Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Tom Wilding / Stephen Sti

Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av Tom Wilding / Stephen Sti » 02 okt 2007 04:24:12

There are suggestions that he was lovers with Philippe Auguste and Sancho
VII (brother to his wife). As was aptly put in the story of his father -
"The Lion in Winter" - it was common for men to have sex with anything that
moved regardless of age, gender, or species.


"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:CPhMi.154$6q5.819@eagle.america.net...
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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones And Bastards

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 02 okt 2007 04:46:44

Hogwash...

I say again:

No convincing evidence has come to light that Richard I "The Lionheart" was
homosexual -- although the Gay Lobby would love to have him as a forebear.

The man who wrote the historodrama, fictional play, _The Lion In Winter_, as
well as the screenplay for the subsequent 1968 film -- James Goldman -- was
reportedly homosexual and did an excellent job for the Gay Lobby.

The Case of Edward II is quite different.

DSH

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

"Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell" <thomas.wilding@cox.net> wrote in message
news:9UiMi.142720$Mu5.132157@newsfe15.phx...

There are suggestions that he was lovers with Philippe Auguste and Sancho
VII (brother to his wife). As was aptly put in the story of his father -
"The Lion in Winter" - it was common for men to have sex with anything
that moved regardless of age, gender, or species.

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:CPhMi.154$6q5.819@eagle.america.net...

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

WJhonson

Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av WJhonson » 02 okt 2007 04:48:17

<<In a message dated 10/01/07 20:30:09 Pacific Standard Time, thomas.wilding@cox.net writes:
As was aptly put in the story of his father -
"The Lion in Winter" - it was common for men to have sex with anything that
moved regardless of age, gender, or species. >>

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

I'm doubtful that this quote is supposed to be taken factually.

Will

WJhonson

Re: Genealogics: Giving some background to Sir Thomas Palmer

Legg inn av WJhonson » 02 okt 2007 05:05:16

<<In a message dated 09/28/07 09:35:18 Pacific Standard Time, ADRIANCHANNING02 writes:
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. >>
------------------------
Not sure I can help you yet. Although I have all eight of the great-grandparents for William FitzWilliam, I only have *two* of the eight for Robert Browne 1st Bart of Walcot.

Will

WJhonson

Re: Some Chicheley descents

Legg inn av WJhonson » 02 okt 2007 05:58:58

<<In a message dated 09/12/07 13:25:41 Pacific Standard Time, suthen@redshift.com writes:
4a. Member of Parliament (see HOP) marrid to Dorothy Kempe, daughter
of Sir Thomas Kempe of Wye, Kent (MP 1559 for Kent) and his wife
Katherine or (Cicely), daughter of Sir Thomas Cheyne. >>

------------------
I suggest this is the wrong placement.
That that Dorothy Kempe who was wife to Sir Thomas Chicheley of Wimpole is actually the daughter of Sir Thomas Kempe, Knt of Olentigh by his wife Dorothy Thompson

Thomas Chicheley and Dorothy Kempe are known to have had two sons after their marriage: Thomas Chicheley born between Jan and Apr in 1615 and Henry Chicheley born 1616

The other Dorothy Kempe would be quite long in the tooth to be having children in the 1610s.

Will Johnson

Alianore

Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av Alianore » 02 okt 2007 10:15:39

On Oct 2, 1:37 am, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
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

In fact, Isabella and Edward II conceived Edward III after Gaveston
had returned to England from his banishment. Edward III was born on
13 November 1312, so was conceived in late February or early March
(assuming that he wasn't too premature). Gaveston had returned to
England by early January 1312. Edward III may have been conceived
during the celebrations held in York for the birth of Gaveston's and
Margaret de Clare's daughter.

Yeah Right

Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting

Legg inn av Yeah Right » 02 okt 2007 11:30:35

On , , Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:33:19 -0700, Re: Cross Posting &
Simul-Posting, Turenne <richard.lichten1@virgin.net> wrote:

On 1 Oct, 21:26, Yeah Right <freewhye...@freewhatever.freehowever
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.

You have to admit it is a pretty obvious conclusion to draw.
Just for the record, what kind of foreigner is he?

Turenne

Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting

Legg inn av Turenne » 02 okt 2007 11:45:28

On 2 Oct, 11:30, Yeah Right <freewhye...@freewhatever.freehowever>
wrote:
On , , Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:33:19 -0700, Re: Cross Posting &





Simul-Posting, Turenne <richard.licht...@virgin.net> wrote:
On 1 Oct, 21:26, Yeah Right <freewhye...@freewhatever.freehowever
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.

You have to admit it is a pretty obvious conclusion to draw.
Just for the record, what kind of foreigner is he?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll leave him to tell you. That said, his background, despite some of
the gobbledegook that he posts, is impeccable as far as ATR is
concerned.

Richard

William Black

Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av William Black » 02 okt 2007 19:34:40

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:CPhMi.154$6q5.819@eagle.america.net...
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.

So you'll give us the absolute proof then?

--
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.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: 3:10 To Yuma -- And Cowboys

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 02 okt 2007 19:51:01

Hilarious!

Ignorant Pogues & Poguettes, Including Renia Stulta Disarmata, Say John
Wayne Couldn't Act...

From The IMDB -- Facts, Factoids & Why they Hate Him:

<http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000078/bio>

Then there are John Wayne's interesting GENEALOGICAL CONNECTIONS to certain
well-known Brits.

"When he narrowly failed admission to Annapolis he went to USC on a football
scholarship 1925-7."

There's the very early Naval Connection.

"He appeared in nearly 250 movies, many of epic proportions."

Left-Wingers Don't Generally Like Epics & Heroes -- Unless It's Spartacus,
Lenin, A Struggling Artist Or Atticus Finch.

"He received the Best Actor nomination for Sands of Iwo Jima (1949) and
finally got the Oscar for his role as one-eyed Rooster Cogburn in True Grit
(1969)."

"One of the most unusual Oscar moments happened when major liberal Barbra
Streisand presented Vietnam war hawk Wayne with his Best Actor Oscar at The
42nd Annual Academy Awards (1970) (TV)."

"His performance as Ethan Edwards in The Searchers (1956) is ranked #23 on
Premiere Magazine's 100 Greatest Movie Characters of All Time."

"After seeing Wayne's performance in Red River (1948), directed by rival
director Howard Hawks, John Ford is quoted as saying, "I never knew the big
son of a bitch could act.""

Many pogues and poguettes here haven't even caught up with John Ford's
evaluation of Wayne as an actor ---- almost 60 years later.

"His performance as Ethan Edwards in The Searchers (1956) is ranked #87 on
Premiere Magazine's 100 Greatest Performances of All Time (2006)."

"A Congressional Gold Medal was struck in his honor in 1979."

"Holds the record for the actor with the most leading parts - 142. In all
but 11 films he played the leading part."

"Ranked #16 in Empire (UK) magazine's "The Top 100 Movie Stars of All Time"
list. (October 1997)"

"The evening before a shoot he was trying to get some sleep in a Las Vegas
hotel. The suite directly below his was that of Frank Sinatra (never a good
friend of Wayne), who was having a party. The noise kept Wayne awake, and
each time he made a complaining phone call it quieted temporarily but each
time eventually grew louder. Wayne at last appeared at Sinatra's door and
told Frank to stop the noise. A Sinatra bodyguard of Wayne's size
approached saying, "Nobody talks to Mr. Sinatra that way." Wayne looked at
the man, turned as though to leave, then backhanded the bodyguard, who fell
to the floor, where Wayne knocked him out by crashing a chair on top of him.
The party noise stopped."

"His spoken word RCA Victor album "America: Why I Love Her" became a
surprise best-seller, and Grammy nominee, when it was issued in 1973.
Re-issued again, in the wake of September 11, 2001, it became a best-seller
all over again."

"Because his on-screen adventures involved the slaying of a slew of
Mexicans, Native Americans and Japanese, he has been called a racist by his
critics. They believe this was strengthened by a Playboy Magazine interview
in which he suggested that blacks were not yet qualified to hold high public
office because "discrimination prevented them from receiving the kind of
education a political career requires". Yet all of his three wives were of
Latin descent."

"He was voted the 5th Greatest Movie Star of all time by Entertainment
Weekly."

"Despite his association with being solely Irish, he was equal parts
Scottish, Irish and English."

"He was voted the 4th Greatest Movie Star of all time by Premiere Magazine."

"Was named the #13 greatest actor on The 50 Greatest Screen Legends list by
the American Film Institute."

"Posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's
highest civilian award, by President Jimmy Carter in 1980."

"On 11 June 1979, the flame of the Olympic Torch at the Coliseum in Los
Angeles was lit to honor his memory. It remained lit until the funeral four
days later."

"Maureen O'Hara presented him with the People's Choice Award for most
popular motion picture actor in 1976."

"In November 2003 he once again commanded a top-ten spot in the annual
Harris Poll asking Americans to name their favorite movie star. No other
deceased star has achieved such ranking since Harris began asking the
question in 1993. In a 2001 Gallup Poll, Americans selected Wayne as their
favorite movie star of all time."

"Of his many film roles, his personal favorite was that of Ethan Edwards
from The Searchers (1956). Wayne even went so far as to name his son Ethan
after that character."

"In 1979, as it became known that Wayne was dying of cancer, Barry Goldwater
introduced legislation to award him the Congressional Gold Medal. Maureen
O'Hara and Elizabeth Taylor flew to Washington to give testimony, and signed
statements in support of the motion from Frank Sinatra, Gregory Peck, Jack
Lemmon, Kirk Douglas, James Stewart and Katharine Hepburn were read out.
The bill was passed unanimously, and the medal was presented to the Wayne
family in the following year."

"In 1974, with the Vietnam war still continuing, The Harvard Lampoon invited
Wayne to The Harvard Square Theater to award him the "Brass Balls Award "
for his " Outstanding machismo and a penchant for punching people". Wayne
accepted and arrived riding atop an armored personnel carrier manned by the
"Black Knights" of Troop D, Fifth Regiment. Wayne took the stage and
ad-libbed his way through a series of derogatory questions with adroitness,
displaying a agile wit that completely won over the audience of students."

"In the 1950s, Wayne joined Walt Disney, Clark Gable, James Stewart and
other entertainers to assist the House Un-American Activities Committee in
exposing Communists working in the film industry."

