Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Peck pedigree: newsgroup/list structure

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 29 okt 2007 18:34:15

In article <mailman.690.1193675621.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:

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.

Rather than 'spin', Todd is trying to educate you about the way this
particular Usenet newsgroup / mail list / web forum operates,
functionally, as a single extended public message medium.

John Brandon originally posted your e-mail message to the google groups
web interface, whence it went to the Usenet server network, whence it
went to the gen-medieval mail list gateway, and thence back to you. I
read John Brandon's message on my ISPs Usenet server. My reply to John
Brandon's message was posted directly to my ISP's Usenet server, with
the understanding that it would ultimately propagate coterminously with
the message to which it replied. And it did: it went both to the
gen-medieval mail list gateway, and to the googlegroups Usenet gate,
probably in parallel via distributed Usenet message propagation. This
is the way the system is designed, and it is beneficial to have so many
available technical means of participation in what amounts to a single
meta-group.

Your all caps here seem to show an increasing desperation in seeking
some sort of moral high ground, on any aspect of this thread. Just take
a deep breath, get over yourself, and you can continue to discuss (1)
the real ancestry of the Beccles Pecks; and (2) the interesting question
of the bogus Peck pedigree.

I'm personally much more interested in (2) than (1), but I'm sure you
can make headway on both if you modulate your approach a bit.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peck Pedigree: Newsgroup/List Structure

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 29 okt 2007 18:43:10

"Nathaniel Taylor" <nltaylor@nltaylor.net> wrote in message
news:nltaylor-994595.13341529102007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...

In article <mailman.690.1193675621.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:

Arnoldesque Eyewash Deleted -- DSH

Your all caps here seem to show an increasing desperation in seeking
some sort of moral high ground, on any aspect of this thread. Just take
a deep breath, get over yourself, and you can continue to discuss (1)
the real ancestry of the Beccles Pecks; and (2) the interesting question
of the bogus Peck pedigree.

Amusing...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

John Brandon

Re: Peck Pedigree: Shirley Allyn Peck Was A Man: Sorry!

Legg inn av John Brandon » 29 okt 2007 19:36:52

Nat has also confused the SWING ERA, the 1930's -- with the RAGTIME ERA, the
early 20th Century.

Spency, pay attention. Nat said "the swing era for that name" --
i.e., the period in which it ("Shirley") could be used for either sex.

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 okt 2007 19:52:36

On Oct 29, 7:46 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
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.

Shouting will not clarify the point. Particularly when what you are
shouting is at variance with the reality of the situation. Before we
proceed, then, let's take a deep breath and try again.

<inhale> . . . . . . . . <exhale>

OK. First, you seem to still not appreciate the relationship between
GEN-MEDIEVAL and soc.gen.medieval. GEN-MEDIEVAL _is_ soc.gen.medieval.
They are one and the same group, just with two names, as required by
preexisting naming formats. The different names only distinguish the
means one uses to read and send in messages to this group. Google is
an archive of soc.gen.med, and as such serves as a convenient archive
for GEN-MEDIEVAL as well. That being said, there is also an archive
for GEN-MEDIEVAL.

The GEN-MEDIEVAL Archive, hosted by RootsWeb, contains the following
post, made on the 22 Oct at just after 9:00 PDT (16:00 GMT)

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/ge ... 1193068839

This is a post from Mr. Brandon. It contains the complete contents of
your email. This is unimpeachable evidence that this post appeared on
the GEN-MEDIEVAL list. It was followed by the following post:

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/ge ... 1193074083

This was made by Mr. Taylor at 13:28 EDT (17:28 GMT) in response to,
and quoting, Mr. Brandon's post.

These records make it clear that Mr. Taylor was quoting a prior post
from Mr. Brandon that appeared in GEN-MEDIEVAL/soc.gen.medieval, and
it was this prior post from Mr. Brandon that contained the
objectionable material.

To address your various strident accusations, then, Mr. Taylor was
_not_ the person who brought your private email to the group. Mr.
Taylor _did_ reply to the same group in which he read the post. I
have _not_ been putting spin on it, but rather explaining what the
record unambiguously shows. If these points remain unclear to you,
then perhaps a request for further clarification will produce better
results than a shouted rant.

taf

John Brandon

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

Legg inn av John Brandon » 29 okt 2007 20:15:40

This is a post from Mr. Brandon. It contains the complete contents of
your email. This is unimpeachable evidence that this post appeared on
the GEN-MEDIEVAL list. It was followed by the following post:

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/ge ... 1193074083

This was made by Mr. Taylor at 13:28 EDT (17:28 GMT) in response to,
and quoting, Mr. Brandon's post.

These records make it clear that Mr. Taylor was quoting a prior post
from Mr. Brandon that appeared in GEN-MEDIEVAL/soc.gen.medieval, and
it was this prior post from Mr. Brandon that contained the
objectionable material.

To address your various strident accusations, then, Mr. Taylor was
_not_ the person who brought your private email to the group. Mr.
Taylor _did_ reply to the same group in which he read the post. I
have _not_ been putting spin on it, but rather explaining what the
record unambiguously shows. If these points remain unclear to you,
then perhaps a request for further clarification will produce better
results than a shouted rant.

taf


All right, Todd, throw me under the bus ... ;)

But, yes, what Mr Farmerie says is correct.

Personally I think Bill Arnold must be whacked out on something (if
only life or mental illness).

terrence White

Re: Sir Thomas Browne (died 1460) and Eleanor Arundel

Legg inn av terrence White » 29 okt 2007 21:06:04

Thanks very much to Vance Mead and Douglas Richardson who responded to my inquiry and provided some very useful references.

T.J. "Terry" White

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

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck pedigree: Shirley Allyn Peck was a man: sorry!

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 29 okt 2007 21:16:03

Will someone tell these gents that Bill Arnold started this Peck thread on
gen-medieval and they ought to have the courtesy to continue it there!
I have no idea who's bright idea, below, it was to malign S. Allyn Peck
and call him a woman. For God's sakes, gents, Gary Boyd Roberts personally
knew the man and told me so himself. And what in the world has all this
folderol got to do with the Peck pedigree? According to TAF, you gents
are too busy to post about serious stuff, like genealogy. So: stop being
gnats, and go back to work, or else contribute genealogy.

Bill

******
--- Nathaniel Taylor <nltaylor@nltaylor.net> wrote:

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

-------------------------------
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: Peck pedigree: Shirley Allyn Peck was a man: sorry!

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 okt 2007 21:26:30

On Oct 29, 1:02 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Will someone tell these gents that Bill Arnold started this Peck thread on
gen-medieval and they ought to have the courtesy to continue it there!

Given that this thread has 63 posts and counting, its continuation on
GEN-MEDIEVAL seems not to be a problem. . . . or are you still under
the mis-impression that soc.gen.med is a distinct group?

I have no idea who's bright idea, below, it was to malign S. Allyn Peck
and call him a woman.

I see nothing there that would malign him, unless you think that being
mistaken about his gender is malignant. I would imagine that somewhat
more than half of the human race may not agree that to call someone a
woman is to malign them.


For God's sakes, gents, Gary Boyd Roberts personally
knew the man and told me so himself. And what in the world has all this
folderol got to do with the Peck pedigree?

It has to do with the author who wrote about the Peck pedigree.

According to TAF, you gents
are too busy to post about serious stuff, like genealogy.

This is an outright lie. I said nothing of the sort.

So: stop being
gnats, and go back to work, or else contribute genealogy.

Perhaps I missed it - where was the genealogy in this post of yours?

taf

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck pedigree: newsgroup/list structure

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 29 okt 2007 21:30:07

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

Rather than 'spin', Todd is trying to educate you about the way this
particular Usenet newsgroup / mail list / web forum operates,
functionally, as a single extended public message medium.

John Brandon originally posted your e-mail message to the google groups
web interface, whence it went to the Usenet server network, whence it
went to the gen-medieval mail list gateway, and thence back to you. I
read John Brandon's message on my ISPs Usenet server. My reply to John
Brandon's message was posted directly to my ISP's Usenet server, with
the understanding that it would ultimately propagate coterminously with
the message to which it replied. And it did: it went both to the
gen-medieval mail list gateway, and to the googlegroups Usenet gate,
probably in parallel via distributed Usenet message propagation. This
is the way the system is designed, and it is beneficial to have so many
available technical means of participation in what amounts to a single
meta-group.

Your all caps here seem to show an increasing desperation in seeking
some sort of moral high ground, on any aspect of this thread. Just take
a deep breath, get over yourself, and you can continue to discuss (1)
the real ancestry of the Beccles Pecks; and (2) the interesting question
of the bogus Peck pedigree.

I'm personally much more interested in (2) than (1), but I'm sure you
can make headway on both if you modulate your approach a bit.

BA: Hey, NT, I AM RIGHT HERE. You have been over there somewhere.
You sound like a Washington politician with all that SPIN rigamarole
gobbledygook. What is wrong with ALL CAPS: it got your attention.
And no, NT, I am not desperate. You are: calling S. Allyn Peck a woman.
And unethically responding to a private email you CALLED a private email.
Now you come over here seeking the HIGH moral ground. You have to earn
it, with me, Sir: Monsieur! You get over YOURSELF. I could care less about
your degrees or your place of work. OK? If you persist in calling the Peck
pedigree "bogus" then you MUST KNOW it reflects upon YOU to PROVE IT!

I have repeatedly said I DO NOT KNOW as to its status and its PROVENANCE
needs to be addressed. If you did NOT know that S. Allyn Peck was a man
you obviously do NOT know what *provenance* is either. No, Sir, why do
you NOT modulate yourself, and take a deep breath, and post to gen-medieval
if you expect me to read it. If your Mom calls from home, are you going to
call grandma's house to talk to her?

Sheesh.

Bill
PS
I am 70 years old and do not need your guff, but your smarts, and so stop
being all smart-alecky with me. Read your first posts, to gen-medieval,
and realize you maligned me then and are doing it again. Look in the
mirror, Monsieur!

********

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

John Brandon

Re: Peck pedigree: newsgroup/list structure

Legg inn av John Brandon » 29 okt 2007 21:37:09

PS
I am 70 years old and do not need your guff, but your smarts, and so stop
being all smart-alecky with me. Read your first posts, to gen-medieval,
and realize you maligned me then and are doing it again. Look in the
mirror, Monsieur!


Hmmm, there's no fool like an old fool, I guess.

But, seriously, y'all (as Britney would say) ... this has to be a put-
on. It's just too funny to be real.

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck pedigree: Shirley Allyn Peck was a man: sorry!

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 29 okt 2007 21:45:04

Re: below:

OK, TAF, I love women, my mother was one. As for S. Allyn: why did they
NOT google him?

As to responding to the rest: as I probably will NOT respond to SDH, unless
you post about the Peck pedigree in a genealogical sense, I will ignore your
posts as well. I know this upsets you, terribly. Keep it on topic.

Bill

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

On Oct 29, 1:02 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Will someone tell these gents that Bill Arnold started this Peck thread on
gen-medieval and they ought to have the courtesy to continue it there!

Given that this thread has 63 posts and counting, its continuation on
GEN-MEDIEVAL seems not to be a problem. . . . or are you still under
the mis-impression that soc.gen.med is a distinct group?

I have no idea who's bright idea, below, it was to malign S. Allyn Peck
and call him a woman.

I see nothing there that would malign him, unless you think that being
mistaken about his gender is malignant. I would imagine that somewhat
more than half of the human race may not agree that to call someone a
woman is to malign them.


For God's sakes, gents, Gary Boyd Roberts personally
knew the man and told me so himself. And what in the world has all this
folderol got to do with the Peck pedigree?

It has to do with the author who wrote about the Peck pedigree.

According to TAF, you gents
are too busy to post about serious stuff, like genealogy.

This is an outright lie. I said nothing of the sort.

So: stop being
gnats, and go back to work, or else contribute genealogy.

Perhaps I missed it - where was the genealogy in this post of yours?

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

Gjest

Re: Peck pedigree: Shirley Allyn Peck was a man: sorry!

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 okt 2007 21:46:39

On Oct 29, 1:38 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

As to responding to the rest: as I probably will NOT respond to SDH, unless
you post about the Peck pedigree in a genealogical sense, I will ignore your
posts as well. I know this upsets you, terribly. Keep it on topic.


It is truly amazing the things you 'know'.

taf

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 okt 2007 22:05:19

On Oct 29, 8:17 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
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.

Information that he could not possibly have known from personal
experience - someone must have told him that this was the case.
Probably the same person who supplied him with the pedigree, and who
is, coincidentally, a known purveyor of fraudulent genealogy. You
might as well argue that the $3 bill with the portrait of Mickey Mouse
on it is perfectly valid, since the person who gave it to you told you
exactly when and why it was printed by the US government.

An alternative is that Peck came ip with the description via post hoc
supposition.

That seems to go nicely with the date on the British Museum
document: 1620, as Ira B. Peck put in his book.

How surprising would it be for a known forger to provide a backstory
consistent with the forgery.


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?

No, only that he was taken in by it.

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.

If it were clearly the case, we wouldn't be arguing over it.

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.

Yes, but the probable source for that provenance is the same known
forger who supplied the author with the pedigree.

taf

WJhonson

Re: Sir Thomas Browne (died 1460) and Eleanor Arundel

Legg inn av WJhonson » 29 okt 2007 22:16:16

<<In a message dated 10/29/07 12:50:40 Pacific Daylight Time, royalancestry@msn.com writes:
My research indicates that the Fitzalan family dropped the surname,
Fitzalan, in favor of Arundel about 1313. Thereafter all members of
the family were known exclusively as Arundel (or de Arundel). >>
------------------
But you didn't mention that among historians, you appear to be singularly alone in this theory. Isn't that a bit odd?

Will Johnson

D. Spencer Hines

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

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 29 okt 2007 22:18:25

Indeed...

taf is correct here.

Arnold needs to shape up or ship out.

DSH

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

To address your various strident accusations, then, Mr. Taylor was
_not_ the person who brought your private email to the group. Mr.
Taylor _did_ reply to the same group in which he read the post. I
have _not_ been putting spin on it, but rather explaining what the
record unambiguously shows. If these points remain unclear to you,
then perhaps a request for further clarification will produce better
results than a shouted rant.

taf

D. Spencer Hines

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

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 29 okt 2007 22:25:58

Why don't you get off your arse and do it yourself?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.702.1193690683.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

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.

WJhonson

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

Legg inn av WJhonson » 29 okt 2007 22:26:46

<<In a message dated 10/29/07 13:45:20 Pacific Daylight Time, billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:
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. >>
----------------------------
And Bill, this, isn't going to solve the issue one way or the other. Having myself been a party to a just such a few enterprises, I can assert with a bit of bluff, that the vast majority of the letters so-received are a mixture of a lot of modern-day babbling, with a tiny bit of useful history. The vast majority of the tiny bit however, being itself a mixture of verifiable statements with complete legend and no easy way to discern betwixt the two.

And certainly the information gathered in this way, cannot replace information gathered from actual manuscripts which can be *shown* and known to date back to the 17th century.

Genealogical fraud is not new in the respect of *creating* documents from a supposed earlier time. There was a modern-day example in that guy who was creating documents to sell to the Mormon church supposedly authentic historical documents, some of which were a bit scurrilous shall-we-say, quickly purchased and hidden. He used a similar technique of using old paper, old ink, archaic handwriting, or whatever.

The lie in the ointment is whether you can find ANY previous mention of such manuscripts in older works. If you cannot, and do set aside a mythical belief in secret societies hiding such documents for centuries, then you must conclude that the manuscripts are later forgeries. Must you not?

Will Johnson

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peck Pedigree: Newsgroup/List Structure

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 29 okt 2007 22:30:06

Twaddle...

You are a silly old fool.

DSH

"Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.700.1193689676.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

[To Nat Taylor -- DSH]

I am 70 years old and do not need your guff, but your smarts, and so stop
being all smart-alecky with me. Read your first posts, to gen-medieval,
and realize you maligned me then and are doing it again. Look in the
mirror, Monsieur!

