Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
WJhonson

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av WJhonson » 26 okt 2007 02:00:10

By the way, the fact that he is making a deposition in 1537 tells us that he was an adult by that time.

If his purported father Henry died *in* 1525, that could neatly explain why Robert moved to Beccles. I.E. that he was now either poorer, or richer, after his father's death, so he was either driven out, or bought himself a nicer place.

Which again goes back to my point that you need to follow what properties were owned by Henry his purported father, and how they were disposed.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av WJhonson » 26 okt 2007 02:04:07

One more thing. Since we know that Robert Peck (later) of Beccles was an adult by 1537, his purported father Henry *could not be* the son of Richard Peck, Esq of Wakefield by his wife Alice Middleton.

The reason now is chronological. Henry would have to be older than Richard's heir John Peck who inherited Wakefield and married Joan Anne.

So now, if we seek to maintain the connection at all, we need to put Henry back another generation, that is as a younger son of Richard Peck of Wakefield, by his wife Joan Harrington.

Will Johnson

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 okt 2007 07:17:51

On Oct 25, 10:30 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/25/2007 3:50:28 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

christophering...@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.


I don't quite get the problem. We have direct testimony of who his
mother was and we know when she came north, giving a firm limit on the
earliest he could have been born. We also can place reasonable limits
on the latest he was born given the situation surrounding his death.
There are medieval monarchs for whom we cannot be as precise.

taf

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 26 okt 2007 14:11:04

Indeed.

I will raise the ante. Assuming (a big assumption) that these two or three generations in the
16th century TOLD THE TRUTH and dealt with English customs (or laws: I will let you, and
gen-medieval experts rule!) correctly, then that would be the case. But what if: Robert Peck
of Beccles were the illegitimate or legitimate son of John Peck of Wakefield by an earlier wife
and confirms the British Museum pedigree of Pecks?

Custom would dictate that the *Visitations* were part true and part lie. But, then is the
British Museum pedigree of Peck really a forgery, or maybe does it speak more to the truth?
After all, it comes from the College of Heralds, was signed, dated, etc.?

I agree with your reasoning but I am unsure that the Visitations, both of them cited by the
authors of the 1930s NEHGSR articles, or the British Museum pedigree of Peck should be
dismissed or accepted, one, two or three? The motive to lie in the former was as applicable
as the motive to lie in the latter, or the final pedigree much maligned.

It makes more sense to me to investigate anew from 2007 on such an able forum as this
the totality of the question:

Who were the ancestors of Robert Peck of Beccles, who it now appears was NOT born in
Beccles as we have been led to believe by all previous pronouncements.

Bill

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

One more thing. Since we know that Robert Peck (later) of Beccles was an adult by 1537, his
purported father Henry *could not be* the son of Richard Peck, Esq of Wakefield by his wife
Alice Middleton.

The reason now is chronological. Henry would have to be older than Richard's heir John Peck who
inherited Wakefield and married Joan Anne.

So now, if we seek to maintain the connection at all, we need to put Henry back another
generation, that is as a younger son of Richard Peck of Wakefield, by his wife Joan Harrington.

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

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 26 okt 2007 14:33:20

Thanks much, Will. Believe it or not: we are in TOTAL agreement on your paragraph below.
My knowledge of language has me saying once again: communications, spoken and written,
of as misunderstood as understood. I have sent a few citations of my background: I hope
it shows you I do not say the following in a light tone: WE ARE IN TOTAL AGREEMENT.

In other words: dealing just with the *Visitations* as such. I KNOW that. Let me give you
a case in point: in American and Canadian record keeping, I found a death record of my
great-grandmother and the informant was her descendant and my great-grandmother's
maternal line had been erased, and only a LAST or surname entered. For four decades I
accepted that maternal line. So, you can imagine my chagrin when this year upon looking
at Canadian census records of the 1800s I found two back-to-back census records with
a DIFFERENT LAST or surname entered. What had transpired was that the MOTHER of my
great-grandmother had become widowed in her later age, and REMARRIED and ASSUMED
the LAST or surname of the STEP-father of her children. My great-grandmother and/or
her informant gave the STEP-father's LAST or surname as the name of the FATHER. It
turns out that the real FATHER was the LAST or surname BEFORE she became widowed.
TWO CENSUS RECORDS proved the error and OTHER records comfirmed this NEW knowledge
of the maternal line.

Now: back to *Visitations* as such. They are, to me, no different than census records:
as good and as true and certain as the STATEMENTS of the INFORMANTS to the Visitation
recorder. So: I am ABSOLUTELY in agreement with your thoughts, except that you must
now accept that we ARE ON THE SAME PAGE as to *Visitations.* As to how I wish to relate
all this to the crux of the matter of WHO were the ancestors of Rboert Peck of Beccles is
forthcoming. In other words: we must look at all the evidence, as you say, and I accept
that two different *Visitations* and a Peck pedigree in the British Museum library and
all other evidence must be brought to the fore, including wills, Chancery and Church
records, and anything else that might have a decisive impact on conculsions. It is my
opinion that the authors of the 1930s serialized articles in NEHGSR were biased, did not
draw always correct opinions, that there is probably additional information now available
which they did not have access to. In the final analysis: indeed, we may NOT be able
to be more conclusive than we are now. But now, according to Uah, according to rootsweb
ancestral files, and familiy trees all over the net and in books, there are ALLEGATIONS
many but few have evidence to support them.

I will march forward, as best I can, and really do appreciate your help.

Bill

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

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

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

-------------------------------
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: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 26 okt 2007 14:48:52

Indeed.

Or: try this scenario: if his purported father John...! I am, truthfully, investigating ALL
avenues
at this point, and no longer accept what the authors of the infamous 1930s NEHGSR wrote
as *WRIT* but will investigate further. I no longer blindly accept that John Leeke was his
grandfather: he may have been his uncle! For instance, records indicate that two daughters
of John Leek married two uncles of Robert Peck of Beccles. So: I must be open to all new
disclosures of facts in the pedigree, and normal behaviour of the times in terms of law,
church, property, marriages, divorce, whatever.

So: I assume you believe that the fact he made a deposition, under English law of the times,
means he was of the age of majority? And that would be, what? 21?

The authors concluded along similar line, that because John Leeke named him an executor
of his estate in a will drawn in 1529 that he was of the age of majority in 1529? Do you
agree with their conclusion?

As a case in point: I have read in the records that marriages were arranged with children
of two different families while the children, a boy and a girl, were 7 years of age. If age
did not matter in the case of marriage, why should it have mattered in all other cases:
depositions, wills, church, et al.? It hardly seems a fair conclusion that such a marriage
between 7 year olds could be consummated? Thus, participants before the law were
making documents based on future time, agreed?

Care to address this medieval-law question?

Bill

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

By the way, the fact that he is making a deposition in 1537 tells us that he was an adult by
that time.

If his purported father Henry died *in* 1525, that could neatly explain why Robert moved to
Beccles. I.E. that he was now either poorer, or richer, after his father's death, so he was
either driven out, or bought himself a nicer place.

Which again goes back to my point that you need to follow what properties were owned by Henry
his purported father, and how they were disposed.

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

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Somerby's forged of Beck Pedigree

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 26 okt 2007 14:59:53

In article <mailman.515.1193400471.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:

Indeed.

I will raise the ante. Assuming (a big assumption) that these two or three
generations in the
16th century TOLD THE TRUTH and dealt with English customs (or laws: I will
let you, and
gen-medieval experts rule!) correctly, then that would be the case. But what
if: Robert Peck
of Beccles were the illegitimate or legitimate son of John Peck of Wakefield
by an earlier wife
and confirms the British Museum pedigree of Pecks?

Custom would dictate that the *Visitations* were part true and part lie.
But, then is the
British Museum pedigree of Peck really a forgery, or maybe does it speak more
to the truth?
After all, it comes from the College of Heralds, was signed, dated, etc.?

The pedigree printed by S. Allyn Peck should be assumed to be a complete
fabrication by a known nineteenth-century forger, made to impress a
naive American client, until proved otherwise. This is a known MO. The
attestation and signature of the herald are most likely forged.

I agree with your reasoning but I am unsure that the Visitations, both of
them cited by the
authors of the 1930s NEHGSR articles, or the British Museum pedigree of Peck
should be
dismissed or accepted, one, two or three? The motive to lie in the former
was as applicable
as the motive to lie in the latter, or the final pedigree much maligned.

The Visitation pedigrees are much more modest in their claims. The one
which makes more extravagant claims, and which only surfaced at the
hands of a known forger, for a naive American client, is the one much
more seriously in doubt. That is not to say Visitation pedigrees are
entirely accurate. But for the most part, Visitation pedigrees are
authentic manuscripts of the period they purport to date from, and (for
the most part) they represent good faith efforts by specific informants
to recount their ancestries to some reasonably scrupulous scribe.

If you are serious, pay someone good (I recommend Chris Phillips) to
examine the physical context and provenance of the pedigree now in the
British Library, pay for good photographic copies, and attempt to make a
case based on external and internal evidence both that the pedigree
really is a genuine seventeenth-century manuscript (which I doubt), and
that the information it contains is true (though we already know it to
be false with regard to the pedigree's account of the children of John,
son of Richard Peck of Wakefield, Yorks.). Given the obvious strikes
against it, the burden of proof rests very clearly on anyone attempting
to claim either hypothesis.

It makes more sense to me to investigate anew from 2007 on such an able forum
as this
the totality of the question:

Who were the ancestors of Robert Peck of Beccles, who it now appears was NOT
born in
Beccles as we have been led to believe by all previous pronouncements.

S. Allyn Peck did NOT claim that Robert Peck (Sr.) was born at Beccles.
What YOU were led to believe by the entirely customary use of the phrase
"of Beccles" is another matter.

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

WJhonson

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av WJhonson » 26 okt 2007 21:06:05

<<In a message dated 10/26/07 05:08:55 Pacific Daylight Time, billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:
I will raise the ante. Assuming (a big assumption) that these two or three generations in the
16th century TOLD THE TRUTH and dealt with English customs (or laws: I will let you, and
gen-medieval experts rule!) correctly, then that would be the case. But what if: Robert Peck
of Beccles were the illegitimate or legitimate son of John Peck of Wakefield by an earlier wife
and confirms the British Museum pedigree of Pecks? >>
--------------------------------------
Illegitimate is a possibility. But another one, which you raised obliquely would be, what if Robert Peck, later of Beccles, were a son by an earlier wife and John the heir, was not in fact the heir of his *father*, but rather the heir of his *mother*. That would explain why he'd inherit to the exclusion of Robert. I.E. the property was John's mother's property and so passed to him, as her heir.

However, like I mentioned before, You really need to *start* with a list of the properties named in the various wills, IPM, etc. So start with that.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av WJhonson » 26 okt 2007 21:13:26

<<In a message dated 10/26/07 11:56:39 Pacific Daylight Time, billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:
I no longer blindly accept that John Leeke was his
grandfather: he may have been his uncle! For instance, records indicate that two daughters
of John Leek married two uncles of Robert Peck of Beccles. So: I must be open to all new
disclosures of facts in the pedigree, and normal behaviour of the times in terms of law,
church, property, marriages, divorce, whatever.

So: I assume you believe that the fact he made a deposition, under English law of the times,
means he was of the age of majority? And that would be, what? 21?

The authors concluded along similar line, that because John Leeke named him an executor
of his estate in a will drawn in 1529 that he was of the age of majority in 1529? Do you
agree with their conclusion? >>

---------------------------------
Which is why, I believe a more accurate approach is: first quote EXACTLY what the primary document states, no additions, no brackets.

Then translate it.
Then add comments.

That way we can all see exactly what is said, and what isn't. So if the will of John Leeke only mentions that Robert Peck is his heir with no explanation of WHY then that should be made apparent.

If he made a deposition, then yes he was in his majority.
If he was left as an executor, then maybe yes maybe no. We've had cases mentioned here where it can be shown that an executor was not in their majority when so-named.

The question, in my mind is, were they allowed to *actually* execute while a minor (under the law) ? Or was this method, basically a way of *delaying* execution *until* a person gained their majority ?

I'm not sure. It does sound however a bit suspicious, like the testator were trying to do something a tad squirrelly.
Will Johnson

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 26 okt 2007 21:24:43

In article <mailman.532.1193424977.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:

I am, truthfully, investigating ALL avenues
at this point

Good: then you plan to engage a disinterested expert to examine the
Somerby pedigree at the British Library? Let us know.

and no longer accept what the authors of the infamous 1930s
NEHGSR wrote as *WRIT* but will investigate further.

S. Allyn Peck's careful, thorough work has become 'infamous' only in
your mind, because you are refusing to accept her dismissal of Somerby's
Peck pedigree.

So: I assume you believe that the fact he made a deposition, under English
law of the times, means he was of the age of majority? And that would
be, what? 21?

The authors

author

concluded along similar line, that because John Leeke named him
an executor of his estate in a will drawn in 1529 that he was of the
age of majority in 1529? Do you agree with their conclusion?

As a case in point: I have read in the records that marriages were arranged
with children
of two different families while the children, a boy and a girl, were 7 years
of age. If age
did not matter in the case of marriage, why should it have mattered in all
other cases:
depositions, wills, church, et al.? It hardly seems a fair conclusion that
such a marriage
between 7 year olds could be consummated? Thus, participants before the law
were
making documents based on future time, agreed?

Marriage was governed by canon law at this time, distinct from
common-law customs of minimum age for court appearances (which may have
been equivalent in ecclesiastical and civil courts in England). And age
did matter with marriage: seven years was the minimum for solemnizing a
marriage, though such marriages would not be consummated until puberty.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Nancy L. Allen

Rules regarding Fitz

Legg inn av Nancy L. Allen » 26 okt 2007 22:13:08

Are there rules regarding the use of Fitz? Should there be a space or
hyphen after it? Should it be capitalized? I've seen many variations and
would like to be at least consistent with my own use.

Richard fitz Roger
Richard fitz-Roger
Richard fitzRoger
Richard Fitz Roger
Richard Fitz-Roger
Richard FitzRoger

Which? Or is "Richard son of Roger" preferred?

Nancy

WJhonson

Re: Isabel, wife of Neil of Carrick: a conjecture

Legg inn av WJhonson » 26 okt 2007 22:19:05

Thanks John, for your conjecture that Malise (adult by 1312) (died between 1323/8) was the son of his father's first wife, which certainly helps in the chronology department as this Malise otherwise is a bit squeezed.

As has been previously stated here, DNB reports that under the accounts of the Malise Earls of Strathern
'In 1310-12 Earl Malise, his wife, Lady Agnes, and his son Malise were in the English pay' [DNB LV:36, cites Bain, Cal. Docs. Scotland II, nos. 192, 208, 299]

I wonder if this source can be found and quoted exactly. It would be quite interesting were we to *now* propose that Malise the husband of Emma (or Egidia) is *not* this Malise in the English pay in 1310-2, but rather it was his son, also Malise (who himself had an unknown first wife but a father himself by at least 1313) and HIS son also Malise who were these people.

That is, that Agnes is not the wife of his father, but is, rather, his own unknown wife, mother of his heir. Which would additionally either mean that Malise, the father, was dead by 1312, OR that Malise, in the Bain account is *not there* called Earl at all.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Rules regarding Fitz

Legg inn av WJhonson » 26 okt 2007 22:23:32

Richard son of Roger, doesn't make it very easy to do surname searches however.
Doesn't fit well into a book index.

So most authors use something like FitzRoger, fitzRoger, or Fitz Roger.

Since it means "son of" some people include a space to indicate that it is a *modern* invention expressing the Latin form (filius Rogeri). What did they call themselves to each other? "Hi I'm Richard the son of Roger from the town of Beccles..."

I have no idea. You can use whatever form you fill looks best. I find that PAF for example, puts them in order with or without a space, and with or without captialization, so evidently, at least in PAF, it doesn't matter what form you use as long as you use Fitz in front somewhere.

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Rules regarding Fitz

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 26 okt 2007 22:34:10

In article <mailman.537.1193433618.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
"Nancy L. Allen" <allennl@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Are there rules regarding the use of Fitz? Should there be a space or
hyphen after it? Should it be capitalized? I've seen many variations and
would like to be at least consistent with my own use.

Richard fitz Roger
Richard fitz-Roger
Richard fitzRoger
Richard Fitz Roger
Richard Fitz-Roger
Richard FitzRoger

Which? Or is "Richard son of Roger" preferred?

Some people might propose a solution and insist it is the 'right' one,
and everyone should follow it. Others recognize that standardizing
modern renderings of such names are less important. In this case, one
might draw a distinction based on who this person is, and how the name
is used. If 'Fitz Roger' is in this case an inherited surname, rather
than simply a patronymic, I would suggest capalizing the 'Fitz' element
(though I am indifferent to the space, hyphen, or no-space issue). If
it's a simple patronymic, I would be inclined to leave 'fitz' in the
lower case and keep the words separate.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

WJhonson

Re: "Magna Carta Ancestry" by Douglas Richardson

Legg inn av WJhonson » 26 okt 2007 23:41:57

<<In a message dated 09/29/07 14:27:06 Pacific Daylight Time, jonathankirton@sympatico.ca writes:
John was born c. 1447; by 1468 a member of Lincoln's Inn; 1491-2 MP for the Borough of Southwark.; c.1498 married Margaret White, dau. of Robert White and his wife, Margaret Gainsford (or Gaynsford), of South Warneborough, co. >>
----------------------
What is the source for "c 1498" ? Thanks.
Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: "Magna Carta Ancestry" by Douglas Richardson

Legg inn av WJhonson » 27 okt 2007 00:07:26

<<In a message dated 09/29/07 14:27:06 Pacific Daylight Time, jonathankirton@sympatico.ca writes:
On the right side of the stone arch are the arms of Ann Leeke (nee
Ruskyn),
quartering: 1. Bellers, 2. als. Howby, 3. Ruskyn, 4. Bellers.
(City of London Archives, Image No. 31369) >>
--------------------------
Am I right that this must come down from the marriage of John Bellers of Eye-Kettleby to Elizabeth Houby ? This marriage must have taken place near the end of the 14th or beginning of the 15th century. They had at least two children a Joan and a Marina Bellers, both of whom married fairly well, but I don't know how to connect this family into the family of the Sir James Bellers m Margaret Bernake who are the great-grandparents of this Anne (Ruskyn) m1 Leeke m2 Kirton.

How?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: The Death of John Comyn the Red : Murder most Foul

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 okt 2007 00:10:08

Dear John,
My Point is that Bruce`s stabbing Comyn was not
premediated, note that John Comyn of Badenoch according to tradition was wounded to such
a degree that He couldn`t fight back. His uncle Sir Robert Comyn was there
as his gillie or bodyguard and was slain by Bruce`s nephew and bodyguard Sir
Christopher Seton. Bruce was frightened and left. Meeting his Followers and
allies Bruce explained his mess. Kirkpatrick promised to make sure that the
downed Regent didn`t rise . Bruce didn`t object and rewarded Kirkpatrick as borne
out by the motto and crest. that was the premeditation. The blackening of the
Red Comyn`s reputation then commenced with Fleming`s beheading his corspe and
Bruce`s friends concocting ? the story of Comyn`s making a pact with Bruce.
That story is exceedingly unlikely as Comyn didn`t want the crown, He wanted
to see his uncle John Baliol restored and himself to be his most influencial
servant as with William, Earl of Buchan, Walter, Earl of Mentieth, John Comyn
the Red (his grandfather) and Alexander, Earl of Buchan. John Comyn " the Red "
II was himself a valued counciler, a successful military commander and above
all a political negociator. Walter Comyn had come close to foiling the designs
of two kings to curb his power. Why be king if He could be like Walter ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



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

Gjest

Re: "Collateral Descendants" & "Direct Descendants"

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 okt 2007 00:12:39

On 24 Oct, 12:35, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:11:33 -0400, Turlough <turlo...@comcast.net
wrote:

LeticiaCluffwrote:

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

Lay on, Tish Cluff, and damned be him who first cries...

Pete Stretton

alden@mindspring.com

Re: "Magna Carta Ancestry" by Douglas Richardson

Legg inn av alden@mindspring.com » 27 okt 2007 00:32:53

WJhonson wrote:
In a message dated 09/29/07 14:27:06 Pacific Daylight Time, jonathankirton@sympatico.ca writes:
On the right side of the stone arch are the arms of Ann Leeke (nee
Ruskyn),
quartering: 1. Bellers, 2. als. Howby, 3. Ruskyn, 4. Bellers.
(City of London Archives, Image No. 31369)
--------------------------
Am I right that this must come down from the marriage of John Bellers of Eye-Kettleby to Elizabeth Houby ? This marriage must have taken place near the end of the 14th or beginning of the 15th century. They had at least two children a Joan and a Marina Bellers, both of whom married fairly well, but I don't know how to connect this family into the family of the Sir James Bellers m Margaret Bernake who are the great-grandparents of this Anne (Ruskyn) m1 Leeke m2 Kirton.

How?
Thanks
Will Johnson

I think there was another heiress named Ellen married to William
Ruskyn (Roskyn) of Melton Mowbray, father of Anne and at least one
other daughter. See:

Rev. William George Dimock Fletcher, Leicestershire Pedigrees and
Royal Descents, Leicester, (1887), pps 23-24.

Doug Smith

WJhonson

Re: MCA & PA by Douglas Richardson

Legg inn av WJhonson » 27 okt 2007 00:36:15

<<In a message dated 09/29/07 22:06:29 Pacific Daylight Time, nugget@bordernet.com.au writes:
Margaret was the daughter of Thomas Ilam, mercer of London, and his
wife Joanne. With John Raynsford she had not one but two daughters. The
other daughter Audrey married, as his first wife, Thomas Darcy lord
Darcy of Chiche. She died childless prior to 1532. >>
---------------------------
Thanks to Tony Ingham for this.
Joane has a claim to fame as she married afterwards about 1482 to Walter Devereux, 1st Baron Ferrers of Chartley.
(Talk about moving up !)

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: "Magna Carta Ancestry" by Douglas Richardson

Legg inn av WJhonson » 27 okt 2007 00:51:54

<<In a message dated 10/26/07 16:35:21 Pacific Daylight Time, alden@mindspring.com writes:
I think there was another heiress named Ellen married to William
Ruskyn (Roskyn) of Melton Mowbray, father of Anne and at least one
other daughter.>>
---------------------------
Yes that's right Anne's immediate parents were Ellen Bellars and William Ruskyn.
But my question is, where does the Houby heiress come in?
Evidently, it seems at least possible that the marriage I mentioned fits in there, but I'm just not sure exactly how yet.

Will

WJhonson

Re: "Magna Carta Ancestry" by Douglas Richardson

Legg inn av WJhonson » 27 okt 2007 00:55:30

Will, re the ancestors of Anne Ruskyn, see here
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... %20(Ruskyn)

where they appear to lay out how the Houby's interconnect.

