Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
John Brandon

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av John Brandon » 22 okt 2007 17:00:39

Ha ha, funny funny ... :-)

* * * * *

Hi, John. This is a courtesy response directly to you.
I am new to this newsgroup and meant to send my response
only to gen-medieval. If you wish to take this up there, I will
respond. Kindly do not email me directly about this matter,
and I apologize for sending directly to you. I do NOT believe
you are a Peck descendant but a negativist reading gen-medieval
posts. I will not respond to you again directly, so refrain from
doing such to me.

Bill

Bill Arnold

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 22 okt 2007 17:29:04

Much thanks for your interest, John.

I am surprised you found the article(s) "deadly dull" when you claim
you are a descendant.

On the contrary, you are wrong on the *conclusions* of the article(s).
The article(s) had as a PREMISE the desire to challenge the British Museum
*Pedigree of Pecks* which alleged it was fraudulent. I would rather term
the British Museum *Pedigree of Pecks* mistaken. What you did was not
read the article(s) thoroughly enough: you stated you found them "deadly
dull." So, I challenge you to reread them and note this time that the authors
in fact did challenge the Pedigree of Pecks. And I also would remind you
that I wrote here at gen-medieval that I was NOT interested in the Pecks
beyond Richard Peck=Alice Middleton unless someone working with the
primary documents in Yorkshire could work out the Peck lineage, I was
not about to attempt it.

But let us get to the crux of the matter: the lineage I have proposed based
on the conclusions of the authors of the REGISTER in which the proposed
pedigree shifts maternally from Richard Peck into the Middletons via
Alice Middleton is worthy of further investigation. You must have noted
that the top of that lineage, as far as I have stated, are two prominent
knights of early Yorkshire history. The Pecks are descendants, if the
proposed pedigree is valid, of something very interesting historical
personages. I will leave it at that: and rest my case on the FACTS I have
presented and others have brought to the gen-medieval table.

In other words: I will entertain challenges to the FACTS presented: I really
cannot address someone's "deadly dull" reading view of their own ancestry.

Bill

***************************


--- John Brandon <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote:

As a descendant of Rev. Robert Peck, I felt it my duty at one point to
read through all installments of the article (which was in every
quarterly issue of the _Register_ across two or three whole years, if
I'm remembering correctly). The article was deadly dull, but I think
it convincingly showed that the Beccles Pecks could not have been
descended from the Yorkshire Pecks (a higher-status family). I think
it is probably pointless to try to work in some exalted descent by a
detour to a proposed Leeke line. I'm fairly certain all these people
(ancestors of Rev. Robert and Joseph) were "in humble life," as the
expression goes.


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



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

D. Spencer Hines

Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 22 okt 2007 17:37:49

Twaddle...

An OXYMORON can also involve two MUTUALLY INCONGRUOUS elements -- not just
CONTRADICTORY elements.

"something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous
elements"

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Eleventh Edition, p. 888

Pogue Thompson goes down for the count...

Crawls to his feet and runs for the tall grass.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Just remember, ALL Descendents are DIRECT -- there are no "indirect"
descendents.

Likewise, one CANNOT be a "collateral descendent" of someone.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas=

"Doug Thompson" <doug.thompson@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:1193008099.122408.122890@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in message news:...

The term "DIRECT DESCENDENT" is Idiotic, as well as being an Oxymoron
and Redundant.

ALL Descendents are DIRECT -- there are no "indirect" descendents.

DSH

Actually Hines, you are wrong here! It is a redundancy but NOT an
oxymoron. An oxymoron is a figure of speech that combines two
normally contradictory terms....

Bill Arnold

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 22 okt 2007 18:10:28

Thanks, Will.

If you consult the archives, I believe I have quoted every source for every
fact. For the most part, they come from the cited REGISTER articles. So,
if you have a particular challenge to a particular FACT, raise it and I will
either supply it anew or direct you to where in the archives it is. There is
no doubt in my mind that we are agreed that in scholarship, one must cite
sources of facts and address conclusions, as such.

Bill

*************************************************************************
--- WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

But Bill you've failed to quote your sources except in a few points. The
other points are left uncited.

I feel that perhaps the articles you're reading don't actually address those
points, and you're hoping we won't notice the omission. But I can't
overlook it.

Will Johnson



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

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



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Middleton of Yorkshire to Peck of Suffolk?

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 22 okt 2007 18:28:03

In article <1193068839.697266.202470@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
John Brandon <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote:

Bill Arnold wrote privately:

... I do NOT believe
you are a Peck descendant but a negativist reading gen-medieval
posts. ...

I tuned out most of this thread, which seemed an inefficient,
cart-before-horse discussion. But this exchange (and Mr. Arnold's
incredulity that John could find an article on his own ancestors boring)
raises an interesting point about perspectives & habits.

Some people who are new to this whole endeavor seem to think that only
descendants are uniquely qualified to research, and above all to
critique, genealogies. Remember the Skipwith-Dale discussion, with Jeff
Chipman's insisting that his descent uniquely qualified him to ignore
logic, and that any criticisms must come from those who were motivated
by envy or competition, and could safely be ignored? Sort of 'descendo
ut intelligam'.

Apparently, Mr. Arnold is interested in the Middletons because he
descends from a Peck colonist who was long ago alleged to be a
descendant of a Yorkshire gentry family with a Middleton marriage.
Hasty searching comes up with this line, posted variously by Mr. Arnold
and rearranged for clarity:

1. Richard Peck, Esq., [of Wakefield, Yorks. d. 1516] = Alice Middleton

2. Henry Peck [of Carlton Colville, Suffolk, d. 1525] = Margery Leeke

3. Robert Peck, Sr. [of Beccles, Suffolk, d. 1556] = Joan Water

4. Robert Peck [of Beccles, Suffolk] = Ellen Babbs

5. Joseph Peck, baptised at Beccles 30 Apr 1587 [immigrant, 1638]

Now, a 2002 post by one Bradford Peck, on the rootsweb Peck list,
handily summarizes a lengthy NEHGR article on the Pecks, appearing in
1935 to 1940, which disproved an earlier pedigree which connected the
last three generations above, with the first, via a John Peck of
Wakefield [d. 1558/9] in generation 2 instead of Henry of Carlton
Colville, Suffolk.

Consult:

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/PE ... 1012515364

The original article is:

S. Allyn Peck [and Frederick Stanhope Peck], "The English Ancestry of
Joseph Peck of Hingham, Mass, in 1638," NEHGR 89-94 (Oct 1935 through
Jan 1940), ...

According to Bradford Peck's summary (quoted below), the 1935-40 article
shows the following holes in the above descent:

.. the NEHGR series certainly seems to eliminate John Peck of Wakefield, d. 3
Feb 1558/9 & Joan Anne / Aune as the parents of Robert Peck Sr, d. 1556, of
Beccles as was reported in both the Ira Peck and Herbert Peck books.

Also the NEHGR series does a good job of establishing John Leeke, d. 1529 as
Robert Peck Sr.'s maternal grandfather. However Robert Peck's father is not
identified who married the unidentified daughter of John Leek, d. 1529.

Further that this John Leeke is the probable son of a John Leeke, d. 1504
(and possibly his wife Alys).

It does suggest early in the series that Robert might be the son of Henry
Peke, d. 1525, of Carlton Colville, Suffolk (about 5 miles east of Beccles)
who names his wife Margery, a son Robert and a daughter Kateryn in his will
dated 16 Apr 1525 & proved Nov 1525. However it is stated: "Thus far no proof
has been found." [V.89, page 334, Oct 1934].

So apparently the line posted by Mr. Arnold (which, to be fair, did not
originate with him, as Bradford Peck's post notes seeing it distributed
on the internet) is an attempt to revive the earlier Yorkshire gentry
descent for the Suffolk Pecks by assigning Henry Peck of Carlton
Colville, Suffolk, as father of Robert Peck of Beccles, and son of
Richard Peck, Esq. of Wakefield, Yorks. But both assignments are
without evidence, and no evidence suggests any link between the Suffolk
Pecks and the Yorkshire ones. Mr. Arnold has suggested that John
Brandon's reading of the lengthy NEHGR Peck article mistakes its
findings, but John's summary is essentially the same as Bradford Peck's
summary quoted here.

If Mr. Arnold has evidence independent of the 1935-40 NEHGR series to
[re-]connect the Suffolk Pecks to the Yorkshire Peck / Middleton couple,
he should present it clearly.

Throwing up one's hands about Peck, then devoting so muchy energy to the
alleged Middleton ancestry, is a classic beginner's mistake -- or
genealogy of denial.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net/

Gjest

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 okt 2007 19:19:03

Bill the main problem is, you give all the conclusions first in each
posting, and then you post a brief extract of part of the article. The extracts
don't cover all your conclusions, so a person has to piece together multiple
newsgroups, removing the conclusions in order to see what the article actually
said, in part.

I've mentioned before that you should not mix your comments into the
comments of the extract. It makes it very confusing for us to separate out what
*you* are saying, what the *author* of the article is saying, and what the
underlying primary source is saying.

The best way to approach the line would be to simply extract the article
details without ANY additional comment. Saving any additional comment for other
postings, or adding those seperately to the end of your posting to make it
more clear.

I don't feel so far, that the article supports your conclusions. I think
you've added many other conclusions from other places. It would be more
helpful if you addressed only ONE fact at a time. Such as the proof that Henry was
the father. Without any additional baggage.

Will Johnson



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

John Brandon

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av John Brandon » 22 okt 2007 21:11:57

Ha ha ... once again, *funny funny*.

I have never sent you a private email, whereas you have sent me two (a
copy of your posting, and the little follow-up gem I posted above).
That wasn't "nice," I suppose, but I am known for being "a hateful,
spiteful person" on this group. Most of the "good people" won't even
condescend to speak to me.

But it is absolutely false for you to claim I sent you a private
email.



Well, thanks much, Nathaniel, for the summary of the whole situation.
I appreciate it, and aside from some snippets of an obvious relationship
between Mr. Brandon and Mr. Taylor, I do NOT appreciate your disclosure
of a *PRIVATE EMAIL* between Mr. Brandon and Mr. Arnold being posted
to a public newsgroup. You should refrain from invading my privacy, or
anyone else's in the future.

Now: as to the Middleton-Peck-Leeke-Waters families.

Let me recapitulate, in my own way.

Up until John Higgins informed this group *PUBLICLY* that the Middleton
pedigree down to Alice who married Richard Peck was in the *Visitations*
somewhere, I HAD NO IDEA. I admittedly told everyone up front I am a
*naif* compared to the rest of you. Also, I joined gen-medieval recently,
and HAD NO IDEA of the posts of Bradford Peck on a rootsweb Peck list,
because I HAD NO IDEA OF A ROOTSWEB PECK LIST. How naive of me
to be so naive. I wish we all were as smart as Mr. Brandon and Mr. Taylor
who are naive about privacy laws: even on the internet.

For you or anyone else to impugn my character is irrelevant, as far as I am
concerned. Let Mr. Brandon deal with his own privacy as I have. I will NOT
disclose what he wrote me as it was private. I will tell you when I responded
to his message I mistakenly hit send because the newsgroup sets up both
the public and the private email addresses. I have to constantly strip from
my addressee box the private email address. I did forget to delete his email
address. I apologized to Mr. Brandon and asked him to deal with this matter
publicly, because he wrote me in private. Apparently he did NOT accept my
apology.

I am only interested in resolving the question at hand. So: I will respond
to the thoughtful part of your post. Can we keep this matter in the realm
of scholarship?

So: I now know that descendants of Sir Peter Middleton, knight who
married Eustacia Plumpton, include Alice Middleton who married Richard
Peck, and their children. I HAVE THAT CLEAR now, and prior to John
Higgins polite and informative posts, I did not.

Also: from rereading S. Allyn Peck I now KNOW that Robert Peck, the Elder,
of Beccles, was the grandson of John Leeke, of Beccles. That is also fact,
as I read the NEHGSR and you have, I believe, posted it accurately.

QUESTION OF IDENTITY: I ask the membership of gen-medieval, at large,
assistance in establishing whether or not the grandson of John Leeke
can be IDENTIFIED with the son of Henry Peck? It has taken me awhile
to get to the crux of this matter, but I am sure that someone somewhere
on this list with access to wills, church or court records can assist us?

With all due respect to the membership-at-large, and concerned that
someone has brought a *private* email before you, I am

Bill

*************************************************

--- Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltay...@earthlink.net> wrote:



In article <1193068839.697266.202...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Bill Arnold wrote privately:

... I do NOT believe
you are a Peck descendant but a negativist reading gen-medieval
posts. ...

I tuned out most of this thread, which seemed an inefficient,
cart-before-horse discussion. But this exchange (and Mr. Arnold's
incredulity that John could find an article on his own ancestors boring)
raises an interesting point about perspectives & habits.

Some people who are new to this whole endeavor seem to think that only
descendants are uniquely qualified to research, and above all to
critique, genealogies. Remember the Skipwith-Dale discussion, with Jeff
Chipman's insisting that his descent uniquely qualified him to ignore
logic, and that any criticisms must come from those who were motivated
by envy or competition, and could safely be ignored? Sort of 'descendo
ut intelligam'.

Apparently, Mr. Arnold is interested in the Middletons because he
descends from a Peck colonist who was long ago alleged to be a
descendant of a Yorkshire gentry family with a Middleton marriage.
Hasty searching comes up with this line, posted variously by Mr. Arnold
and rearranged for clarity:

1. Richard Peck, Esq., [of Wakefield, Yorks. d. 1516] = Alice Middleton

2. Henry Peck [of Carlton Colville, Suffolk, d. 1525] = Margery Leeke

3. Robert Peck, Sr. [of Beccles, Suffolk, d. 1556] = Joan Water

4. Robert Peck [of Beccles, Suffolk] = Ellen Babbs

5. Joseph Peck, baptised at Beccles 30 Apr 1587 [immigrant, 1638]

Now, a 2002 post by one Bradford Peck, on the rootsweb Peck list,
handily summarizes a lengthy NEHGR article on the Pecks, appearing in
1935 to 1940, which disproved an earlier pedigree which connected the
last three generations above, with the first, via a John Peck of
Wakefield [d. 1558/9] in generation 2 instead of Henry of Carlton
Colville, Suffolk.

Consult:

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/PE ... 1012515364

The original article is:

S. Allyn Peck [and Frederick Stanhope Peck], "The English Ancestry of
Joseph Peck of Hingham, Mass, in 1638," NEHGR 89-94 (Oct 1935 through
Jan 1940), ...

According to Bradford Peck's summary (quoted below), the 1935-40 article
shows the following holes in the above descent:

.. the NEHGR series certainly seems to eliminate John Peck of Wakefield, d. 3
Feb 1558/9 & Joan Anne / Aune as the parents of Robert Peck Sr, d. 1556, of
Beccles as was reported in both the Ira Peck and Herbert Peck books.

Also the NEHGR series does a good job of establishing John Leeke, d. 1529 as
Robert Peck Sr.'s maternal grandfather. However Robert Peck's father is not
identified who married the unidentified daughter of John Leek, d. 1529.

Further that this John Leeke is the probable son of a John Leeke, d. 1504
(and possibly his wife Alys).

It does suggest early in the series that Robert might be the son of Henry
Peke, d. 1525, of Carlton Colville, Suffolk (about 5 miles east of Beccles)
who names his wife Margery, a son Robert and a daughter Kateryn in his will
dated 16 Apr 1525 & proved Nov 1525. However it is stated: "Thus far no proof
has been found." [V.89, page 334, Oct 1934].

So apparently the line posted by Mr. Arnold (which, to be fair, did not
originate with him, as Bradford Peck's post notes seeing it distributed
on the internet) is an attempt to revive the earlier Yorkshire gentry
descent for the Suffolk Pecks by assigning Henry Peck of Carlton
Colville, Suffolk, as father of Robert Peck of Beccles, and son of
Richard Peck, Esq. of Wakefield, Yorks. But both assignments are
without evidence, and no evidence suggests any link between the Suffolk
Pecks and the Yorkshire ones. Mr. Arnold has suggested that John
Brandon's reading of the lengthy NEHGR Peck article mistakes its
findings, but John's summary is essentially the same as Bradford Peck's
summary quoted here.

If Mr. Arnold has evidence independent of the 1935-40 NEHGR series to
[re-]connect the Suffolk Pecks to the Yorkshire Peck / Middleton couple,
he should present it clearly.

Throwing up one's hands about Peck, then devoting so muchy energy to the
alleged Middleton ancestry, is a classic beginner's mistake -- or
genealogy of denial.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net/

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection aroundhttp://mail.yahoo.com

Bill Arnold

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 22 okt 2007 21:22:02

Thank you, Will, and although I do not agree with your broad sweeping assessment
of how one must proceed, I can deal with line item questions based on the proposed
pedigree.

Henry Peck who married Margery had a son named Robert. That is in the will of
Henry, and I believe I gave the citation already for the will in the archives.

Bill

**********************************************************************************
--- WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

Bill the main problem is, you give all the conclusions first in each
posting, and then you post a brief extract of part of the article. The extracts
don't cover all your conclusions, so a person has to piece together multiple
newsgroups, removing the conclusions in order to see what the article actually
said, in part.

I've mentioned before that you should not mix your comments into the
comments of the extract. It makes it very confusing for us to separate out what
*you* are saying, what the *author* of the article is saying, and what the
underlying primary source is saying.

The best way to approach the line would be to simply extract the article
details without ANY additional comment. Saving any additional comment for other
postings, or adding those seperately to the end of your posting to make it
more clear.

I don't feel so far, that the article supports your conclusions. I think
you've added many other conclusions from other places. It would be more
helpful if you addressed only ONE fact at a time. Such as the proof that Henry was
the father. Without any additional baggage.

Will Johnson



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

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



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Bill Arnold

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 22 okt 2007 21:35:05

Well, thanks much, Nathaniel, for the summary of the whole situation.
I appreciate it, and aside from some snippets of an obvious relationship
between Mr. Brandon and Mr. Taylor, I do NOT appreciate your disclosure
of a *PRIVATE EMAIL* between Mr. Brandon and Mr. Arnold being posted
to a public newsgroup. You should refrain from invading my privacy, or
anyone else's in the future.

Now: as to the Middleton-Peck-Leeke-Waters families.

Let me recapitulate, in my own way.

Up until John Higgins informed this group *PUBLICLY* that the Middleton
pedigree down to Alice who married Richard Peck was in the *Visitations*
somewhere, I HAD NO IDEA. I admittedly told everyone up front I am a
*naif* compared to the rest of you. Also, I joined gen-medieval recently,
and HAD NO IDEA of the posts of Bradford Peck on a rootsweb Peck list,
because I HAD NO IDEA OF A ROOTSWEB PECK LIST. How naive of me
to be so naive. I wish we all were as smart as Mr. Brandon and Mr. Taylor
who are naive about privacy laws: even on the internet.