WJhonson

Re: Introducing myself, and a question about Thomas Browne a

Legg inn av WJhonson » 29 okt 2007 22:30:55

<<In a message dated 10/29/07 10:33:42 Pacific Daylight Time, revenant1963@yahoo.com writes:
(2) And can anyone point me toward any documentation regarding Daniel Lucy of Jamestown, Virginia (died 1627), who is believed to have been a son of Timothy Lucy (1547-1616) of Warwick (M.P. from Warwick in the 1580s)? This Daniel Lucy (from whom I descend)--if he was indeed a son of Timothy (or from that family generally)--would thus be a descendant of Thomas Browne and Eleanor FitzAlan. >>
---------------------
I do not see that this is the case. Can you provide a reputable source for this Timothy Lucy ?
Thanks
Will Johnson


Bill Arnold

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

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 30 okt 2007 01:10:03

BA: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?

TAF: No, only that he was taken in by it.

BA: I repeat, whether or not he was taken in by Someby does NOT explain
his statement it was his gateway ancestor Joseph's brother who commissioned
the Pedigree of Peck in the 1600s which now resides in the British Museum.

TAF: Yes, but the probable source for that provenance is the same known
forger who supplied the author with the pedigree.

BA: The word *probable* is a much used word in genealogy. In this case, however,
the British Museum Library more than likely has on file the provenance as FACT.

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 » 30 okt 2007 01:20:04

Will: Genealogical fraud is not new in the respect of *creating* documents from a supposed earlier
time. There was a modern-day example in that guy who was creating documents to sell to the
Mormon church supposedly authentic historical documents, some of which were a bit scurrilous
shall-we-say, quickly purchased and hidden. He used a similar technique of using old paper, old
ink, archaic handwriting, or whatever."

BA: Will, with all due respect, this ole scholar was not born yesterday. Scholarship needs to
PROVE
it was a forgery, not say probably was. A case just such as this occurred recently in Dickinson
scholarship, and the offending document was sold by a leading New York auction house to a leading
Dickinson institution, whence once studied *carefully* it was deemed a forgery. Until then: the
Pedigree of Peck is a legitimate document in a legitimate institution in England, the home of this
family.

The Poet and the Murderer
From Esther Lombardi

http://classiclit.about.com/od/bookcoll ... tforge.htm

Imagine discovering an unknown poem by a great poet like Emily Dickinson. It may shed new light on
her life and works! Who would want to think that such a poem could be a forgery? But it was.
The Literary Forgeries

It's difficult to guess how many literary forgeries are sold every day, sometimes for hundreds or
even thousands of dollars. With that much money on the line (especially for some of the greatest
writers), it's not hard to believe that forgeries are created every day.

In The Poet and the Murderer, Simon Worrall traces the path of one notorious forger, Mark Hofman,
a man who was so adept at his trade that he created thousands of forgeries of historical
documents, including faked manuscripts of Walt Whitman, Emily Dickinson, and other famous writers.
While many of those manuscripts were taken out of circulation, some of his forgeries are still
posing as authentic/original manuscripts.
A Short History of Forgery

Literary forgery has been around since ancient times in Egypt, Japan, Athens, and Mesopotamia.
While forgery has been used to protect original manuscripts, forgers like Giovanni Nanni (Annius
de Viterbo) and Denis Vrain-Lucas had different goals. As Worrall says, Giovanni was the "first
forger in the modern sense," and he forged documents "to boost the status of his beloved Etruria."
In creating those "sophisticated, forged historical documents," he was following the example of
other statesmen who had attempted to magnify the importance of their cities.

Annius took a slightly different approach. After forging inscriptions on pottery, he broke the
piece, buried the fragments, and then proceeded to discover his forgeries and prove their
authenticity. Worrall says, "Forgers are attracted by the sheer fun, and creativity, of their
craft--the scholarship and research, the inventiveness involved in rearranging the jigsaw puzzle
of history in new, and surprising ways." Worrall points out Vrain-Lucas, who "forged letters from
Alexander the Great to Aristotle, Francis Bacon to Galileo, Richard the Lionhearted to his
troubadour, Blondel."
As Worrall writes, "Money is a comparatively recent motive for forgery. Misplaced patriotism;
hatred of authority; a longing for social prestige or a need to reinvent oneself have been
others." That's why, I suppose, such acts of fraud have been used for "religious, financial, and
political purposes." As Worrall explains, these acts of literary forgery can be used to unfairly
influence (or discredit) others....

__________________________________________________
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 » 30 okt 2007 01:37:20

[My first attempt seems not to have gotten through. Apologies if it
later shows up.]

On Oct 29, 8:30 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
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,

It seems that the structure of the group is not yet clear to you.
Soc.gen.med (along with its Google Groups gateway) and GEN-MED
represent the same group, going by two different names. They are
simply different avenues by which one can contribute to the same body
of discussion. They are mirrors of each other, and every post we have
been talking about has appeared in GEN-MEDIEVAL, whatever avenue was
used to submit it.

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.

Simply pointing out that something was discussed somewhere is not an
implication that it should have already been consulted. One wonders
what kind of help you expected, if pointing your to additional
material is to be viewed as an implied attack.

taf

Bill Arnold

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

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 30 okt 2007 01:53:44

In the interest of scholarship:

Ira B. Peck stated unequivocably that his ancestor's brother Nicholas had commissioned the
Pedigree
of Peck in the British Museum Library, in 5 plates: Plate 1, Plate 2, Plate 3, Plate 4 and Plate
4a.
They are located: *Additional Manuscripts,* 5524, folios 158 - 160.

I have copies of the plates: they also appear in the 1936 NEHGSR, tipped in between pages
370-71. They can be viewed on the NEHGSR CDROM.

Ira B. Peck stated unequivocably that they were commissioned at the time they are dated:
c.1620. [see gen-medieval archives, citation 1870 NEHGSR]

In the front of Ira B. Peck's *A Genealogical History of the Descendants of Joseph Peck*
Mudge, Boston: 1868, on page 11 and 12, the author included a *transcript* of the
PEDIGREE OF PECK and his bold statement: "The pedigree, as it is here given, may be found
in the British Museum, London, England, excepting the two last families, those of Robert
and Joseph, which are added to it." In fact, this pedigree as it appears in plates with
arms reflects the STATE OF THE PEDIGREE back in the 17th century: without the additional
families. The authors of the 1930s serialized articles on Joseph Peck's English ancestors
state that church documents state that John the father of Robert Peck of Beccles had 9 sons and
9 daughters, and that the pedigree of Peck commissioned by Nicholas Peck is substantially
the same as Tonge's Visitations of 1530 and Flowers Visitations of 1863-64 with the rest
of the sons and daughters of John Peck's family restored. The provenance of the British
Museum Pedigree of Peck is yet to be substantiated in terms of who and when it was
received into the English archives.

It reads, in part, at the crucial segments before and including Robert Peck of Beccles:
_____________________________________
Richard Peck, Esq.=Alice, dau. of Sir Peter Middleton, Knt.
_____________________________________
John Peck, of Wakefield, Esq.=Joan, dau. of John Anne, of Frickley
_____________________________________
Robert Peck, of Beccles, Suffolk=dau. of Norton, 2dly, dau. of Waters
_____________________________________

Bill

****

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

WJhonson

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

Legg inn av WJhonson » 30 okt 2007 02:14:56

<<In a message dated 10/29/07 17:08:18 Pacific Daylight Time, billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:
BA: The word *probable* is a much used word in genealogy. In this case, however,
the British Museum Library more than likely has on file the provenance as FACT. >>

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

Actually Bill, it's very *un* likely.

Will Johnson

Bill Arnold

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

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 30 okt 2007 02:26:36

In the interest of scholarship:

Ira B. Peck stated unequivocably that his ancestor's brother Nicholas had commissioned the
Pedigree
of Peck in the British Museum Library, in 5 plates: Plate 1, Plate 2, Plate 3, Plate 4 and Plate
4a.
They are located: *Additional Manuscripts,* 5524, folios 158 - 160.

I have copies of the plates: they also appear in the 1936 NEHGSR, tipped in between pages
370-71. They can be viewed on the NEHGSR CDROM.

Ira B. Peck stated unequivocably that they were commissioned at the time they are dated:
c.1620. [see gen-medieval archives, citation 1870 NEHGSR]

In the front of Ira B. Peck's *A Genealogical History of the Descendants of Joseph Peck*
Mudge, Boston: 1868, on page 11 and 12, the author included a *transcript* of the
PEDIGREE OF PECK and his bold statement: "The pedigree, as it is here given, may be found
in the British Museum, London, England, excepting the two last families, those of Robert
and Joseph, which are added to it." In fact, this pedigree as it appears in plates with
arms reflects the STATE OF THE PEDIGREE back in the 17th century: without the additional
families. The authors of the 1930s serialized articles on Joseph Peck's English ancestors
state that church documents state that John the father of Robert Peck of Beccles had 9 sons and
9 daughters, and that the pedigree of Peck commissioned by Nicholas Peck is substantially
the same as Tonge's Visitations of 1530 and Flowers Visitations of 1863-64 with the rest
of the sons and daughters of John Peck's family restored. The provenance of the British
Museum Pedigree of Peck is yet to be substantiated in terms of who and when it was
received into the English archives.

It reads, in part, at the crucial segments before and including Robert Peck of Beccles:
_____________________________________
Richard Peck, Esq.=Alice, dau. of Sir Peter Middleton, Knt.
_____________________________________
John Peck, of Wakefield, Esq.=Joan, dau. of John Anne, of Frickley
_____________________________________
Robert Peck, of Beccles, Suffolk=dau. of Norton, 2dly, dau. of Waters
_____________________________________

Bill

****


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

WJhonson

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

Legg inn av WJhonson » 30 okt 2007 03:33:18

And no one is disputing that Ira *said* it.

What's being disputed is whether it is, a statement with any evidence of it's truth.

So hopefully we can stop repeating that he said it. *That* he said it, is not the issue with which we're dealing.

Will Johnson

D. Spencer Hines

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

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 30 okt 2007 04:15:24

So What?

DSH

"Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.717.1193711306.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

In the interest of scholarship:

Ira B. Peck stated unequivocably that his ancestor's brother Nicholas had
commissioned the
Pedigree
of Peck in the British Museum Library, in 5 plates: Plate 1, Plate 2,
Plate 3, Plate 4 and Plate
4a.
They are located: *Additional Manuscripts,* 5524, folios 158 - 160.

I have copies of the plates: they also appear in the 1936 NEHGSR, tipped
in between pages
370-71. They can be viewed on the NEHGSR CDROM.

Ira B. Peck stated unequivocably that they were commissioned at the time
they are dated:
c.1620. [see gen-medieval archives, citation 1870 NEHGSR]

In the front of Ira B. Peck's *A Genealogical History of the Descendants
of Joseph Peck*
Mudge, Boston: 1868, on page 11 and 12, the author included a *transcript*
of the
PEDIGREE OF PECK and his bold statement: "The pedigree, as it is here
given, may be found
in the British Museum, London, England, excepting the two last families,
those of Robert
and Joseph, which are added to it." In fact, this pedigree as it appears
in plates with
arms reflects the STATE OF THE PEDIGREE back in the 17th century: without
the additional
families. The authors of the 1930s serialized articles on Joseph Peck's
English ancestors
state that church documents state that John the father of Robert Peck of
Beccles had 9 sons and
9 daughters, and that the pedigree of Peck commissioned by Nicholas Peck
is substantially
the same as Tonge's Visitations of 1530 and Flowers Visitations of 1863-64
with the rest
of the sons and daughters of John Peck's family restored. The provenance
of the British
Museum Pedigree of Peck is yet to be substantiated in terms of who and
when it was
received into the English archives.

It reads, in part, at the crucial segments before and including Robert
Peck of Beccles:
_____________________________________
Richard Peck, Esq.=Alice, dau. of Sir Peter Middleton, Knt.
_____________________________________
John Peck, of Wakefield, Esq.=Joan, dau. of John Anne, of Frickley
_____________________________________
Robert Peck, of Beccles, Suffolk=dau. of Norton, 2dly, dau. of Waters
_____________________________________

Bill

D. Spencer Hines

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

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 30 okt 2007 04:19:00

So, get cracking and track it down, you damned fool.

This Arnold fool is Great Entertainment.

People are trying to help him but he won't even listen to them.

DSH

"Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.712.1193702876.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

BA: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?

TAF: No, only that he was taken in by it.

BA: I repeat, whether or not he was taken in by Someby does NOT explain
his statement it was his gateway ancestor Joseph's brother who
commissioned
the Pedigree of Peck in the 1600s which now resides in the British Museum.

TAF: Yes, but the probable source for that provenance is the same known
forger who supplied the author with the pedigree.

BA: The word *probable* is a much used word in genealogy. In this case,
however,
the British Museum Library more than likely has on file the provenance as
FACT.

Bill

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 okt 2007 04:31:18

On Oct 29, 5:18 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

BA: Will, with all due respect, this ole scholar was not born yesterday. Scholarship needs to
PROVE
it was a forgery, not say probably was. A case just such as this occurred recently in Dickinson
scholarship, and the offending document was sold by a leading New York auction house to a leading
Dickinson institution, whence once studied *carefully* it was deemed a forgery. Until then: the
Pedigree of Peck is a legitimate document in a legitimate institution in England, the home of this
family.

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to documents. There is no
presumption of authenticity. Until it is evaluated, its authenticity
has yet to be determined. That a document resides in a legitimate
archive is no protection against forgery. Most Anglo-Saxon charters
are held by legitimate archives, and many of them are forgeries. It is
further irrelevant where the location of the repository happens to
be. That a copy of the Magna Carta is (or at least was) held by the
National Archives in Washington or a medieval manuscript by the
library at Harvard does not make them less likely to be authentic than
documents that happen to be in England. Just as authentic documents
of the period were created in England, most forgeries were likewise
created there.

taf

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 okt 2007 04:34:30

On Oct 29, 5:07 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
BA: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?

TAF: No, only that he was taken in by it.

BA: I repeat, whether or not he was taken in by Someby does NOT explain
his statement it was his gateway ancestor Joseph's brother who commissioned
the Pedigree of Peck in the 1600s which now resides in the British Museum.


It does if he was just repeating what Somerby told him. The history
of the document would not likely have come to Peck independent of the
document itself.


TAF: Yes, but the probable source for that provenance is the same known
forger who supplied the author with the pedigree.

BA: The word *probable* is a much used word in genealogy. In this case, however,
the British Museum Library more than likely has on file the provenance as FACT.


The BL probably does have documentation on how the documents came to
them, but it may just say it was donated by X. Whoever donated it may
have given further information, but it is an unjustified assumption
that this information is fact. Most stolen paintings have fully
documented provenance - it is just made up.

What is known is that the pedigree was communicated to Peck by
Somerby, and it can then be supposed that Peck got his information on
its creation from the same source.

taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Elizabeth: The Golden Age -- Cate Blanchett/Clive Owen

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 30 okt 2007 05:31:06

This film deserves an Oscar Nomination for Art Direction -- and a Director's
Cut on the DVD.

PLUS -- TWO Full-Length Commentaries -- ONE By A Real British Historian &
ONE By A Noted Cinephile, Who Knows The Other Elizabeth Films Inside Out.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Rule Britannia

Gjest

Re: Peck pedigree: newsgroup/list structure

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 okt 2007 06:58:24

On Oct 29, 1:27 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

BA: Hey, NT, I AM RIGHT HERE. You have been over there somewhere.

?????

You sound like a Washington politician with all that SPIN rigamarole
gobbledygook.

You sound like the kid with his fingers in his ears making loud noises
so as not to hear inconvenient information.

What is wrong with ALL CAPS: it got your attention.

On the internet, by longstanding practice, it is viewed as shouting.
Generally, when someone resorts to shouting, then rationality goes by
the wayside.

And unethically responding to a private email you CALLED a private email.

He did not respond to a private email - he responded to a GEN-MEDIEVAL
post. This has been demonstrated.

Now you come over here seeking the HIGH moral ground.

Over here?

You have to earn
it, with me, Sir: Monsieur! You get over YOURSELF. I could care less about
your degrees or your place of work. OK?