Will

alden@mindspring.com

Re: "Magna Carta Ancestry" by Douglas Richardson

Legg inn av alden@mindspring.com » 27 okt 2007 01:00:17

On Oct 26, 7:51 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 10/26/07 16:35:21 Pacific Daylight Time, al...@mindspring.com writes:
I think there was another heiress named Ellen married to William
Ruskyn (Roskyn) of Melton Mowbray, father of Anne and at least one
other daughter.
---------------------------
Yes that's right Anne's immediate parents were Ellen Bellars and William Ruskyn.
But my question is, where does the Houby heiress come in?
Evidently, it seems at least possible that the marriage I mentioned fits in there, but I'm just not sure exactly how yet.

Will

Ellen was co-heiress with her two sisters Marina and Joan. Another
sister, Margaret was Prioress of Langley.

Doug Smith

Gjest

Re: Isabel, wife of Neil of Carrick: a conjecture

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 okt 2007 01:05:05

Dear John Ravilious,
Interesting Conjection about Neil, Earl of
Carrick`s marrying Isabel who might have been a daughter of William Comyn, 5th
Earl of Buchan. Certainly They were all about cementing political ties. So,
let`s see Elizabeth, Countess of Mar was by your conjecture the sister of Isabel,
Countess of Carrick
Donald I, Earl of Mar was own cousin to Margaret , Countess of
Carrick who married 2nd Robert Brus
Gratney /Gartnait of Mar and Isabel of Mar were 2nd cousins to
Christian Brus and Robert Brus which would mean dispensations of 3rd and 3rd.
That all seems good , but as I understand it Robert Brus (conjectured
to be his Great Grandson) attacked the Abbey of Deer, sacred to William`s
memory. not exactly filial devotion and also Brus didn`t mention the well known
claim of Donald Bane, King of Scots as belonging to himself as well as Red
John Comyn. It would seem a strange omission on his part.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



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

WJhonson

Re: "Magna Carta Ancestry" by Douglas Richardson

Legg inn av WJhonson » 27 okt 2007 01:36:54

Will, Jonathan Kirton has posted that the tomb of Anne (Ruskyn) Leeke has arms quartered with Bellars and Houby. Apparently the descent is as follows

Anne Ruskyn "co-heiress of her father" married John Leeke of Wyer Hall, Edmonton

she was daughter of
William Ruskyn of Melton Mowbray, co Leics who m Ellen Bellers sometime in the early to mid 15th century

Ellen Bellers was co-heiress to her brother John who d.s.p. in 1476. He had four sisters, I'm not clear if his sister Joan was living at the time of his death, or if her inheritence was "in her issue" which she did have.

At any rate Ellen (and John) were children of John Bellers of Eye Kettleby (also called "of Kirkby Bellers) who was dead by 1420, he was the only son of Sir James Bellers by his wife Margaret Bernake

Meanwhile the wife of John Bellers was Elizabeth Houby, daughter of Anthony Houby (d 1422). Anthony is turn was grandson, or apparent grandson at any rate, of another Anthony Houby, who was heir in his issue of his elder brother Gilbert whose line went extinct.

Gilbert and Anthony Houby in turn were sons of Walter de Houby "40 years old and more at IPM of his mother 5E2" who died in 1349. And then Walter de Houby's mother was that Matilda (Maud) de Kirkby, heiress of Kirkby Bellers.

Will Johnson

Dantemortem

Re: The Death of John Comyn the Red : Murder most Foul

Legg inn av Dantemortem » 27 okt 2007 01:59:26

Just curious, why do you capitalize the word "he" in the middle of
sentences? I have only ever seen this before in reference to Christ.

dm

On 10/26/07, Jwc1870@aol.com <Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote:
Dear John,
My Point is that Bruce`s stabbing Comyn was not
premediated, note that John Comyn of Badenoch according to tradition was
wounded to such
a degree that He couldn`t fight back. His uncle Sir Robert Comyn was
there
as his gillie or bodyguard and was slain by Bruce`s nephew and bodyguard
Sir
Christopher Seton. Bruce was frightened and left. Meeting his Followers
and
allies Bruce explained his mess. Kirkpatrick promised to make sure that
the
downed Regent didn`t rise . Bruce didn`t object and rewarded Kirkpatrick
as borne
out by the motto and crest. that was the premeditation. The blackening of
the
Red Comyn`s reputation then commenced with Fleming`s beheading his corspe
and
Bruce`s friends concocting ? the story of Comyn`s making a pact with
Bruce.
That story is exceedingly unlikely as Comyn didn`t want the crown, He
wanted
to see his uncle John Baliol restored and himself to be his most
influencial
servant as with William, Earl of Buchan, Walter, Earl of Mentieth, John
Comyn
the Red (his grandfather) and Alexander, Earl of Buchan. John Comyn " the
Red "
II was himself a valued counciler, a successful military commander and
above
all a political negociator. Walter Comyn had come close to foiling the
designs
of two kings to curb his power. Why be king if He could be like Walter ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



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

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

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 27 okt 2007 02:43:08

Indeed. I think you might be right on all accounts. It is curious that the brother and son of
that
brother of Alice Middleton, and William Thwaites, of the related families, was the ONE who did in
fact
make marriage arrangements for Pecks after the death of Alice's husband Richard. Remember that
Alice apparently died soon after 1491 and clearly before Richard her widow died in 1516 he had
remarried the sister of his son's wife (I am NOT making this up!). It is hard keeping those
Anne's
sister straight :)

Certainly, we are not done yet on discoveries in that area of the inheritance of the Middletons
into the
Peck line, nor the Annes, as it appears the Pecks at that time and place, even in Wakefield, were
not as
flush in the pocket as the Middletons who clearly had a few Sirs and Ladies in their ranks over
several
generations. I do not know that much about the Anne families, as of yet.

As to the properties to analyze: I am in a wait-and-see mode. Bear with me, Will. I think it is
premature
at this point inasmuch as there is much fodder yet in the authors transcripts, et al., in the
serialization
articles in the 1930s in the NEHGSR. Also: it may turn out that John is the father of Robert Peck
of Beccles,
and the British Museum pedigree of Pecks might NOT ALL be suspect. After all, it clearly predates
the 1930s
folderol, accomplished by none other than the same gents responsible for the Visitations. No
doubt the
Visitations are subject to scrutiny, and I now assert, so does the pedigree of Pecks deserve more
scrutiny,
at least as to how it "confounds or clarifies"(to quote yourself!) the pedigree segment under
scrutiny. Keep
in mind that the British Museum pedigree rest on the Tonge's Visitation of 1530 and the 1563-64,
encompassing this vital segment of the Peck pedigree. Also, note that Bill Arnold did not propose
this
Peck pedigree, but it was SANCTIONED by the College of Heralds in 1620!

I am more and more inclined to wonder deeply about "neve" as it was used by John Leeke in his
will?
I am surprised no Latin scholar has chimed in? Where are they? If we accept the original
interpretation
of the authors of the Latin "neve" of John Leeke's in his will, then it would mean that Robert
Peck of
Beccles was his nephew, and that is HUGE inasmuch as it clarifies the British Museum pedigree,
because
he would then be a son of John Peck and his two of his sibling brothers accordingly had married
daughters
of Leeke/Leake/Leyke/L(no e)ake.

Bill

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

In a message dated 10/26/07 05:08:55 Pacific Daylight Time, billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:
I will raise the ante. Assuming (a big assumption) that these two or three generations in the
16th century TOLD THE TRUTH and dealt with English customs (or laws: I will let you, and
gen-medieval experts rule!) correctly, then that would be the case. But what if: Robert Peck
of Beccles were the illegitimate or legitimate son of John Peck of Wakefield by an earlier wife
and confirms the British Museum pedigree of Pecks?
--------------------------------------
Illegitimate is a possibility. But another one, which you raised obliquely would be, what if
Robert Peck, later of Beccles, were a son by an earlier wife and John the heir, was not in fact
the heir of his *father*, but rather the heir of his *mother*. That would explain why he'd
inherit to the exclusion of Robert. I.E. the property was John's mother's property and so
passed to him, as her heir.

However, like I mentioned before, You really need to *start* with a list of the properties named
in the various wills, IPM, etc. So start with that.

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

John Watson

Re: The Death of John Comyn the Red : Murder most Foul

Legg inn av John Watson » 27 okt 2007 02:47:02

On Oct 27, 8:59 am, Dantemortem <dantemor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Just curious, why do you capitalize the word "he" in the middle of
sentences? I have only ever seen this before in reference to Christ.

dm

On 10/26/07, Jwc1...@aol.com <Jwc1...@aol.com> wrote:



Dear John,
My Point is that Bruce`s stabbing Comyn was not
premediated, note that John Comyn of Badenoch according to tradition was
wounded to such
a degree that He couldn`t fight back. His uncle Sir Robert Comyn was
there
as his gillie or bodyguard and was slain by Bruce`s nephew and bodyguard
Sir
Christopher Seton. Bruce was frightened and left. Meeting his Followers
and
allies Bruce explained his mess. Kirkpatrick promised to make sure that
the
downed Regent didn`t rise . Bruce didn`t object and rewarded Kirkpatrick
as borne
out by the motto and crest. that was the premeditation. The blackening of
the
Red Comyn`s reputation then commenced with Fleming`s beheading his corspe
and
Bruce`s friends concocting ? the story of Comyn`s making a pact with
Bruce.
That story is exceedingly unlikely as Comyn didn`t want the crown, He
wanted
to see his uncle John Baliol restored and himself to be his most
influencial
servant as with William, Earl of Buchan, Walter, Earl of Mentieth, John
Comyn
the Red (his grandfather) and Alexander, Earl of Buchan. John Comyn " the
Red "
II was himself a valued counciler, a successful military commander and
above
all a political negociator. Walter Comyn had come close to foiling the
designs
of two kings to curb his power. Why be king if He could be like Walter ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

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

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

Or God

Regards,

John

Nancy L. Allen

Re: Rules regarding Fitz

Legg inn av Nancy L. Allen » 27 okt 2007 04:33:14

Thanks, Nat and Will, for your replies.

In this case, Richard fitz Roger is a patronymic. Roger was the son of
Ravenkil who was the son of Raghanald.

"Richard son of Roger" is used in most records I've found. The exception is
Ormerod's Parentalia in which he uses Richard Fitz-Roger. When I first saw
"Richard son of Roger" in a book, I immediately thought "Roger who?" and
wondered if I missed his surname in the previous text! Therefore, I prefer
the use of "fitz" in some form.

Nancy

WJhonson

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av WJhonson » 27 okt 2007 05:12:04

<<In a message dated 10/26/07 19:30:58 Pacific Daylight Time, billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:
Also, note that Bill Arnold did not propose
this Peck pedigree, but it was SANCTIONED by the College of Heralds in 1620! >>

---------------------
Bill just what is it that you think this means? I guarantee you it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: The Death of John Comyn the Red : Murder most Foul

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 okt 2007 05:16:02

Dear Dante,
Hmm... I do , don`t I .no reason at all, just another
stupid quirk to break myself of.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



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

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 27 okt 2007 12:52:33

In article <mailman.573.1193484588.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:

In the case of the Pedigree of Peck, published as a foldout sheet in the back
of Ira. B. Peck's
1868 book *Genealogical History of the Descendants of Jospeh Peck* and also
before that
published by the College of Heralds and in the British Museum

It is not known that that document originated with a herald: that is the
crux of the question.

Therefore, because this Peck segment predates the work of the authors

author

of the
1930s
serialization articles in NEHGSR

NEHGR

and is evidence, to be tested, just as
Tonge's 1530 Visitation
and Flower's 1563-64 Visitation, it is my considered opinion it, too, needs
to be revisited.

Good.

After all, IT is where all this folderol began. I am guessing that some
members of gen-medieval
believe Bill Arnold invented this proposed Peck segment

No; some of us believe it was invented by Horatio Gates Somerby, who was
hired by Ira Peck in the 1850s, and quite likely (as he is known to have
done in other cases) duped him by concocting a forgery to satisfy the
client's vanity.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 27 okt 2007 13:30:08

Will, remember: we are on the same page. Words have a tendency not to say what we think
they say.

What I mean is precisely what the words say: accordingly to British Lore, there are these
documents called Visitations and Pedigrees, in various archives, Museums, and published
in various books, and they were sanctioned by College of Heralds, and other officialdom.
In some cases they are proven to be right, when compared with other evidence. In other
cases they are proven to be wrong, when compared with other evidence.

In the case of the Pedigree of Peck, published as a foldout sheet in the back of Ira. B. Peck's
1868 book *Genealogical History of the Descendants of Jospeh Peck* and also before that
published by the College of Heralds and in the British Museum, with the same vital information
about the Peck segment under discussion here and now, although some additional two
generations were added for the Ira Peck book, subsequent to Robert Peck of Beccles.

Therefore, because this Peck segment predates the work of the authors of the 1930s
serialization articles in NEHGSR and is evidence, to be tested, just as Tonge's 1530 Visitation
and Flower's 1563-64 Visitation, it is my considered opinion it, too, needs to be revisited.
After all, IT is where all this folderol began. I am guessing that some members of gen-medieval
believe Bill Arnold invented this proposed Peck segment: when in fact it is at LDS in Utah,
also on the net at World Connect at rootsweb and only zillions of family trees all over the
web. It is high time it is put to the post-1930s and INTERNET TEST of the same standards
of gen-medieval toughness.

Bill

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

In a message dated 10/26/07 19:30:58 Pacific Daylight Time, billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:
Also, note that Bill Arnold did not propose
this Peck pedigree, but it was SANCTIONED by the College of Heralds in 1620!

---------------------
Bill just what is it that you think this means? I guarantee you it doesn't mean what you think
it means.

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: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 27 okt 2007 15:51:39

Hilarious!

What a con artist...

DSH

"Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.573.1193484588.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

I am guessing that some members of gen-medieval
believe Bill Arnold invented this proposed Peck segment: when in fact it
is at LDS in Utah,
also on the net at World Connect at rootsweb and only zillions of family
trees all over the
web. It is high time it is put to the post-1930s and INTERNET TEST of the
same standards
of gen-medieval toughness.

Bill

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 27 okt 2007 15:55:13

1. This STILL hasn't sunk into Arnold's febrile brain.

2. Arnold has the same vanity as the client, Ira Peck.

DSH

"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-A1DA45.07523327102007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...

No; some of us believe it was invented by Horatio Gates Somerby, who was
hired by Ira Peck in the 1850s, and quite likely (as he is known to have
done in other cases) duped him by concocting a forgery to satisfy the
client's vanity.

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 27 okt 2007 17:21:03

Again, thanks, Will.

In the works.

More anon.

Bill

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

In a message dated 10/26/07 11:56:39 Pacific Daylight Time, billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:
I no longer blindly accept that John Leeke was his
grandfather: he may have been his uncle! For instance, records indicate that two daughters
of John Leek married two uncles of Robert Peck of Beccles. So: I must be open to all new
disclosures of facts in the pedigree, and normal behaviour of the times in terms of law,
church, property, marriages, divorce, whatever.

So: I assume you believe that the fact he made a deposition, under English law of the times,
means he was of the age of majority? And that would be, what? 21?

The authors concluded along similar line, that because John Leeke named him an executor
of his estate in a will drawn in 1529 that he was of the age of majority in 1529? Do you
agree with their conclusion?

---------------------------------
Which is why, I believe a more accurate approach is: first quote EXACTLY what the primary
document states, no additions, no brackets.

Then translate it.
Then add comments.

That way we can all see exactly what is said, and what isn't. So if the will of John Leeke only
mentions that Robert Peck is his heir with no explanation of WHY then that should be made
apparent.

If he made a deposition, then yes he was in his majority.
If he was left as an executor, then maybe yes maybe no. We've had cases mentioned here where it
can be shown that an executor was not in their majority when so-named.

The question, in my mind is, were they allowed to *actually* execute while a minor (under the
law) ? Or was this method, basically a way of *delaying* execution *until* a person gained
their majority ?

I'm not sure. It does sound however a bit suspicious, like the testator were trying to do
something a tad squirrelly.
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

Skraedder

Re: The need for protecting your data in the Digital Age

Legg inn av Skraedder » 27 okt 2007 18:05:55

WJhonson wrote:
The Way Back machine has proven that they are next to worthless by allowing individual site owners to "opt-out". So they aren't really "archiving the net" or whatever their original hype was.

In addition it appears they don't really archive *everything* even if you don't opt out.


I suspect they are only archiving static webpages. Any that are
generated on the fly from backend databases won't get archived.

Skraedder

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 27 okt 2007 18:10:32

Re:
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-A1DA45.07523327102007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
"No; some of us believe it was invented by Horatio Gates Somerby, who was
hired by Ira Peck in the 1850s, and quite likely (as he is known to have
done in other cases) duped him by concocting a forgery to satisfy the
client's vanity."

Interesante! So: the implication of this post quoted above is that the *provenance*
of the British Museum four plates leads as a DIRECT DESCENDANT [sic] of the hand
of the alleged perpetrator: Horatio Gates Somerby? Proof?

Bill

*****



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

jonathan kirton

Re: "Magna Carta Ancestry" by Douglas Richardson

Legg inn av jonathan kirton » 27 okt 2007 21:21:08

To Will Johnson and Doug Smith,

Thank you for your queries and comments yesterday. My identification
of the marriage of John Kirton and his first wife Margaret White as
being circa 1498, form my posting of 29 Sept., 2007,
was an estimate by me, based on known facts from a number of sources.

From Wedgewood it is evident that John Kirton by 7 May, 1515 was
resident in Edmonton, Middlesex, because he was on that day appointed
as a Justice of the Peace for Middlesex.

From my transcript of his two wills, both written in Nov., 1529,
just before his death the following month, a number of things become
clear:-

His second wife, Anne Leek (nee Ruskyn) has already died, and his
will calls for requiem masses to be said for both his wives.

It is apparent that John had a very close relationship with his step-
son and son-in-law Jasper Leek, who is actually named as his first
executor; his own oldest son, William Kirton being the second
executor. From the way he describes the items that he bequeaths to
Jasper and his wife Margaret(1) (nee Kirton) (his best bed, best
mattress, best covers, etc.), and the descriptions of all the
hangings in the Hall, etc., I believe that they were all living at
Wyer Hall, Edmonton which had been Anne's home during her first
marriage; furthermore, John states in his will that he had already
turned over to Jasper, before he had written his wills, all the
property in Edmonton. His own son William Kirton, married to
Elizabeth (nee Leek)(John's step-daughter, and his own daughter-in-
law) received all the "second best " bed, mattress, covers, etc., and
the contents of
William's "own chamber in the east wing". William also was bequeathed
a "hatchment" of John's coat of arms that had been hanging in the
Hall, and "pertained to him and his wife Elizabeth", and received all
the lands in Surrey, Middlesex, London and Essex which had come from
the Kirtons.

As to the timing: by mid November, 1529 four of John's children by
his first marriage to Margaret White are still alive (William,
Stephen, Margaret(1) & Agnes (Elizabeth, his eldest daughter, who had
married ? of Wyburne, is not mentioned, so had presumably already
died)), his two step-children, Jasper and Elizabeth Leek, are both
still alive; and even his last child Margaret(2), the daughter that
he had with his second wife, Anne Leek (nee Ruskyn) is already
married to her husband, William Moreton of Deckling, Kent. (This
couple had a son, William Moreton(2), who during his lifetime
acquired the Manor of Whitehorse, at Croydon, co. Surrey.) If Margaret
(2) was old enough to be married by Nov., 1529, she had most probably
been born before 1513, so John Kirton's marriage to Mrs. Anne Leek
(nee Ruskyn) had probably occurred by about 1512.

This probably means that John Kirton's first wife, Margaret (nee
White), allowing for a mourning period, had died about 1510 or 1511.
Since John and his first wife had at least five children who survived
until adulthood, and maybe others that died in infancy, I had
estimated the year of their marriage at 1498.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
To continue with the Leek Pedigree which you have been discussing in
subsequent postings, i believe you need to look at Middlesex
Pedigrees, pages 12 & 13 (Harleian MS 1551, fo. 7) as referenced in
my 29 Sept. posting. On page 12 you will see all the "Leeke", "Sutton
alias Howby" and "Ruskyn" blazons very clearly identified, and on
page 13 you will see all the connections going back to Sir James
Bellers, Knt., and to Sir Anthony Howby, Knt..

There would seem to be one discrepancy in the referenced British
History Online website, with regard to the Manor of Medbourne in
Leicestershire, taken from "A History of the County of
Leicestershire", vol. 5 by J. M. Lee. On page 3, and 4 of 24, under
"MANORS.(fn.41)", at the end of the sixth paragraph, where it
identifies that:- "Jasper Roskyn or Ruskyn died in 1486 and his
share was by 1505 divided between two of his daughters. (fn63) The
interest of Anne Leeke, the elder daughter, has left no trace. The
interest of Margaret Lacy (d.1529), the younger
daughter... ........." I believe, according to p.13 above,
that in these sentences all the words "daughter" should instead
actually be read as: "sister".

Page 13 is specific that "Jasper Ruskyn ob. s.p.", evidently in the
stated year of 1486, which would seem to be about right, and that
he had had three sisters:- Anne, the eldest, who married John Leek of
Wyer Hall in the Parish of Edmonton, Middlesex; Margarett, co-heir
with her sister Anne, who was the wife of Richard Lacy of Melton
Mowbray, co. Leics.; and thirdly: Catherin, a nun at Powlesworth
Abbey. My guess is that that Anne Leek (nee Ruskyns)'s interest in
the Manor of Medbourne passed to her son Jasper after her death, if
it had not previously been sold.

It is the arrangement of this pedigree chart on page 13 which may
have lead to the error in "Magna Carta Ancestry" which stated that
"Anne Leek was the first wife of John Kirton", whereas it actually
does state that Margaret White was John Kirton's "1 wife."

Sincerely,

Jonathan

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 28 okt 2007 00:18:00

In article <mailman.599.1193512268.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:

Re:
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-A1DA45.07523327102007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net..
.
"No; some of us believe it was invented by Horatio Gates Somerby, who was
hired by Ira Peck in the 1850s, and quite likely (as he is known to have
done in other cases) duped him by concocting a forgery to satisfy the
client's vanity."

Interesante! So: the implication of this post quoted above is that the
*provenance*
of the British Museum four plates leads as a DIRECT DESCENDANT [sic] of the
hand
of the alleged perpetrator: Horatio Gates Somerby? Proof?

We are only talking about one Horatio Gates Somerby here: an
unscrupulous 19th-century genealogist who quite possibly made the
document now in the British Library up from scratch. Just because the
pedigree purports to have been written about 1620, does not make it so.
That is why it is important to have it examined by an expert.

European libraries are full of documents purporting to be much older
than they actually are. I myself have handled a falsified charter,
allegedly of the 12th century, actually forged in 1843, in the
Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris:

http://www.nltaylor.net/medievalia/crus ... tracts.htm

On this case, it would be interesting to see Ira Peck's correspondence
with Somerby. It seems as if S. Allyn Peck had access to it.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 28 okt 2007 00:31:30

Nat told us he was seriously considering writing a book about Genealogical
Frauds and Charlatans.

