir in her issue" or something like that.
At any rate, his second wife, as you say was Catherine Herbert and they only call her father "William Lord Herbert" without further specification.
-
WJhonson
Re: Genealogics: Giving some background to Sir Thomas Palmer
PS. By his first wife, Sir James Palmer of Dorney Court had two children: Vere who m Thomas Jenyns of Haves, Middlesex; and also Philip Palmer, Knt of Dorney Court evidently his father's heir.
By his second wife, Sir James Palmer had Robert Palmer later Earl of Castlemaine.
I've found the baptisms for the first two children in Enfield.
Vere Palmer Feb 1613
Philip Palmer Feb 1614
both at St Andrew, Enfield (For baptism see http://www.familysearch.org - IGI - British Isles - Batch C067862)
Martha Gerard is said in the DNB for James to have died 1617 and buried at Enfield.
So that narrows her possible birthrange considerably.
Will
By his second wife, Sir James Palmer had Robert Palmer later Earl of Castlemaine.
I've found the baptisms for the first two children in Enfield.
Vere Palmer Feb 1613
Philip Palmer Feb 1614
both at St Andrew, Enfield (For baptism see http://www.familysearch.org - IGI - British Isles - Batch C067862)
Martha Gerard is said in the DNB for James to have died 1617 and buried at Enfield.
So that narrows her possible birthrange considerably.
Will
-
edespalais@yahoo.fr
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
On 27 sep, 23:33, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
America.
Be that as it may...
COWBOYS and the COWBOY persona are an integral part of the American Culture.
American Culture perhaps, but there is simply no culture in North
America.
-
WJhonson
Re: A new line of living progeny off Robert, 3rd Lord Semphi
Since John Sorrell was at least 34 if not 40 years older than his very young wife, its very likely he had a prior wife, not yet identified.
This prior wife would then be the mother of Thomas Sorrell the ancestor of the Aubrey's of Westmoreland County, Virginia.
Will Johnson
This prior wife would then be the mother of Thomas Sorrell the ancestor of the Aubrey's of Westmoreland County, Virginia.
Will Johnson
-
Ray O'Hara
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
<edespalais@yahoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1190955404.410669.83510@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
yeah right , eating snails and bathing one a month is so cultured. yup you
frogs are the envy of the world
news:1190955404.410669.83510@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On 27 sep, 23:33, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Be that as it may...
COWBOYS and the COWBOY persona are an integral part of the American
Culture.
American Culture perhaps, but there is simply no culture in North
America.
yeah right , eating snails and bathing one a month is so cultured. yup you
frogs are the envy of the world
-
WJhonson
Re: Sir Thomas Temple's cousins Adolphe Andrews and Katherin
<<In a message dated 09/20/07 07:00:19 Pacific Standard Time, starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
http://books.google.com/books?id=u7AEAA ... h+andrewes >>
-------------------
Fascinating.
This is Dorothy Gilbert, daughter of Richard Gilbert of Suffolk; she had married John Thompson Esq of London but I'd had no idea they were at Husborne Crawley.
Their daughter Dorothy Thompson married Sir Thomas Kempe (1551-1607), Knt of Olantigh and among their co-heiresses was that Amy Kempe who m Sir Henry Skipwith, Bart
http://books.google.com/books?id=u7AEAA ... h+andrewes >>
-------------------
Fascinating.
This is Dorothy Gilbert, daughter of Richard Gilbert of Suffolk; she had married John Thompson Esq of London but I'd had no idea they were at Husborne Crawley.
Their daughter Dorothy Thompson married Sir Thomas Kempe (1551-1607), Knt of Olantigh and among their co-heiresses was that Amy Kempe who m Sir Henry Skipwith, Bart
-
WJhonson
Re: Sir Thomas Temple's cousins Adolphe Andrews and Katherin
We had already known so far that Adolph Andrews married some Miss Thompson. Then from the will of Dorothy (Gilbert) Thompson we discovered that she was her granddaughter.
NOW I present the exact marriage information.
Dorothie Thompson to Edoulphe Andrewes
30 Dec 1617 Husborne Crawley, Bedford
http://www.familysearch.org - IGI - British Isles - Batch M035651
Will Johnson
NOW I present the exact marriage information.
Dorothie Thompson to Edoulphe Andrewes
30 Dec 1617 Husborne Crawley, Bedford
http://www.familysearch.org - IGI - British Isles - Batch M035651
Will Johnson
-
WJhonson
Re: Sir Thomas Temple's cousins Adolphe Andrews and Katherin
<<In a message dated 09/20/07 11:30:23 Pacific Standard Time, starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
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 >>
----------------------
Interesting. But do we know that the first Rev Thomas Temple was living that late (1662/4) ?
Perhaps he'd already died and that's why his possible relative the younger Thomas then showed up? I wonder if there is some list of who held the living at Bourton that could show two different Thomas's ....
Will
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 >>
----------------------
Interesting. But do we know that the first Rev Thomas Temple was living that late (1662/4) ?
Perhaps he'd already died and that's why his possible relative the younger Thomas then showed up? I wonder if there is some list of who held the living at Bourton that could show two different Thomas's ....
Will
-
Bryn
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
In article <kCWKi.26$6q5.202@eagle.america.net>, D. Spencer Hines
<panther@excelsior.com> writes
Yes, its in everyday use and has been for years. Cowboy builders, Cowboy
plumbers and Kitchen Cowboys (Cooks without accreditation), among
others.
--
Bryn
Here's to you Jonathan Briley, not falling but flying.
<panther@excelsior.com> writes
COWBOY
In Brit parlance it means an unqualified person lacking the skills to do
the job he claims to be capable of...
Were Brits so using the word prior to GWB's Presidency?
Yes, its in everyday use and has been for years. Cowboy builders, Cowboy
plumbers and Kitchen Cowboys (Cooks without accreditation), among
others.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
--
Bryn
Here's to you Jonathan Briley, not falling but flying.
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
<G>
No wonder Brits and Americans are separated by a common language. <g>
When did it first appear in print with your definition?
DSH
"Bryn" <bryn@finhall.gremilinsdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:IPoSHFAKVL$GFwKJ@finhall.demon.co.uk...
No wonder Brits and Americans are separated by a common language. <g>
When did it first appear in print with your definition?
DSH
"Bryn" <bryn@finhall.gremilinsdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:IPoSHFAKVL$GFwKJ@finhall.demon.co.uk...
In article <kCWKi.26$6q5.202@eagle.america.net>, D. Spencer Hines
panther@excelsior.com> writes
COWBOY
In Brit parlance it means an unqualified person lacking the skills to do
the job he claims to be capable of...
Were Brits so using the word prior to GWB's Presidency?
Yes, its in everyday use and has been for years. Cowboy builders, Cowboy
plumbers and Kitchen Cowboys (Cooks without accreditation), among
others.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
Absolute Twaddle, Balderdash & Codswallop...
Pogue Gans, who teaches chemistry at NYU, quite obviously is so ignorant he
does not even understand the meaning of the simple English word
SIMULTANEOUS.
This post is SIMULTANEOUSLY posted to my friends and objects of
Entertainment in the newsgroups AHB, ATR, SGM and SHM.
That's Simulposting or Simul-Posting, whichever one prefers.
Gans is locked in to the mole's-eye, parochial, small-minded view of the
CLASSROOM Model of Communication and does not understand the USENET Medium.
He is 74 years old -- and is not able to learn new tricks.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fdhmuu$7qa$1@reader1.panix.com...
Pogue Gans, who teaches chemistry at NYU, quite obviously is so ignorant he
does not even understand the meaning of the simple English word
SIMULTANEOUS.
This post is SIMULTANEOUSLY posted to my friends and objects of
Entertainment in the newsgroups AHB, ATR, SGM and SHM.
That's Simulposting or Simul-Posting, whichever one prefers.
Gans is locked in to the mole's-eye, parochial, small-minded view of the
CLASSROOM Model of Communication and does not understand the USENET Medium.
He is 74 years old -- and is not able to learn new tricks.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fdhmuu$7qa$1@reader1.panix.com...
Simultaneous posting is when one posts *separate
messages* to a list of newsgroups. The messages
may in fact be indentical [sic], but each goes to only
one newsgroup.
-
James Hogg
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:20:35 -1000, "D. Spencer Hines"
<panther@excelsior.com> wrote:
The OED definition, "A person without qualifications who competes
against established traders or operators, providing shoddy goods or
services usu. at low (or inflated) prices; one who is recklessly
unscrupulous in business", has as its first example this quote from
the Times for 9 May 1972: "The unscrupulous 'cowboys' in our business
are a constant menace with their cut price low quality job
quotations."
A negative use of "cowboy" occurs much earlier in an Irish context
referring to the alleged brutality of Protestant officers during the
rising of 1642, "those captains of yours whom you may call rather
cowboys."
David Stevenson, Scottish Covenanters and Irish Confederates:
Scottish-Irish Relations in the Mid-Seventeenth Century (Belfast,
1981), p. 100.
Both dates, 1972 and 1642, preclude any influence by the current
cowboy in the White House. He wasn't the first moron to emerge from
Yale.
James Hogg
<panther@excelsior.com> wrote:
G
No wonder Brits and Americans are separated by a common language. <g
When did it first appear in print with your definition?
The OED definition, "A person without qualifications who competes
against established traders or operators, providing shoddy goods or
services usu. at low (or inflated) prices; one who is recklessly
unscrupulous in business", has as its first example this quote from
the Times for 9 May 1972: "The unscrupulous 'cowboys' in our business
are a constant menace with their cut price low quality job
quotations."
A negative use of "cowboy" occurs much earlier in an Irish context
referring to the alleged brutality of Protestant officers during the
rising of 1642, "those captains of yours whom you may call rather
cowboys."
David Stevenson, Scottish Covenanters and Irish Confederates:
Scottish-Irish Relations in the Mid-Seventeenth Century (Belfast,
1981), p. 100.
Both dates, 1972 and 1642, preclude any influence by the current
cowboy in the White House. He wasn't the first moron to emerge from
Yale.
James Hogg
-
Bryn
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
In article <vO3Li.31$6q5.173@eagle.america.net>, D. Spencer Hines
<panther@excelsior.com> writes
I have no idea.
I referred to everyday usage in conversation but I am sure some sad
bugger has documented it by now...