Then why on earth do you keep mentioning them? That is not the
behavior of someone who could care less.

If you persist in calling the Peck
pedigree "bogus" then you MUST KNOW it reflects upon YOU to PROVE IT!


One can rarely prove a fraudulent pedigree bogus. It is only
incumbent on the critic to show sufficient reason for doubt. That it
was supplied to Peck by a know forger would seem to satisfy that
criterion. It is the responsibility of the person arguing in favor of
a pedigree to prove it accurate.

I have repeatedly said I DO NOT KNOW as to its status and its PROVENANCE
needs to be addressed. If you did NOT know that S. Allyn Peck was a man
you obviously do NOT know what *provenance* is either.

Non sequitur.

No, Sir, why do
you NOT modulate yourself, and take a deep breath, and post to gen-medieval
if you expect me to read it.

He _has_ been posting to GEN-MEDIEVAL the whole time.

If your Mom calls from home, are you going to
call grandma's house to talk to her?

You are if Mom and grandma live in the same house.

taf

Douglas Richardson

Re: "Magna Carta Ancestry" by Douglas Richardson

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 30 okt 2007 08:14:49

Jonathan ~

You've lost me again. Why is it that you say that John Kirton had to
have his children by Margaret White before 1510? If it is because
John Kirton was living at Edmonton, Middlesex after 1510. If so, that
seems like rather inadequate evidence to me.

As I pointed out in my earlier post, the visitation of
Northamptonshire clearly states that John Kirton married (1st) Anne
Ruskin, and (2nd) Margaret White in that order. All we know for
certain is that Anne Ruskin was a minor sometme in the period,
1486-1493. As best I can tell, there is sufficient time for Anne
Ruskin to come of age, marry John Leeke and John Kirton in rapid
succession, and die before 1500. Provided John Kirton married
Margaret White in or before 1500, it should fit the evidence as we
know it. As such, I don't see any problem with the order of John
Kirton's marriages as set forth by the visitation.

Moreover, you already have a second indication that Margaret White was
the 2nd wife, as we know that all three of Anne Ruskin's children were
married by 1529, whereas Margaret White's son, Stephen Kirton, appears
to have still been unmarried at that date.

Reviewing the matter, it seems to me that you need better evidence
before you declare the visitation of Northamptonshire in error
regarding the order of John Kirton's marriages. If you have that
better evidence, by all means, please post it.

By any chance, do you have John Leeke's death date? Or, his will?
The index to PCC wills indicates that a John Leeke left a will proved
in 1492, and that another John Leeke left a will proved in 1508. No
place of residence is given for either man. As far as I can tell,
either man could be Anne Ruskin's husband. The 1508 man would fit
your scenario better, however.

You can order a copy of either of these wills direct from the PRO at
the following weblink:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/docu ... diaarray=*

Good luck!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 okt 2007 11:08:51

On Oct 29, 8:30 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
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 apparently still have not myself entirely clear. It is all one
group, no matter which mechanism you use to view the messages. You can
watch a football game via cable TV, through the internet, listen to it
on the radio, go to a sports bar, or go to the stadium. It is still
the same game.GEN-MEDIEVAL and soc.gen.medieval are the same group,
and the mailing list, USENET and Google Groups are just different ways
of viewing this single body of posts.

taf

John P. Ravilious

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

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 30 okt 2007 15:40:42

Dear James,

I understand you point re: the issue of Robert _the_ Bruce's
alleged Comyn ancestry and the abbey of Deer. At the same time, while
medieval men likely tended to be guided by fear of eternal damnation,
and by social connections, they also acted out of anger, political
necessity/expediency, etc. Note Robert's murder (premeditated or not)
of his cousin John Comyn in 1305/06: irregardless of any common Comyn
ancestry, they were 3rd cousins (descent from David, Earl of
Huntingdon) and were both well aware of it. If Robert were not a
descendant of William Comyn, Earl of Buchan, surely his first wife
Isabel of Mar and his beloved daughter Marjory (wife of William the
Stewart) were. The Harrowing ('Herschip') of Buchan was done for
political/military reasons. Robert the Bruce acted as he deemed he
needed, and did not consult the scrolls for familial ties before
acting any more than Edward I of England did (his decree of death by
exceptional altitude for his cousin John de Strathbogie, Earl of
Athol, in 1306 sticks out in my mind).

As to the question re: John de Stirling, I'm not sure how solid
any identification might be there. There was a John de Stirling who
was married to a daughter of Eoin 'Bacach' mac Dubhgaill of Lorn, a
descendant of the earlier John Comyn. ' Johannes de Ergadia dominus
de Lorn' granted a charter [witnessed by Malcolm Kennedy, chamberlain
of Scotland {under Baliol's government}, and many others] of the lands
of Rathoraw, Garnpennyng, Bartych, Kergyll and Fekeyrfaleach to his
aunt Mary and her husband, John de Stirling, dated at Perth, 'in
nativitate Sancti Marce ' [25 April] 1338 [Spalding Misc. V:244, no.
V]. According to my notes, this was a collateral line, ancestral to
Stirling of Keir.

If you can document anything solid re: the ancestry of Sir John
de Stirling of Glenesk and Edzell (father-in-law of Sir Alexander de
Lindsay, and ancestor of the Earls of Crawford) or of Sir John de
Stirling of Kerse (ancestor of Menteith of Kerse), I'd love to see it.

Cheers,

John



On Oct 28, 9:43 am, Jwc1...@aol.com wrote:
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 athttp://www.aol.com

TMOliver

Re: Elizabeth: The Golden Age -- Cate Blanchett/Clive Owen

Legg inn av TMOliver » 30 okt 2007 15:41:04

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote...
This film deserves an Oscar Nomination for Art Direction -- and a
Director's Cut on the DVD.

PLUS -- TWO Full-Length Commentaries -- ONE By A Real British Historian &
ONE By A Noted Cinephile, Who Knows The Other Elizabeth Films Inside Out.


From an smn standpoint, the maritime parts of the film area bit "arty"...

Best characters/actors.....

The Spanish Ambassador....

Felipe Segundo (A theatrical gem!)

La Infanta

How in the world did they ever get permission to film in the Escorial,
considering the almost blatant "Anti-Papist" vein which runs throughout?
Great locations, sets and costumes, and a pleasant Grand Era of the Cinema
"Over the Toppishness" about the whole exercise.


TMO

Gjest

Re: Scholarly Journals (Was TAG)

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 okt 2007 17:34:28

The finest southern genealogical journal was Fred Dorman's The
Virginia Genealogist, which, as I mentioned earlier, closed down last
year, after 50 years of publication. Fred is now working on a
cumulative index, which will be well worth consulting for any southern
family.

National Genealogical Society Quarterly includes some southern
material in most issues.

At TAG, we try to include at least one southern article in each issue,
and we usually succeed. But we have not always found it easy to do so;
southern genealogists prefer to publish source material and
methodology rather than the compiled genealogy and problem-solving
articles that TAG specializes in. Our most important southern articles
have probably been those by Cameron Allen, FASG: fine studies of the
Huguenot families of Manikin Town, Virginia.

The Genealogist (published by the FASGs) frequently publishes southern
material, usually longer articles than the other journals can handle.

DAVID GREENE


On Oct 29, 11:11 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Scholarly Journals (Was TAG)

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 30 okt 2007 18:12:20

Thank you, David.

This is most helpful.

Best Regards,

DSH

<amgen@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:1193762068.568040.210890@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...

The finest southern genealogical journal was Fred Dorman's The
Virginia Genealogist, which, as I mentioned earlier, closed down last
year, after 50 years of publication. Fred is now working on a
cumulative index, which will be well worth consulting for any southern
family.

Yes!

National Genealogical Society Quarterly includes some southern
material in most issues.

Is it indexed on the web?

At TAG, we try to include at least one southern article in each issue,
and we usually succeed. But we have not always found it easy to do so;
southern genealogists prefer to publish source material and
methodology rather than the compiled genealogy and problem-solving
articles that TAG specializes in. Our most important southern articles
have probably been those by Cameron Allen, FASG: fine studies of the
Huguenot families of Manikin Town, Virginia.

I agree. I was fortunate enough to be a minor contributor to one of Cameron
Allen's articles -- the one on the Depps -- and found him to be a most
pleasant and simpatico collaborator.

The Genealogist (published by the FASGs) frequently publishes southern
material, usually longer articles than the other journals can handle.

Are they indexed on the web?

DSH

DAVID GREENE


On Oct 29, 11:11 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

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

Bill Arnold

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

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 30 okt 2007 21:45:05

Thanks much, Will, for your continued interest in the Peck Pedigree.
I assume we understand that Ira. B. Peck wrote in 1870 that his gateway ancestor Joseph
Peck's brother Nicholas commissioned the Pedigree of Peck in the British Museum Library.

My point: in 1870 the statement was made matter-of-factly, as if he actually believed what
he was stating: in writing. What further evidence must you have than the man's written word?

I have read here and elsewhere that so much of what is know in the world of English medieval
genealogy rests upon pedigrees: and nothing else. In some case, that is all there is for a
lineage.

Bill

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

And no one is disputing that Ira *said* it.

What's being disputed is whether it is, a statement with any evidence of it's truth.

So hopefully we can stop repeating that he said it. *That* he said it, is not the issue with
which we're dealing.

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 » 30 okt 2007 21:50:05

TAF: Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to documents. There is no
presumption of authenticity. Until it is evaluated, its authenticity
has yet to be determined.

BA: To paraphrase: Guilty until proven innocent doesn't apply to documents.
There is no presumption of fraud. Until it is evaluated, its fraudulence
has yet to be determined.

Bill

****

__________________________________________________
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 » 30 okt 2007 21:51:26

Arnold continues to be obtusely confused as to where the Burden of Proof
lies.

DSH

"Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.729.1193777244.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

TAF: Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to documents. There is no
presumption of authenticity. Until it is evaluated, its authenticity
has yet to be determined.

BA: To paraphrase: Guilty until proven innocent doesn't apply to
documents.
There is no presumption of fraud. Until it is evaluated, its fraudulence
has yet to be determined.

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 okt 2007 21:53:58

On Oct 30, 1:46 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
TAF: Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to documents. There is no
presumption of authenticity. Until it is evaluated, its authenticity
has yet to be determined.

BA: To paraphrase: Guilty until proven innocent doesn't apply to documents.
There is no presumption of fraud. Until it is evaluated, its fraudulence
has yet to be determined.


That is also true. Hence our judgment regarding authenticity must be
held in abeyance - we cannot just assume it is authentic. In other
words, until we know, we don't know.

taf

Bill Arnold

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

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 30 okt 2007 22:00:04

BA: I repeat, whether or not he was taken in by Someby does NOT explain
his statement it was his gateway ancestor Joseph's brother who commissioned
the Pedigree of Peck in the 1600s which now resides in the British Museum.

TAF: It does if he was just repeating what Somerby told him. The history
of the document would not likely have come to Peck independent of the
document itself.

BA: That is a big "IF" after "It does" and makes your entire statment conditional
on an event of which you have not proof.


TAF: The BL probably does have documentation on how the documents came to
them, but it may just say it was donated by X. Whoever donated it may
have given further information, but it is an unjustified assumption
that this information is fact. Most stolen paintings have fully
documented provenance - it is just made up.

BA: I take it you claim scholarship credentials on this list and reject *provenance*
as a viable piece of evidence. I will let other scholars speak to that. I have already
spoken.

TAF: What is known is that the pedigree was communicated to Peck by
Somerby, and it can then be supposed that Peck got his information on
its creation from the same source.

BA: Not so fast. It is NOT "known" as you state, because your statement is in direct
conflict with Ira. B. Peck's retort in 1870 that the Pedigree of Peck existed nearly two centuries
before Someby's time, and that the Pedigree of Peck was drafted by the College of
Heralds on the commission of gateway ancestor Joseph Peck's brother in the 1600s.

Bill

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





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

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck pedigree: newsgroup/list structure

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 30 okt 2007 22:05:04

TAF: He did not respond to a private email - he responded to a GEN-MEDIEVAL
post. This has been demonstrated.

BA: NT posted and I responded to him. Why are you answering for him? Are you
his butler or his man-servant? And you are sorely mistaken: in his first post to
gen-medieval, mentioning my name, he said clearly he was responding to a
"private email." It is in the archives, Sir.

Bill

****

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

WJhonson

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

Legg inn av WJhonson » 30 okt 2007 22:18:20

<<In a message dated 10/30/07 13:41:32 Pacific Daylight Time, billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:
My point: in 1870 the statement was made matter-of-factly, as if he actually believed what
he was stating: in writing. What further evidence must you have than the man's written word? >>
-----------------------------------
What he said isn't relevant to what has evidence.
Bill I'm sure you've been in a courtroom before. What are you failing to see here?
People can state and FIRMLY believe many things that have no evidence whatsoever.

Ira Peck probably believed it, that does not mean that we must believe that he had any evidence.

Bill Arnold

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

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 30 okt 2007 22:21:02

TAF: Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to documents. There is no
presumption of authenticity. Until it is evaluated, its authenticity
has yet to be determined.

BA: To paraphrase: Guilty until proven innocent doesn't apply to documents.
There is no presumption of fraud. Until it is evaluated, its fraudulence
has yet to be determined.


TAF: That is also true. Hence our judgment regarding authenticity must be
held in abeyance - we cannot just assume it is authentic. In other
words, until we know, we don't know.

BA: To paraphrase: that is also true. Hence our judgment regarding fraud must be
held in abeyance--we cannot just assume it is fraudulent. In other
words, until we know, we don't know.

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 » 30 okt 2007 22:35:03

BA: To paraphrase: that is also true. Hence our judgment regarding fraud must be
held in abeyance--we cannot just assume it is fraudulent. In other
words, until we know, we don't know.

Bill

After all this petulant fussing and fuming, PLEASE make an effort to
get a respected authority to check out the document in question to see
if it could be from the period it purports to be from (then we will
know ... once we know).

**If it is from the time period in question, it may still be a fraud
perpetrated *at that time* rather than later. The fact that the
Yorkshire Visitations don't show the Suffolk branch is not a good sign.

Bill Arnold

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

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 30 okt 2007 22:40:04

IDENTITY FACT 2: Robert Peck of Beccles, the Elder [ref: IDENTITY FACT 1 established that Robert
was not born in Beccles but arrived there c.1525. See gen-medieval archives for fuller notation
and
citation.] Addenda/Leeke: a sister and a brother of Robert Peck of Beccles appear in The Peck
Pedigree in the British Museum and in the Pedigree of Peck in Ira B. Peck's 1868 book [see desc.
below]:

Ira B. Peck stated unequivocably that his ancestor's brother Nicholas had commissioned the
Pedigree
of Peck in the British Museum Library, in 5 plates: Plate 1, Plate 2, Plate 3, Plate 4 and Plate
4a.
They are located: *Additional Manuscripts,* 5524, folios 158 - 160.

I have copies of the plates: they also appear in the 1936 NEHGSR, tipped in between pages
370-71. They can be viewed on the NEHGSR CDROM.

Ira B. Peck stated unequivocably that they were commissioned at the time they are dated:
c.1620. [see gen-medieval archives, citation 1870 NEHGSR]

In the front of Ira B. Peck's *A Genealogical History of the Descendants of Joseph Peck*
Mudge, Boston: 1868, on page 11 and 12, the author included a *transcript* of the
PEDIGREE OF PECK and his bold statement: "The pedigree, as it is here given, may be found
in the British Museum, London, England, excepting the two last families, those of Robert
and Joseph, which are added to it." In fact, this pedigree as it appears in plates with
arms reflects the STATE OF THE PEDIGREE back in the 17th century: without the additional
families. The authors of the 1930s serialized articles on Joseph Peck's English ancestors
state that church documents state the father of Robert Peck of Beccles had 9 sons and
9 daughters, and that the pedigree of Peck commissioned by Nicholas Peck is substantially
the same as Tonge's Visitations of 1530 and Flowers Visitations of 1863-64 with the rest
of the sons and daughters of John Peck's family restored. The provenance of the British
Museum Pedigree of Peck is yet to be substantiated in terms of who and when it was
received into the English archives.