Whatever happened to that?

It sounds like a Good Idea.

DSH

"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-060EA5.19180027102007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
In article <mailman.599.1193512268.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:

Re:
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:nathanieltaylor-A1DA45.07523327102007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net..
.
"No; some of us believe it was invented by Horatio Gates Somerby, who
was
hired by Ira Peck in the 1850s, and quite likely (as he is known to have
done in other cases) duped him by concocting a forgery to satisfy the
client's vanity."

Interesante! So: the implication of this post quoted above is that the
*provenance*
of the British Museum four plates leads as a DIRECT DESCENDANT [sic] of
the
hand
of the alleged perpetrator: Horatio Gates Somerby? Proof?

We are only talking about one Horatio Gates Somerby here: an
unscrupulous 19th-century genealogist who quite possibly made the
document now in the British Library up from scratch. Just because the
pedigree purports to have been written about 1620, does not make it so.
That is why it is important to have it examined by an expert.

European libraries are full of documents purporting to be much older
than they actually are. I myself have handled a falsified charter,
allegedly of the 12th century, actually forged in 1843, in the
Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris:

http://www.nltaylor.net/medievalia/crus ... tracts.htm

On this case, it would be interesting to see Ira Peck's correspondence
with Somerby. It seems as if S. Allyn Peck had access to it.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Douglas Richardson

Re: "Magna Carta Ancestry" by Douglas Richardson

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 28 okt 2007 00:54:13

On Oct 27, 2:21 pm, jonathan kirton <jonathankir...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

There would seem to be one discrepancy in the referenced British
History Online website, with regard to the Manor of Medbourne in
Leicestershire, taken from "A History of the County of
Leicestershire", vol. 5 by J. M. Lee. On page 3, and 4 of 24, under
"MANORS.(fn.41)", at the end of the sixth paragraph, where it
identifies that:- "Jasper Roskyn or Ruskyn died in 1486 and his
share was by 1505 divided between two of his daughters. (fn63) The
interest of Anne Leeke, the elder daughter, has left no trace. The
interest of Margaret Lacy (d.1529), the younger
daughter... ........." I believe, according to p.13 above,
that in these sentences all the words "daughter" should instead
actually be read as: "sister".

I believe that you're wrong about this, Jonathan. Here's why:

C 1/56/236: Jasper, son and heir of Elyn, late the wife of William
Roskyn, and sister of John Bellers, esquire. v. Richard Sapcote and
William Sutton, knights, and William Neele, justice of the Common
Pleas, and others, feoffee to uses.: Manors of Ketylby alias Eketylby
and Sistonby alias Syxtonby. Date: 1475-1480, or 1483-1485.

E 150/1115 Part X/5: Roskyn, Jaspar, Katharine, late the wife:
Leicester. 21 Henry VII.

E 150/1115 Part X/6: Roskyn, Jaspar, Roskyn, Katharine, one of the
daughters and heirs of: Leicester 21 Henry VII.

C 1/86/15: Date: 1486-1493-Robert Bowley v. The mayor and sheriffs of
London re. an action by Charles Mountcler, of London, merchant,
concerning the wardship of Anne, daughter and heir of Jasper Ruskyn.
Corpus cum causa.: London.

C 1/652/10: Seth Lacy. v. William Jenkynson of Harborough.: Detention
of deeds relating to messuages, land and rent in Melton Mowbray,
Medbourne, Holt, Blaston, Somerby, `Ruskynland' and Drayton, sometime
of Thomas Lacy of Spridlington, and Jasper, his son.: Leicester,
Lincoln. Date: 1529-1532.

As we can see above, Jasper Ruskin definitely left a daughter and heir
named Anne Ruskin, who was a minor in the period, 1486-1493.

As for the order of John Kirton's marriages, you could be right that
he married (1st) Margaret White and (2nd) Anne Ruskin. However, the
Visitation of Northamptonshire indicates that Anne Ruskin was the
first wife of John Kirton, not his second. I quote the visitation
below as follows:

"John Kirton of Edmonton, co. Midd'x. [1] = Anne, da. and coheir of
Jasper Ruskin of Melton Mowbray, co. Leicester, widow of John Leeke of
Edmonton, 1 ux., [2] = Margerett, da. of Robert White of South
Warnborow, co. Southampton, 2 ux." [Reference: Metcalfe Vis. of
Northamptonshire 1564 & 1618-9 (1887): 183-184 (Appendix) (Kirton
pedigree].

You can find the above cited information at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=wLgEAA ... #PPA184,M1

Anne Ruskin is correctly called the daughter, not sister, of Jasper
Ruskin in the above cited visitation record.

One other matter: In your last post, you indicated that John Kirton's
daughter by Anne Ruskin, namely Margaret Kirton, was already married
by the date of John Kirton's will (1529), whereas I show his son,
Stephen, by his wife, Margaret White was married c.1532 to his wife,
Margaret Offley. If nothing else, the chronology suggests that
Margaret Kirton (daughter of Anne Ruskin) was older than her half-
brother, Stephen Kirton (son of Margaret White). If correct, then
Anne Ruskin would be the first wife of John Kirton, not his second as
you have alleged to be the case.

If you have solid evidence that John Kirton married Anne Ruskin as his
first wife, please set it on the table and cite your sources. John
Kirton's move to Edmonton later in life is suggestive that Anne Ruskin
was his second wife. However, it is not actual evidence of the order
of his marriages. If neither of his wives is named as living in John
Kirton's will, then you have to find other evidence to prove the order
of his marriages.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

John P. Ravilious

Re: Isabel, wife of Neil of Carrick: a conjecture

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 28 okt 2007 03:24:30

Dear Will,

The Strathearn pedigree is one of several ongoing projects, and
ever subject to reexamination. The volume of Bain's Calendar of
Documents relating to Scotland should be accessible, so the exact
wording (or Bain's rendering, anyway) can be obtained.

As soon as I can accomplish this, I will advise.

Cheers,

John


On Oct 26, 5:19?pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Thanks John, for your conjecture that Malise (adult by 1312) (died between 1323/8) was the son of his father's first wife, which certainly helps in the chronology department as this Malise otherwise is a bit squeezed.

As has been previously stated here, DNB reports that under the accounts of the Malise Earls of Strathern
'In 1310-12 Earl Malise, his wife, Lady Agnes, and his son Malise were in the English pay' [DNB LV:36, cites Bain, Cal. Docs. Scotland II, nos. 192, 208, 299]

I wonder if this source can be found and quoted exactly. It would be quite interesting were we to *now* propose that Malise the husband of Emma (or Egidia) is *not* this Malise in the English pay in 1310-2, but rather it was his son, also Malise (who himself had an unknown first wife but a father himself by at least 1313) and HIS son also Malise who were these people.

That is, that Agnes is not the wife of his father, but is, rather, his own unknown wife, mother of his heir. Which would additionally either mean that Malise, the father, was dead by 1312, OR that Malise, in the Bain account is *not there* called Earl at all.

Will Johnson

John P. Ravilious

Re: Isabel, wife of Neil of Carrick: a conjecture

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 28 okt 2007 03:25:53

Saturday, 27 October, 2007


Dear James,

Thanks for your post of the other day. My comments/observations
are interspersed below.

you wrote:

Dear John Ravilious,
Interesting Conjection about Neil, Earl
of
Carrick`s marrying Isabel who might have been a daughter of William
Comyn, 5th
Earl of Buchan. Certainly They were all about cementing political
ties. So,
let`s see Elizabeth, Countess of Mar was by your conjecture the sister
of Isabel,
Countess of Carrick
Donald I, Earl of Mar was own cousin to Margaret ,
Countess of
Carrick who married 2nd Robert Brus
Gratney /Gartnait of Mar and Isabel of Mar were 2nd cousins
to
Christian Brus and Robert Brus which would mean dispensations of 3rd
and 3rd.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

These are two of the relationships that would have
required dispensations under my reconstruction, as the
Bruce-Mar marriages would each have been 3rd and 3rd degree
of consanguinity (2nd cousins) as you state. The absence
of evidence of such dispensations (or supplications for
same) is not atypical, although also not helpful in
attempting to validate the conjecture. I would note that
(as mentioned before) Andrew MacEwen is working on a
different hypothesis: interestingly, if he is correct,
there would also be 3rd and 3rd degree relationships for
which there is likewise no dispensation in the known
record.


That all seems good , but as I understand it Robert Brus
(conjectured
to be his Great Grandson) attacked the Abbey of Deer, sacred to
William`s
memory. not exactly filial devotion and also Brus didn`t mention the
well known
claim of Donald Bane, King of Scots as belonging to himself as well
as Red
John Comyn. It would seem a strange omission on his part.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

While this alleged Comyn ancestry would give King Robert
_the_ Bruce the descent from Donald Bane as you state,
remember that he was not the claimant in 1292. That was
his grandfather Sir Robert de Brus, Lord of Annandale, who
had no such descent. His kinship was as a grandson of
David, Earl of Huntingdon (younger brother of King William
_the Lion_).

Cheers,

John






On Oct 26, 6:55?pm, Jwc1...@aol.com wrote:
Dear John Ravilious,
Interesting Conjection about Neil, Earl of
Carrick`s marrying Isabel who might have been a daughter of William Comyn, 5th
Earl of Buchan. Certainly They were all about cementing political ties. So,
let`s see Elizabeth, Countess of Mar was by your conjecture the sister of Isabel,
Countess of Carrick
Donald I, Earl of Mar was own cousin to Margaret , Countess of
Carrick who married 2nd Robert Brus
Gratney /Gartnait of Mar and Isabel of Mar were 2nd cousins to
Christian Brus and Robert Brus which would mean dispensations of 3rd and 3rd.
That all seems good , but as I understand it Robert Brus (conjectured
to be his Great Grandson) attacked the Abbey of Deer, sacred to William`s
memory. not exactly filial devotion and also Brus didn`t mention the well known
claim of Donald Bane, King of Scots as belonging to himself as well as Red
John Comyn. It would seem a strange omission on his part.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

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

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 28 okt 2007 06:02:40

Bill Arnold wrote,

"Interesante! So: the implication of this post quoted above is that the
*provenance* of the British Museum four plates leads as a DIRECT DESCENDANT [sic] of
the hand of the alleged perpetrator: Horatio Gates Somerby? Proof?"

Nat Taylor wrote,

"We are only talking about one Horatio Gates Somerby here: an
unscrupulous 19th-century genealogist who quite possibly made the
document now in the British Library up from scratch. Just because the
pedigree purports to have been written about 1620, does not make it so.
That is why it is important to have it examined by an expert."

In other words: there is NO PROOF and Nat Taylor has issued an unsupported
allegation to challenge the Pedigree of Peck in the British Museum. How
unscholarly! The loaded words, adjectives of bias, "unscrupulous" and
"quite possibly made the document" and "up from scratch" are hardly
worthy of a response, but this is THE PECK THREAD and it MUST BE
CHALLENGED as MADE UP FROM SCRATCH as a response.


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

Ken Ozanne

Re: Scholarly Journals (was TAG)

Legg inn av Ken Ozanne » 28 okt 2007 09:36:02

David,
I would be most interested to know what are considered/what you
consider the major scholarly genealogical journals.

I have never seen an issue of TAG, only a couple of NEHG Register (and
they very old). I have not subscribed to your magazine partly because I
think it (quite reasonably) devoted mostly to North American genealogy. I'm
particularly interested to know if there is a scholarly British magazine
currently publishing.

I have asked this question in Australian libraries without getting any
real answer. Also in FHL.

Best,
Ken


From: amgen@alltel.net
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:08:01 -0700
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Is TAG out yet?

*snip*

Currently ALL the major scholarly
journals in genealogy are losing money. Donald Lines Jacobus founded
TAG in the 1922; the first time it broke even financially was in the
1960s. The NEHG Register has lost money throughout most of its 160
years, and even announced its discontinuation in 1861 when violent
political circumstances made it lose its entire southern subscription
list (a white knight rode in at the last minute).

*snip*

DAVID L. GREENE
Coeditor and publisher
The American Genealogist [TAG]

Leo van de Pas

Re: Scholarly Journals (was TAG)

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 28 okt 2007 09:56:13

Dear Ken,

The Genealogical Society in London have a very good magazine. Mr. Bierbrier
every now and then updates medieval genealogy, and I remember an article he
did involving Byzantine genealogy.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Ozanne" <kenozanne@bordernet.com.au>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: Scholarly Journals (was TAG)


David,
I would be most interested to know what are considered/what you
consider the major scholarly genealogical journals.

I have never seen an issue of TAG, only a couple of NEHG Register
(and
they very old). I have not subscribed to your magazine partly because I
think it (quite reasonably) devoted mostly to North American genealogy.
I'm
particularly interested to know if there is a scholarly British magazine
currently publishing.

I have asked this question in Australian libraries without getting
any
real answer. Also in FHL.

Best,
Ken


From: amgen@alltel.net
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:08:01 -0700
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Is TAG out yet?

*snip*

Currently ALL the major scholarly
journals in genealogy are losing money. Donald Lines Jacobus founded
TAG in the 1922; the first time it broke even financially was in the
1960s. The NEHG Register has lost money throughout most of its 160
years, and even announced its discontinuation in 1861 when violent
political circumstances made it lose its entire southern subscription
list (a white knight rode in at the last minute).

*snip*

DAVID L. GREENE
Coeditor and publisher
The American Genealogist [TAG]





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

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 28 okt 2007 13:39:19

In article <mailman.612.1193550610.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Interesante! So: the implication of this post quoted above is that the
*provenance* of the British Museum four plates leads as a DIRECT
DESCENDANT [sic] of
the hand of the alleged perpetrator: Horatio Gates Somerby? Proof?"

"We are only talking about one Horatio Gates Somerby here: an
unscrupulous 19th-century genealogist who quite possibly made the
document now in the British Library up from scratch. Just because the
pedigree purports to have been written about 1620, does not make it so.
That is why it is important to have it examined by an expert."

In other words: there is NO PROOF and Nat Taylor has issued an unsupported
allegation to challenge the Pedigree of Peck in the British Museum. How
unscholarly! The loaded words, adjectives of bias, "unscrupulous" and
"quite possibly made the document" and "up from scratch" are hardly
worthy of a response, but this is THE PECK THREAD and it MUST BE
CHALLENGED as MADE UP FROM SCRATCH as a response.


When one says 'forged pedigree' there are two possible meanings. The
first is that the pedigree contains made-up information, presenting a
genealogy that the author knows to be false or that the author knows is
without evidentiary basis. The second meaning is the one more commonly
said of other types of document: that the physical document was written
by someone other than its purported writer, usually at a time later than
it purports to have been made. In the case of the document printed in
facsimile by S. Allyn Peck in five plates opposite NEHGR (1936):371, the
first meaning is certainly true. The second meaning is quite likely
also true. The alternative is that is an authentic 17th-century forged
pedigree, at some point inspected and signed by a herald. I rather
suspect it is a much later document, by Somerby himself, for specific
reasons:

1. Horatio Gates Somerby, who sent a description and the information
from this pedigree to Ira Peck in the 1850s, is known to have concocted
genealogical information for American clients. Check the archives of
this group for discussions and citations of his works. He was not
unique in doing this. There is a good study of another such
genealogical forger of the following generation: Robert C. Anderson, "We
Wuz Robbed: The modus operandi of Gustave Anjou," and Gordon L.
Remington, "Gustave, We Hardly Knew Ye: A Portrait of Herr Anjou as a
Jungberg," published together in _Genealogical Journal 19.1-2 (1991),
47-58, and 59-70.

2. The pedigree itself contains a string, typical of eighteenth-and
nineteenth-century invented genealogies, of many generations of
armigerous Pecks, purporting to date from the twelfth to fourteenth
centuries, who probably did not exist. This is more typical of later
concoctions than of early 17th-century ones, I believe, since it seeks
to create a pedigree similar in look and feel to those published in
antiquarian works of the late 17th and 18th centuries.

3. The pedigree purports to demonstrate the armigerous ancestry of the
Pecks of Suffolk of the early 17th century, and purports to bear a
herald's sanction, similar to the style of attestation found on some
visitation pedigree manuscripts. However, compiled indexes of authentic
visitation materials, such as that developed by Cecil Humphery-Smith and
available online at http://www.achievements.co.uk, lists no visitation material
for any Suffolk Pecks. If such a pedigree was actually inspected and
signed by a herald, why is there no corresponding pedigree in any
17th-century Suffolk visitation MSS?

To test these allegations it is vital to inspect the rest of the MS and
see the physical context of this pedigree.

It is not unexpected that someone's response, after having a cherished
line shown to be invalid, would be to belligerently but unsystematically
impugn everything in sight. It is more worthwhile to use the episode to
develop criticial skills. In this case, I have done nothing but make an
allegation and suggest how it might be investigated. I have stated my
suspicions and supported them. Somerby's Peck pedigree, that's OK. I
am writing for others, and for myself, because I think it is an
interesting case.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

alden@mindspring.com

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av alden@mindspring.com » 28 okt 2007 14:05:33

On Oct 28, 12:02 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bill Arnold wrote,

"Interesante! So: the implication of this post quoted above is that the
*provenance* of the British Museum four plates leads as a DIRECT DESCENDANT [sic] of
the hand of the alleged perpetrator: Horatio Gates Somerby? Proof?"

Nat Taylor wrote,

"We are only talking about one Horatio Gates Somerby here: an
unscrupulous 19th-century genealogist who quite possibly made the
document now in the British Library up from scratch. Just because the
pedigree purports to have been written about 1620, does not make it so.
That is why it is important to have it examined by an expert."

In other words: there is NO PROOF and Nat Taylor has issued an unsupported
allegation to challenge the Pedigree of Peck in the British Museum. How
unscholarly! The loaded words, adjectives of bias, "unscrupulous" and
"quite possibly made the document" and "up from scratch" are hardly
worthy of a response, but this is THE PECK THREAD and it MUST BE
CHALLENGED as MADE UP FROM SCRATCH as a response.



Hi Bill and others.

I am a Peck descendant and the descent, if proven, would be
interesting, however:

1. If the pedigree is authentic it is not "proof" but merely one
piece of evidence which could be analyzed with other evidence.
2. It would need to be examined by an expert like Chris Phillips to
be authenticated.
3. Nat is correct that many of the pedigrees that Horatio Gates
Somerby provided clients have later been proven to be false using
wills, deeds and other written evidences. This is well documented in
the genealogical literature. Some easily accessible commentary can be
seen on the internet at: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~wdwrth/B ... ssues.html,
http://caldwellgenealogy.com/anjou.html, and http://www.progenealogists.com/preed.htm.

Doug Smith

Gjest

Re: Isabel, wife of Neil of Carrick: a conjecture

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 okt 2007 15:19:02

Dear John Ravilious,
The point you make of Robert Brus (the King)
being different from the claimant is of course true. That Robert, husband of
Isabel de Clare was the son of Isabel, 2nd daughter of David , Earl of
Huntingdon. The apparent attack on the abbey of Deer, apparently designed by Jordan
Comyn of Inverralochy and built in conjuction with his father Earl William Comyn
of Buchan still doesn`t seem the sort of thing He should do if He were in fact
Buchan`s Great grandson as Deer was meant to be a spiritual sanctuary (They
had the option of joining the monks in prayer and meditation beyond the usual
services if they wished but had the option of returning to their normal lives
when they so desired afterward.) and likely also William`s burial place.
I noticed a few months ago (June
9) you had a discussion concerning the Grahams of Dalkeith`s descent via Adam
Fitz gilbert `s daughter Christian (?) from the Comyn family and her
grandaughter Idonea Graham`s marriage to Adam de Swinburne. Do you of any documentary
evidence which links Barnaba , 1st wife of John de Strivelyn / Stirling to this
couple. He himself has been considered by some to be a descendant of Red John
Comyn I, lord of Badenoch by his wife Eva by way of MacDougal.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



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

norenxaq

Re: Scholarly Journals (was TAG)

Legg inn av norenxaq » 28 okt 2007 16:43:45

Ken Ozanne wrote:

David,
I would be most interested to know what are considered/what you
consider the major scholarly genealogical journals.

I have never seen an issue of TAG, only a couple of NEHG Register (and
they very old). I have not subscribed to your magazine partly because I
think it (quite reasonably) devoted mostly to North American genealogy. I'm
particularly interested to know if there is a scholarly British magazine
currently publishing.



The Genealogist' Magazine, produced by the Society of Genealogists in London

Gjest

Re: Scholarly Journals (was TAG)

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 okt 2007 16:54:29

On Oct 28, 1:56 am, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
Dear Ken,

The Genealogical Society in London have a very good magazine. Mr. Bierbrier
every now and then updates medieval genealogy, and I remember an article he
did involving Byzantine genealogy.

What Leo is describing is The Genealogist's Magazine. If your
interests are mostly in a region, many of the regional Family History
Societies have publications, while for medieval material there is
Foundations, the journal of the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy..

taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peck Pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 28 okt 2007 16:54:57

And that's precisely the response Arnold is displaying.

Interesting from a psychiatric perspective...

DSH

"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-DCA5D2.08391928102007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...

It is not unexpected that someone's response, after having a cherished
line shown to be invalid, would be to belligerently but unsystematically
impugn everything in sight. It is more worthwhile to use the episode to
develop criticial [sic] skills. In this case, I have done nothing but
make an allegation and suggest how it might be investigated. I have
stated my suspicions and supported them. Somerby's Peck
pedigree, that's OK. I am writing for others, and for myself, because
I think it is an interesting case.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Scholarly Journals (Was TAG)

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 28 okt 2007 16:56:27

Go Ahead...

Please flesh this out more.

You seem to be describing the Economic Theory behind Academic and
Professional Journals.

DSH

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:fg23a6$hsk$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...

John Brandon wrote:

In answer to the question:"When something is published at the
publisher's expense, isn't the publisher running a vanity press?"

No.

All I'm saying is that journals give a greater appearance of accuracy
and trustworthiness when (1) they are always on schedule (more or
less); and (2) when all costs are met by subscribers and the editor
(co-editors?) are not footing part of the bill.

In science "a greater appearance of accuracy
and trustworthiness" appears when the AUTHORS are footing the bill,
or at least half of it. Raising money purely by subscription
is unseemly. So are ads, usually, though a tradition of
both ads and excellence mitigates that.


Doug McDonald

Doug McDonald

Re: Scholarly Journals (Was TAG)

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 28 okt 2007 17:35:14

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Go Ahead...

Please flesh this out more.

You seem to be describing the Economic Theory behind Academic and
Professional Journals.



well, yes.

In science the "usual" journal gets most of its money from
the sponsor's of the research ("page charges". That is, the authors pay money
to the journal to publish the article. But the money comes from
the grant that paid for the research ... this is customarily
included as a line item for all grants from the US government
or some society or other (American Chemical Society, American
Cancer Society, etc.)

All paper or subscription web journals also charge for
paper or Internet copies, but this is not the major input.