In the South East counties (Kent, Essex and East and West Sussex) Romany
words are part of everyday use but I doubt they find themselves in print
very often. In American English I have seen the word "cushty" or "cushy"
= good or comfortable used, so perhaps this is more general than would
be expected where English is spoken.
There is nothing unusual for me to address friends and neighbours (of
local origin) as Mush (man) when greeting them after a break in contact,
two or three weeks or more. Though it would be considered rude and
dismissive if I did it on an everyday basis. In conversation about a
third party they could be referred to as "Mushty", "Kiddy" or "Old
kiddy", this regardless of their age.
--
Bryn
Here's to you Jonathan Briley, not falling but flying.
<panther@excelsior.com> writes
G
No wonder Brits and Americans are separated by a common language. <g
When did it first appear in print with your definition?
I have no idea.
I referred to everyday usage in conversation but I am sure some sad
bugger has documented it by now...
In the South East counties (Kent, Essex and East and West Sussex) Romany
words are part of everyday use but I doubt they find themselves in print
very often. In American English I have seen the word "cushty" or "cushy"
= good or comfortable used, so perhaps this is more general than would
be expected where English is spoken.
There is nothing unusual for me to address friends and neighbours (of
local origin) as Mush (man) when greeting them after a break in contact,
two or three weeks or more. Though it would be considered rude and
dismissive if I did it on an everyday basis. In conversation about a
third party they could be referred to as "Mushty", "Kiddy" or "Old
kiddy", this regardless of their age.
DSH
"Bryn" <bryn@finhall.gremilinsdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:IPoSHFAKVL$GFwKJ@finhall.demon.co.uk...
In article <kCWKi.26$6q5.202@eagle.america.net>, D. Spencer Hines
panther@excelsior.com> writes
COWBOY
In Brit parlance it means an unqualified person lacking the skills to do
the job he claims to be capable of...
Were Brits so using the word prior to GWB's Presidency?
Yes, its in everyday use and has been for years. Cowboy builders, Cowboy
plumbers and Kitchen Cowboys (Cooks without accreditation), among
others.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
--
Bryn
Here's to you Jonathan Briley, not falling but flying.
-
Ray O'Hara
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:wO3Li.32$6q5.173@eagle.america.net...
no idiot, you crossposted.
simul posting is as gans said.
multiple posts to multiple groups.not one post to mustiple groups.
WHAT A POGUETTE YOU ARE.
news:wO3Li.32$6q5.173@eagle.america.net...
Absolute Twaddle, Balderdash & Codswallop...
Pogue Gans, who teaches chemistry at NYU, quite obviously is so ignorant
he
does not even understand the meaning of the simple English word
SIMULTANEOUS.
This post is SIMULTANEOUSLY posted to my friends and objects of
Entertainment in the newsgroups AHB, ATR, SGM and SHM.
no idiot, you crossposted.
simul posting is as gans said.
multiple posts to multiple groups.not one post to mustiple groups.
WHAT A POGUETTE YOU ARE.
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
Ray O'Hara wrote:
No. Cross posting is NOT simply posting to different groups.
Yes, the result is the same, as far as that one message goes.
But cross posting is posting of ONE message to multiple groups,
rather than posting identical messages separately to several
groups.
Cross posting results in one reply being sent to all
groups!
Doug McDonald
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:UbRKi.10$6q5.24@eagle.america.net...
taf obviously fails to understand the differences between:
CROSS POSTING...
is posting to multiple groups.
that is what you do
No. Cross posting is NOT simply posting to different groups.
Yes, the result is the same, as far as that one message goes.
But cross posting is posting of ONE message to multiple groups,
rather than posting identical messages separately to several
groups.
Cross posting results in one reply being sent to all
groups!
Doug McDonald
-
Gjest
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
Edes,
The United States has as much and a more diverse Culture than does
France, whose present culture is as derivitive as our own. The true French
culture was in no small degree lost in the fall of the Ancienne Regime. Yes, You
still possess the Palaces, the treasures (and certainly remarkable non-
French treasures).
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
The United States has as much and a more diverse Culture than does
France, whose present culture is as derivitive as our own. The true French
culture was in no small degree lost in the fall of the Ancienne Regime. Yes, You
still possess the Palaces, the treasures (and certainly remarkable non-
French treasures).
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-
Turenne
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
Point of information for D Spencer Hines:
Further to Bryn's comment; here is the Dictionary of Slang site:
http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/c.htm
'Cowboy comes somewhere between 'codswallop' and 'crackpot'.
Richard L
Further to Bryn's comment; here is the Dictionary of Slang site:
http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/c.htm
'Cowboy comes somewhere between 'codswallop' and 'crackpot'.
Richard L
-
Gjest
Re: Genealogics: Giving some background to Sir Thomas Palmer
<<In a message dated 09/22/07 12:36:20 Pacific Standard Time,
ADRIANCHANNING02 writes:
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. >>
-------------------
In a message dated 28/09/2007 04:54:46 GMT Standard Time, wjhonson@aol.com
replies
Browne and also Palmes, as Robert Browne the 1st Bart married secondly
Elizabeth Doyley who after his 1623 death married secondly Sir Guy Palmes of
Ashwell WHICH Sir Guy had a daughter Anne by his first marriage to Anne Stafford
(solemnized 11 Jun 1598 at St Margaret, Westminster).
This Anne Palmes being *that same one* who then married that same Thomas
Brown, 2nd Bart of Walcott, the step-son of Guy's new wife Elizabeth Doyley.
Another cozy little family! Hey how bought your daughter marrying my
step-son and then no matter who dies, I can still live in my beautiful house here?
How bout it?
So anyway, in my meanderings I noticed there are two famous Guy Palmes, not
one. The earlier one was a Sergeant at Law and his Will is published naming
his eldest son and heir as Bryan and also his own brother as another Bryan.
Our Guy Palmes about a hundred years later, also names his son Bryan. So
presumably there's a direct line from them... to them. I don't know it yet.
Will
<<<<<<
Yes, I've had doubts about these two different Guy Palmers. I think there
is further problems with the Walcott Browne, normally given as:
Robert Browne (-1623) 1st Bt of Walcott is followed by his son Thomas Browne
(-1635 spm) 2Bt then followed by Thomas' uncle Robert Browne (-aft 1647)
3Bt, that is two brothers named Thomas Browne, apparently by the same mother.
This to me, although it sometimes happens, is a "Red Flag", others on this
list would accept it without question.
By the way, Robert Browne (-1623) 1st Bt made a Will, when he must have been
a young adult, on 31 May 1588, in advance of his service in Ireland, and I
have previously posted my transcript to gen-medieval. He calls Winifred wife
of William FitzWilliam of Dostrope, (that is son of the Wm FitzWm Ld deputy
of Ireland) both his cousins, but I have not been able to work out a
connection.
I also have transcripts of the Will of 1st Bt's elder brother William (PCC
1604 who had a debt due from Ld Burleigh) and their father Robert Browne (PRO
1573)
Going back to Elizabeth, sister of Sir Henry Palmer and of the Sir Thomas
Palmer who was executed, you may be interested in the following letter, taken
from: "Lisle Letters" as Edited by Muriel St Clare Byrne, University of
Chicago Press 1981. I'm not sure why the editor speculates it is from Ireland,
perhaps because he is not in England or Calais:-
IRELAND [?]
L986 SIR THOMAS PALMER TO LADY LISLE 24 July 1537
Right honurable and my especial good Lady, {fn `my' deleted} in most humble
wise I commend me unto your good ladyship, signifying you that by my brother
Browne I received iij angel nobles that your ladyship sent me, for which I
humble thank you for your ladyship's good remembrance. I ensure you, madam, as
money goeth with me now, every one was worth x. My friends in England hath
deceived me, for when I was at Calais they willed me to make haste hither to
the camp, promising to send me both horse, harness and money by my brother,
Harry Palmer; but he came with ^out^ any of them, and so leaveth he me here to
make the best shift that I can for myself, which grieveth me not a little to
see such unnaturalness, and as much the more for that I am not able to help
myself. Thus I am bold to write your ladyship of my misery, which I trust
once shall have end. it hath dured long. I do send my lord a fair young horse
for his gelding, which I trust his Lordship will like well. Other I have not
to write your Ladyship, but that I do remain your Ladyship's humble servant,
as knoweth God, who have you in his blessed tuition, and send you your noble
heart's desire.
Palmer's finances were certainly at a very low ebb this year, and the day
after he thanked Honor Lisle for her gift of a little over £1, he was writing to
Cromwell that he had `good trust in God and you that you will help me out of
debt by one way or other':...
(Vol (4) L986)
Sir Thomas Palmer's sister, Elizabeth Browne, also has a PCC will (and also
1573)
Adrian
ADRIANCHANNING02 writes:
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. >>
-------------------
In a message dated 28/09/2007 04:54:46 GMT Standard Time, wjhonson@aol.com
replies
:
Thanks Adrian, that sent me off on a three-hour loop through the families of
Browne and also Palmes, as Robert Browne the 1st Bart married secondly
Elizabeth Doyley who after his 1623 death married secondly Sir Guy Palmes of
Ashwell WHICH Sir Guy had a daughter Anne by his first marriage to Anne Stafford
(solemnized 11 Jun 1598 at St Margaret, Westminster).
This Anne Palmes being *that same one* who then married that same Thomas
Brown, 2nd Bart of Walcott, the step-son of Guy's new wife Elizabeth Doyley.
Another cozy little family! Hey how bought your daughter marrying my
step-son and then no matter who dies, I can still live in my beautiful house here?
How bout it?
So anyway, in my meanderings I noticed there are two famous Guy Palmes, not
one. The earlier one was a Sergeant at Law and his Will is published naming
his eldest son and heir as Bryan and also his own brother as another Bryan.
Our Guy Palmes about a hundred years later, also names his son Bryan. So
presumably there's a direct line from them... to them. I don't know it yet.
Will
<<<<<<
Yes, I've had doubts about these two different Guy Palmers. I think there
is further problems with the Walcott Browne, normally given as:
Robert Browne (-1623) 1st Bt of Walcott is followed by his son Thomas Browne
(-1635 spm) 2Bt then followed by Thomas' uncle Robert Browne (-aft 1647)
3Bt, that is two brothers named Thomas Browne, apparently by the same mother.
This to me, although it sometimes happens, is a "Red Flag", others on this
list would accept it without question.