For you or anyone else to impugn my character is irrelevant, as far as I am
concerned. Let Mr. Brandon deal with his own privacy as I have. I will NOT
disclose what he wrote me as it was private. I will tell you when I responded
to his message I mistakenly hit send because the newsgroup sets up both
the public and the private email addresses. I have to constantly strip from
my addressee box the private email address. I did forget to delete his email
address. I apologized to Mr. Brandon and asked him to deal with this matter
publicly, because he wrote me in private. Apparently he did NOT accept my
apology.

I am only interested in resolving the question at hand. So: I will respond
to the thoughtful part of your post. Can we keep this matter in the realm
of scholarship?

So: I now know that descendants of Sir Peter Middleton, knight who
married Eustacia Plumpton, include Alice Middleton who married Richard
Peck, and their children. I HAVE THAT CLEAR now, and prior to John
Higgins polite and informative posts, I did not.

Also: from rereading S. Allyn Peck I now KNOW that Robert Peck, the Elder,
of Beccles, was the grandson of John Leeke, of Beccles. That is also fact,
as I read the NEHGSR and you have, I believe, posted it accurately.

QUESTION OF IDENTITY: I ask the membership of gen-medieval, at large,
assistance in establishing whether or not the grandson of John Leeke
can be IDENTIFIED with the son of Henry Peck? It has taken me awhile
to get to the crux of this matter, but I am sure that someone somewhere
on this list with access to wills, church or court records can assist us?

With all due respect to the membership-at-large, and concerned that
someone has brought a *private* email before you, I am

Bill

*************************************************



--- Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:

In article <1193068839.697266.202470@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
John Brandon <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote:

Bill Arnold wrote privately:

... I do NOT believe
you are a Peck descendant but a negativist reading gen-medieval
posts. ...

I tuned out most of this thread, which seemed an inefficient,
cart-before-horse discussion. But this exchange (and Mr. Arnold's
incredulity that John could find an article on his own ancestors boring)
raises an interesting point about perspectives & habits.

Some people who are new to this whole endeavor seem to think that only
descendants are uniquely qualified to research, and above all to
critique, genealogies. Remember the Skipwith-Dale discussion, with Jeff
Chipman's insisting that his descent uniquely qualified him to ignore
logic, and that any criticisms must come from those who were motivated
by envy or competition, and could safely be ignored? Sort of 'descendo
ut intelligam'.

Apparently, Mr. Arnold is interested in the Middletons because he
descends from a Peck colonist who was long ago alleged to be a
descendant of a Yorkshire gentry family with a Middleton marriage.
Hasty searching comes up with this line, posted variously by Mr. Arnold
and rearranged for clarity:

1. Richard Peck, Esq., [of Wakefield, Yorks. d. 1516] = Alice Middleton

2. Henry Peck [of Carlton Colville, Suffolk, d. 1525] = Margery Leeke

3. Robert Peck, Sr. [of Beccles, Suffolk, d. 1556] = Joan Water

4. Robert Peck [of Beccles, Suffolk] = Ellen Babbs

5. Joseph Peck, baptised at Beccles 30 Apr 1587 [immigrant, 1638]

Now, a 2002 post by one Bradford Peck, on the rootsweb Peck list,
handily summarizes a lengthy NEHGR article on the Pecks, appearing in
1935 to 1940, which disproved an earlier pedigree which connected the
last three generations above, with the first, via a John Peck of
Wakefield [d. 1558/9] in generation 2 instead of Henry of Carlton
Colville, Suffolk.

Consult:

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/PE ... 1012515364

The original article is:

S. Allyn Peck [and Frederick Stanhope Peck], "The English Ancestry of
Joseph Peck of Hingham, Mass, in 1638," NEHGR 89-94 (Oct 1935 through
Jan 1940), ...

According to Bradford Peck's summary (quoted below), the 1935-40 article
shows the following holes in the above descent:

.. the NEHGR series certainly seems to eliminate John Peck of Wakefield, d. 3
Feb 1558/9 & Joan Anne / Aune as the parents of Robert Peck Sr, d. 1556, of
Beccles as was reported in both the Ira Peck and Herbert Peck books.

Also the NEHGR series does a good job of establishing John Leeke, d. 1529 as
Robert Peck Sr.'s maternal grandfather. However Robert Peck's father is not
identified who married the unidentified daughter of John Leek, d. 1529.

Further that this John Leeke is the probable son of a John Leeke, d. 1504
(and possibly his wife Alys).

It does suggest early in the series that Robert might be the son of Henry
Peke, d. 1525, of Carlton Colville, Suffolk (about 5 miles east of Beccles)
who names his wife Margery, a son Robert and a daughter Kateryn in his will
dated 16 Apr 1525 & proved Nov 1525. However it is stated: "Thus far no proof
has been found." [V.89, page 334, Oct 1934].

So apparently the line posted by Mr. Arnold (which, to be fair, did not
originate with him, as Bradford Peck's post notes seeing it distributed
on the internet) is an attempt to revive the earlier Yorkshire gentry
descent for the Suffolk Pecks by assigning Henry Peck of Carlton
Colville, Suffolk, as father of Robert Peck of Beccles, and son of
Richard Peck, Esq. of Wakefield, Yorks. But both assignments are
without evidence, and no evidence suggests any link between the Suffolk
Pecks and the Yorkshire ones. Mr. Arnold has suggested that John
Brandon's reading of the lengthy NEHGR Peck article mistakes its
findings, but John's summary is essentially the same as Bradford Peck's
summary quoted here.

If Mr. Arnold has evidence independent of the 1935-40 NEHGR series to
[re-]connect the Suffolk Pecks to the Yorkshire Peck / Middleton couple,
he should present it clearly.

Throwing up one's hands about Peck, then devoting so muchy energy to the
alleged Middleton ancestry, is a classic beginner's mistake -- or
genealogy of denial.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net/

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





__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Christopher Ingham

Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE

Legg inn av Christopher Ingham » 22 okt 2007 21:35:50

On Oct 22, 12:37 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Twaddle...

An OXYMORON can also involve two MUTUALLY INCONGRUOUS elements -- not just
CONTRADICTORY elements.

"something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous
elements"

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Eleventh Edition, p. 888

Pogue Thompson goes down for the count...

Crawls to his feet and runs for the tall grass.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Just remember, ALL Descendents are DIRECT -- there are no "indirect"
descendents.

Likewise, one CANNOT be a "collateral descendent" of someone.

Twaddle-bis...

"collateral: 8. descended from the same stock, but in a different
line; not lineal. 9. pertaining to those so descended."

_Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary_, 2nd ed. P. 403.

I resent having to defend my use of rudimentary genealogical terms
to certain SGM members, as they purportedly are knowledgeable in
the area of genealogy.

Christopher Ingham

Doug Thompson

Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE

Legg inn av Doug Thompson » 22 okt 2007 23:13:48

On Oct 22, 5:37 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

An OXYMORON can also involve two MUTUALLY INCONGRUOUS elements -- not just
CONTRADICTORY elements.

"something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous
elements"

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Eleventh Edition, p. 888

Just remember, ALL Descendents are DIRECT -- there are no "indirect"
descendents.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas=


Shame Hines. Even further from Lux et Veritas now!

Since, as you correctly!! assert, all descendants are direct there is
neither contradiction nor incongruity in the phrase direct descendant.
You missed the mark on that one.

Bye now - you're back into my killfile box. I only let you out for a
little harmless entertainment. I can't go on wasting my time with you.
I'll go back to lounging in the long grass.

Doug

WJhonson

Re: Conan IV Duke of Brittany and Conan de Aske

Legg inn av WJhonson » 22 okt 2007 23:23:36

<<In a message dated 10/21/07 18:50:50 Pacific Daylight Time, Jwc1870 writes:
The Only source I have for the Aske of Aske pedigree is a
Rootsweb.com Ancestry tree , several Gen Medieval Posts dealing chiefly with Roger
Aske of Aske who married Isabel Conyers and an On-line article on the Saville
family by Chris Phillips and David Hepworth that says ? Alice , wife of his
father Conan de Aske was born abt 1404. was a daughter of Thomas Saville and his
wife Margaret Pilkington whose first husband Nicholas Griffin died in October
1436. Thomas died in 1449. Conan de Aske is stated to have fathered Roger in
1439 - died about 1505 on the rootsweb Ancestry tree and Conan to have died
1440 so either 1) Alice was not their daughter 2 Roger de Aske was born and his
father died much later. >>
-----------------------------------
It is evidently debateable whether Margaret Pilkington the wife of Thomas Saville, is the same woman married to Nicholas Griffin. A descent from Thomas Saville's daughter Margaret (Saville) Hopton, wife of Sir John Hopton would seem to show that Margaret had to be born by 1422 at the latest.

I'd like to see also the proof that Thomas Saville died *in* 1449, as opposed to "bef 1450"

Thanks
Will Johnson

Bill Arnold

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 22 okt 2007 23:33:35

AN OPEN LETTER TO GEN-MEDIEVAL MEMBERS,

I joined this list after finding it by googling my ancestry concerns
and reading Douglas Hickling's article on Mowbray and Plumpton.

I have since found that the files in Utah are highly questionable,
and most files at rootsweb are highly questionable. Now, who's
fault it that? Should the naive among use be blamed?

I have been doing my personal genealogy since the 1970s. I have not
claimed to be an expert. So, I came with open arms like a naif, and
now find that this group is like the rest of the world, scholars and naifs,
and not all nice. I am reading a few classic ad hominem attacks amongst
you all. Well, have at it.

For me: I would hope that those of you, scholars and naifs, will refrain
from these attacks on honest souls trying to resolve their own ancestry
issues. Sure: I know the scholars want to deal with scholarship questions.
I have *Plantagenet Ancestry* and respect the work that went into it.
I have personally talked for an hour and a half with Gary Boyd Roberts
on the phone, and have to say: what a gentleman to treat me with kindness
and respect.

Now: if some of you wish to ignore threads: why tell us that we have carts
before horses? We naifs do not know better. Show us some respect, or
go back to your classic scholarly concerns and ignore us.

For the scholars like Gary Boyd Roberts, and others who have been kind
to me, and others like me who are interested in *personal* ancestry concerns,
I say: God bless you, and thanks.

If I may ask for indulgence: keep private emails private, and let me explore
my personal ancestry quests privately on a public forum, and let those
scholars who wish out of the largesse of their hearts to assist others: do so!

And for those scholars who have such a high and mighty opinion of themselves,
I suggest: look in the mirror, and look hard, and long. You might want to soften
your perception of yourself, a tad :)

And for those, here, who have been kind enough to assist, and come to the aid
of a genealogy naif, I say thanks,

Bill

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

WJhonson

Re: a biography of Helena Snakenborg, marchioness of Northam

Legg inn av WJhonson » 22 okt 2007 23:56:27

<<In a message dated 10/20/07 22:33:13 Pacific Daylight Time, qsj5@yahoo.com writes:
Marquess of Northampton married, secondly,
Elizabeth Brooke, daughter of George Brooke, 4th Baron
Cobham. That specific marriage is recorded as an
ongoing legal mess of its era, having been "declared
valid in 1548, invalid in 1553, and valid again in
1558". Elizabeth died well before Anne Bourchier's
death. Some sources indicate that the church did not
approve that marriage. >>

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

Could you cite your sources on this? I'd like to review those details, as other sources state that they were married in a church which would be a bit scandalous if they knew he was essentially a bigamist, as per your statement, they could not have gotten married while his wife lived.

WJhonson

Re: a biography of Helena Snakenborg, marchioness of Northam

Legg inn av WJhonson » 23 okt 2007 00:01:31

Will you can see here
http://books.google.com/books?id=uUV3Jg ... nPTg1yTEgc

that Alison Weir is in agreement essentially with the idea that a divorced man could remarry. It was only when the Privy Council alleged that his divorce "was not legal" that he was ordered to put away his new wife and remain with his "true wife".

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Conan IV Duke of Brittany and Conan de Aske

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 okt 2007 00:02:03

Dear Doug Smith,
Interesting. Harsculf son of Ridiou. Compares a
bit perhaps with Bardolf, son of Ribold, natural son of Eudes, Count of Brittany
who was Conan IV`s patralineal great grandfather. The Stewart and Boyd
families latterly so prominent (dominant in the case of the Stewarts) are said to
derive from the Couunts of Dol in Brittany, Count Hamo II of Dol`s son
Guienoc was supposedly the father of Alan, Seneschal of Dol whose brother Rivallon
was the father of Flahald whose son Alan Fitz Flahald was the ancestor of the
Fitz Alans, Stewarts and Boyds. As Breton nobles appear to have made a habit
of giving their children or siblings the offices of Seneschal, Constable , etc.
So perhaps the unknown Wyhomir, Steward (Seneschal) of Richmond was a son of
either Count Stephen or Count Eudes rather than his son-in-law.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



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

WJhonson

Re: Middleton of Yorkshire to Peck of Suffolk?

Legg inn av WJhonson » 23 okt 2007 00:24:39

Thank you Nat for clearing the muddy waters. Now I understand the situation better.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av WJhonson » 23 okt 2007 00:30:23

Bill, that apparently, is the crux of the matter.

Is Robert, known to be listed as a son of Henry Peck of Carlton Colville, the same person as Robert Peck, known to be a grandson of John Leeke of Beccles, and also apparently himself of Beccles.

Can the two Robert Pecks be considered the same person? That's the question. It was the question back in 1940 evidently, and apparently no one still knows.

As to how to prove they are, or they aren't, it would be instructive to enumerate each property coming into the hands of Henry Peck from his relations, and from his wifes, and each one leaving by being sold, etc.

And then do the same for Robert Peck of Beccles, his wife, and children. There are many *times* the number of documents available today publicly, as there were in 1940, so it may be possible to finally answer the question, IF you're willing to do the hard work. Check every personal name, and every property name in A2A for example, see what comes up.

Will Johnson

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 23 okt 2007 00:33:12

Arnold is VERY confused.

There is nothing PRIVATE about an email.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193083917.232063.247980@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Ha ha ... once again, *funny funny*.

I have never sent you a private email, whereas you have sent me two (a
copy of your posting, and the little follow-up gem I posted above).
That wasn't "nice," I suppose, but I am known for being "a hateful,
spiteful person" on this group. Most of the "good people" won't even
condescend to speak to me.

But it is absolutely false for you to claim I sent you a private
email.

Well, thanks much, Nathaniel, for the summary of the whole situation.
I appreciate it, and aside from some snippets of an obvious relationship
between Mr. Brandon and Mr. Taylor, I do NOT appreciate your disclosure
of a *PRIVATE EMAIL* between Mr. Brandon and Mr. Arnold being posted
to a public newsgroup. You should refrain from invading my privacy, or
anyone else's in the future.

Now: as to the Middleton-Peck-Leeke-Waters families.

Let me recapitulate, in my own way.

Up until John Higgins informed this group *PUBLICLY* that the Middleton
pedigree down to Alice who married Richard Peck was in the *Visitations*
somewhere, I HAD NO IDEA. I admittedly told everyone up front I am a
*naif* compared to the rest of you. Also, I joined gen-medieval
recently,
and HAD NO IDEA of the posts of Bradford Peck on a rootsweb Peck list,
because I HAD NO IDEA OF A ROOTSWEB PECK LIST. How naive of me
to be so naive. I wish we all were as smart as Mr. Brandon and Mr.
Taylor
who are naive about privacy laws: even on the internet.

For you or anyone else to impugn my character is irrelevant, as far as I
am
concerned. Let Mr. Brandon deal with his own privacy as I have. I will
NOT
disclose what he wrote me as it was private. I will tell you when I
responded
to his message I mistakenly hit send because the newsgroup sets up both
the public and the private email addresses. I have to constantly strip
from
my addressee box the private email address. I did forget to delete his
email
address. I apologized to Mr. Brandon and asked him to deal with this
matter
publicly, because he wrote me in private. Apparently he did NOT accept
my
apology.

I am only interested in resolving the question at hand. So: I will
respond
to the thoughtful part of your post. Can we keep this matter in the
realm
of scholarship?

So: I now know that descendants of Sir Peter Middleton, knight who
married Eustacia Plumpton, include Alice Middleton who married Richard
Peck, and their children. I HAVE THAT CLEAR now, and prior to John
Higgins polite and informative posts, I did not.

Also: from rereading S. Allyn Peck I now KNOW that Robert Peck, the
Elder,
of Beccles, was the grandson of John Leeke, of Beccles. That is also
fact,
as I read the NEHGSR and you have, I believe, posted it accurately.

QUESTION OF IDENTITY: I ask the membership of gen-medieval, at large,
assistance in establishing whether or not the grandson of John Leeke
can be IDENTIFIED with the son of Henry Peck? It has taken me awhile
to get to the crux of this matter, but I am sure that someone somewhere
on this list with access to wills, church or court records can assist us?

With all due respect to the membership-at-large, and concerned that
someone has brought a *private* email before you, I am

Bill

*************************************************

--- Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltay...@earthlink.net> wrote:



In article <1193068839.697266.202...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Bill Arnold wrote privately:

... I do NOT believe
you are a Peck descendant but a negativist reading gen-medieval
posts. ...

I tuned out most of this thread, which seemed an inefficient,
cart-before-horse discussion. But this exchange (and Mr. Arnold's
incredulity that John could find an article on his own ancestors
boring)
raises an interesting point about perspectives & habits.

Some people who are new to this whole endeavor seem to think that only
descendants are uniquely qualified to research, and above all to
critique, genealogies. Remember the Skipwith-Dale discussion, with
Jeff
Chipman's insisting that his descent uniquely qualified him to ignore
logic, and that any criticisms must come from those who were motivated
by envy or competition, and could safely be ignored? Sort of 'descendo
ut intelligam'.

Apparently, Mr. Arnold is interested in the Middletons because he
descends from a Peck colonist who was long ago alleged to be a
descendant of a Yorkshire gentry family with a Middleton marriage.
Hasty searching comes up with this line, posted variously by Mr. Arnold
and rearranged for clarity:

1. Richard Peck, Esq., [of Wakefield, Yorks. d. 1516] = Alice Middleton

2. Henry Peck [of Carlton Colville, Suffolk, d. 1525] = Margery Leeke

3. Robert Peck, Sr. [of Beccles, Suffolk, d. 1556] = Joan Water

4. Robert Peck [of Beccles, Suffolk] = Ellen Babbs

5. Joseph Peck, baptised at Beccles 30 Apr 1587 [immigrant, 1638]

Now, a 2002 post by one Bradford Peck, on the rootsweb Peck list,
handily summarizes a lengthy NEHGR article on the Pecks, appearing in
1935 to 1940, which disproved an earlier pedigree which connected the
last three generations above, with the first, via a John Peck of
Wakefield [d. 1558/9] in generation 2 instead of Henry of Carlton
Colville, Suffolk.

Consult:

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/PE ... 1012515364

The original article is:

S. Allyn Peck [and Frederick Stanhope Peck], "The English Ancestry of
Joseph Peck of Hingham, Mass, in 1638," NEHGR 89-94 (Oct 1935 through
Jan 1940), ...