Most journals don't accept advertising. Some, even perfectly
respectable and moderately prestigious ones do, such as Analytical
Chemistry. This is normally stuck in the front and/or back.
Analytical Chemisty ads are, as you might guess, for the
instruments that do the analyzing.


The only thing people in science expect to get paid in journals for
articles is for editorial material, not the science itself.
And it is the rare piece that qualifies for that, since most
such material is written by in-house salaried writers. I'm referring
here to the stuff you see at the front of Science or Nature.

Books, well, even in science you get paid for books and
some of the time for book chapters. For textbooks you make
substantial money off royalties ... for freshman books,
big, big money ... a half a million bucks off a book is not
unheard of. Visit our parking lot ... not all the
Ferraris, Porsches, and expensive BMWs come from
consulting deals. Most do, but some come from textbooks.


Doug McDonald

Ken Ozanne

Re: Scholarly Journals (was TAG)

Legg inn av Ken Ozanne » 28 okt 2007 18:26:27

Leo, taf,
Thank you both. I have subscribed to Foundations for a while and
now subscribe to The Genealogists Magazine as well.

I've seen quite a lot of regional journals, subscribe to some, but
the average quality of the articles is not high. I'm hoping to learn
something and also to learn how to write it up by good examples. Thus far
the only articles (apart from this and a few other lists) to impress me have
been in Foundations.

Best,
Ken


On 29/10/07 2:55, "gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com"
<gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com> wrote:

From: taf@clearwire.net
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 08:54:29 -0700
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Scholarly Journals (was TAG)

On Oct 28, 1:56 am, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
Dear Ken,

The Genealogical Society in London have a very good magazine. Mr. Bierbrier
every now and then updates medieval genealogy, and I remember an article he
did involving Byzantine genealogy.

What Leo is describing is The Genealogist's Magazine. If your
interests are mostly in a region, many of the regional Family History
Societies have publications, while for medieval material there is
Foundations, the journal of the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy..

taf

Gjest

Re: Scholarly Journals (was TAG)

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 okt 2007 18:38:58

On Oct 28, 10:26 am, Ken Ozanne <kenoza...@bordernet.com.au> wrote:
Leo, taf,
Thank you both. I have subscribed to Foundations for a while and
now subscribe to The Genealogists Magazine as well.

I've seen quite a lot of regional journals, subscribe to some, but
the average quality of the articles is not high. I'm hoping to learn
something and also to learn how to write it up by good examples. Thus far
the only articles (apart from this and a few other lists) to impress me have
been in Foundations.

There is medieval content in both TAG and NEHGR, and these articles
are usually well written, but as you rightly suggest, these journals
mostly publish material of limited interest to 'furners'. Several
(although less now than in the past) regular participants in this
group have published in these journals, and would perhaps be willing
to provide examples of their work.

taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Scholarly Journals (Was TAG)

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 28 okt 2007 18:47:28

Thanks.

Very Informative...

DSH

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:fg2e2c$lr8$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Go Ahead...

Please flesh this out more.

You seem to be describing the Economic Theory behind Academic and
Professional Journals.

well, yes.

In science the "usual" journal gets most of its money from
the sponsor's of the research ("page charges". That is, the authors pay
money
to the journal to publish the article. But the money comes from
the grant that paid for the research ... this is customarily
included as a line item for all grants from the US government
or some society or other (American Chemical Society, American
Cancer Society, etc.)

How much per page is paid? Differs by journal?

All paper or subscription web journals also charge for
paper or Internet copies, but this is not the major input.

Most journals don't accept advertising. Some, even perfectly
respectable and moderately prestigious ones do, such as Analytical
Chemistry. This is normally stuck in the front and/or back.
Analytical Chemisty ads are, as you might guess, for the
instruments that do the analyzing.

Yes the medical journals have advertising too -- front and back -- even with
a stick-on for the front covers, for some.

The only thing people in science expect to get paid in journals for
articles is for editorial material, not the science itself.
And it is the rare piece that qualifies for that, since most
such material is written by in-house salaried writers. I'm referring
here to the stuff you see at the front of Science or Nature.

O.K.

Books, well, even in science you get paid for books and
some of the time for book chapters. For textbooks you make
substantial money off royalties ... for freshman books,
big, big money ... a half a million bucks off a book is not
unheard of. Visit our parking lot ... not all the
Ferraris, Porsches, and expensive BMWs come from
consulting deals. Most do, but some come from textbooks.

Why more lucre from freshman books -- simply because more are published and
bought?

> Doug McDonald

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Scholarly Journals (Was TAG)

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 28 okt 2007 18:58:22

How about journals that focus on Southern Genealogy, particularly Virginia,
Maryland, North and South Carolina and Georgia Gateway Ancestors -- rather
than on New England, New York and Pennsylvania?

Does TAG do much of that?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

<taf@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:1193593138.681315.93230@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Oct 28, 10:26 am, Ken Ozanne <kenoza...@bordernet.com.au> wrote:
Leo, taf,

Thank you both. I have subscribed to Foundations for a while and
now subscribe to The Genealogists Magazine as well.

I've seen quite a lot of regional journals, subscribe to some,
but
the average quality of the articles is not high. I'm hoping to learn
something and also to learn how to write it up by good examples. Thus far
the only articles (apart from this and a few other lists) to impress me
have
been in Foundations.

There is medieval content in both TAG and NEHGR, and these articles
are usually well written, but as you rightly suggest, these journals
mostly publish material of limited interest to 'furners'. Several
(although less now than in the past) regular participants in this
group have published in these journals, and would perhaps be willing
to provide examples of their work.

taf

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 28 okt 2007 22:27:47

Re: remarks of Doug Smith, below:

Much thanks, Doug. And very glad to have a Peck aboard,
as, yes, if this little *hitch* in the proposed pedigree is validated,
it will, indeed, be interesante! Even Douglas Richardson will take
note! One leading genealogist told me that if Mr. S. Allyn Peck who
compiled the articles in NEHGSR in the 1930s knew what we know
now, he would have dug deeper and if he had validated it, he would
have published it rather than be praised for trashing it. Someone
said his series of articles was "dull and boring" with which I totally
disagree. This is genealogy. I admit that Mr. S. Allyn Peck was,
as one scholar termed him, "circumlocutory" in thought and expression.
And his vetting board and he seemed to have wanted to trash the
pedigree rather than resolve the question of WHO were the ancestors
of Robert Peck of Beccles.

Now: here is some more *cache* to this story. We MUST ignore
the naysayers. There are enough of them to go around. At least we
must challenge their ad hominem attacks upon us Pecks, and require
them to offer PROOF of their allegations. GEN-MEDIEVAL is a newsgroup
list of scholarship of messages, not a forum of attackers of the messengers!
They should be held to the same high standard of PROOF they demand
of others.

With all due respect to Nat Turner, as, indeed, I DO know WHO he is:
and perhaps, with a little googling, he will KNOW who I am: humble
Peck descendant, but not a *yeoman* as some have classified our
ancestors. So: Nat Turner owes us some *homework* if he wishes
to opine :) Remember he said he had not followed our THREAD but joined
after another alleged Peck descendant violated a private email, and
he, Nat, posted it against ethical standards of privacy. I believe Nat
Turner owes me an apology.

I KNOW he is a busy man, as so is Douglas Richardson, but then
so is Gary Boyd Roberts, and as I wrote, and will repeat in case you
missed it in the archives: at least Gary Boyd Roberts was enough of
a gentleman to give me the time of the day, a full hour and a half
and assisted this gen-medieval naif. Now: I am NOT a genealogy
naif, not by any stretch of imagination, but a former journalist,
college professor of English, scholar, author, et al. And Doug:
this story is NOT done yet. There are, as Will Jhonson and John
Higgins have alluded to: avenues of proof to validate the proposed
pedigree or invalidate it. Perhaps, you, Doug, have access and
understand the English system better than I. Join in, as you wish.

According to *my sources* the Pedigree of Peck PREDATES the
alleged perpetrator of an alleged fraudulent pedigree in the
British Museum allegedly created by the College of Heralds in
1620. Mr. Somerby (1805-1872) could NOT possibly be held
responsible for something created almost two centuries before
his birth, now could he? So: I do believe those who are dragging
the GOOD name of Mr. Somerby into this as the perpetrator of
a fraud owe us a DETAILED explanation of his crime. I am not
aware of it. I do not know how he could have from the 19th
century created a document which resides in the British Museum
Library and supposedly was created in 1620 by the College of
Heralds. Someone has to explain this one to me, and in the
meantime, take note of our famous genealogist:

Horatio Gates Somerby

http://famousamericans.net/horatiogatessomerby/

SOMERBY, Horatio Gates, genealogist, born in Newburyport, Massachusetts, 24 December, 1805; died
in London, England, 14 November, 1872. His ancestor, Anthony, came from England to Newbury,
Massachusetts, in 1639. He received a public-school education in his native town, studied art in
Boston, and had a studio in Troy, New York, for several years, but in 1832 returned to Boston,
where he was a fancy painter and japanner. After 1845 he resided chiefly in London as a
professional genealogist, and was the first American to devote himself exclusively to such work.
He became very skilful, and many families in this country availed themselves of his services in
tracing their English ancestry. Mr. Somerby was on confidential terms with George Peabody, and
became secretary to the board of trustees of the Peabody fund. He was a member of the New England
historic-genealogical society, to whose publications he contributed valuable papers, and a large
quantity of his unpublished material is in possession of the Massachusetts historical society,
with which he had been connected since 1859. He was the originator of systematic research for the
purpose of connecting New England families with their ancestors in Great Britain.--His brother,
Frederic Thomas, author, born in Newburyport, 4 January, 1814; died in Worcester, Massachusetts,
18 January, 1871, was educated in his native place, and became an ornamental painter. He was for
many years a correspondent of the Boston " Post" and the "Spirit of the Times," and published,
under the name of "Cymon," "Hits and Dashes, or a Medley of Sketches and Scraps touching People
and Things" (Boston, 1852). [Edited Appletons Encyclopedia, Copyright © 2001 VirtualologyTM]

Now: the PLATES of the British Museum Pedigree of Peck are in the 1936 NEHGSR, *tipped in* to be
exact, and they are,
unfortunately NOT online at the website, but ARE in the CDROM of the Register and they are in the
hardbound version:
of which I have a copy. I have DONE MY HOMEWORK, and been in communication with THE BRITISH
LIBRARY: and the
Pedigree of Peck is listed under: Shelfmark: *Additional Manuscripts, 5524, folios 158 to 160.*
Mr. Ira B. Peck, who
authored the MASTERPIECE of Pecks in 1868 referred to it as folio 152. In any event: the
CORRECTION is noted.

To be CLEAR: I DO NOT KNOW if the original manuscript in the British Museum has a KNOWN
*Provenance* but that
most assuredly will solve the problem of WHEN if not WHO delivered IT to the archives, where it
now resides. Mr. Ira B.
Peck offered his explanation which I am willing to share with you all. But I do NOT believe any
commentators, so far,
have a clue of its *PROVENANCE* and until they address that question, it is best NOT to malign
anyone, certainly NOT
Mr. Somerby. I believe SOME are going to be surprised when the TRUTH comes out. I too am looking
for truth and
certainty here, irrespective of naysayers.

More anon.

Bill

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



--- "alden@mindspring.com" <alden@mindspring.com> wrote:

On Oct 28, 12:02 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bill Arnold wrote,

"Interesante! So: the implication of this post quoted above is that the
*provenance* of the British Museum four plates leads as a DIRECT DESCENDANT [sic] of
the hand of the alleged perpetrator: Horatio Gates Somerby? Proof?"

Nat Taylor wrote,

"We are only talking about one Horatio Gates Somerby here: an
unscrupulous 19th-century genealogist who quite possibly made the
document now in the British Library up from scratch. Just because the
pedigree purports to have been written about 1620, does not make it so.
That is why it is important to have it examined by an expert."

In other words: there is NO PROOF and Nat Taylor has issued an unsupported
allegation to challenge the Pedigree of Peck in the British Museum. How
unscholarly! The loaded words, adjectives of bias, "unscrupulous" and
"quite possibly made the document" and "up from scratch" are hardly
worthy of a response, but this is THE PECK THREAD and it MUST BE
CHALLENGED as MADE UP FROM SCRATCH as a response.



Hi Bill and others.

I am a Peck descendant and the descent, if proven, would be
interesting, however:

1. If the pedigree is authentic it is not "proof" but merely one
piece of evidence which could be analyzed with other evidence.
2. It would need to be examined by an expert like Chris Phillips to
be authenticated.
3. Nat is correct that many of the pedigrees that Horatio Gates
Somerby provided clients have later been proven to be false using
wills, deeds and other written evidences. This is well documented in
the genealogical literature. Some easily accessible commentary can be
seen on the internet at: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~wdwrth/B ... ssues.html,
http://caldwellgenealogy.com/anjou.html, and http://www.progenealogists.com/preed.htm.

Doug Smith


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


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

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck Pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 28 okt 2007 22:35:17

Excuse me, gen-medieval members:

But can someone explain what is going on here, with SOMEONE
using the handle "D. Spencer Hines" is CHANNELING emails to us
from SOMEONE using the handle "Nathaniel Taylor" at another
list? Am I mistaken, or is it the SAME person?

Bill

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

And that's precisely the response Arnold is displaying.

Interesting from a psychiatric perspective...

DSH

"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-DCA5D2.08391928102007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...

It is not unexpected that someone's response, after having a cherished
line shown to be invalid, would be to belligerently but unsystematically
impugn everything in sight. It is more worthwhile to use the episode to
develop criticial [sic] skills. In this case, I have done nothing but
make an allegation and suggest how it might be investigated. I have
stated my suspicions and supported them. Somerby's Peck
pedigree, that's OK. I am writing for others, and for myself, because
I think it is an interesting case.



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

Gjest

Re: Scholarly Journals (was TAG)

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 okt 2007 22:44:02

On Oct 28, 5:08 am, Ken Ozanne <kenoza...@bordernet.com.au> wrote:
David,
I would be most interested to know what are considered/what you
consider the major scholarly genealogical journals.

I have never seen an issue of TAG, only a couple of NEHG Register (and
they very old). I have not subscribed to your magazine partly because I
think it (quite reasonably) devoted mostly to North American genealogy. I'm
particularly interested to know if there is a scholarly British magazine
currently publishing.

I have asked this question in Australian libraries without getting any
real answer. Also in FHL.


A very good question--one that I have spoken about at a number of the
national conferences.

For British research, I agree about the Genealogists' Magazine and
Foundations.

The American journals; information on subscriptions for each can be
found at the relevant website:

The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, founded 1847.
Has frequent articles on the origins of 17th-century colonists. And
is, of course, one of the oldest periodicals in the English-speaking
world.

The New York Genealogical and Biographical Record, founded 1870. Has
articles on origins of English and Dutch colonists. (The future of
this journal is in doubt; its publisher, The New York Genealogical and
Biographical Society, seems to be in meltdown and is certainly in
turmoil. But thus far, the Record continues to appear.)

The Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine, founded 1892. Has articles on
European origins, more frequently German than English.

National Genealogical Society Quarterly, founded 1912. Had Paul Reed's
article on Amie de Gaveston several years ago and has recently had
some articles by Ronald Hill on English problems. But on the whole,
very little material on English and European research and problems.

The America Genealogist [TAG] founded 1922 as the New Haven
Genealogical Magazine; current title assumed in 1932. Has frequent
articles on the origins of 17th-century colonists.

The Genealogist, founded 1980 by Neil D. Thompson, FASG. It is now
published by The American Society of Genealogists [the FASGs] through
Picton Press. It has quite a bit of European and English material,
including articles on the origins of American colonists, and it is
publishing a serial ancestor table, with citations, for Charles II of
England. See http://www.fasg.org.

Unfortunately, John Fredercik Dorman, FASG, closed down his fine
journal The Virginia Genealogist, when it completed its 50th annual
volume last year.

There are a number of excellent state-wide journals, but few as old
and none as significant for non-US research as the journals above.

I hope that this helps.

DAVID L. GREENE, FASG
Coeditor and publisher
The American Genealogist [TAG]
and
President (as of January 2008) of
The American Society of Genealogists

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peck Pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors Of Robert Peck Of Be

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 28 okt 2007 22:44:43

Hilarious!

Arnold The Fanatic.

DSH

"Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.651.1193606920.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Re: remarks of Doug Smith, below:

Much thanks, Doug. And very glad to have a Peck aboard,
as, yes, if this little *hitch* in the proposed pedigree is validated,
it will, indeed, be interesante! Even Douglas Richardson will take
note! One leading genealogist told me that if Mr. S. Allyn Peck who
compiled the articles in NEHGSR in the 1930s knew what we know
now, he would have dug deeper and if he had validated it, he would
have published it rather than be praised for trashing it. Someone
said his series of articles was "dull and boring" with which I totally
disagree. This is genealogy. I admit that Mr. S. Allyn Peck was,
as one scholar termed him, "circumlocutory" in thought and expression.
And his vetting board and he seemed to have wanted to trash the
pedigree rather than resolve the question of WHO were the ancestors
of Robert Peck of Beccles.

Now: here is some more *cache* to this story. We MUST ignore
the naysayers. There are enough of them to go around. At least we
must challenge their ad hominem attacks upon us Pecks, and require
them to offer PROOF of their allegations. GEN-MEDIEVAL is a newsgroup
list of scholarship of messages, not a forum of attackers of the
messengers!
They should be held to the same high standard of PROOF they demand
of others.

With all due respect to Nat Turner, as, indeed, I DO know WHO he is:
and perhaps, with a little googling, he will KNOW who I am: humble
Peck descendant, but not a *yeoman* as some have classified our
ancestors. So: Nat Turner owes us some *homework* if he wishes
to opine :) Remember he said he had not followed our THREAD but joined
after another alleged Peck descendant violated a private email, and
he, Nat, posted it against ethical standards of privacy. I believe Nat
Turner owes me an apology.

I KNOW he is a busy man, as so is Douglas Richardson, but then
so is Gary Boyd Roberts, and as I wrote, and will repeat in case you
missed it in the archives: at least Gary Boyd Roberts was enough of
a gentleman to give me the time of the day, a full hour and a half
and assisted this gen-medieval naif. Now: I am NOT a genealogy
naif, not by any stretch of imagination, but a former journalist,
college professor of English, scholar, author, et al. And Doug:
this story is NOT done yet. There are, as Will Jhonson and John
Higgins have alluded to: avenues of proof to validate the proposed
pedigree or invalidate it. Perhaps, you, Doug, have access and
understand the English system better than I. Join in, as you wish.

According to *my sources* the Pedigree of Peck PREDATES the
alleged perpetrator of an alleged fraudulent pedigree in the
British Museum allegedly created by the College of Heralds in
1620. Mr. Somerby (1805-1872) could NOT possibly be held
responsible for something created almost two centuries before
his birth, now could he? So: I do believe those who are dragging
the GOOD name of Mr. Somerby into this as the perpetrator of
a fraud owe us a DETAILED explanation of his crime. I am not
aware of it. I do not know how he could have from the 19th
century created a document which resides in the British Museum
Library and supposedly was created in 1620 by the College of
Heralds. Someone has to explain this one to me, and in the
meantime, take note of our famous genealogist:

Horatio Gates Somerby

http://famousamericans.net/horatiogatessomerby/

SOMERBY, Horatio Gates, genealogist, born in Newburyport, Massachusetts,
24 December, 1805; died
in London, England, 14 November, 1872. His ancestor, Anthony, came from
England to Newbury,
Massachusetts, in 1639. He received a public-school education in his
native town, studied art in
Boston, and had a studio in Troy, New York, for several years, but in 1832
returned to Boston,
where he was a fancy painter and japanner. After 1845 he resided chiefly
in London as a
professional genealogist, and was the first American to devote himself
exclusively to such work.
He became very skilful, and many families in this country availed
themselves of his services in
tracing their English ancestry. Mr. Somerby was on confidential terms with
George Peabody, and
became secretary to the board of trustees of the Peabody fund. He was a
member of the New England
historic-genealogical society, to whose publications he contributed
valuable papers, and a large
quantity of his unpublished material is in possession of the Massachusetts
historical society,
with which he had been connected since 1859. He was the originator of
systematic research for the
purpose of connecting New England families with their ancestors in Great
Britain.--His brother,
Frederic Thomas, author, born in Newburyport, 4 January, 1814; died in
Worcester, Massachusetts,
18 January, 1871, was educated in his native place, and became an
ornamental painter. He was for
many years a correspondent of the Boston " Post" and the "Spirit of the
Times," and published,
under the name of "Cymon," "Hits and Dashes, or a Medley of Sketches and
Scraps touching People
and Things" (Boston, 1852). [Edited Appletons Encyclopedia, Copyright ©
2001 VirtualologyTM]

Now: the PLATES of the British Museum Pedigree of Peck are in the 1936
NEHGSR, *tipped in* to be
exact, and they are,
unfortunately NOT online at the website, but ARE in the CDROM of the
Register and they are in the
hardbound version:
of which I have a copy. I have DONE MY HOMEWORK, and been in
communication with THE BRITISH
LIBRARY: and the
Pedigree of Peck is listed under: Shelfmark: *Additional Manuscripts,
5524, folios 158 to 160.*
Mr. Ira B. Peck, who
authored the MASTERPIECE of Pecks in 1868 referred to it as folio 152. In
any event: the
CORRECTION is noted.

To be CLEAR: I DO NOT KNOW if the original manuscript in the British
Museum has a KNOWN
*Provenance* but that
most assuredly will solve the problem of WHEN if not WHO delivered IT to
the archives, where it
now resides. Mr. Ira B.
Peck offered his explanation which I am willing to share with you all.
But I do NOT believe any
commentators, so far,
have a clue of its *PROVENANCE* and until they address that question, it
is best NOT to malign
anyone, certainly NOT
Mr. Somerby. I believe SOME are going to be surprised when the TRUTH
comes out. I too am looking
for truth and
certainty here, irrespective of naysayers.

More anon.

Bill

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



--- "alden@mindspring.com" <alden@mindspring.com> wrote:

On Oct 28, 12:02 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bill Arnold wrote,

"Interesante! So: the implication of this post quoted above is that
the
*provenance* of the British Museum four plates leads as a DIRECT
DESCENDANT [sic] of
the hand of the alleged perpetrator: Horatio Gates Somerby? Proof?"

Nat Taylor wrote,

"We are only talking about one Horatio Gates Somerby here: an
unscrupulous 19th-century genealogist who quite possibly made the
document now in the British Library up from scratch. Just because the
pedigree purports to have been written about 1620, does not make it so.
That is why it is important to have it examined by an expert."

In other words: there is NO PROOF and Nat Taylor has issued an
unsupported
allegation to challenge the Pedigree of Peck in the British Museum.
How
unscholarly! The loaded words, adjectives of bias, "unscrupulous" and
"quite possibly made the document" and "up from scratch" are hardly
worthy of a response, but this is THE PECK THREAD and it MUST BE
CHALLENGED as MADE UP FROM SCRATCH as a response.



