Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
D. Spencer Hines

Re: Day of Decision: The Battle of Hastings

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 08 nov 2007 20:45:16

It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.

Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of Succession, who
was James VI of Scotland and succeeded Queen Elizabeth, his first cousin,
twice removed to the throne in 1603.

However Prince Charles IS descended in the Royal Line of Succession from
FIVE of the previous Kings George -- but NOT from King George IV.

DSH

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

"allan connochie" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:AIHYi.9746$ib1.5758@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
"Brian Sharrock" <b.sharrock@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:bgFYi.9718$ib1.3944@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...

The Heir-Apparent _may_ choose whatever name he/she wishes to be known
as; 'David' was King as 'Edward'; 'Albert' was King (and Crowned) as
'George'; while the current Queen chose to retain her Christian name....
presumably only the Heir-Apparent knows what name he will choose for
Kingship .... however I'm sure there's enough bookies who'll accept your
bet as to which it might be.

Aye maybe he doesn't want to be associated with previous kings called
Charles. Scared he'll lose his head perhaps :-)

Allan

Gjest

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 nov 2007 21:00:06

Why wouldn't he call himself Charles the third



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

Gjest

Re: Nicholas Louveyne=Margaret?

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 nov 2007 03:07:29

Dear Douglas,
Thank you for your response. May I further inquire concerning the proof that the St. John's sold the property to Nicholas Louvaine and thus contradicting CP's St. John of Lageham pedigree. Is there a deed?
Thank you very much,
Pat
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com>
Dear Pat ~

Thank you for your good post.

Sir Nicholas Lovaine, about whom you enquired, acquired the Saint John
lands by purchase, not by inheritance. His first wife, Margaret, was
the daughter of John de Bereford, Citizen of London. She has no known
connection with the Saint John family.

As for Katherine de Saint John, mother of Roger de Saint John, she was
a member of the baronial Say family. Her ancestral line goes back to
Sir Geoffrey de Say (died 1230), the Magna Carta Baron, and his wife,
Hawise de Clare, as shown below.

1. GEOFFREY DE SAY, Knt. (died 1230), of Edmonton, Middlesex, West
Greenwich, Kent, etc., married HAWISE DE CLARE.

2. WILLIAM DE SAY, Knt., of Edmonton, Middlesex, West Greenwich, etc.,
married (1st) SIBYL _____ (said to be a Marshal).

3. WILLIAM DE SAY, Knt., of Edmonton, Middlesex, West Greenwich, Kent,
etc., married ELIZABETH _____.

4. GEOFFREY DE SAY, Knt., of Edmonton, Middlesex, West Greenwich,
Kent, etc., married IDOINE DE LEYBOURNE.

5. KATHERINE DE SAY, married before 10 Nov. 1320 (date of license for
enfeoffment) JOHN DE SAINT JOHN, 3rd Lord Saint John of Lageham
[References: Russell, Swallowfield and its Owners (1901): 43;
Cal.Patent Rolls, 1317-1321 (1903): 520; Complete Peerage, 11 (1949):
350 (sub Saint John); Paget, Baronage of England (1957) 485: 1-10 (sub
Say)].

Best always, Douglas RIchardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


On Nov 7, 6:51 pm, pajun...@bellsouth.net wrote:
All,
I realize most sources state that Nicholas Louveyne married Margaret
Bereford, widow of Sir John de Pultney. However, could she have been a
St. John?
British History Online:
Roger (St. John) in 1351 conveyed the reversion of Lagham after the
death of his mother Katherine to Nicholas de Loveine and Margaret his
wife. (fn. 28) Katherine and Peter de St. John, his kinsman and heir,
afterwards quitclaimed their right to Nicholas, (fn. 29) who received
a grant of free warren here in 1356. (fn. 30)
And, according to Douglas, Nicholas in his will requests prayers for
Katherine and Roger since he held their inheritance.
Does anyone know first, who Katherine was and secondly, why Nicholas
should have received their inheritance?
Thank you in advance,
Pat



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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Enola Gay

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 09 nov 2007 06:12:36

Hilarious!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Did your ancestor stay and become a Real American, with heirs, or go back
home to Britain? [DSH]

He stayed in the US with heirs who married into the Washingtons. His aunt
was my ancestress and she stayed in England. Some of her Metcalfe children
also settled in Virginia leaving heirs as did some of her brother's
children. [Renia]

It seems he is not really your ancestor then -- simply a relative. [DSH]

Ancestor, inasmuch as he was a member of the family living several
generations before me. [Renia]

Renia

Re: Enola Gay

Legg inn av Renia » 09 nov 2007 06:16:44

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Hilarious!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas


Did your ancestor stay and become a Real American, with heirs, or go back
home to Britain? [DSH]


He stayed in the US with heirs who married into the Washingtons. His aunt
was my ancestress and she stayed in England. Some of her Metcalfe children
also settled in Virginia leaving heirs as did some of her brother's
children. [Renia]


It seems he is not really your ancestor then -- simply a relative. [DSH]


Ancestor, inasmuch as he was a member of the family living several
generations before me. [Renia]

If I had said "relative", you might think it was a contemporary
relative. Hence the use of the word "ancestor".

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Enola Gay

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 09 nov 2007 06:20:43

Hilarious Squared...

DSH

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:03SYi.19804$6v.10726@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Hilarious!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas


Did your ancestor stay and become a Real American, with heirs, or go back
home to Britain? [DSH]

He stayed in the US with heirs who married into the Washingtons. His aunt
was my ancestress and she stayed in England. Some of her Metcalfe
children
also settled in Virginia leaving heirs as did some of her brother's
children. [Renia]

It seems he is not really your ancestor then -- simply a relative. [DSH]


Ancestor, inasmuch as he was a member of the family living several
generations before me. [Renia]

If I had said "relative", you might think it was a contemporary relative.
Hence the use of the word "ancestor".

Renia

Re: Enola Gay

Legg inn av Renia » 09 nov 2007 06:24:17

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Hilarious Squared...

Divided by a common language.


DSH

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:03SYi.19804$6v.10726@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...


D. Spencer Hines wrote:


Hilarious!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas



Did your ancestor stay and become a Real American, with heirs, or go back
home to Britain? [DSH]

He stayed in the US with heirs who married into the Washingtons. His aunt
was my ancestress and she stayed in England. Some of her Metcalfe
children
also settled in Virginia leaving heirs as did some of her brother's
children. [Renia]

It seems he is not really your ancestor then -- simply a relative. [DSH]


Ancestor, inasmuch as he was a member of the family living several
generations before me. [Renia]

If I had said "relative", you might think it was a contemporary relative.
Hence the use of the word "ancestor".



Nancy L. Allen

Sons of Geoffrey de Trailly and Albreda Espec

Legg inn av Nancy L. Allen » 09 nov 2007 14:16:09

Some researchers say that Albreda Espec, the wife of Geoffrey de Trailly I, was the daughter of Walter Espec and they give only Geoffrey II as their son. Wasn't she Walter's sister instead?