According to Bradford Peck's summary (quoted below), the 1935-40
article
shows the following holes in the above descent:

.. the NEHGR series certainly seems to eliminate John Peck of
Wakefield, d. 3
Feb 1558/9 & Joan Anne / Aune as the parents of Robert Peck Sr, d.
1556, of
Beccles as was reported in both the Ira Peck and Herbert Peck books.

Also the NEHGR series does a good job of establishing John Leeke, d.
1529 as
Robert Peck Sr.'s maternal grandfather. However Robert Peck's father
is not
identified who married the unidentified daughter of John Leek, d.
1529.

Further that this John Leeke is the probable son of a John Leeke, d.
1504
(and possibly his wife Alys).

It does suggest early in the series that Robert might be the son of
Henry
Peke, d. 1525, of Carlton Colville, Suffolk (about 5 miles east of
Beccles)
who names his wife Margery, a son Robert and a daughter Kateryn in
his will
dated 16 Apr 1525 & proved Nov 1525. However it is stated: "Thus far
no proof
has been found." [V.89, page 334, Oct 1934].

So apparently the line posted by Mr. Arnold (which, to be fair, did not
originate with him, as Bradford Peck's post notes seeing it distributed
on the internet) is an attempt to revive the earlier Yorkshire gentry
descent for the Suffolk Pecks by assigning Henry Peck of Carlton
Colville, Suffolk, as father of Robert Peck of Beccles, and son of
Richard Peck, Esq. of Wakefield, Yorks. But both assignments are
without evidence, and no evidence suggests any link between the Suffolk
Pecks and the Yorkshire ones. Mr. Arnold has suggested that John
Brandon's reading of the lengthy NEHGR Peck article mistakes its
findings, but John's summary is essentially the same as Bradford Peck's
summary quoted here.

If Mr. Arnold has evidence independent of the 1935-40 NEHGR series to
[re-]connect the Suffolk Pecks to the Yorkshire Peck / Middleton
couple,
he should present it clearly.

Throwing up one's hands about Peck, then devoting so muchy energy to
the
alleged Middleton ancestry, is a classic beginner's mistake -- or
genealogy of denial.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net/

WJhonson

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av WJhonson » 23 okt 2007 00:48:51

No Bill. Every attempt to fit a framework like this must fail. Every father, and every father-in-law could do what they wanted with second, third, fourth, sons and sons-in-law. To try to force the issue only clouds the necessary work that must be done to prove a connection. There are as many "rules" as there are exceptions, and thus the rules become non-rules. That is, the rules are false modern attempts to put an order on something that wasn't.

It is not unreasonable to assume it might have been. But that isn't evidence. It might have been completely upside-down as well. Still not evidence. It's just as likely that second sons moved away, as that they didn't, we have examples on both sides.

What's wrong with your proposal is that you haven't yet attempted to collect the evidence. YOU can do it yourself, you don't need help. The work is available online to scour, anyone can do it. You shouldn't expect someone else to do the work for you, because in general they won't. Unless you're in the paying mood that is.

You shouldn't say that Robert being grandson of John is a "fact" it doesn't help your argument and makes it sound like you're shrill. There is compelling evidence that he was, "facts" are hard to find in genealogy.

So get to work. We await YOUR new findings.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Conan IV Duke of Brittany and Conan de Aske

Legg inn av WJhonson » 23 okt 2007 00:56:25

<<In a message dated 10/22/07 16:47:59 Pacific Daylight Time, Jwc1870 writes:
http://www.rotherhamweb.co.uk/genealogy/bowlings.htm>>

----------------------------
Thanks for the link. I'll accept now that Thomas died *in* 1449 based on this MGeH reference
http://books.google.com/books?id=VNQKAA ... nhill+1449

also DR states in MCA that he left a will dated Nov 1449, proved Dec 1449, seems pretty definite.

Will

WJhonson

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av WJhonson » 23 okt 2007 01:29:02

There are two main sources for access (at least citations to) actual primary documents, deeds, wills, contracts, etc from the medieval period, (as opposed to compilations, extracts, abstracts, discussions...)

A2A stands for Access to Archives and the other main source is called
ProCat

Both are linked off my Sources page here
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... hp/Sources

Will Johnson

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 23 okt 2007 01:32:37

Utter Nonsense...

The recipient of an email has no such obligation.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.381.1193097026.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

When I send an email to the gen-medieval list, it is *public.*

When I send an email to a personal address, it is *private.*

Bill Arnold

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 23 okt 2007 01:35:03

Keeping with the lineage: as much of a naif, as I am, I just
realized something:

Robert Peck, the Elder, of Beccles, was the *grandson*
Of John Leeke, of Beccles, and named executor in his
grandfather's will. Of course, that means that John Leeke's
dau. was Robert Peck's mother, and his mother was married
to *a* Peck. So, no doubt,there ought to be other documents,
in Yorkshire or Suffolk which would shed light on that Peck,
if it is not Henry Peck, the aforementioned, who had a wife
Margery, and son Robert. And even IF it were Henry Peck,
of nearby Carlton Colville, we would still have the IDENTITY
question looming: was the Henry Peck of Carlton Colville
IDENTICAL to the man who married John Leeke's daughter
and was he the son of Richard Peck and Alice Middleton?
It is not unreasonable to assume it might have been, despite
the one day distance by horse from Yorkshire. We know that
Richard Peck by primogeniture willed his land to his first son
John. But what about the other son of the two sons of Richard
Peck who married Alice Middleton? Because he was the less-
willed son, second by nature, who would take care of him?
Would it not be the father-of-the-bride? And primogeniture
sons by their very nature, heirs of the land, would stay locally
with the land. And the other sons by their very nature, as the
daughters, would have to move away? Leave the natural pack,
and receive largess of fathers-in-laws? Am I understanding
this English system correctly in accordance with the times?
So: we have theoretical Henry, second son of Alice Middleton,
and daughters, moving to where the fathers-in-law would
grant them land and holdings? So: what is wrong with the
scenario of this proposed pedigree? Nothing: except proof?
Indeed. So: I submit, unless my logic is faulty, and I stand
to be corrected, the plausibility still exists that this is a viable
pedigree, wanting proof? It does not seem unreasonable to
me that the Pecks of Yorkshire became the Pecks of the
largess of John Leeke of Beccles, and the second son followed
his bride south to Carlton Colville and nearby Beccles. I
seem to recall that William I "The Lion" King of Scotland
himself was involved with a number of ladies other than
his wife of-the-time: and fathered distant relatives, only
a day's horse ride away? Unless, I am mistaken? And what
was good for a king might good for a knight or a lesser
nobleman?

Awaiting a *nice* scholar, or scholarly scholar interested
in solving a pedigree puzzle, for finding proof! After all,
the father of Robert Peck, the Elder, was a Peck, by definition.
Only his identity is lacking: for we KNOW he married the daughter
of John Leeke of Beccles. Cannot argue with that fact, according
to primary documents. And we cannot argue with that other fact,
according to other primary documents that Richard Peck and his
wife Alice Middleton had another son, unnamed and unfound,
at this point. Why cannot scholars solve this missing IDENTITY
in their Medieval midst? What are they afraid of finding: more
skeletons? Is that not the stuff of this stuff? I read among your
posts that there is bitter dispute about these matters. So: solve
this one. It is a worthy lineage of pursuit, or have none of you
checked out the ancestors of Eustacia Plumpton? Go ahead:
compete over something worth competing over.

I award the First Annual Pedigree Prize of the Gen-Medieval Society
and Academy of Scholars to the recipient finder!

Bill









__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

WJhonson

Re: Thomas Saville / Margaret Pilkington

Legg inn av WJhonson » 23 okt 2007 01:36:40

Will thank you for your excellent post. As we know, all posts to Gen-Med are excellent.

I however, will make the Thomas Saville situation even more dire by pointing out that it *is* known that Thomas Saville's daughter Margaret married Sir John Hopton of Yoxford and Cockfield Hall "aged about 10 in 1418".

However, their heir Sir William Hopton was "forty and more" when he inherited, his father having died 10 Nov 1478

This knowledge squeezes the possibility on Margaret Pilkington even further if she *is* to be kept as the mother of Margaret Saville. So. Was Thomas Saville married previously? And if so, to whom?

By the way, even though we know he died as Sir Thomas Saville, at the negotiations for the marriage of his daughter Margaret he was yet "Esq". This was in 1426. And the marriage was to take place shortly, within the next year. So undoubtedly, their heir, was her son as well as his.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Conan IV Duke of Brittany and Conan de Aske

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 okt 2007 01:49:02

Dear Will.
For the most specific mention of Sir Thomas Savile of 1449
See _http://www.rotherhamweb.co.uk/genealogy/bowlings.htm_
(http://www.rotherhamweb.co.uk/genealogy/bowlings.htm) it is a pedigree of Savile of Bowlings
which before it actually gives the pedigree mentions that Sir Thomas Savile of
1449 and his wife have an alabaster tomb in the church at Thornhill.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA




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

Bill Arnold

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 23 okt 2007 01:52:02

Well, well, well.

If I send my emails as Bill, and you choose to call me Arnold,
what do I make of that? I guess I cannot count on you to assist
me in my ancestry?

Sir Hines, I am NOT confused.

When I send an email to the gen-medieval list, it is *public.*

When I send an email to a personal address, it is *private.*

If you do NOT understand that, then YOU are confused.

With all due respect,
count your friends if you violate THAT trust,
on less than one finger,

Bill

***************************

--- "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote:

Arnold is VERY confused.

There is nothing PRIVATE about an email.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193083917.232063.247980@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Ha ha ... once again, *funny funny*.

I have never sent you a private email, whereas you have sent me two (a
copy of your posting, and the little follow-up gem I posted above).
That wasn't "nice," I suppose, but I am known for being "a hateful,
spiteful person" on this group. Most of the "good people" won't even
condescend to speak to me.

But it is absolutely false for you to claim I sent you a private
email.

Well, thanks much, Nathaniel, for the summary of the whole situation.
I appreciate it, and aside from some snippets of an obvious relationship
between Mr. Brandon and Mr. Taylor, I do NOT appreciate your disclosure
of a *PRIVATE EMAIL* between Mr. Brandon and Mr. Arnold being posted
to a public newsgroup. You should refrain from invading my privacy, or
anyone else's in the future.

Now: as to the Middleton-Peck-Leeke-Waters families.

Let me recapitulate, in my own way.

Up until John Higgins informed this group *PUBLICLY* that the Middleton
pedigree down to Alice who married Richard Peck was in the *Visitations*
somewhere, I HAD NO IDEA. I admittedly told everyone up front I am a
*naif* compared to the rest of you. Also, I joined gen-medieval
recently,
and HAD NO IDEA of the posts of Bradford Peck on a rootsweb Peck list,
because I HAD NO IDEA OF A ROOTSWEB PECK LIST. How naive of me
to be so naive. I wish we all were as smart as Mr. Brandon and Mr.
Taylor
who are naive about privacy laws: even on the internet.

For you or anyone else to impugn my character is irrelevant, as far as I
am
concerned. Let Mr. Brandon deal with his own privacy as I have. I will
NOT
disclose what he wrote me as it was private. I will tell you when I
responded
to his message I mistakenly hit send because the newsgroup sets up both
the public and the private email addresses. I have to constantly strip
from
my addressee box the private email address. I did forget to delete his
email
address. I apologized to Mr. Brandon and asked him to deal with this
matter
publicly, because he wrote me in private. Apparently he did NOT accept
my
apology.

I am only interested in resolving the question at hand. So: I will
respond
to the thoughtful part of your post. Can we keep this matter in the
realm
of scholarship?

So: I now know that descendants of Sir Peter Middleton, knight who
married Eustacia Plumpton, include Alice Middleton who married Richard
Peck, and their children. I HAVE THAT CLEAR now, and prior to John
Higgins polite and informative posts, I did not.

Also: from rereading S. Allyn Peck I now KNOW that Robert Peck, the
Elder,
of Beccles, was the grandson of John Leeke, of Beccles. That is also
fact,
as I read the NEHGSR and you have, I believe, posted it accurately.

QUESTION OF IDENTITY: I ask the membership of gen-medieval, at large,
assistance in establishing whether or not the grandson of John Leeke
can be IDENTIFIED with the son of Henry Peck? It has taken me awhile
to get to the crux of this matter, but I am sure that someone somewhere
on this list with access to wills, church or court records can assist us?

With all due respect to the membership-at-large, and concerned that
someone has brought a *private* email before you, I am

Bill

*************************************************

--- Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltay...@earthlink.net> wrote:



In article <1193068839.697266.202...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Bill Arnold wrote privately:

... I do NOT believe
you are a Peck descendant but a negativist reading gen-medieval
posts. ...

I tuned out most of this thread, which seemed an inefficient,
cart-before-horse discussion. But this exchange (and Mr. Arnold's
incredulity that John could find an article on his own ancestors
boring)
raises an interesting point about perspectives & habits.

Some people who are new to this whole endeavor seem to think that only
descendants are uniquely qualified to research, and above all to
critique, genealogies. Remember the Skipwith-Dale discussion, with
Jeff
Chipman's insisting that his descent uniquely qualified him to ignore
logic, and that any criticisms must come from those who were motivated
by envy or competition, and could safely be ignored? Sort of 'descendo
ut intelligam'.

Apparently, Mr. Arnold is interested in the Middletons because he
descends from a Peck colonist who was long ago alleged to be a
descendant of a Yorkshire gentry family with a Middleton marriage.
Hasty searching comes up with this line, posted variously by Mr. Arnold
and rearranged for clarity:

1. Richard Peck, Esq., [of Wakefield, Yorks. d. 1516] = Alice Middleton

2. Henry Peck [of Carlton Colville, Suffolk, d. 1525] = Margery Leeke

3. Robert Peck, Sr. [of Beccles, Suffolk, d. 1556] = Joan Water

4. Robert Peck [of Beccles, Suffolk] = Ellen Babbs

5. Joseph Peck, baptised at Beccles 30 Apr 1587 [immigrant, 1638]

Now, a 2002 post by one Bradford Peck, on the rootsweb Peck list,
handily summarizes a lengthy NEHGR article on the Pecks, appearing in
1935 to 1940, which disproved an earlier pedigree which connected the
last three generations above, with the first, via a John Peck of
Wakefield [d. 1558/9] in generation 2 instead of Henry of Carlton
Colville, Suffolk.

Consult:

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/PE ... 1012515364

The original article is:

S. Allyn Peck [and Frederick Stanhope Peck], "The English Ancestry of
Joseph Peck of Hingham, Mass, in 1638," NEHGR 89-94 (Oct 1935 through
Jan 1940), ...

According to Bradford Peck's summary (quoted below), the 1935-40
article
shows the following holes in the above descent:

.. the NEHGR series certainly seems to eliminate John Peck of
Wakefield, d. 3
Feb 1558/9 & Joan Anne / Aune as the parents of Robert Peck Sr, d.
1556, of
Beccles as was reported in both the Ira Peck and Herbert Peck books.

Also the NEHGR series does a good job of establishing John Leeke, d.
1529 as
Robert Peck Sr.'s maternal grandfather. However Robert Peck's father
is not
identified who married the unidentified daughter of John Leek, d.
1529.

Further that this John Leeke is the probable son of a John Leeke, d.
1504
(and possibly his wife Alys).

It does suggest early in the series that Robert might be the son of
Henry
Peke, d. 1525, of Carlton Colville, Suffolk (about 5 miles east of
Beccles)
who names his wife Margery, a son Robert and a daughter Kateryn in
his will
dated 16 Apr 1525 & proved Nov 1525. However it is stated: "Thus far
no proof
has been found." [V.89, page 334, Oct 1934].

So apparently the line posted by Mr. Arnold (which, to be fair, did not
originate with him, as Bradford Peck's post notes seeing it distributed
on the internet) is an attempt to revive the earlier Yorkshire gentry
descent for the Suffolk Pecks by assigning Henry Peck of Carlton
Colville, Suffolk, as father of Robert Peck of Beccles, and son of
Richard Peck, Esq. of Wakefield, Yorks. But both assignments are
without evidence, and no evidence suggests any link between the Suffolk
Pecks and the Yorkshire ones. Mr. Arnold has suggested that John
Brandon's reading of the lengthy NEHGR Peck article mistakes its
findings, but John's summary is essentially the same as Bradford Peck's
summary quoted here.

If Mr. Arnold has evidence independent of the 1935-40 NEHGR series to
[re-]connect the Suffolk Pecks to the Yorkshire Peck / Middleton
couple,
he should present it clearly.

Throwing up one's hands about Peck, then devoting so muchy energy to
the
alleged Middleton ancestry, is a classic beginner's mistake -- or
genealogy of denial.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net/



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



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

WJhonson

Re: Zaida's background [was Re: Zaida in new Encyclopaedia o

Legg inn av WJhonson » 23 okt 2007 02:08:39

<<In a message dated 10/21/07 11:50:15 Pacific Daylight Time, taf@clearwire.net writes:
Yes, they do. They don't specify the age, though. Some reconstructions
place his birth as late as 1098. There is not much leeway the other
way, as it is thought Zaida came north no earlier than 1091, and so he
could hardly have been born before 1092. >>
--0----------------------
But what about the possibility that his mother wasn't Zaida at all ? I have no less than five different women associated as sexual partners with Alphonso.

Will

Bill Arnold

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 23 okt 2007 02:25:03

God love you medieval scholars!

Will, my dear friend, which you are proving to be,
as John Higgins, before you, I understand, well,
indeed. I have been a journalist and now am a scholar,
in other fields, although I am not new to genealogy.

You mention acronym 2A2, or A2A, and online, whatever,
but you, as a medieval scholar, with a website, no less,
must know that we naifs out here are not sophomoric
which used to mean *between the walls* inasmuch as
we outsiders are NOT privy to what is between the walls,
so open the ivy please and tell me WHERE online I can do
my work? I am willing to do it, and report back to:

gen-medieval, unless someone wants the Award rather
than I win it by default :)

Bill

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

No Bill. Every attempt to fit a framework like this must fail. Every father, and every
father-in-law could do what they wanted with second, third, fourth, sons and sons-in-law. To
try to force the issue only clouds the necessary work that must be done to prove a connection.
There are as many "rules" as there are exceptions, and thus the rules become non-rules. That
is, the rules are false modern attempts to put an order on something that wasn't.

It is not unreasonable to assume it might have been. But that isn't evidence. It might have
been completely upside-down as well. Still not evidence. It's just as likely that second sons
moved away, as that they didn't, we have examples on both sides.

What's wrong with your proposal is that you haven't yet attempted to collect the evidence. YOU
can do it yourself, you don't need help. The work is available online to scour, anyone can do
it. You shouldn't expect someone else to do the work for you, because in general they won't.
Unless you're in the paying mood that is.

You shouldn't say that Robert being grandson of John is a "fact" it doesn't help your argument
and makes it sound like you're shrill. There is compelling evidence that he was, "facts" are
hard to find in genealogy.