Hi Bill and others.

I am a Peck descendant and the descent, if proven, would be
interesting, however:

1. If the pedigree is authentic it is not "proof" but merely one
piece of evidence which could be analyzed with other evidence.
2. It would need to be examined by an expert like Chris Phillips to
be authenticated.
3. Nat is correct that many of the pedigrees that Horatio Gates
Somerby provided clients have later been proven to be false using
wills, deeds and other written evidences. This is well documented in
the genealogical literature. Some easily accessible commentary can be
seen on the internet at:
http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~wdwrth/B ... ssues.html,
http://caldwellgenealogy.com/anjou.html, and
http://www.progenealogists.com/preed.htm.

Doug Smith

John Brandon

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av John Brandon » 28 okt 2007 22:44:45

Oh, I get it: you're spoofing us, aren't you? The "Nat Turner" touch
was cute (poor Nat Turner didn't even make it to the status of
"yeoman"; he was a slave.)



Re: remarks of Doug Smith, below:

Much thanks, Doug. And very glad to have a Peck aboard,
as, yes, if this little *hitch* in the proposed pedigree is validated,
it will, indeed, be interesante! Even Douglas Richardson will take
note! One leading genealogist told me that if Mr. S. Allyn Peck who
compiled the articles in NEHGSR in the 1930s knew what we know
now, he would have dug deeper and if he had validated it, he would
have published it rather than be praised for trashing it. Someone
said his series of articles was "dull and boring" with which I totally
disagree. This is genealogy. I admit that Mr. S. Allyn Peck was,
as one scholar termed him, "circumlocutory" in thought and expression.
And his vetting board and he seemed to have wanted to trash the
pedigree rather than resolve the question of WHO were the ancestors
of Robert Peck of Beccles.

Now: here is some more *cache* to this story. We MUST ignore
the naysayers. There are enough of them to go around. At least we
must challenge their ad hominem attacks upon us Pecks, and require
them to offer PROOF of their allegations. GEN-MEDIEVAL is a newsgroup
list of scholarship of messages, not a forum of attackers of the messengers!
They should be held to the same high standard of PROOF they demand
of others.

With all due respect to Nat Turner, as, indeed, I DO know WHO he is:
and perhaps, with a little googling, he will KNOW who I am: humble
Peck descendant, but not a *yeoman* as some have classified our
ancestors. So: Nat Turner owes us some *homework* if he wishes
to opine :) Remember he said he had not followed our THREAD but joined
after another alleged Peck descendant violated a private email, and
he, Nat, posted it against ethical standards of privacy. I believe Nat
Turner owes me an apology.

I KNOW he is a busy man, as so is Douglas Richardson, but then
so is Gary Boyd Roberts, and as I wrote, and will repeat in case you
missed it in the archives: at least Gary Boyd Roberts was enough of
a gentleman to give me the time of the day, a full hour and a half
and assisted this gen-medieval naif. Now: I am NOT a genealogy
naif, not by any stretch of imagination, but a former journalist,
college professor of English, scholar, author, et al. And Doug:
this story is NOT done yet. There are, as Will Jhonson and John
Higgins have alluded to: avenues of proof to validate the proposed
pedigree or invalidate it. Perhaps, you, Doug, have access and
understand the English system better than I. Join in, as you wish.

According to *my sources* the Pedigree of Peck PREDATES the
alleged perpetrator of an alleged fraudulent pedigree in the
British Museum allegedly created by the College of Heralds in
1620. Mr. Somerby (1805-1872) could NOT possibly be held
responsible for something created almost two centuries before
his birth, now could he? So: I do believe those who are dragging
the GOOD name of Mr. Somerby into this as the perpetrator of
a fraud owe us a DETAILED explanation of his crime. I am not
aware of it. I do not know how he could have from the 19th
century created a document which resides in the British Museum
Library and supposedly was created in 1620 by the College of
Heralds. Someone has to explain this one to me, and in the
meantime, take note of our famous genealogist:

Horatio Gates Somerby

http://famousamericans.net/horatiogatessomerby/

SOMERBY, Horatio Gates, genealogist, born in Newburyport, Massachusetts, 24 December, 1805; died
in London, England, 14 November, 1872. His ancestor, Anthony, came from England to Newbury,
Massachusetts, in 1639. He received a public-school education in his native town, studied art in
Boston, and had a studio in Troy, New York, for several years, but in 1832 returned to Boston,
where he was a fancy painter and japanner. After 1845 he resided chiefly in London as a
professional genealogist, and was the first American to devote himself exclusively to such work.
He became very skilful, and many families in this country availed themselves of his services in
tracing their English ancestry. Mr. Somerby was on confidential terms with George Peabody, and
became secretary to the board of trustees of the Peabody fund. He was a member of the New England
historic-genealogical society, to whose publications he contributed valuable papers, and a large
quantity of his unpublished material is in possession of the Massachusetts historical society,
with which he had been connected since 1859. He was the originator of systematic research for the
purpose of connecting New England families with their ancestors in Great Britain.--His brother,
Frederic Thomas, author, born in Newburyport, 4 January, 1814; died in Worcester, Massachusetts,
18 January, 1871, was educated in his native place, and became an ornamental painter. He was for
many years a correspondent of the Boston " Post" and the "Spirit of the Times," and published,
under the name of "Cymon," "Hits and Dashes, or a Medley of Sketches and Scraps touching People
and Things" (Boston, 1852). [Edited Appletons Encyclopedia, Copyright © 2001 VirtualologyTM]

Now: the PLATES of the British Museum Pedigree of Peck are in the 1936 NEHGSR, *tipped in* to be
exact, and they are,
unfortunately NOT online at the website, but ARE in the CDROM of the Register and they are in the
hardbound version:
of which I have a copy. I have DONE MY HOMEWORK, and been in communication with THE BRITISH
LIBRARY: and the
Pedigree of Peck is listed under: Shelfmark: *Additional Manuscripts, 5524, folios 158 to 160.*
Mr. Ira B. Peck, who
authored the MASTERPIECE of Pecks in 1868 referred to it as folio 152. In any event: the
CORRECTION is noted.

To be CLEAR: I DO NOT KNOW if the original manuscript in the British Museum has a KNOWN
*Provenance* but that
most assuredly will solve the problem of WHEN if not WHO delivered IT to the archives, where it
now resides. Mr. Ira B.
Peck offered his explanation which I am willing to share with you all. But I do NOT believe any
commentators, so far,
have a clue of its *PROVENANCE* and until they address that question, it is best NOT to malign
anyone, certainly NOT
Mr. Somerby. I believe SOME are going to be surprised when the TRUTH comes out. I too am looking
for truth and
certainty here, irrespective of naysayers.

More anon.

Bill

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





--- "al...@mindspring.com" <al...@mindspring.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 12:02 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bill Arnold wrote,

"Interesante! So: the implication of this post quoted above is that the
*provenance* of the British Museum four plates leads as a DIRECT DESCENDANT [sic] of
the hand of the alleged perpetrator: Horatio Gates Somerby? Proof?"

Nat Taylor wrote,

"We are only talking about one Horatio Gates Somerby here: an
unscrupulous 19th-century genealogist who quite possibly made the
document now in the British Library up from scratch. Just because the
pedigree purports to have been written about 1620, does not make it so.
That is why it is important to have it examined by an expert."

In other words: there is NO PROOF and Nat Taylor has issued an unsupported
allegation to challenge the Pedigree of Peck in the British Museum. How
unscholarly! The loaded words, adjectives of bias, "unscrupulous" and
"quite possibly made the document" and "up from scratch" are hardly
worthy of a response, but this is THE PECK THREAD and it MUST BE
CHALLENGED as MADE UP FROM SCRATCH as a response.

Hi Bill and others.

I am a Peck descendant and the descent, if proven, would be
interesting, however:

1. If the pedigree is authentic it is not "proof" but merely one
piece of evidence which could be analyzed with other evidence.
2. It would need to be examined by an expert like Chris Phillips to
be authenticated.
3. Nat is correct that many of the pedigrees that Horatio Gates
Somerby provided clients have later been proven to be false using
wills, deeds and other written evidences. This is well documented in
the genealogical literature. Some easily accessible commentary can be
seen on the internet at:http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~wdwrth/Billings/Issues.html,
http://caldwellgenealogy.com/anjou.html, andhttp://www.progenealogists.com/preed.htm.

Doug Smith

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

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

- Show quoted text -

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peck Pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors Of Robert Peck Of Be

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 28 okt 2007 22:47:01

Hilarious!

Arnold is about as ignorant as they come -- and NOT just in Genealogy.

DSH

"Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.652.1193607355.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Excuse me, gen-medieval members:

But can someone explain what is going on here, with SOMEONE
using the handle "D. Spencer Hines" is CHANNELING emails to us
from SOMEONE using the handle "Nathaniel Taylor" at another
list? Am I mistaken, or is it the SAME person?

Bill

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

And that's precisely the response Arnold is displaying.

Interesting from a psychiatric perspective...

DSH

"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-DCA5D2.08391928102007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...

It is not unexpected that someone's response, after having a cherished
line shown to be invalid, would be to belligerently but
unsystematically
impugn everything in sight. It is more worthwhile to use the episode
to
develop criticial [sic] skills. In this case, I have done nothing but
make an allegation and suggest how it might be investigated. I have
stated my suspicions and supported them. Somerby's Peck
pedigree, that's OK. I am writing for others, and for myself, because
I think it is an interesting case.

jonathan kirton

Re: "Magna Carta Ancestry" by Douglas Richardson

Legg inn av jonathan kirton » 28 okt 2007 23:12:42

Douglas,
Thank you very much for straightening me out on the father of Anne
Leek Kirton (nee Ruskyn).

It is evident from all your sources that she was the eldest daughter
of Jasper Ruskyn (Roskyn, Ruskan, etc.), and his evident wife
Katherine (E 150/1115 Part X/5), and the British History Online entry
which I mentioned in my posting of 27 Oct. was also correct.

The error appears to lie only in "Middlesex Pedigrees", page 13,
where Jasper is shown as the brother of Anne, Margaret and Catherine,
who were in fact all his daughters. (Katherine the youngest daughter
from your reference E 150 1115 Part X/6, although there she is shown
also as an heir in 1506; perhaps she afterwards lost that inheritance
as a result of having taken an oath or vow of poverty as a nun?) (I
wonder if the Harleian MS quoted has the same error ?)

Even in "Middlesex Pedigrees", page 106, Ann(e) is shown as the
daughter and coheire of Jesper Ruskan of Melton Mowbray in Com.
Lester (sic).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
On the question of which of John Kirton's two wives was the first
wife, I would refer back to the Harleian Manuscript 1551, fo. 73,
(actually pages 73 & 74) which shows an identical arrangement to that
shown in "Middlesex Pedigrees" pages 106 & 107, with "Margarett . d.
of Robert White of South Warnborough in Com. Southton. (sic.
Southampton; i.e. Hampshire) 1 wife." with children:-1)
William Kirton = Elizabeth d. of John Leek of Wyer Hall in
Edmonton; 2) Elizabeth ux. .... Wyburn; 3) Stephen Kirton of
London Alderman & of Edmonton = Margarett d. of William Offley of
Chester; 4) Margarett(1) ux. Jesper Leek brother of Elizabeth; 5)
Agnes 1 m. to ........Pleasance of London, Ale brewer 2 to John
Mountney.

To the left of John Kirton on the MS is shown "Ann d. & coheire of
Jesper Ruskan of Melton Mowbray in Com. Lester (sic) & widow of
John Leek of Edmonton on Com. Midlesex. (sic) 2 wife."

In John Kirton's first will, written 9 Nov., 1529 (P.C.C. 15 Jankyn)
- "And I bequeath unto my sonne Jasper Leeke and to my doughter
Margaret (1) his wife my two best Saltes with a Couer gilte, thre
goblettes of siluer with the couer parcell gilte......."
"Item I bequeathe to the said Jasper my eight draught Oxen / with
their yokes and cheynes to them b[e]longing." "Item I bequeath to my
sonne William Kyrton & Elizabeth his wife my bason and Ewer of siluer
[parcell] gilte...."
"Item I bequeathe to my son Moreton and to my doughter Margaret (2)
his wife my two saltes parcell gilt with a couer." (Children were
commonly named after a god-parent, so duplication of names in the
same family is unusual, but not unknown.)
"Item I bequeath unto my doughter Agnes Mountney a standing Cupp
gilt,....." (Agnes, his youngest daughter by his first wife, Margaret
White, by 1529 was not only married to her second husband John
Mountney, but had already given him three sons, all named in the will.)
"Item I bequeath unto my sonne Stevyn (sic) Kyrketon my standing Cupp
Colombyne faccion (Columbine means 'dovelike', so perhaps a cup
fashioned like, or decorated with a dove?) for which my lady Jenyns
gave me." (Lady Jennings is probably his own sister, also Margaret,
who was the wife of Sir Stephen Jennings, another Alderman of the
City of London.) (There is no mention in the wills that Stephen had a
wife at this time; but it is apparent that by probably early in the
next year, 1530, he had married Mrs. Margaret Nicholls (nee Offley)
because their eldest daughter, Jane Kirton is stated by Boyd, for
one, as having married Richard Whethill in 1546, at the age of 16.)
"And to this my present testament and last wille I make and ordain
myn executours Jasper Leek and William Kyrton my
sonne...................."
In his second will, written 16 Nov., 1529 - "I will that Jasper
Leeke, my wyfes sonne have my tenement in Harborowe (sic. Market
Harborough) in the countie of Leicestr' called the Swan And also all
my londes and tenements in Halstede in the Countie of Essex called
Pychard And also all suche londes and tenements as I purchased of
Thomas Combysley in Edelmeton in the Countie of Middlesex To haue and
to holde..........unto the said Jasper and to his heirs foreuer."
"And to this my present testament & last will I ordeyn and make myn
executours Jasper Leek and William Kyrketon my two sonnes........ "

I cannot see any possibility at all that John Kirton could have had
five children who had to have been born before 1510, two of which had
reached an age to marry John and Anne Leek's two children well
before 1529 (because John had five named grandchildren before he
died) unless Margaret White was the first wife, and the widow Mrs.
Anne Leek (nee Ruskyn) was the second wife. To reverse these two
wives seems to me to be a complete impossibility.
(It is fascinating to see how his spelling of the name "Kirton"
changes in the two documents; he uses Kyrketon, Kirketon, Kirton and
Kyrton completely indiscriminately.)

Sincerely, Jonathan

Don Stone

Re: Peck Pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Don Stone » 28 okt 2007 23:33:47

I think what is happening is that someone is reading messages on (and
posting messages to) the soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup, which is not
a mailing list but which is gated with the GEN-MEDIEVAL mailing list.
(See the beginning of Question 1 in the FAQ for more information:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval/faq.htm.)

-- Don Stone


Bill Arnold wrote:
Excuse me, gen-medieval members:

But can someone explain what is going on here, with SOMEONE
using the handle "D. Spencer Hines" is CHANNELING emails to us
from SOMEONE using the handle "Nathaniel Taylor" at another
list? Am I mistaken, or is it the SAME person?

Bill

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

And that's precisely the response Arnold is displaying.

Interesting from a psychiatric perspective...

DSH

"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-DCA5D2.08391928102007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...

It is not unexpected that someone's response, after having a cherished
line shown to be invalid, [....]

Gjest

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 okt 2007 23:34:58

On Oct 28, 1:27 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

And his vetting board and he seemed to have wanted to trash the
pedigree rather than resolve the question of WHO were the ancestors
of Robert Peck of Beccles.

While it sometimes disappoints descendants, 'trashing' a fraudulent
pedigree is a part of the pursuit of the actual ancestry. Replacing a
falsity with "we don't know" is still a step forward.

Now: here is some more *cache* to this story. We MUST ignore
the naysayers.

You would do so at your own peril. If you want reliable genealogy,
your aim should be to satisfy the 'naysayers'. If you ignore them,
then you blind yourself to possible flaws in your reconstruction.

With all due respect to Nat Turner, as, indeed, I DO know WHO he is:

Oh?

and perhaps, with a little googling, he will KNOW who I am: humble
Peck descendant, but not a *yeoman* as some have classified our
ancestors. So: Nat Turner owes us some *homework* if he wishes
to opine :) Remember he said he had not followed our THREAD but joined
after another alleged Peck descendant violated a private email, and
he, Nat, posted it against ethical standards of privacy. I believe Nat
Turner owes me an apology.

Nat TAYLOR simply responded to material that had appeared in the
newsgroup. If you have a problem over its posting, that problem
legitimately lies with the person who posted it, not with someone who
simply quoted the content of a newsgroup post to which he was
responding.

I KNOW he is a busy man, as so is Douglas Richardson, but then
so is Gary Boyd Roberts, and as I wrote, and will repeat in case you
missed it in the archives: at least Gary Boyd Roberts was enough of
a gentleman to give me the time of the day, a full hour and a half
and assisted this gen-medieval naif.

If you add up the time he has spent responding to you, I would guess
Nat has spent more than a full hour and a half assisting you.

According to *my sources* the Pedigree of Peck PREDATES the
alleged perpetrator of an alleged fraudulent pedigree in the
British Museum allegedly created by the College of Heralds in
1620.

Note the "allegedly" in that description.

Mr. Somerby (1805-1872) could NOT possibly be held
responsible for something created almost two centuries before
his birth, now could he? So: I do believe those who are dragging
the GOOD name of Mr. Somerby into this as the perpetrator of
a fraud owe us a DETAILED explanation of his crime.

Given that he has been caught red-handed in other instances, I am not
sure that he can fairly be said to have a "GOOD name".

I am not
aware of it. I do not know how he could have from the 19th
century created a document which resides in the British Museum
Library and supposedly was created in 1620 by the College of
Heralds. Someone has to explain this one to me,

He takes an old sheet of paper (perhaps a blank page knifed from an
old book, if he even went to that trouble). He writes his pedigree on
it. He then signs the name of a 17th century herald and writes the
date 1620. Finally, he donates it to the British Museum. This is how
he could have, from the 19th century, created a document which resides
in the British Museum Library that supposedly was created in 1620.

Now: the PLATES of the British Museum Pedigree of Peck are in the 1936 NEHGSR, *tipped in* to be

There is no S in that journal - it is NEHGR.

I have DONE MY HOMEWORK, and been in communication with THE BRITISH
LIBRARY: and the
Pedigree of Peck is listed under: Shelfmark: *Additional Manuscripts, 5524, folios 158 to 160.*
Mr. Ira B. Peck, who
authored the MASTERPIECE of Pecks in 1868 referred to it as folio 152. In any event: the
CORRECTION is noted.

Well, at least we know it actually exists.

To be CLEAR: I DO NOT KNOW if the original manuscript in the British Museum has a KNOWN
*Provenance* but that
most assuredly will solve the problem of WHEN if not WHO delivered IT to the archives, where it
now resides. Mr. Ira B.
Peck offered his explanation which I am willing to share with you all. But I do NOT believe any
commentators, so far,
have a clue of its *PROVENANCE* and until they address that question, it is best NOT to malign
anyone, certainly NOT
Mr. Somerby.

You seem to be viewing this backwards. Your critics are not
'maligning' Somerby because they doubt the Peck pedigree. They are
doubting the Peck pedigree because (among other reasons) Somerby is
known to have produced fraudulent material. When a document was
supplied by a known forger, it is simply standard practice to view it
with skepticism until/unless its authenticity can be confirmed.

I believe SOME are going to be surprised when the TRUTH comes out.

Personal belief is not always the best indicator of outcome.

I too am looking for truth and certainty here, irrespective of naysayers.

Critical evaluation is not antithetical to truth and certainty.

taf

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck Pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 28 okt 2007 23:45:04

Thanks, much. As an aside: what is the point of two different groups?

Bill

********
--- Don Stone <don@donstonetech.com> wrote:

I think what is happening is that someone is reading messages on (and
posting messages to) the soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup, which is not
a mailing list but which is gated with the GEN-MEDIEVAL mailing list.
(See the beginning of Question 1 in the FAQ for more information:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval/faq.htm.)

-- Don Stone


Bill Arnold wrote:
Excuse me, gen-medieval members:

But can someone explain what is going on here, with SOMEONE
using the handle "D. Spencer Hines" is CHANNELING emails to us
from SOMEONE using the handle "Nathaniel Taylor" at another
list? Am I mistaken, or is it the SAME person?

Bill

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

And that's precisely the response Arnold is displaying.

Interesting from a psychiatric perspective...

DSH

"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-DCA5D2.08391928102007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...

It is not unexpected that someone's response, after having a cherished
line shown to be invalid, [....]



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

Gjest

Re: Peck Pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 okt 2007 23:59:40

On Oct 28, 1:35 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Excuse me, gen-medieval members:

But can someone explain what is going on here, with SOMEONE
using the handle "D. Spencer Hines" is CHANNELING emails to us
from SOMEONE using the handle "Nathaniel Taylor" at another
list? Am I mistaken, or is it the SAME person?

This 'group' exists in several different internet media. There is a
mailing list called GEN-MEDIEVAL and a newsgroup called
soc.genealogy.medieval. The mailing list is operated by a server at
RootsWeb.com that, in addition to sending out the mailings also
functions as a gateway between the two, passing all messages from GEN-
MED to soc.gen.med, and vice versa. Further, the privately run Google
Groups server harvests posts off of soc.gen.med and puts them on a web
page, to which people can contribute directly (with the posts passed
back to soc.gen.med) or through a mailing list gated to the web page.
Because of the nature of the propagation of the various media and
gateways, you can sometimes receive a response before you see the post
to which it is responding, and sometimes (fortunately less so than in
the past), some posts never make it all the way. All of the posts are
submitted to the same collective 'group', whether they appear to come
from Google Groups, soc.gen.med or GEN-MED.

Oh, and Nat Taylor and D. Spencer Hines are presumed not to be the
same person, although I am unaware if this presumption has ever been
confirmed by the witnessing of the two of them together.

taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peck Pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors Of Robert Peck Of Be

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 29 okt 2007 00:00:46

The BURDEN of PROOF is on ARNOLD to convincingly PROVE his Peck Descent --
NOT for Nat TAYLOR, or anyone else here, to DISPROVE it.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 29 okt 2007 00:30:05

Thanks much, TAF.

My remarks are interlinear, following your format:

From: taf@clearwire.net

On Oct 28, 1:27 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

And his vetting board and he seemed to have wanted to trash the
pedigree rather than resolve the question of WHO were the ancestors
of Robert Peck of Beccles.

TAF: While it sometimes disappoints descendants, 'trashing' a fraudulent
pedigree is a part of the pursuit of the actual ancestry. Replacing a
falsity with "we don't know" is still a step forward.

BA: I am NOT disappointed. I understand your point. Otherwise: I would
have published the phony proposed pedigree as a genuine animal that
I see carousing LSD in Utah's website and the family websites and message
boards and World Connect at rootsweb. I am a scholar. OK?