By the way, Robert Browne (-1623) 1st Bt made a Will, when he must have been
a young adult, on 31 May 1588, in advance of his service in Ireland, and I
have previously posted my transcript to gen-medieval. He calls Winifred wife
of William FitzWilliam of Dostrope, (that is son of the Wm FitzWm Ld deputy
of Ireland) both his cousins, but I have not been able to work out a
connection.
I also have transcripts of the Will of 1st Bt's elder brother William (PCC
1604 who had a debt due from Ld Burleigh) and their father Robert Browne (PRO
1573)
Going back to Elizabeth, sister of Sir Henry Palmer and of the Sir Thomas
Palmer who was executed, you may be interested in the following letter, taken
from: "Lisle Letters" as Edited by Muriel St Clare Byrne, University of
Chicago Press 1981. I'm not sure why the editor speculates it is from Ireland,
perhaps because he is not in England or Calais:-
IRELAND [?]
L986 SIR THOMAS PALMER TO LADY LISLE 24 July 1537
Right honurable and my especial good Lady, {fn `my' deleted} in most humble
wise I commend me unto your good ladyship, signifying you that by my brother
Browne I received iij angel nobles that your ladyship sent me, for which I
humble thank you for your ladyship's good remembrance. I ensure you, madam, as
money goeth with me now, every one was worth x. My friends in England hath
deceived me, for when I was at Calais they willed me to make haste hither to
the camp, promising to send me both horse, harness and money by my brother,
Harry Palmer; but he came with ^out^ any of them, and so leaveth he me here to
make the best shift that I can for myself, which grieveth me not a little to
see such unnaturalness, and as much the more for that I am not able to help
myself. Thus I am bold to write your ladyship of my misery, which I trust
once shall have end. it hath dured long. I do send my lord a fair young horse
for his gelding, which I trust his Lordship will like well. Other I have not
to write your Ladyship, but that I do remain your Ladyship's humble servant,
as knoweth God, who have you in his blessed tuition, and send you your noble
heart's desire.
From the Camp before Turwin, the xxiv of July.
Thomas Palmer (XII ii 334; XIII 45)
Palmer's finances were certainly at a very low ebb this year, and the day
after he thanked Honor Lisle for her gift of a little over £1, he was writing to
Cromwell that he had `good trust in God and you that you will help me out of
debt by one way or other':...
(Vol (4) L986)
Sir Thomas Palmer's sister, Elizabeth Browne, also has a PCC will (and also
1573)
Adrian
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: The Dynasty Factor
As I pointed out way back on 8 September...
Do we really want two Royal Dynastic Families -- similar to what Old Europe
suffered from for centuries?
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
--------------------------------------------
Bush, Clinton, Bush ... Clinton?
By NANCY BENAC, Associated Press Writer
Forty percent of Americans have never lived when there wasn't a Bush or a
Clinton in the White House. Anyone got a problem with that?
With Hillary Rodham Clinton hoping to tack another four or eight "Clinton"
years on to the Bush-Clinton-Bush presidential pattern that already has held
sway for two decades, talk of Bush-Clinton fatigue is increasingly cropping
up in the national political debate.
The dominance of the two families in U.S. presidential politics is
unprecedented. (The closest comparisons are the father-son presidencies of
John Adams and John Quincy Adams, whose single terms were separated by eight
years, and the presidencies of fifth cousins Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin
Roosevelt, whose collective 20 years as president were separated by a
quarter-century.)
"We now have a younger generation and middle-age generation who are going to
think about national politics through the Bush-Clinton prism," said
Princeton University political historian Julian Zelizer, 37, whose first
chance to vote for president was 1988, the year the first President Bush was
elected. And as for the question of fatigue, Zelizer added: "It's not just
that we've heard their names a lot, but we've had a lot of problems with
their names."
And now, if Hillary Clinton were to be elected and re-elected, the nation
could go 28 years in a row with the same two families governing the country.
Add the elder Bush's terms as vice president, and that would be 36 years
straight with a Bush or Clinton in the White House.
Already, for 116 million Americans, there has never been a time when there
wasn't a Bush or Clinton in the White House, either as president or vice
president.
Does a nation of 303 million people really have only two families qualified
to run the show?
David Gergen, director of Harvard University's Center for Public Leadership
and an adviser to presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, said there
does seem to be concern about the possibility of giving "the two dynasties"
another four or eight years.
"I think we would be fundamentally healthier if we broadened the zone of
candidates who could make it to the top," he said.
Historically, politics has been open to newcomers who rise up to reflect the
grass-roots sentiment of the country, Gergen said.
That's still possible, he said, "but it's harder than it used to be,
especially because it's so hard to raise money" for expensive national
campaigns.
The Clintons and Bushes, he said, have built up strong "brand" recognition
for their names — just as the Kennedys did in an age of promise cut short by
assassination — making it harder for newcomers to compete.
But sometimes, people just want to try something new.
An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll taken over the summer found that fully
one-quarter of all Americans said that the prospect of having at least 24
straight years of a President Clinton or Bush would be a consideration in
their vote for president in 2008.
Even among Democrats, 17 percent said it would be a consideration. That
compared with a third of all Republicans.
The nation has changed dramatically since the first Bush claimed the Oval
Office in 1988: Then, the Soviet Union was exploring the notion of
perestroika, a public Internet was a promise waiting to be fulfilled,
gasoline cost about $1 a gallon and Hillary Clinton was an associate still
hoping to make partner at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Ark.
Clinton, now a two-term senator at age 59, has been asked about the
long-standing Bush-Clinton grip on the Oval Office at two Democratic
debates, and has a two-part response. She dumps on the Bush part of the
historical equation and praises the Clinton component.
Asked in the CNN/YouTube debate in July whether adding another President
Clinton to the Bush-Clinton-Bush sequence would bring about real change,
Clinton had a ready comeback.
"Well, I think it is a problem that Bush was elected in 2000," she offered.
"I actually thought somebody else was elected in that election."
When the question came up again in this week's debate in New Hampshire, she
told the audience, "I thought Bill was a pretty good president."
She hastened to add that she's running on her own, and "I'm going to the
people on my own."
Gergen said any fatigue factor Clinton faces is "overwhelmed by the positive
nostalgia for Bill Clinton among Democrats."
The thought is seconded by Todd Gitlin, a professor at Columbia University's
School of Journalism who has written a new book about national politics. He
said that while some people are bothered by the dominance of the two
families, "right now there is one massive fatigue in America and that is
with George Bush. No other fatigue comes close."
But even if the issue is not a problem for Clinton, Gitlin said: "Is it a
problem in some large sense that we seem to be alternating dynasties? Yes, I
think democracy should be more expansive."
How long could this dynastic dynamic play itself out?
"Keep an eye on their children," Gergen quips.
And, there's always presidential brother Jeb Bush, the former governor of
Florida. His oldest son, George P. Bush, is considered likely to carry the
family's political tradition into the next generation.
A Bush-Bush ticket for 2012? By George!
------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press writer Stephen Ohlemacher contributed to this report.
One of the issues that has not yet emerged is the Dynasty Factor.
A significant proportion of the Electorate is rather uneasy about the
prospect of having two families -- the Bushs and the Clintons controlling
the Presidency for 28 years -- over a quarter of a century -- 1989-2017.
Stay Tuned...
Do we really want two Royal Dynastic Families -- similar to what Old Europe
suffered from for centuries?
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
--------------------------------------------
Bush, Clinton, Bush ... Clinton?
By NANCY BENAC, Associated Press Writer
Forty percent of Americans have never lived when there wasn't a Bush or a
Clinton in the White House. Anyone got a problem with that?
With Hillary Rodham Clinton hoping to tack another four or eight "Clinton"
years on to the Bush-Clinton-Bush presidential pattern that already has held
sway for two decades, talk of Bush-Clinton fatigue is increasingly cropping
up in the national political debate.
The dominance of the two families in U.S. presidential politics is
unprecedented. (The closest comparisons are the father-son presidencies of
John Adams and John Quincy Adams, whose single terms were separated by eight
years, and the presidencies of fifth cousins Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin
Roosevelt, whose collective 20 years as president were separated by a
quarter-century.)
"We now have a younger generation and middle-age generation who are going to
think about national politics through the Bush-Clinton prism," said
Princeton University political historian Julian Zelizer, 37, whose first
chance to vote for president was 1988, the year the first President Bush was
elected. And as for the question of fatigue, Zelizer added: "It's not just
that we've heard their names a lot, but we've had a lot of problems with
their names."
And now, if Hillary Clinton were to be elected and re-elected, the nation
could go 28 years in a row with the same two families governing the country.
Add the elder Bush's terms as vice president, and that would be 36 years
straight with a Bush or Clinton in the White House.
Already, for 116 million Americans, there has never been a time when there
wasn't a Bush or Clinton in the White House, either as president or vice
president.
Does a nation of 303 million people really have only two families qualified
to run the show?
David Gergen, director of Harvard University's Center for Public Leadership
and an adviser to presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, said there
does seem to be concern about the possibility of giving "the two dynasties"
another four or eight years.
"I think we would be fundamentally healthier if we broadened the zone of
candidates who could make it to the top," he said.
Historically, politics has been open to newcomers who rise up to reflect the
grass-roots sentiment of the country, Gergen said.
That's still possible, he said, "but it's harder than it used to be,
especially because it's so hard to raise money" for expensive national
campaigns.
The Clintons and Bushes, he said, have built up strong "brand" recognition
for their names — just as the Kennedys did in an age of promise cut short by
assassination — making it harder for newcomers to compete.
But sometimes, people just want to try something new.
An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll taken over the summer found that fully
one-quarter of all Americans said that the prospect of having at least 24
straight years of a President Clinton or Bush would be a consideration in
their vote for president in 2008.
Even among Democrats, 17 percent said it would be a consideration. That
compared with a third of all Republicans.
The nation has changed dramatically since the first Bush claimed the Oval
Office in 1988: Then, the Soviet Union was exploring the notion of
perestroika, a public Internet was a promise waiting to be fulfilled,
gasoline cost about $1 a gallon and Hillary Clinton was an associate still
hoping to make partner at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Ark.
Clinton, now a two-term senator at age 59, has been asked about the
long-standing Bush-Clinton grip on the Oval Office at two Democratic
debates, and has a two-part response. She dumps on the Bush part of the
historical equation and praises the Clinton component.
Asked in the CNN/YouTube debate in July whether adding another President
Clinton to the Bush-Clinton-Bush sequence would bring about real change,
Clinton had a ready comeback.
"Well, I think it is a problem that Bush was elected in 2000," she offered.