So get to work. We await YOUR new findings.

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



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

WJhonson

Re: Thomas Saville / Margaret Pilkington

Legg inn av WJhonson » 23 okt 2007 02:58:02

<<In a message dated 10/22/07 18:45:11 Pacific Daylight Time, Jwc1870 writes:
Yes, You are really good. Now, Your latest post indicates th
at Margaret Savile wed John Hopton in abt 1427, an earlier one stated She was
born about 1422, They were, I guess married in this non-age (as minors?) As to
Alice Savile did She married 1st Sir Conan Aske of Aske died 1440 and 2nd Sir
William Mirfield ? or was She only wife to only Sir William Mirfield ? >>

---------------------
See that's how these things get started :)
Didn't I say she could be born *no later than* 1422 ? Not in 1422. In fact my last post revised that, as Sir William Hopton must himself have been born no later then 1433, pushing his mother's birth back to no later then 1419. ( I don't believe in 13-year-old mothers unless I have very good evidence.) So now I have her birth range as 1400 to 1419. She could have been slightly older than John I suppose. I always let the wife be at least a possibility of five years older. It's more likely that they were of-an-age, or that she was slightly younger of course. Just not a certainty.

The date 26 Feb 1427 is the date of their contract, and they "were in be wed" within the year. I don't have evidence of that wedding date. Just the contract date. Yes John Hopton was about 19. I have no evidence for Margaret's age, then or now, but he must be, at least, her first husband, and she predeceased him, so her only one as well.

I have nothing on Alice Saville except yours :)

Will

Gjest

Re: Thomas Saville / Margaret Pilkington

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 okt 2007 03:45:03

Dear Will,
Yes, You are really good. Now, Your latest post indicates th
at Margaret Savile wed John Hopton in abt 1427, an earlier one stated She was
born about 1422, They were, I guess married in this non-age (as minors?) As to
Alice Savile did She married 1st Sir Conan Aske of Aske died 1440 and 2nd Sir
William Mirfield ? or was She only wife to only Sir William Mirfield ?

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



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

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 23 okt 2007 04:34:00

In article <mailman.369.1193081632.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:

Well, thanks much, Nathaniel, for the summary of the whole situation.
I appreciate it, and aside from some snippets of an obvious relationship
between Mr. Brandon and Mr. Taylor, I do NOT appreciate your disclosure
of a *PRIVATE EMAIL* between Mr. Brandon and Mr. Arnold being posted
to a public newsgroup. You should refrain from invading my privacy, or
anyone else's in the future.

Now: as to the Middleton-Peck-Leeke-Waters families.

Let me recapitulate, in my own way.

Up until John Higgins informed this group *PUBLICLY* that the Middleton
pedigree down to Alice who married Richard Peck was in the *Visitations*
somewhere, I HAD NO IDEA. I admittedly told everyone up front I am a
*naif* compared to the rest of you. Also, I joined gen-medieval recently,
and HAD NO IDEA of the posts of Bradford Peck on a rootsweb Peck list,
because I HAD NO IDEA OF A ROOTSWEB PECK LIST. How naive of me
to be so naive. I wish we all were as smart as Mr. Brandon and Mr. Taylor
who are naive about privacy laws: even on the internet.

For you or anyone else to impugn my character is irrelevant, as far as I am
concerned...

Your 'character' is not intentionally impugned here; people have only
picked up on an apparent lack of experience in genealogy--and there's
nothing wrong with that. Your posts have exhibited a classic problem,
though: you are interested in pursuing the ancestry of Alice Middleton,
wife of Richard Peck, esquire, of Wakefield, Yorkshire. S. Allyn Peck
showed that, although this couple existed and are found in visitations &
other primary sources (so one could certainly research their
ancestries), there is no evidence that they are ancestors of Joseph Peck
(hence of you). Realizing this may save you some effort which you can
redirect into pursuing your real ancestry. If you want to add to the
sum of knowledge about Joseph Peck's ancestry, begin with his known
ancestors and work backwards. You seem already to be responding that,
shifting your curiosity to Leeke, etc. S. Allyn Peck's long NEHGR
article is quite thorough in going over the known Suffolk Peck and
apparent Leek ancestry. A2A is certainly the easiest place to see
whether you can dredge up new primary sources beyond the wills, IPMs and
chancery suits found by S. Allyn Peck. Forget Yorkshire and the
Middletons.

I hove now skimmed S. Allen Peck's 72-page article, and admit I share
John's yawn (overkill on the documents in extenso), except for the
forgery part. The alleged Yorkshire connection comes from a
20-generation pedigree supplied in 1853 to wealthy American descendant
Ira Peck by none other than Horatio Gates Somerby, the prolific forger.
It is gently impugned by S. Allyn Peck, without being too bald in
fingering Somerby. Somerby told Ira Peck it can be found in BL MS Add.
5524, folio 152 (recte 158), and S. Allyn Peck printed a facsimile, in
five plates tipped in before NEHGR 90 (1936):371. I wonder if anyone
familiar with Somerby's own manuscripts (maybe Paul Reed?) could say
definitely if this pedigree is in Somerby's own hand. What is the
acquisition date / provenance of BL Add. MS 5524? I do not find it in
the BL Catalogue, online.

Didn't someone (Paul?) years ago post a list of potentially suspect
Somerby projects found in FHL manuscripts? Or am I thinking only of the
Gustave Anjou bibliography found in the Evans festschrift?

If people are interested, I have posted the entirety of S. Allyn Peck's
72 page NEHGR article online, including the facsimile of the forged
20-generation pedigree, here (3.7 MB):

http://www.nltaylor.net/temp/Peck_NEHGR.pdf

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Zaida's background [was Re: Zaida in new Encyclopaedia o

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 23 okt 2007 04:37:05

In article <mailman.388.1193101789.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:

In a message dated 10/21/07 11:50:15 Pacific Daylight Time,
taf@clearwire.net writes:
Yes, they do. They don't specify the age, though. Some reconstructions
place his birth as late as 1098. There is not much leeway the other
way, as it is thought Zaida came north no earlier than 1091, and so he
could hardly have been born before 1092.
--0----------------------
But what about the possibility that his mother wasn't Zaida at all ? I have
no less than five different women associated as sexual partners with
Alphonso.

It's not a guess or deduction. Sancho, Alfonso's only son, by concubine
Zaida, is well attested in the primary sources. The potential heir of
Castile-Leon being half Moorish, was unusual enough to be noticed by the
chroniclers (even in an era long before limpieza de sangre). Pelayo is
clear on this, as are other chroniclers, I think, both Christian and
Muslim. Todd should have particulars?

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Gjest

Re: Thomas Saville / Margaret Pilkington

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 okt 2007 05:16:03

Dear Will ,
Thank You. I`m big on thirteen year old mothers, either.
Fifteen is a different matter.
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



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

M.Sjostrom

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av M.Sjostrom » 23 okt 2007 05:22:50

Oh no.

As to definition of the term "collateral descendant",
it seems very clear to me that the definition offered
by D.Spencer Hines, is one to which only fringe ones
subscribe.

I know of zero respectable sources where the term is
defined in that way. None at all. Literally, zero.

While there exists a number of established sources
which define collateral descendant as
a direct descendant of the subject's siblings (and
some sources accept even cousins and such, in addition
to siblings, as ancestor of "collateral descent").
The origin is obviously in inheritance law. Quite
often, lineal descent from a subject went extinct, or
lineal male-line descent did that. In which case,
succession to inheritance in right of lineal descent
from a sibling of that subject became crucial.
This of course is a relevant concept, and in use
precisely because it has been needed.

One may criticize that initiators of the term,
presumably lawyers of their era, chose conceptually
incorrect terms, and prefer for example "collateral
relative", as "collateral heir". The damage however
has long ago been done (were it deemed damaging...)
We cannot do anything effective to it.

I must opine in this case that readers do better if
they reject totally the definition offered, and
rappidly propounded, by D.Spencer Hines.
The D.S.Hines definition of "collateral descendant" is
in all likelihood not going to do anything good. On
the contrary, it will muddle the propplematic issue
yet worse, particularly if some really start to use
it.

It will always be more difficult if one term has two
different meanings. In such a situation, nobody can be
certain what is really meant by the term, when it is
used.

(Please think about the two often-seen meanings of the
Latin word 'nepos': grandson, and nephew. How much
easier would our work in medieval genealogies be, had
it ever had only one of those two meanings.)
I believe the D.S.Hines offer of definition here, will
cause similar kind of harm, if adopted.

Some points against any usefulness of the D.S.Hines
definition:
1. The word "descendant" has no substance, no
meaning, in any expression, if it does not answer to
question "whose descendant". The D.S.Hines definition
would have us to say that a pair of more or less
remote cousins would be "collateral descendants".
However, without adding "of A", or possibly "of each
other" (if the latter is what Hines is aiming at),
even the expression "they are cousins" is more
meaningful than to say "they are collateral
descendants"
2. In cases where an exact relationship is not known
or bothered with, but two persons descend from the
same ancestor ('A'), there is no need to start call
them as "collateral descendants of A", because they
are and can be called as "relatives of each other,
both descending from A".
3. Like D.S.Hines, exceptionally perceptively from
him, points, it would be recommendable to be precise
about their exact relationship. However, such precise
kinship lineage is not always known. Thus, the
D.S.Hines preference (such as "first cousin once
removed") would work only in a situation where the
kinship is precisely enough known. But, in many
medieval documentation, we only get to know that a
pair of individuals were "consanguineous" with each
other. However, even in such a situation, there is no
need for "collateral descendant" to be taken into THAT
use, because the relationship is better expressed as
"relatives of each other", or "more or less remote
cousins", or, as the translation already reads:
"consanguineous with each other". Another term, fourth
at least, would not be needed the least for this one
purpose, and will be harmful in this meaning because
it already has a different meaning in lots of legal
and other texts.


M.Sjöström


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 23 okt 2007 05:35:33

At the end of the Peck article there is a an Editors' Note to the effect
that the Peck article was "To be continued".

Was it?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-1A9AA0.23335922102007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...

If people are interested, I have posted the entirety of S. Allyn Peck's
72 page NEHGR article online, including the facsimile of the forged
20-generation pedigree, here (3.7 MB):

http://www.nltaylor.net/temp/Peck_NEHGR.pdf

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Bill Arnold

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 23 okt 2007 05:50:28

Monsieur Hines, I reiterate:

You are confused. Send that response to all your email friends,
privately. It IS a question of TRUST, and it your friends do NOT
trust you, then they will NOT send you a private email. I certainly
will not, but then you probably think I am not your friend?

Who OWNS the legal rights to a letter, the recipient or the maker?

Although the internet is NEW, it still has LUX and VERITAS,
as in:

VE - RI - TAS

and

LIB - ER - TAS

and that freedom you praise rests on TRUST:

as we journalists say: trust me on this. Ever hear of Fleet Street?

But can you be trusted?

"sequere me et dimitte mortuos sepelire mortuos suos"





***************************

--- "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote:

Utter Nonsense...

The recipient of an email has no such obligation.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.381.1193097026.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

When I send an email to the gen-medieval list, it is *public.*

When I send an email to a personal address, it is *private.*



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



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Bill Arnold

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 23 okt 2007 05:58:35

Much thanks, Will.

I will try it, and report back my findings.

Bill
PS
Have you read my book which has your name Will
on the title page?

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

There are two main sources for access (at least citations to) actual primary documents, deeds,
wills, contracts, etc from the medieval period, (as opposed to compilations, extracts,
abstracts, discussions...)

A2A stands for Access to Archives and the other main source is called
ProCat

Both are linked off my Sources page here
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... hp/Sources

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



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 23 okt 2007 06:08:27

Anyone who sends an email to another is a fool if he thinks such an email
will always be treated as a PRIVATE communication.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

WJhonson

Re: Genealogics: Giving some background to Sir Thomas Palmer

Legg inn av WJhonson » 23 okt 2007 08:03:27

<<In a message dated 10/03/07 07:23:46 Pacific Daylight Time, ADRIANCHANNING02 writes:
Sir Edmund Denny of Cheshunt
Mary Troutbeck >>
--------------------
By the way Adrian, when you were discussing the great-grandparents of Winnifred Mildmay you sent the above. You might want to know or note that Edmund Denny was Chief Baron of the Exchequer. Might help to use that to find more details.

Will

D. Spencer Hines

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 23 okt 2007 08:36:31

Now, having resolved the question of "Collateral Descendants", [vide infra]
let's take up the far simpler issue of "Direct Descendants".

ALL descendants of a GIVEN INDIVIDUAL, A, are "direct descendants" -- none
are "indirect" or "collateral" descendants.

So, the word "DIRECT" adds no useful meaning to the word descendant -- the
word "DIRECT" is excess baggage, redundant, incongruous, unsuitable ---- and
therefore an oxymoron.

So, it can be excised and deleted.

'Nuff Said.

DSH

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

Many people seem to be badly confused about these terms, including Pogue
Thompson, who is thoroughly bollixed, discombobulated and confused as to
their characteristics, uses, incongruities and absurdities.

Let's start with the harder one first and then the other will be easier to
understand.

The term "COLLATERAL DESCENDANT" is often grossly misused.

If both D and E are descendants of A, say by different sons, B and C, they
can be described as "collateral descendants" of A -- but it is much more
intelligent, clear, coherent, precise and concise to describe them as 1ST
COUSINS.

However if D is descended from A while E is descended from K, a brother of
A, but NOT from A it is ENTIRELY INCORRECT & INDEED IDIOTIC to describe E as
a "Collateral Descendant" of A.

Some beginner pogues and poguettes in Genealogy who carelessly and loosely
employ this term "Collateral Descendant" are often doing it because they are
descended from K but not from A, who is MORE FAMOUS, ROYAL or NOTORIOUS
[those categories often overlap] and they want to impress the groundlings by
saying THEY THEMSELVES are "Collateral Descendants" of A.

For example, some rampant little poseur pogue may say "I am a collateral
descendant of King Henry VII of England", when he is not descended from
Henry VII at all but from some other lesser figure.

No Sale...

One is either a descendant of Henry VII or not at all. One cannot have a
"COLLATERAL DESCENT" from him.

'Nuff Said.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat opus

Leticia Cluff

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av Leticia Cluff » 23 okt 2007 12:42:20

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:36:31 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"
<panther@excelsior.com> wrote:

Now, having resolved the question of "Collateral Descendants", [vide infra]
let's take up the far simpler issue of "Direct Descendants".

ALL descendants of a GIVEN INDIVIDUAL, A, are "direct descendants" -- none
are "indirect" or "collateral" descendants.

So, the word "DIRECT" adds no useful meaning to the word descendant -- the
word "DIRECT" is excess baggage, redundant, incongruous, unsuitable ---- and
therefore an oxymoron.

So, it can be excised and deleted.


Let's see now.

I agree with you when you say:
"All descendants of a given individual are direct descendants."

And I agree with your definition of oxymoron as:
"something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or
incongruous elements"

So far so good, but where your logic collapses is in the claim that
"direct descendant" is an oxymoron.

Let me explain where you have gone wrong:
You have rightly said that the term "direct descendant" means exactly
the same as "descendant". In other words, there is total congruity
between the two terms.

Given that you claim total congruity between the two terms, how then
can there be any incongruity? Redundancy, yes, as in your phrase
"excised and deleted". But certainly no incongruity.

To claim that redundancy = incongruity is a cheap sleight of hand
which will not fool any of the astute minds here.
To claim that congruity = incongruity is pure Orwellian Newspeak.

Instead of attempting any more logical contorsions it would be easier
if you could be a man and just admit that you used the word oxymoron
erroneously. However, I have no doubt but that you will choose a
different course. Instead of trying to impress us with an
unprecedented display of maturity, you will amuse and amaze us with
your desperate attempts to extract yourself from a predicament of your
own making.

We all know that the phrase "a Hinesian admission of error" is an
oxymoron, as indeed is Hines himself, albeit bereft of the acuity
inherent in the oxy-.

Tish

John Briggs

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av John Briggs » 23 okt 2007 12:59:45

Leticia Cluff wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:36:31 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"
panther@excelsior.com> wrote:

Now, having resolved the question of "Collateral Descendants", [vide
infra] let's take up the far simpler issue of "Direct Descendants".

ALL descendants of a GIVEN INDIVIDUAL, A, are "direct descendants"
-- none are "indirect" or "collateral" descendants.

So, the word "DIRECT" adds no useful meaning to the word descendant
-- the word "DIRECT" is excess baggage, redundant, incongruous,
unsuitable ---- and therefore an oxymoron.

So, it can be excised and deleted.


Let's see now.

I agree with you when you say:
"All descendants of a given individual are direct descendants."

And I agree with your definition of oxymoron as:
"something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or
incongruous elements"

So far so good, but where your logic collapses is in the claim that
"direct descendant" is an oxymoron.

Let me explain where you have gone wrong:
You have rightly said that the term "direct descendant" means exactly
the same as "descendant". In other words, there is total congruity
between the two terms.

Given that you claim total congruity between the two terms, how then
can there be any incongruity? Redundancy, yes, as in your phrase
"excised and deleted". But certainly no incongruity.

To claim that redundancy = incongruity is a cheap sleight of hand
which will not fool any of the astute minds here.
To claim that congruity = incongruity is pure Orwellian Newspeak.

Instead of attempting any more logical contorsions it would be easier
if you could be a man and just admit that you used the word oxymoron
erroneously. However, I have no doubt but that you will choose a
different course. Instead of trying to impress us with an
unprecedented display of maturity, you will amuse and amaze us with
your desperate attempts to extract yourself from a predicament of your
own making.

We all know that the phrase "a Hinesian admission of error" is an
oxymoron, as indeed is Hines himself, albeit bereft of the acuity
inherent in the oxy-.

Depends - what was the conclusion about "collateral descendants"?
--
John Briggs

Leticia Cluff

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av Leticia Cluff » 23 okt 2007 13:41:47

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:59:45 GMT, "John Briggs"
<john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Leticia Cluff wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:36:31 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"
panther@excelsior.com> wrote:

Now, having resolved the question of "Collateral Descendants", [vide
infra] let's take up the far simpler issue of "Direct Descendants".

ALL descendants of a GIVEN INDIVIDUAL, A, are "direct descendants"
-- none are "indirect" or "collateral" descendants.

So, the word "DIRECT" adds no useful meaning to the word descendant
-- the word "DIRECT" is excess baggage, redundant, incongruous,
unsuitable ---- and therefore an oxymoron.

So, it can be excised and deleted.


Let's see now.

I agree with you when you say:
"All descendants of a given individual are direct descendants."

And I agree with your definition of oxymoron as:
"something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or
incongruous elements"

So far so good, but where your logic collapses is in the claim that
"direct descendant" is an oxymoron.

Let me explain where you have gone wrong:
You have rightly said that the term "direct descendant" means exactly
the same as "descendant". In other words, there is total congruity
between the two terms.

Given that you claim total congruity between the two terms, how then
can there be any incongruity? Redundancy, yes, as in your phrase
"excised and deleted". But certainly no incongruity.