Now: here is some more *cache* to this story. We MUST ignore
the naysayers.

TAF: You would do so at your own peril. If you want reliable genealogy,
your aim should be to satisfy the 'naysayers'. If you ignore them,
then you blind yourself to possible flaws in your reconstruction.

BA: Peril? A tad strong. I can satisfy naysayers who offer something
other than offer ad hominems, such as Monsieur SDH. I am open to
flaws and offers of support. Got any?

With all due respect to Nat Turner, as, indeed, I DO know WHO he is:

TAF: Oh?

BA: Oh? What? Tad elliptical? Clarify? Can't I know HIM when he
used a sig file: and LOOKED it up? It ALLEGED he teaches a course
on Medieval Warfare at Harvard. Of course, given his behaviour, that
is funny. Oh?

and perhaps, with a little googling, he will KNOW who I am: humble
Peck descendant, but not a *yeoman* as some have classified our
ancestors. So: Nat Turner owes us some *homework* if he wishes
to opine :) Remember he said he had not followed our THREAD but joined
after another alleged Peck descendant violated a private email, and
he, Nat, posted it against ethical standards of privacy. I believe Nat
Turner owes me an apology.

TAF: Nat TAYLOR simply responded to material that had appeared in the
newsgroup. If you have a problem over its posting, that problem
legitimately lies with the person who posted it, not with someone who
simply quoted the content of a newsgroup post to which he was
responding.

BA: No he did NOT. He brought to our gen-medieval a post I had
sent as private to an individual. He offered me nothing about the
Peck pedigree. If you want to see input on the Peck pedigree: read
John Higgins and Will Johnson posts to Middleton/Peck.

I KNOW he is a busy man, as so is Douglas Richardson, but then
so is Gary Boyd Roberts, and as I wrote, and will repeat in case you
missed it in the archives: at least Gary Boyd Roberts was enough of
a gentleman to give me the time of the day, a full hour and a half
and assisted this gen-medieval naif.

TAF: If you add up the time he has spent responding to you, I would guess
Nat has spent more than a full hour and a half assisting you.

BA: Name ONE SHRED OF PECK PEDIGREE INFO HE ASSISTED THIS LIST
WITH: not just me, as this is a public list.

According to *my sources* the Pedigree of Peck PREDATES the
alleged perpetrator of an alleged fraudulent pedigree in the
British Museum allegedly created by the College of Heralds in
1620.

TAF: Note the "allegedly" in that description.

BA: Of course. I told you I have a journalist's background. The
alleged adjectives are well-placed, I might add. Explain why
you want the list to "Note" them anymore than I wrote them?

Mr. Somerby (1805-1872) could NOT possibly be held
responsible for something created almost two centuries before
his birth, now could he? So: I do believe those who are dragging
the GOOD name of Mr. Somerby into this as the perpetrator of
a fraud owe us a DETAILED explanation of his crime.

TAF: Given that he has been caught red-handed in other instances, I am not
sure that he can fairly be said to have a "GOOD name".

BA: Of course you have glossed-over the issue of *PROVENANCE* have
you not? If the Peck pedigree in the British Museum is dated 1620, you
CANNOT be suggesting that Mr. Somerby had anything to do with it,
when he lived circa two centuries later? Do you NOT understand, it
IS a "red herring" to the discussion and merely shuts down seeking the
TRUTH and CERTAINTY of the Pedigree of Peck in the British Museum Library.

I am not
aware of it. I do not know how he could have from the 19th
century created a document which resides in the British Museum
Library and supposedly was created in 1620 by the College of
Heralds. Someone has to explain this one to me,

TAF: He takes an old sheet of paper (perhaps a blank page knifed from an
old book, if he even went to that trouble). He writes his pedigree on
it. He then signs the name of a 17th century herald and writes the
date 1620. Finally, he donates it to the British Museum. This is how
he could have, from the 19th century, created a document which resides
in the British Museum Library that supposedly was created in 1620.

BA: how clever! Who would have thought that such was even possible?
Like creating a usury in Jerusalem and saying the bones of Jesus were
buried in it with Mary Magdalene's name on it and therefore Jesus was
married? Is that what you mean? Provenance, Sir! What IS the provenance
of the Pedigree of Peck. Ask the British Museum Library for records? If
it was DONATED by Mr. X, then we need to look to Mr. X. And WHEN was
it donated, and when was it LOGGED as RECEIVED in their archives?



Now: the PLATES of the British Museum Pedigree of Peck are in the 1936 NEHGSR, *tipped in* to be

TAF: There is no S in that journal - it is NEHGR.

BA: I get it: NEHGS and NEHGR, org and journal :)

I have DONE MY HOMEWORK, and been in communication with THE BRITISH
LIBRARY: and the
Pedigree of Peck is listed under: Shelfmark: *Additional Manuscripts, 5524, folios 158 to 160.*
Mr. Ira B. Peck, who
authored the MASTERPIECE of Pecks in 1868 referred to it as folio 152. In any event: the
CORRECTION is noted.

TAF: Well, at least we know it actually exists.

BA: Funny, Sir. Obviously, you have not looked at it, as I have! I wonder how many scholars
if they became movie reviewers would be consider scholarly if they reviewed movies they had
NOT seen. Tell me how you do that?

To be CLEAR: I DO NOT KNOW if the original manuscript in the British Museum has a KNOWN
*Provenance* but that
most assuredly will solve the problem of WHEN if not WHO delivered IT to the archives, where it
now resides. Mr. Ira B.
Peck offered his explanation which I am willing to share with you all. But I do NOT believe any
commentators, so far,
have a clue of its *PROVENANCE* and until they address that question, it is best NOT to malign
anyone, certainly NOT
Mr. Somerby.

TAF: You seem to be viewing this backwards. Your critics are not
'maligning' Somerby because they doubt the Peck pedigree. They are
doubting the Peck pedigree because (among other reasons) Somerby is
known to have produced fraudulent material. When a document was
supplied by a known forger, it is simply standard practice to view it
with skepticism until/unless its authenticity can be confirmed.

BA: You still do NOT read well. No one know yet, at least those writing to gen-medieval,
the PROVENANCE of the Pedigree of Peck. So how can you write "When a
document was supplied by a known forger..." without being considered
less than scholarly? So, do you still think I, Bill Arnold, am "viewing this
backwards"?

I believe SOME are going to be surprised when the TRUTH comes out.

TAF: Personal belief is not always the best indicator of outcome.

BA: I seem to recall that Nat Turner wrote in an email, "I believe..."

BA: I will post more on this in a separate missive: please take note,
as a gen-medieval scholar, I believe.

I too am looking for truth and certainty here, irrespective of naysayers.

TAF: Critical evaluation is not antithetical to truth and certainty.

BA: Wow. I'm impressed. Can you elucidate?

taf

BA:

Bill

*********


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

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck Pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 29 okt 2007 00:31:03

Thanks, much, TAF. I like you. At least in this post. You write here
so straight forward, and to the point. I get it: the New York Times
and The Guardian are *W-a-T-c-h-i-n-g*!

Re: NT and DSH. I am not sure about any of it. I wonder why NT
wants DSH as his gofer and goofer? At journalist desks, I have known
assistants to kneel to get in the good graces of an editor. I have been
told by the Brits at papers I worked at that it is an Englishism :)

Bill

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

On Oct 28, 1:35 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Excuse me, gen-medieval members:

But can someone explain what is going on here, with SOMEONE
using the handle "D. Spencer Hines" is CHANNELING emails to us
from SOMEONE using the handle "Nathaniel Taylor" at another
list? Am I mistaken, or is it the SAME person?

This 'group' exists in several different internet media. There is a
mailing list called GEN-MEDIEVAL and a newsgroup called
soc.genealogy.medieval. The mailing list is operated by a server at
RootsWeb.com that, in addition to sending out the mailings also
functions as a gateway between the two, passing all messages from GEN-
MED to soc.gen.med, and vice versa. Further, the privately run Google
Groups server harvests posts off of soc.gen.med and puts them on a web
page, to which people can contribute directly (with the posts passed
back to soc.gen.med) or through a mailing list gated to the web page.
Because of the nature of the propagation of the various media and
gateways, you can sometimes receive a response before you see the post
to which it is responding, and sometimes (fortunately less so than in
the past), some posts never make it all the way. All of the posts are
submitted to the same collective 'group', whether they appear to come
from Google Groups, soc.gen.med or GEN-MED.

Oh, and Nat Taylor and D. Spencer Hines are presumed not to be the
same person, although I am unaware if this presumption has ever been
confirmed by the witnessing of the two of them together.

taf


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



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

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck Pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors Of Robert Peck Of Be

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 29 okt 2007 00:36:03

Monsieur Hines,

yawn.

As to your challenge, this is NOT medieval England, and you are not riding
a horse and you do not carry a lance at the ready. Bill Arnold accepts no
burder of proof because Bill Arnold is NOT on trial and there is NO King
to order me around, least of all by a nonce like you. Look it up! As in
crypto: I used to be member of the American Cryptogram Association.
Do not try to figure out why!

Bill

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

The BURDEN of PROOF is on ARNOLD to convincingly PROVE his Peck Descent --
NOT for Nat TAYLOR, or anyone else here, to DISPROVE it.

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

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck Pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 29 okt 2007 00:56:03

Ira B. Peck published his *A Genealogical History of the Descendants
of Joseph Peck* in Boston in 1868. In Jan 1870 W.H.W. offered a
mini-critique in *Book-Notices* of NEHGSR, page 96: See full citation at:

http:www.newenglandancestors.org/nehgsr/disk2/1870/870A096.gif

Ira. B. Peck responded in April 1870, pages 187-88, and said, in part,
among other things:

"In relation to the pedigree, I stated that it could be found in the British
Museum...[dated] 20th Nov. 1620." The three gentlemen named are
other than Mr. Somerby. Then Mr. Ira Peck, writes, in part: "It is in the
library of the British Museum...and was evidently prepared at much
expense for Nicholas Peck, the elder brother of Robert and Joseph,
who possessed, after his mother's decease, the most of his father's and
uncle's estates."

Nicholas Peck was the grandson of Robert Peck of Beccles, the Elder.
Nicholas Peck was b.15 Feb 1576, and his brother Robert was Rector
at Hingam (1580-1658) and his brother Joseph, b. 30 Apr 1587 was
gateway ancestor to America. The Reverend Robert went back to his
church in England and died there, as did Nicholas, b.1576, who never
left England.

Thus: the PLOT thickens! If Ira. B. Peck TOLD THE WORLD in 1870 that
his distant relative Nicholas,b.1576, had commissioned the Peck Pedigree
in the British Museum Library, then IF THAT IS TRUE AND CERTAIN then
the British Museum Library scholars ought to know the true provenance
of the plates (there are four). No one can make CALCULATED STATEMENTS
ABOUT THE PECK PEDIGREE and its TRUTH and CERTAINTY until the
PROVENANCE issue is decided. I can speculate, but as a descendant
I am entitled :)

Bill

*****






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

Gjest

Re: Peck Pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 okt 2007 01:10:07

Bill I think you can see that that is a bit of silly argument.

Ira Peck in the 19th century could have no idea of the truth of when the
older pedigree was prepared. So what he said on that topic isn't germane.

Will Johnson



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

Gjest

Re: Peck Pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 okt 2007 01:17:37

On Oct 28, 4:26 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanks, much, TAF. I like you. At least in this post. You write here
so straight forward, and to the point. I get it: the New York Times
and The Guardian are *W-a-T-c-h-i-n-g*!

Re: NT and DSH. I am not sure about any of it. I wonder why NT
wants DSH as his gofer and goofer?

This is not what is happening. The two are acting independently. Mr.
Taylor is posting his message to the group. Mr. Hines is then posting
a response, in the process automatically quoting the contents of Mr.
Taylor's post to provide context. You just happen to be seeing Mr.
Taylor's post second hand, but he made the original post to the group
and Mr. Hines is acting completely independently.

taf

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck Pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 29 okt 2007 01:26:02

Au Contraire.

Unless, now, we are maligning Ira Peck, as well?

Understand, according to his commentary, he wrote to thousands of
recipients all over the world: he was a Peck: if there was a family tradition,
or something for him to hang his hat on to make that *outrageous statement*
then I can take it with a grain of salt: it still must be dealt with in terms of
PROVENANCE. I have dealt with primary documents in research for decades,
and provenance is a big issue which decides many questions. If the provenance
question cannot be resolved, we have a very interesting house of cards, which
must be dealt with differently. Anyone got an inside track to the provenance
issue?

Bill

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

Bill I think you can see that that is a bit of silly argument.

Ira Peck in the 19th century could have no idea of the truth of when the
older pedigree was prepared. So what he said on that topic isn't germane.

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: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 29 okt 2007 01:28:04

In article <mailman.651.1193606920.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:

Much thanks, Doug. And very glad to have a Peck aboard,
as, yes, if this little *hitch* in the proposed pedigree is validated,
it will, indeed, be interesante! Even Douglas Richardson will take
note! One leading genealogist told me that if Mr. S. Allyn Peck who
compiled the articles in NEHGSR in the 1930s knew what we know
now, he would have dug deeper and if he had validated it, he would
have published it rather than be praised for trashing it. Someone
said his series of articles was "dull and boring" with which I totally
disagree. This is genealogy. I admit that Mr. S. Allyn Peck was,
as one scholar termed him, "circumlocutory" in thought and expression.
And his vetting board and he seemed to have wanted to trash the
pedigree rather than resolve the question of WHO were the ancestors
of Robert Peck of Beccles.

Part of the process of finding true genealogies is to expose incorrect
ones.

By the way, as I posted earlier, S. Allyn Peck (Shirley Allyn Peck) was
a woman.

We MUST ignore the naysayers. There are enough of them to go around.

Ignoring "naysayers" (at least those who present valid critical
observations) will never resolve doubts about an issue in question. It
is an unfortunate defensive reaction that typefies naive genealogists.

At least we
must challenge their ad hominem attacks upon us Pecks ...

To interpret criticisms of genealogies as ad-hominem attacks on the
descendants of the subjects of those genealogies, is also, I am sorry to
say, somewhat naive.

and require
them to offer PROOF of their allegations. GEN-MEDIEVAL is a newsgroup
list of scholarship of messages, not a forum of attackers of the messengers!
They should be held to the same high standard of PROOF they demand
of others.

The burden of proof works unequally. In modern genealogy, it is the
duty of the proponent of any genealogy to prove it. If legitimate
doubts are aired, the proponent of a genealogy needs to address those
doubts. Critics of a genealogy do not need to prove a different
genealogy, or to prove the genealogy impossible. In logical terms, the
converse of proof is doubt, not disproof.

That being said, I am interested in pursuing the question I raised,
about whether the pedigree printed in facsimile by S. Allyn Peck is
actually a (physical) forgery by Somerby. I do not presume to know for
sure--but I have stated the grounds for my suspicion. Don't YOU want to
know the truth about it, too?

With all due respect to Nat Turner, as, indeed, I DO know WHO he is:
and perhaps, with a little googling, he will KNOW who I am: humble
Peck descendant, but not a *yeoman* as some have classified our
ancestors. So: Nat Turner owes us some *homework* if he wishes
to opine :) Remember he said he had not followed our THREAD but joined
after another alleged Peck descendant violated a private email, and
he, Nat, posted it against ethical standards of privacy. I believe Nat
Turner owes me an apology.

No. I replied, in the same forum, to a (public) message by John Brandon,
which quoted a message you had sent him.

I KNOW he is a busy man, as so is Douglas Richardson, but then
so is Gary Boyd Roberts, and as I wrote, and will repeat in case you
missed it in the archives: at least Gary Boyd Roberts was enough of
a gentleman to give me the time of the day, a full hour and a half
and assisted this gen-medieval naif. Now: I am NOT a genealogy
naif, not by any stretch of imagination, but a former journalist,
college professor of English, scholar, author, et al. And Doug:
this story is NOT done yet. There are, as Will Jhonson and John
Higgins have alluded to: avenues of proof to validate the proposed
pedigree or invalidate it. Perhaps, you, Doug, have access and
understand the English system better than I. Join in, as you wish.

According to *my sources* the Pedigree of Peck PREDATES the
alleged perpetrator of an alleged fraudulent pedigree in the
British Museum allegedly created by the College of Heralds in
1620. Mr. Somerby (1805-1872) could NOT possibly be held
responsible for something created almost two centuries before
his birth, now could he?

Correction: the pedigree of Peck allegedly predates Mr. Somerby. Given
the doubts which have been raised about the document--let alone the
evident falsehood of the genealogy contained in it--it is quite
reasonable to be suspicious of anything about it, especially its
apparent age.

So: I do believe those who are dragging
the GOOD name of Mr. Somerby...

<...>

<snipped: laudatory sketch of Somerby from the following URL:>

http://famousamericans.net/horatiogatessomerby/

Please note that this sketch was written for _Appleton's Cyclopedia of
American Biography_, published from 1887 to 1889--rather before Mr.
Somerby's genealogical career was significantly reassessed in the light
of modern scholarship in the field.

Now: the PLATES of the British Museum Pedigree of Peck are in the 1936
NEHGSR, *tipped in* to be exact

I may have misspoken: they were likely bound in rather than tipped in,
but on a separate unpaginated signature of glossy stock.

and they are,
unfortunately NOT online at the website, but ARE in the CDROM of the Register

They ARE on the website, just out of order, at the end of the issue
(keep page-clicking forward past the ads, etc.). The images I made
available to this list on pdf (linked from a previous message of mine)
were drawn from the NEHGS website (the journal is accessible there only
to NEHGS members).

As an aside, I wonder if the CD-ROM images of these plates are higher
resolution than those from the website. Many of the Register's
illustrations scanned at high resolution for the CD-ROM set seem to have
been downsampled for the on-line version (e.g., the heraldic line
drawings for the Roll of Arms). I would appreciate it if someone who
has the CD-ROM version could make these five plates available in pdf
form, if they are indeed of higher resolution than the versions from the
website. For convenience's sake, I here repost a link to the plates
containing the purported 17th-century Peck pedigree, here (260K):

http://www.nltaylor.net/temp/Peck_pedigree_1620.pdf

and the whole 72-page article series by Shirley Allyn Peck, including
the plate, here (3.7 MB):

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

of which I have a copy. I have DONE MY HOMEWORK, and been in communication
with THE BRITISH
LIBRARY: and the
Pedigree of Peck is listed under: Shelfmark: *Additional Manuscripts, 5524,
folios 158 to 160.*

Good! What did you learn, if anything, of the nature, date and
provenance of the whole volume of Add. MS 5524?

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Gjest

Re: Peck Pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 okt 2007 01:30:21

On Oct 28, 3:41 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanks, much. As an aside: what is the point of two different groups?


The group was first formed as the USENET newsgroup
soc.genealogy.medieval. However, at the time (and still) there were
many internet genealogists who preferred to exchange genealogical
information via email (or did not have access to a reliable USENET
server), and so the GEN-MEDIEVAL mailing list and gateway were created
in order to allow these email-preferring genealogists to still
participate in soc.gen.med.

As to the Google groups gateway, this started as simply an archive of
all USENET posts, but the company running it then added both the
ability to post and their own linked mailing lists.

taf

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Peck Pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 29 okt 2007 01:59:50

In article <mailman.663.1193617398.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:

Will Johnson wrote:

Bill Arnold wrote:

Ira B. Peck published his *A Genealogical History of the Descendants
of Joseph Peck* in Boston in 1868. In Jan 1870 W.H.W. offered a
mini-critique in *Book-Notices* of NEHGSR, page 96...

Ira. B. Peck responded in April 1870, pages 187-88, and said, in part:

"In relation to the pedigree, I stated that it could be found in the
British Museum...[dated] 20th Nov. 1620." . . . "It is in
the library of the British Museum...and was evidently prepared at much
expense for Nicholas Peck, the elder brother of Robert and Joseph,
who possessed, after his mother's decease, the most of his father's and
uncle's estates."

Thus: the PLOT thickens! If Ira. B. Peck TOLD THE WORLD in 1870 that
his distant relative Nicholas, b.1576, had commissioned the Peck Pedigree
in the British Museum Library, then IF THAT IS TRUE AND CERTAIN then
the British Museum Library scholars ought to know the true provenance
of the plates (there are four). No one can make CALCULATED STATEMENTS
ABOUT THE PECK PEDIGREE and its TRUTH and CERTAINTY until the
PROVENANCE issue is decided. I can speculate, but as a descendant
I am entitled :)

Bill I think you can see that that is a bit of silly argument.

Ira Peck in the 19th century could have no idea of the truth of when the
older pedigree was prepared. So what he said on that topic isn't germane.

Au Contraire.

Unless, now, we are maligning Ira Peck, as well?

Mr. Peck was not in a position to judge the authenticity of the Peck
pedigree communicated to him by Somerby. Ira Peck is only 'maligned' to
the point that (as Will notes above) he cannot vouch to us for the
pedigree. He may have been duped. He took Somerby at his word--and
needed to defend it because even to contemporaries in 1870 (especially
someone as sound as William H. Whitmore [WHW], who wrote the notice in
NEHGR) it looked a tad suspicious.

The irony is that, suspicious as Whitmore was, he declared he would be
satisfied if Somerby vouched for it--and of course Somerby had!

I made a pdf of the 1870 exchange between Whitmore and Peck, available
at:

http://www.nltaylor.net/temp/Peck_NEHGR_1870.pdf

For what it's worth, Ira Peck's _Peck Genealogy_ is available at
ancestry.com. It gives a typeset version of the pedigree published in
photographs by Shirley Allyn Peck, but nothing else of value for the
question at hand.

Understand, according to his commentary, he wrote to thousands of
recipients all over the world: he was a Peck: if there was a family
tradition,
or something for him to hang his hat on to make that *outrageous statement*
then I can take it with a grain of salt: it still must be dealt with in terms
of
PROVENANCE. I have dealt with primary documents in research for decades,
and provenance is a big issue which decides many questions. If the
provenance
question cannot be resolved, we have a very interesting house of cards, which
must be dealt with differently. Anyone got an inside track to the provenance
issue?

Bill

YOU already do. What did you learn from the British Library about Add.
MS 5524?

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Gjest

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 okt 2007 03:22:31

On Oct 28, 4:20 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: t...@clearwire.net

On Oct 28, 1:27 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

With all due respect to Nat Turner, as, indeed, I DO know WHO he is:

TAF: Oh?

BA: Oh? What? Tad elliptical? Clarify? Can't I know HIM when he
used a sig file: and LOOKED it up? It ALLEGED he teaches a course
on Medieval Warfare at Harvard. Of course, given his behaviour, that
is funny. Oh?

I was simply (admittedly elliptically) drawing attention to the irony
of saying you know who someone is, while using the name of the leader
of a pre-Civil War leader of revolting slaves.

and perhaps, with a little googling, he will KNOW who I am: humble
Peck descendant, but not a *yeoman* as some have classified our
ancestors. So: Nat Turner owes us some *homework* if he wishes
to opine :) Remember he said he had not followed our THREAD but joined
after another alleged Peck descendant violated a private email, and
he, Nat, posted it against ethical standards of privacy. I believe Nat
Turner owes me an apology.