"I actually thought somebody else was elected in that election."
When the question came up again in this week's debate in New Hampshire, she
told the audience, "I thought Bill was a pretty good president."
She hastened to add that she's running on her own, and "I'm going to the
people on my own."
Gergen said any fatigue factor Clinton faces is "overwhelmed by the positive
nostalgia for Bill Clinton among Democrats."
The thought is seconded by Todd Gitlin, a professor at Columbia University's
School of Journalism who has written a new book about national politics. He
said that while some people are bothered by the dominance of the two
families, "right now there is one massive fatigue in America and that is
with George Bush. No other fatigue comes close."
But even if the issue is not a problem for Clinton, Gitlin said: "Is it a
problem in some large sense that we seem to be alternating dynasties? Yes, I
think democracy should be more expansive."
How long could this dynastic dynamic play itself out?
"Keep an eye on their children," Gergen quips.
And, there's always presidential brother Jeb Bush, the former governor of
Florida. His oldest son, George P. Bush, is considered likely to carry the
family's political tradition into the next generation.
A Bush-Bush ticket for 2012? By George!
------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press writer Stephen Ohlemacher contributed to this report.
-
Turenne
Re: The Dynasty Factor
What on earth has the above to do with alt.history.british,
alt.talk.royalty, soc.genealogy.medieval or soc.history.medieval?
Surely this subject is more relevent to a newsgroup that discusses
American politics.
Richard Lichten
alt.talk.royalty, soc.genealogy.medieval or soc.history.medieval?
Surely this subject is more relevent to a newsgroup that discusses
American politics.
Richard Lichten
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
Pogue Gans obviously doesn't understand the salient differences between
SIMULTANEOUS POSTING and SERIATIM POSTING.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
SIMULTANEOUS POSTING and SERIATIM POSTING.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
-
John Briggs
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Your search - "SERIATIM POSTING" - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
--
John Briggs
Pogue Gans obviously doesn't understand the salient differences
between SIMULTANEOUS POSTING and SERIATIM POSTING.
Your search - "SERIATIM POSTING" - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
--
John Briggs
-
WJhonson
Re: Thomas Reresby "en la guerre" in 1352
No no not *that* work, but THIS work
http://books.google.com/books?id=09IKAA ... 9#PPP43,M1
Seems to give a lot of useful details about the Reresby family.
http://books.google.com/books?id=09IKAA ... 9#PPP43,M1
Seems to give a lot of useful details about the Reresby family.
-
Ray O'Hara
Re: The Dynasty Factor
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:U4bLi.40$6q5.239@eagle.america.net...
well the clintons are finished after hilary until chelsea comes of age
decades from now.
the chimplers party girl daughters are no threat.
i don't think jeb will run but he isn't his brother how he would fare is
an interesting question.
news:U4bLi.40$6q5.239@eagle.america.net...
As I pointed out way back on 8 September...
One of the issues that has not yet emerged is the Dynasty Factor.
A significant proportion of the Electorate is rather uneasy about the
prospect of having two families -- the Bushs and the Clintons
controlling
the Presidency for 28 years -- over a quarter of a century -- 1989-2017.
Stay Tuned...
Do we really want two Royal Dynastic Families -- similar to what Old
Europe
suffered from for centuries?
well the clintons are finished after hilary until chelsea comes of age
decades from now.
the chimplers party girl daughters are no threat.
i don't think jeb will run but he isn't his brother how he would fare is
an interesting question.
-
Ray O'Hara
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
"Turenne" <richard.lichten1@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:1190997508.822927.139740@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
seeing how cowboy is an american invention it's pretty weak of you brits to
create a different meaning from ours.
news:1190997508.822927.139740@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
Point of information for D Spencer Hines:
Further to Bryn's comment; here is the Dictionary of Slang site:
http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/c.htm
'Cowboy comes somewhere between 'codswallop' and 'crackpot'.
Richard L
seeing how cowboy is an american invention it's pretty weak of you brits to
create a different meaning from ours.
-
Turenne
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
Ray O'Hara wrote:
Believe it or not, the word cowboy did not originate in the USA. The
word 'cowboy' was first used in England in the 1620s. There is,
however, a genuinely American equivalent and that is cow-hand, a word
from the 1850s which has no suggestion of derogation about it.
'Boy' was a word often used for a 'servant' and 'cow' from Middle
English cou and from Old English cu.
Richard L
seeing how cowboy is an american invention it's pretty weak of you brits to
create a different meaning from ours.
Believe it or not, the word cowboy did not originate in the USA. The
word 'cowboy' was first used in England in the 1620s. There is,
however, a genuinely American equivalent and that is cow-hand, a word
from the 1850s which has no suggestion of derogation about it.
'Boy' was a word often used for a 'servant' and 'cow' from Middle
English cou and from Old English cu.
Richard L
-
Bryn
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
In article <BJ6dncSiQpo-C2DbnZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@rcn.net>, Ray O'Hara
<mary.palmucci@rcn.com> writes
We had cows, horses and boys long before Columbus pulled his con-
trick...
--
Bryn
Here's to you Jonathan Briley, not falling but flying.
<mary.palmucci@rcn.com> writes
"Turenne" <richard.lichten1@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:1190997508.822927.139740@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
Point of information for D Spencer Hines:
Further to Bryn's comment; here is the Dictionary of Slang site:
http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/c.htm
'Cowboy comes somewhere between 'codswallop' and 'crackpot'.
Richard L
seeing how cowboy is an american invention it's pretty weak of you brits to
create a different meaning from ours.
We had cows, horses and boys long before Columbus pulled his con-
trick...
--
Bryn
Here's to you Jonathan Briley, not falling but flying.
-
Nicolai
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
..........................and 'cow' from Middle
And from the German word "Kuh"

English cou and from Old English cu.
And from the German word "Kuh"
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
"Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fdhmuu$7qa$1@reader1.panix.com...
---------Cordon Sanitaire-------------------------------------
Gans, who teaches chemistry at NYU, quite obviously is so ignorant he does
not even understand the meaning of the simple English word SIMULTANEOUS.
This post is SIMULTANEOUSLY posted to my friends and objects of
Entertainment in the newsgroups AHB, ATR, SGM and SHM.
That's Simulposting or Simul-Posting, whichever one prefers.
When one posts the same message to SEVERAL separate newsgroups in several
SEPARATE posts-- the posts are OBVIOUSLY NOT SIMULTANEOUS POSTS -- they are
SERIATIM POSTS -- and they create infinitely more CLUTTER and CONFUSION.
Gans, like his fellow mediocre academic, Todd Farmerie [taf], is locked into
the mole's-eye, parochial, small-minded, academic view of the
CLASSROOM Model of Communication and does not understand the far more
innovative and complex, modern USENET Medium.
He is 74 years old -- and is not able to learn new tricks. taf is far
younger, but has an equally calcified mind.
"Old dogs..."
And:
Creeping Alzheimer's... 'Nuff Said.
Of course, his continuing to teach none-too-bright students at New York
University is wearing on Gans and degrades his intellectual capacity even
further...He used to complain about his students' idiocies, illogicalities
and sloppy thinking -- but regretfully stopped when I played his own
complaints back to him -- and others told him he was dragging down the
reputation of NYU by telling us how dumb his students are.
So, it's a vicious cycle for Pogue Gans -- a steady spiral downward. BUT,
continuing Great Entertainment for US.
Further, it would be quite ridiculous and stupidly time-wasting to post an
IDENTICAL message to several different newsgroups, individually -- because
then the entire purpose of communicating with people of different walks of
life and bringing new points of view and new blood to bear on the issues
would be defeated since different folks in different newsgroups would not
see the responses of each other -- and FAR more DUPLICATIVE and OVERLAPPING
posts would be generated.
Ergo, MORE WASTED EFFORT, MORE CLUTTER and MORE CONFUSION would be the
RESULT. A Fool's Alternative... Pogue Gans's Alternative.
Pogue Gans, because he is both not very intelligent and also not very
imaginative, has obviously NOT thought this one through...
Par For The Course.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Illegitimis Non Carborundum
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
news:fdhmuu$7qa$1@reader1.panix.com...
Simultaneous posting is when one posts *separate
messages* to a list of newsgroups. The messages
may in fact be indentical [sic], but each goes to only
one newsgroup.
---------Cordon Sanitaire-------------------------------------
Gans, who teaches chemistry at NYU, quite obviously is so ignorant he does
not even understand the meaning of the simple English word SIMULTANEOUS.
This post is SIMULTANEOUSLY posted to my friends and objects of
Entertainment in the newsgroups AHB, ATR, SGM and SHM.
That's Simulposting or Simul-Posting, whichever one prefers.
When one posts the same message to SEVERAL separate newsgroups in several
SEPARATE posts-- the posts are OBVIOUSLY NOT SIMULTANEOUS POSTS -- they are
SERIATIM POSTS -- and they create infinitely more CLUTTER and CONFUSION.
Gans, like his fellow mediocre academic, Todd Farmerie [taf], is locked into
the mole's-eye, parochial, small-minded, academic view of the
CLASSROOM Model of Communication and does not understand the far more
innovative and complex, modern USENET Medium.
He is 74 years old -- and is not able to learn new tricks. taf is far
younger, but has an equally calcified mind.
"Old dogs..."
And:
Creeping Alzheimer's... 'Nuff Said.
Of course, his continuing to teach none-too-bright students at New York
University is wearing on Gans and degrades his intellectual capacity even
further...He used to complain about his students' idiocies, illogicalities
and sloppy thinking -- but regretfully stopped when I played his own
complaints back to him -- and others told him he was dragging down the
reputation of NYU by telling us how dumb his students are.
So, it's a vicious cycle for Pogue Gans -- a steady spiral downward. BUT,
continuing Great Entertainment for US.
Further, it would be quite ridiculous and stupidly time-wasting to post an
IDENTICAL message to several different newsgroups, individually -- because
then the entire purpose of communicating with people of different walks of
life and bringing new points of view and new blood to bear on the issues
would be defeated since different folks in different newsgroups would not
see the responses of each other -- and FAR more DUPLICATIVE and OVERLAPPING
posts would be generated.
Ergo, MORE WASTED EFFORT, MORE CLUTTER and MORE CONFUSION would be the
RESULT. A Fool's Alternative... Pogue Gans's Alternative.
Pogue Gans, because he is both not very intelligent and also not very
imaginative, has obviously NOT thought this one through...