To claim that redundancy = incongruity is a cheap sleight of hand
which will not fool any of the astute minds here.
To claim that congruity = incongruity is pure Orwellian Newspeak.

Instead of attempting any more logical contorsions it would be easier
if you could be a man and just admit that you used the word oxymoron
erroneously. However, I have no doubt but that you will choose a
different course. Instead of trying to impress us with an
unprecedented display of maturity, you will amuse and amaze us with
your desperate attempts to extract yourself from a predicament of your
own making.

We all know that the phrase "a Hinesian admission of error" is an
oxymoron, as indeed is Hines himself, albeit bereft of the acuity
inherent in the oxy-.

Depends - what was the conclusion about "collateral descendants"?

I'm not sure that CONCLUSION is the right term to use for any
statement by Hines, since that refers to a judgment arrived at by
reasoning. If you really want to see what he wrote about this, you can
go to soc.genealogy.medieval, where this thread started.

The CLAIM is basically that pogues use the word "collateral" wrongly
while cognoscenti (among whom he numbers himself) use it correctly.

The same could be said about the word "oxymoron", but in that case
Hines invents his own definition, thus joining the pogues to take
sides against the cognoscenti.

Tish

Bill Arnold

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 23 okt 2007 13:45:09

A member queried me:

"Were you talking about the 'Last Will'?"

Not really. Try this:

http://www.past-perfect-florida-history ... rch=Search

Bill

************************************************
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters


Much thanks, Will.

I will try it, and report back my findings.

Bill
PS
Have you read my book which has your name Will
on the title page?

************************************************

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

There are two main sources for access (at least citations to) actual
primary documents, deeds,
wills, contracts, etc from the medieval period, (as opposed to
compilations, extracts,
abstracts, discussions...)

A2A stands for Access to Archives and the other main source is called
ProCat

Both are linked off my Sources page here
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... hp/Sources

Will Johnson


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

John Briggs

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av John Briggs » 23 okt 2007 13:47:20

Leticia Cluff wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:59:45 GMT, "John Briggs" wrote:

Depends - what was the conclusion about "collateral descendants"?

I'm not sure that CONCLUSION is the right term to use for any
statement by Hines, since that refers to a judgment arrived at by
reasoning. If you really want to see what he wrote about this, you can
go to soc.genealogy.medieval, where this thread started.

Well, I could see where it started, I just couldn't see that it got anywhere
:-)

He seems to have defined "collateral descendants" out of existence, which
would indeed render "direct descendents" redundant. But if you *haven't*
done that, "direct descendents" is very necessary, if only to avoid
ambiguity.
--
John Briggs

Jack Linthicum

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av Jack Linthicum » 23 okt 2007 13:47:55

On Oct 23, 8:41 am, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:59:45 GMT, "John Briggs"



john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Leticia Cluff wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:36:31 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"
pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

Now, having resolved the question of "Collateral Descendants", [vide
infra] let's take up the far simpler issue of "Direct Descendants".

ALL descendants of a GIVEN INDIVIDUAL, A, are "direct descendants"
-- none are "indirect" or "collateral" descendants.

So, the word "DIRECT" adds no useful meaning to the word descendant
-- the word "DIRECT" is excess baggage, redundant, incongruous,
unsuitable ---- and therefore an oxymoron.

So, it can be excised and deleted.

Let's see now.

I agree with you when you say:
"All descendants of a given individual are direct descendants."

And I agree with your definition of oxymoron as:
"something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or
incongruous elements"

So far so good, but where your logic collapses is in the claim that
"direct descendant" is an oxymoron.

Let me explain where you have gone wrong:
You have rightly said that the term "direct descendant" means exactly
the same as "descendant". In other words, there is total congruity
between the two terms.

Given that you claim total congruity between the two terms, how then
can there be any incongruity? Redundancy, yes, as in your phrase
"excised and deleted". But certainly no incongruity.

To claim that redundancy = incongruity is a cheap sleight of hand
which will not fool any of the astute minds here.
To claim that congruity = incongruity is pure Orwellian Newspeak.

Instead of attempting any more logical contorsions it would be easier
if you could be a man and just admit that you used the word oxymoron
erroneously. However, I have no doubt but that you will choose a
different course. Instead of trying to impress us with an
unprecedented display of maturity, you will amuse and amaze us with
your desperate attempts to extract yourself from a predicament of your
own making.

We all know that the phrase "a Hinesian admission of error" is an
oxymoron, as indeed is Hines himself, albeit bereft of the acuity
inherent in the oxy-.

Depends - what was the conclusion about "collateral descendants"?

I'm not sure that CONCLUSION is the right term to use for any
statement by Hines, since that refers to a judgment arrived at by
reasoning. If you really want to see what he wrote about this, you can
go to soc.genealogy.medieval, where this thread started.

The CLAIM is basically that pogues use the word "collateral" wrongly
while cognoscenti (among whom he numbers himself) use it correctly.

The same could be said about the word "oxymoron", but in that case
Hines invents his own definition, thus joining the pogues to take
sides against the cognoscenti.

Tish

Question: why sci.military.navy and us.military.army?

Sir Chewbury Gubbins

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av Sir Chewbury Gubbins » 23 okt 2007 14:06:45

Jack Linthicum the Monkey was never naughty:
The same could be said about the word "oxymoron", but in that case
Hines invents his own definition, thus joining the pogues to take
sides against the cognoscenti.

Tish

Question: why sci.military.navy and us.military.army?

Answer: As an illustration that if you're not part of the solution,
you're part of the precipitate.

Choobs

--
Sir Chewbury Gubbins <choobs@chewbury.net.invalid>
... Blog : http://www.nelefa.org
/|\ Game Diary : http://www.chewbury.net
/ | \ Abu the Monkey was never naughty.

Bill Arnold

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 23 okt 2007 14:11:02

Ah, but, Monsieur, you ARE a world leader,
and you remind me of that other world leader,
Monsieur K., who, when he did not get his own way
at the United Nations, took off his shoe and pounded
it on the table.

Are YOU suggesting I am a fool?

Monsieur, unless it escapes you: I am speaking philosophically
to a list of gents, who ought at least to understand a question
of *ethics* when they see it.

Have you any, Monsieur?

If you do, I believe you will respect my privacy as I respect yours,
unless of course you become a public figure as when I worked
for the Fleet Street boys, here in America. Then, of course, you
are fair game.

As a former journalist, and occasional *stringer* to world media
sources, I have a thick skin, so this is all an academic discussion
to me. Apparently, you do not see it that way, and insist upon
invective and ad hominem. As I said earlier, have at it. I am still
here, waiting in this wings for the real fool, stage left :)

You must understand: all this reflects upon the unethical behaviour
of someone who *repostes* [pun intended] a private email to a
public list. They lack a code of ethics, pure and simple. I will not
be a party to such unethical behaviour, and apologize wheneve I
err in that direction. I made it clear and simple that this listserver
automatically puts up the private email address and the public
email address in the addressee box. You are NOT on my private
list, nor would you EVER be. Period. As in: end of thought,
sentence, and communication.

Bill

************************************
--- "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote:

Anyone who sends an email to another is a fool if he thinks such an email
will always be treated as a PRIVATE communication.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas






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




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Jack Linthicum

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av Jack Linthicum » 23 okt 2007 14:17:34

On Oct 23, 9:06 am, Sir Chewbury Gubbins
<chewbury.gubb...@nelefa.org.invalid> wrote:
Jack Linthicum the Monkey was never naughty:



The same could be said about the word "oxymoron", but in that case
Hines invents his own definition, thus joining the pogues to take
sides against the cognoscenti.

Tish

Question: why sci.military.navy and us.military.army?

Answer: As an illustration that if you're not part of the solution,
you're part of the precipitate.

Choobs

--
Sir Chewbury Gubbins <cho...@chewbury.net.invalid
... Blog :http://www.nelefa.org
/|\ Game Diary :http://www.chewbury.net
/ | \ Abu the Monkey was never naughty.

Oh, yes, Hines' favorites, the twee little group from down at the pub.

Gjest

Re: Zaida's background [was Re: Zaida in new Encyclopaedia o

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 okt 2007 15:19:58

On Oct 22, 6:08 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 10/21/07 11:50:15 Pacific Daylight Time, t...@clearwire.net writes:
Yes, they do. They don't specify the age, though. Some reconstructions
place his birth as late as 1098. There is not much leeway the other
way, as it is thought Zaida came north no earlier than 1091, and so he
could hardly have been born before 1092.
--0----------------------
But what about the possibility that his mother wasn't Zaida at all ? I have no less than five different women associated as sexual partners with Alphonso.



It is explicitly stated that this was the case by Bishop Pelayo, who
is the source for the details we know of those five (actually six or
seven) different women and their respective children. I think we need
better than just a feeling that he was a little young to be fighting
(at 14 or 15) before we throw out our only near-contemporary source.


taf

The Highlander

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av The Highlander » 23 okt 2007 15:44:46

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:42:20 -0300, Leticia Cluff
<leticia.cluff@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:36:31 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"
panther@excelsior.com> wrote:

Now, having resolved the question of "Collateral Descendants", [vide infra]
let's take up the far simpler issue of "Direct Descendants".

ALL descendants of a GIVEN INDIVIDUAL, A, are "direct descendants" -- none
are "indirect" or "collateral" descendants.

So, the word "DIRECT" adds no useful meaning to the word descendant -- the
word "DIRECT" is excess baggage, redundant, incongruous, unsuitable ---- and
therefore an oxymoron.

So, it can be excised and deleted.


Let's see now.

I agree with you when you say:
"All descendants of a given individual are direct descendants."

And I agree with your definition of oxymoron as:
"something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or
incongruous elements"

So far so good, but where your logic collapses is in the claim that
"direct descendant" is an oxymoron.

Let me explain where you have gone wrong:
You have rightly said that the term "direct descendant" means exactly
the same as "descendant". In other words, there is total congruity
between the two terms.

Given that you claim total congruity between the two terms, how then
can there be any incongruity? Redundancy, yes, as in your phrase
"excised and deleted". But certainly no incongruity.

To claim that redundancy = incongruity is a cheap sleight of hand
which will not fool any of the astute minds here.
To claim that congruity = incongruity is pure Orwellian Newspeak.

Instead of attempting any more logical contorsions it would be easier
if you could be a man and just admit that you used the word oxymoron
erroneously. However, I have no doubt but that you will choose a
different course. Instead of trying to impress us with an
unprecedented display of maturity, you will amuse and amaze us with
your desperate attempts to extract yourself from a predicament of your
own making.

We all know that the phrase "a Hinesian admission of error" is an
oxymoron, as indeed is Hines himself, albeit bereft of the acuity
inherent in the oxy-.

Tish

applause

John Brandon

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av John Brandon » 23 okt 2007 16:17:20

http://www.nltaylor.net/temp/Peck_NEHGR.pdf

Thanks for putting this up, Nathaniel. It seems they didn't know
about paraphrasing or abstracting.

On p. 268 of the 1936 issue, I note the will of Katherine (Peck) Lake,
whom I tried to claim a few years ago was an ancestress of the Lakes
of New England:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... 2ce3d175d9

(Someone later wrote and said that this particular line to the Lakes
of N.E. was disproved somewhere; can't remember all the details.)

John Brandon

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av John Brandon » 23 okt 2007 16:19:53

http://www.nltaylor.net/temp/Peck_NEHGR.pdf

Thanks for putting this up, Nathaniel. It seems they didn't know
about paraphrasing or abstracting.

On p. 268 of the 1936 issue, I note the will of Katherine (Peck) Lake,
whom I tried to claim a few years ago was an ancestress of the Lakes
of New England:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... 2ce3d175d9

(Someone later wrote and said that this particular line to the Lakes
of N.E. was disproved somewhere; can't remember all the details.)

The Highlander

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av The Highlander » 23 okt 2007 16:34:21

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:59:45 GMT, "John Briggs"
<john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Leticia Cluff wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:36:31 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"
panther@excelsior.com> wrote:

Now, having resolved the question of "Collateral Descendants", [vide
infra] let's take up the far simpler issue of "Direct Descendants".

ALL descendants of a GIVEN INDIVIDUAL, A, are "direct descendants"
-- none are "indirect" or "collateral" descendants.

So, the word "DIRECT" adds no useful meaning to the word descendant
-- the word "DIRECT" is excess baggage, redundant, incongruous,
unsuitable ---- and therefore an oxymoron.

So, it can be excised and deleted.


Let's see now.

I agree with you when you say:
"All descendants of a given individual are direct descendants."

And I agree with your definition of oxymoron as:
"something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or
incongruous elements"

So far so good, but where your logic collapses is in the claim that
"direct descendant" is an oxymoron.

Let me explain where you have gone wrong:
You have rightly said that the term "direct descendant" means exactly
the same as "descendant". In other words, there is total congruity
between the two terms.

Given that you claim total congruity between the two terms, how then
can there be any incongruity? Redundancy, yes, as in your phrase
"excised and deleted". But certainly no incongruity.

To claim that redundancy = incongruity is a cheap sleight of hand
which will not fool any of the astute minds here.
To claim that congruity = incongruity is pure Orwellian Newspeak.

Instead of attempting any more logical contorsions it would be easier
if you could be a man and just admit that you used the word oxymoron
erroneously. However, I have no doubt but that you will choose a
different course. Instead of trying to impress us with an
unprecedented display of maturity, you will amuse and amaze us with
your desperate attempts to extract yourself from a predicament of your
own making.

We all know that the phrase "a Hinesian admission of error" is an
oxymoron, as indeed is Hines himself, albeit bereft of the acuity
inherent in the oxy-.

Depends - what was the conclusion about "collateral descendants"?

Surely 'descendants' contemplates lineal descendants rather than
collateral. Therefore, siblings and nieces and nephews would not be
descendants of a decedent but would be descendants of a decedent's
parents.

Derek Howard

Re: Nobility of the Greek Island of NEGROPONTE

Legg inn av Derek Howard » 23 okt 2007 17:07:48

M. de la Fayette wrote:
Yes Jean, I know.... But unfortunately is a VERY expensive book.
Does you (or someone other) got a copy and can be so kind to check if
there are some informations about those two families that should have
moved from the Island of Eubea/Negroponte to the italian town of Cotrone
now Crotone in Calabria?

Falilies are: SCULCO and CRISAFI (or Grisafi or Grisafo or Crisafo)

Thanks in advance

I have checked in the books I referred to below without success for
those you name above. What is the evidence that these families came
from Negroponte? What dates are you specifically looking for?

I suspect you may have to commence some serious research among
Venetian records. Setton's book (ref below) contains a good
bibliographical chapter which discusses the Venetian records available
for the period in both archives and print in some detail on pages
268-271.

Derek Howard

On Oct 19, 9:32 am, Derek Howard <dhow...@skynet.be> wrote:
I do not know of any book specifically on the nobility of the
island. There is not a lot of detail available. Nevertheless the
main families are known of.

The best volume on the history is
Kenneth M Setton: The Catalan domination of Athens, 1311-1388,
Cambridge, Massachusets, 1948
(despite its name and emphasis, the coverage is wider in geography
and period. There is a revised edition, 1975).

Little snippets are found in
William Miller: The Latins in the Levant, London, 1908, eg p 459.
and in R Grousset: L'empire du levant, Paris, 1949, pp 545-551.

There is very little of any use for this in such modern works as Peter
Lock: The Franks in the Aegean, 1204-1500, London and New York, 1995,
and Lock gives no information on the nobles in his article on 'The
Towers of Euboea' in: The Archaeology of Medieval Greece, Oxford,
1996.

Derek Howard

I should perhaps also have included a mention of a chapter on the '
Seigneurs (tierciers) de Négrepont ou d'Eubée ' in G Schlumberger:
Numismatique de l'orient latin, Paris 1878, reprinted Graz 1954, pp
352-357.

Derek Howard

D. Spencer Hines

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 23 okt 2007 17:31:22

Yes, that's correct.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:7m2sh3lv6cstak7obmpe9l6vblkmnerhfa@4ax.com...

Surely 'descendants' contemplates lineal descendants rather than
collateral. Therefore, siblings and nieces and nephews would not be
descendants of a decedent but would be descendants of a decedent's
parents.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 23 okt 2007 17:44:39

I say again:

Anyone who sends an email to another is a fool if he thinks such an email
will always be treated as a PRIVATE communication.

Further, this fool, Arnold, is doubly foolish in that he thinks he can blame
his error on his listserver.

Obviously, he needs to get a listserver where HE can control the addressees
to whom he sends messages -- or continue to screw the pooch royally -- and
daily...

To the Great Amusement of us all.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.413.1193141170.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

I made it clear and simple that this listserver
automatically puts up the private email address and the public
email address in the addressee box.

Gjest

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 okt 2007 17:45:27

On Oct 23, 4:42 am, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:36:31 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"

pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

So, the word "DIRECT" adds no useful meaning to the word descendant -- the
word "DIRECT" is excess baggage, redundant, incongruous, unsuitable ---- and
therefore an oxymoron.

So, it can be excised and deleted.

Let's see now.

Oh, let's not. While the thread itself has been rather inane from the
start, at least it was limited to s.g.m, but now you go and crosspost
this to four other groups. Why? It may bring you brief pleasure to
correct Mr. Hines before a larger audience, but the whole group ends
up paying for it.

taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 23 okt 2007 18:34:44

Now, having resolved the question of "Collateral Descendants", [vide infra]
let's take up the far simpler issue of "Direct Descendants".

ALL descendants of a GIVEN INDIVIDUAL, A, are "direct descendants" -- none
are "indirect" or "collateral" descendants.

So, the word "DIRECT" adds no useful meaning to the word descendant -- the
word "DIRECT" is excess baggage, redundant, incongruous, unsuitable ---- and
therefore an oxymoron.

So, it can be excised and deleted.

'Nuff Said.

DSH

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

Many people seem to be badly confused about these terms, including Pogue
Thompson, who is thoroughly bollixed, discombobulated and confused as to
their characteristics, uses, incongruities and absurdities.

Let's start with the harder one first and then the other will be easier to
understand.

The term "COLLATERAL DESCENDANT" is often grossly misused.

If both D and E are descendants of A, say by different sons, B and C, they
can be described as "collateral descendants" of A -- but it is much more
intelligent, clear, coherent, precise and concise to describe them as 1ST
COUSINS.

However if D is descended from A while E is descended from K, a brother of
A, but NOT from A it is ENTIRELY INCORRECT & INDEED IDIOTIC to describe E as
a "Collateral Descendant" of A.

Some beginner pogues and poguettes in Genealogy who carelessly and loosely
employ this term "Collateral Descendant" are often doing it because they are
descended from K but not from A, who is MORE FAMOUS, ROYAL or NOTORIOUS
[those categories often overlap] and they want to impress the groundlings by
saying THEY THEMSELVES are "Collateral Descendants" of A.

For example, some rampant little poseur pogue may say "I am a collateral
descendant of King Henry VII of England", when he is not descended from
Henry VII at all but from some other lesser figure.