It reads, in part, at the crucial segments before and including Robert Peck of Beccles:
_____________________________________
Richard Peck, Esq.=Alice, dau. of Sir Peter Middleton, Knt.
_____________________________________
John Peck, of Wakefield, Esq.=Joan, dau. of John Anne, of Frickley
_____________________________________
Robert Peck, of Beccles, Suffolk=dau. of Norton, 2dly, dau. of Waters...sister Katherine Peck=John
Leyke/Leake/Leeke, of
................................................................................................................................................Normanton...brother
Ralph Peck=the dau. of Leeke/Leake
_____________________________________

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, the

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 30 okt 2007 22:56:03

BA: My point: in 1870 the statement was made matter-of-factly, as if he actually believed what
he was stating: in writing. What further evidence must you have than the man's written word? >>

Will: What he said isn't relevant to what has evidence. Bill I'm sure you've been in a courtroom
before. What are you failing to see here? People can state and FIRMLY believe many things that
have no evidence whatsoever. Ira Peck probably believed it, that does not mean that we must
believe that he had any evidence.

BA: Hi, Will, and thanks for thinking of the Pedigree of Peck. I hope you realize we are not
going
to agree on everything: so, I guess I will stipulate that we are in disagreement here, because we
have visited it several times already. But: I will attempt to explain my interpretation of
scholarship,
not courtroom lore, as it is quite different in court, English, American, wherever. This is
scholarship:
a case in point: I just read a Douglas Richardson post, and in it he referred to a *Visitation* as
if
it were evidence. Then, he went on to offer citations from elsewhere to bolster his observation
and commentary, and hope others would agree with his conclusion. I hope for no less here. I
admit, as you suggest, that evidence is built as evidence mounts. In courtrooms they do not
allow hearsay-evidence but in other scholarly realms hearsay-evidence is considered: he said,
she said. So: what Ira wrote (he did not say it, he wrote it) is evidence. It might, to your way
of
looking at it, lack credibility: but any reasonable scholar would admit it is evidence to be
admitted.
Taken in context, taken with other evidence, it may prove to be the way we finally viewe the
question.
Any particular question in debate has many issues, and it is the resolution of issues that may or
may
not finally decide the question. Welcome back, to the debate of the Ancestors of Robert Peck, the
Elder, of Beccles.

Bill

******




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

Storm

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

Legg inn av Storm » 30 okt 2007 23:07:13

Why not contact the College of Herlads and have them search their archive
for anything relating to this family and possibly the pedigree in question?

Clark Wrather

-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of Bill Arnold
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 3:57 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of
Beccles:Nicholas' pedigree


BA: I repeat, whether or not he was taken in by Someby does NOT explain
his statement it was his gateway ancestor Joseph's brother who commissioned
the Pedigree of Peck in the 1600s which now resides in the British Museum.

TAF: It does if he was just repeating what Somerby told him. The history
of the document would not likely have come to Peck independent of the
document itself.

BA: That is a big "IF" after "It does" and makes your entire statment
conditional
on an event of which you have not proof.


TAF: The BL probably does have documentation on how the documents came to
them, but it may just say it was donated by X. Whoever donated it may
have given further information, but it is an unjustified assumption
that this information is fact. Most stolen paintings have fully
documented provenance - it is just made up.

BA: I take it you claim scholarship credentials on this list and reject
*provenance*
as a viable piece of evidence. I will let other scholars speak to that. I
have already
spoken.

TAF: What is known is that the pedigree was communicated to Peck by
Somerby, and it can then be supposed that Peck got his information on
its creation from the same source.

BA: Not so fast. It is NOT "known" as you state, because your statement is
in direct
conflict with Ira. B. Peck's retort in 1870 that the Pedigree of Peck
existed nearly two centuries
before Someby's time, and that the Pedigree of Peck was drafted by the
College of
Heralds on the commission of gateway ancestor Joseph Peck's brother in the
1600s.

Bill

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





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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.13/1099 - Release Date: 10/30/2007
10:06 AM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.13/1099 - Release Date: 10/30/2007
10:06 AM

D. Spencer Hines

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

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 31 okt 2007 00:01:41

Because he doesn't want to pay for it.

DSH

"Storm" <storm@pine-net.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.739.1193782040.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Why not contact the College of Herlads and have them search their archive
for anything relating to this family and possibly the pedigree in
question?

Clark Wrather

-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of Bill Arnold
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 3:57 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of
Beccles:Nicholas' pedigree


BA: I repeat, whether or not he was taken in by Someby does NOT explain
his statement it was his gateway ancestor Joseph's brother who
commissioned
the Pedigree of Peck in the 1600s which now resides in the British Museum.

TAF: It does if he was just repeating what Somerby told him. The history
of the document would not likely have come to Peck independent of the
document itself.

BA: That is a big "IF" after "It does" and makes your entire statment
conditional
on an event of which you have not proof.


TAF: The BL probably does have documentation on how the documents came to
them, but it may just say it was donated by X. Whoever donated it may
have given further information, but it is an unjustified assumption
that this information is fact. Most stolen paintings have fully
documented provenance - it is just made up.

BA: I take it you claim scholarship credentials on this list and reject
*provenance*
as a viable piece of evidence. I will let other scholars speak to that.
I
have already
spoken.

TAF: What is known is that the pedigree was communicated to Peck by
Somerby, and it can then be supposed that Peck got his information on
its creation from the same source.

BA: Not so fast. It is NOT "known" as you state, because your statement
is
in direct
conflict with Ira. B. Peck's retort in 1870 that the Pedigree of Peck
existed nearly two centuries
before Someby's time, and that the Pedigree of Peck was drafted by the
College of
Heralds on the commission of gateway ancestor Joseph Peck's brother in the
1600s.

Bill

Gjest

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

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

On Oct 30, 1:40 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanks much, Will, for your continued interest in the Peck Pedigree.
I assume we understand that Ira. B. Peck wrote in 1870 that his gateway ancestor Joseph
Peck's brother Nicholas commissioned the Pedigree of Peck in the British Museum Library.


And he would not have known this from his personal experience, but
would have been repeating information that came from some undisclosed
third party.

My point: in 1870 the statement was made matter-of-factly, as if he actually believed what
he was stating: in writing. What further evidence must you have than the man's written word?


What is the value of the written word of a man simply repeating what
he has been told? Only as good as the information that has come to
him. No one is doubting that he believed it, but that doesn't make it
true.

I have read here and elsewhere that so much of what is know in the world of English medieval
genealogy rests upon pedigrees: and nothing else. In some case, that is all there is for a
lineage.


This may once have been true, but is no longer so, and the more
contemporary records have become available, the more we have
recognized that pedigrees must be viewed with skepticism for material
that would have been beyond the personal knowledge of the individual
providing the information.

taf

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 okt 2007 02:15:26

On Oct 30, 1:57 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
BA: I repeat, whether or not he was taken in by Someby does NOT explain
his statement it was his gateway ancestor Joseph's brother who commissioned
the Pedigree of Peck in the 1600s which now resides in the British Museum.

TAF: It does if he was just repeating what Somerby told him. The history
of the document would not likely have come to Peck independent of the
document itself.

BA: That is a big "IF" after "It does" and makes your entire statment conditional
on an event of which you have not proof.

We have no idea where he got that information but we know it was not a
first-person account. You would accept a statement made in 1870 about
events in 1620 as the absolute truth. That is not a reasonable
position to take. We need to know where he got that nugget of
information that he passed on before it can be trusted.

TAF: The BL probably does have documentation on how the documents came to
them, but it may just say it was donated by X. Whoever donated it may
have given further information, but it is an unjustified assumption
that this information is fact. Most stolen paintings have fully
documented provenance - it is just made up.

BA: I take it you claim scholarship credentials on this list and reject *provenance*
as a viable piece of evidence. I will let other scholars speak to that. I have already
spoken.

You seem to have a special talent for straw men. I do not reject
provenance as a valuable piece of evidence. I do reject hearsay,
which is all Mr. Peck's statement is.


TAF: What is known is that the pedigree was communicated to Peck by
Somerby, and it can then be supposed that Peck got his information on
its creation from the same source.

BA: Not so fast. It is NOT "known" as you state, because your statement is in direct
conflict with Ira. B. Peck's retort in 1870 that the Pedigree of Peck existed nearly two centuries
before Someby's time, and that the Pedigree of Peck was drafted by the College of
Heralds on the commission of gateway ancestor Joseph Peck's brother in the 1600s.


When a document was created is completely irrelevant to how Mr. Peck
learned of it and got a copy. Surely you can see the distinction,
can't you. I have a print on my wall of an El Greco. I got it in
Cleveland in the 1990s. That the original was painted long, long
before has no bearing on when I got it and from whom. That Mr. Peck
was told by someone that the pedigree was created in 1620 does not
mean that it actually was, and has no bearing on who he got the
information from.

taf

Gjest

Re: Peck pedigree: newsgroup/list structure

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 okt 2007 02:18:11

On Oct 30, 2:02 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
TAF: He did not respond to a private email - he responded to a GEN-MEDIEVAL
post. This has been demonstrated.

BA: NT posted and I responded to him. Why are you answering for him? Are you
his butler or his man-servant?

Are you trying to be offensive, or is it just happening by accident?

And you are sorely mistaken: in his first post to
gen-medieval, mentioning my name, he said clearly he was responding to a
"private email." It is in the archives, Sir.



And that post, in the archives, clearly records that he copied that
quoted information from an earlier post to the group by Mr. Brandon.

taf

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 okt 2007 02:23:57

On Oct 30, 2:36 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Ira B. Peck stated unequivocably that his ancestor's brother Nicholas had commissioned the
Pedigree
of Peck in the British Museum Library, in 5 plates: Plate 1, Plate 2, Plate 3, Plate 4 and Plate
4a.
They are located: *Additional Manuscripts,* 5524, folios 158 - 160.

Ira Peck was in no position to know this.

Ira B. Peck stated unequivocably that they were commissioned at the time they are dated:
c.1620. [see gen-medieval archives, citation 1870 NEHGSR]


Ira Peck was in no position to know this.


In fact, this pedigree as it appears in plates with
arms reflects the STATE OF THE PEDIGREE back in the 17th century: without the additional
families.

No, this is not a fact.

taf

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 okt 2007 02:26:39

On Oct 30, 2:14 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

TAF: That is also true. Hence our judgment regarding authenticity must be
held in abeyance - we cannot just assume it is authentic. In other
words, until we know, we don't know.

BA: To paraphrase: that is also true. Hence our judgment regarding fraud must be
held in abeyance--we cannot just assume it is fraudulent. In other
words, until we know, we don't know.

Yes. That is correct. We don't know. We cannot assume that it is
authentic, we cannot assume that it is a fraud. We cannot use it to
prove a pedigree or to disprove a pedigree until this question of
authenticity/fraud is clarified. Now are you going to repeat this
too?

taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Elizabeth: The Golden Age -- Cate Blanchett/Clive Owen

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 31 okt 2007 05:07:27

Well, yes, I've seen it -- with my wife.

Interesting scenes with Mary Queen of Scots -- among other features.

DSH

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:8aSVi.3066$FQ2.1729@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
pk@irishnation.com wrote:


On Oct 30, 7:41 am, "TMOliver" <tmoliverjr...@hot.rr.comFIX> wrote:

"D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote...


This film deserves an Oscar Nomination for Art Direction -- and a
Director's Cut on the DVD.

PLUS -- TWO Full-Length Commentaries -- ONE By A Real British Historian
& ONE By A Noted Cinephile, Who Knows The Other Elizabeth Films Inside
Out.

From an smn standpoint, the maritime parts of the film area bit "arty"...

Best characters/actors.....

The Spanish Ambassador....

Felipe Segundo (A theatrical gem!)

La Infanta

How in the world did they ever get permission to film in the Escorial,
considering the almost blatant "Anti-Papist" vein which runs throughout?
Great locations, sets and costumes, and a pleasant Grand Era of the
Cinema
"Over the Toppishness" about the whole exercise.

TMO

To be true to Elizabeth I and her Court, that attitude regarding the
'other church' must hold sway.

How many more Elizabethan films are due to be made in the near future?
It seems to be contagious. Of course the period pieces have much to
offer when they're well done as this one is said to be.

There was a bad review of it in NOTW, which I haven't read. Haven't seen
any other reviews but I will see the film. Anyone else seen it?

Renia

Re: Elizabeth: The Golden Age -- Cate Blanchett/Clive Owen

Legg inn av Renia » 31 okt 2007 05:10:04

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Well, yes, I've seen it -- with my wife.

Interesting scenes with Mary Queen of Scots -- among other features.


Did you like the film?

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Elizabeth: The Golden Age -- Cate Blanchett/Clive Owen

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 31 okt 2007 06:01:17

Yes, although I found myself wincing often.

The screenplay is unimpressive.

This film is not up to the Helen Mirren version at all.

That one, a two-part version done for television that runs 223 minutes, is
superb.

DSH

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:AeTVi.745$ib1.78@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Well, yes, I've seen it -- with my wife.

Interesting scenes with Mary Queen of Scots -- among other features.

Did you like the film?

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Elizabeth: The Golden Age -- Cate Blanchett/Clive Owen

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 31 okt 2007 07:39:46

One of the screenwriters for this film was also a key player on _The
Tudors_.

He's also a BBC pogue -- William Nicholson.

In my opinion, he's one of the folks who hurt this film.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"CJ Buyers" <susuhanan@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1193811619.508651.230310@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

On Oct 31, 3:06 am, "Candide" <PityMePi...@anywhere.com> wrote:

Know financing is tight these days,

You can say that again. The latest BBC nonsense on the Tudors had
tarmac on the roads, nineteenth century carriages and gates, concrete
bollards and references to the European Union!

but if they can keep remaking the
Invasion of the Spanish Armada, surely something can be done.

Very cheap to do, all you need is a bath tub and a few models.

jonathan kirton

Fwd: "Magna Carta Ancestry" by Douglas Richardson

Legg inn av jonathan kirton » 31 okt 2007 10:54:30

Douglas,

Thanks for your response yesterday, and for pointing me to the
second John Leeke will of 10 July, 1508, PRO Cat. Ref.: prob/11/16,
(Image Ref.: 24), which is indeed that of John Leeke of Edmonton,
"Edlemonton", as he repeatedly writes it in the will. It is in
that late Latin which seems to mix in English and French words and
will take time to read in total, however there are three mentions of
his wife Ann(e), and two of his son: "Jasper filius", and one of his
daughter "Elizabeth filia", so I believe that this is sufficient
evidence to confirm it as being that of John Leeke of Wyer Hall,
Edmonton, Middlesex. Since he was still alive in 1508, by which time
most of John Kirton and Margaret White's had to have been alive, I
believe this does confirm that Margaret White was John Kirton's first
wife, and that John Leele's widow, Anne Leeke (nee Ruskyn) was John
Kirton's second wife.

Irrespectively, before the above was confirmed, you had suggested in
your second paragraph that Anne Leeke (nee Ruskyn) might have had
"sufficient time to marry John Leeke and John Kirton in rapid
succession, and die before 1500". This would have made the Leeke
children and the Kirton children half-brothers and sisters, instead
of step-brothers and sisters, which I feel certain would have made
Jasper Leek and Margaret (1) Kirton, and William Kirton and Elizabeth
Leeke ineligible to marry, because they would have all shared one of
their parents, namely Anne. Yet we have proof that these two couples
did indeed marry, from John Kirton's own will, as well as from the
Harleian MS.

I do not think that the fact that Stephen Kirton did not marry until
1530, when he would have been aged about 28 or 29, is sufficient
reason for the conclusion which you had suggested.

Again I thank you very much for taking an interest in this, and for
helping to sort it all out.