Par For The Course.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Illegitimis Non Carborundum
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
-
Turenne
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
DSH wrote:
Earlier post:
Last post:
Earlier post:
Last post:
I'm not a doctor, but I understand that one of the first signs of
Alzheimer's is *repetition*. Perhaps you should have yourself checked
out before suggesting that others are afflicted with a sad and
debilitating disease.
R. Lichten
Creeping Alzheimer's... 'Nuff Said.
Earlier post:
Pogue Gans, who teaches chemistry at NYU, quite obviously is so ignorant he
does not even understand the meaning of the simple English word
SIMULTANEOUS.
Last post:
Gans, who teaches chemistry at NYU, quite obviously is so ignorant he does
not even understand the meaning of the simple English word SIMULTANEOUS.
Earlier post:
Gans is locked in to the mole's-eye, parochial, small-minded view of the
CLASSROOM Model of Communication and does not understand the USENET Medium.
Last post:
Gans, like his fellow mediocre academic, Todd Farmerie [taf], is locked into
the mole's-eye, parochial, small-minded, academic view of the
CLASSROOM Model of Communication and does not understand the far more
innovative and complex, modern USENET Medium.
I'm not a doctor, but I understand that one of the first signs of
Alzheimer's is *repetition*. Perhaps you should have yourself checked
out before suggesting that others are afflicted with a sad and
debilitating disease.
R. Lichten
-
Ray O'Hara
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
"Turenne" <richard.lichten1@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:1191094859.155479.213470@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
alzheimers make things easier on the victims friends, they only need to
know one joke.
news:1191094859.155479.213470@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
DSH wrote:
I'm not a doctor, but I understand that one of the first signs of
Alzheimer's is *repetition*. Perhaps you should have yourself checked
out before suggesting that others are afflicted with a sad and
debilitating disease.
R. Lichten
alzheimers make things easier on the victims friends, they only need to
know one joke.
-
Jack Linthicum
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
On Sep 29, 4:23 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
I had a close relative who had succumbed to dementia, of which as I
understand Alzheimer's is one form, but you could sit her down with
another who had the same problem (a more distant relative) and they
could talk for hours. Same words.
"Turenne" <richard.licht...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:1191094859.155479.213470@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
DSH wrote:
I'm not a doctor, but I understand that one of the first signs of
Alzheimer's is *repetition*. Perhaps you should have yourself checked
out before suggesting that others are afflicted with a sad and
debilitating disease.
R. Lichten
alzheimers make things easier on the victims friends, they only need to
know one joke.
I had a close relative who had succumbed to dementia, of which as I
understand Alzheimer's is one form, but you could sit her down with
another who had the same problem (a more distant relative) and they
could talk for hours. Same words.
-
Ray O'Hara
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1191098837.102461.36500@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
it's sad. here we are making jokes abou something that really isn't the
least bit funny.
alzheimers is quite a burden on the family.
news:1191098837.102461.36500@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 29, 4:23 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
"Turenne" <richard.licht...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:1191094859.155479.213470@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
DSH wrote:
I'm not a doctor, but I understand that one of the first signs of
Alzheimer's is *repetition*. Perhaps you should have yourself checked
out before suggesting that others are afflicted with a sad and
debilitating disease.
R. Lichten
alzheimers make things easier on the victims friends, they only need to
know one joke.
I had a close relative who had succumbed to dementia, of which as I
understand Alzheimer's is one form, but you could sit her down with
another who had the same problem (a more distant relative) and they
could talk for hours. Same words.
it's sad. here we are making jokes abou something that really isn't the
least bit funny.
alzheimers is quite a burden on the family.
-
Gjest
Re: Sir Ferdinando Gorges of Maine
Dear Leo,
Dictionary of Maine and New Hampshire by Noyes, Libby and
Goodwin pg 274 says He married Ann Bell and had two surviving sons John born
April 23, 1593, and Robert bp November 15, 1595 plus daughters Ellen and Honoria
who died Young. Ann Gorges (nee Bell) died August 26, 1520. He married 2nd
Mary (Fulford) Achim in 1621 died 1 August 1623, 3rd (license December 31 , 1625
Elizabeth ( ) Coffyn, 4th married December 6, 1627 Elizabeth ( Gorges)
(Courtney )Bligh died before March 19, 1629, 5th Elizabeth (Gorges) Smythe.
Son John Gorges Esq b 1593- died 1657 married 1st Lady Frances
Fiennes, daughter of the Earl of Lincoln, married 2nd Mary Meade, mother of
his children , Ferdinando Esq b August 19, 1630 married Mary Archdale , Cecilia
bp Feb 14, 1631 married Abraham Chapman, Jane b 1632 and Ann b 1635- d unm
1655
Captain Robert Gorges born 1595 - died ? Lieutenant General who
rather made a huge mess of governing Maine No known marriage or issue.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Mane USA
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Dictionary of Maine and New Hampshire by Noyes, Libby and
Goodwin pg 274 says He married Ann Bell and had two surviving sons John born
April 23, 1593, and Robert bp November 15, 1595 plus daughters Ellen and Honoria
who died Young. Ann Gorges (nee Bell) died August 26, 1520. He married 2nd
Mary (Fulford) Achim in 1621 died 1 August 1623, 3rd (license December 31 , 1625
Elizabeth ( ) Coffyn, 4th married December 6, 1627 Elizabeth ( Gorges)
(Courtney )Bligh died before March 19, 1629, 5th Elizabeth (Gorges) Smythe.
Son John Gorges Esq b 1593- died 1657 married 1st Lady Frances
Fiennes, daughter of the Earl of Lincoln, married 2nd Mary Meade, mother of
his children , Ferdinando Esq b August 19, 1630 married Mary Archdale , Cecilia
bp Feb 14, 1631 married Abraham Chapman, Jane b 1632 and Ann b 1635- d unm
1655
Captain Robert Gorges born 1595 - died ? Lieutenant General who
rather made a huge mess of governing Maine No known marriage or issue.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Mane USA
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-
Ken Wood
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
On Sep 27, 10:48 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
One is struck by the "Queegian" nature of this post.
One is struck by the "Queegian" nature of this post.
taf obviously fails to understand the differences between:
CROSS POSTING...
And:
SIMUL-POSTING [Simultaneous Posting]
I never Cross Post, I only Simul-Post -- to a small set of relevant
newsgroups and individuals, in my chosen audience, whom I want to see my
posts.
I have no PRIMARY Group and then "CROSS" Post to other groups.
ALL the groups and individuals have Equal Standing in my Designated
Audience...
So I SIMULTANEOUSLY Post To Them.
OTHER members of the COGNOSCENTI here, such as Douglas Richardson, often do
the same thing.
It's the Smart, Catholic, Non-Parochial & Non-Small-Minded Thing To Do.
Let A Thousand Flowers Bloom! [My Improvement On Mao...]
taf needs to get his Terminology straight.
I've explained all this several times before -- taf has forgotten his
lessons and blotted his copybook.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
-
Ken Wood
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
On Sep 27, 3:33 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Queeg, John Wayne was a grade B movie actor. Real cowboys can be found
riding at rodeo competitions. If they get disabled, which is common,
they go on county aid and live in dilapidated trailers and nobody pays
any attention to them. Cowboys aren't found in Hollywood or on movie
sets.
Be that as it may...
COWBOYS and the COWBOY persona are an integral part of the American Culture.
Consider John Wayne in _Red River_, for example (and in many other films) or
the current _3:10 To Yuma_.
The Tradition & The Character Of The Cowboy Are Alive & Well.
Queeg, John Wayne was a grade B movie actor. Real cowboys can be found
riding at rodeo competitions. If they get disabled, which is common,
they go on county aid and live in dilapidated trailers and nobody pays
any attention to them. Cowboys aren't found in Hollywood or on movie
sets.
-
Jack Linthicum
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
On Sep 30, 2:06 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
A key and strawberries are the missing elements
On Sep 27, 10:48 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
One is struck by the "Queegian" nature of this post.
taf obviously fails to understand the differences between:
CROSS POSTING...
And:
SIMUL-POSTING [Simultaneous Posting]
I never Cross Post, I only Simul-Post -- to a small set of relevant
newsgroups and individuals, in my chosen audience, whom I want to see my
posts.
I have no PRIMARY Group and then "CROSS" Post to other groups.
ALL the groups and individuals have Equal Standing in my Designated
Audience...
So I SIMULTANEOUSLY Post To Them.
OTHER members of the COGNOSCENTI here, such as Douglas Richardson, often do
the same thing.
It's the Smart, Catholic, Non-Parochial & Non-Small-Minded Thing To Do.
Let A Thousand Flowers Bloom! [My Improvement On Mao...]
taf needs to get his Terminology straight.
I've explained all this several times before -- taf has forgotten his
lessons and blotted his copybook.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
A key and strawberries are the missing elements
-
Gjest
Re: Baudemont or de Bosco
I'll try this again.
According to Powers Norman Frontier, Osbert de Cailly d. by 1198 married Hildeburge Baudemont or de Bosco by whom he had Alice who married Stephen Longchamps, Petronilla d. by 1202 who married Geoffrey de Bosco and Matilda d. by 1223 who married first, Henry de Vere and secondly, Renauld de Bosco. Hildeburgh may have married secondly, Robert de Pinkeny. Bates and Curry’s England and Normandy in the Middle Ages states that two baronial families of the Norman Vexin, the Gisors and the Baudemonts held lands in Sussex, Hampshire and Suffolk.
Several other sources state that half hundred of Mutford, Suffolk came to Osbert de Cailly through his wife Hildebirgh. In Stubbs and Hassall’s Historical Introduction to the Rolls Series, Chronicle of Roger Hoveden, 216f, it seems that Mutford went with Petronilla to Stephen Longchamps. This book further indicates that Henry de Vere “who had been deprived of his estates through the chancellor’s agency, probably in favor of Stephen Longchamps, who was his brother-in-law..”
By 47 Henry III a latter Osbert de Cailly held interest in “Wyuelesfeud, Wrth [Worth], Yfford, Meschyng, Ouingeden and Wychcenden,” Sussex.
Does anyone have information to suggest Ernauld de Bosco of Leicestershire was related to this family?