No Sale...

One is either a descendant of Henry VII or not at all. One cannot have a
"COLLATERAL DESCENT" from him.

'Nuff Said.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat opus

Gjest

Re: Genealogics: Giving some background to Sir Thomas Palmer

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 okt 2007 18:37:02

Will,

Thanks for the additional information.

Note that Robert Browne's mother was widow of Robert Whetstone and she
married thirdly Francis Ashby. As Robert calls a Mary Whetston his niece, his
cousenship to Wm Fitzwilliam may be through "step" relationship


In a message dated 23/10/2007 08:10:30 GMT Standard Time, wjhonson@aol.com
writes:
<<In a message dated 10/03/07 07:23:46 Pacific Daylight Time,
ADRIANCHANNING02 writes:
Sir Edmund Denny of Cheshunt
Mary Troutbeck >>
--------------------
By the way Adrian, when you were discussing the great-grandparents of
Winnifred Mildmay you sent the above. You might want to know or note that Edmund
Denny was Chief Baron of the Exchequer. Might help to use that to find more
details.

Will

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

Christopher Ingham

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av Christopher Ingham » 23 okt 2007 18:57:40

On Oct 23, 1:34 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Now, having resolved the question of "Collateral Descendants", [vide infra]
let's take up the far simpler issue of "Direct Descendants".

ALL descendants of a GIVEN INDIVIDUAL, A, are "direct descendants" -- none
are "indirect" or "collateral" descendants.

So, the word "DIRECT" adds no useful meaning to the word descendant -- the
word "DIRECT" is excess baggage, redundant, incongruous, unsuitable ---- and
therefore an oxymoron.

So, it can be excised and deleted

"collateral: descended from the same stock, but in a different
line; not lineal. pertaining to those so descended."
_Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary_, 2nd ed.

Christopher Ingham

D. Spencer Hines

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 23 okt 2007 19:04:53

Irrelevant...

The "same stock" is not the same Given Individual.

One cannot have a "Collateral Descent" from a Given Individual.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

"Christopher Ingham" <christopheringham@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1193162260.159929.323260@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Oct 23, 1:34 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

Now, having resolved the question of "Collateral Descendants", [vide
infra] let's take up the far simpler issue of "Direct Descendants".

ALL descendants of a GIVEN INDIVIDUAL, A, are "direct descendants" --
none are "indirect" or "collateral" descendants.

So, the word "DIRECT" adds no useful meaning to the word descendant --
the word "DIRECT" is excess baggage, redundant, incongruous,
unsuitable ---- and therefore an oxymoron.

So, it can be excised and deleted

"collateral: descended from the same stock, but in a different
line; not lineal. pertaining to those so descended."

_Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary_, 2nd ed.

Christopher Ingham

Christopher Ingham

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av Christopher Ingham » 23 okt 2007 19:12:00

On Oct 23, 1:34 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Now, having resolved the question of "Collateral Descendants", [vide infra]
let's take up the far simpler issue of "Direct Descendants".

ALL descendants of a GIVEN INDIVIDUAL, A, are "direct descendants" -- none
are "indirect" or "collateral" descendants.

So, the word "DIRECT" adds no useful meaning to the word descendant -- the
word "DIRECT" is excess baggage, redundant, incongruous, unsuitable ---- and
therefore an oxymoron.

So, it can be excised and deleted.

'Nuff Said.

"collateral: descended from the same stock, but in a different
line; not lineal. pertaining to those so descended."
_Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary_, 2nd ed.

Christopher Ingham

Christopher Ingham

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av Christopher Ingham » 23 okt 2007 19:37:46

On Oct 23, 2:04 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Irrelevant...

The "same stock" is not the same Given Individual.

One cannot have a "Collateral Descent" from a Given Individual.

"Collateral: Descended from the same stock, but in a different
line; pertaining to those so descended. Opposed to_lineal_.
_collateral ancestor_: a brother or sister of a parent, grand-
parent, or other lineal ancestor.... 1818 Cruise_Digest_ (ed.2)
I. 81 'The heirs of a man's body, by which only his lineal
descendants were admitted, in exclusion of collateral heirs.'
_OED_, 2nd ed.

Christopher Ingham

D. Spencer Hines

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 23 okt 2007 19:41:40

A _Collateral Heir_ and a _Collateral Descendent_ are, of course, QUITE
different things.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 23 okt 2007 19:51:36

_Emily Dickinson's Secret Love: Mystery "Master" Behind_

Hmmmmmmm...

What's this undue fascination with Emily Dickinson's behind?

Tawdry...

And:

Necrophilic

DSH

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.431.1193165009.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

In a message dated 10/23/2007 11:24:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
WJhonson writes:

Bill Arnold is the author of three books
_http://umassmag.com/2006/Fall06/ClassNotes/bookmarks.html_
(http://umassmag.com/2006/Fall06/ClassNo ... marks.html)


Will Johnson

Christopher Ingham

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av Christopher Ingham » 23 okt 2007 20:08:46

On Oct 23, 2:41 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
A _Collateral Heir_ and a _Collateral Descendent_ are, of course, QUITE
different things.

"descendant: one that is descended from another or from a
common stock. a lineal or collateral blood relative usu. of a
later generation."
_Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English
Language, Unabridged_"

Christopher Ingham

Gjest

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 okt 2007 20:31:03

In a message dated 10/23/2007 4:40:25 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:

http://www.past-perfect-florida-history ... 48381a9dc5
0b7fbaa4205d97&keyword=BILL+ARNOLD&searchby=author&page=shop%2Fbrowse&fsb=1&Se
arch=Search


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

Bill Arnold is the author of three books
_http://umassmag.com/2006/Fall06/ClassNotes/bookmarks.html_
(http://umassmag.com/2006/Fall06/ClassNo ... marks.html)


Will Johnson



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

Gjest

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 okt 2007 20:32:03

In a message dated 10/23/2007 5:05:29 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
john.briggs4@ntlworld.com writes:

Depends - what was the conclusion about "collateral descendants"?
--
John Briggs


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

Conclusion? How silly!
You came here for an argument!



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

Gjest

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 okt 2007 20:33:03

No Hines is saying "Collateral descendants" only refers to an expression
like "John Brown and I are collateral descendents of Grizzell Bacon"

Hines is saying you cannot say *I* am a collateral descendant of Grizzell
Bacon. Only that *we* are of each other (so-to-speak).

Will Johnson



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

Don Stone

Re: SGM Archive Listing and Search Results with Different Br

Legg inn av Don Stone » 23 okt 2007 21:25:46

Robert Forrest wrote:
2. When I access the August 2007 archives,
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/G ... AL/2007-08
with the default threaded listing, all three of these browsers cut off the
list after 11 August. If I change to chronological listing, the entire
month's postings are shown.

Can anyone verify or explain this bizarre behavior?


This anomaly is probably due to a server crash at RootsWeb. It is
possible that the threaded list can be regenerated from the
chronological list. The way to inquire about this problem or request
rethreading is to go to the RootsWeb Help Desk,
http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com/, and click on the HelpDesk link near the
bottom of the box at the left; equivalently, click on the link for Error
Reports (Technical). Anyone can do this.

-- Don Stone

Gjest

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 okt 2007 21:42:48

<<In a message dated 10/23/2007 11:24:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
WJhonson writes:

Bill Arnold is the author of three books
_http://umassmag.com/2006/Fall06/ClassNotes/bookmarks.html_
(http://umassmag.com/2006/Fall06/ClassNo ... marks.html)


Will Johnson>>

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

But Will, what is this book "Gospel according to Will" about anyway?
I'm glad you asked Will, here is the book descrip. in Bill's own words

_http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2002/2451.html_
(http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2002/2451.html)
BEGIN QUOTE
JESUS: The Gospel According To Will: "Thy Kingdom Come, thy Will Be
Done," ISBN 1892582-01-5, 2002.

I would suggest to SHAKSPEReans that the book is about JESUS primarily,
as per the title, with an three-part apologia: with history of the
ancient texts of the NT; history of primarily English translations up to
the KJV; and 179 KJV paradigms, focusing on key quotations of Jesus,
selected and organized by the author. The book attempts in the central
portion of the apologia to cover the history of the Will Shakespeare
question of whether or not he actually translated any portions of the
KJV, with all the known referents included. I gave my opinion in
summary in my previous post to SHAKSPER.

Bill Arnold
END QUOTE


Will Johnson "The Other"



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

Bill Arnold

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 24 okt 2007 00:07:02

Inasmuch as Monsieur Hines finds it fine to crosspost
private emails, his ego probably relishes being made
the laughing stock of the internet :)

In other words: he lacks understanding of the difference
between fame and infamy.

Bill

***********************************************
--- taf@clearwire.net wrote:

On Oct 23, 4:42 am, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:36:31 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"

pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

So, the word "DIRECT" adds no useful meaning to the word descendant -- the
word "DIRECT" is excess baggage, redundant, incongruous, unsuitable ---- and
therefore an oxymoron.

So, it can be excised and deleted.

Let's see now.

Oh, let's not. While the thread itself has been rather inane from the
start, at least it was limited to s.g.m, but now you go and crosspost
this to four other groups. Why? It may bring you brief pleasure to
correct Mr. Hines before a larger audience, but the whole group ends
up paying for it.

taf



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Christopher Ingham

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av Christopher Ingham » 24 okt 2007 00:22:37

On Oct 23, 2:04 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Irrelevant...

The "same stock" is not the same Given Individual.

One cannot have a "Collateral Descent" from a Given Individual.

"collateral: Descended from the same stock, but in a different
line; pertaining to those so descended. Opposed to_lineal_.
_collateral ancestor_: a brother or sister of a parent, grand-
parent, or other lineal ancestor.... 1818 Cruise_Digest_(ed. 2)
I. 81. 'The heirs of a man's body, by which only his lineal
descendants were admitted, in exclusion of collateral heirs."
_OED_, 2nd ed.

Christopher Ingham

Leticia Cluff

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av Leticia Cluff » 24 okt 2007 00:45:23

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:45:27 -0700, taf@clearwire.net wrote:

On Oct 23, 4:42 am, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:36:31 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"

pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

So, the word "DIRECT" adds no useful meaning to the word descendant -- the
word "DIRECT" is excess baggage, redundant, incongruous, unsuitable ---- and
therefore an oxymoron.

So, it can be excised and deleted.

Let's see now.

Oh, let's not. While the thread itself has been rather inane from the
start, at least it was limited to s.g.m, but now you go and crosspost
this to four other groups. Why? It may bring you brief pleasure to
correct Mr. Hines before a larger audience, but the whole group ends
up paying for it.

Please forgive my unwarranted exhibitionism.

In the past it has invariably been my practice to remove sgm from the
list of groups when the message to which I replied has had nothing to
do with medieval genealogy.

In the future I promise to practice true simul-posting rather than
cross-posting, so that sgm will continue to be a serious forum (apart
from Spencer's posts, of course, which are a serious threat to any
forum).


Tish

Gjest

Re: Zaida's background [was Re: Zaida in new Encyclopaedia o

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 okt 2007 00:53:05

On Oct 21, 3:45 pm, Jwc1...@aol.com wrote:
Dear Will,
I don`t doubt that Sancho could have been killed in battle at
fifteen years. Consider that Richard de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke killed
his only son in his mid teens for attempting to flee a battle to say nothing of
twelve year old drummer boys and sixteen year olds enlisting to fight in the
USA`s early wars. When the Scots decided to replace King James III with his son
King James IV , He was not more than sixteen...and He would not have wanted
to be a puppet, He fought. His father fled and was subsequently murdered after
the battle.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

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

Just out of curiousity, do you have any further details on Richard de
Clare's killing his son for attempting to flee a battle ? Richard
(Strongbow) 2nd Earl of Pembroke died in 1176 of an infected foot
while trying to suppress a rebellion against his authority in Ireland.
I think he left behind a son, Gilbert (about 3 yrs. old) and a
daughter Isabel. I think Gilbert inherited his father's title and
became 3rd Earl of Pembroke. However he died in 1185 aged about 12. I
don't know the circumstances of his death. Later on, I think around
1189, Isabel's husband inherited the Pembroke title. Thanks for any
further info you can provide.

Turlough

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av Turlough » 24 okt 2007 01:11:33

Leticia Cluff wrote:

The CLAIM is basically that pogues use the word "collateral" wrongly
while cognoscenti (among whom he numbers himself) use it correctly.

The same could be said about the word "oxymoron", but in that case
Hines invents his own definition, thus joining the pogues to take
sides against the cognoscenti.

Your *oxymoron* argument is logical, and I agree that the word *direct*
would probably be more correctly termed, redundant. However, I'm curious
as to your classification of *excised* and *deleted* as redundant. If I
delete something, it is erased. If I excise something, I cut it out. It
doesn't necessarily disappear. What was your reasoning?

John Briggs

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av John Briggs » 24 okt 2007 01:25:32

Turlough wrote:
Leticia Cluff wrote:

The CLAIM is basically that pogues use the word "collateral" wrongly
while cognoscenti (among whom he numbers himself) use it correctly.

The same could be said about the word "oxymoron", but in that case
Hines invents his own definition, thus joining the pogues to take
sides against the cognoscenti.

Your *oxymoron* argument is logical, and I agree that the word
*direct* would probably be more correctly termed, redundant. However,
I'm curious as to your classification of *excised* and *deleted* as
redundant. If I delete something, it is erased. If I excise
something, I cut it out. It doesn't necessarily disappear. What was
your reasoning?

Probably that he should have said "excised or deleted".
--
John Briggs

Turlough

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av Turlough » 24 okt 2007 01:43:39

John Briggs wrote:

Your *oxymoron* argument is logical, and I agree that the word
*direct* would probably be more correctly termed, redundant. However,
I'm curious as to your classification of *excised* and *deleted* as
redundant. If I delete something, it is erased. If I excise
something, I cut it out. It doesn't necessarily disappear. What was
your reasoning?

Probably that he should have said "excised or deleted".

No doubt, that would have been acceptable. However, I don't see these
words as redundant, as each denotes a different activity, in my view.

WJhonson

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av WJhonson » 24 okt 2007 03:01:42

<<In a message dated 10/23/07 18:02:46 Pacific Daylight Time, billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:
Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Early Proceedings, Richard II to Philip and Mary C 1/627/25
Thomas Drawer and Katherine, his wife, daughter and heir of John Leeke. v. Robert Pekk of Beccles:
Detention of deeds relating to a messuage and land in Toft sometime of William Davy, who mortgaged
the same to the said John.: Norfolk. . Detailed description
Date range: 1529 - 1532.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives >>
---------------------------------------
Certainly this one should draw your eye as it would imply yet another generation of Robert Peck of Beccles since it's dated 1529-32 much too early to be the one who m Joan Waters and had a son and heir in 1548, esp if that Robert who m Joan is "second son" to his father.

It would however, seem to tell us that John Leeke was dead by at least 1532, we knew that his will was dated 6 Sep 1529, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that he actually dead shortly afterward.

Will

Bill Arnold

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 24 okt 2007 03:03:03

Much thanks, Will.

As a sample of hundreds if not thousands of citations, I submit,
seeking your thoughts of procedure, selection and then viewing:
____________________________________________________
Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Early Proceedings, Richard II to Philip and Mary C 1/627/25
Thomas Drawer and Katherine, his wife, daughter and heir of John Leeke. v. Robert Pekk of Beccles:
Detention of deeds relating to a messuage and land in Toft sometime of William Davy, who mortgaged
the same to the said John.: Norfolk. . Detailed description
Date range: 1529 - 1532.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
________________________________________________
Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Early Proceedings, Richard II to Philip and Mary C
1/1022/33-37
John LEEKE, esquire, grandson and heir of William Foxe, gentleman, v. Godfrey FULJAMBE, knight,
and Thomas BAXTER his servant.: Distress on land in Hasland.: DERBY. . Detailed description at
item level John LEEKE, esquire, grandson and heir of William
Date range: 1538 - 1544.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
________________________________________________________
Information relating to document ref. no. DR429/55
Quit claim by Joh. {John?} Vavasour, Tho. {Thomas?} Wode, Justices of the Common Bench, Will
Cutlerd and Joh. {John?} Leeke to Tho. {Thomas?} Bowde, etc. (DR429/52) of all title in the land,
etc., sold by Marquis of Dorset. Extent, etc. given. Signatures
Date: 1499.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
------------------------------------------------
Information relating to document ref. no. DD/FJ/4/8/2
Bill in Chancery 1) Francis Neryng and wife Kateryn, a daughter of Sir John Leeke of Sutton
(Derbs.), Kt. 2) Sir Godfrey Fuliambe, Kt., uncle and guardian of John L., son and heir of Sir
J.L. (1) claim from (2) 100 marks bequeathed to K.M. by her father,
Date: 1533.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
________________________________________________________
Information relating to document ref. no. DD/FJ/4/6/1
Marriage covenants 1) Hen. {Henry?} Foliambe, son., of Walton, esq. 2) John Leeke, son., of Sutton
in the Dale, esq. Godfrey F. son and heir of (1) (or if he die, Thos. {Thomas?} F. 2nd son) to
marry Katherine daughter of (2) (or if she die, Muriel, 2nd
Date: 1489.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
_______________________________________________________
Demise GIL/1/173, 716 x 8Demise in fee by William Waterman at request of executors of William
Wright to John Leeke of messuage called Clerkys and Gylberdys, in Gillingham
Date: 1518.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
________________________________________________________
Information relating to document ref. no. DD/FJ/7/5/1
Lease 1) John Leeke of Sutton in the Dale, (Derbs.) esq. 2) Rich. {Richard?} Bate of Landford,
yeo. (1) to (2) manor of Landford etc., for 41 yrs; 53s.4d. p.a. Seal.
Date: 1512.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
 _______________________________________________________
Information relating to document ref. no. DD/FJ/4/6/4
Feoffment 1) John Leeke, esq. 2) Hen. {Henry?} Vernon, Hen. {Henry?} Foliambe and Ralph Oker. (1)
to (2) manors of Kyrkhalum (Kirk Hallam, Derbs.) and Colyngham (Collingham, Notts.); to uses as in
570. Given at Sutton in the Dale. Seal.
Date: 1489.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
______________________________________________________
Information relating to document ref. no. DD/FJ/4/8/4
Award as above. 1) Sir Jas. {James?} F. as above. 2) John Leeke, esq., brother of Sir F.L. Re
legacies in will of father of (2) and rents etc. as above. Neither party to molest the other, but
without prejudice to (2)'s claim to land or rents worth £10
Date: 1548.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
 _____________________________________________________
Information relating to document ref. no. D239 M/E 14492
Lease for 60 years from Michaelmas last past by Eleanor dowager countess of Rutland, and her son
Henry, earl of Rutland, to John Leeke esq., servant to the earl, and Margaret Paston his wife,
natural sister of the countess, of the manor of Warsop. Timber
Date: 1551.
________________________________________________________
Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Early Proceedings, Richard II to Philip and Mary C 1/1243/29
Francis LEEK, knight, and John LEEK, v. James FOLJAMB, knight, son and executor of Godfrey
Foljamb, knight.: Goods and profits of lands of John Leek, knight, deceased, father of
complainant.: NOTTS, DERBY. . Detailed description at item level Francis
Date range: 1544 - 1551.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
_______________________________________________
Exchequer: Treasury of Receipt: Ancient Deeds, Series AA E 41/45/(iv)
Godfrey Foliambe knight: lands of the inheritance of Francis Leek son and heir of John Leek
knight: manors of Hartston (Leics.) Elston, [East] Stoke, Gedling, Stoke Bardolf, Saxondale [in
Shalford], Langford (Landford) (Nott.), Kirk Hallam, (Kyrkhalom)
Date range: 1523 - 1524.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
_______________________________________________
Power of attorney by John Leek of Halom and Thomas Leek of Newerk to John Halgh to deliver seisin
to Alice widow of John Leek of Landford, esquire of their manor of Crownest Regehall, and in all
their lands in the parish of St. John's, Worcester. MS 3688/277