Sincerely, Jonathan

Gjest

Re: Sir Thomas Browne (died 1460) and Eleanor Arundel

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 okt 2007 12:17:02

For some reason my posting of a day or two ago did not make it (under the
original heading of this thread). Here it is again:



In a message dated 29/10/2007 17:33:32 GMT Standard Time,
revenant1963@yahoo.com writes:

Here's my "lineage" back to Thomas Browne and Eleanor FitzAlan (through the

somewhat hazy Daniel Lucy/Timothy Lucy connection) Most or all other
connections shown appear to be fairly well-documented (excepting some of the dates):

Sir Thomas Browne ======== Eleanor Fitzalan (1402-executed 20 Jul 1460)
(c.1428-c.1445)

Sir John Browne of Walcot (c.1445-1 Jan 1498), Lord Mayor and Sheriff of
London

Sir William Browne (1474-3 June, 1514) === Katherine Shaw (1467-1514)
Lord Mayor and Sheriff of London d/o Sir Edmund Shaw, Lord Mayor,
etc.

Anne Browne (c.1495-10 Mar 1582) === Sir Richard Fermor (1492-1552)

Anne Fermor (c.1515-1553) === Sir William Lucy (1509-1551)

Timothy Lucy (16 Nov 1547-21 Jan 1616), B.A., Oxford (1567), & Member of
Parliament
<<<<





Terry,

Gosh, this is a bit of a jumble, not surprisingly considering what is in
print about the Brownes

"Sir Thomas Browne ======== Eleanor Fitzalan (1402-executed 20 Jul 1460)
(c.1428-c.1445)

Sir John Browne of Walcot (c.1445-1 Jan 1498), Lord Mayor and Sheriff of
London"

There are three different Browne families here, there may be connections
between them, but not as shown here.

Thomas Browne and Eleanor Fitzalan (as the family is now commonly called)
had seven known sons (as shown in a deed of 1460) and one known dau They was
ancestor of the Browne of Betchworth, nr Dorking (a limited view of the ruins of
Betchworth Castle, but in reality a fortified house, can just be made out on
Google earth) and the Browne's Viscount Montague (of Battle Abbey, Sussex
and Cowdray, nr Midhurst, Sussex), a family that became extinct at end of 18th
centuary. There were not the father of the above Sir John Browne, although
there is some thin circumstantial evidence, apart from their surname, that
they were related

The Browne's whom later became baronets of Walcot were almost certainly
descendants of Browne's of Stamford, Lincolnshire (Walcot being 3 or 4 miles from
Stamford). The Stamford Browne have been fairly well documneted and are
not, at least for a number of generations, related to the Brownes who were
(lord) mayors of London.

"Sir William Browne (1474-3 June, 1514) === Katherine Shaw (1467-1514)
Lord Mayor and Sheriff of London d/o Sir Edmund Shaw, Lord Mayor, etc.

Anne Browne (c.1495-10 Mar 1582) === Sir Richard Fermor (1492-1552)

Anne Fermor (c.1515-1553) === Sir William Lucy (1509-1551)"

John Browne (-1497) was mayor of London in 1480/1 and he had a son William
Browne (-Will 1514) who was mayor in 1513 and m1 Katherine Shaa als Shaw and m2
Alice Kebyll, but it was a different Sir William Browne (-1507) and who died
in office as mayor of London and who was father of the Anne Browne who
married Richard Fermor als Farmor. This second William Browne was related to the
other Browne's, mayors of London, but the exact relationship is not known,
most likley William is cousen germaine to John, mayor.


"Anne Browne (c.1495-10 Mar 1582) === Sir Richard Fermor (1492-1552)

Anne Fermor (c.1515-1553) === Sir William Lucy (1509-1551)"

This is correct relationship, but I don't know where most of these dates
come from.

I don't know anything further about their descendants. You could try
looking in "The New England Historical and Genealogical Register", but I don't know
much about US genealogy.

You could also check Gen-Med archives for various posts I have made about
the above Brownes

Adrian

Brian Sharrock

Re: Elizabeth: The Golden Age -- Cate Blanchett/Clive Owen

Legg inn av Brian Sharrock » 31 okt 2007 12:38:58

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:JrVVi.131$smoe

something nonsensical snipped



"CJ Buyers" <susuhanan@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1193811619.508651.230310@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

On Oct 31, 3:06 am, "Candide" <PityMePi...@anywhere.com> wrote:

Know financing is tight these days,

You can say that again. The latest BBC nonsense on the Tudors had
tarmac on the roads, nineteenth century carriages and gates, concrete
bollards and references to the European Union!


The latest episode screened had Margaret Tudors, Henry's sister, fornicating
on a voyage she never made; marrying in a country she never visited;
committing Regicide on a King that never existed!

With those script errors, why bother with Minor details such as tarmac,
bollards ... etc.?


--

Brian

John Briggs

Re: Elizabeth: The Golden Age -- Cate Blanchett/Clive Owen

Legg inn av John Briggs » 31 okt 2007 13:38:33

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
One of the screenwriters for this film was also a key player on _The
Tudors_.

He's also a BBC pogue -- William Nicholson.

In my opinion, he's one of the folks who hurt this film.

You're a half-wit - with two names to choose from, you chose the wrong one
:-)
--
John Briggs

jonathan kirton

Re: "Magna Carta Ancestry" by Douglas Richardson

Legg inn av jonathan kirton » 31 okt 2007 16:01:12

Dear Douglas and the News Group,

Please disregard and delete this email that was sent 24 hours ago,
but only surfaced at 9.31am EST today ?

I was under the impression that it had failed to send, and therefore
replaced it with another sent at 6.19 am this morning.

Thanks,

Jonathan

Gjest

Re: Scholarly Journals (Was TAG)

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 okt 2007 17:54:00

On Oct 30, 1:12 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Thank you, David.

This is most helpful.

Best Regards,

DSH

am...@alltel.net> wrote in message

news:1193762068.568040.210890@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...

The finest southern genealogical journal was Fred Dorman's The
Virginia Genealogist, which, as I mentioned earlier, closed down last
year, after 50 years of publication. Fred is now working on a
cumulative index, which will be well worth consulting for any southern
family.

Yes!

National Genealogical Society Quarterly includes some southern
material in most issues.

Is it indexed on the web?

At TAG, we try to include at least one southern article in each issue,
and we usually succeed. But we have not always found it easy to do so;
southern genealogists prefer to publish source material and
methodology rather than the compiled genealogy and problem-solving
articles that TAG specializes in. Our most important southern articles
have probably been those by Cameron Allen, FASG: fine studies of the
Huguenot families of Manikin Town, Virginia.

I agree. I was fortunate enough to be a minor contributor to one of Cameron
Allen's articles -- the one on the Depps -- and found him to be a most
pleasant and simpatico collaborator.

The Genealogist (published by the FASGs) frequently publishes southern
material, usually longer articles than the other journals can handle.

Are they indexed on the web?

DSH

Cameron Allen has appeared in all the journals I have mentioned as

something publishing material from the south. The Depp article you
mention appeared in The Genealogist because of the article's length
(Johnny Depp is a member of this family).

So far as I know none of these journals have web indexes, but their
individual websites, which can be found through Google, should answer
the question.

DAVID GREENE

Gjest

Re: Sir Thomas Browne (died 1460) and Eleanor Arundel

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 okt 2007 21:04:25

-----Original Message-----
From: ADRIANCHANNING02@aol.com
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 4:14 am
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas Browne (died 1460) and Eleanor Arundel
??
"Sir William Browne (1474-3 June, 1514) === Katherine Shaw? (1467-1514)
Lord Mayor and Sheriff of London?????? d/o Sir Edmund Shaw, Lord? Mayor, etc.

Anne Browne (c.1495-10 Mar 1582) === Sir? Richard Fermor (1492-1552)

Anne Fermor (c.1515-1553)? === Sir William Lucy (1509-1551)"

John Browne (-1497) was mayor of London in 1480/1 and he had a son William?
Browne (-Will 1514) who was mayor in 1513 and m1 Katherine Shaa als Shaw and m2
Alice Kebyll, but it was a different Sir William Browne (-1507) and who died
in? office as mayor of London and who was father of the Anne Browne who
married? Richard Fermor als Farmor.? This second William Browne was related to
the other Browne's, mayors of London, but the exact relationship is not known,
most? likley William is cousen germaine to John, mayor.

"Anne Browne (c.1495-10 Mar 1582) === Sir Richard Fermor? (1492-1552)

Anne Fermor (c.1515-1553) === Sir William? Lucy (1509-1551)"


Adrian
-------------------------------
I would be interested in what the proof is for the statement that the father of Anne (Browne) Fermor is not the same William Browne as the William Browne who married Catherine Shaa.

Thanks
Will Johnson
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck, the

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 31 okt 2007 21:32:03

IDENTITY FACT 3: Robert Peck of Beccles, the Elder mentioned in the will of his father John Peck
of Wakefield
[ref: IDENTITY FACT 1 established that Robert was not born in Beccles but arrived there c.1525:
IDENTITY FACT 2
established that Robert was the son of John of Wakefield: stipulated in 17th Century Pedigree of
Peck in the British
Museum: See gen-medieval archives for fuller notation and citation.]
_____________________________________
Richard Peck, Esq.=Alice, dau. of Sir Peter Middleton, Knt.
_____________________________________
John Peck, of Wakefield, Esq.=Joan, dau. of John Anne, of Frickley
_____________________________________
Robert Peck, of Beccles, Suffolk=dau. of Norton, 2dly, dau. of Waters...sister Katherine Peck=John
Leyke/Leake/Leeke, of
................................................................................................................................................Normanton...brother
Ralph Peck=the dau. of Leeke/Leake
_____________________________________

IDENTITY FACT 3: Robert Peck of Beccles, the Elder=mar.1st, dau. of Norton, 2nd. dau. of Waters:
brother married dau. of Leeke and sister married son of Leeke

Excerpt from the Will of John Peck:

THE WILL OF JOHN PECK(PECKE) OF WAKEFIELD, co. York, Esq., dated 2 November 1558...Immediately
after my decease the said Mr. Thomas Robertson, Mr. John Grene and John Mylnes shall take and
enjoy the rents and profits of all my lands, tenements, and hereditaments lying within the parish
of Easbey Ardeslowe, to the use, profit, and commodity of John Peck(Peke), son and heir apparent
of Richard Peck(Peke), my son until the said John Peck(Peke) shall come to the age of twenty-four
years; and the said Mr. Thomas Robertson shall have government and bringing up (in virtue and
learning) of the said John Peck[sic] until he come to the said age of twenty-four years, if it may
please him at this my especial request to have his assistance therein, the said Mr. Thomas
Robertson taking to himself at his discretion so much of the rents of the said lands, tenements,
and hereditaments in Easte Ardeslowe aforesaid, for the education and bringing-up of the said John
Peck(Peke), as, the rest of the yearly rents to be reserved to the use of the said John Peck(Peke)
until he come to the said age of twenty-four years. The aforesaid Richard Peck(Peke), my son,
shall have all my purchased lands, tenements, with their appurtenances, within the parish of
Wakefield (except those parcels which I have already given to Lancelote Leeke/Leake/L[e
omitted]ake and Robert Peck(Peke), to have and to hold unto the said Richard and his heirs male
for ever. Also all my lands and tenements in Halifax parish, with one house and close thereto
belonging in Criglestone, within the parish of Sandall, now or late in the tenure or 0occupation
of John Norton, to have and to hold to the said Richard his heirs male of his body, lawfully
begotten, and for default of such issue to remain to me, the said John Peck(Peke), for ever...In
witness whereof I, the said John Peck(Peke), Esq., hereunto have subscribed my name with my own
hand. Witnesses: Sir Edward Woode, Thomas Scrypynr, Peter Dighton, Willm Adamson, with
others...Proved 17 February 1558 by John Grene, Richard Peck(Peke), John Mylnes, and Nicholas
Peck(Peke), the executors. (Exchequer and Prerogative Courts of York, Register 15, part 3, fo.
273).

Under the supposition that Robert Peck of Beccles, the Elder [born elsewhere], was the son of John
Peck, of Wakefield, as so stated in the British Museum Library Pedigree of Peck commissioned by
gateway ancestor Joseph Peck's brother Nicholas, then his birth is shrouded in mystery, his
descent not mentioned in Tonge's Visitation of 1530 and Flower's Visitation of 1563-64,
and likely was illegimate or legitimate but undiscovered and a trail of proof appears in the
evidence supplied by the Will of John Peck, testator of 1558, in which he had already deeded to
one Robert Peck and Lancelot Leeke *purchased* land as distinct from inherited land, an early
indication of the association of the Pecks of Wakefield with the later Robert Peck of Beccles, and
the Nortons of Wakefield and the later Norton family the said Robert Peck of Beccles, the Elder,
first married into, and the Leeke family of Wakefield and the later Leeke family the said Robert
Peck of Beccles, the Elder's brother and sister married into.

Bill

****









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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Elizabeth: The Golden Age -- Cate Blanchett/Clive Owen

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 31 okt 2007 23:42:22

Day Late & A Pound Short...

Charles I has his film -- _Cromwell_ -- Alec Guinness in the Charles I role.

Charles II has his film. _Charles II: The Power & the Passion_ a 2003
miniseries.

"Alvanley, who's your fat friend?" pertains to GEORGE IV ---- NOT Edward IV.
Beau Brummell made the remark to the Prince of Wales, who later became
George IV.

Peter Ustinov plays the role of the fat friend in _Beau Brummell_ [1954].

Pogue Black is confused again.

Damn!

Teaching these Brits British History & Brits In Cinema is a full-time job.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fgasbu$5t5$2@registered.motzarella.org...

People like Charles I, Charles II, Edward IV, 'Who's you're fat friend'
and a couple of others have all got good movies 'in them'.

Gjest

Re: "Magna Carta Ancestry" by Douglas Richardson

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 okt 2007 23:53:03

-----Original Message-----
From: jonathan kirton <jonathankirton@sympatico.ca>
To: WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com>
Cc: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 1:21 pm
Subject: Re: "Magna Carta Ancestry" by Douglas Richardson


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.



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

Personally, not that you have to adhere to my belief, I find this sort of thing dangerous.

Other people will simply pick up your est 1498, citing it, *without* the accompanying argument
and then it will stick into a hundred online trees with a simple gloss of "Gen-Med Oct 2007"

giving a seeming authority to something which is actually without.







So allowing the argument to stand, we can as well say that Margaret White and John Kirton were

were married as early as 1473 (he was after all admit to Lincoln's Inn in 1468, while her
chronology, not well established could have her born as early as 1459).






They commence having children in rapid fashion and *could* leave off as early as 1480 for
all we know now. None of the five children we know from this union has a firm chronology

and using averages for specific individuals is always bound to create a fictitious

situation.







We can say their children were all born sometime in the period 1473 to 1510, perhaps allowing
Margaret Kirton to be born as late as 1515. We know that her half-sister, the other
Margaret Kirton was married by Nov 1529, but a girl can marry at a young age, we should not
assume it was 16.



Anne Ruskyn must have been *significantly* younger than her last husband John Kirton, at least
20 years.

The reason Jasper Leeke got the best stuff in the will was most likely because it came to
the family through his mother or father, not his step-father. You can imagine what kind of
row it might have caused if John Kirton has married a wealthy widow then dispossessed her son.


Will Johnson





________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck, the

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 01 nov 2007 00:14:28

In article <mailman.796.1193862578.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:

IDENTITY FACT 3: Robert Peck of Beccles, the Elder mentioned in the will of
his father John Peck of Wakefield

Not a fact. The will mentions a Robert Peck, but does not explicitly
call him a son. And as it does appear to explicitly mention all
surviving sons (as can be collated with Tonge's visitation, etc.), the
presumption must be that Robert Peck mentioned in the will is not a son.

Further, there is no evidence that the Robert Peck mentioned in John
Peck of Wakefield's will is Robert Peck of Beccles, Suffolk.

IDENTITY FACT 2
established that Robert was the son of John of Wakefield: stipulated in 17th
Century Pedigree of Peck in the British
Museum: See gen-medieval archives for fuller notation and citation.]

Not a fact. You cannot assume this to be so. See gen-medieval archives
for fuller discussion of why you cannot assume it to be so.