Walter Espec's charter of foundation, granting land in Helmesley and Bilsdale to the Abbey of Rievaulx, in Cartularium Abbathiae de Rievalle, Ordinis Cisterciensus (London: Published for the Surtees Society, 1889), pp. 16-21 states:

"Testimonio etiam et concessu nepotum meorum -scil: Willelmi de Bussei, et Jordani et Rogeri, qui sunt filii sororis meae Haawis, primogenitae patris et matris meae; et nepotum meorum, Gaufridi de Traili et Willelmi et Gilleberti et Nicholai, filiorurn mediae sororis meae Albreae; et nepotum meorum, Everardi et Roberti, filiorum sororis meae Odelinae postgenitae."

I haven't translated Latin for over 45 years, but doesn't this say that Gaufridi [Geoffrey?], Willelmi [William], Gilleberti [Gilbert], and Nicholai [Nicholas] were the sons of his [Walter Espec's] SISTER Albreae [Albreda?].

Nancy

Gjest

Re: A Librarian's Perspective on Medieval Genealogy

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 nov 2007 18:30:04

In a message dated 11/9/2007 9:26:09 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
rgr1222@yahoo.com writes:

ancestry of Mark Lothrop I found many 'secondary'
sites supporting his descent from John Aston and Elizabeth Delves and
hence from the medieval families of Freville, Corbet, Mainwaring,
Brereton and Egerton.
This ancestral line is through a daughter and three generations of
'second' sons who had fallen from the "titled" realm during the Tudor
reign. They had evolved from minor nobility to early English middle


----------------------------
Please share the details.



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

Gjest

Re: From Gavin Newsom to Colonial Connecticut

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 nov 2007 18:34:04

Thanks Fred, those two lines have been added

Will Johnson



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

Gordon and Jane Kirkemo

RE: Sons of Geoffrey de Trailly and Albreda Espec

Legg inn av Gordon and Jane Kirkemo » 09 nov 2007 21:08:08

Nancy,

Someone may have responded to your post by now, but just in case I will
offer the following from Domesday Descendants (p.841) under the heading of
"Espec, Walter":

"Son of William Espec, of Old Wardon, Bedfordshire. He was granted the
barony of Helmsley, Yorkshire, on the Mortain fee, by Henry I, who also gave
him Wark in Northumberland (Sanders, 149). His wife was named Adelina.
Founder of Kirham priory c.1122 (Mon. Ang. vi, p.208). At the end of his
life, c.1153, he became a monk of Rievaulx and died there in 1155, when his
heirs were the issue of his three sisters, Hawise de Buissy, Albreda de
Trailly (Sanders, 133, Old Wardon) and Adeline, wife of Peter de Ros
(Sanders, 52-53, Helmsley)."

It would seem from this that Albreda was indeed the sister of Walter and the
daughter of William.

I hope this is helpful.

Sincerely,
Gordon Kirkemo

-----Original Message-----
From: Nancy L. Allen [mailto:allennl@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 5:16 AM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Sons of Geoffrey de Trailly and Albreda Espec

Some researchers say that Albreda Espec, the wife of Geoffrey de Trailly I,
was the daughter of Walter Espec and they give only Geoffrey II as their
son. Wasn't she Walter's sister instead?

Walter Espec's charter of foundation, granting land in Helmesley and
Bilsdale to the Abbey of Rievaulx, in Cartularium Abbathiae de Rievalle,
Ordinis Cisterciensus (London: Published for the Surtees Society, 1889), pp.
16-21 states:

"Testimonio etiam et concessu nepotum meorum -scil: Willelmi de Bussei, et
Jordani et Rogeri, qui sunt filii sororis meae Haawis, primogenitae patris
et matris meae; et nepotum meorum, Gaufridi de Traili et Willelmi et
Gilleberti et Nicholai, filiorurn mediae sororis meae Albreae; et nepotum
meorum, Everardi et Roberti, filiorum sororis meae Odelinae postgenitae."

I haven't translated Latin for over 45 years, but doesn't this say that
Gaufridi [Geoffrey?], Willelmi [William], Gilleberti [Gilbert], and Nicholai
[Nicholas] were the sons of his [Walter Espec's] SISTER Albreae [Albreda?].

Nancy

Gjest

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2007 00:16:03

Dear fellow Listers,
Going by the most recent statistics available
Queen Elizabeth II is likely to continue as sovereign for approximately twenty
more years. This is due to the fact that she doesn`t seem likely to abdicate
combined with that her mother lived to about 102 years. Charles may in fact
survive that long easily considering that his father is older than his mother by
about five years. He also is showing no signs of ill health rhat I`m aware of.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 10 nov 2007 00:16:51

How would you know the details about Prince Charles's health?

DSH

<Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.251.1194649832.7651.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Dear fellow Listers,
Going by the most recent statistics available
Queen Elizabeth II is likely to continue as sovereign for approximately
twenty
more years. This is due to the fact that she doesn`t seem likely to
abdicate
combined with that her mother lived to about 102 years. Charles may in
fact
survive that long easily considering that his father is older than his
mother by
about five years. He also is showing no signs of ill health rhat I`m aware
of.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Douglas Richardson

Re: Rules regarding Fitz

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 10 nov 2007 00:23:56

On Oct 26, 2:34 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltay...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
< In article <mailman.537.1193433618.19317.gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>,
< "Nancy L. Allen" <alle...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
<
< > Are there rules regarding the use of Fitz? Should there be a
space or
< > hyphen after it? Should it be capitalized? I've seen many
variations and
< > would like to be at least consistent with my own use.
<
< > Richard fitz Roger
< > Richard fitz-Roger
< > Richard fitzRoger
< > Richard Fitz Roger
< > Richard Fitz-Roger
< > Richard FitzRoger
<
< > Which? Or is "Richard son of Roger" preferred?
<
< Some people might propose a solution and insist it is the 'right'
one,
< and everyone should follow it.

Dear Nancy ~

Mr. Taylor seems to be speaking of me, and, if he is, he is misquoting
me. What I have said from time to time is that historians have
modernized and standardized the renderings of given names. They have
moved away from Latin and variant vernacular forms and where possible
they employ modern English forms of given names. So today we have
Robert, William, Peter, etc. in our historical accounts, instead of
Roberte, Wyllyam, and Piers. Consistency and standardization have
much to be said for them.

For what it is worth, I've never insisted that any spelling is right
or wong. Pernel or Parnel are both equally good forms for the Latin
name, Petronilla. What I have said is that it is important that you
be consistent, and not wobble back and forth between the ancient Latin
and the modern forms, or only render the men's names in the modern
forms and leave the women's names such as Matilda in Latin. Worse
yet, I find it odd that people leave a name like Bogo in Latin, when
the vernacular form can easily be found. When a historian uses
Robert, William, and Peter, and throws in a Bogo, I know he's just
being lazy.