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: pajunkin@bellsouth.net
According to Powers Norman Frontier, Osbert de Cailly d. by 1198 married Hildeburge Baudemont or de Bosco by whom he had Alice who married Stephen Longchamps, Petronilla d. by 1202 who married Geoffrey de Bosco and Matilda d. by 1223 who married first, Henry de Vere and secondly, Renauld de Bosco. Hildeburgh may have married secondly, Robert de Pinkeny. Bates and Curry’s England and Normandy in the Middle Ages states that two baronial families of the Norman Vexin, the Gisors and the Baudemonts held lands in Sussex, Hampshire and Suffolk.
Several other sources state that half hundred of Mutford, Suffolk came to Osbert de Cailly through his wife Hildebirgh. In Stubbs and Hassall’s Historical Introduction to the Rolls Series, Chronicle of Roger Hoveden, 216f, it seems that Mutford went with Petronilla to Stephen Longchamps. This book further indicates that Henry de Vere “who had been deprived of his estates through the chancellor’s agency, probably in favor of Stephen Longchamps, who was his brother-in-law..”
By 47 Henry III a latter Osbert de Cailly held interest in “Wyuelesfeud, Wrth [Worth], Yfford, Meschyng, Ouingeden and Wychcenden,” Sussex.
Does anyone have information to suggest Ernauld de Bosco of Leicestershire was related to this family?
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: pajunkin@bellsouth.net
Thank you.
Pat
-
Gjest
Re: Baudemont or de Bosco
I have posted a message twice with content and am receiving nothing but closing. Trying again.
According to Powers Norman Frontier, Osbert de Cailly d. by 1198 married
Hildeburge Baudemont or de Bosco by whom he had Alice who married Stephen
Longchamps, Petronilla d. by 1202 who married Geoffrey de Bosco and Matilda d.
by 1223 who married first, Henry de Vere and secondly, Renauld de Bosco.
Hildeburgh may have married secondly, Robert de Pinkeny. Bates and Curry’s
England and Normandy in the Middle Ages states that two baronial families of the
Norman Vexin, the Gisors and the Baudemonts held lands in Sussex, Hampshire and
Suffolk.
Several other sources state that half hundred of Mutford, Suffolk came to Osbert
de Cailly through his wife Hildebirgh. In Stubbs and Hassall’s Historical
Introduction to the Rolls Series, Chronicle of Roger Hoveden, 216f, it seems
that Mutford went with Petronilla to Stephen Longchamps. This book further
indicates that Henry de Vere “who had been deprived of his estates through the
chancellor’s agency, probably in favor of Stephen Longchamps, who was his
brother-in-law..”
By 47 Henry III a latter Osbert de Cailly held interest in “Wyuelesfeud, Wrth
[Worth], Yfford, Meschyng, Ouingeden and Wychcenden,” Sussex.
Could anyone suggest if Ernauld de Bosco of Leicestershire is related to this
family?
According to Powers Norman Frontier, Osbert de Cailly d. by 1198 married
Hildeburge Baudemont or de Bosco by whom he had Alice who married Stephen
Longchamps, Petronilla d. by 1202 who married Geoffrey de Bosco and Matilda d.
by 1223 who married first, Henry de Vere and secondly, Renauld de Bosco.
Hildeburgh may have married secondly, Robert de Pinkeny. Bates and Curry’s
England and Normandy in the Middle Ages states that two baronial families of the
Norman Vexin, the Gisors and the Baudemonts held lands in Sussex, Hampshire and
Suffolk.
Several other sources state that half hundred of Mutford, Suffolk came to Osbert
de Cailly through his wife Hildebirgh. In Stubbs and Hassall’s Historical
Introduction to the Rolls Series, Chronicle of Roger Hoveden, 216f, it seems
that Mutford went with Petronilla to Stephen Longchamps. This book further
indicates that Henry de Vere “who had been deprived of his estates through the
chancellor’s agency, probably in favor of Stephen Longchamps, who was his
brother-in-law..”
By 47 Henry III a latter Osbert de Cailly held interest in “Wyuelesfeud, Wrth
[Worth], Yfford, Meschyng, Ouingeden and Wychcenden,” Sussex.
Could anyone suggest if Ernauld de Bosco of Leicestershire is related to this
family?
-
Ray O'Hara
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
"Ken Wood" <ken_wood56@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191176174.626459.264260@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
tell that to Ben Johnson. academy award winner and champion rodeo steer
roping.
a member of " the Hall of Great Western Performers of the National Cowboy
and Western Heritage Museum , and with a star on the walk of fame on
hollywood boulevard.
you might remmber him as trooper/sgt tyree in the fort apache trilogy of
john ford and john wayne.
news:1191176174.626459.264260@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 27, 3:33 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Be that as it may...
COWBOYS and the COWBOY persona are an integral part of the American
Culture.
Consider John Wayne in _Red River_, for example (and in many other
films) or
the current _3:10 To Yuma_.
The Tradition & The Character Of The Cowboy Are Alive & Well.
Queeg, John Wayne was a grade B movie actor. Real cowboys can be found
riding at rodeo competitions. If they get disabled, which is common,
they go on county aid and live in dilapidated trailers and nobody pays
any attention to them. Cowboys aren't found in Hollywood or on movie
sets.
tell that to Ben Johnson. academy award winner and champion rodeo steer
roping.
a member of " the Hall of Great Western Performers of the National Cowboy
and Western Heritage Museum , and with a star on the walk of fame on
hollywood boulevard.
you might remmber him as trooper/sgt tyree in the fort apache trilogy of
john ford and john wayne.
-
Ray O'Hara
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1191176464.781598.130370@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
one of the greastes misunderstood scenes in cinema history.
the whole point of the story was that queeg wasn't crazy.
news:1191176464.781598.130370@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 30, 2:06 pm, Ken Wood <ken_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 10:48 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
One is struck by the "Queegian" nature of this post.
A key and strawberries are the missing elements
one of the greastes misunderstood scenes in cinema history.
the whole point of the story was that queeg wasn't crazy.
-
WJhonson
Re: Richard Lancaster
<<In a message dated 10/01/07 09:43:54 Pacific Standard Time, designeconomic@yahoo.com writes:
British History on Line Feet of Fines offers the
following advise: >>
---------------------
Could you provide us a full URL directly to this particular item?
Thanks
Will
British History on Line Feet of Fines offers the
following advise: >>
---------------------
Could you provide us a full URL directly to this particular item?
Thanks
Will
-
Yeah Right
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
On , , Fri, 28 Sep 2007 01:28:03 -0400, Re: Cross Posting &
Simul-Posting, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote:
That and capitulating to the Germans at the first possible
occasion are also the envy of nobody.
>
Simul-Posting, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote:
edespalais@yahoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1190955404.410669.83510@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On 27 sep, 23:33, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Be that as it may...
COWBOYS and the COWBOY persona are an integral part of the American
Culture.
American Culture perhaps, but there is simply no culture in North
America.
yeah right , eating snails and bathing one a month is so cultured. yup you
frogs are the envy of the world
That and capitulating to the Germans at the first possible
occasion are also the envy of nobody.
>
-
Turenne
Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting
On 1 Oct, 21:26, Yeah Right <freewhye...@freewhatever.freehowever>
wrote:
edespalais isn't a Frog.
RL
wrote:
On , , Fri, 28 Sep 2007 01:28:03 -0400, Re: Cross Posting &
Simul-Posting, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
edespal...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1190955404.410669.83510@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On 27 sep, 23:33, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Be that as it may...
COWBOYS and the COWBOY persona are an integral part of the American
Culture.
American Culture perhaps, but there is simply no culture in North
America.
yeah right , eating snails and bathing one a month is so cultured. yup you
frogs are the envy of the world
That and capitulating to the Germans at the first possible
occasion are also the envy of nobody.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
edespalais isn't a Frog.
RL
-
WJhonson
Re: Sir Thomas Leigh, Lord Mayor of London and his ancestory
A little caveat on that DNB entry, as they make a few shockingly bizarre genealogical connections which I can only attribute to the writer or editor being sloppy.
Will
Will
-
John Higgins
Re: Sir Thomas Leigh, Lord Mayor of London and his ancestory
I should have added that the earlier male-line ancestry of this family of
Leighs can be seen in Ormerod's Cheshire (Helsby ed.) and in Earwaker's East
Cheshire.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas Leigh, Lord Mayor of London and his ancestory
Leighs can be seen in Ormerod's Cheshire (Helsby ed.) and in Earwaker's East
Cheshire.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas Leigh, Lord Mayor of London and his ancestory
Alice Barker, the wife of Sir Thomas Leigh, Lord Mayor of London, was the
daughter of John Barker alias Coverall by his wife Elizabeth Hill who was
the sister of Sir Rowland Hill. See, inter alia, the Visitations of
Shropshire (HSP 28).
Will is correct that the DNB entry does mis-state some of the genealogy
involved, especially of the descendants of Sir Thomas Leigh, but it
doesn't
necessarily invalidate the the descents of famous people indicated to be
from Sir Thomas. The Sir Thomas Leigh who was created Baron Leigh of
Stoneleigh in 1643 was not the second son of Sir Thomas the Mayor, but
rather the grandson of that son and thus great-grandson of the Mayor.
Also,
Sir Thomas the Mayor's daughter Winifred did not marry William Hale but
instead Sir George Bond, another Lord Mayor of London; it was their
daughter
Rose who married William Hale. But I believe that the descents mentioned
in
the DNB article for Winifred Leigh can still be traced to her.
All of this is well laid out in the BP article on the current Baron Leigh
of
Stoneliegh [creation of 1839], which also gives some male-line ancestry
for
Sir Thomas Leigh the Lord Mayor.
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas Leigh, Lord Mayor of London and his ancestory
In a message dated 09/30/07 16:25:28 Pacific Standard Time,
dalescott@sigecom.net writes:
Stirnet.com and genealogics.org list the father of Sir Thomas Leigh as
Roger
Leigh, and the father of Roger as Richard, and the parents of Richard as
John Leigh and Alice Alcock. As their source they both site, "The
Lineage
and Ancestry of H.R.H. Prince Charles, Prince of Wales" Edinburgh, 1977,
Paget, Gerald.
================
IMHO a much better source with which to *BEGIN* your quest would be his
DNB entry
here
http://books.google.com/books?id=KiYJAA ... q=leigh+of
+wellington&source=web&ots=YcURSAi3ek&sig=c6CB9jtDqrzSBzC7apEBjT2yOuE#PPA437
,M1
It is quite likely that all other accounts are dependent on the sources
there cited.
BTW, his wife Alice Barker is there described as "niece" of Alderman Sir
Rowland Hill.