"I don't think John Ford had any kind of respect for me as an actor until I
made Red River (1948) for Howard Hawks. I was never quite sure what he did
think of me as an actor. I know now though. Because when I finally won an
Oscar for my role as Rooster Cogburn in True Grit (1969), Ford shook my hand
and said the award was long overdue me as far as he was concerned. Right
then, I knew he'd respected me as an actor since Stagecoach (1939), even
though he hadn't let me know it. He later told me his praise earlier, might
have gone to my head and made me conceited, and that was why he'd never said
anything to me, until the right time."

"I play John Wayne in every picture regardless of the character, and I've
been doing all right, haven't I?"

Print The Legend -- And Laugh All The Way To The Bank.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Semper Fidelis

Dag T. Hoelseth

Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting

Legg inn av Dag T. Hoelseth » 02 okt 2007 20:40:59

On 2 Okt, 12:30, Yeah Right <freewhye...@freewhatever.freehowever>
wrote:
On , , Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:33:19 -0700, Re: Cross Posting &





Simul-Posting, Turenne <richard.licht...@virgin.net> wrote:
On 1 Oct, 21:26, Yeah Right <freewhye...@freewhatever.freehowever
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.

You have to admit it is a pretty obvious conclusion to draw.
Just for the record, what kind of foreigner is he?

Foreigner? And I thought this was an international community...

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

WJhonson

Re: Parentage of Cecily Bardolf, wife of William de Morley,

Legg inn av WJhonson » 02 okt 2007 21:14:24

Per the document John Ravilous provided (much thanks) which shows that William was taken into the household of Thomas Bardolf in or about the 1326 date of the marriage contract, WHY did William and Cecilia wait until 6 Mar 1344 to get married?

William at that time would have been just shy of 25 years old while Cecilia would have been *at least* 18 and at most 28.

It seems a bit odd to me.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Parentage of Cecily Bardolf, wife of William de Morley,

Legg inn av WJhonson » 02 okt 2007 21:20:56

<<In a message dated 10/02/07 10:10:25 Pacific Standard Time, royalancestry@msn.com writes:
Agnes's family name has never been proven.
All we know for certain is that Agnes was a native of Germany. >>

-----------------
What source states that she was a native of Germany?
The parents she had had were Swiss and English. If it were well-known that she had actually come from Germany it doesn't seem as likely that anyone would have connected her to Switzerland.

Will

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 02 okt 2007 22:30:17

Especially To A Scruffy British Hardcore Socialist.

DSH

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fdubnd$tj3$1@registered.motzarella.org...

Somehow it makes the world a simpler place if they're all evil bastards
given to unspeakable sexual practices and out to be as nasty as possible
to everyone they come into contact with.

It certainly makes most English medieval kings explicable, if not
sympathetic...

WJhonson

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Hugh de Strauley (or Strelley

Legg inn av WJhonson » 02 okt 2007 23:19:07

Both brides and both grooms were but small children when the marriage contract was created 10 May 1343. Audrey de Montagu died underage and most likely under the age of consent, as most likely did her brother Edward de Montagu.

Leo shows that Audrey died between June 1349 and Feb 1359, so it's quite possible she outlived the time when her contracted father-in-law was beginning to renegotiate the marriage of his heir John Mowbray.

It would be interesting to know the reason why. We can speculate that perhaps since this was a joint agreement the fathers of four children, that the death of any ONE of those children might be enough to break the agreement.

We know that John and Blanche outlived this time period, so perhaps Edward or Audrey or both were actually already dead by this time.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Hugh de Strauley (or Strelley

Legg inn av WJhonson » 02 okt 2007 23:36:07

<<In a message dated 10/02/07 15:19:35 Pacific Standard Time, WJhonson writes:
We know that John and Blanche outlived this time period, so perhaps Edward or Audrey or both were actually already dead by this time. >>

---------------
Yes I'm saying regardless of what the Administrative History of the Berkeley Castle Muniments says
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/documentxs ... esheet=xsl\A2A_doc.xsl&i=0&com=1&nbKey=1&keyword=SC511+&properties=0601

I note that they *state* it, they do not show what evidence they are using, they do not cite any underlying document. They merely state it. So like all such statements, we have to view it with a critical eye.

Will

WJhonson

Re: Is Charlemagne better than Plantagenet?

Legg inn av WJhonson » 03 okt 2007 00:04:47

<<In a message dated 10/01/07 23:18:01 Pacific Standard Time, leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
One line merged with the Gorges family in England by becoming a sister in law to Queen Catherine Parr last wife of Henry VIII, and includes Elizabeth Gorges the last wife of Sir Ferdinando Gorges of Maine fame. >>

----------------------------------
Just to make the above stated relationship more clear.

William Parr, Marquess of Northampton (from 1546) (Cecil6) married Helen Snakenborg sometime between 1565 and 1571. After his death 28 Oct 1571 she married Sir Thomas Gorges (1536-1610). William Parr was the brother of that Catherine Parr who was Henry VIII's last wife.

Elizabeth Gorges, the daughter of Thomas and Helen was born Jun 1578 and married firstly Hugh Smith of Long Ashton by whom she had at least two children. After his death in 1627 she married Sir Ferdinando Gorges 28 Sep 1629 at Wraxall, Somerset. They had no issue.

Through her father, Elizabeth Gorges is a descendent through separate pathways of Edward I of England, Henry III of England, Alexander I of Scotland, Henry IV HR Emperor, Fulk King of Jerusalem, Philip King of France and Henry I of France.

All eight of the great-grandparents of her ancestor Margaret Mowbray, each, have royal ascents, some of them by multiple paths to different kingdoms.

Helen Snakenborg's father Wolfgang is obscure to me. Maybe somebody else has details on his life. He certainly must have been of some importance for his daughter to snag the king's ex-brother-in-law (the king being dead).

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Some Chicheley descents

Legg inn av WJhonson » 03 okt 2007 00:13:01

<<In a message dated 10/02/07 16:01:21 Pacific Standard Time, allenk@pacbell.net writes:
Could there possibly be two couples of Thomas and
Dorothy. A MP in 1559 might well be considered to be
long in the tooth to be having children in the 1610s. >>
-----------------
You are correct Kay. Sir Thomas Kempe of Ollantigh had, by his wife Amy Moyle "co-heir of her father" a son also Sir Thomas Kempe of Ollantigh (aka Olentigh).

The later Sir Thomas is the one who m Dorothy Thompson and had interalia Dorothy Kempe d 1644 who m Sir Thomas Chicheley (d 1616).

It was the first Sir Thomas Kempe who was MP in 1559, not his son.

In my opinion.

Will Johnson

Leo van de Pas

Re: Is Charlemagne better than Plantagenet?

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 03 okt 2007 00:20:13

Dear Will,

Who are the children of Elizabeth Gorges and Hugh Smith?

Helen Snakenborg's father is Ulf not Wolfgang, probably Ulf is the Swedish
for Wolfgang. I have entered quite a bit from this article into my system
and yesterday I posted a CD for the next update. And so hopefully end this
week or early next week these details will be visible.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: Is Charlemagne better than Plantagenet?


In a message dated 10/01/07 23:18:01 Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
One line merged with the Gorges family in England by becoming a sister in
law to Queen Catherine Parr last wife of Henry VIII, and includes
Elizabeth Gorges the last wife of Sir Ferdinando Gorges of Maine fame.

----------------------------------
Just to make the above stated relationship more clear.

William Parr, Marquess of Northampton (from 1546) (Cecil6) married Helen
Snakenborg sometime between 1565 and 1571. After his death 28 Oct 1571
she married Sir Thomas Gorges (1536-1610). William Parr was the brother
of that Catherine Parr who was Henry VIII's last wife.

Elizabeth Gorges, the daughter of Thomas and Helen was born Jun 1578 and
married firstly Hugh Smith of Long Ashton by whom she had at least two
children. After his death in 1627 she married Sir Ferdinando Gorges 28
Sep 1629 at Wraxall, Somerset. They had no issue.

Through her father, Elizabeth Gorges is a descendent through separate
pathways of Edward I of England, Henry III of England, Alexander I of
Scotland, Henry IV HR Emperor, Fulk King of Jerusalem, Philip King of
France and Henry I of France.

All eight of the great-grandparents of her ancestor Margaret Mowbray,
each, have royal ascents, some of them by multiple paths to different
kingdoms.

Helen Snakenborg's father Wolfgang is obscure to me. Maybe somebody else
has details on his life. He certainly must have been of some importance
for his daughter to snag the king's ex-brother-in-law (the king being
dead).

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: Is Charlemagne better than Plantagenet?

Legg inn av WJhonson » 03 okt 2007 00:52:28

Hugh Smith of Long Ashton married Elizabeth Gorges sometime before 1610 as "about 1609" they had a son, heir of his father, Thomas Smith of Long Ashton.

Thomas Smith married Florence Paulet, daughter of John 1st Baron Paulet (d 20 Mar 1648/9) by his wife Elizabeth (or Christian) Kenn (1593-1632)

Florence, as a descendent of Sir Henry Norris of Rycote by his wife Mary Fiennes has a slew of royal ancestors.

Meanwhile Florence is a Cecil8 through her great-uncle William Norreys, Esq father of Frances Norreys, Earl of Berkshire who is a Cecil4 having married Bridget de Vere (d 1630 or 1631) a direct descendent, in the third generation, of Richard Cecil.

I do not yet know if Florence and Thomas had any children.
----

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the only other child I have for Hugh Smith of Long Ashton and Elizabeth Gorges is that Mary Smith who married (her cousin ??) Thomas Smith of Hatherton, Mayor of Chester and Sheriff of Cheshire, WHO, by being the son of Lawrence Smith by his wife Anne Wainwaring has himself a few dozen royal lineages.

Mary Smith and Thomas Smith has at least or exactly two children: Thomas Smith 1st Bart of Hatherton, Cheshire who up and married Abigail Pate, a fourth-generation descendent of Richard Cecil and thereby became parents to that Frances Pate Smith born 2 Nov 1663 who m Richard Lister, Esq of Thorpe Emald, Leicestershire


Will Johnson

Kay Allen

Re: Some Chicheley descents

Legg inn av Kay Allen » 03 okt 2007 01:10:04

Could there possibly be two couples of Thomas and
Dorothy. A MP in 1559 might well be considered to be
long in the tooth to be having children in the 1610s.