On the issue of the specific convention about which you asked your
question, historians employ either Fitz Roger or son of Roger
equally. Either form is fine. Some historians take it one step
further and leave the word "fitz" uncapitalized if the name is purely
a patronymic and not a fixed surname. I personally think this is an
idiotic distinction, as it requires you to know if a fitz name is a
patronymic or a surname in any given record that you are viewing.
This is impossible to know most of the time. As such, when I use
Fitz, I capitalize it and don't worry about it, or I use "son of."
For those who do wish to draw the distinction between surnames and
patronymics by alternatively capitalizing or uncapitalizing the word
fitz, please be my guest. However, you will NEVER be entirely
consistent if you are using both Fitz when capitalized as a surname
and fitz uncapitalized for a patronymic. And, if you can't be
consistent, then I ask the obvious question: Why draw the distinction
at all? It seems like a waste of time and energy to me.

Furthermore, if an uninformed person hasn't a clue that you are making
a distinction between "fitz" as a patronymic and "Fitz" as a surname,
then he has failed to grasp what you are saying. When Average Joe (or
Average Josephine) reads the word, "fitz," he thinks it is the same
word as "Fitz." And it is! Pretending that others hear you when you
are saying nothing to them is little more than intellectual snobbery
in my opinion.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Robert Peffers

Re: Enola Gay

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 10 nov 2007 00:44:30

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:5aSYi.32885$uH.12700@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Hilarious Squared...

Divided by a common language.



DSH

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:03SYi.19804$6v.10726@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...


D. Spencer Hines wrote:


Hilarious!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas



Did your ancestor stay and become a Real American, with heirs, or go
back
home to Britain? [DSH]

He stayed in the US with heirs who married into the Washingtons. His
aunt
was my ancestress and she stayed in England. Some of her Metcalfe
children
also settled in Virginia leaving heirs as did some of her brother's
children. [Renia]

It seems he is not really your ancestor then -- simply a relative.
[DSH]


Ancestor, inasmuch as he was a member of the family living several
generations before me. [Renia]

If I had said "relative", you might think it was a contemporary relative.
Hence the use of the word "ancestor".





Nah! It is, judging from the hilarity, just that some folks are easily
amused.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Rules Regarding Fitz

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 10 nov 2007 01:25:58

Intelligent Post...

DSH

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1194650636.533792.65990@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Mr. Taylor seems to be speaking of me, and, if he is, he is misquoting
me. What I have said from time to time is that historians have
modernized and standardized the renderings of given names. They have
moved away from Latin and variant vernacular forms and where possible
they employ modern English forms of given names. So today we have
Robert, William, Peter, etc. in our historical accounts, instead of
Roberte, Wyllyam, and Piers. Consistency and standardization have
much to be said for them.

For what it is worth, I've never insisted that any spelling is right
or wong. Pernel or Parnel are both equally good forms for the Latin
name, Petronilla. What I have said is that it is important that you
be consistent, and not wobble back and forth between the ancient Latin
and the modern forms, or only render the men's names in the modern
forms and leave the women's names such as Matilda in Latin. Worse
yet, I find it odd that people leave a name like Bogo in Latin, when
the vernacular form can easily be found. When a historian uses
Robert, William, and Peter, and throws in a Bogo, I know he's just
being lazy.

On the issue of the specific convention about which you asked your
question, historians employ either Fitz Roger or son of Roger
equally. Either form is fine. Some historians take it one step
further and leave the word "fitz" uncapitalized if the name is purely
a patronymic and not a fixed surname. I personally think this is an
idiotic distinction, as it requires you to know if a fitz name is a
patronymic or a surname in any given record that you are viewing.
This is impossible to know most of the time. As such, when I use
Fitz, I capitalize it and don't worry about it, or I use "son of."
For those who do wish to draw the distinction between surnames and
patronymics by alternatively capitalizing or uncapitalizing the word
fitz, please be my guest. However, you will NEVER be entirely
consistent if you are using both Fitz when capitalized as a surname
and fitz uncapitalized for a patronymic. And, if you can't be
consistent, then I ask the obvious question: Why draw the distinction
at all? It seems like a waste of time and energy to me.

Furthermore, if an uninformed person hasn't a clue that you are making
a distinction between "fitz" as a patronymic and "Fitz" as a surname,
then he has failed to grasp what you are saying. When Average Joe (or
Average Josephine) reads the word, "fitz," he thinks it is the same
word as "Fitz." And it is! Pretending that others hear you when you
are saying nothing to them is little more than intellectual snobbery
in my opinion.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Gjest

Re: Rules regarding Fitz

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2007 01:54:56

[inappropriate crosspost removed]

On Nov 9, 3:23 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Oct 26, 2:34 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltay...@earthlink.net
wrote:
In article <mailman.537.1193433618.19317.gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>,
"Nancy L. Allen" <alle...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

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

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

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

Some people might propose a solution and insist it is the 'right'
one,
and everyone should follow it.

Dear Nancy ~

Mr. Taylor seems to be speaking of me, and, if he is, he is misquoting
me. What I have said from time to time is that historians have
modernized and standardized the renderings of given names. They have
moved away from Latin and variant vernacular forms and where possible
they employ modern English forms of given names.


Mr. Richardson seems to be speaking of all historians, but this is not
the case. He is relating his preference.

Consistency and standardization have
much to be said for them.


I believe someone has said something for consistency, something having
to do with small minds.


For what it is worth, I've never insisted that any spelling is right
or wong.

No, but you have insisted that the failure to use your preferred form
is grounds for "correction". All versions are equal, but some are
more equal than others.

Pernel or Parnel are both equally good forms for the Latin
name, Petronilla. What I have said is that it is important that you
be consistent, and not wobble back and forth between the ancient Latin
and the modern forms, or only render the men's names in the modern
forms and leave the women's names such as Matilda in Latin.

Quite right. That is what I was telling my Australian friend as he
broke into strains of Waltzing Maud. Again, what Mr. Richardson means
to say is that he thinks it is important to consistently use modern
forms. This is his opinion, not fact. Alternative viewpoints include
that one should use the form most convenient, that one should use the
form most likely used by the individual in question, or that one
should use the form most likely to be understood by the reader.

To be blunt, it is patently ridiculous to use the name Elmer for the
11th century Anglo-Saxon Ealdorman who they called AEthelmaer. No one
will have the slightest clue who you are talking about, which sort of
defeats the purpose. 'Rules' should serve communication, not the
other way around. Inarticulate consistency is something "up with which
I shall not put".

Worse
yet, I find it odd that people leave a name like Bogo in Latin, when
the vernacular form can easily be found. When a historian uses
Robert, William, and Peter, and throws in a Bogo, I know he's just
being lazy.

'Lazy' implies a goal left unachieved through want of effort. It is
not entirely accurate in describing someone who fulfilled their goals,
while being blissfully unaware that they have not met your whim.


On the issue of the specific convention about which you asked your
question, historians employ either Fitz Roger or son of Roger
equally. Either form is fine.

The formal ex cathedra approval. Can't get much better than that.