Can anyone explain the exact way in which she was niece? I.E. was
Rowland
her father's brother-in-law? Or was he her mother's brother ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
WJhonson
Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards
<<In a message dated 09/29/07 18:35:44 Pacific Standard Time, leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
-----David Williamson in his "Kings and Queens of Britain (page 67) maintains King John suffered from fever, then gluttonously indulged in too many peaches and copious draughts of new cider greatly increasing his feverishness. Next day he was suffering from dysentery and a few days later he died. >>
-------------------
It's a tad silly for a modern author to maintain an idea that peaches and cider will kill you, fever or no. He probably ate peaches and cider not because he was a glutton but because he was sick and trying to cure himself by eating "more healthily".
Will
-----David Williamson in his "Kings and Queens of Britain (page 67) maintains King John suffered from fever, then gluttonously indulged in too many peaches and copious draughts of new cider greatly increasing his feverishness. Next day he was suffering from dysentery and a few days later he died. >>
-------------------
It's a tad silly for a modern author to maintain an idea that peaches and cider will kill you, fever or no. He probably ate peaches and cider not because he was a glutton but because he was sick and trying to cure himself by eating "more healthily".
Will
-
WJhonson
Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards
<<In a message dated 09/29/07 18:35:44 Pacific Standard Time, leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
Here we have it stated as fact. But has it ever been established to be fact? About 1305/1310 Edward II fathered an illegitimate son. Edward II had as his legitimate children Edward III born in 1312, John in 1316, Eleanor in 1318 and Joan in 1321.
Piers de Gaveston was beheaded 19 June 1312, and Edward III was born 13 November 1312, thus Isabella was well and truly pregnant when Piers died. >>
----------------------------------
Isabella was impregnated during a time when Gaveston had been banished.
The illegitimate son may also have been during the earlier time when Gaveston was banished (can't tell without a more specific birthdate).
Will
Here we have it stated as fact. But has it ever been established to be fact? About 1305/1310 Edward II fathered an illegitimate son. Edward II had as his legitimate children Edward III born in 1312, John in 1316, Eleanor in 1318 and Joan in 1321.
Piers de Gaveston was beheaded 19 June 1312, and Edward III was born 13 November 1312, thus Isabella was well and truly pregnant when Piers died. >>
----------------------------------
Isabella was impregnated during a time when Gaveston had been banished.
The illegitimate son may also have been during the earlier time when Gaveston was banished (can't tell without a more specific birthdate).
Will
-
WJhonson
Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards
<<In a message dated 09/29/07 18:35:44 Pacific Standard Time, leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
Page 222. Henry VII had a bastard son, Roland de Velville who became Constable of Beaumaris Castle.
...........Does anyone know more about this one? >>
----------------------
That was a day you were away
Check here
Posting by Douglas Richardson to Gen-Med 3 Sep 2007
Searching through various sources which concern the family of Owen Tudor and his wife, Katherine of France, widow of King Henry V, I've encountered various irregularites in the way historians and genealogists have handled this important family.
For instance, Sir Roland Veleville is often assigned as an illegitimate son of King Henry VII of England. .....
Page 222. Henry VII had a bastard son, Roland de Velville who became Constable of Beaumaris Castle.
...........Does anyone know more about this one? >>
----------------------
That was a day you were away
Check here
Posting by Douglas Richardson to Gen-Med 3 Sep 2007
Searching through various sources which concern the family of Owen Tudor and his wife, Katherine of France, widow of King Henry V, I've encountered various irregularites in the way historians and genealogists have handled this important family.
For instance, Sir Roland Veleville is often assigned as an illegitimate son of King Henry VII of England. .....
-
John Brandon
Re: Mr. Jonathan Tuckney & Mrs. Martha Wilford
Erm, no, what was I saying -- Martha Wilford would have been the
niece, not dau. of Mary (Wilford) (Hill) Tuckney, and no relation of
Jonathan Tuckney (who was, however, Mary's stepson).
niece, not dau. of Mary (Wilford) (Hill) Tuckney, and no relation of
Jonathan Tuckney (who was, however, Mary's stepson).
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards
You are not serious? Eating too many peaches and drinking copiously "new"
cider is to be regarded as healthy?
I think there were more things involved, fever and then dysentery, he was
close to 50 (not young in those days). My main objection was that on page
130 it is stated as fact that King John was poisoned, and page 44 "probably"
poisoned. This author couldn't make up his mind. I would have said nothing
if he had said on both pages "probably". In history so many rumours were
created and sometimes rumours became facts. I think we should try to stick
to the facts and when someone sells a book on history it should contain
facts not rumours, especially if the author want to be taken seriously.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards
cider is to be regarded as healthy?
I think there were more things involved, fever and then dysentery, he was
close to 50 (not young in those days). My main objection was that on page
130 it is stated as fact that King John was poisoned, and page 44 "probably"
poisoned. This author couldn't make up his mind. I would have said nothing
if he had said on both pages "probably". In history so many rumours were
created and sometimes rumours became facts. I think we should try to stick
to the facts and when someone sells a book on history it should contain
facts not rumours, especially if the author want to be taken seriously.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards
In a message dated 09/29/07 18:35:44 Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
-----David Williamson in his "Kings and Queens of Britain (page 67)
maintains King John suffered from fever, then gluttonously indulged in too
many peaches and copious draughts of new cider greatly increasing his
feverishness. Next day he was suffering from dysentery and a few days
later he died.
-------------------
It's a tad silly for a modern author to maintain an idea that peaches and
cider will kill you, fever or no. He probably ate peaches and cider not
because he was a glutton but because he was sick and trying to cure
himself by eating "more healthily".
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
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards
I am glad to see that Douglas Richardson as much as myself regards this as
yet another false rumour.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards
yet another false rumour.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards
In a message dated 09/29/07 18:35:44 Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
Page 222. Henry VII had a bastard son, Roland de Velville who became
Constable of Beaumaris Castle.
..........Does anyone know more about this one?
----------------------
That was a day you were away
Check here
Posting by Douglas Richardson to Gen-Med 3 Sep 2007
Searching through various sources which concern the family of Owen Tudor
and his wife, Katherine of France, widow of King Henry V, I've encountered
various irregularites in the way historians and genealogists have handled
this important family.
For instance, Sir Roland Veleville is often assigned as an illegitimate
son of King Henry VII of England. .....
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards
Dear Will,
I am sure on Gen-Med we have gone into this subject before and no-one could
supply historical records stating Edward II was homosexual, and then to
write, almost hysterically, "Her new husband was openly and crazily in love
with his gay partner". Also should we introduce words like "gay" in an
historical situation when only recently the word has been given another
meaning? I would not be surprised if Edward II (and Richard I) were
homosexual, but without proof should we jump to conclusions? That book is
supposed to have facts and therefor (IMHO) should not peddle fiction.
It can imply but should not state this as facts. Hope you agree.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards
I am sure on Gen-Med we have gone into this subject before and no-one could
supply historical records stating Edward II was homosexual, and then to
write, almost hysterically, "Her new husband was openly and crazily in love
with his gay partner". Also should we introduce words like "gay" in an
historical situation when only recently the word has been given another
meaning? I would not be surprised if Edward II (and Richard I) were
homosexual, but without proof should we jump to conclusions? That book is
supposed to have facts and therefor (IMHO) should not peddle fiction.
It can imply but should not state this as facts. Hope you agree.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards
In a message dated 09/29/07 18:35:44 Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
Here we have it stated as fact. But has it ever been established to be
fact? About 1305/1310 Edward II fathered an illegitimate son. Edward II
had as his legitimate children Edward III born in 1312, John in 1316,
Eleanor in 1318 and Joan in 1321.
Piers de Gaveston was beheaded 19 June 1312, and Edward III was born 13
November 1312, thus Isabella was well and truly pregnant when Piers died.
----------------------------------
Isabella was impregnated during a time when Gaveston had been banished.
The illegitimate son may also have been during the earlier time when
Gaveston was banished (can't tell without a more specific birthdate).
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
-
Gjest
Re: Did Roger , 3rd (or 4th) son of Alexander Comyn, 2nd Ear
Dear John,
I recall Roger being granted East Farndon, but I don`t
recall it saying which son He was. if He were the second son, wouldn`t He rather
than Alexander have been likely to have been made Sheriff ?
Whichever of the Roger Comyns petitioned King Edward II of England for
recompense for damages after 16 March 1322 SC 8/4/188 states He had lost
his lands in Stirling, Scotland . Boroughbridge, North Riding and Wetherby,
West Riding, Yorkshire are also mentioned in the petition. He states He had
been living in England for 10 years (since 1312) at his own expense and had been
in the King`s service with little recompense. We know it is likely that
Roger, son of Alexander, Earl of Buchan was probably born in 1261 or earlier
dependent on the age at which He is known to have been a knight. He was one by 1282
when He rode in his father`s place againest Wales for King Edward I of
England. Thus He would be at least 40 in 1302 and if Richardson is correct and he
were alive in 1324 (see under Beaumont) MCA, He lived past 60 years of age.
Another possibility is that Roger of 1322 was a son of that Roger whose arms
depicted in part 3 of Saint George`s roll display 3 silver red banded sheaves
on a blue shield strewn with gold stars The Earl of Buchan`s shield was 3 gold
blue banded sheaves on a plain red shield.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine
USA
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
I recall Roger being granted East Farndon, but I don`t
recall it saying which son He was. if He were the second son, wouldn`t He rather
than Alexander have been likely to have been made Sheriff ?
Whichever of the Roger Comyns petitioned King Edward II of England for
recompense for damages after 16 March 1322 SC 8/4/188 states He had lost
his lands in Stirling, Scotland . Boroughbridge, North Riding and Wetherby,
West Riding, Yorkshire are also mentioned in the petition. He states He had
been living in England for 10 years (since 1312) at his own expense and had been
in the King`s service with little recompense. We know it is likely that
Roger, son of Alexander, Earl of Buchan was probably born in 1261 or earlier
dependent on the age at which He is known to have been a knight. He was one by 1282
when He rode in his father`s place againest Wales for King Edward I of
England. Thus He would be at least 40 in 1302 and if Richardson is correct and he
were alive in 1324 (see under Beaumont) MCA, He lived past 60 years of age.