K
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:

In a message dated 09/12/07 13:25:41 Pacific
Standard Time, suthen@redshift.com writes:
4a. Member of Parliament (see HOP) marrid to Dorothy
Kempe, daughter
of Sir Thomas Kempe of Wye, Kent (MP 1559 for Kent)
and his wife
Katherine or (Cicely), daughter of Sir Thomas
Cheyne.

------------------
I suggest this is the wrong placement.
That that Dorothy Kempe who was wife to Sir Thomas
Chicheley of Wimpole is actually the daughter of Sir
Thomas Kempe, Knt of Olentigh by his wife Dorothy
Thompson

Thomas Chicheley and Dorothy Kempe are known to have
had two sons after their marriage: Thomas Chicheley
born between Jan and Apr in 1615 and Henry Chicheley
born 1616

The other Dorothy Kempe would be quite long in the
tooth to be having children in the 1610s.

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

Gjest

Re: Is Charlemagne better than Plantagenet?

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 okt 2007 01:47:03

Dear Will and Leo,
I ran across a Norwegian ? site which says "
Helena Snakenborg dottar till riksradet Ulf Henriksson Snakenborg till
Fyllingarum i Ostergotland och hans maka Agneta Knutsdottar Lille ..."
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine
USA
























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

WJhonson

Re: A Rolls-Royce of a Family Tree

Legg inn av WJhonson » 03 okt 2007 02:16:49

One of Charles Rolls ancestors is that Cloudsley Shovell, who, shipwrecked but surviving helpless on the beach, was then murdered by a woman who wanted his emerald ring. Strange story.

Leo shows him here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 8&tree=LEO

with one daughter.

I now present a second daughter, co-heiress of her father.

http://content.ancestry.com/iexec/?htx= ... c=&pid=114
"A Descriptive Catalogue of the Penrice and Margam Abbey Manuscripts in the Possession of Miss Talbot of Margam". London, England: n.p., 1894.

Appendix, page 109 stating : "The said Robert Mansel marry'd Anne Daughter and Coheir of Cloudsley Shovell Knight by whom he had issue

"This Robert Mansel was born the 2d of November 1695, dyed the 1st of March 1723 And was bury'd in Crayford Church in the County of Kent."

Going back to the previous page, Robert Mansel was third son of
Thomas Lord Mansel, Baron of Margam; by Martha Millington daughter and sole heir of Francis Millington of London Esq

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: A Rolls-Royce of a Family Tree

Legg inn av WJhonson » 03 okt 2007 02:16:49

One of Charles Rolls ancestors is that Cloudsley Shovell, who, shipwrecked but surviving helpless on the beach, was then murdered by a woman who wanted his emerald ring. Strange story.

Leo shows him here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 8&tree=LEO

with one daughter.

I now present a second daughter, co-heiress of her father.

http://content.ancestry.com/iexec/?htx= ... c=&pid=114
"A Descriptive Catalogue of the Penrice and Margam Abbey Manuscripts in the Possession of Miss Talbot of Margam". London, England: n.p., 1894.

Appendix, page 109 stating : "The said Robert Mansel marry'd Anne Daughter and Coheir of Cloudsley Shovell Knight by whom he had issue

"This Robert Mansel was born the 2d of November 1695, dyed the 1st of March 1723 And was bury'd in Crayford Church in the County of Kent."

Going back to the previous page, Robert Mansel was third son of
Thomas Lord Mansel, Baron of Margam; by Martha Millington daughter and sole heir of Francis Millington of London Esq

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: A Rolls-Royce of a Family Tree

Legg inn av WJhonson » 03 okt 2007 02:16:49

One of Charles Rolls ancestors is that Cloudsley Shovell, who, shipwrecked but surviving helpless on the beach, was then murdered by a woman who wanted his emerald ring. Strange story.

Leo shows him here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 8&tree=LEO

with one daughter.

I now present a second daughter, co-heiress of her father.

http://content.ancestry.com/iexec/?htx= ... c=&pid=114
"A Descriptive Catalogue of the Penrice and Margam Abbey Manuscripts in the Possession of Miss Talbot of Margam". London, England: n.p., 1894.

Appendix, page 109 stating : "The said Robert Mansel marry'd Anne Daughter and Coheir of Cloudsley Shovell Knight by whom he had issue

"This Robert Mansel was born the 2d of November 1695, dyed the 1st of March 1723 And was bury'd in Crayford Church in the County of Kent."

Going back to the previous page, Robert Mansel was third son of
Thomas Lord Mansel, Baron of Margam; by Martha Millington daughter and sole heir of Francis Millington of London Esq

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: A Rolls-Royce of a Family Tree

Legg inn av WJhonson » 03 okt 2007 02:16:49

One of Charles Rolls ancestors is that Cloudsley Shovell, who, shipwrecked but surviving helpless on the beach, was then murdered by a woman who wanted his emerald ring. Strange story.

Leo shows him here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 8&tree=LEO

with one daughter.

I now present a second daughter, co-heiress of her father.

http://content.ancestry.com/iexec/?htx= ... c=&pid=114
"A Descriptive Catalogue of the Penrice and Margam Abbey Manuscripts in the Possession of Miss Talbot of Margam". London, England: n.p., 1894.

Appendix, page 109 stating : "The said Robert Mansel marry'd Anne Daughter and Coheir of Cloudsley Shovell Knight by whom he had issue

"This Robert Mansel was born the 2d of November 1695, dyed the 1st of March 1723 And was bury'd in Crayford Church in the County of Kent."

Going back to the previous page, Robert Mansel was third son of
Thomas Lord Mansel, Baron of Margam; by Martha Millington daughter and sole heir of Francis Millington of London Esq

Will Johnson

Turenne

Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting

Legg inn av Turenne » 03 okt 2007 09:18:17

On 3 Oct, 09:59, Yeah Right <freewhye...@freewhatever.freehowever>
wrote:
On , , Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:45:28 -0700, Re: Cross Posting &





Simul-Posting, Turenne <richard.licht...@virgin.net> wrote:
On 2 Oct, 11:30, Yeah Right <freewhye...@freewhatever.freehowever
wrote:
On , , Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:33:19 -0700, Re: Cross Posting &

Simul-Posting, Turenne <richard.licht...@virgin.net> wrote:
On 1 Oct, 21:26, Yeah Right <freewhye...@freewhatever.freehowever
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.

You have to admit it is a pretty obvious conclusion to draw.
Just for the record, what kind of foreigner is he?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll leave him to tell you. That said, his background, despite some of
the gobbledegook that he posts, is impeccable as far as ATR is
concerned.

OMIGOD!!
I seem to be being ignored.
If what you say is correct, I have never been ignored by someone
of his position before.
I etc- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm not ignoring you, I thought your comment was funny.

Richard

Yeah Right

Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting

Legg inn av Yeah Right » 03 okt 2007 09:59:07

On , , Tue, 02 Oct 2007 12:40:59 -0700, Re: Cross Posting &
Simul-Posting, "Dag T. Hoelseth" <dagtho@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 2 Okt, 12:30, Yeah Right <freewhye...@freewhatever.freehowever
wrote:
On , , Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:33:19 -0700, Re: Cross Posting &





Simul-Posting, Turenne <richard.licht...@virgin.net> wrote:
On 1 Oct, 21:26, Yeah Right <freewhye...@freewhatever.freehowever
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.

You have to admit it is a pretty obvious conclusion to draw.
Just for the record, what kind of foreigner is he?

Foreigner? And I thought this was an international community...

It was tongue in cheek.
I thought sarcasm/bathos/pathos/wit etc was international...

Yeah Right

Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting

Legg inn av Yeah Right » 03 okt 2007 09:59:08

On , , Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:45:28 -0700, Re: Cross Posting &
Simul-Posting, Turenne <richard.lichten1@virgin.net> wrote:

On 2 Oct, 11:30, Yeah Right <freewhye...@freewhatever.freehowever
wrote:
On , , Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:33:19 -0700, Re: Cross Posting &





Simul-Posting, Turenne <richard.licht...@virgin.net> wrote:
On 1 Oct, 21:26, Yeah Right <freewhye...@freewhatever.freehowever
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.

You have to admit it is a pretty obvious conclusion to draw.
Just for the record, what kind of foreigner is he?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll leave him to tell you. That said, his background, despite some of
the gobbledegook that he posts, is impeccable as far as ATR is
concerned.

OMIGOD!!
I seem to be being ignored.
If what you say is correct, I have never been ignored by someone
of his position before.
I etc

Gjest

Re: Genealogics: Giving some background to Sir Thomas Palmer

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 okt 2007 16:25:03

<<In a message dated 09/28/07 09:35:18 Pacific Standard Time,
ADRIANCHANNING02 writes:
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. >>
------------------------


In a message dated 02/10/2007 05:05:27 GMT Standard Time, wjhonson@aol.com
writes:
Not sure I can help you yet. Although I have all eight of the

great-grandparents for William FitzWilliam, I only have *two* of the eight for Robert
Browne 1st Bart of Walcot.
<<<


Will,

Thanks for checking.

Robert Browne’s great-grandparent’s (some described as “said to beâ€

Gjest

Re: Lacy of Pontefract

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 okt 2007 18:30:03

<<In a message dated 10/3/2007 9:08:00 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
designeconomic@yahoo.com writes:

John claims Hugh Abbot Selby was an 18th Century
invention. To support that idea, one needs to
understand why the Selby Cartulary claimed that Hugh
was a Lacy. What was the point of the Abbey's claim if
not true?>>


------------------------------
Provide a full bibliographic citation and link directly to this claim. I
suspect that there is no such claim at all.

Will



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

Gjest

Re: Lacy of Pontefract

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 okt 2007 18:31:02

<<In a message dated 10/3/2007 9:08:00 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
designeconomic@yahoo.com writes:

What appears to be forgotten is that Ilbert I Lacy
gave Hamulton to Selby Abbey 1088. This was declared
by King Stephen 1154 (Charter #817 R/R A/N)

The evidence certainly suggests a strong Lacy>>


---------------------------
Are you suggesting that every time some medieval person gives land to an
Abbey, that they must have a relative who is the head of that place?