Some historians take it one step
further and leave the word "fitz" uncapitalized if the name is purely
a patronymic and not a fixed surname. I personally think this is an
idiotic distinction, as it requires you to know if a fitz name is a
patronymic or a surname in any given record that you are viewing.
This is impossible to know most of the time. As such, when I use
Fitz, I capitalize it and don't worry about it, or I use "son of."

And someone else might think you are just being lazy in doing this.
You see, Mr. Richardson is being just as arbitrary in terms of what he
considers important and worthy of disapprobation if not obeyed, and
what is 'idiotic'. it is all personal preference, no matter how much
one pretends otherwise.

For those who do wish to draw the distinction between surnames and
patronymics by alternatively capitalizing or uncapitalizing the word
fitz, please be my guest. However, you will NEVER be entirely
consistent if you are using both Fitz when capitalized as a surname
and fitz uncapitalized for a patronymic. And, if you can't be
consistent, then I ask the obvious question: Why draw the distinction
at all?


Perhaps because the usages are, in fact, distinct.


Furthermore, if an uninformed person hasn't a clue that you are making
a distinction between "fitz" as a patronymic and "Fitz" as a surname,
then he has failed to grasp what you are saying.

So what? The same uninformed person will not see the distinction when
you represent both the same way, so he is no less uninformed either
way. At least if you draw the distinction, then those who know the
difference will know, as opposed to pretending there is no difference.

When Average Joe (or
Average Josephine) reads the word, "fitz," he thinks it is the same
word as "Fitz." And it is! Pretending that others hear you when you
are saying nothing to them is little more than intellectual snobbery
in my opinion.

Ah, yes. The champion of the common man. To ensure this, one must
never use any words that the most basic reader might not understand,
or refer to any concepts that they may not be know of, or draw any
distinctions of which they are unaware. Sorry. Dumbing down
communication to the lowest common denominator defeats the purpose of
communication. If someone doesn't note the distinction, they lose
nothing in you drawing it. If they note the distinction but are
unaware of its significance, they can ask. If they are aware of the
distinction, then they have been provided with more precise
information. Basically, they can keep up, catch up, or be blissfully
unaware, but if you lower all communication to their level, then
everyone is left in the unaware category.

taf

Gjest

Re: Rules regarding Fitz

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2007 01:55:03

[inappropriate crosspost removed]

On Nov 9, 3:23 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Oct 26, 2:34 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltay...@earthlink.net
wrote:
In article <mailman.537.1193433618.19317.gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>,
"Nancy L. Allen" <alle...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

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

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

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

Some people might propose a solution and insist it is the 'right'
one,
and everyone should follow it.

Dear Nancy ~

Mr. Taylor seems to be speaking of me, and, if he is, he is misquoting
me. What I have said from time to time is that historians have
modernized and standardized the renderings of given names. They have
moved away from Latin and variant vernacular forms and where possible
they employ modern English forms of given names.


Mr. Richardson seems to be speaking of all historians, but this is not
the case. He is relating his preference.

Consistency and standardization have
much to be said for them.


I believe someone has said something for consistency, something having
to do with small minds.


For what it is worth, I've never insisted that any spelling is right
or wong.

No, but you have insisted that the failure to use your preferred form
is grounds for "correction". All versions are equal, but some are
more equal than others.

Pernel or Parnel are both equally good forms for the Latin
name, Petronilla. What I have said is that it is important that you
be consistent, and not wobble back and forth between the ancient Latin
and the modern forms, or only render the men's names in the modern
forms and leave the women's names such as Matilda in Latin.

Quite right. That is what I was telling my Australian friend as he
broke into strains of Waltzing Maud. Again, what Mr. Richardson means
to say is that he thinks it is important to consistently use modern
forms. This is his opinion, not fact. Alternative viewpoints include
that one should use the form most convenient, that one should use the
form most likely used by the individual in question, or that one
should use the form most likely to be understood by the reader.

To be blunt, it is patently ridiculous to use the name Elmer for the
11th century Anglo-Saxon Ealdorman who they called AEthelmaer. No one
will have the slightest clue who you are talking about, which sort of
defeats the purpose. 'Rules' should serve communication, not the
other way around. Inarticulate consistency is something "up with which
I shall not put".

Worse
yet, I find it odd that people leave a name like Bogo in Latin, when
the vernacular form can easily be found. When a historian uses
Robert, William, and Peter, and throws in a Bogo, I know he's just
being lazy.

'Lazy' implies a goal left unachieved through want of effort. It is
not entirely accurate in describing someone who fulfilled their goals,
while being blissfully unaware that they have not met your whim.


On the issue of the specific convention about which you asked your
question, historians employ either Fitz Roger or son of Roger
equally. Either form is fine.

The formal ex cathedra approval. Can't get much better than that.


Some historians take it one step
further and leave the word "fitz" uncapitalized if the name is purely
a patronymic and not a fixed surname. I personally think this is an
idiotic distinction, as it requires you to know if a fitz name is a
patronymic or a surname in any given record that you are viewing.
This is impossible to know most of the time. As such, when I use
Fitz, I capitalize it and don't worry about it, or I use "son of."

And someone else might think you are just being lazy in doing this.
You see, Mr. Richardson is being just as arbitrary in terms of what he
considers important and worthy of disapprobation if not obeyed, and
what is 'idiotic'. it is all personal preference, no matter how much
one pretends otherwise.

For those who do wish to draw the distinction between surnames and
patronymics by alternatively capitalizing or uncapitalizing the word
fitz, please be my guest. However, you will NEVER be entirely
consistent if you are using both Fitz when capitalized as a surname
and fitz uncapitalized for a patronymic. And, if you can't be
consistent, then I ask the obvious question: Why draw the distinction
at all?


Perhaps because the usages are, in fact, distinct.


Furthermore, if an uninformed person hasn't a clue that you are making
a distinction between "fitz" as a patronymic and "Fitz" as a surname,
then he has failed to grasp what you are saying.

So what? The same uninformed person will not see the distinction when
you represent both the same way, so he is no less uninformed either
way. At least if you draw the distinction, then those who know the
difference will know, as opposed to pretending there is no difference.

When Average Joe (or
Average Josephine) reads the word, "fitz," he thinks it is the same
word as "Fitz." And it is! Pretending that others hear you when you
are saying nothing to them is little more than intellectual snobbery
in my opinion.

Ah, yes. The champion of the common man. To ensure this, one must
never use any words that the most basic reader might not understand,
or refer to any concepts that they may not be know of, or draw any
distinctions of which they are unaware. Sorry. Dumbing down
communication to the lowest common denominator defeats the purpose of
communication. If someone doesn't note the distinction, they lose
nothing in you drawing it. If they note the distinction but are
unaware of its significance, they can ask. If they are aware of the
distinction, then they have been provided with more precise
information. Basically, they can keep up, catch up, or be blissfully
unaware, but if you lower all communication to their level, then
everyone is left in the unaware category.

taf

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Rules regarding Fitz

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 10 nov 2007 02:00:22

In article <1194650636.533792.65990@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

For what it is worth, I've never insisted that any spelling is right
or wong. Pernel or Parnel are both equally good forms for the Latin
name, Petronilla. What I have said is that it is important that you
be consistent, and not wobble back and forth between the ancient Latin
and the modern forms, or only render the men's names in the modern
forms and leave the women's names such as Matilda in Latin. Worse
yet, I find it odd that people leave a name like Bogo in Latin, when
the vernacular form can easily be found. When a historian uses
Robert, William, and Peter, and throws in a Bogo, I know he's just
being lazy.