<snip partial text of will>

Under the supposition that Robert Peck of Beccles, the Elder [born
elsewhere], was the son of John
Peck, of Wakefield, as so stated in the British Museum Library Pedigree of
Peck commissioned by
gateway ancestor Joseph Peck's brother Nicholas, then his birth is shrouded
in mystery, his
descent not mentioned in Tonge's Visitation of 1530 and Flower's Visitation
of 1563-64,
and likely was illegimate or legitimate but undiscovered

.... or not related at all.

a trail of proof

The leads you have focused on here do not constitute a 'trail of proof'.

... appears in the
evidence supplied by the Will of John Peck, testator of 1558, in which he had
already deeded to
one Robert Peck and Lancelot Leeke *purchased* land as distinct from
inherited land, an early
indication of the association of the Pecks of Wakefield with the later Robert
Peck of Beccles, and
the Nortons of Wakefield and the later Norton family the said Robert Peck of
Beccles, the Elder,
first married into, and the Leeke family of Wakefield and the later Leeke
family the said Robert
Peck of Beccles, the Elder's brother and sister married into.

There is no evidence of connection between these two Peck families,
other than the suspect pedigree whose testimony, since it contradicts
the earlier ones which must be taken as more trustworthy since they came
from the generation in question--must be set aside. Similarly, there is
no evidence of any connection between these Leeke families of Yorkshire
and Beccles, Suffolk.

Approach it another way: why did S. Allyn Peck rule out the idea that
Robert Peck, the elder, of Beccles was a son of John Peck of Wakefield?
If you want to argue that he was the son of John, you need to accurately
summarize, then counter, S. Allyn Peck's argument. If you cannot
accurately summarize his argument, then you have little chance of making
a persuasive rebuttal.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck, the

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 01 nov 2007 00:33:06

Nat is trying to teach a dog to play the piano.

DSH

"Nathaniel Taylor" <nltaylor@nltaylor.net> wrote in message
news:nltaylor-2ECD65.19142831102007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...

In article <mailman.796.1193862578.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:

IDENTITY FACT 3: Robert Peck of Beccles, the Elder mentioned in the will
of
his father John Peck of Wakefield

Not a fact. The will mentions a Robert Peck, but does not explicitly
call him a son. And as it does appear to explicitly mention all
surviving sons (as can be collated with Tonge's visitation, etc.), the
presumption must be that Robert Peck mentioned in the will is not a son.

Further, there is no evidence that the Robert Peck mentioned in John
Peck of Wakefield's will is Robert Peck of Beccles, Suffolk.

IDENTITY FACT 2
established that Robert was the son of John of Wakefield: stipulated in
17th
Century Pedigree of Peck in the British
Museum: See gen-medieval archives for fuller notation and citation.]

Not a fact. You cannot assume this to be so. See gen-medieval archives
for fuller discussion of why you cannot assume it to be so.

snip partial text of will

Under the supposition that Robert Peck of Beccles, the Elder [born
elsewhere], was the son of John
Peck, of Wakefield, as so stated in the British Museum Library Pedigree
of
Peck commissioned by
gateway ancestor Joseph Peck's brother Nicholas, then his birth is
shrouded
in mystery, his
descent not mentioned in Tonge's Visitation of 1530 and Flower's
Visitation
of 1563-64,
and likely was illegimate or legitimate but undiscovered

... or not related at all.

a trail of proof

The leads you have focused on here do not constitute a 'trail of proof'.

... appears in the
evidence supplied by the Will of John Peck, testator of 1558, in which he
had
already deeded to
one Robert Peck and Lancelot Leeke *purchased* land as distinct from
inherited land, an early
indication of the association of the Pecks of Wakefield with the later
Robert
Peck of Beccles, and
the Nortons of Wakefield and the later Norton family the said Robert Peck
of
Beccles, the Elder,
first married into, and the Leeke family of Wakefield and the later Leeke
family the said Robert
Peck of Beccles, the Elder's brother and sister married into.

There is no evidence of connection between these two Peck families,
other than the suspect pedigree whose testimony, since it contradicts
the earlier ones which must be taken as more trustworthy since they came
from the generation in question--must be set aside. Similarly, there is
no evidence of any connection between these Leeke families of Yorkshire
and Beccles, Suffolk.

Approach it another way: why did S. Allyn Peck rule out the idea that
Robert Peck, the elder, of Beccles was a son of John Peck of Wakefield?
If you want to argue that he was the son of John, you need to accurately
summarize, then counter, S. Allyn Peck's argument. If you cannot
accurately summarize his argument, then you have little chance of making
a persuasive rebuttal.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Elizabeth: The Golden Age -- Cate Blanchett/Clive Owen

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 01 nov 2007 00:43:15

Pogue Black is even blitheringly ignorant about films focusing on Edward II.

<http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0101798/>

With Derek Jarman directing no less..

Damn!

Teaching these Brits British History & Brits In Cinema is a full-time job.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Elizabeth: The Golden Age -- Cate Blanchett/Clive Owen

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 01 nov 2007 00:54:24

Edward II would be good, but no-one has the nerve.

Pogue Black
-----------------------------Cordon Sanitaire--------------------------

Pogue Black is even proven to be blitheringly ignorant about films focusing
on Edward II.

<http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0101798/>

With Derek Jarman directing no less..

Damn!

Teaching these Brits British History & Brits In Cinema is a full-time job.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Gjest

Re: Sir Thomas Browne (died 1460) and Eleanor Arundel

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 nov 2007 00:59:42

On Oct 31, 1:04 pm, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:

I would be interested in what the proof is for the statement that the father of Anne (Browne) Fermor is not the same William Browne as the William Browne who married Catherine Shaa.


John and the two Williams, as well as the next generation left wills
naming children, in-laws and relatives that allow the families to be
accurately reconstructed. This has all been discussed here, and most
of the wills posted in their entirety, so check the archives.

taf

John Briggs

Re: Elizabeth: The Golden Age -- Cate Blanchett/Clive Owen

Legg inn av John Briggs » 01 nov 2007 01:36:24

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Edward II would be good, but no-one has the nerve.

Pogue Black
-----------------------------Cordon
Sanitaire--------------------------

Pogue Black is even proven to be blitheringly ignorant about films
focusing on Edward II.

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0101798/

With Derek Jarman directing no less..

Damn!

Teaching these Brits British History & Brits In Cinema is a full-time
job.

Despite the five other writers credited, this is not an original
screenplay... Did you happen to notice the writer credited 4th?
--
John Briggs

Gjest

Re: Sir Thomas Browne (died 1460) and Eleanor Arundel

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 nov 2007 01:49:28

In a message dated 31/10/2007 20:05:57 GMT Standard Time, wjhonson@aol.com
writes:

Adrian
-------------------------------
I would be interested in what the proof is for the statement that the father
of Anne (Browne) Fermor is not the same William Browne as the William Browne
who married Catherine Shaa.

Thanks
Will Johnson


Will,


The Will of William Browne Ld Mayor in 1513 PRO Web page indexed as William
Browne, Alderman of Saint Thomas Acon, City of London; proved 01 July 1514;
PROB 11/17
“... Then I bequeath of my cousins Isabel Pyke William Browne the younger
son of William Browne the elder late alderman and Richard [Ferres crossed out]
Fermor grocer Margaret Riche widow and Erasmus Forde mercer a ring of gold of
the value of 20s ...â€

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Elizabeth: The Golden Age -- Cate Blanchett/Clive Owen

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 01 nov 2007 02:18:36

"TMOliver" <tmoliverjrFIX@hot.rr.comFIX> wrote in message
news:472741fc$0$25648$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote...

This film deserves an Oscar Nomination for Art Direction -- and a
Director's Cut on the DVD.

PLUS -- TWO Full-Length Commentaries -- ONE By A Real British Historian &
ONE By A Noted Cinephile, Who Knows The Other Elizabeth Films Inside Out.

From an smn standpoint, the maritime parts of the film area [sic] bit
"arty"...

D'accord.

Best characters/actors.....

The Spanish Ambassador....

Yes...

Felipe Segundo (A theatrical gem!)

True

La Infanta

Indeed

How in the world did they ever get permission to film in the Escorial,
considering the almost blatant "Anti-Papist" vein which runs throughout?
Great locations, sets and costumes, and a pleasant Grand Era of the Cinema
"Over the Toppishness" about the whole exercise.

D'accord.

Art Direction Quite Good.

Cinematography Excellent

CGI Not Impressive.

Interesting Bit With The White Horse...

Arty & Wistful -- Sop To The SPCA & Horselovers. Heavy On The CGI Of
Course.

Continuity Sucks...

Editing Sucks...

The Director seems to have made a three-hour movie which was cut down to
just over two hours [124 minutes] perhaps he didn't have final cut
authority -- hence the need for a Director's Cut DVD.

Screenplay Sophomoric...

Dialogue Pedestrian & Smelling Of Soap Opera.

_The Queen_ was SO much better.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Gjest

Re: Zaida's background

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 nov 2007 03:17:46

On Oct 24, 11:03 am, Don Stone <d...@donstonetech.com> wrote:

Peter Stewart has brought to light a very useful reference:

"La mora Zaida, entre historia y leyenda (con una reflexion sobre la
tecnica historiografica alfonsi)," by Alberto Montaner Frutos, pp.
272-352 in _Historicist Essays on Hispano-Medieval Narrative in Memory
of Roger M. Walker_, Barry Taylor and Geoffrey West, eds., London: Maney
Publishing for the Modern Humanities Research Association, 2005.

Some highlights from it:

Zaida was probably a title; her Arabic given name was probably Maria.


I found this unconvincing. The best source (only 150 years late) says
she adopted the name maria after baptism, while others are even later
and more dubious. While the name Zaida ('Ceyda') does appear to derive
from a feminized form of the arabic 'lord', the same root as el Cid's
nickname, but this does not mean it wasn't used as a given name - the
male form was in broad use in Mozarab Iberia as a given name.

The name given for her uncle is somewhat garbled. He may have been a
king of Denia.

Apparently derived from the title 'chamberlain', but some kings used
this title for archaic historical reasons. However, while Menendez
Pidal had no problem picking one of these kings, there is nothing in
the original documents that would enable such a conclusion to be
viewed as anything more than a wild guess.

The article makes a thorough presentation of the known evidence as of
about 2005.

There were a couple of studies that merited mention and were
overlooked, specifically those of Canal and Palencia.

The author believes that Zaida was not later queen and
interprets the evidence from that viewpoint,

He presents the article from a historiographic slant, giving the
history of the issue. While he doesn't explicitly state it as such,
this leaves a vague impression that the modern theories of Zaida being
wife of Alfonso derive from the older discredited sources that made
the same claim, while in fact they are largely independent of each
other, and have more to do with modern reanalysis of the politics and
hints from contemporary charters.


but you can re-interpret
the evidence in light of the recent article by Jaime de Salazar y Acha,
"De nuevo sobre la mora Zaida," _Hidalguia_, whole no. 321 (2007),
225-242, which argues that Zaida did become queen. (This latter article
was summarized by Todd Farmerie on Sept. 22.)


I should have mentioned in my summary that much of Salazar y Acha's
efforts were spent in refutation of this Montaner Frutos analysis.
Much of this involved simply giving his alternative spin to the same
documents. (Or worse, restating his original spin, as presented in
his earlier article.) Up until the last page, it is just the same old
rehash/spin. Then on the last page he drops the important new
document on us, and simply declares it conclusive.

I have hinted at it before, but let me ask it explicitly now. Does
anyone have access to Salazar Y Acha's earlier work on the subject?


"Contribución al estudio del reinado de Alfonso VI de Castilla:
algunas aclaraciones sobre su política matrimonial"

* Autores: Jaime de Salazar y Acha
* Localización: Anales de la Real Academia Matritense de Heráldica
y Genealogía, ISSN 1133-1240, Nº. 2, 1992-1993 , pags. 299-336



taf

Gjest

Re: Zaida's background

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 nov 2007 03:17:46

On Oct 24, 11:03 am, Don Stone <d...@donstonetech.com> wrote:

Peter Stewart has brought to light a very useful reference:

"La mora Zaida, entre historia y leyenda (con una reflexion sobre la
tecnica historiografica alfonsi)," by Alberto Montaner Frutos, pp.
272-352 in _Historicist Essays on Hispano-Medieval Narrative in Memory
of Roger M. Walker_, Barry Taylor and Geoffrey West, eds., London: Maney
Publishing for the Modern Humanities Research Association, 2005.

Some highlights from it:

Zaida was probably a title; her Arabic given name was probably Maria.


I found this unconvincing. The best source (only 150 years late) says
she adopted the name maria after baptism, while others are even later
and more dubious. While the name Zaida ('Ceyda') does appear to derive
from a feminized form of the arabic 'lord', the same root as el Cid's
nickname, but this does not mean it wasn't used as a given name - the
male form was in broad use in Mozarab Iberia as a given name.

The name given for her uncle is somewhat garbled. He may have been a
king of Denia.

Apparently derived from the title 'chamberlain', but some kings used
this title for archaic historical reasons. However, while Menendez
Pidal had no problem picking one of these kings, there is nothing in
the original documents that would enable such a conclusion to be
viewed as anything more than a wild guess.

The article makes a thorough presentation of the known evidence as of
about 2005.

There were a couple of studies that merited mention and were
overlooked, specifically those of Canal and Palencia.

The author believes that Zaida was not later queen and
interprets the evidence from that viewpoint,

He presents the article from a historiographic slant, giving the
history of the issue. While he doesn't explicitly state it as such,
this leaves a vague impression that the modern theories of Zaida being
wife of Alfonso derive from the older discredited sources that made
the same claim, while in fact they are largely independent of each
other, and have more to do with modern reanalysis of the politics and
hints from contemporary charters.


but you can re-interpret
the evidence in light of the recent article by Jaime de Salazar y Acha,
"De nuevo sobre la mora Zaida," _Hidalguia_, whole no. 321 (2007),
225-242, which argues that Zaida did become queen. (This latter article
was summarized by Todd Farmerie on Sept. 22.)


I should have mentioned in my summary that much of Salazar y Acha's
efforts were spent in refutation of this Montaner Frutos analysis.
Much of this involved simply giving his alternative spin to the same
documents. (Or worse, restating his original spin, as presented in
his earlier article.) Up until the last page, it is just the same old
rehash/spin. Then on the last page he drops the important new
document on us, and simply declares it conclusive.

I have hinted at it before, but let me ask it explicitly now. Does
anyone have access to Salazar Y Acha's earlier work on the subject?


"Contribución al estudio del reinado de Alfonso VI de Castilla:
algunas aclaraciones sobre su política matrimonial"

* Autores: Jaime de Salazar y Acha
* Localización: Anales de la Real Academia Matritense de Heráldica
y Genealogía, ISSN 1133-1240, Nº. 2, 1992-1993 , pags. 299-336



taf

Gjest

Re: Zaida's background

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 nov 2007 03:17:46

On Oct 24, 11:03 am, Don Stone <d...@donstonetech.com> wrote:

Peter Stewart has brought to light a very useful reference:

"La mora Zaida, entre historia y leyenda (con una reflexion sobre la
tecnica historiografica alfonsi)," by Alberto Montaner Frutos, pp.
272-352 in _Historicist Essays on Hispano-Medieval Narrative in Memory
of Roger M. Walker_, Barry Taylor and Geoffrey West, eds., London: Maney
Publishing for the Modern Humanities Research Association, 2005.

Some highlights from it:

Zaida was probably a title; her Arabic given name was probably Maria.


I found this unconvincing. The best source (only 150 years late) says
she adopted the name maria after baptism, while others are even later
and more dubious. While the name Zaida ('Ceyda') does appear to derive
from a feminized form of the arabic 'lord', the same root as el Cid's
nickname, but this does not mean it wasn't used as a given name - the
male form was in broad use in Mozarab Iberia as a given name.

The name given for her uncle is somewhat garbled. He may have been a
king of Denia.

Apparently derived from the title 'chamberlain', but some kings used
this title for archaic historical reasons. However, while Menendez
Pidal had no problem picking one of these kings, there is nothing in
the original documents that would enable such a conclusion to be
viewed as anything more than a wild guess.

The article makes a thorough presentation of the known evidence as of
about 2005.

There were a couple of studies that merited mention and were
overlooked, specifically those of Canal and Palencia.