Will



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

WJhonson

Re: Lacy of Pontefract

Legg inn av WJhonson » 03 okt 2007 19:26:00

<<In a message dated 10/03/07 10:40:51 Pacific Standard Time, designeconomic@yahoo.com writes:
Subscriber W.J.Honson responded "So he resigned 20
years after brother was banished. Does not make sense"

I suggest that his study and understanding of the
records is desirable. >>

=========================
I suggest that those who study your method of making bald statements based on no citation, no quote, no hyperlink, no evidence of any sort; and those who study my method of backing up my claims with citations to sources, good or bad, but some kind of evidence; may form a distinctly different opinion.

I have asked you a few times now to cite your sources, and you so far have not.
Can we see some sources now, with FULL bibliographic citations, so we can actually check them.

Saying things like "Feet of Fines" is not a full source, it's not checkable by anyone choosing to spend less than ten hours tracking it down.

Thanks
Will Johnson

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 03 okt 2007 19:28:46

Perceptive...

Vide infra pro sapientia.

....And as if he just woke up from sleeping on the floor or the couch.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fdvorv$11a$1@registered.motzarella.org...

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:gHyMi.183$6q5.925@eagle.america.net...

Especially To A Scruffy British Socialist.

And Brown is particularly scruffy.

He always looks as if he's slept in that suit.

WJhonson

Re: Lacy of Pontefract

Legg inn av WJhonson » 03 okt 2007 19:31:08

<<In a message dated 10/03/07 10:34:00 Pacific Standard Time, designeconomic@yahoo.com writes:
Honson needs to provide evidence to support that
Robert Lacy's banishment 1103 was permanant, and
explain why the reason for Hugh Lacy's resignation
"makes no sense". >>

---------------------
Are your responses writen by a computer program? Anyone who isn't blind is certainly clear by now that my name is Will Johnson. Not Honson, not Jhonson, or any other bizarre form.

That Robert Lacy remained an alien, banished for the *remainder of Henry's reign* is made clear by William Farrer. I, unlike you, will fully cite my source below. Perhaps you could do us all the honor of fulling citing your sources and quoting them exactly.

http://books.google.com/books?id=b3YvAA ... t&as_brr=1
"The Court Rolls of the Honor of Clitherroe in the County of Lancaster", by William Farrer, Vol 1, page v
"Some time during the period 1090-1095, Count Roger [of Poictou] granted to Robert de Lacy, Lord of the adjoining Honor of Pontefract, the whole of the Hundred of Blackburn, the Forest of Bowland, and Manor of Slaidburn. In A.D. 1095, Robert de Lacy forfeited all his estates for aiding the rebellion in favour of Stephen of Aumale, grandson of Duke Robert the Second, against William Rufus. But Henry I., after his accession to the throne in A.D. 1100, restored to him his fiefs of Clitheroe, Bowland, and Pontefract.
"However, Robert de Lacy did not long enjoy the possession of his estates, for, joining the rebellion of Robert of Belesme, he was banished in A.D. 1103, his estates taken into the King's hands, and he remained an alien for the remainder of Henry's reign. During the period of Robert de Lacy's banishment his estate's were held by Hugh de la Val, until Hugh's death, circa 1130, when William Maltravers married his widow and obtained a grant of the De Lacy estates for a term of years. King Stephen, after his accession, appears to have restored to Robert de Lacy the greater part of his forfeited estates, for about the beginning of that King's reign, the said Robert confirmed to the Monks of Nostell various grants made to them by Hugh de la Val."
- extract by Will Johnson, wjhonson@aol.com, Professional Genealogist from the original image at Google Books 2007

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 03 okt 2007 19:35:49

Indeed.

Even these Brits admit their new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, looks
scruffy.

We're making some minimal Progress.

I never thought Tony Blair looked scruffy and never said so.

Obviously not ALL Brit Socialists are scruffy.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ZHJMi.55988$rr5.23935@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fdvorv$11a$1@registered.motzarella.org...

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:DRIMi.83704$1G1.73765@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:gHyMi.183$6q5.925@eagle.america.net...
Especially To A Scruffy British Socialist.

Your beloved Blair (& Brown - although probably not, now!) are Scruffy
British Socialists.

And Brown is particularly scruffy.

He always looks as if he's slept in that suit.


Couldn't help laughing at Brown's speech in Iraq.
Dolled up in his scruffy suit in that climate, mumbling inanities about
courage etc., whilst being looked down on by smart poker-faced squaddies!

Surreyman

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 03 okt 2007 19:39:27

Are Old Labourites generally more scruffy than New Labourites?

Or is that not a Good Indicator?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Ian Wallace

Re: A Rolls-Royce of a Family Tree

Legg inn av Ian Wallace » 03 okt 2007 19:40:58

On 3 Oct, 02:16, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
"One of Charles Rolls ancestors is that Cloudsley Shovell, who,
shipwrecked but surviving helpless on the beach, was then murdered by
a woman who wanted his emerald ring. "

Leo shows him herehttp://www.genealogics.org/getperso ... 8&tree=LEO
with one daughter.
I now present a second daughter, co-heiress of her father.
.... "The said Robert Mansel marry'd Anne Daughter and Coheir of
Cloudsley Shovell Knight by whom he had issue

"This Robert Mansel was born the 2d of November 1695, dyed the 1st of
March 1723 And was bury'd in Crayford Church in the County of
Kent."...

This Anne is fairly well documented, I believe from memory that she is
mentioned in Hasted's Kent.

Anne Shovell was also subsequently married in 1726 to John Blackwood
of Charlton. (I notice that The National Archives have a PCC will for:
John Blackwood of Charlton , Kent
Date 19 November 1777
Catalogue reference PROB 11/1036
Name of Register: Collier
Fifty one years after the marriage this is perhaps more likely a son,
perhaps an interesting on-line buy for someone as you get fourteen
pages for three pound fifty!)

The Shovell monument in Crayford church is well worth seeing. If
anyone would like a transcript of the PR entry for Robert Mansel's
burial, I'll probably be able to get it tomorrow evening if I get home
from work on time.

I believe Anne Shovell died in 1741. The forename Shovell was
perpetuated as a forename in the Blackwood family. I believe more
details of this family might easily be traced, my interest is mainly
in the family of Cloudsley Shovell's wife by her previous marriage.

Ian.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 03 okt 2007 19:43:47

There are leaks that the Brits have really screwed the pooch in Basra.

Any truths to that?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Bryn

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av Bryn » 03 okt 2007 19:44:24

Needing no introduction "an" Usenet stalwart wrote:
Perceptive...

Vide infra pro sapientia.

...And as if he just woke up from sleeping on the floor or the couch.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fdvorv$11a$1@registered.motzarella.org...

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:gHyMi.183$6q5.925@eagle.america.net...

Especially To A Scruffy British Socialist.

And Brown is particularly scruffy.

He always looks as if he's slept in that suit.

He would look a _real_ Twat in a silver grey silk suit.

Can you imagine him in a kilt?


--
Bryn

It takes years of schooling to
knock the intelligence out of a child.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 03 okt 2007 19:51:00

They're busy plotting.

DSH

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:MEPMi.25897$ao.17764@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...

The BNP, the SWP and the Greens have all disappeared from my local town
centre in the past couple of weeks as well...

Jack Linthicum

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av Jack Linthicum » 03 okt 2007 20:01:12

On Oct 3, 2:51 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
They're busy plotting.

DSH

"a.spencer3" <a.spenc...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:MEPMi.25897$ao.17764@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...

The BNP, the SWP and the Greens have all disappeared from my local town
centre in the past couple of weeks as well...

Please do not reply to this post and the next two from Hines. He has
lost his place in the situation again and done his multi-post act to
places that are not part of this discussion. He needs a thinking eye
dog.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 03 okt 2007 20:21:33

So, does Gordon Brown's wife make him sleep on the couch -- in his suit --
so he will look like a Proper Scruffy Brit Socialist -- exhibiting the
Common Touch as it were?

Perhaps she tells him not to wash his face or comb/brush his hair either --
so he has the proper disheveled and sleepy-eyed look -- as he heads off each
day to Labour in the Satanic Mills.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Britannicus Traductus Sum

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 03 okt 2007 20:30:28

Hogwash...

I say again:

No convincing evidence has come to light that Richard I was homosexual --
although the Gay Lobby would love to have him as a forebear.

The man who wrote the fictional play, _The Lion In Winter_, as well as the
screenplay for the subsequent film -- James Golden -- was homosexual and did
an excellent job for the Gay Lobby.

The Case of Edward II is quite different.

DSH

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

"Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell" <thomas.wilding@cox.net> wrote in message
news:9UiMi.142720$Mu5.132157@newsfe15.phx...

There are suggestions that he was lovers with Philippe Auguste and Sancho
VII (brother to his wife). As was aptly put in the story of his father -
"The Lion in Winter" - it was common for men to have sex with anything
that moved regardless of age, gender, or species.

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:CPhMi.154$6q5.819@eagle.america.net...

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

William Black

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av William Black » 03 okt 2007 20:45:56

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:w6SMi.210$6q5.707@eagle.america.net...
Hogwash...

I say again:

No convincing evidence has come to light that Richard I was homosexual --
although the Gay Lobby would love to have him as a forebear.

The man who wrote the fictional play, _The Lion In Winter_, as well as the
screenplay for the subsequent film -- James Golden -- was homosexual and
did
an excellent job for the Gay Lobby.

The Case of Edward II is quite different.

You have positive proof?


--
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.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 03 okt 2007 20:49:15

So Blair was an on-the-make, non-scruffy Labourite?

DSH

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fe0qh2$l26$1@registered.motzarella.org...
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fe0pkq$i55$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Are Old Labourites generally more scruffy than New Labourites?

Or is that not a Good Indicator?


Labourites are scruffy. Those who aren't, are on the make.

Unlike the Tories.

Who are always on the make, scruffy or not.

--
William Black

Renia

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av Renia » 03 okt 2007 21:01:36

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
So Blair was an on-the-make, non-scruffy Labourite?


You got it. At last.


DSH

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fe0qh2$l26$1@registered.motzarella.org...

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fe0pkq$i55$1@mouse.otenet.gr...


D. Spencer Hines wrote:


Are Old Labourites generally more scruffy than New Labourites?

Or is that not a Good Indicator?