Perhaps Douglas might wish to refresh his memory by glancing at the
google archive for this group, searching simultaneously on the terms
"correct," "name," "form," and "Richardson."

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

terrence White

Re: Rules regarding Fitz

Legg inn av terrence White » 10 nov 2007 03:16:04

Ah, that would be Emerson--

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. ..." from his "Essays"
. I don't have the exact reference, but surely it is easily enough obtained online.

T.J. White

taf@clearwire.net wrote:
[inappropriate crosspost removed]

On Nov 9, 3:23 pm, Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Oct 26, 2:34 pm, Nathaniel Taylor
wrote:
In article ,
"Nancy L. Allen" wrote:

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

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

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

Some people might propose a solution and insist it is the 'right'
one,
and everyone should follow it.

Dear Nancy ~

Mr. Taylor seems to be speaking of me, and, if he is, he is misquoting
me. What I have said from time to time is that historians have
modernized and standardized the renderings of given names. They have
moved away from Latin and variant vernacular forms and where possible
they employ modern English forms of given names.


Mr. Richardson seems to be speaking of all historians, but this is not
the case. He is relating his preference.

Consistency and standardization have
much to be said for them.


I believe someone has said something for consistency, something having
to do with small minds.


For what it is worth, I've never insisted that any spelling is right
or wong.

No, but you have insisted that the failure to use your preferred form
is grounds for "correction". All versions are equal, but some are
more equal than others.

Pernel or Parnel are both equally good forms for the Latin
name, Petronilla. What I have said is that it is important that you
be consistent, and not wobble back and forth between the ancient Latin
and the modern forms, or only render the men's names in the modern
forms and leave the women's names such as Matilda in Latin.

Quite right. That is what I was telling my Australian friend as he
broke into strains of Waltzing Maud. Again, what Mr. Richardson means
to say is that he thinks it is important to consistently use modern
forms. This is his opinion, not fact. Alternative viewpoints include
that one should use the form most convenient, that one should use the
form most likely used by the individual in question, or that one
should use the form most likely to be understood by the reader.

To be blunt, it is patently ridiculous to use the name Elmer for the
11th century Anglo-Saxon Ealdorman who they called AEthelmaer. No one
will have the slightest clue who you are talking about, which sort of
defeats the purpose. 'Rules' should serve communication, not the
other way around. Inarticulate consistency is something "up with which
I shall not put".

Worse
yet, I find it odd that people leave a name like Bogo in Latin, when
the vernacular form can easily be found. When a historian uses
Robert, William, and Peter, and throws in a Bogo, I know he's just
being lazy.

'Lazy' implies a goal left unachieved through want of effort. It is
not entirely accurate in describing someone who fulfilled their goals,
while being blissfully unaware that they have not met your whim.


On the issue of the specific convention about which you asked your
question, historians employ either Fitz Roger or son of Roger
equally. Either form is fine.

The formal ex cathedra approval. Can't get much better than that.


Some historians take it one step
further and leave the word "fitz" uncapitalized if the name is purely
a patronymic and not a fixed surname. I personally think this is an
idiotic distinction, as it requires you to know if a fitz name is a
patronymic or a surname in any given record that you are viewing.
This is impossible to know most of the time. As such, when I use
Fitz, I capitalize it and don't worry about it, or I use "son of."

And someone else might think you are just being lazy in doing this.
You see, Mr. Richardson is being just as arbitrary in terms of what he
considers important and worthy of disapprobation if not obeyed, and
what is 'idiotic'. it is all personal preference, no matter how much
one pretends otherwise.

For those who do wish to draw the distinction between surnames and
patronymics by alternatively capitalizing or uncapitalizing the word
fitz, please be my guest. However, you will NEVER be entirely
consistent if you are using both Fitz when capitalized as a surname
and fitz uncapitalized for a patronymic. And, if you can't be
consistent, then I ask the obvious question: Why draw the distinction
at all?


Perhaps because the usages are, in fact, distinct.


Furthermore, if an uninformed person hasn't a clue that you are making
a distinction between "fitz" as a patronymic and "Fitz" as a surname,
then he has failed to grasp what you are saying.

So what? The same uninformed person will not see the distinction when
you represent both the same way, so he is no less uninformed either
way. At least if you draw the distinction, then those who know the
difference will know, as opposed to pretending there is no difference.

When Average Joe (or
Average Josephine) reads the word, "fitz," he thinks it is the same
word as "Fitz." And it is! Pretending that others hear you when you
are saying nothing to them is little more than intellectual snobbery
in my opinion.

Ah, yes. The champion of the common man. To ensure this, one must
never use any words that the most basic reader might not understand,
or refer to any concepts that they may not be know of, or draw any
distinctions of which they are unaware. Sorry. Dumbing down
communication to the lowest common denominator defeats the purpose of
communication. If someone doesn't note the distinction, they lose
nothing in you drawing it. If they note the distinction but are
unaware of its significance, they can ask. If they are aware of the
distinction, then they have been provided with more precise
information. Basically, they can keep up, catch up, or be blissfully
unaware, but if you lower all communication to their level, then
everyone is left in the unaware category.

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

terrence White

Re: A Librarian's Perspective on Medieval Genealogy

Legg inn av terrence White » 10 nov 2007 03:55:04

Some astute observations. Perhaps we can call this the 'Psychology of Genealogy'?

T.J. White

Seumas MacThómais <jwt_us@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 8, 4:03 pm, harv2.law...@gmail.com wrote:
Leo Van der Pas raises a good point that medieval genealogy is geared
toward lines that lead to royalty or Magna Carta Barons. However, he
doesn't put the issue into context in the history of genealogical
research nor give any ideas on how to counteract the trend. Although
genealogical research has been conducted in all countries and cultures
at some level, such research up to the mid-19th century was generally
the province of the nobility and the well-to-do. A case can be made
that genealogical research for the common person is an U.S. idea of
the mid-19th century. No surprise there, as Americans generally are
from other places. Still most genealogical from that time, say 1850,
to the present has been to enable the average person to join a
heritage society of some sort. Most U.S. sources are geared to the
American Revolution or Mayflower lines, and the most or best
genealogical research seems to be centered on the early 13 original
colonies. Again, no surprise and if you fall into those groups, as I
do at points, it's a great boon. Other ethnicities are catching up
and Irish, French-Canadian, Scandinavian, and other genealogical
interests are picking up.