The author believes that Zaida was not later queen and
interprets the evidence from that viewpoint,

He presents the article from a historiographic slant, giving the
history of the issue. While he doesn't explicitly state it as such,
this leaves a vague impression that the modern theories of Zaida being
wife of Alfonso derive from the older discredited sources that made
the same claim, while in fact they are largely independent of each
other, and have more to do with modern reanalysis of the politics and
hints from contemporary charters.


but you can re-interpret
the evidence in light of the recent article by Jaime de Salazar y Acha,
"De nuevo sobre la mora Zaida," _Hidalguia_, whole no. 321 (2007),
225-242, which argues that Zaida did become queen. (This latter article
was summarized by Todd Farmerie on Sept. 22.)


I should have mentioned in my summary that much of Salazar y Acha's
efforts were spent in refutation of this Montaner Frutos analysis.
Much of this involved simply giving his alternative spin to the same
documents. (Or worse, restating his original spin, as presented in
his earlier article.) Up until the last page, it is just the same old
rehash/spin. Then on the last page he drops the important new
document on us, and simply declares it conclusive.

I have hinted at it before, but let me ask it explicitly now. Does
anyone have access to Salazar Y Acha's earlier work on the subject?


"Contribución al estudio del reinado de Alfonso VI de Castilla:
algunas aclaraciones sobre su política matrimonial"

* Autores: Jaime de Salazar y Acha
* Localización: Anales de la Real Academia Matritense de Heráldica
y Genealogía, ISSN 1133-1240, Nº. 2, 1992-1993 , pags. 299-336



taf

Gjest

Re: Zaida's background

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 nov 2007 03:17:46

On Oct 24, 11:03 am, Don Stone <d...@donstonetech.com> wrote:

Peter Stewart has brought to light a very useful reference:

"La mora Zaida, entre historia y leyenda (con una reflexion sobre la
tecnica historiografica alfonsi)," by Alberto Montaner Frutos, pp.
272-352 in _Historicist Essays on Hispano-Medieval Narrative in Memory
of Roger M. Walker_, Barry Taylor and Geoffrey West, eds., London: Maney
Publishing for the Modern Humanities Research Association, 2005.

Some highlights from it:

Zaida was probably a title; her Arabic given name was probably Maria.


I found this unconvincing. The best source (only 150 years late) says
she adopted the name maria after baptism, while others are even later
and more dubious. While the name Zaida ('Ceyda') does appear to derive
from a feminized form of the arabic 'lord', the same root as el Cid's
nickname, but this does not mean it wasn't used as a given name - the
male form was in broad use in Mozarab Iberia as a given name.

The name given for her uncle is somewhat garbled. He may have been a
king of Denia.

Apparently derived from the title 'chamberlain', but some kings used
this title for archaic historical reasons. However, while Menendez
Pidal had no problem picking one of these kings, there is nothing in
the original documents that would enable such a conclusion to be
viewed as anything more than a wild guess.

The article makes a thorough presentation of the known evidence as of
about 2005.

There were a couple of studies that merited mention and were
overlooked, specifically those of Canal and Palencia.

The author believes that Zaida was not later queen and
interprets the evidence from that viewpoint,

He presents the article from a historiographic slant, giving the
history of the issue. While he doesn't explicitly state it as such,
this leaves a vague impression that the modern theories of Zaida being
wife of Alfonso derive from the older discredited sources that made
the same claim, while in fact they are largely independent of each
other, and have more to do with modern reanalysis of the politics and
hints from contemporary charters.


but you can re-interpret
the evidence in light of the recent article by Jaime de Salazar y Acha,
"De nuevo sobre la mora Zaida," _Hidalguia_, whole no. 321 (2007),
225-242, which argues that Zaida did become queen. (This latter article
was summarized by Todd Farmerie on Sept. 22.)


I should have mentioned in my summary that much of Salazar y Acha's
efforts were spent in refutation of this Montaner Frutos analysis.
Much of this involved simply giving his alternative spin to the same
documents. (Or worse, restating his original spin, as presented in
his earlier article.) Up until the last page, it is just the same old
rehash/spin. Then on the last page he drops the important new
document on us, and simply declares it conclusive.

I have hinted at it before, but let me ask it explicitly now. Does
anyone have access to Salazar Y Acha's earlier work on the subject?


"Contribución al estudio del reinado de Alfonso VI de Castilla:
algunas aclaraciones sobre su política matrimonial"

* Autores: Jaime de Salazar y Acha
* Localización: Anales de la Real Academia Matritense de Heráldica
y Genealogía, ISSN 1133-1240, Nº. 2, 1992-1993 , pags. 299-336



taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Elizabeth: The Golden Age -- Cate Blanchett/Clive Owen

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 01 nov 2007 04:30:40

Fair Enough...

DSH

"Donald4564" <dbinks@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:1193885412.250964.301330@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

As another candidate for having a film made about him I think Kaiser
Karl of Austria-Hungary would prove an interesting story. - Taking up
the throne in the middle of the Great War, the Coronation in BudaPest,
the turmoil at the end of the war, the flight into exile, the two
attempts at regaining the Hungarian throne in 1921 and a "La Boheme-
ish" tragic end with his untimely death in Portugal.

Regards
Donald Binks

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Elizabeth: The Golden Age -- Cate Blanchett/Clive Owen

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 01 nov 2007 04:57:39

Clive Owen, [Sir Walter Raleigh] who could probably have been "The New James
Bond", if he had wanted it badly enough, now appears to be a model for
Lancômbe.

No?

Intriguing...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck, the

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 01 nov 2007 14:55:04

BA: IDENTITY FACT 3: Robert Peck of Beccles, the Elder mentioned in the will of
his father John Peck of Wakefield

NT: Not a fact. The will mentions a Robert Peck, but does not explicitly
call him a son. And as it does appear to explicitly mention all
surviving sons (as can be collated with Tonge's visitation, etc.), the
presumption must be that Robert Peck mentioned in the will is not a son.

BA: Also in the gen-medieval archives and soon to be an identity fact in this
*proposed* pedigree with *proposed* facts is the fact that a church document
already cited proved that John Peck of Wakefield had 9 sons and 9 daughters:
and neither Tonge's nor Flower's Visitations mention them all but the Pedigree
of Peck dated in the 17th Century does. Also: the FACT that a Robert Peck and
a Lancelot Leeke/Leake/L(e omitted)ake are identified in the same will in the
same sentence speaks to the fact that you have not totally proven your dismissal
of this proposed fact. So, your proposed fact is as unsupported. I am building a
case: you cannot half-hearted dismiss the proposed fact with supposition, either.

TN: Further, there is no evidence that the Robert Peck mentioned in John
Peck of Wakefield's will is Robert Peck of Beccles, Suffolk.

BA: Excuse me? The pedigree of Peck, commissioned by gateway ancestor Joseph
Peck's brother Nicholas carries some weight here. You cannot dismiss it as evidence.
Evidence is not proof, never was: in law and in scholarship. Evidence speaks to an
issue which with other evidence, if needed, answers a question of proof. Need I
repeat this? It is true in law, it is true in debate, and it is true in scholarship.

NT: There is no evidence of connection between these two Peck families,
other than the suspect pedigree whose testimony, since it contradicts
the earlier ones which must be taken as more trustworthy since they came
from the generation in question--must be set aside. Similarly, there is
no evidence of any connection between these Leeke families of Yorkshire
and Beccles, Suffolk.

BA: That first sentence defies logic. The qualifier "other than" undercuts
the key clause of the sentece, which is submerged in the predicate split
by the qualifier: bad, bad, very bad structural English, Sir. What you are
trying to say here is that based on your allegation, one Visitation is worth
more than one pedigree, both from dated sources we *all* suspect *all*
the time, otherwise Douglas Richardson would be of a job as a creator
of books about this stuff. You cannot play that game, and you know better,
as a scholar and professor. I carry the same credentials, Sir, scholar and
professor. There IS linkage between the Pecks and Leekes of Wakefield
and the Pecks and Suffolk: it is called SURNAMES, Sir.

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, the

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 01 nov 2007 15:15:05

CORRECTION:

BA: IDENTITY FACT 3: Robert Peck of Beccles, the Elder mentioned in the will of
his father John Peck of Wakefield

NT: Not a fact. The will mentions a Robert Peck, but does not explicitly
call him a son. And as it does appear to explicitly mention all
surviving sons (as can be collated with Tonge's visitation, etc.), the
presumption must be that Robert Peck mentioned in the will is not a son.

BA: Also in the gen-medieval archives and soon to be an identity fact in this
*proposed* pedigree with *proposed* facts is the fact that a church document
already cited proved that John Peck of Wakefield had 9 sons and 9 daughters:
and neither Tonge's nor Flower's Visitations mention them all but the Pedigree
of Peck dated in the 17th Century does. Also: the FACT that a Robert Peck and
a Lancelot Leeke/Leake/L(e omitted)ake are identified in the same will in the
same sentence speaks to the fact that you have not totally proven your dismissal
of this proposed fact. So, your proposed fact is as unsupported. I am building a
case: you cannot half-hearted dismiss the proposed fact with supposition, either.

TN: Further, there is no evidence that the Robert Peck mentioned in John
Peck of Wakefield's will is Robert Peck of Beccles, Suffolk.

BA: Excuse me? The pedigree of Peck, commissioned by gateway ancestor Joseph
Peck's brother Nicholas carries some weight here. You cannot dismiss it as evidence.
Evidence is not proof, never was: in law and in scholarship. Evidence speaks to an
issue which with other evidence, if needed, answers a question of proof. Need I
repeat this? It is true in law, it is true in debate, and it is true in scholarship.

NT: There is no evidence of connection between these two Peck families,
other than the suspect pedigree whose testimony, since it contradicts
the earlier ones which must be taken as more trustworthy since they came
from the generation in question--must be set aside. Similarly, there is
no evidence of any connection between these Leeke families of Yorkshire
and Beccles, Suffolk.

BA: That first sentence defies logic. The qualifier "other than" undercuts
the key clause of the sentence, which is submerged in the predicate split
by the qualifier: bad, bad, very bad structural English, Sir. What you are
trying to say here is that based on your allegation, one Visitation is worth
more than one pedigree, both from dated sources we *all* suspect *all*
the time, otherwise Douglas Richardson would be out of a job as a creator
of books about this stuff. You cannot play that game, and you know better,
as a scholar and professor. I carry the same credentials, Sir, scholar and
professor. There IS linkage between the Pecks and Leekes of Wakefield
and the Pecks and Suffolk: it is called SURNAMES, Sir.

Bill

********

__________________________________________________
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, the

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 01 nov 2007 15:41:11

In article <mailman.829.1193924970.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:

... What you are
trying to say here is that based on your allegation, one Visitation is worth
more than one pedigree, both from dated sources we *all* suspect *all*
the time, otherwise Douglas Richardson would be of a job as a creator
of books about this stuff. You cannot play that game, and you know better,
as a scholar and professor. I carry the same credentials, Sir, scholar and
professor. There IS linkage between the Pecks and Leekes of Wakefield
and the Pecks and Suffolk: it is called SURNAMES, Sir.

I don't care about credentials. I do care that evidence, interpretation,
and criticism are handled in a way which would be generally understood
as 'scholarly'--which to me means exhibiting sound logic, sufficient
expertise with the evidence used, and concise prose. Your posts on the
Peck problem have not met those standards.

What I have tried to say is that you are continually mistaking evidence
for fact. In litigators' terms, you are trying to have the statements
found in one source stipulated as facts, then argue in a circle back to
those facts. That cannot be done. The evidence we have on thie Peck
question is contradictory and incomplete, and some of it comes from a
source of self-evidently questionable value. For each piece of evidence
you have to dispassionately assess its value, both intrinsically and
when weighed against other evidence.

The Peck pedigree on which you choose to rely is self-evidently
untrustworthy. Can you summarize why? Tonge's and Flower's visitations
are to be preferred to it in part because they are offering testimony
only on the generation (or two, or perhaps three) closest to that in
which the data was collected from that immediate family; also, they have
no polemical undertext of linking two families in disparate counties, or
supplying ancient armigerous status. One rule of thumb: the shorter the
pedigree, the more likely it is to be accurate, unless it displays other
common red flags. Given these issues--and others--in matters where the
later pedigree contradicts the earlier ones you simply cannot accept ANY
of its statements as fact without independent documentary evidence.

It is very typical, when an enthusiast encounters critics saying "you
cannot trust evidence X," to counter with a complaint of the type "you
naysayers would have us reject all early evidence, leaving us with
nothing." Sometimes this is deliberately misrepresenting or supressing
the logical basis of the criticism; usually it shows that the enthusiast
doesn't understand the basis of the criticism at all.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck, the

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 01 nov 2007 16:05:04

NT: I don't care about credentials.

BA: Good, I can go there: then we might get somewhere [no pun intended].

NT: I do care that evidence, interpretation, and criticism are handled in a
way which would be generally understood as 'scholarly'--which to me
means exhibiting sound logic, sufficient expertise with the evidence used,
and concise prose. Your posts on the Peck problem have not met those
standards."

BA: My posts, you allege, have not met YOUR standards. How convenient?
I assume if they are your standards, and the standards we all must meet,
then you must readily admit that your first post violated them all: based
on supposition, you maligned not only Mr. Somerby as it pertained to the
Pedigree of Peck MERELY because he had an infamous reputation. Now,
you say you should have isolated supposition from evidence, which you
later provided from index records at the BML. I will make this next thought,
short and sweet: you make allegations, that certain documents carry more
validity than others, for various reasons, provenance, date, et al., then
sweeping dismiss certain FACTS I set before you calling them NON-FACTS
which is your right to challenge. But you do NOT win your case with the
jury--that is to say, scholars who see it in opposition to your position--
with sentences littered with handgrenades with labels such as "preferred"
visitations over a pedigree, when we all admit that such visitations may
have been based on LIES of the informant. You get my drift. In order for
you to challenge FACTS in a proposed lineage/pedigree, YOU must present
FACTS which PROVE your case. So far: I read too many *preferred* and
*more likelys* than I like.

Bill

*****


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

Gjest

Re: Bn Geoffrey de Say 1st - descendancy

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 nov 2007 16:50:03

In a message dated 11/1/2007 1:47:52 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
"rainbow."@clear.net.nz writes:

*Bn Geoffrey de Say 1st - B 1135? Sawbridge, Herts,
England m/d *Alice de Vere
A son
*Bn Geoffrey Gaufridus (Magna Carta) de Say 2nd born 1155?
m/d
(1) Alice Cheyney - dau/ co-heiress of John de Cheyney of
Street, Brighton & Hamsey, Sussex.

(2) *Miss de Clare, 1215? dau of *Richard M.C. de Clare =
*C/ss Amice Fitzrobert de Gloucester
A son
*Sir William Berling de Say B 1205? in Sussex, England
m/d *Sibyl Marshall, 1254?


-------------------------------------
Doesn't it seem odd that a marriage in (perhaps) 1215 would produce a son in
(perhaps) 1205 ?
Do you have sources that claim that William de Say is the son of Miss de
Clare ?

Will Johnson



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

Gjest

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck, the

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 nov 2007 17:39:44

Bill this constant back and forth isn't getting you anywhere.

You are here, and Nat is there, and the rest of us are waiting for the
pissing contest to stop so we can address the issues.

Will



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

Gjest

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck, the

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 nov 2007 17:39:44

Bill this constant back and forth isn't getting you anywhere.

You are here, and Nat is there, and the rest of us are waiting for the
pissing contest to stop so we can address the issues.

Will



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

Gjest

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck, the

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 nov 2007 17:39:44

Bill this constant back and forth isn't getting you anywhere.

You are here, and Nat is there, and the rest of us are waiting for the
pissing contest to stop so we can address the issues.

Will



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

Gjest

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck, the

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 nov 2007 17:39:44

Bill this constant back and forth isn't getting you anywhere.

You are here, and Nat is there, and the rest of us are waiting for the
pissing contest to stop so we can address the issues.