TAF: Nat TAYLOR simply responded to material that had appeared in the
newsgroup. If you have a problem over its posting, that problem
legitimately lies with the person who posted it, not with someone who
simply quoted the content of a newsgroup post to which he was
responding.

BA: No he did NOT. He brought to our gen-medieval a post I had
sent as private to an individual.

Here you are mistaken, and as you are demanding apologies, it is
important that you demand it of the right person or it will be you who
owes the wrongly accused an apology. In the thread "Middleton
pedigree, 1100-1600 . . . " on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:00:39 -0700, (in
other words, 16:00 GMT) a post from John Brandon hit the Google
archive, containing the entire contents of your private message.
Then, on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:28:03 -0400, (17:28 GMT) Mr. Taylor's
response hit the archive, responding to Mr. Brandon's post and quoting
just a portion of the entire email previously posted by Mr. Brandon.
This course of events is still preserved in the Google Groups archive
to soc.gen.medieval.

He offered me nothing about the
Peck pedigree.

Actually he offered quite a bit, and you thanked him for it at the
time.

According to *my sources* the Pedigree of Peck PREDATES the
alleged perpetrator of an alleged fraudulent pedigree in the
British Museum allegedly created by the College of Heralds in
1620.

TAF: Note the "allegedly" in that description.

BA: Of course. I told you I have a journalist's background. The
alleged adjectives are well-placed, I might add. Explain why
you want the list to "Note" them anymore than I wrote them?

Because you then go on to say that Mr. Somerby "could NOT possibly be
held responsible for something created almost two centuries before his
birth, now could he?" as if the word "allegedly" did not appear in
this dating statement.

Mr. Somerby (1805-1872) could NOT possibly be held
responsible for something created almost two centuries before
his birth, now could he? So: I do believe those who are dragging
the GOOD name of Mr. Somerby into this as the perpetrator of
a fraud owe us a DETAILED explanation of his crime.

TAF: Given that he has been caught red-handed in other instances, I am not
sure that he can fairly be said to have a "GOOD name".

BA: Of course you have glossed-over the issue of *PROVENANCE* have
you not? If the Peck pedigree in the British Museum is dated 1620, you
CANNOT be suggesting that Mr. Somerby had anything to do with it,
when he lived circa two centuries later?

If the Peck pedigree ACTUALLY DATES from 1620, then clearly Mr. S
could have nothing to do with it, but if it is only DATES 1620, that
does not imply that the date placed on the manuscript is the actual
date of composition. Again _allegedly_.

Do you NOT understand, it
IS a "red herring" to the discussion and merely shuts down seeking the
TRUTH and CERTAINTY of the Pedigree of Peck in the British Museum Library.

It does nothing of the sort. The only thing that would stop you from
seeking the truth would be the destruction of the document or your own
demise (and I would not favor either). I few years ago I concluded
that the transcript of a baptismal record was erroneous. Far from
preventing me from seeking certainty, this suspicion spurred me to
consult the original, thereby proving that my supposition was correct:
the original record differed from the transcript.

I am not
aware of it. I do not know how he could have from the 19th
century created a document which resides in the British Museum
Library and supposedly was created in 1620 by the College of
Heralds. Someone has to explain this one to me,

TAF: He takes an old sheet of paper (perhaps a blank page knifed from an
old book, if he even went to that trouble). He writes his pedigree on
it. He then signs the name of a 17th century herald and writes the
date 1620. Finally, he donates it to the British Museum. This is how
he could have, from the 19th century, created a document which resides
in the British Museum Library that supposedly was created in 1620.

BA: how clever! Who would have thought that such was even possible?
Like creating a usury in Jerusalem and saying the bones of Jesus were
buried in it with Mary Magdalene's name on it and therefore Jesus was
married? Is that what you mean? Provenance, Sir! What IS the provenance
of the Pedigree of Peck. Ask the British Museum Library for records? If
it was DONATED by Mr. X, then we need to look to Mr. X. And WHEN was
it donated, and when was it LOGGED as RECEIVED in their archives?

Quite, and until we know, we are all free to speculate - you that it
is authentic, others that it is not.

I have DONE MY HOMEWORK, and been in communication with THE BRITISH
LIBRARY: and the
Pedigree of Peck is listed under: Shelfmark: *Additional Manuscripts, 5524, folios 158 to 160.*
Mr. Ira B. Peck, who
authored the MASTERPIECE of Pecks in 1868 referred to it as folio 152. In any event: the
CORRECTION is noted.

TAF: Well, at least we know it actually exists.

BA: Funny, Sir. Obviously, you have not looked at it, as I have! I wonder how many scholars
if they became movie reviewers would be consider scholarly if they reviewed movies they had
NOT seen. Tell me how you do that?

I once spent most of a day trying to find a manuscript said to be in
the collection of the Pennsylvania Genealogical Society. I eventually
was forced to give up, and strolled to the Pennsylvania Historical
Society. On a whim I looked up the subject there, and as you can
probably guess, found the manuscript. That it has been confirmed that
a manuscript is actually to be found in the British Library is, in
fact, an incremental improvement over it simply having been said to be
found there, particularly when forgery has been alleged.

To be CLEAR: I DO NOT KNOW if the original manuscript in the British Museum has a KNOWN
*Provenance* but that
most assuredly will solve the problem of WHEN if not WHO delivered IT to the archives, where it
now resides. Mr. Ira B.
Peck offered his explanation which I am willing to share with you all. But I do NOT believe any
commentators, so far,
have a clue of its *PROVENANCE* and until they address that question, it is best NOT to malign
anyone, certainly NOT
Mr. Somerby.

TAF: You seem to be viewing this backwards. Your critics are not
'maligning' Somerby because they doubt the Peck pedigree. They are
doubting the Peck pedigree because (among other reasons) Somerby is
known to have produced fraudulent material. When a document was
supplied by a known forger, it is simply standard practice to view it
with skepticism until/unless its authenticity can be confirmed.

BA: You still do NOT read well. No one know yet, at least those writing to gen-medieval,
the PROVENANCE of the Pedigree of Peck. So how can you write "When a
document was supplied by a known forger..." without being considered
less than scholarly?

From an earlier post in the Middleton thread: "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". That is precisely how I can write "When a document was
supplied by a known forger..." without being considered less than
scholarly.

taf

Gjest

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 okt 2007 03:22:31

On Oct 28, 4:20 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: t...@clearwire.net

On Oct 28, 1:27 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

With all due respect to Nat Turner, as, indeed, I DO know WHO he is:

TAF: Oh?

BA: Oh? What? Tad elliptical? Clarify? Can't I know HIM when he
used a sig file: and LOOKED it up? It ALLEGED he teaches a course
on Medieval Warfare at Harvard. Of course, given his behaviour, that
is funny. Oh?

I was simply (admittedly elliptically) drawing attention to the irony
of saying you know who someone is, while using the name of the leader
of a pre-Civil War leader of revolting slaves.

and perhaps, with a little googling, he will KNOW who I am: humble
Peck descendant, but not a *yeoman* as some have classified our
ancestors. So: Nat Turner owes us some *homework* if he wishes
to opine :) Remember he said he had not followed our THREAD but joined
after another alleged Peck descendant violated a private email, and
he, Nat, posted it against ethical standards of privacy. I believe Nat
Turner owes me an apology.

TAF: Nat TAYLOR simply responded to material that had appeared in the
newsgroup. If you have a problem over its posting, that problem
legitimately lies with the person who posted it, not with someone who
simply quoted the content of a newsgroup post to which he was
responding.

BA: No he did NOT. He brought to our gen-medieval a post I had
sent as private to an individual.

Here you are mistaken, and as you are demanding apologies, it is
important that you demand it of the right person or it will be you who
owes the wrongly accused an apology. In the thread "Middleton
pedigree, 1100-1600 . . . " on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:00:39 -0700, (in
other words, 16:00 GMT) a post from John Brandon hit the Google
archive, containing the entire contents of your private message.
Then, on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:28:03 -0400, (17:28 GMT) Mr. Taylor's
response hit the archive, responding to Mr. Brandon's post and quoting
just a portion of the entire email previously posted by Mr. Brandon.
This course of events is still preserved in the Google Groups archive
to soc.gen.medieval.

He offered me nothing about the
Peck pedigree.

Actually he offered quite a bit, and you thanked him for it at the
time.

According to *my sources* the Pedigree of Peck PREDATES the
alleged perpetrator of an alleged fraudulent pedigree in the
British Museum allegedly created by the College of Heralds in
1620.

TAF: Note the "allegedly" in that description.

BA: Of course. I told you I have a journalist's background. The
alleged adjectives are well-placed, I might add. Explain why
you want the list to "Note" them anymore than I wrote them?

Because you then go on to say that Mr. Somerby "could NOT possibly be
held responsible for something created almost two centuries before his
birth, now could he?" as if the word "allegedly" did not appear in
this dating statement.

Mr. Somerby (1805-1872) could NOT possibly be held
responsible for something created almost two centuries before
his birth, now could he? So: I do believe those who are dragging
the GOOD name of Mr. Somerby into this as the perpetrator of
a fraud owe us a DETAILED explanation of his crime.

TAF: Given that he has been caught red-handed in other instances, I am not
sure that he can fairly be said to have a "GOOD name".

BA: Of course you have glossed-over the issue of *PROVENANCE* have
you not? If the Peck pedigree in the British Museum is dated 1620, you
CANNOT be suggesting that Mr. Somerby had anything to do with it,
when he lived circa two centuries later?

If the Peck pedigree ACTUALLY DATES from 1620, then clearly Mr. S
could have nothing to do with it, but if it is only DATES 1620, that
does not imply that the date placed on the manuscript is the actual
date of composition. Again _allegedly_.

Do you NOT understand, it
IS a "red herring" to the discussion and merely shuts down seeking the
TRUTH and CERTAINTY of the Pedigree of Peck in the British Museum Library.

It does nothing of the sort. The only thing that would stop you from
seeking the truth would be the destruction of the document or your own
demise (and I would not favor either). I few years ago I concluded
that the transcript of a baptismal record was erroneous. Far from
preventing me from seeking certainty, this suspicion spurred me to
consult the original, thereby proving that my supposition was correct:
the original record differed from the transcript.

I am not
aware of it. I do not know how he could have from the 19th
century created a document which resides in the British Museum
Library and supposedly was created in 1620 by the College of
Heralds. Someone has to explain this one to me,

TAF: He takes an old sheet of paper (perhaps a blank page knifed from an
old book, if he even went to that trouble). He writes his pedigree on
it. He then signs the name of a 17th century herald and writes the
date 1620. Finally, he donates it to the British Museum. This is how
he could have, from the 19th century, created a document which resides
in the British Museum Library that supposedly was created in 1620.

BA: how clever! Who would have thought that such was even possible?
Like creating a usury in Jerusalem and saying the bones of Jesus were
buried in it with Mary Magdalene's name on it and therefore Jesus was
married? Is that what you mean? Provenance, Sir! What IS the provenance
of the Pedigree of Peck. Ask the British Museum Library for records? If
it was DONATED by Mr. X, then we need to look to Mr. X. And WHEN was
it donated, and when was it LOGGED as RECEIVED in their archives?

Quite, and until we know, we are all free to speculate - you that it
is authentic, others that it is not.

I have DONE MY HOMEWORK, and been in communication with THE BRITISH
LIBRARY: and the
Pedigree of Peck is listed under: Shelfmark: *Additional Manuscripts, 5524, folios 158 to 160.*
Mr. Ira B. Peck, who
authored the MASTERPIECE of Pecks in 1868 referred to it as folio 152. In any event: the
CORRECTION is noted.

TAF: Well, at least we know it actually exists.

BA: Funny, Sir. Obviously, you have not looked at it, as I have! I wonder how many scholars
if they became movie reviewers would be consider scholarly if they reviewed movies they had
NOT seen. Tell me how you do that?

I once spent most of a day trying to find a manuscript said to be in
the collection of the Pennsylvania Genealogical Society. I eventually
was forced to give up, and strolled to the Pennsylvania Historical
Society. On a whim I looked up the subject there, and as you can
probably guess, found the manuscript. That it has been confirmed that
a manuscript is actually to be found in the British Library is, in
fact, an incremental improvement over it simply having been said to be
found there, particularly when forgery has been alleged.

To be CLEAR: I DO NOT KNOW if the original manuscript in the British Museum has a KNOWN
*Provenance* but that
most assuredly will solve the problem of WHEN if not WHO delivered IT to the archives, where it
now resides. Mr. Ira B.
Peck offered his explanation which I am willing to share with you all. But I do NOT believe any
commentators, so far,
have a clue of its *PROVENANCE* and until they address that question, it is best NOT to malign
anyone, certainly NOT
Mr. Somerby.

TAF: You seem to be viewing this backwards. Your critics are not
'maligning' Somerby because they doubt the Peck pedigree. They are
doubting the Peck pedigree because (among other reasons) Somerby is
known to have produced fraudulent material. When a document was
supplied by a known forger, it is simply standard practice to view it
with skepticism until/unless its authenticity can be confirmed.

BA: You still do NOT read well. No one know yet, at least those writing to gen-medieval,
the PROVENANCE of the Pedigree of Peck. So how can you write "When a
document was supplied by a known forger..." without being considered
less than scholarly?

From an earlier post in the Middleton thread: "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". That is precisely how I can write "When a document was
supplied by a known forger..." without being considered less than
scholarly.

taf

Gjest

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 okt 2007 03:22:31

On Oct 28, 4:20 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: t...@clearwire.net

On Oct 28, 1:27 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

With all due respect to Nat Turner, as, indeed, I DO know WHO he is:

TAF: Oh?

BA: Oh? What? Tad elliptical? Clarify? Can't I know HIM when he
used a sig file: and LOOKED it up? It ALLEGED he teaches a course
on Medieval Warfare at Harvard. Of course, given his behaviour, that
is funny. Oh?

I was simply (admittedly elliptically) drawing attention to the irony
of saying you know who someone is, while using the name of the leader
of a pre-Civil War leader of revolting slaves.

and perhaps, with a little googling, he will KNOW who I am: humble
Peck descendant, but not a *yeoman* as some have classified our
ancestors. So: Nat Turner owes us some *homework* if he wishes
to opine :) Remember he said he had not followed our THREAD but joined
after another alleged Peck descendant violated a private email, and
he, Nat, posted it against ethical standards of privacy. I believe Nat
Turner owes me an apology.

TAF: Nat TAYLOR simply responded to material that had appeared in the
newsgroup. If you have a problem over its posting, that problem
legitimately lies with the person who posted it, not with someone who
simply quoted the content of a newsgroup post to which he was
responding.

BA: No he did NOT. He brought to our gen-medieval a post I had
sent as private to an individual.

Here you are mistaken, and as you are demanding apologies, it is
important that you demand it of the right person or it will be you who
owes the wrongly accused an apology. In the thread "Middleton
pedigree, 1100-1600 . . . " on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:00:39 -0700, (in
other words, 16:00 GMT) a post from John Brandon hit the Google
archive, containing the entire contents of your private message.
Then, on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:28:03 -0400, (17:28 GMT) Mr. Taylor's
response hit the archive, responding to Mr. Brandon's post and quoting
just a portion of the entire email previously posted by Mr. Brandon.
This course of events is still preserved in the Google Groups archive
to soc.gen.medieval.

He offered me nothing about the
Peck pedigree.

Actually he offered quite a bit, and you thanked him for it at the
time.

According to *my sources* the Pedigree of Peck PREDATES the
alleged perpetrator of an alleged fraudulent pedigree in the
British Museum allegedly created by the College of Heralds in
1620.

TAF: Note the "allegedly" in that description.

BA: Of course. I told you I have a journalist's background. The
alleged adjectives are well-placed, I might add. Explain why
you want the list to "Note" them anymore than I wrote them?

Because you then go on to say that Mr. Somerby "could NOT possibly be
held responsible for something created almost two centuries before his
birth, now could he?" as if the word "allegedly" did not appear in
this dating statement.

Mr. Somerby (1805-1872) could NOT possibly be held
responsible for something created almost two centuries before
his birth, now could he? So: I do believe those who are dragging
the GOOD name of Mr. Somerby into this as the perpetrator of
a fraud owe us a DETAILED explanation of his crime.

TAF: Given that he has been caught red-handed in other instances, I am not
sure that he can fairly be said to have a "GOOD name".

BA: Of course you have glossed-over the issue of *PROVENANCE* have
you not? If the Peck pedigree in the British Museum is dated 1620, you
CANNOT be suggesting that Mr. Somerby had anything to do with it,
when he lived circa two centuries later?

If the Peck pedigree ACTUALLY DATES from 1620, then clearly Mr. S
could have nothing to do with it, but if it is only DATES 1620, that
does not imply that the date placed on the manuscript is the actual
date of composition. Again _allegedly_.

Do you NOT understand, it
IS a "red herring" to the discussion and merely shuts down seeking the
TRUTH and CERTAINTY of the Pedigree of Peck in the British Museum Library.

It does nothing of the sort. The only thing that would stop you from
seeking the truth would be the destruction of the document or your own
demise (and I would not favor either). I few years ago I concluded
that the transcript of a baptismal record was erroneous. Far from
preventing me from seeking certainty, this suspicion spurred me to
consult the original, thereby proving that my supposition was correct:
the original record differed from the transcript.

I am not
aware of it. I do not know how he could have from the 19th
century created a document which resides in the British Museum
Library and supposedly was created in 1620 by the College of
Heralds. Someone has to explain this one to me,

TAF: He takes an old sheet of paper (perhaps a blank page knifed from an
old book, if he even went to that trouble). He writes his pedigree on
it. He then signs the name of a 17th century herald and writes the
date 1620. Finally, he donates it to the British Museum. This is how
he could have, from the 19th century, created a document which resides
in the British Museum Library that supposedly was created in 1620.

BA: how clever! Who would have thought that such was even possible?
Like creating a usury in Jerusalem and saying the bones of Jesus were
buried in it with Mary Magdalene's name on it and therefore Jesus was
married? Is that what you mean? Provenance, Sir! What IS the provenance
of the Pedigree of Peck. Ask the British Museum Library for records? If
it was DONATED by Mr. X, then we need to look to Mr. X. And WHEN was
it donated, and when was it LOGGED as RECEIVED in their archives?

Quite, and until we know, we are all free to speculate - you that it
is authentic, others that it is not.

I have DONE MY HOMEWORK, and been in communication with THE BRITISH
LIBRARY: and the
Pedigree of Peck is listed under: Shelfmark: *Additional Manuscripts, 5524, folios 158 to 160.*
Mr. Ira B. Peck, who
authored the MASTERPIECE of Pecks in 1868 referred to it as folio 152. In any event: the
CORRECTION is noted.

TAF: Well, at least we know it actually exists.

BA: Funny, Sir. Obviously, you have not looked at it, as I have! I wonder how many scholars
if they became movie reviewers would be consider scholarly if they reviewed movies they had
NOT seen. Tell me how you do that?

I once spent most of a day trying to find a manuscript said to be in
the collection of the Pennsylvania Genealogical Society. I eventually
was forced to give up, and strolled to the Pennsylvania Historical
Society. On a whim I looked up the subject there, and as you can
probably guess, found the manuscript. That it has been confirmed that
a manuscript is actually to be found in the British Library is, in
fact, an incremental improvement over it simply having been said to be
found there, particularly when forgery has been alleged.

To be CLEAR: I DO NOT KNOW if the original manuscript in the British Museum has a KNOWN
*Provenance* but that
most assuredly will solve the problem of WHEN if not WHO delivered IT to the archives, where it
now resides. Mr. Ira B.
Peck offered his explanation which I am willing to share with you all. But I do NOT believe any
commentators, so far,
have a clue of its *PROVENANCE* and until they address that question, it is best NOT to malign
anyone, certainly NOT
Mr. Somerby.

TAF: You seem to be viewing this backwards. Your critics are not
'maligning' Somerby because they doubt the Peck pedigree. They are
doubting the Peck pedigree because (among other reasons) Somerby is
known to have produced fraudulent material. When a document was
supplied by a known forger, it is simply standard practice to view it
with skepticism until/unless its authenticity can be confirmed.

BA: You still do NOT read well. No one know yet, at least those writing to gen-medieval,
the PROVENANCE of the Pedigree of Peck. So how can you write "When a
document was supplied by a known forger..." without being considered
less than scholarly?

From an earlier post in the Middleton thread: "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". That is precisely how I can write "When a document was
supplied by a known forger..." without being considered less than
scholarly.

taf

Gjest

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 okt 2007 03:22:31

On Oct 28, 4:20 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: t...@clearwire.net

On Oct 28, 1:27 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

With all due respect to Nat Turner, as, indeed, I DO know WHO he is:

TAF: Oh?

BA: Oh? What? Tad elliptical? Clarify? Can't I know HIM when he
used a sig file: and LOOKED it up? It ALLEGED he teaches a course
on Medieval Warfare at Harvard. Of course, given his behaviour, that
is funny. Oh?

I was simply (admittedly elliptically) drawing attention to the irony
of saying you know who someone is, while using the name of the leader
of a pre-Civil War leader of revolting slaves.

and perhaps, with a little googling, he will KNOW who I am: humble
Peck descendant, but not a *yeoman* as some have classified our
ancestors. So: Nat Turner owes us some *homework* if he wishes
to opine :) Remember he said he had not followed our THREAD but joined
after another alleged Peck descendant violated a private email, and
he, Nat, posted it against ethical standards of privacy. I believe Nat
Turner owes me an apology.

TAF: Nat TAYLOR simply responded to material that had appeared in the
newsgroup. If you have a problem over its posting, that problem
legitimately lies with the person who posted it, not with someone who
simply quoted the content of a newsgroup post to which he was
responding.

BA: No he did NOT. He brought to our gen-medieval a post I had
sent as private to an individual.

Here you are mistaken, and as you are demanding apologies, it is
important that you demand it of the right person or it will be you who
owes the wrongly accused an apology. In the thread "Middleton
pedigree, 1100-1600 . . . " on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:00:39 -0700, (in
other words, 16:00 GMT) a post from John Brandon hit the Google
archive, containing the entire contents of your private message.
Then, on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:28:03 -0400, (17:28 GMT) Mr. Taylor's
response hit the archive, responding to Mr. Brandon's post and quoting
just a portion of the entire email previously posted by Mr. Brandon.
This course of events is still preserved in the Google Groups archive
to soc.gen.medieval.

He offered me nothing about the
Peck pedigree.

Actually he offered quite a bit, and you thanked him for it at the
time.

According to *my sources* the Pedigree of Peck PREDATES the
alleged perpetrator of an alleged fraudulent pedigree in the
British Museum allegedly created by the College of Heralds in
1620.

TAF: Note the "allegedly" in that description.

BA: Of course. I told you I have a journalist's background. The
alleged adjectives are well-placed, I might add. Explain why
you want the list to "Note" them anymore than I wrote them?