So for medieval genealogy, the focus has always been on joining
heritage societies, and therefore the research material presented
tends to focus on lines that lead to royalty and/or Magna Carta
Barons. Weis's book on Magna Carta Sureties first edition was 1955
and his Ancestral Roots was first published in 1950. This is not a
new problem. So what is the average researcher to do? What other
works are there to use that are scholarly and gives one a leg up on
research already done? These are the front line books I would suggest
as a librarian and a genealogist: [Leo has heart attack here]
Douglas Richardson's latest two books: Plantagenet Ancestry and Magna
Carta Barons. You can branch out to the Complete Peerage, but that
work is intended not for genealogy per se but the historical
provenance of a particular title. Daughters are seldom treated well
in CP and cross-connections are hard to find. Lastly, once a person
falls out of the "titled" realm, they fall out of the work. The
either type of work is the all-my-ancestor work of a modern royal
person such as Prince Charles, or the ahnentafel in the Genealogist
for King Charles II. The problem with that is you need to have your
ancestor fall into the other person's family. So one needs to consult
other works for the gentry such as Visitations, etc. There are no
great works that follow a family in genealogical terms in the medieval
times that can be called compendia. Certainly there are genealogical
works on this family or that family (which vary in quality and
scholarship), but no discreet work that does the great baronial
families, titled or not, through the medieval ages, with daughters,
cross-references, and full citations.

So, when a person finds a connection, I see nothing wrong with noting
the immediate connection to either royalty or the like. From there,
someone has a chance to find a good work on that ancestor and build
from a solid framework. As Leo has often pointed out genealogists are
either hunters or gatherers. Sadly the hunters are vastly
outnumbered. Perhaps only 10% at the most of the people who actively
pursue genealogy, conduct original research and have it published.
Everyone else sits back and waits to be spoon fed. What I find
amazing, and aggravating, are those same people who don't lift a
finger in the realm of original research are the first to criticize
others who try it. I recently published my first English origins
article, for which I was not paid, and which took three years of
work. Due to the vagaries of the U.S. mail, I was receiving emails
from total strangers telling me what I had done wrong before I had
even read my own article in the journal. Some people wonder why so
many good genealogists take so long to publish their work. No
surprise there either. The fear of getting something wrong and having
a flock of yahoos tear you down would make anyone pause. In
genealogy, it can be endless since there is always one more source to
check.

We have to realize that genealogies often emerge as a result of larger
historical trends. For example, the early Germanic kings of the Franks
"traced" their ancestry back to the heroes of the Trojan War as a
result of contact with late Roman civilization, and wanting to feel a
part of that. The pedigrees of the kings of Wessex, Anglia, Kent,
etc., were topped off with a few generations to connect them from
Woden to Adam -- reflecting the Christianization of their cultures.

In the United States, you find a blossoming of genealogy after the
Civil War (by Browning and many, many others) that seems to me to
reflect three simultaneous trends. The first was the end of the
Revolutionary Era, as the last of the old veterans died and the nation
marked its centennial in 1876. At the same time, a great deal of
immigration was beginning to take place, causing some people already
here to "prove" their descent from the original European pioneers --
hence the interest in the Pilgrims, and so on. Finally, you had the
arrival of a whole class of newly wealthy people, many of whom felt a
cultural disadvantage compared to Europe and its aristocracy. This
last trend produced an interest in finding connections between this
new plutocracy and the old nobility/monarchy. This was reflected in
works such as Browning's books, and also a tendency of rich Americans
to seek titled son-in-laws.

My point is simply that in looking at any genealogy, we need to seek
to understand its purpose and any underlying meaning to its creator.


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

Douglas Richardson

Re: Rules Regarding Fitz

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 10 nov 2007 04:06:06

On Nov 9, 5:25 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Intelligent Post...

DSH

Thanks for the complement, Spencer. Much appreciated.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Re: Rules regarding Fitz

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 10 nov 2007 04:07:41

On Nov 9, 7:13 pm, terrence White <revenant1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
< Ah, that would be Emerson--
<
< "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. ..."
from his "Essays"
< . I don't have the exact reference, but surely it is easily enough
obtained online.
<
< T.J. White

Um, ... I was speaking only of SENSIBLE consistencies. I leave all
the pedantic and foolish ones to Mr. Farmerie.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Gjest

Re: Rules regarding Fitz

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2007 04:12:38

On Nov 9, 7:07 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 9, 7:13 pm, terrence White <revenant1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ah, that would be Emerson--

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. ..."
from his "Essays"
. I don't have the exact reference, but surely it is easily enough
obtained online.

T.J. White

Um, ... I was speaking only of SENSIBLE consistencies. I leave all
the pedantic and foolish ones to Mr. Farmerie.


I see, so if you wish to use them, they are sensible. If you choose
not to, they are foolish and pedantic. At least you are consistent in
your inconsistency. As always, you invent the rules to justify your
personal choices, then pretend there is method (even consensus) to the
madness.

taf

taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Rules regarding Fitz

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 10 nov 2007 04:21:31

<G>

DSH

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1194664061.412703.34870@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 9, 7:13 pm, terrence White <revenant1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ah, that would be Emerson--

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. ..."
from his "Essays"

. I don't have the exact reference, but surely it is easily enough
obtained online.

T.J. White

Um, ... I was speaking only of SENSIBLE consistencies. I leave all
the pedantic and foolish ones to Mr. Farmerie.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Rules Regarding Fitz

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 10 nov 2007 04:25:21

Dear, Dear...

taf is in a snit again.

DSH

<taf@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:1194664358.629980.238530@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 9, 7:07 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

On Nov 9, 7:13 pm, terrence White <revenant1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ah, that would be Emerson--

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. ..."
from his "Essays"
. I don't have the exact reference, but surely it is easily enough
obtained online.

T.J. White

Um, ... I was speaking only of SENSIBLE consistencies. I leave all
the pedantic and foolish ones to Mr. Farmerie.


I see, so if you wish to use them, they are sensible. If you choose
not to, they are foolish and pedantic. At least you are consistent in
your inconsistency. As always, you invent the rules to justify your
personal choices, then pretend there is method (even consensus) to the
madness.

taf

taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Rules Regarding Fitz

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 10 nov 2007 04:27:33

You're quite welcome, Douglas.

Your post hit the bullseye.

DSH

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1194663966.513717.260220@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 9, 5:25 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

Intelligent Post...

DSH

Thanks for the compliment, Spencer. Much appreciated.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Rules Regarding Fitz

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 10 nov 2007 04:41:33

taf is indeed in a very LARGE snit.

DSH

<taf@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:1194656096.711973.104800@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 9, 3:23 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Oct 26, 2:34 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltay...@earthlink.net
wrote:
In article <mailman.537.1193433618.19317.gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>,
"Nancy L. Allen" <alle...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

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

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

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

Some people might propose a solution and insist it is the 'right'
one,
and everyone should follow it.