Labourites are scruffy. Those who aren't, are on the make.

Unlike the Tories.

Who are always on the make, scruffy or not.

--
William Black



D. Spencer Hines

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 03 okt 2007 21:09:23

What do you folks mean by _on the make_ -- EXACTLY?

DSH

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fe0sc5$j9t$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

So Blair was an on-the-make, non-scruffy Labourite?

You got it. At last.


DSH

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fe0qh2$l26$1@registered.motzarella.org...

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fe0pkq$i55$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

D. Spencer Hines wrote:


Are Old Labourites generally more scruffy than New Labourites?

Or is that not a Good Indicator?

Labourites are scruffy. Those who aren't, are on the make.

Unlike the Tories.

Who are always on the make, scruffy or not.

--
William Black

Turenne

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av Turenne » 03 okt 2007 22:04:06

Roger of Hovenden wrote this of Richard's relationship with Philip II
Augustus (Boswell's translation):


' Richard, [then] duke of Aquitaine, the son of the king of England,
remained with Philip, the King of France, who so honoured him for so
long that they ate every day at the same table and from the same dish,
and at night their beds did not separate them. And the king of France
loved him as his own soul; and they loved each other so much that the
king of England was absolutely astonished and the passionate love
between them and marveled at it.'


and:


' .......In the same year, there came a hermit to king Richard, and,
preaching the words of eternal salvation to him, said: "Be thou
mindful of the destruction of Sodom, and abstain from what is
unlawful; for if thou dost not, a vengeance worthy of God shall
overtake thee". The king, however, intent upon the things of this
world, and not those that are of God, was not able so readily to
withdraw his mind from what was unlawful, unless a revelation should
come to him from above or he should behold a sign. For he despised the
person of his advisor,...'



Richard L

WJhonson

Re: Sir Thomas Leigh, Lord Mayor of London and his ancestory

Legg inn av WJhonson » 03 okt 2007 22:21:51

<<In a message dated 10/03/07 14:10:16 Pacific Standard Time, dalescott@sigecom.net writes:
However, http://www.genealogics.org cites THE LINEAGE AND ANCESTRY OF H.R.H.
PRINCE CHARLES, PRINCE OF WALES, Edinburgh, 1977, Paget, Gerald and states
that Sir Thomas is decended from Piers Leigh and Margrett Danier rather than
Ciceley Hagh, and that their child was John Leigh rather than Jenkin Leigh.

My problem is which source is correct? >>

---------------------------
Paget, a secondary source *without citations and without discussions* can never trump a primary source. The only way to trump a primary source is with the use of another primary source OR with a good secondary source which DISCUSSES the conflict in the primary source.

A secondary source which does not note and discuss the conflicts most likely does not know about them and so must be discarded.

Will Johnson

Ian Wallace

Re: A Rolls-Royce of a Family Tree

Legg inn av Ian Wallace » 03 okt 2007 22:50:43

On 3 Oct, 19:40, I <shr...@hotmail.com> wrote:

This Anne is fairly well documented, I believe from memory that she is
mentioned in Hasted's Kent.


....and even online, see http://freespace.virgin.net/andrew.park ... esent.html
which confirms the man who died in 1777 was Anne's husband.

However, I was thinking she was mentioned in Vol. II of Hasted.

Ian.

Renia

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av Renia » 03 okt 2007 23:58:49

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
What do you folks mean by _on the make_ -- EXACTLY?

DSH

Someone who wants to make as much financial and social gain for himself
as possible. These people are seen as selfish, greedy and pretentious.

The difference between someone "on the make" and someone who is trying
to "better himself" is that the former will ruthlessly tread on other
people's toes to do so while the latter will do it through personal
education and career moves.

Andrew Swallow

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av Andrew Swallow » 04 okt 2007 00:22:19

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
What do you folks mean by _on the make_ -- EXACTLY?

"On the make" is deliberately general. It meants watchout they are
trying to make money (and sometimes power) for themselves by unethical
means.

Andrew Swallow

John Briggs

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av John Briggs » 04 okt 2007 00:57:05

Turenne wrote:
Roger of Hovenden wrote this of Richard's relationship with Philip II
Augustus (Boswell's translation):


' Richard, [then] duke of Aquitaine, the son of the king of England,
remained with Philip, the King of France, who so honoured him for so
long that they ate every day at the same table and from the same dish,
and at night their beds did not separate them. And the king of France
loved him as his own soul; and they loved each other so much that the
king of England was absolutely astonished and the passionate love
between them and marveled at it.'

Well, that either doesn't mean what you think it means - or it has gained in
the translation :-)

' .......In the same year, there came a hermit to king Richard, and,
preaching the words of eternal salvation to him, said: "Be thou
mindful of the destruction of Sodom, and abstain from what is
unlawful; for if thou dost not, a vengeance worthy of God shall
overtake thee". The king, however, intent upon the things of this
world, and not those that are of God, was not able so readily to
withdraw his mind from what was unlawful, unless a revelation should
come to him from above or he should behold a sign. For he despised the
person of his advisor,...'

Just out of interest, what did they do in Gomorrah?
--
John Briggs

Peter Jason

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av Peter Jason » 04 okt 2007 01:04:58

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com>
wrote in message
news:l%VMi.23$ah6.12@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
Turenne wrote:
Roger of Hovenden wrote this of Richard's
relationship with Philip II
Augustus (Boswell's translation):


' Richard, [then] duke of Aquitaine, the
son of the king of England,
remained with Philip, the King of France,
who so honoured him for so
long that they ate every day at the same
table and from the same dish,
and at night their beds did not separate
them. And the king of France
loved him as his own soul; and they loved
each other so much that the
king of England was absolutely astonished
and the passionate love
between them and marveled at it.'

Well, that either doesn't mean what you
think it means - or it has gained in the
translation :-)

' .......In the same year, there came a
hermit to king Richard, and,
preaching the words of eternal salvation
to him, said: "Be thou
mindful of the destruction of Sodom, and
abstain from what is
unlawful; for if thou dost not, a
vengeance worthy of God shall
overtake thee". The king, however, intent
upon the things of this
world, and not those that are of God, was
not able so readily to
withdraw his mind from what was unlawful,
unless a revelation should
come to him from above or he should behold
a sign. For he despised the
person of his advisor,...'

Just out of interest, what did they do in
Gomorrah?
--
John Briggs

They were sister cities. you know - like San
Francisco and Sydney.
Each hemisphere catered for!

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 04 okt 2007 01:37:13

More Nonsense From Pogue Gans in his SECOND SENTENCE below.

Richard I married Berengaria of Navarre in 1191. He was 33 -- a good age to
marry, particularly for a warrior -- and she was 28.

The Gay Lobby LOVES Richard The Lionheart and WANTS him on their Honored
Historical Membership Rolls.

THAT's the Bottom Line.

James Goldman, who wrote _The Lion In Winter_ brilliantly furthered that
Agenda.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fe1abq$e9f$1@reader1.panix.com...

By the way, there was NO mention of any homosexuality on Richard's
part before he became king, while he was king, or for years
afterward. Many years later, some students of history became
curious as to why he never married.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 04 okt 2007 01:50:35

O.K.

That's coherent.

But it often seems to be used as a smear against people who are simply
ambitious and better off than the smearer -- who is an envious person.

We Americans used to use it in describing a sexually aggressive male "on the
make" looking for a pliant chick.

The expression faded because pliant chicks are abundant -- indeed there's a
surplus of them.

DSH

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fe16oe$nfr$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

What do you folks mean by _on the make_ -- EXACTLY?

DSH

Someone who wants to make as much financial and social gain for himself as
possible. These people are seen as selfish, greedy and pretentious.

The difference between someone "on the make" and someone who is trying to
"better himself" is that the former will ruthlessly tread on other
people's toes to do so while the latter will do it through personal
education and career moves.

Renia

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av Renia » 04 okt 2007 02:34:08

I suppose, put more simply, "on the make" means to be "after something",
because we also use it for males out looking for females for some, er,
fun. Either way, to be on the make is to be after something, without
recognising the responsibility which might go with it. Hence the term's
derogatory nature. Nothing to do with envy.




D. Spencer Hines wrote:
O.K.

That's coherent.

But it often seems to be used as a smear against people who are simply
ambitious and better off than the smearer -- who is an envious person.

We Americans used to use it in describing a sexually aggressive male "on the
make" looking for a pliant chick.

The expression faded because pliant chicks are abundant -- indeed there's a
surplus of them.

DSH

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fe16oe$nfr$1@mouse.otenet.gr...


D. Spencer Hines wrote:


What do you folks mean by _on the make_ -- EXACTLY?

DSH

Someone who wants to make as much financial and social gain for himself as
possible. These people are seen as selfish, greedy and pretentious.

The difference between someone "on the make" and someone who is trying to
"better himself" is that the former will ruthlessly tread on other
people's toes to do so while the latter will do it through personal
education and career moves.



D. Spencer Hines

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 04 okt 2007 02:59:57

Yep, but ENVY is often involved in these situations TOO -- by those who
CANNOT readily find free nookie.

I've often heard it applied that way by "the less fortunate".

There is nothing wrong in being ambitious.

And RESPONSIBILITY is a very murky concept in such situations.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fe1frl$q93$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

I suppose, put more simply, "on the make" means to be "after something",
because we also use it for males out looking for females for some, er, fun.
Either way, to be on the make is to be after something, without recognising
the responsibility which might go with it. Hence the term's derogatory
nature. Nothing to do with envy.

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

O.K.

That's coherent.

But it often seems to be used as a smear against people who are simply
ambitious and better off than the smearer -- who is an envious person.

We Americans used to use it in describing a sexually aggressive male "on
the make" looking for a pliant chick.

The expression faded because pliant chicks are abundant -- indeed there's
a surplus of them.

DSH

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fe16oe$nfr$1@mouse.otenet.gr...


D. Spencer Hines wrote:

What do you folks mean by _on the make_ -- EXACTLY?

DSH

Someone who wants to make as much financial and social gain for himself
as possible. These people are seen as selfish, greedy and pretentious.

The difference between someone "on the make" and someone who is trying to
"better himself" is that the former will ruthlessly tread on other
people's toes to do so while the latter will do it through personal
education and career moves.