Date: 1450.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
_____________________________________________
Attorney from Alice widow of John Leek of Landford, esq. to Richard Foston to receive seisin from
John Leek of Halom and Thomas Leek of Newerk, of the manor of Crownest Regeall in St. John's
Parish, Worcester. MS 3688/278

Date: 1450.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
______________________________________________
Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Early Proceedings, Richard II to Philip and Mary C 1/653/50
Francis Leek of Sutton, esquire, son and heir of John Leek, knight. v. Godfrey Fulgham, knight.:
Detention of deeds relating to the manor of Sutton and messuages, watermills, land and rent there;
the manors of Leake and Langford and messuages, land and
Date range: 1529 - 1532.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
_________________________________________________
Online Document PROB 11/21
Will of Sir John Leek ,
Date: 1523.
Source: DocumentsOnline (images of documents from The National Archives)
_________________________________________________
Online Document PROB 11/14
Will of John Leek , of Sutton Le Dale, Derbyshire
Date: 1505.
Source: DocumentsOnline (images of documents from The National Archives)
__________________________________________________
Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Early Proceedings, Richard II to Philip and Mary C
1/1102/37-39
Godfrey BOSWELL, gentleman, and Jane his wife, a daughter of John Hardwyk of Derby, esquire,
deceased, v. John LEEK, esquire, and Henry MARMYON, gentleman, feoffees to user.: Share of profits
of messuages and lands in Hardwick (in Ault Hucknall), Lownde,
Date range: 1544 - 1547.
_______________________________________________________
Exchequer: King's Remembrancer: Depositions taken by Commission E 134/42Eliz/Trin10
Charles Yelverton, "Her Ma't's farmer." v. Cuthbert Browne, William Goodye, John Leekes.: Right
and title to pasture grounds called "The Delfes" and "Oldelfes" and "The Pingle," in the Isle of
Ely (Cambridge), claimed by plaintiff, such claim being resisted
Date range: 1599 - 1600.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
______________________________________________________
Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Early Proceedings, Richard II to Philip and Mary C 1/855/22
Francis Meryng and Katherine, his wife, a daughter of John Leek, knight. v. Godfrey Fuljambe,
knight.: Manors of Sutton-in-the-Dale, Sandiacre, Normanton, Chesterfield, Great and Little Leake,
Lanforth (i.e. Langford ?), Hucknall Torkard, Colwick, Carcolston,
Date range: 1533 - 1538.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
_______________________________________________________
King's Remembrancer: Accounts Various E 101/72/1/1021
Parties to Indenture: Indentures between the king and the following, retaining them for service in
his invasion of France John Leek . Parties to Indenture: Indentures between the king and the
following, retaining them for service in his invasion of France
Date range: 1474 - 1475.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
_______________________________________________________
Information relating to document ref. no. DD/FJ/1/52/12
Release 1) John Robartte alias Gyles of Birley, son of Giles Robarte. 2) Hen. {Henry?} Foliambe,
lord of Walton, esq. (1) to (2) 16a. he had from Wm. {William?} Smyth and John Mymmotte of
Morysburgh. Witn: Hen. {Henry?} Vernon, esq., John Leek, esq, John
Date: 1488.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
________________________________________________________
Court Book of Assemblies and Hundreds WIN/54
£3 6s 8d Henry Peck for a messuage and acre at Strand 10s Owners of Castle Field
and the messuage in Quarter 7 where Henry Peck lives £8 - paid by Adam Ashburnham
esq Thomas Tokey for the Lamp House £2 5 costs for obtaining patent = at least
£258 + £150
Date range: 1586 - 1597.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
______________________________________________
Quit claim DE/HL/12241
By William Scott, esq, John Tufton, esq, and Henry Peck, to Robert Marche in regard to
land in Rye, Peasmarsh and Udimore. Field names given. Signatures. Seals
Date: 1560.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
____________________________________________________________
Additions to the estate: Messuage and land, Knossington
On 16 March 1750 Henry Peck of Knossington, gent, mortgaged to Henry Clarke of
Leicester, hosier, having previously on 19 & 20 October 1749 settled the property on
the marriage of his son Robert Peck and Elizabeth Hand. On 22 January 1785 Robert Peck of
Date range: 1500 - 1957.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
____________________________________________________
Deeds relating to COUNTY OF YORK KM/153
Grant by William Fournes of Southe Kyrkby, to Robert Melton, Esquire, Thomas Wentworth,
Esquire, John Peck, rector of the Church of Warsoppe, and others, of lands in the County
of York, for carrying out his last will. Witnesses, John Wentworth, John Flyntell.
Date: 1495.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
____________________________________________
Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Early Proceedings, Richard II to Philip and Mary C 1/1368/76
Robert MOLEHOWSE v. Henry PECKE.: Detention of deeds relating to land in Wattisfield and Walsham,
late of the free chapel of Redgrave and Botesdale.: SUFFOLK. . Detailed description at item level
Robert MOLEHOWSE v. Henry PECKE.: Detention of deeds relating
Date range: 1553 - 1555.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
____________________________________________
Unexecuted bond in £200 to perform covenants WIN/2045
Henry Pecke of Winchelsea and John Pecke of Peasemarsh, gent, to Robert Ashenden
of Northgate near Canterbury in Kent, yeoman, and Richard Ashenden of Ripe, yeoman
Title of two pieces of fresh marsh (20a) in Padiham Marsh in Icklesham, conveyed by HP to
Date: 1584.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
_____________________________________________________
Quit claim DE/HL/12241
By William Scott, esq, John Tufton, esq, and Henry Peck, to Robert Marche in
regard to land in Rye, Peasmarsh and Udimore. Field names given. Signatures. Seals
Date: 1560.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
____________________________________________________
Unexecuted bond in £200 to perform covenants WIN/2045
Henry Pecke of Winchelsea and John Pecke of Peasemarsh, gent, to Robert Ashenden
of Northgate near Canterbury in Kent, yeoman, and Richard Ashenden of Ripe, yeoman
Title of two pieces of fresh marsh (20a) in Padiham Marsh in Icklesham, conveyed by HP to
Date: 1584.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
______________________________________________________
Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Early Proceedings, Richard II to Philip and
Mary C 1/1368/76
Robert MOLEHOWSE v. Henry PECKE.: Detention of deeds relating to land in Wattisfield
and Walsham, late of the free chapel of Redgrave and Botesdale.: SUFFOLK. . Detailed
description at item level Robert MOLEHOWSE v. Henry PECKE.: Detention of deeds relating
Date range: 1553 - 1555.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
___________________________________________________
Chancery: Inquisitions Post Mortem, Series II, and other Inquisitions, Henry VII to
Charles I C 142/129/61
Peck, Richard: York . Peck, Richard: York The National Archives, Kew
Date range: 1560 - 1561.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
__________________________________________________ 
Chancery: Inquisitions Post Mortem, Series II, and other Inquisitions, Henry VII to
Charles I C 142/70/54
Peck, Richard: Leicester . Peck, Richard: Leicester The National Archives, Kew
Date range: 1544 - 1545.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
______________________________________________ 
Exchequer: King's Remembrancer: Escheators' Files, Inquisitions Post Mortem, Series II,
and other Inquisitions, Henry VII to Elizabeth I E 150/1166/1
Peck, Kenelm: Leicester . Peck, Kenelm: Leicester The National Archives, Kew
Date range: 1579 - 1580.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
_______________________________________________
Chancery: Inquisitions Post Mortem, Series II, and other Inquisitions, Henry VII to Charles I C
142/129/61Peck, Richard: York . Peck, Richard: York The National Archives, Kew
Date range: 1560 - 1561.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
_______________________________________________
Chancery: Inquisitions Post Mortem, Series II, and other Inquisitions, Henry VII to Charles I C
142/70/54
Peck, Richard: Leicester . Peck, Richard: Leicester The National Archives, Kew
Date range: 1544 - 1545.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
________________________________________________
Exchequer: King's Remembrancer: Escheators' Files, Inquisitions Post Mortem, Series II, and other
Inquisitions, Henry VII to Elizabeth I E 150/1166/1
Peck, Kenelm: Leicester . Peck, Kenelm: Leicester The National Archives, Kew
Date range: 1579 - 1580.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
_________________________________________________
Tibenham and Carleton Rode: enfeoffment 12/14William Williams de Carleton Rode son and heir of
John Williams de Carleton Rode to Thomas Pecke, clerk, Henry Cossey (Costesey), clerk, John Pecke
de Carleton [Rode] and Thomas Wikes of the same, enfeoffment of land in Tybenham. Tibenham, 5
October, 18
Date: 1478.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
________________________________________________ 
Tibenham, Carleton Rode, Bunwell and Haddeston: gift 12/15
William Williams de Carleton Rode to Thomas Pecke, clerk, Henry Cossey (Costesey), clerk, John
Pecke de Carleton [Rode] and Thomas Wikes of the same, gift of land in Tybenham, Carleton [Rode],
Bunwelle and Haston (Haddeston?). Tibenham, 5 October, 18 Edward
Date: 1478.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
__________________________________________________________
Chancery: Inquisitions Post Mortem, Series II, and other Inquisitions, Henry VII to Charles I C
142/122/49
Peck, John: York . Peck, John: York The National Archives, Kew
Date range: 1558 - 1559.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
_______________________________________________
Chancery: Inquisitions Post Mortem, Series II, and other Inquisitions, Henry VII to Charles I C
142/233/107
Peck, Thomas: Norfolk . Peck, Thomas: Norfolk The National Archives, Kew
Date range: 1591 - 1592.
_______________________________________________
Online Document PROB 11/16Will of John Leeke ,
Date: 1508.
Source: DocumentsOnline (images of documents from The National Archives)
______________________________________________ 
Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Answers etc, before 1660 C 4/68/48
Thomas Leeke v. John Leeke: answer Date of document: Sixteenth century . Thomas Leeke v. John
Leeke: answer Date of document: Sixteenth century The National Archives, Kew
Date range: 1501 - 1600.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
___________________________________________________________
Online Document PROB 11/22
Will of Sir John Leeke , late Vicar of Carshalton, Surrey
Date: 1526.
Source: DocumentsOnline (images of documents from The National Archives)
___________________________________________________________
Online Document PROB 11/94
Will of John Leeke , Yeoman of Astrop, Northamptonshire
Date: 1599.
Source: DocumentsOnline (images of documents from The National Archives)
__________________________________________________________
Online Document PROB 11/9
Will of John Leeke ,
Date: 1492.
Source: DocumentsOnline (images of documents from The National Archives)
___________________________________________________________ 
Online Document PROB 11/54Will of John Leeke , of Edmonton, Middlesex
Date: 1572.
Source: DocumentsOnline (images of documents from The National Archives)
______________________________________________________

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

Bill, that apparently, is the crux of the matter.

Is Robert, known to be listed as a son of Henry Peck of Carlton Colville, the same person as
Robert Peck, known to be a grandson of John Leeke of Beccles, and also apparently himself of
Beccles.

Can the two Robert Pecks be considered the same person? That's the question. It was the
question back in 1940 evidently, and apparently no one still knows.

As to how to prove they are, or they aren't, it would be instructive to enumerate each property
coming into the hands of Henry Peck from his relations, and from his wifes, and each one leaving
by being sold, etc.

And then do the same for Robert Peck of Beccles, his wife, and children. There are many *times*
the number of documents available today publicly, as there were in 1940, so it may be possible
to finally answer the question, IF you're willing to do the hard work. Check every personal
name, and every property name in A2A for example, see what comes up.

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






__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

D. Spencer Hines

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 okt 2007 04:43:38

Bingo!

DSH

"Christopher Ingham" <christopheringham@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1193164098.773505.222600@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

'The heirs of a man's body, by which only his lineal
descendants were admitted, in exclusion of collateral heirs."
_OED_, 2nd ed.

John Briggs

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av John Briggs » 24 okt 2007 11:32:44

Turlough wrote:
John Briggs wrote:

Your *oxymoron* argument is logical, and I agree that the word
*direct* would probably be more correctly termed, redundant.
However, I'm curious as to your classification of *excised* and
*deleted* as redundant. If I delete something, it is erased. If I
excise something, I cut it out. It doesn't necessarily disappear.
What was your reasoning?

Probably that he should have said "excised or deleted".

No doubt, that would have been acceptable. However, I don't see these
words as redundant, as each denotes a different activity, in my view.

It's just that the different activities are not compatible with each other.
'Redundant' seems to be the kindest word for such confusion of thought.
--
John Briggs

Leticia Cluff

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av Leticia Cluff » 24 okt 2007 12:35:07

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:11:33 -0400, Turlough <turlough@comcast.net>
wrote:

Leticia Cluff wrote:

The CLAIM is basically that pogues use the word "collateral" wrongly
while cognoscenti (among whom he numbers himself) use it correctly.

The same could be said about the word "oxymoron", but in that case
Hines invents his own definition, thus joining the pogues to take
sides against the cognoscenti.

Your *oxymoron* argument is logical, and I agree that the word *direct*
would probably be more correctly termed, redundant. However, I'm curious
as to your classification of *excised* and *deleted* as redundant. If I
delete something, it is erased. If I excise something, I cut it out. It
doesn't necessarily disappear. What was your reasoning?

Just out of interest, what do you do with the nondisappearing words
you "excise" from a text? How do you dispose of them? Landfill?
Recycling? And deleted/erased words often leave an impression in
manuscripts or their traces can be detected with the aid of
ultraviolet light, so they don't always disappear totally.

Bet let us not quibble about that. The verbs "excise" and "delete" are
close enough in meaning to appear together in synonym dictionaries. In
Rodale's excellent Synonym Finder the entry for "excise" starts with
"expunge, delete, erase; strike out, cross out ..." Using the two
verbs together is therefore redundant, in the dictionary sense of
"that can be omitted without any loss of significance."

By that definition, of course, anything Hines writes is redundant.

Here are some quotations from the Usenet archives with the superfluous
use of the term "direct descendant":

"if she is indeed a direct descendant of the Marquess of Queensberry"
"direct descendants of a President and Barbara Bush dog"

These come from messages signed DSH.

_Au Cointreau_, we have the following authoritative pronouncements,
also signed DSH:

"'Direct descendant' is a very clumsy and redundant phrase."
"Therefore a competent Genealogist, whether Professional or Amateur,
should never use oxymorons or gibberish such as the amusing compounds
'DIRECT DESCENDANT' or 'COLLATERAL ANCESTOR'"

I don't know whose example to follow, that of DSH or DSH.

It seems to be a case of "anything goes" or "make up your own rules."
Oh well, since we have been told that "there are no facts in history,"
it's hardly surprising to be informed that there are no rules in
language.

This sort of wooly-headed reasoning is what we Americans have reaped
from the poisoned seeds sown by the leftest "Educators" at Yale in the
sixties.

Tish

Bill Arnold

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 24 okt 2007 14:55:04

Touche!

Bill

**************************
--- Leticia Cluff <leticia.cluff@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:11:33 -0400, Turlough <turlough@comcast.net
wrote:

Leticia Cluff wrote:

The CLAIM is basically that pogues use the word "collateral" wrongly
while cognoscenti (among whom he numbers himself) use it correctly.

The same could be said about the word "oxymoron", but in that case
Hines invents his own definition, thus joining the pogues to take
sides against the cognoscenti.

Your *oxymoron* argument is logical, and I agree that the word *direct*
would probably be more correctly termed, redundant. However, I'm curious
as to your classification of *excised* and *deleted* as redundant. If I
delete something, it is erased. If I excise something, I cut it out. It
doesn't necessarily disappear. What was your reasoning?

Just out of interest, what do you do with the nondisappearing words
you "excise" from a text? How do you dispose of them? Landfill?
Recycling? And deleted/erased words often leave an impression in
manuscripts or their traces can be detected with the aid of
ultraviolet light, so they don't always disappear totally.

Bet let us not quibble about that. The verbs "excise" and "delete" are
close enough in meaning to appear together in synonym dictionaries. In
Rodale's excellent Synonym Finder the entry for "excise" starts with
"expunge, delete, erase; strike out, cross out ..." Using the two
verbs together is therefore redundant, in the dictionary sense of
"that can be omitted without any loss of significance."

By that definition, of course, anything Hines writes is redundant.

Here are some quotations from the Usenet archives with the superfluous
use of the term "direct descendant":

"if she is indeed a direct descendant of the Marquess of Queensberry"
"direct descendants of a President and Barbara Bush dog"

These come from messages signed DSH.

_Au Cointreau_, we have the following authoritative pronouncements,
also signed DSH:

"'Direct descendant' is a very clumsy and redundant phrase."
"Therefore a competent Genealogist, whether Professional or Amateur,
should never use oxymorons or gibberish such as the amusing compounds
'DIRECT DESCENDANT' or 'COLLATERAL ANCESTOR'"

I don't know whose example to follow, that of DSH or DSH.

It seems to be a case of "anything goes" or "make up your own rules."
Oh well, since we have been told that "there are no facts in history,"
it's hardly surprising to be informed that there are no rules in
language.

This sort of wooly-headed reasoning is what we Americans have reaped
from the poisoned seeds sown by the leftest "Educators" at Yale in the
sixties.

Tish


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



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Bill Arnold

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 24 okt 2007 15:15:47

Thanks, Will.

Yes: it drew my attention: which is why I pasted it first.

I believe it might BE the Chancery case cited and quoted in the serialization
articles in NEHGSRegister in the 1930s: I believe that was undated? I will
have to revisit that. Or, you may be on to something: we know there was
a Robert Peck, Jr., married Ellen Babbs, 22 Jul 1573, and the Robert Peck,
the Elder, married Johan(Joan) Waters, and that John Leeke mentioned the
Waters family in his will(leaving money to his Waters godson) and mentioning
a male Waters family member, perhaps brother of Johan. This Robert Peck,
the Elder, who I have as died, Oct 1556, was charged in grandfather John Leeke's
will to care for John Leeke's widow, hence her inheritance would fall to the
same Robert Peck, the Elder.