Dear Nancy ~

Mr. Taylor seems to be speaking of me, and, if he is, he is misquoting
me. What I have said from time to time is that historians have
modernized and standardized the renderings of given names. They have
moved away from Latin and variant vernacular forms and where possible
they employ modern English forms of given names.


Mr. Richardson seems to be speaking of all historians, but this is not
the case. He is relating his preference.

Consistency and standardization have
much to be said for them.


I believe someone has said something for consistency, something having
to do with small minds.


For what it is worth, I've never insisted that any spelling is right
or wong.

No, but you have insisted that the failure to use your preferred form
is grounds for "correction". All versions are equal, but some are
more equal than others.

Pernel or Parnel are both equally good forms for the Latin
name, Petronilla. What I have said is that it is important that you
be consistent, and not wobble back and forth between the ancient Latin
and the modern forms, or only render the men's names in the modern
forms and leave the women's names such as Matilda in Latin.

Quite right. That is what I was telling my Australian friend as he
broke into strains of Waltzing Maud. Again, what Mr. Richardson means
to say is that he thinks it is important to consistently use modern
forms. This is his opinion, not fact. Alternative viewpoints include
that one should use the form most convenient, that one should use the
form most likely used by the individual in question, or that one
should use the form most likely to be understood by the reader.

To be blunt, it is patently ridiculous to use the name Elmer for the
11th century Anglo-Saxon Ealdorman who they called AEthelmaer. No one
will have the slightest clue who you are talking about, which sort of
defeats the purpose. 'Rules' should serve communication, not the
other way around. Inarticulate consistency is something "up with which
I shall not put".

Worse
yet, I find it odd that people leave a name like Bogo in Latin, when
the vernacular form can easily be found. When a historian uses
Robert, William, and Peter, and throws in a Bogo, I know he's just
being lazy.

'Lazy' implies a goal left unachieved through want of effort. It is
not entirely accurate in describing someone who fulfilled their goals,
while being blissfully unaware that they have not met your whim.


On the issue of the specific convention about which you asked your
question, historians employ either Fitz Roger or son of Roger
equally. Either form is fine.

The formal ex cathedra approval. Can't get much better than that.


Some historians take it one step
further and leave the word "fitz" uncapitalized if the name is purely
a patronymic and not a fixed surname. I personally think this is an
idiotic distinction, as it requires you to know if a fitz name is a
patronymic or a surname in any given record that you are viewing.
This is impossible to know most of the time. As such, when I use
Fitz, I capitalize it and don't worry about it, or I use "son of."

And someone else might think you are just being lazy in doing this.
You see, Mr. Richardson is being just as arbitrary in terms of what he
considers important and worthy of disapprobation if not obeyed, and
what is 'idiotic'. it is all personal preference, no matter how much
one pretends otherwise.

For those who do wish to draw the distinction between surnames and
patronymics by alternatively capitalizing or uncapitalizing the word
fitz, please be my guest. However, you will NEVER be entirely
consistent if you are using both Fitz when capitalized as a surname
and fitz uncapitalized for a patronymic. And, if you can't be
consistent, then I ask the obvious question: Why draw the distinction
at all?


Perhaps because the usages are, in fact, distinct.


Furthermore, if an uninformed person hasn't a clue that you are making
a distinction between "fitz" as a patronymic and "Fitz" as a surname,
then he has failed to grasp what you are saying.

So what? The same uninformed person will not see the distinction when
you represent both the same way, so he is no less uninformed either
way. At least if you draw the distinction, then those who know the
difference will know, as opposed to pretending there is no difference.

When Average Joe (or
Average Josephine) reads the word, "fitz," he thinks it is the same
word as "Fitz." And it is! Pretending that others hear you when you
are saying nothing to them is little more than intellectual snobbery
in my opinion.

Ah, yes. The champion of the common man. To ensure this, one must
never use any words that the most basic reader might not understand,
or refer to any concepts that they may not be know of, or draw any
distinctions of which they are unaware. Sorry. Dumbing down
communication to the lowest common denominator defeats the purpose of
communication. If someone doesn't note the distinction, they lose
nothing in you drawing it. If they note the distinction but are
unaware of its significance, they can ask. If they are aware of the
distinction, then they have been provided with more precise
information. Basically, they can keep up, catch up, or be blissfully
unaware, but if you lower all communication to their level, then
everyone is left in the unaware category.

taf

Leo van de Pas

Re: Holy Grail or Holy Mess?

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 10 nov 2007 06:28:30

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com>
To: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: Holy Grail or Holy Mess?


Hi, Leo.

Here is an interesting question for you:
and your response might interest a wider
audience, so feel free to share it. But:
I am curious: here in America we are very
well aware of who CHARLEMAGNE is, perhaps
because of the appelation EMPEROR OF THE
HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE and our awareness of
the Roman Church, but here in America we
seem to have little aware ness of THE CONQUEST
descedancy; why is that? Is it because it is
more important in English annals?

Bill

Dear Bill,

As usual there are several answers to your question. I am glad to hear that
you think many Americans are aware of Charlemagne.
That so many are oblivious to the Conquest is not so surprising.

There are words and names which have a ring to them. As an example The Royal
House of Anjou ruled England for several hundreds of years. But who knows
about the Angevins? That doesn't sound good and so Plantagenet replaced
Anjou, and Plantagenet certainly has a ring to it. Even so much that an
industry has developed in the USA selling the Plantagenet Ancestry.

This obsession with Plantagent descent you will not find to an equal degree
in England. I believe it very much to be an USA thing. In a way it is rather
sad that all the efforts of William the Conqueror to conquer England are
ignored because a grandson-in-law put a sprig of Broome (Planta genesta) on
his helmet.

Also, of course, only two generations are being ignored, which in many ways
is "close enough".

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Holy Grail Or Holy Mess?

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 10 nov 2007 07:58:15

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.254.1194672552.7651.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

This obsession with Plantagent [sic] descent you will not find to an
equal degree in England. I believe it very much to be an USA thing.
In a way it is rather sad that all the efforts of William the Conqueror
to conquer England are ignored because a grandson-in-law put a
sprig of Broome (Planta genesta) [sic] on his helmet.

yellow broom

_Planta genista_

Old French: _plante genêt_

Also, of course, only two generations are being ignored, which in many
ways is "close enough".