Because you then go on to say that Mr. Somerby "could NOT possibly be
held responsible for something created almost two centuries before his
birth, now could he?" as if the word "allegedly" did not appear in
this dating statement.

Mr. Somerby (1805-1872) could NOT possibly be held
responsible for something created almost two centuries before
his birth, now could he? So: I do believe those who are dragging
the GOOD name of Mr. Somerby into this as the perpetrator of
a fraud owe us a DETAILED explanation of his crime.

TAF: Given that he has been caught red-handed in other instances, I am not
sure that he can fairly be said to have a "GOOD name".

BA: Of course you have glossed-over the issue of *PROVENANCE* have
you not? If the Peck pedigree in the British Museum is dated 1620, you
CANNOT be suggesting that Mr. Somerby had anything to do with it,
when he lived circa two centuries later?

If the Peck pedigree ACTUALLY DATES from 1620, then clearly Mr. S
could have nothing to do with it, but if it is only DATES 1620, that
does not imply that the date placed on the manuscript is the actual
date of composition. Again _allegedly_.

Do you NOT understand, it
IS a "red herring" to the discussion and merely shuts down seeking the
TRUTH and CERTAINTY of the Pedigree of Peck in the British Museum Library.

It does nothing of the sort. The only thing that would stop you from
seeking the truth would be the destruction of the document or your own
demise (and I would not favor either). I few years ago I concluded
that the transcript of a baptismal record was erroneous. Far from
preventing me from seeking certainty, this suspicion spurred me to
consult the original, thereby proving that my supposition was correct:
the original record differed from the transcript.

I am not
aware of it. I do not know how he could have from the 19th
century created a document which resides in the British Museum
Library and supposedly was created in 1620 by the College of
Heralds. Someone has to explain this one to me,

TAF: He takes an old sheet of paper (perhaps a blank page knifed from an
old book, if he even went to that trouble). He writes his pedigree on
it. He then signs the name of a 17th century herald and writes the
date 1620. Finally, he donates it to the British Museum. This is how
he could have, from the 19th century, created a document which resides
in the British Museum Library that supposedly was created in 1620.

BA: how clever! Who would have thought that such was even possible?
Like creating a usury in Jerusalem and saying the bones of Jesus were
buried in it with Mary Magdalene's name on it and therefore Jesus was
married? Is that what you mean? Provenance, Sir! What IS the provenance
of the Pedigree of Peck. Ask the British Museum Library for records? If
it was DONATED by Mr. X, then we need to look to Mr. X. And WHEN was
it donated, and when was it LOGGED as RECEIVED in their archives?

Quite, and until we know, we are all free to speculate - you that it
is authentic, others that it is not.

I have DONE MY HOMEWORK, and been in communication with THE BRITISH
LIBRARY: and the
Pedigree of Peck is listed under: Shelfmark: *Additional Manuscripts, 5524, folios 158 to 160.*
Mr. Ira B. Peck, who
authored the MASTERPIECE of Pecks in 1868 referred to it as folio 152. In any event: the
CORRECTION is noted.

TAF: Well, at least we know it actually exists.

BA: Funny, Sir. Obviously, you have not looked at it, as I have! I wonder how many scholars
if they became movie reviewers would be consider scholarly if they reviewed movies they had
NOT seen. Tell me how you do that?

I once spent most of a day trying to find a manuscript said to be in
the collection of the Pennsylvania Genealogical Society. I eventually
was forced to give up, and strolled to the Pennsylvania Historical
Society. On a whim I looked up the subject there, and as you can
probably guess, found the manuscript. That it has been confirmed that
a manuscript is actually to be found in the British Library is, in
fact, an incremental improvement over it simply having been said to be
found there, particularly when forgery has been alleged.

To be CLEAR: I DO NOT KNOW if the original manuscript in the British Museum has a KNOWN
*Provenance* but that
most assuredly will solve the problem of WHEN if not WHO delivered IT to the archives, where it
now resides. Mr. Ira B.
Peck offered his explanation which I am willing to share with you all. But I do NOT believe any
commentators, so far,
have a clue of its *PROVENANCE* and until they address that question, it is best NOT to malign
anyone, certainly NOT
Mr. Somerby.

TAF: You seem to be viewing this backwards. Your critics are not
'maligning' Somerby because they doubt the Peck pedigree. They are
doubting the Peck pedigree because (among other reasons) Somerby is
known to have produced fraudulent material. When a document was
supplied by a known forger, it is simply standard practice to view it
with skepticism until/unless its authenticity can be confirmed.

BA: You still do NOT read well. No one know yet, at least those writing to gen-medieval,
the PROVENANCE of the Pedigree of Peck. So how can you write "When a
document was supplied by a known forger..." without being considered
less than scholarly?

From an earlier post in the Middleton thread: "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". That is precisely how I can write "When a document was
supplied by a known forger..." without being considered less than
scholarly.

taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peck Pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors Of Robert Peck Of Be

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 29 okt 2007 04:31:13

Arnold is a would-be con artist.

He thinks if he just keeps playing dumb, belligerant and firing blanks then
people will feel sorry for him and do his genealogical work for him.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Peck pedigree [Somerby's good name]

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 29 okt 2007 04:36:21

I wrote:

Bill Arnold wrote:

So: I do believe those who are dragging
the GOOD name of Mr. Somerby...

snipped: laudatory sketch of Somerby from the following URL:

http://famousamericans.net/horatiogatessomerby/

Please note that this sketch was written for _Appleton's Cyclopedia of
American Biography_, published from 1887 to 1889--rather before Mr.
Somerby's genealogical career was significantly reassessed in the light
of modern scholarship in the field.

For a modern assessment, see Paul C. Reed, "Two Somerby Frauds, or
'Placing the Flesh on the Wrong Bones'," TAG 74 (1999), 15-30.

Paul concludes (p. 30):

"Henry Swan Dana's account of the Billings Family ... (1889), calls ...
Somerby 'a distinguished American genealogist ... living in London'.
The distinguishing aspect of Somerby's career must now be his fraud."

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Gjest

Re: Peck Pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 okt 2007 05:16:03

In a message dated 10/28/2007 5:23:41 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:

Au Contraire.

Unless, now, we are maligning Ira Peck, as well?


-------------
To say someone mispoke does not malign them. If so, then we are all
maligned, you, I, every person can mispeak. If he was relying on someone else to
tell him thus-and-so and he repeated it (without citation), we've all done that.

We however, are in the position today, to say, well... perhaps he repeated
this verbatim from some other source without citation, however, we know that he
could not have known the truth of the matter first-hand.

I know you can see that. Ira Peck was not present in the 16th century, all
he can say, or should have is, it *appears* to be, it *seems* to be,
*evidently*. He cannot know what occurred as a fact.

Will Johnson



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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peck Pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors Of Robert Peck Of Be

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 29 okt 2007 05:25:05

Recte:

Arnold is a would-be con artist.

He thinks if he just keeps playing dumb, belligerent and firing blanks then
people will feel sorry for him, want to "educate" him in _How To Do
Genealogy Properly_ and do his genealogical work for him.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Ken Ozanne

Re: Scholarly Journals (was TAG)

Legg inn av Ken Ozanne » 29 okt 2007 09:33:58

On 29/10/07 8:50, "gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com"
<gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com> wrote:

From: amgen@alltel.net
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:44:02 -0700
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Scholarly Journals (was TAG)

On Oct 28, 5:08 am, Ken Ozanne <kenoza...@bordernet.com.au> wrote:
David,
I would be most interested to know what are considered/what you
consider the major scholarly genealogical journals.

I have never seen an issue of TAG, only a couple of NEHG Register (and
they very old). I have not subscribed to your magazine partly because I
think it (quite reasonably) devoted mostly to North American genealogy. I'm
particularly interested to know if there is a scholarly British magazine
currently publishing.

I have asked this question in Australian libraries without getting any
real answer. Also in FHL.


A very good question--one that I have spoken about at a number of the
national conferences.

For British research, I agree about the Genealogists' Magazine and
Foundations.

The American journals; information on subscriptions for each can be
found at the relevant website:

The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, founded 1847.
Has frequent articles on the origins of 17th-century colonists. And
is, of course, one of the oldest periodicals in the English-speaking
world.

The New York Genealogical and Biographical Record, founded 1870. Has
articles on origins of English and Dutch colonists. (The future of
this journal is in doubt; its publisher, The New York Genealogical and
Biographical Society, seems to be in meltdown and is certainly in
turmoil. But thus far, the Record continues to appear.)

The Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine, founded 1892. Has articles on
European origins, more frequently German than English.

National Genealogical Society Quarterly, founded 1912. Had Paul Reed's
article on Amie de Gaveston several years ago and has recently had
some articles by Ronald Hill on English problems. But on the whole,
very little material on English and European research and problems.

The America Genealogist [TAG] founded 1922 as the New Haven
Genealogical Magazine; current title assumed in 1932. Has frequent
articles on the origins of 17th-century colonists.

The Genealogist, founded 1980 by Neil D. Thompson, FASG. It is now
published by The American Society of Genealogists [the FASGs] through
Picton Press. It has quite a bit of European and English material,
including articles on the origins of American colonists, and it is
publishing a serial ancestor table, with citations, for Charles II of
England. See http://www.fasg.org.

Unfortunately, John Fredercik Dorman, FASG, closed down his fine
journal The Virginia Genealogist, when it completed its 50th annual
volume last year.

There are a number of excellent state-wide journals, but few as old
and none as significant for non-US research as the journals above.

I hope that this helps.

DAVID L. GREENE, FASG
Coeditor and publisher
The American Genealogist [TAG]
and
President (as of January 2008) of
The American Society of Genealogists

Thank you very much for that, David. I'll try to look at a few issues of

each of them when I am in the US next year.

Best,
Ken

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 29 okt 2007 16:05:05

--- taf@clearwire.net wrote:

TAF: "I was simply (admittedly elliptically) drawing attention to the irony
of saying you know who someone is, while using the name of the leader
of a pre-Civil War leader of revolting slaves."

BA: You might term it a *faux pas* but I would rather called it my subconscious
speaking to me, and you all: you see I was born in St. Petersburg, Florida,
and my paternal ancestors go back to north Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and South
Carolina, and a tad into North Carolina, with a few RS thrown in for good measure:
it is my maternal lines which come
from the northern United States: and I had ancestors in both sides of the War
Between the States, including a few *Blue Turncoats* [no pun intended :)]
and for my M.F.A. thesis at UMass-Amherst I wrote a novel about a infamous
historical incident in west central Florida, in the 19-teens, albeit writing during
the turbulent days of Martin Luther King's marches, and it all turns on my awareness
of Nat Turner!

Bill

*****

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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Scholarly Journals (Was TAG)

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 29 okt 2007 16:11:16

We still don't have a good handle on competent Genealogical Journals that
concentrate on Southern Ancestors -- Gateway Ancestors of the American
South.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Ken Ozanne" <kenozanne@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.667.1193648356.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
On 29/10/07 8:50, "gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com"
gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com> wrote:

From: amgen@alltel.net
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:44:02 -0700
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Scholarly Journals (was TAG)

On Oct 28, 5:08 am, Ken Ozanne <kenoza...@bordernet.com.au> wrote:
David,
I would be most interested to know what are considered/what you
consider the major scholarly genealogical journals.

I have never seen an issue of TAG, only a couple of NEHG Register
(and
they very old). I have not subscribed to your magazine partly because I
think it (quite reasonably) devoted mostly to North American genealogy.
I'm
particularly interested to know if there is a scholarly British magazine
currently publishing.

I have asked this question in Australian libraries without getting
any
real answer. Also in FHL.


A very good question--one that I have spoken about at a number of the
national conferences.

For British research, I agree about the Genealogists' Magazine and
Foundations.

The American journals; information on subscriptions for each can be
found at the relevant website:

The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, founded 1847.
Has frequent articles on the origins of 17th-century colonists. And
is, of course, one of the oldest periodicals in the English-speaking
world.

The New York Genealogical and Biographical Record, founded 1870. Has
articles on origins of English and Dutch colonists. (The future of
this journal is in doubt; its publisher, The New York Genealogical and
Biographical Society, seems to be in meltdown and is certainly in
turmoil. But thus far, the Record continues to appear.)

The Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine, founded 1892. Has articles on
European origins, more frequently German than English.

National Genealogical Society Quarterly, founded 1912. Had Paul Reed's
article on Amie de Gaveston several years ago and has recently had
some articles by Ronald Hill on English problems. But on the whole,
very little material on English and European research and problems.

The America Genealogist [TAG] founded 1922 as the New Haven
Genealogical Magazine; current title assumed in 1932. Has frequent
articles on the origins of 17th-century colonists.

The Genealogist, founded 1980 by Neil D. Thompson, FASG. It is now
published by The American Society of Genealogists [the FASGs] through
Picton Press. It has quite a bit of European and English material,
including articles on the origins of American colonists, and it is
publishing a serial ancestor table, with citations, for Charles II of
England. See http://www.fasg.org.

Unfortunately, John Fredercik Dorman, FASG, closed down his fine
journal The Virginia Genealogist, when it completed its 50th annual
volume last year.

There are a number of excellent state-wide journals, but few as old
and none as significant for non-US research as the journals above.

I hope that this helps.

DAVID L. GREENE, FASG
Coeditor and publisher
The American Genealogist [TAG]
and
President (as of January 2008) of
The American Society of Genealogists

Thank you very much for that, David. I'll try to look at a few issues
of
each of them when I am in the US next year.

Best,
Ken

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck Pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 29 okt 2007 16:36:02

Well, let me make another stab at this conundrum. I read Douglas Hickling's
article on Mowbrays and saw it was associated with a group at rootsweb called
gen-medieval. I joined gen-medieval. I did NOT join google or some other
group(s) and ONLY post to gen-medieval. I CANNOT BE RESPONSIBLE for
posts other than to gen-medieval. I do NOT read other groups because I
do NOT have a clue of them, just as I did NOT have a clue about a Peck group
at rootsweb which Mr. Taylor IMPLIED I should have been aware of. Period.

Bill

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

On Oct 28, 3:41 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanks, much. As an aside: what is the point of two different groups?


The group was first formed as the USENET newsgroup
soc.genealogy.medieval. However, at the time (and still) there were
many internet genealogists who preferred to exchange genealogical
information via email (or did not have access to a reliable USENET
server), and so the GEN-MEDIEVAL mailing list and gateway were created
in order to allow these email-preferring genealogists to still
participate in soc.gen.med.

As to the Google groups gateway, this started as simply an archive of
all USENET posts, but the company running it then added both the
ability to post and their own linked mailing lists.

taf


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



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

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 29 okt 2007 16:46:12

TAF: Nat TAYLOR simply responded to material that had appeared in the
newsgroup. If you have a problem over its posting, that problem
legitimately lies with the person who posted it, not with someone who
simply quoted the content of a newsgroup post to which he was
responding.

BA: No he did NOT. He brought to our gen-medieval a post I had
sent as private to an individual.

TAF: Here you are mistaken, and as you are demanding apologies, it is
important that you demand it of the right person or it will be you who
owes the wrongly accused an apology. In the thread "Middleton
pedigree, 1100-1600 . . . " on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:00:39 -0700, (in
other words, 16:00 GMT) a post from John Brandon hit the Google
archive, containing the entire contents of your private message.BA:
Then, on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:28:03 -0400, (17:28 GMT) Mr. Taylor's
response hit the archive, responding to Mr. Brandon's post and quoting
just a portion of the entire email previously posted by Mr. Brandon.
This course of events is still preserved in the Google Groups archive
to soc.gen.medieval.

BA: I AM GOING TO PUT THIS IN CAPS SO YOU CANNOT ESCAPE ITS
COGENT MEANING. I POST TO GEN-MEDIEVAL. I CANNOT BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR WHAT IS HAPPENING AT OTHER WEBSITES, MESSAGE BOARDS, ETC.
IF MR. TAYLOR IS SO SMART AND TEACHES AT HARVAAARD THEN HE
OUGHT TO UNDERSTAND THAT HE OWES THE RETURN MESSAGE TO THE
BOARD IT CAME FROM. AND YOU OUGHT TO DESIST IN PUTTING SPIN
ON IT OTHER THAN THE TRUTH AND CERTAINTY OF THIS RESPONSE.

Bill

******


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

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 29 okt 2007 17:17:01

TAF: I once spent most of a day trying to find a manuscript said to be in
the collection of the Pennsylvania Genealogical Society. I eventually
was forced to give up, and strolled to the Pennsylvania Historical
Society. On a whim I looked up the subject there, and as you can
probably guess, found the manuscript. That it has been confirmed that
a manuscript is actually to be found in the British Library is, in
fact, an incremental improvement over it simply having been said to be
found there, particularly when forgery has been alleged.

BA: In a response yesterday to gen-medieval, I wrote about the statement
in 1870 of Ira B. Peck that it was his gateway ancestor Joseph Peck's
brother who commissioned the Pedigree of Peck in the late 1500s or
early 1600s. That seems to go nicely with the date on the British Museum
document: 1620, as Ira B. Peck put in his book. Will Johnson thought I
was being silly to think that Ira B. Peck could know that Nicholas Peck
had spent money and time, as Ira stated more fully, on such a mission
almost two centuries before Ira and his alleged cohort Somerby were supposedly
plotting a fraud. The implication is clear: Ira B. Peck was in on the fraud?

I do NOT know. But I do know this: in the 1960s when I was doing my
initial research on my ancestors I did what Ira B. did, I communicated with
all living relatives and relationships directed to who could provide info.
I communicated with a lady in Tampa, Florida, who said she had info
about my great-great-great-grandfather. She gave me handwritten
notes from her father, who's grandfather was the same man. We were
cousins. And I got personal written info *said* to be nearly 200 years
old. Some of it has been confirmed, and some of it has not. But clearly
the case is the same with Ira B. Peck, and this pedigree of Peck. There
IS a statement by the author of the book who brought this pedigree to
light that THE PEDIGREE OF PECK HAS A KNOWN PROVENANCE WHICH
APPEARS TO PREDATE SOMERBY BY ALMOST TWO HUNDRED YEARS.

Now: I KNOW that Ira B. Peck did the same kind of initial research on his
ancestors. And IT IS NOT UNREASONABLE to conclude that he might
have received similar communication: otherwise he would NOT have
written what he wrote in the 1870 NEHGSR as he did: unless he were
a party to a fraud. Here is some of Ira B. Peck in his introduction to
his 1868 book:

"No one of them will ever know the amount of labor and toil and money
it has cost me, or the difficulties, perplexities and discouragements with
which I have had to contend. The collection of the material, and the
arrangement of it, has occupied much of my time for more than ten
years. During that time, I have not only travelled much, but my
correspondence has extended into nearly all the United States and
Territories, the British Provinces, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, the
Canadas and England. I have written and sent out about 3,000 letters,
and 1,000 printed circulars. Of these letters, I have preserved copies
of over 2,700. In answer to them, I have on file received from my
correspondents over 2,000, many of them of much interest, all of
which, if published would make a volume maybe larger than this"
[intro, page 1].

More than likely, the Ira. B. Peck papers are housed at the New England
Historical Genealogical Society in Boston. Perhaps some scholars
will look up this matter.

Bill

*****










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

John Brandon

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Be

Legg inn av John Brandon » 29 okt 2007 17:42:23

By the way, as I posted earlier, S. Allyn Peck (Shirley Allyn Peck) was
a woman.

Nat, I agree with everything else you've said, but I think S. Allyn
Peck was probably a man (Shirley was one of those attrocious names,
like Beverly or Leslie, that started out as a man's name in the
nineteenth century before being adopted for women in the twentieth).
Apparently Shirley Allyn Peck was unhappy with his first name and
started using "S. Allyn," in which Allyn is unmistakeably a male name.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peck Pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors Of Robert Peck Of Be

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 29 okt 2007 18:00:03

Plausible...

Who has the definitive answer?...

With a quotation and citation, of course....

Not just opining.

DSH

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193676143.178021.55440@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

By the way, as I posted earlier, S. Allyn Peck (Shirley Allyn Peck) was
a woman.

Nat, I agree with everything else you've said, but I think S. Allyn
Peck was probably a man (Shirley was one of those atrocious names,
like Beverly or Leslie, that started out as a man's name in the
nineteenth century before being adopted for women in the twentieth).
Apparently Shirley Allyn Peck was unhappy with his first name and
started using "S. Allyn," in which Allyn is unmistakably a male name.


Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Peck pedigree: Shirley Allyn Peck was a man: sorry!

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 29 okt 2007 18:18:34

In article <1193676143.178021.55440@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
John Brandon <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote:

By the way, as I posted earlier, S. Allyn Peck (Shirley Allyn Peck) was
a woman.

Nat, I agree with everything else you've said, but I think S. Allyn
Peck was probably a man (Shirley was one of those attrocious names,
like Beverly or Leslie, that started out as a man's name in the
nineteenth century before being adopted for women in the twentieth).
Apparently Shirley Allyn Peck was unhappy with his first name and
started using "S. Allyn," in which Allyn is unmistakeably a male name.

John, you're right: Shirley Allyn Peck was a man. One URL from a
newsletter of the Columbia University library describes S. Allyn Peck as
"an alumnus of the Columbia business school:"

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/news/li ... stackpoole
..html

And then I found him as a child (a son) in his parents' house in the
1910 Census (New York, New York, Manhattan Ward 12, District 654, page
2 of 36).

I didn't have a handle on his birth date, but now realize he was born in
the swing era for that name: the census shows him as either 8 or 3 in
1910 (kind of hard to read).

Oops!

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peck Pedigree: Shirley Allyn Peck Was A Man: Sorry!

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 29 okt 2007 18:25:45

Good Show By John Brandon.

Nat has also confused the SWING ERA, the 1930's -- with the RAGTIME ERA, the
early 20th Century.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Nathaniel Taylor" <nltaylor@nltaylor.net> wrote in message
news:nltaylor-783D0E.13183429102007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
In article <1193676143.178021.55440@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
John Brandon <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote:

By the way, as I posted earlier, S. Allyn Peck (Shirley Allyn Peck) was
a woman.

Nat, I agree with everything else you've said, but I think S. Allyn
Peck was probably a man (Shirley was one of those attrocious names,
like Beverly or Leslie, that started out as a man's name in the
nineteenth century before being adopted for women in the twentieth).
Apparently Shirley Allyn Peck was unhappy with his first name and
started using "S. Allyn," in which Allyn is unmistakeably a male name.

John, you're right: Shirley Allyn Peck was a man. One URL from a
newsletter of the Columbia University library describes S. Allyn Peck as
"an alumnus of the Columbia business school:"

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/news/li ... stackpoole
.html

And then I found him as a child (a son) in his parents' house in the
1910 Census (New York, New York, Manhattan Ward 12, District 654, page
2 of 36).

I didn't have a handle on his birth date, but now realize he was born in
the swing era for that name: the census shows him as either 8 or 3 in
1910 (kind of hard to read).

Oops!

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»