Will



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

Gjest

Re: Vicente Fox's ancestors from Ohio

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 nov 2007 17:48:47

<<In a message dated 11/1/2007 8:40:12 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:

Joseph was
sent by doctors in his native Cincinnati to the mountains of central
Mexico's Bajio region for its clean, dry air, to cure his asthma.>>


-------------------------------------------
Seems to be a bit of self-serving family legend. Is Bajio the only place
within 2000 miles for people with asthma? Maybe someone will dig up that
newspaper article where he actually ran away to escape a hanging :)

Will



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

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck, the

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 01 nov 2007 18:04:11

In article <mailman.836.1193929267.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:

NT: I don't care about credentials.

BA: Good, I can go there: then we might get somewhere [no pun intended].

Sly. That makes it seem as if I've conceded some point; but you are the
only one who brought credentials up. In 12 years of participation in
this group, I have never made them an issue. I believe each
contribution to a discussion stands or falls on its own merits.

NT: I do care that evidence, interpretation, and criticism are handled in a
way which would be generally understood as 'scholarly'--which to me
means exhibiting sound logic, sufficient expertise with the evidence used,
and concise prose. Your posts on the Peck problem have not met those
standards."

BA: My posts, you allege, have not met YOUR standards. How convenient?
I assume if they are your standards, and the standards we all must meet,
then you must readily admit that your first post violated them all: based
on supposition, you maligned not only Mr. Somerby as it pertained to the
Pedigree of Peck MERELY because he had an infamous reputation.

To label what I have articulated above 'my' standards shows that you
don't understand broadly accepted standards of scholarly genealogy. To
claim that my raising the question of Somerby's responsibility for the
Peck Pedigree failed to meet the standards I have summarized above shows
that you did not understand the basis for that question.

I did not 'malign' Somerby: his reputation is already tarnished.
Consult the scholarly literature. Given that he is known to have
committed fraud (vide, e.g., Paul Reed's TAG article I cited a while
ago), thenceforth every one of his contributions to the field need to be
viewed with skepticism. In this case, I raised the possibility of the
physical forgery as a side issue, because (1) Somerby has an infamous
reputation, (2) the pedigree bears many hallmarks of a false pedigree;
(3) the information is conveniently just what would have pleased Ira
Peck (Somerby's client) enormousely; and (4) the document also bears
several apparent marks of a creation later than the early 17th century.

The fact that I now suspect Somerby is innocent of physical forgery in
this particular case, does not mean that one should view the Peck
pedigree with any less suspicion than that in which S. Allyn Peck held
it.

Now,
you say you should have isolated supposition from evidence, which you
later provided from index records at the BML. I will make this next thought,
short and sweet: you make allegations, that certain documents carry more
validity than others, for various reasons, provenance, date, et al.,

That 'certain documents carry more validity than others' is a
generalization which no experienced genealogist would argue with. Do
understand the basis of my specific allegation contrasting the Peck
pedigree with Tonge's and Flower's visitation?

then
sweeping dismiss certain FACTS I set before you calling them NON-FACTS
which is your right to challenge. But you do NOT win your case with the
jury--

You simply don't see the basic rule operating here. Your 'facts' (all
caps) are planks of an interpretation. I merely point out you have not
proved any of them. In genealogy, every theory--every claim of
descent--is unproved until proved. It is not necessary to prove
something false, in order to show simply that it is not proved and
therefore should not be called a 'fact'. As I believe I said already,
the converse of proof is not disproof: it is lack of proof.

that is to say, scholars who see it in opposition to your position--
with sentences littered with handgrenades with labels such as "preferred"
visitations over a pedigree, when we all admit that such visitations may
have been based on LIES of the informant. You get my drift.

In the corpus of Visitations, I expect far more people have lied about
who their ancestors are than who their children are.

In order for
you to challenge FACTS in a proposed lineage/pedigree, YOU must present
FACTS which PROVE your case. So far: I read too many *preferred* and
*more likelys* than I like.

NO! See above. In order to challenge your interpretation, one must
merely point out how and why you have failed to prove your case. It is
not necessary to prove anything else. Qualified terms like 'more
likely' or 'preferred' will kill any theory if they are not dealt with
one by one.

If you *still* don't understand the fundamental basis of the various
criticisms (not just my own) of your attempts to raise and sustain the
Peck case, I'm going to have to stop trying, as someone said, to teach a
dog to play the piano.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Christopher Ingham

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck, the

Legg inn av Christopher Ingham » 01 nov 2007 19:02:10

On Nov 1, 1:04 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
In article <mailman.836.1193929267.19317.gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>,
Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

NT: I don't care about credentials.

BA: Good, I can go there: then we might get somewhere [no pun intended].

Sly. That makes it seem as if I've conceded some point; but you are the
only one who brought credentials up. In 12 years of participation in
this group, I have never made them an issue. I believe each
contribution to a discussion stands or falls on its own merits.

NT: I do care that evidence, interpretation, and criticism are handled in a
way which would be generally understood as 'scholarly'--which to me
means exhibiting sound logic, sufficient expertise with the evidence used,
and concise prose. Your posts on the Peck problem have not met those
standards."

BA: My posts, you allege, have not met YOUR standards. How convenient?
I assume if they are your standards, and the standards we all must meet,
then you must readily admit that your first post violated them all: based
on supposition, you maligned not only Mr. Somerby as it pertained to the
Pedigree of Peck MERELY because he had an infamous reputation.

To label what I have articulated above 'my' standards shows that you
don't understand broadly accepted standards of scholarly genealogy. To
claim that my raising the question of Somerby's responsibility for the
Peck Pedigree failed to meet the standards I have summarized above shows
that you did not understand the basis for that question.

I did not 'malign' Somerby: his reputation is already tarnished.
Consult the scholarly literature. Given that he is known to have
committed fraud (vide, e.g., Paul Reed's TAG article I cited a while
ago), thenceforth every one of his contributions to the field need to be
viewed with skepticism. In this case, I raised the possibility of the
physical forgery as a side issue, because (1) Somerby has an infamous
reputation, (2) the pedigree bears many hallmarks of a false pedigree;
(3) the information is conveniently just what would have pleased Ira
Peck (Somerby's client) enormousely; and (4) the document also bears
several apparent marks of a creation later than the early 17th century.

The fact that I now suspect Somerby is innocent of physical forgery in
this particular case, does not mean that one should view the Peck
pedigree with any less suspicion than that in which S. Allyn Peck held
it.

Now,
you say you should have isolated supposition from evidence, which you
later provided from index records at the BML. I will make this next thought,
short and sweet: you make allegations, that certain documents carry more
validity than others, for various reasons, provenance, date, et al.,

That 'certain documents carry more validity than others' is a
generalization which no experienced genealogist would argue with. Do
understand the basis of my specific allegation contrasting the Peck
pedigree with Tonge's and Flower's visitation?

then
sweeping dismiss certain FACTS I set before you calling them NON-FACTS
which is your right to challenge. But you do NOT win your case with the
jury--

You simply don't see the basic rule operating here. Your 'facts' (all
caps) are planks of an interpretation. I merely point out you have not
proved any of them. In genealogy, every theory--every claim of
descent--is unproved until proved. It is not necessary to prove
something false, in order to show simply that it is not proved and
therefore should not be called a 'fact'. As I believe I said already,
the converse of proof is not disproof: it is lack of proof.

that is to say, scholars who see it in opposition to your position--
with sentences littered with handgrenades with labels such as "preferred"
visitations over a pedigree, when we all admit that such visitations may
have been based on LIES of the informant. You get my drift.

In the corpus of Visitations, I expect far more people have lied about
who their ancestors are than who their children are.

In order for
you to challenge FACTS in a proposed lineage/pedigree, YOU must present
FACTS which PROVE your case. So far: I read too many *preferred* and
*more likelys* than I like.

NO! See above. In order to challenge your interpretation, one must
merely point out how and why you have failed to prove your case. It is
not necessary to prove anything else. Qualified terms like 'more
likely' or 'preferred' will kill any theory if they are not dealt with
one by one.

If you *still* don't understand the fundamental basis of the various
criticisms (not just my own) of your attempts to raise and sustain the
Peck case, I'm going to have to stop trying, as someone said, to teach a
dog to play the piano.

The man is bullying you and others. Whether he blusters, cajoles,
or tries to impugn his critics, he will have his way. Let Mr. Arnold
have his faux genealogy, and relieve yourself of a pain in the
posterior.

Meanwhile, other readers have benefitted from this discourse as an
instructive (and needlessly prolonged) excursus on the finer points
of research methodlogies.

Christopher Ingham

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peck Pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck, The

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 01 nov 2007 19:07:57

This dog won't hunt OR learn to play the piano.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

"Christopher Ingham" <christopheringham@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1193940130.195889.85200@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 1, 1:04 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
In article <mailman.836.1193929267.19317.gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>,

Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

NT: I don't care about credentials.

BA: Good, I can go there: then we might get somewhere [no pun
intended].

Sly. That makes it seem as if I've conceded some point; but you are the
only one who brought credentials up. In 12 years of participation in
this group, I have never made them an issue. I believe each
contribution to a discussion stands or falls on its own merits.

NT: I do care that evidence, interpretation, and criticism are handled
in a
way which would be generally understood as 'scholarly'--which to me
means exhibiting sound logic, sufficient expertise with the evidence
used,
and concise prose. Your posts on the Peck problem have not met those
standards."

BA: My posts, you allege, have not met YOUR standards. How convenient?
I assume if they are your standards, and the standards we all must
meet,
then you must readily admit that your first post violated them all:
based
on supposition, you maligned not only Mr. Somerby as it pertained to
the
Pedigree of Peck MERELY because he had an infamous reputation.

To label what I have articulated above 'my' standards shows that you
don't understand broadly accepted standards of scholarly genealogy. To
claim that my raising the question of Somerby's responsibility for the
Peck Pedigree failed to meet the standards I have summarized above shows
that you did not understand the basis for that question.

I did not 'malign' Somerby: his reputation is already tarnished.
Consult the scholarly literature. Given that he is known to have
committed fraud (vide, e.g., Paul Reed's TAG article I cited a while
ago), thenceforth every one of his contributions to the field need to be
viewed with skepticism. In this case, I raised the possibility of the
physical forgery as a side issue, because (1) Somerby has an infamous
reputation, (2) the pedigree bears many hallmarks of a false pedigree;
(3) the information is conveniently just what would have pleased Ira
Peck (Somerby's client) enormousely; and (4) the document also bears
several apparent marks of a creation later than the early 17th century.

The fact that I now suspect Somerby is innocent of physical forgery in
this particular case, does not mean that one should view the Peck
pedigree with any less suspicion than that in which S. Allyn Peck held
it.

Now,
you say you should have isolated supposition from evidence, which you
later provided from index records at the BML. I will make this next
thought,
short and sweet: you make allegations, that certain documents carry
more
validity than others, for various reasons, provenance, date, et al.,

That 'certain documents carry more validity than others' is a
generalization which no experienced genealogist would argue with. Do
understand the basis of my specific allegation contrasting the Peck
pedigree with Tonge's and Flower's visitation?

then
sweeping dismiss certain FACTS I set before you calling them NON-FACTS
which is your right to challenge. But you do NOT win your case with
the
jury--

You simply don't see the basic rule operating here. Your 'facts' (all
caps) are planks of an interpretation. I merely point out you have not
proved any of them. In genealogy, every theory--every claim of
descent--is unproved until proved. It is not necessary to prove
something false, in order to show simply that it is not proved and
therefore should not be called a 'fact'. As I believe I said already,
the converse of proof is not disproof: it is lack of proof.

that is to say, scholars who see it in opposition to your position--
with sentences littered with handgrenades with labels such as
"preferred"
visitations over a pedigree, when we all admit that such visitations
may
have been based on LIES of the informant. You get my drift.

In the corpus of Visitations, I expect far more people have lied about
who their ancestors are than who their children are.

In order for
you to challenge FACTS in a proposed lineage/pedigree, YOU must present
FACTS which PROVE your case. So far: I read too many *preferred* and
*more likelys* than I like.

NO! See above. In order to challenge your interpretation, one must
merely point out how and why you have failed to prove your case. It is
not necessary to prove anything else. Qualified terms like 'more
likely' or 'preferred' will kill any theory if they are not dealt with
one by one.

If you *still* don't understand the fundamental basis of the various
criticisms (not just my own) of your attempts to raise and sustain the
Peck case, I'm going to have to stop trying, as someone said, to teach a
dog to play the piano.

The man is bullying you and others. Whether he blusters, cajoles,
or tries to impugn his critics, he will have his way. Let Mr. Arnold
have his faux genealogy, and relieve yourself of a pain in the
posterior.

Meanwhile, other readers have benefitted from this discourse as an
instructive (and needlessly prolonged) excursus on the finer points
of research methodlogies.

Christopher Ingham

John Brandon

Re: Philosophy of Genealogy 101

Legg inn av John Brandon » 01 nov 2007 21:36:04

QUESTION 1: what place *hath* DNA in academic genealogy?

What is happening in family trees around the globe is dismissal of DNA science.
Remembering the gent who sent the imprudent allegation that "genealogy is not
science" I did mention DNA, as a cover, but now will address it. I have read enough
posts here to know that there are handful of true and certain academic scholars onboard
gen-medieval. But we must not forget that genealogy, true and certain, is an academic
exercise, in the final analysis. No one knows if Y/grandmother cheated on X/grandfather
and the lineage is truly an academic lineage/pedigree and based on only written word which
is not DNA sound. Remember Anna Nicole Smith: and except for an infamous world case
the true and certain facts of the pedigree of the young daughter of ANS would not be
known. Now we know, in that case. But in these cases of dating ancestry back to royal
ancestors, which seems to be the central purview of this list, we do not have the luxury
of DNA testing to prove these proposed lineages/pedigrees. THEY WILL ALWAYS BE IN
DOUBT! So: to become a Ph.D. in Genealogy you must readily admit to the first FACT of
Philosophy of Genealogy 101: this stuff is purely academic, only scientific in an academic
sense with the written words we argue about. It is preposterous that some who believe
they are scholars on this list will flaunt their ill will and term a house of cards someone's
pedigree as not worth the paper it is printed on when none of these pedigrees are worth
more than the paper they are printed on to true and certain scholars who have passed
the primary course with an A: Philosophy of Genealogy 101.

I have written a book, JESUS: The Gospel
According To Will: so please, caveat emptor, take this next thought in the context above,
and that is: in the New Testament the lineage/pedigree of Jesus from begat to begat onto
the last begat: we have the true and certain lineage/pedigree from King David to Jesus of
Nazareth, son of Joseph=Mary, dau. of! Of course, the same NT tells us that Jesus' mother
had an *immaculate* conception [shades of DNA testing!] and therefore the lineage/pedigree
is broken: inasmuch as he was conceived of the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit/Holy Will of God.
So aren't we all?

Bill


So, ... is this your long-winded and tedious way of admitting you were
wrong?

wjhonson

Re: Genealogics: Giving some background to Charles Fleetwood

Legg inn av wjhonson » 01 nov 2007 21:45:19

A post by qsj5 did not make it to soc-gen-med for some reason (and gen-
med keeps bouncing my messages and returning them blank which is very
annoying), so I'm posting direct to google groups.

Subj: Re: Genealogics: Giving some background to Charles Fleetwood
Date: 10/31/2007 6:30:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: WJhonson
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com

In a message dated 10/27/2007 9:13:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
qsj5@yahoo.com writes:

<< sir Miles Fleetwood, of Ardwinkle (baptized 1576, d
?1640?, or ?1641), owner of Ardwinkle or Aldwinkle;
knighted 1602, also some sort of high treasurer in the
administration of England, Receiver of the Court of
Wards, Member of Parliament; married c 1598 Anne Luke,
of Woodend (b 1578-?), herself daughter of sir
Nicholas Luke, of Woodend, and his wife lady Anne
St.John, of Bletsoe (of the house of later Earls of
Bolingbroke).
Their children included: >>
---------------------------------------------

That Miss St John's given name was "Margaret", not Anne

http://books.google.com/books?id=qM0KAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA363
"1597 Margaret wife of Nicholas Luke esq bur'd 12 June"


Will Johnson

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»