Now: do we merely look at this citation, and others, and draw conclusions
such as these?

Or: do we seek the full documents behind the citations? Using your super
powers of investigation, what scenario is behind it in terms of particpants
in these related families?

Also: procedural question, if it were you doing this on your own behalf,
what process would you pursue with these hundreds of citations? Is there
an advanced search procedure I should use? Are there more detailed citations
I am missing? Or is this the only info A2A offers?

Lastly: have you a BEST online map of the area of Suffolk and Yorkshire which
would clarify the geography as it relates to A2A citations?

Bill
PS
interesting you found that UMass-Amherst item: I did not know it existed:
try:

http://www.jeffbooks.com/NASApp/store/S ... ve&x=4&y=2

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

In a message dated 10/23/07 18:02:46 Pacific Daylight Time, billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:
Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Early Proceedings, Richard II to Philip and Mary C
1/627/25
Thomas Drawer and Katherine, his wife, daughter and heir of John Leeke. v. Robert Pekk of
Beccles:
Detention of deeds relating to a messuage and land in Toft sometime of William Davy, who
mortgaged
the same to the said John.: Norfolk. . Detailed description
Date range: 1529 - 1532.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
---------------------------------------
Certainly this one should draw your eye as it would imply yet another generation of Robert Peck
of Beccles since it's dated 1529-32 much too early to be the one who m Joan Waters and had a son
and heir in 1548, esp if that Robert who m Joan is "second son" to his father.

It would however, seem to tell us that John Leeke was dead by at least 1532, we knew that his
will was dated 6 Sep 1529, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that he actually dead shortly
afterward.

Will

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






__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Christopher Ingham

Re: Zaida's background [was Re: Zaida in new Encyclopaedia o

Legg inn av Christopher Ingham » 24 okt 2007 18:43:35

On Oct 19, 4:45 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
On Oct 19, 11:15 am, Christopher Ingham

christophering...@comcast.net> wrote:
FWIW, Simon Barton makes a brief mention of Zaida in
"Spain in the Eleventh Century" (_The New Cambridge
Medieval History_, vol. 4, pt. 2 [2004], 188-9).

Because Alfonso VI (d. 3 June 1109) had no legitimate male
heirs, he married his mistress Zaida, the former daughter-
in-law of al-Mu'tamid of Seville, in 1106, thereby legitimizing
the heir apparent, Sancho, who was born in 1093.

That Alfonso married Zaida in 1106 is the theory first put forward by
Reilly in his _Alfonso VI_. There is a document in 1106 that refers to
Alfonso and Queen Isabel, formerly his mistress but recently married
to him. The question is how recent is recent? Does this mean that
Alfonso had just married her, and hence he had two Queens Isabel in
succession, or could recently be as far back as 1100 (or whenever it
was) when Alfonso married Queen Isabel, mother of his daughters, and
hence his only wife of this name? Salazar y Acha prefers a one-Isabel
solution, Barton, as you report, a two. The recently uncovered
document in which Queen Isabel is called Sancho's mother does not
distinguish, as it dates from after the time of this supposed new
marriage. We are left with hashing out whether Bishop Pelayo was more
likely to leave out a Queen Isabel, or to name the same Isabel as
mistress and queen without indicating that they are the same; and
whether Queen Urraca would have left out one step-mother in a document
that names the others.

As to Sancho's birthdate, there is no direct testimony. This date is
based on the hypothesis that had he been born in adultery, he would
have been viewed less favorably than had be been born simply in
fornication. In other words, if Alfonso was not married at the time,
then his son could later be legitimated and made heir, but if Sancho
was born while Alfonso was married to Bertha, this would have been
impermissible. Thus 1093 places his conception after Constance died
and before Alfonso married Bertha. As should be evident, this
interpretation places a lot of emphasis on what would and would not
have been permitted. Also note that this puts his birth at a point
where it is reasonable he would have been in arms at the time of his
death, while some hypotheses place his birth a handful of years later,
which is unreasonable.

The scenario which Reilly presents concerning the chronology
of Sancho and of Alfonso's relationship with Zaida, while heavily
constructed on circumstantial evidence, is on the whole
convincing. He prefers to place Sancho's birth within the period
between 1091 and 1094, when a "marriage-like" alliance with a
Muslim would have been a smart diplomatic manoeuver in the
context of the current political circumstances. A compelling
desire for dynastic continuity, as well as a desire to forestall
dynastic squabbling, prompted Alfonso to take a firm hand in
the lesitimizing of Sancho, which entailed the marriage to
Zaida (if she indeed were still alive). The "two Isabels" thesis
is tenuous, but the peculiarly-worded document of 1106 makes
sense if Zaida is the Elizabeth referred to. Alfonso had clearly
signaled his preference for Sancho by having the boy confirm
his father's charters beginning in 1103, when he was about
ten years old (Reilly,_The Contest of Christian and Muslim
Spain, 1031-1157_[1992], 96). Reilly has also said that
Sancho had merely "been allowed to accompany the
expedition" at Ucles, implying that he was not at all an
active participant (Reilly,_Contesr_, 97).

Christopher Ingham

Don Stone

Re: Zaida's background

Legg inn av Don Stone » 24 okt 2007 19:03:19

Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
Back to the Denia theory: it has been mentioned a couple of times on
this thread, and it appears in a garbled and unidentifiable reference
in Schwennicke. No one can state where it comes from, and since
Schwennicke cribbed his Iberian material from some unpublished (and
apparently obscure) charts--partly attributed to Dr. Salazar Acha
himself. Perhaps (as Don suggested) someone should contact him to see
where any other pointers to Zaida's provenance may be found--if any
exist.

Peter Stewart has brought to light a very useful reference:

"La mora Zaida, entre historia y leyenda (con una reflexion sobre la
tecnica historiografica alfonsi)," by Alberto Montaner Frutos, pp.
272-352 in _Historicist Essays on Hispano-Medieval Narrative in Memory
of Roger M. Walker_, Barry Taylor and Geoffrey West, eds., London: Maney
Publishing for the Modern Humanities Research Association, 2005.

Some highlights from it:

Zaida was probably a title; her Arabic given name was probably Maria.
The name given for her uncle is somewhat garbled. He may have been a
king of Denia.

The article makes a thorough presentation of the known evidence as of
about 2005. The author believes that Zaida was not later queen and
interprets the evidence from that viewpoint, but you can re-interpret
the evidence in light of the recent article by Jaime de Salazar y Acha,
"De nuevo sobre la mora Zaida," _Hidalguia_, whole no. 321 (2007),
225-242, which argues that Zaida did become queen. (This latter article
was summarized by Todd Farmerie on Sept. 22.)

-- Don Stone

Gjest

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 okt 2007 20:16:27

<<In a message dated 10/24/2007 9:17:00 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:

Also: procedural question, if it were you doing this on your own behalf,
what process would you pursue with these hundreds of citations? Is there
an advanced search procedure I should use? Are there more detailed citations
I am missing? Or is this the only info A2A offers? >>


--------------------------------------
The ones to review first are the ones that confound the pedigree in some
way, or clarify it greatly. Pick three, see how to order copies.



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

Gjest

Re: Zaida's background [was Re: Zaida in new Encyclopaedia o

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 okt 2007 20:59:02

On Oct 24, 10:43 am, Christopher Ingham
<christophering...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Oct 19, 4:45 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:


The scenario which Reilly presents concerning the chronology
of Sancho and of Alfonso's relationship with Zaida, while heavily
constructed on circumstantial evidence, is on the whole
convincing. He prefers to place Sancho's birth within the period
between 1091 and 1094, when a "marriage-like" alliance with a
Muslim would have been a smart diplomatic manoeuver in the
context of the current political circumstances. A compelling
desire for dynastic continuity, as well as a desire to forestall
dynastic squabbling, prompted Alfonso to take a firm hand in
the lesitimizing of Sancho, which entailed the marriage to
Zaida (if she indeed were still alive). The "two Isabels" thesis
is tenuous, but the peculiarly-worded document of 1106 makes
sense if Zaida is the Elizabeth referred to. Alfonso had clearly
signaled his preference for Sancho by having the boy confirm
his father's charters beginning in 1103, when he was about
ten years old (Reilly,_The Contest of Christian and Muslim
Spain, 1031-1157_[1992], 96).

Salazar Acha places more emphasis on Sancho first appearing in the
documentation at exactly the same time as the (first) Isabel,
suggesting that the marriage to one and recognition of the other were
directly linked. He would then make the 1106 document a quirk of the
scribe referring to this one marriage.

Given a two Isabel solution, Reilly has Alfonso divorcing the first,
because her monumental inscription places her death exactly when the
'second' Isabel died, based on her two inscriptions. It also gives
her an impossible parentage. None of these inscriptions appear to be
contemporary, and of suspect accuracy, to say the least, so a divorce
scenario is probably not supported above the alternatives.

Reilly has also said that
Sancho had merely "been allowed to accompany the
expedition" at Ucles, implying that he was not at all an
active participant (Reilly,_Contesr_, 97).

But in his _Alfonso VI_, (p. 349) he says, "The same account [in
"Historia Compostelana"] places the initiative for the counterattack
in the hands of the young Infans Sancho Alfónsez, to whom his father
had entrusted the rule of Toledo." . . . . "In all probability the
young infans had come south from León to Toledo in early or mid-April
to make preparations for an ordinary opening of the summer campaigning
season. He seems to have brought with him a force of moderate size. It
was not at all a general levy of the realm." This phrasing suggests
more than simple voyeurism.

taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 okt 2007 21:32:07

Yes, for emphasis when speaking or writing to ignorant, untutored naïfs in
The Great Unwashed Masses....

I've done the same....

But not when speaking or writing for the cognoscenti....

If and when you can find them.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.451.1193255140.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

In the past, for *emphasis* to an incredulous unbeliever, I have said
*direct descendant* in the hopes that the adjective would place inordinate
emphasis on the fact I was a descendant of so-in-so! To be it is,
in that usage, not a question of being redundant (as I fully understand
the vagaries of the argument, pro and con), but it is a question of
degree of emphasis, tonality in the statement which sometimes we
as speakers and writers adhere to for clarity's sake.

In France: the Monsieurs of the world have the prestigious Academy
which *dictates* language usage [recall: I am a member of MLA]
whereas in England and America, we gents and ladies have the
unprestigious dictionaries which *describe* usage AFTER THE FACT.
Hence, it is A-OK for me to say: for emphasis: direct descendant,
for emphasis of the fact.

A-OK?

Bill

Bill Arnold

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 25 okt 2007 00:20:03

Bill Arnold wrote,
"In the past, for *emphasis* to an incredulous unbeliever, I have said
*direct descendant* in the hopes that the adjective would place inordinate
emphasis on the fact I was a descendant of so-in-so! To be it is,
in that usage, not a question of being redundant (as I fully understand
the vagaries of the argument, pro and con), but it is a question of
degree of emphasis, tonality in the statement which sometimes we
as speakers and writers adhere to for clarity's sake."

"In France: the Monsieurs of the world have the prestigious Academy
which *dictates* language usage [recall: I am a member of MLA]
whereas in England and America, we gents and ladies have the
unprestigious dictionaries which *describe* usage AFTER THE FACT.
Hence, it is A-OK for me to say: for emphasis: direct descendant,
for emphasis of the fact."

" A-OK?"

To which, D. Spencer Hines wrote,

"Yes, for emphasis when speaking or writing to ignorant, untutored naïfs in
The Great Unwashed Masses.... I've done the same....But not when speaking
or writing for the cognoscenti.... If and when you can find them. DSH"

Monsieur Hines,

This is all very interesting. I just so happen to live in Palm Beach county,
just east of Palm Beach, an island enclave of royalists! I once met a gent
from Palm Beach who found out where I lived, on the other side of the
waterway, and said, "O, you live among The Great Unwashed Masses."
You wouldn't happen to be him, would you?

You must know we Americans dumped some over-priced English tea into
the Charles [sic] river and started a Revolution because of some of the
bloody Red-coat Royalists who over-taxed us. And now, D. Spencer Hines
is over-taxing gen-medieval: and me.

Cognoscenti are "persons who have superior knowledge and understanding
of a particular field, esp. in the fine arts, literature, and world of fashion."

http://www.emilydickinson.org/edis/scho ... holars.htm

By that definition: with my M.F.A. (Fine Arts) I am in your class of *cognoscenti.*

So bloody what? It is not the pose which makes the man or woman but the knowledge
and understanding of a particular field which s/he can share with others. As a
former professor of English, I can rightly say that: as I was long underpaid and
overworked, but loved every minute of it.

As to my Brit friends, here and abroad, Rule Britannica! We Americans have
long got over over-taxed tea :)

And as for D. Spencer Hines: he should take up underwater basket-weaving!

Bill

******************************************





__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Bill Arnold

Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 25 okt 2007 00:20:25

Thanks, again, Will.

Will do.

Bill aka Will
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/ ... _order.pdf
******************************
--- WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 10/24/2007 9:17:00 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:

Also: procedural question, if it were you doing this on your own behalf,
what process would you pursue with these hundreds of citations? Is there
an advanced search procedure I should use? Are there more detailed citations
I am missing? Or is this the only info A2A offers?


--------------------------------------
The ones to review first are the ones that confound the pedigree in some
way, or clarify it greatly. Pick three, see how to order copies.



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

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



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

WJhonson

Re: Zaida's background [was Re: Zaida in new Encyclopaedia o

Legg inn av WJhonson » 25 okt 2007 00:36:34

<<In a message dated 10/24/07 10:45:32 Pacific Daylight Time, christopheringham@comcast.net writes:
for Sancho by having the boy confirm
his father's charters beginning in 1103, when he was about
ten years old (Reilly,_The Contest of Christian and Muslim
Spain, 1031-1157_[1992], 96). >>
======================
Adding the "when he was about years old" sounds like false authority. It seems to beg the question that he was born in 1192/4 (depending on whether he was "in his tenth year", or "aged ten years and more..."). Regardless, I think it assumes an additional statement which is probably not present. I think, rather, it must be entirely dependent on the chronology of the marriages and the timing of the deaths already reported. Thus we should say "if this argument is true, then he must have been about ten"

Will

Christopher Ingham

Re: Zaida's background [was Re: Zaida in new Encyclopaedia o

Legg inn av Christopher Ingham » 25 okt 2007 11:45:29

On Oct 24, 7:36 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 10/24/07 10:45:32 Pacific Daylight Time, christophering...@comcast.net writes:
for Sancho by having the boy confirm
his father's charters beginning in 1103, when he was about
ten years old (Reilly,_The Contest of Christian and Muslim
Spain, 1031-1157_[1992], 96).
======================
Adding the "when he was about years old" sounds like false authority. It seems to beg the question that he was born in 1192/4 (depending on whether he was "in his tenth year", or "aged ten years and more..."). Regardless, I think it assumes an additional statement which is probably not present. I think, rather, it must be entirely dependent on the chronology of the marriages and the timing of the deaths already reported. Thus we should say "if this argument is true, then he must have been about ten"

As my previous message presents Reilly's scenario, none of
the statements are my own assertions, but are paraphrases
of what Reilly himself says; thus (p. 96), "Since 1103, when
the boy was about ten...." Reilly relies here on the authority
of Reilly, and on an earlier page refers the reader to_Alfonso VI_
for "the most recent and thorough treatment" of the chronology
of Zaida and Sancho. Whether or not the events transpired as
the historian reconstructed them is of course still debated.

Christopher Ingham

Gjest

Re: Zaida's background [was Re: Zaida in new Encyclopaedia o

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 okt 2007 20:30:02

<<In a message dated 10/25/2007 3:50:28 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
christopheringham@comcast.net writes:

As my previous message presents Reilly's scenario, none of
the statements are my own assertions, but are paraphrases
of what Reilly himself says; thus (p. 96), "Since 1103, when
the boy was about ten...." >>


----------------------
The deeper we get into this the more flimsy it seems. Which probably
explains why I had had Sancho as the son of one of the other women in the first
place.



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

WJhonson

Re: Alice Wilkes, last wife of Thomas Owen, Judge of the Com

Legg inn av WJhonson » 25 okt 2007 22:00:13

Will thank you for your excellent post.

As you well-know, Thomas Owen's mother is given (by some wag) as "Mary OTTLEY", however, a better source gives her as Mary "Oteley" and we can instantly recognize why this is important. Her father Thomas Oteley of county Salop was Armigerous and she was his heir (or possibly co-heiress), so there should be something useful in his biography as well to glean.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Alice Wilkes, last wife of Thomas Owen, Judge of the Com

Legg inn av WJhonson » 25 okt 2007 22:11:16

Will, thank you for your excellent post.

For the record, may I transcribe into posterity, the transcript of Thomas Owen's M.I.
to wit:

http://books.google.com/books?id=_4k9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA90
"A History of Pembroke College, Oxford, Anciently Broadgates Hall...", by Douglas Macleane
"Judge Owen", (a biography of Thomas Owen)
"Secundum Christi Redemptoris adventu sub hoc tumulo expectat Thomas Owen, Arm. filius Richardi Owen ex Maria altera filia et haerede Thomae Oteley de comitatu Salopiae arm. Qui ab adolescentia studiis juris municipalis Angliae innutritus ita industria ingenio et judicio claruit ut primum electus fuerit Dnae Reginae Elizab serviens ad legem inde in consessum Justiciariorum Communium placitorum co-optatus, inter quos cum quinq; annos singulari integritatis aequitatis et prudentiae laude sedisset, et ex Sara uxore charissima filia et una haeredum Humfredi Baskerville quinq; filios et totidem filias suscepisset, Alicia fideli uxore secunda superstite, pie in Christo obdormivit xvi die Decemb. Ano Salutis M.D. xcviii.
"Rogerus Owen filius maestissimus patri optimo et charissimo officiosae pietatis et memoriae ergo hoc monumentum posuit."
- transcribed courtesy of Will Johnson, wjhonson@aol.com, Professional Genealogist from the image in Google books


By the way Will, to help you to firm a date for Thomas Owen's life, he received his B.A. 17 Apr 1559

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av WJhonson » 26 okt 2007 01:51:38

<<In a message dated 10/25/07 17:23:30 Pacific Daylight Time, billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:
The authors draw conclusions on age of participants, places of residence,
interpretation of the word "neve" in texts which often are interpreted either as "nephew"
or "grandson," by them and others, without redressing the entire text with this questionable
translation, and dismiss a pedigree in the British Museum in its totality as "fraudulent"
when it fact it is based on two previous and accepted *Visitations.* >>

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

Bill you still have it in your head that Visitations are "factual". They are not. They are evidence just like anything else. They have no higher value, than any other evidence. In fact, on generations several times removed *from the contributor* they have much *less* value than other evidence. How many people can accurately remember the names of all their great-grand-aunts ? Not many.

You need to understand that many times, visitations are merely writen down from what one person tells another, *not* from searches in documents, or verification of the points.

Sometimes other evidence, upholds the visitation pedigree, sometimes it does not.

Will Johnson

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»