Renia

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av Renia » 04 okt 2007 03:14:56

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Yep, but ENVY is often involved in these situations TOO -- by those who
CANNOT readily find free nookie.

I've often heard it applied that way by "the less fortunate".

There is nothing wrong in being ambitious.

And RESPONSIBILITY is a very murky concept in such situations.


Responsibility is never a murky concept. Actions always have
consequences. Taking responsibility is recognising that those
consequences could be for good or ill, and it is up to one's conscience
as to which consequences one finds allowable. To not recognise that and
to see responsibility as "murky" is to be irresonsible particularly with
regard to how one's actions or words can affect other people.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 04 okt 2007 04:27:20

I have also often heard people use the phrase "on the make" when describing
someone whom they not only envy ---- but who is simply more successful than
they are.

It's a catchall pejorative.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 04 okt 2007 04:29:15

That Subject Line is really quite brilliant and describes a Great Deal of
British History, in a nutshell.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Hovite

Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av Hovite » 04 okt 2007 07:50:58

On Oct 2, 4:24 am, "Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell"
<thomas.wild...@cox.net> wrote:
There are suggestions that he was lovers with Philippe Auguste and Sancho
VII (brother to his wife). As was aptly put in the story of his father -
"The Lion in Winter" - it was common for men to have sex with anything that
moved regardless of age, gender, or species.

Encyclopedia Britannica says: "Richard was irresponsible and hot-
tempered, possessed tremendous energy, and was capable of great
cruelty. He was more accomplished than most of his royal family, a
soldier of consummate ability, a skillful politician, and capable of
inspiring loyal service. In striking contrast with his father and King
John his brother, he was, there seems no doubt, a homosexual. He had
no children by Queen Berengaria, with whom his relations seem to have
been merely formal."

According to Agnes Strickland (Queens of England) Richard married
Berengaria because he was in love with her brother.

Richard was convicted of Sodomy by a church court in Sicily.

Renia

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av Renia » 04 okt 2007 08:14:53

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
That Subject Line is really quite brilliant and describes a Great Deal of
British History, in a nutshell.

DSH

You would think so, because it is a subjet line you introduced yourself.

I couldn't possibly comment.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 04 okt 2007 08:45:53

_Sodomy_ has many definitions -- even more so in different eras.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Turenne

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av Turenne » 04 okt 2007 09:30:31

On 4 Oct, 08:45, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
_Sodomy_ has many definitions -- even more so in different eras.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

So what do you think Roger of Hovenden's definition is?

RL

a.spencer3

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 04 okt 2007 12:24:49

"Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hbCdnV-NsZKvuZnanZ2dnUVZ8tDinZ2d@bt.com...
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
What do you folks mean by _on the make_ -- EXACTLY?

"On the make" is deliberately general. It meants watchout they are
trying to make money (and sometimes power) for themselves by unethical
means.


Not necessarily unethical - just ruthless in its pursuit as the main aim?

Surreyman

Gjest

Re: Account of Sir William de Morley, 3rd Lord Morley, Marsh

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 okt 2007 12:55:04

Douglas,

Can you confirm that it had been proved that Ida was a Tony. Unfortunately
I no longer have time to read all posts here, so perhaps I missed it.

In the past, I posted some circumstantial evidence that she may have been a
"de la mare". Since the de la mare shield was the same as that of Tony, but
with reversed tinctures, there was perhaps a connection between the two
families.

Regards,
Adrian


In a message dated 04/10/2007 03:15:14 GMT Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

Dear Newsgroup ~

Below is a revised an expanded account of Sir William de Morley, Knt.,
3rd Lord Morley, Marshal of Ireland, and his wife, Cecily Bardolf.
The account below reaffirms Cecily Bardolf's placement as the daughter
of Sir Thomas Bardolf, Knt., 2nd Lord Bardolf. Sir William de Morley
is a lineal descendant of William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury, the
bastard son of King Henry II of England, by his mistress, Ida de
Tony. Sir William de Morley's wife, Cecily Bardolf, is twice a
lineal descendant of Robert Fitz Roy, the bastard son of King Henry I
of England.



<snip>

Vince

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av Vince » 04 okt 2007 14:14:51

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
More Nonsense From Pogue Gans in his SECOND SENTENCE below.

Richard I married Berengaria of Navarre in 1191. He was 33 -- a good
age to marry, particularly for a warrior -- and she was 28.

The Gay Lobby LOVES Richard The Lionheart and WANTS him on their
Honored Historical Membership Rolls.

THAT's the Bottom Line.

James Goldman, who wrote _The Lion In Winter_ brilliantly furthered
that Agenda.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fe1abq$e9f$1@reader1.panix.com...

By the way, there was NO mention of any homosexuality on Richard's
part before he became king, while he was king, or for years
afterward. Many years later, some students of history became
curious as to why he never married.



I don't know and wasn't there but the matter has been of interest to
historians

Richard went through a marriage ceremony, whether he was in fact
effectively married is a matter of some conjecture


"Whether the marriage was ever even consummated is a matter for
conjecture. Richard's sexual orientation is hotly debated amongst
revisionist historians; some claim unproven homosexuality with their new
phenomenon theory, while others present him as a notorious womanizer.
Unreliable sources have recorded him having one bastard son, Philip of
Cognac (d. c. 1211), and perhaps another. In any case, he certainly took
his new wife with him for the first part of the crusade. They returned
separately, but Richard was captured and imprisoned. Berengaria remained
in Europe, attempting to raise money for his ransom. After his release,
Richard returned to England and was not joined by his wife. The marriage
was childless, and Berengaria was thought to be barren."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berengaria_of_Navarre

Vince

Vince

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av Vince » 04 okt 2007 14:14:51

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
More Nonsense From Pogue Gans in his SECOND SENTENCE below.

Richard I married Berengaria of Navarre in 1191. He was 33 -- a good
age to marry, particularly for a warrior -- and she was 28.

The Gay Lobby LOVES Richard The Lionheart and WANTS him on their
Honored Historical Membership Rolls.

THAT's the Bottom Line.

James Goldman, who wrote _The Lion In Winter_ brilliantly furthered
that Agenda.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fe1abq$e9f$1@reader1.panix.com...

By the way, there was NO mention of any homosexuality on Richard's
part before he became king, while he was king, or for years
afterward. Many years later, some students of history became
curious as to why he never married.



I don't know and wasn't there but the matter has been of interest to
historians

Richard went through a marriage ceremony, whether he was in fact
effectively married is a matter of some conjecture


"Whether the marriage was ever even consummated is a matter for
conjecture. Richard's sexual orientation is hotly debated amongst
revisionist historians; some claim unproven homosexuality with their new
phenomenon theory, while others present him as a notorious womanizer.
Unreliable sources have recorded him having one bastard son, Philip of
Cognac (d. c. 1211), and perhaps another. In any case, he certainly took
his new wife with him for the first part of the crusade. They returned
separately, but Richard was captured and imprisoned. Berengaria remained
in Europe, attempting to raise money for his ransom. After his release,
Richard returned to England and was not joined by his wife. The marriage
was childless, and Berengaria was thought to be barren."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berengaria_of_Navarre

Vince

Vince

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av Vince » 04 okt 2007 14:14:51

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
More Nonsense From Pogue Gans in his SECOND SENTENCE below.

Richard I married Berengaria of Navarre in 1191. He was 33 -- a good
age to marry, particularly for a warrior -- and she was 28.

The Gay Lobby LOVES Richard The Lionheart and WANTS him on their
Honored Historical Membership Rolls.

THAT's the Bottom Line.

James Goldman, who wrote _The Lion In Winter_ brilliantly furthered
that Agenda.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fe1abq$e9f$1@reader1.panix.com...

By the way, there was NO mention of any homosexuality on Richard's
part before he became king, while he was king, or for years
afterward. Many years later, some students of history became
curious as to why he never married.



I don't know and wasn't there but the matter has been of interest to
historians

Richard went through a marriage ceremony, whether he was in fact
effectively married is a matter of some conjecture


"Whether the marriage was ever even consummated is a matter for
conjecture. Richard's sexual orientation is hotly debated amongst
revisionist historians; some claim unproven homosexuality with their new
phenomenon theory, while others present him as a notorious womanizer.
Unreliable sources have recorded him having one bastard son, Philip of
Cognac (d. c. 1211), and perhaps another. In any case, he certainly took
his new wife with him for the first part of the crusade. They returned
separately, but Richard was captured and imprisoned. Berengaria remained
in Europe, attempting to raise money for his ransom. After his release,
Richard returned to England and was not joined by his wife. The marriage
was childless, and Berengaria was thought to be barren."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berengaria_of_Navarre

Vince

Vince

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av Vince » 04 okt 2007 14:14:51

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
More Nonsense From Pogue Gans in his SECOND SENTENCE below.

Richard I married Berengaria of Navarre in 1191. He was 33 -- a good
age to marry, particularly for a warrior -- and she was 28.

The Gay Lobby LOVES Richard The Lionheart and WANTS him on their
Honored Historical Membership Rolls.

THAT's the Bottom Line.

James Goldman, who wrote _The Lion In Winter_ brilliantly furthered
that Agenda.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fe1abq$e9f$1@reader1.panix.com...

By the way, there was NO mention of any homosexuality on Richard's
part before he became king, while he was king, or for years
afterward. Many years later, some students of history became
curious as to why he never married.



I don't know and wasn't there but the matter has been of interest to
historians

Richard went through a marriage ceremony, whether he was in fact
effectively married is a matter of some conjecture


"Whether the marriage was ever even consummated is a matter for
conjecture. Richard's sexual orientation is hotly debated amongst
revisionist historians; some claim unproven homosexuality with their new
phenomenon theory, while others present him as a notorious womanizer.
Unreliable sources have recorded him having one bastard son, Philip of
Cognac (d. c. 1211), and perhaps another. In any case, he certainly took
his new wife with him for the first part of the crusade. They returned
separately, but Richard was captured and imprisoned. Berengaria remained
in Europe, attempting to raise money for his ransom. After his release,
Richard returned to England and was not joined by his wife. The marriage
was childless, and Berengaria was thought to be barren."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berengaria_of_Navarre

Vince

Vince

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av Vince » 04 okt 2007 14:20:09

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
O.K.

That's coherent.

But it often seems to be used as a smear against people who are
simply ambitious and better off than the smearer -- who is an envious
person.