Another possibility is that Roger of 1322 was a son of that Roger whose arms
depicted in part 3 of Saint George`s roll display 3 silver red banded sheaves
on a blue shield strewn with gold stars The Earl of Buchan`s shield was 3 gold
blue banded sheaves on a plain red shield.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine
USA
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-
WJhonson
Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards
There is a bias in historical writing to assume everyone was heterosexual unless you can prove they weren't. But proof works both ways.
Plenty of women and men, then and now, had children and yet were fundamentally, or at least in later adult life, effectively or overtly homosexual.
There were prohibitions against it, but people still did it. There have been prohibitions, more or less strict for thousands of years. That hasn't stopped people from doing it. I'm willing to look at each case with an open mind, but we must also acknowledge that homosexual feelings are not a modern invention. The dearth of historical figures classed as overtly homosexual, only makes one suspicious that prudery has played more a part in their biographies than has fact.
In a society were being homosexual might get you whipped, imprisoned or exiled, certainly it was kept close-to-the-chest, but I'm not one of those who feels that we must keep perpetuating that farce just for the sake of previous historians.
I'm content with saying Richard "lion heart" may have been fundamentally homosexual, as may have Edward II or Henry III of France, the case for Richard and Edward seems compelling. That's about as far as we can go.
Will
Plenty of women and men, then and now, had children and yet were fundamentally, or at least in later adult life, effectively or overtly homosexual.
There were prohibitions against it, but people still did it. There have been prohibitions, more or less strict for thousands of years. That hasn't stopped people from doing it. I'm willing to look at each case with an open mind, but we must also acknowledge that homosexual feelings are not a modern invention. The dearth of historical figures classed as overtly homosexual, only makes one suspicious that prudery has played more a part in their biographies than has fact.
In a society were being homosexual might get you whipped, imprisoned or exiled, certainly it was kept close-to-the-chest, but I'm not one of those who feels that we must keep perpetuating that farce just for the sake of previous historians.
I'm content with saying Richard "lion heart" may have been fundamentally homosexual, as may have Edward II or Henry III of France, the case for Richard and Edward seems compelling. That's about as far as we can go.
Will
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards
There is no convincing evidence that has come to light that Richard I was
homosexual -- although the Gay Lobby would love to have him as a forebear.
The Case of Edward II is quite different.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
homosexual -- although the Gay Lobby would love to have him as a forebear.
The Case of Edward II is quite different.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards
There is no convincing evidence that has come to light that Richard I was
homosexual -- although the Gay Lobby would love to have him as a forebear.
The Case of Edward II is quite different.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
homosexual -- although the Gay Lobby would love to have him as a forebear.
The Case of Edward II is quite different.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards
There is no convincing evidence that has come to light that Richard I was
homosexual -- although the Gay Lobby would love to have him as a forebear.
The Case of Edward II is quite different.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
homosexual -- although the Gay Lobby would love to have him as a forebear.
The Case of Edward II is quite different.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards
There is no convincing evidence that has come to light that Richard I was
homosexual -- although the Gay Lobby would love to have him as a forebear.
The Case of Edward II is quite different.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
homosexual -- although the Gay Lobby would love to have him as a forebear.
The Case of Edward II is quite different.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards
acceptable documentation and reason to make mention at all. Without, such
subjects should avoided . In the case of Edward II, Richard II and William
Rufus of course it should/could be mentioned the likelyhood, but the
descriptions should not be stating them as facts, let alone in imaginary
overdrive "openly and crazily in love with his gay partner", surely belongs
in that category
But proof works both ways.
fall in love with someone of their own sex---and then you have bisexuals.
platform? If only David Hilliam had applied prudery, I find "openly and
crazily in love with his gay partner" offensive in more than one way. It
reeks of a cheap romantic novel and in a supposedly "serious" genealogical/
historical compilation there should not be recorded as such.
openly and crazily in love with his gay partner.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards
There is a bias in historical writing to assume everyone was heterosexual
unless you can prove they weren't.
----------- I think it should be avoided placing tags unless there is
acceptable documentation and reason to make mention at all. Without, such
subjects should avoided . In the case of Edward II, Richard II and William
Rufus of course it should/could be mentioned the likelyhood, but the
descriptions should not be stating them as facts, let alone in imaginary
overdrive "openly and crazily in love with his gay partner", surely belongs
in that category
But proof works both ways.
Plenty of women and men, then and now, had children and yet were
fundamentally, or at least in later adult life, effectively or overtly
homosexual.
==== I have heard someone describing that people are only homosexual if they
fall in love with someone of their own sex---and then you have bisexuals.
There were prohibitions against it, but people still did it. There have
been prohibitions, more or less strict for thousands of years. That
hasn't stopped people from doing it. I'm willing to look at each case
with an open mind, but we must also acknowledge that homosexual feelings
are not a modern invention. The dearth of historical figures classed as
overtly homosexual, only makes one suspicious that prudery has played more
a part in their biographies than has fact.
===== I think it depends on the intentions of the writer, what is his/her
platform? If only David Hilliam had applied prudery, I find "openly and
crazily in love with his gay partner" offensive in more than one way. It
reeks of a cheap romantic novel and in a supposedly "serious" genealogical/
historical compilation there should not be recorded as such.
In a society were being homosexual might get you whipped, imprisoned or
exiled, certainly it was kept close-to-the-chest, but I'm not one of those
who feels that we must keep perpetuating that farce just for the sake of
previous historians.
====== I totally agree. But we should stick to facts, not accept fiction.
I'm content with saying Richard "lion heart" may have been fundamentally
homosexual, as may have Edward II or Henry III of France, the case for
Richard and Edward seems compelling. That's about as far as we can go.
===== Again I agree. And so there should be no room for descriptions like
openly and crazily in love with his gay partner.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
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
-
Gjest
Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards
On Oct 1, 7:16 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
A few years ago, I read the book in question. I felt then - in spite
of my being completely naive as to the legitimacy of the assertions -
that it was only intended to be sensationalistic tidbits for people
with no real interest in medieval royalty.
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhon...@aol.com
To: <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards
There is a bias in historical writing to assume everyone was heterosexual
unless you can prove they weren't.
----------- I think it should be avoided placing tags unless there is
acceptable documentation and reason to make mention at all. Without, such
subjects should avoided . In the case of Edward II, Richard II and William
Rufus of course it should/could be mentioned the likelyhood, but the
descriptions should not be stating them as facts, let alone in imaginary
overdrive "openly and crazily in love with his gay partner", surely belongs
in that category
But proof works both ways.
Plenty of women and men, then and now, had children and yet were
fundamentally, or at least in later adult life, effectively or overtly
homosexual.
==== I have heard someone describing that people are only homosexual if they
fall in love with someone of their own sex---and then you have bisexuals.
There were prohibitions against it, but people still did it. There have
been prohibitions, more or less strict for thousands of years. That
hasn't stopped people from doing it. I'm willing to look at each case
with an open mind, but we must also acknowledge that homosexual feelings
are not a modern invention. The dearth of historical figures classed as
overtly homosexual, only makes one suspicious that prudery has played more
a part in their biographies than has fact.
===== I think it depends on the intentions of the writer, what is his/her
platform? If only David Hilliam had applied prudery, I find "openly and
crazily in love with his gay partner" offensive in more than one way. It
reeks of a cheap romantic novel and in a supposedly "serious" genealogical/
historical compilation there should not be recorded as such.
In a society were being homosexual might get you whipped, imprisoned or
exiled, certainly it was kept close-to-the-chest, but I'm not one of those
who feels that we must keep perpetuating that farce just for the sake of
previous historians.
====== I totally agree. But we should stick to facts, not accept fiction.
I'm content with saying Richard "lion heart" may have been fundamentally
homosexual, as may have Edward II or Henry III of France, the case for
Richard and Edward seems compelling. That's about as far as we can go.
===== Again I agree. And so there should be no room for descriptions like
openly and crazily in love with his gay partner.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Will
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
A few years ago, I read the book in question. I felt then - in spite
of my being completely naive as to the legitimacy of the assertions -
that it was only intended to be sensationalistic tidbits for people
with no real interest in medieval royalty.
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards
Bronwen at the end of this, hits the nail on the head. I find it sad that
this book has the pretentions of being a serious book, and so easily it
could have been.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <lostcooper@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards
this book has the pretentions of being a serious book, and so easily it
could have been.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <lostcooper@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards
On Oct 1, 7:16 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhon...@aol.com
To: <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards
There is a bias in historical writing to assume everyone was
heterosexual
unless you can prove they weren't.
----------- I think it should be avoided placing tags unless there is
acceptable documentation and reason to make mention at all. Without, such
subjects should avoided . In the case of Edward II, Richard II and
William
Rufus of course it should/could be mentioned the likelyhood, but the
descriptions should not be stating them as facts, let alone in imaginary
overdrive "openly and crazily in love with his gay partner", surely
belongs
in that category
But proof works both ways.
Plenty of women and men, then and now, had children and yet were
fundamentally, or at least in later adult life, effectively or overtly
homosexual.
==== I have heard someone describing that people are only homosexual if
they
fall in love with someone of their own sex---and then you have bisexuals.
There were prohibitions against it, but people still did it. There
have
been prohibitions, more or less strict for thousands of years. That
hasn't stopped people from doing it. I'm willing to look at each case
with an open mind, but we must also acknowledge that homosexual
feelings
are not a modern invention. The dearth of historical figures classed
as
overtly homosexual, only makes one suspicious that prudery has played
more
a part in their biographies than has fact.
===== I think it depends on the intentions of the writer, what is his/her
platform? If only David Hilliam had applied prudery, I find "openly and
crazily in love with his gay partner" offensive in more than one way. It
reeks of a cheap romantic novel and in a supposedly "serious"
genealogical/
historical compilation there should not be recorded as such.
In a society were being homosexual might get you whipped, imprisoned or
exiled, certainly it was kept close-to-the-chest, but I'm not one of
those
who feels that we must keep perpetuating that farce just for the sake
of
previous historians.
====== I totally agree. But we should stick to facts, not accept fiction.
I'm content with saying Richard "lion heart" may have been
fundamentally
homosexual, as may have Edward II or Henry III of France, the case for
Richard and Edward seems compelling. That's about as far as we can go.
===== Again I agree. And so there should be no room for descriptions
like
openly and crazily in love with his gay partner.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Will
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
A few years ago, I read the book in question. I felt then - in spite
of my being completely naive as to the legitimacy of the assertions -
that it was only intended to be sensationalistic tidbits for people
with no real interest in medieval royalty.
-------------------------------
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