We Americans used to use it in describing a sexually aggressive male
"on the make" looking for a pliant chick.

The expression faded because pliant chicks are abundant -- indeed
there's a surplus of them.

DSH

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fe16oe$nfr$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

What do you folks mean by _on the make_ -- EXACTLY?

DSH
Someone who wants to make as much financial and social gain for
himself as possible. These people are seen as selfish, greedy and
pretentious.

The difference between someone "on the make" and someone who is
trying to "better himself" is that the former will ruthlessly tread
on other people's toes to do so while the latter will do it through
personal education and career moves.




Brideshead Revisited

Mr. Samgrass was a genealogist and a legitimist....
He was with Lady Marchmain when I first met them, and I thought
then that she could not have found a greater contrast to
herself than this intellectual-on-the-make, nor a better foil to her
own charm.
^^^^^^^^^^^^

Vince

a.spencer3

Re: Superiors, Inferiors & Human Nature

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 04 okt 2007 15:15:37

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:2v6Ni.246$6q5.946@eagle.america.net...
"It already appears, that there must be in every society of men
superiors and inferiors, because God has laid in the constitution
and course of nature the foundations of the distinction."

-- John Adams (Thoughts on Government, 1776)

Reference: The Works of John Adams, Charles Adams, ed., 427.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

Indeed...

And it is often revealed in the Genealogy.


Indeed!

Twit.

Surreyman

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 04 okt 2007 15:19:38

Precisely!

_On the make_ is best described as a hip-pocket pejorative used by those who
are envious of folks who are more successful than they are themselves.

That's the way Renia Stulta Disarmata uses it.

'Nuff Said.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Peter Skelton" <skeltonp@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:f2o9g3p9hifafedjsug6ei7ijlj4qbhblq@4ax.com...

It's really very easy. The ones I like are trying to better
themselves, those I don't like are on the make. If you're ever in
doubt, all you have to do is ask me.


Peter Skelton

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 04 okt 2007 15:30:32

Bingo!

Renia scores a RINGER.

Black The Red, Alias Wee Willie Black and Pogue Black is CONSUMED with CLASS
ENVY.

It's a standard component in the PERSONA of scruffy little socialists --
particularly the fat, unattractive ones such as Pogue Black.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Illegitimis Non Carborundum

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fe2r1j$dpl$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

So you think that someone from a sink estate who works hard at school to
get to university, then works diligently at their job and is promoted or
head-hunted, is no different to [sic] the Del Boys of this world? You
think the kid from the sink estate should stay there and become Del Boy?

You really don't always think things through, do you William? In trying
to sound clever, cynical and politically adroit, you betray your own class
envy.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 04 okt 2007 15:49:25

Hilarious!

Pogue Surreyman roots up an acorn -- as every blind pig will from time to
time.

Queen Victoria died in 1901.

That's a Fact Of History.

Pogue Black was dipping his typing fingers in Clever Sophistry once again --
and came a cropper once again....

As Is His Nature.

'Nuff Said.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:GD6Ni.78$z05.19@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fe2q0v$3od$2@registered.motzarella.org...

There are, once again, no absolute facts in history...


So Queen Victoria lives!

Surreyman

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 04 okt 2007 15:58:05

Perceptive.

His bed would be the best, the most comfortable and the warmest in the
castle.

Sleeping in the same bed doesn't prove homosexuality.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"sophia" <sophia@thing.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fe2mkp$km1$1@thing.limpid.org.uk...

Paul J Gans wrote:

...

That's close to what it said.

You do understand that eating from the same dish was a mark
of respect. So was sharing a bed with a distinguished
visitor. It is often mentioned in terms of other people.

A good example is that of Edward IV who in the 1460s was known to share a
bed on occasion with various former Lancastrian nobles and thus do them
honour at part of the process of co-opting them to support his new regime.

Sophia

Vince

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av Vince » 04 okt 2007 16:08:11

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Hilarious!

Pogue Surreyman roots up an acorn -- as every blind pig will from time to
time.

Queen Victoria died in 1901.

That's a Fact Of History.


But exactly which second and minute etc

The probability that they got the day right is excellent
the Hour is good
The minute is fair and the second is nonexistent
(due to both the nature of dying and the nature of time keeping)

As with all measurements the probability that the measurement is in the
correct range depends on the size of the range. The bigger the range
the more likely both the true and the measured value fall in the range

On the other hand we can say what time is written on a death certificate
that is what historians look at. The connection between the document
and reality is always a question.


Vince

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 04 okt 2007 16:24:22

Hilarious!

Pogue Brannigan wanders off into Academic WOOLGATHERING Sophistry...

As is his wont...

And THUMBSUCKS concerning OTHER Historical Facts & Factoids.

NONE of which have anything to do with the HISTORICAL FACT that Queen
Victoria DIED in 1901.

It's a FACT.

DSH

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

"Vince" <firelaw@firelaw.us> wrote in message
news:xNadnaP2Oe1-nJjanZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@comcast.com...

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Hilarious!

Pogue Surreyman roots up an acorn -- as every blind pig will from time to
time.

Queen Victoria died in 1901.

That's a Fact Of History.

But exactly which second and minute etc

The probability that they got the day right is excellent
the Hour is good

The minute is fair and the second is nonexistent
(due to both the nature of dying and the nature of time keeping)

As with all measurements the probability that the measurement is in the
correct range depends on the size of the range. The bigger the range the
more likely both the true and the measured value fall in the range

On the other hand we can say what time is written on a death certificate
that is what historians look at. The connection between the document and
reality is always a question.


Vince

Vince

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av Vince » 04 okt 2007 16:41:25

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Hilarious!

Pogue Brannigan wanders off into Academic WOOLGATHERING Sophistry...

As is his wont...

And THUMBSUCKS concerning OTHER Historical Facts & Factoids.

NONE of which have anything to do with the HISTORICAL FACT that Queen
Victoria DIED in 1901.

It's a FACT.


She also died in the 20th century
thats a fact

She also died in the second Millennium of the current era
Thats a fact

The death of Hammurabi is just as much a "fact in history" as the death
of Victoria. We think we know one to a higher precision than the other

Vince






DSH

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

"Vince" <firelaw@firelaw.us> wrote in message
news:xNadnaP2Oe1-nJjanZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@comcast.com...

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Hilarious!

Pogue Surreyman roots up an acorn -- as every blind pig will from time to
time.

Queen Victoria died in 1901.

That's a Fact Of History.
But exactly which second and minute etc

The probability that they got the day right is excellent
the Hour is good

The minute is fair and the second is nonexistent
(due to both the nature of dying and the nature of time keeping)

As with all measurements the probability that the measurement is in the
correct range depends on the size of the range. The bigger the range the
more likely both the true and the measured value fall in the range

On the other hand we can say what time is written on a death certificate
that is what historians look at. The connection between the document and
reality is always a question.


Vince


a.spencer3

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 04 okt 2007 17:00:32

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:D47Ni.249$6q5.1038@eagle.america.net...
Hilarious!

Pogue Surreyman roots up an acorn -- as every blind pig will from time to
time.

Queen Victoria died in 1901.

That's a Fact Of History.


"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:GD6Ni.78$z05.19@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fe2q0v$3od$2@registered.motzarella.org...

There are, once again, no absolute facts in history...


So Queen Victoria lives!

Surreyman



Oh dear, he gets worse and worse, don't he!

Surreyman

Bryn

Re: Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av Bryn » 04 okt 2007 19:13:39

Needing no introduction "an" Usenet stalwart wrote:
Richard was convicted of Sodomy by a church court in Sicily.

Ha!

--
Bryn

It takes years of schooling to
knock the intelligence out of a child.

Bryn

Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting

Legg inn av Bryn » 04 okt 2007 21:45:22

Needing no introduction "an" Usenet stalwart wrote:
On , , Wed, 03 Oct 2007 01:18:17 -0700, Re: Cross Posting &
Simul-Posting, Turenne <richard.lichten1@virgin.net> wrote:

On 3 Oct, 09:59, Yeah Right <freewhye...@freewhatever.freehowever
wrote:
On , , Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:45:28 -0700, Re: Cross Posting &





Simul-Posting, Turenne <richard.licht...@virgin.net> wrote:
On 2 Oct, 11:30, Yeah Right <freewhye...@freewhatever.freehowever
wrote:
On , , Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:33:19 -0700, Re: Cross Posting &

Simul-Posting, Turenne <richard.licht...@virgin.net> wrote:
On 1 Oct, 21:26, Yeah Right <freewhye...@freewhatever.freehowever
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

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.

You have to admit it is a pretty obvious conclusion to draw.
Just for the record, what kind of foreigner is he?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll leave him to tell you. That said, his background, despite some of
the gobbledegook that he posts, is impeccable as far as ATR is
concerned.

OMIGOD!!
I seem to be being ignored.
If what you say is correct, I have never been ignored by someone
of his position before.
I etc- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm not ignoring you, I thought your comment was funny.

It wasn't you I was accusing of ignoring me, it is the Count. I
thought he would have been down on me like a tone of bricks in an
instant.

Don't worry, it doesn't count...

--

Bryn

Don't forget that depression is merely
anger without enthusiasm...

Yeah Right

Re: Cross Posting & Simul-Posting

Legg inn av Yeah Right » 04 okt 2007 22:18:25

On , , Wed, 03 Oct 2007 01:18:17 -0700, Re: Cross Posting &
Simul-Posting, Turenne <richard.lichten1@virgin.net> wrote:

On 3 Oct, 09:59, Yeah Right <freewhye...@freewhatever.freehowever
wrote:
On , , Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:45:28 -0700, Re: Cross Posting &





Simul-Posting, Turenne <richard.licht...@virgin.net> wrote:
On 2 Oct, 11:30, Yeah Right <freewhye...@freewhatever.freehowever
wrote:
On , , Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:33:19 -0700, Re: Cross Posting &

Simul-Posting, Turenne <richard.licht...@virgin.net> wrote:
On 1 Oct, 21:26, Yeah Right <freewhye...@freewhatever.freehowever
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.

You have to admit it is a pretty obvious conclusion to draw.
Just for the record, what kind of foreigner is he?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll leave him to tell you. That said, his background, despite some of
the gobbledegook that he posts, is impeccable as far as ATR is
concerned.

OMIGOD!!
I seem to be being ignored.
If what you say is correct, I have never been ignored by someone
of his position before.
I etc- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm not ignoring you, I thought your comment was funny.

It wasn't you I was accusing of ignoring me, it is the Count. I
thought he would have been down on me like a tone of bricks in an
instant.


John Brandon

Re: Col. Edward Massey compounds "per Captain John Gifford"

Legg inn av John Brandon » 05 okt 2007 00:06:11

What does it mean that Col. Massey compounded for his estate "per
Captain John Gifford"?

Oh, probably has something to do with this: "Gifford to pay 165 l.,
being 3/4 year's rent ..."

http://books.google.com/books?id=ebUKAA ... #PPT516,M1

Gjest

Re: Superiors, Inferiors & Human Nature

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 okt 2007 00:10:04

Dear Dennis,
It`s scarcely a secret that John Adams, our second
President wanted the new United States goverment to be a Constitutional Monarchy.
He wanted George Washington to be King.
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



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

Don Stone

Re: (OT) For the attention of distant relatives of Sir Benja

Legg inn av Don Stone » 05 okt 2007 00:11:03

Ian Cairns wrote:
The BBC is reporting the offer of a free 13th century house, nr Bridgwater,
Somerset, to any distant relative of the current owner: Sir Benjamin Slade.
Please see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/7028723.stm
for details.

For details of the house, see:
http://www.maunselhouse.co.uk/

Several of Sir Benjamin's ancestors appear in the RootsWeb WorldConnect

database. One of them, Sir Benjamin's great-great-grandmother Barbara
(Mostyn) Slade, can be found at
http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bi ... id=I762357,
which gives her ancestry back to Charlotte Fitzroy, daughter of Charles
II. Thus many readers of this newsgroup/list are presumably distant
relatives of Sir Benjamin.

However, someone else currently seems to have the inside track:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engl ... 711105.stm.

-- Don Stone

Gjest

Re: Account of Sir William de Morley, 3rd Lord Morley, Marsh

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 okt 2007 01:18:02

Dear Adrian, John Ravilious, Douglas , Leo and others,

I must own myself confused. John Ravilious posted that Cecily,
daugther of Thomas Bardolf ( John considered her to be of the line of Bardolf of
Spixworth and Douglas argued that her father was Thomas Bardolf, 2nd Lord
Bardolf of Wormgay which John found documentation indicating, now Douglas has
declared her to be a sister to Robert, Lord Motault.
Douglas, are you a ninny ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



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

Gjest

Re: Two different women: Cecily (Bardolf) de Morley and Ceci

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 okt 2007 01:45:04

Dear Douglas,
Well, now I know to whom the sobriquet " ninny"
currently belongs. hm. Interesting , two William Morleys , each son of a Robert
married a woman named Cecily.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA





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

Leo van de Pas

Re: The Nature of the Beast

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 05 okt 2007 20:57:25

Dear Paul,

You read my message wrongly, the unsubscribing has already been done by
someone else. I removed whatever could identify that person.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "paul bulkley" <designeconomic@yahoo.com>
To: <gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 2:25 AM
Subject: The Nature of the Beast


I refer to Leo Van de Pas announcement that he is
obliged to unsubscribe from Gen Med.

" I just got sick and tired of having to delete post
after post of non related stuff"

And he refers to major nuisances that have plagued
this group for far too many years.

Well Leo - you are not alone. There are others who
share your thoughts, and obliged to suffer the output
of clowns.

Prospects for Gen Med can only be poor whilst it
permits a very low standard of subject matter, the
domination by idiots and imbeciles, and the malicious
and witless criticism of entrenched gossips.

Sincerely Yours,

Paul Bulkley



____________________________________________________________________________________
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated
for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gam ... olyherenow

-------------------------------
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: The Nature of the Beast

Legg inn av WJhonson » 05 okt 2007 22:03:39

Those people who unsubscribe cut off their nose to spite their face as some wise man once said. If you do not like a system, you try to affect change from the inside, not by running off to sulk in your room alone.

Admittedly, this list/group is a bit different from most to which I belong, in that there's quite a lot more cat-calling, bitch-slapping and wildly off topic ravings. Some people can thrive in that environment nonetheless and other's cannot.

Some people can ignore those threads/posts that are obviously inane, others cannot. People who find they *must* read every single post even *knowing* that it's going to be mindless drivel, do no service by blaming the group for their voracious need to so do.

Most if not all threads/posts are labeled quite directly with what they are about. The first thing I do every morning, is DWR all posts with titles which I know are of no interest to me. I don't blame the group that I have to spend an *entire minute!!** doing so. It's part of life as we today know it. That's my perspective. FWIW.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Superiors, Inferiors & Human Nature

Legg inn av WJhonson » 06 okt 2007 00:55:41

Regarding regional language differences, I grew up near Seattle in the state of Washington. EVERYONE called soda pop "Pop". Nobody called it soda. The only thing we ever called soda was that nasty soda water (or seltzer water) with which adults made mixed drinks.

When I went to college in Illinois and called it "pop", they had no idea for what I was asking.

Will Johnson

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: The Nature of the Beast

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 06 okt 2007 02:05:05

Very true Will, I do the same by deleting straight away all the posts with
subject lines I'm not interested in. I also send Spencer's posts straight
into the Trash, so the only time I get a glimpse of them is if someone
replies to them. That way I only get the good stuff.

I also agree with Todd, that if there was more posts of the standard of, say
John Ravillious, the annoying ones wouldn't be so annoying.

Merilyn Pedrick



-------Original Message-------



From: WJhonson

Date: 10/06/07 06:34:00

To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com

Subject: Re: The Nature of the Beast



Those people who unsubscribe cut off their nose to spite their face as some
wise man once said. If you do not like a system, you try to affect change
from the inside, not by running off to sulk in your room alone.



Admittedly, this list/group is a bit different from most to which I belong,
in that there's quite a lot more cat-calling, bitch-slapping and wildly off
topic ravings. Some people can thrive in that environment nonetheless and
other's cannot.



Some people can ignore those threads/posts that are obviously inane, others
cannot. People who find they *must* read every single post even *knowing*
that it's going to be mindless drivel, do no service by blaming the group
for their voracious need to so do.



Most if not all threads/posts are labeled quite directly with what they are
about. The first thing I do every morning, is DWR all posts with titles
which I know are of no interest to me. I don't blame the group that I have
to spend an *entire minute!!** doing so. It's part of life as we today know
it. That's my perspective. FWIW.



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: Genealogics: Giving some background to Charles Fleetwood

Legg inn av WJhonson » 06 okt 2007 08:54:57

Thank you Will for your excellent post. I fear your fat fingers were too slippery from stuffing your face with potato chips (or crisps in England) and you posted before you were through for you've left off two most excellent bullets points from that DNB article towit :

14 By his first wife, Frances Smith he had (1) Smith Fleetwood (1644-1709), who married Mary, daughter of Sir Edward Hartopp, their descendents became extinct in 1764; (2) Elizabeth, married Sir John Hartopp, third baronet, from whom the existing Cradock-Hartopp family is descended.
15 By Bridget Cromwell, Fleetwood was the father of (1) Cromwell Fleetwood, born about 1653, married in 1679 Elizabeth Nevill of Little Berkhampstead, Hertfordshire; administration of his goods was granted in Sep 1688; he seems to have died without issue. (2) Anne Fleetwood, buried in Westminster Abbey, and exhumed at the Restoration; (3) Mary, who married Nathaniel Carter (21 Feb 1678), and other children, most of whom died young, and none of whom left issue.
- courtesy of Will Johnson, wjhonson@aol.com, Professional Genealogist, extracted from the original page image on ancestry.com

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 06 okt 2007 10:18:49

<G>

DSH

"Bryn" <Scotland-the-Brave@finhall.GREMLINSdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5GOZqvEJr0BHFwJl@finhall.demon.co.uk...

First Rule of Usenet debate:

Quote Wikipedia when it agrees with your argument.

State it's not a reliable source when it does not.

The Hodgson's ancestor se

Re: Margaret Wiseman m. (1) 1542 Thomas Everard; (2) 1559 Jo

Legg inn av The Hodgson's ancestor se » 06 okt 2007 16:07:54

Is there any connection between these people and the Elizabeth, dau of
Thomas or John Wiseman, who married Edward Goring (d 1617) of Billingshurst,
Sussex, and her mother-in-law Dorothy, dau of William Everard (d 1524) of
Albourne, Sussex (son of John Everard of Cratfield, Suffolk)?

Richard Hodgson

See my family database at http://www.ancestorsearch.co.uk

Database of 56,138individuals: 48,230 of my children¹s ancestors (20,203 of
their father¹s ancestors, and 46,952 of their mother¹s ancestors. 18,925 of
the individuals are ancestors of both their father and mother.)

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 06 okt 2007 18:35:18

The Universal Disclaimer of pogues and poguettes.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Brian Sharrock" <b.sharrock@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:QdPNi.3563$WX3.1962@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...

{Luckily, I prefaced my paragraph with AIUI ... ]

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Kings, Queens, Queers, Bones and Bastards

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 06 okt 2007 18:59:27

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fe8hai$ltj$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

Renia, stop making my case for me. -- pjg

I'm not making your case for you. You have written arrogantly here for
years telling people what they already know as if you discovered it
yourself or as if it is something new.

That's because he's used to holding forth in front of NYU freshmen.

But the blanket phrase "there are no facts in history" is just plain
wrong.

It is a bit blunt, isn't it? But it is catchy and makes people think.
All is probability.

Catchy and makes people think? If people want to think properly about it
then they go to university for 4 years and learn how to apply it. Then it
ceases to be catchy, and becomes the norm. But to a scientist who becomes
an untrained newbie historian, it will always remain "catchy".

Gans likes "catchy" -- as his goal is to catch freshmen's attention -- and
hold it. So theatrics and vaudevillian broadness and exaggeration are
required.

Further, he has simply never understood what a HISTORICAL or GENEALOGICAL
FACT is and how they differ from SCIENTIFIC FACTS -- although I've educated
him on the differences MANY times.

He's a backslider -- and doesn't pay attention in class. Lazy Student.

So, he keeps insisting, stubbornly and erroneously:

"There are no historical facts."

And:

"There are no facts in history."

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»