They are NOT being ignored. Anyone who is a descendant of Henry II is ALSO
a descendant of William The Conqueror.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Gjest

Re: Elizabeth Browne widow, John Harpur, Wistow and Newton H

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2007 13:46:02

From the BHO site and various A2A sites, I have the following structure [my
refs in sq brackets]


660S1525 FRANCIS BROWNE Wistow, Newton Harcourt and Kilby all in Leics

NN BROWNE left
(1) Francis Browne [660S1525] (-1592) 1568 bought Wistow Manor, Newton
Harcourt manor and Kilby manor all in Leics from Henry Hastings Er Huntingdon;
owned land in Ratby and Thrussington, left (A) Thomas Browne [750S1550]
(->1605) s&h of Wistow, to m Sep 1576 Mary d of Bryan Cave of Irigesby and left (a)
Francis Browne [673S1575] (b) NN Browne
(2) Edward Browne [661S1525]

Mention of Abraham Browne [122S1350] who c1400 held land in Newton Harcourt
Also mentined: Francis Browne [662S1525] and John Bronwe [663S1525] gents
plaintiffs in a 1586 case against Francis Browne [660S1525] re manors listed
above.
Elizabeth Browne [674S1575] wdw, of the Newarks, Leics to re-mary in 1609
Sir John Harpur of Swarkeston, Derbys
Katherien Browne [749S1550] (l 1617); William Browne [578S1600] (l 1653) of
Kilby, butcher; Edward Browne [577S1600] (l 1655) of Leicester, Leics and
Kilby m? Elizabeth


Adrian


In a message dated 10/11/2007 01:05:43 GMT Standard Time, wjhonson@aol.com
writes:
In the BHO account of Wistow and Newton Harcourt here
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=22077

they give accounts of the passing of the Manor of Wistow and state
obliquely that the advowson was seperated and the passing obscure or
whatever.

They seem to be missing this document, which greatly assists in tying
this Browne family into others closely connected to Richard Cecil i.e.
the Harpurs of Swarkston


Reference: DG24/348
Lease
Creation dates: 15 January 1608/9
Physical characteristics: Two seals.

Scope and Content
Parties:- (i) Dame Elizabeth Browne of the Newarke, Leicester, widow.
(ii) Edward Gatley of Leicester, clerk and William Yarde of Cosby,
gent.
The said Elizabeth Browne with the consent of Sir John Harpur of
Swarkeston, Derbys. whom she intends to marry, demises unto the said
Edward Gatley and William Yarde the rectory or parsonage of Newton
Harcourt and Wistow with appurtenances together with the glebe land of
arable, meadow and pasture belonging to the same. To hold the same
from the date of these presents for a term of 80 years at an annual
rent of ten shillings.
--------------
Reference: DG24/427
Grant
Creation dates: 16 September 1608
Physical characteristics: Three Seals [all missing].
Scope and Content
(i) Sir John Harpur of Swarkeston, Derbys. kt., Dame Elizabeth, his
wife, and Henry Fawnte of Leicester, gent.
(ii) Richard Halford of Wistow, gent.
In consideration of the sum of £1,350 the said Sir John Harpur, Dame
Elizabeth and Henry Fawnte grant unto the said Richard Halford (i) the
Rectory and Church of Wistow lately belonging to the dissolved
monastery of Sulby, Northants., (ii) all messuages, lands, pastures,
glebes, tithes, oblations etc. situate or arising in the town and
fields of Wistow (iii) the advowson of the church of Wistow and (iv)
all other messuages, lands etc. of the said Sir John Harpur, dame
Elizabeth and Henry Fawnte in Wistow except & reserving to the same
all glebe, tithes etc. in Newton Harcourt and Kilby and the advowson
of the church of Kilby. To hold the same to the said Richard Halford
and his heirs for ever.


Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Ancestors & Descendants

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2007 16:01:02

Dear Spencer, Renia , and Mike,
What would you think of
ancestral cousin as a term or ancestral aunt or uncle for that matter for back
beyond the great grands ?
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Ancestors & Descendants

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 10 nov 2007 16:59:24

I agree, James.

I have no objection to that terminology.

It's clear, concise, precise English.

Cheers,

DSH

<Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.276.1194706503.7651.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Dear Spencer, Renia , and Mike,

What would you think of ancestral cousin as a term or ancestral
aunt or uncle for that matter for back beyond the great grands ?

Sincerely,
James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2007 17:35:05

Dear Spencer,
As I recall George III and Prince Charles have a hobby
in common ... both being avid farmers. Charles is very interested in organic
farming.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA




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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 10 nov 2007 17:42:27

Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?

Interesting Connection...

Perhaps he waxed rhapsodic during an American visit? <g>

DSH

<Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.288.1194712182.7651.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Dear Spencer,

As I recall George III and Prince Charles have a hobby
in common ... both being avid farmers. Charles is very interested in
organic
farming.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Feck all sassanaigh

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Feck all sassanaigh » 10 nov 2007 17:50:24

On Nov 10, 4:42 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?

Interesting Connection...

Perhaps he waxed rhapsodic during an American visit? <g

DSH

Jwc1...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:mailman.288.1194712182.7651.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...



Dear Spencer,
As I recall George III and Prince Charles have a hobby
in common ... both being avid farmers. Charles is very interested in
organic
farming.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And in the USA he could become George Michael 11 and hang around
public loos acting as a tampon..

Gjest

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2007 18:16:03

Dear Spencer,
Regretably, no. but it makes sense.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



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

Turlough

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Turlough » 10 nov 2007 19:23:57

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?

How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?

Robert Peffers

Re: Ancestors & Descendants

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 10 nov 2007 23:31:19

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:YzkZi.460$Ig4.2250@eagle.america.net...
I agree, James.

I have no objection to that terminology.

It's clear, concise, precise English.

Cheers,

DSH

Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.276.1194706503.7651.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Dear Spencer, Renia , and Mike,

What would you think of ancestral cousin as a term or ancestral
aunt or uncle for that matter for back beyond the great grands ?

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



Would these examples be USAsian English or UK English?

terrence White

Re: Norman French (Was: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz

Legg inn av terrence White » 11 nov 2007 00:30:04

And the language in question was almost certainly "Norman" French, the dialect of Normandy which The Conqueror and his retainers brought over with them to England; thus, it was both a Mediaeval dialect and a dialect in its own right--quite distinct from the Parisian French we all learned in high school.

For many centuries in England, it was the language of law, court, government, and cultured society, and was nearly ubiquitous, for a time completely eclipsing mediaeval English in the upper echelons of society.

Its influence on English is still noticeable to this day--both in our vocabulary (over fifty percent French), and in the specifics of the lexicon: one and two-syllable words tend to be of Anglo-Saxon origin (especially if dealing with rural or farm life), and words of three or more syllables tend to be French-derived. Words of animals alive and on the farm tend to be Anglo-Saxon derived (sheep, cow, steer, horse, etc.), whereas words of the same animals--when presented to the dining table--suddenly become French: "mutton", "boeuf" (beef), etc.

Ordinary Parisian French was virtually unknown in England (unless one was either a scholar or well-travelled); Chaucer informed his readers that his Nun/Prioress character "spak [Frensh] ful faire and fetisly, after the schole of Stratford-atte-Bowe, for Frensh of Paris was to hir unknowe", illustrating how unusual it was for anyone in England of the time to be very conversant in Parisian French. Even the famous motto of the Order of the Garter was in Norman French--not Parisian French: "Honi soit qui mal y pense" (though any modern Frenchman could probably understand it well enough).

T.J. White
(scholar of ancient languages and genealogist)

Leo van de Pas <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
Interesting to see that Richardson can reply to my message when he thinks he
is correct and I am wrong.
It does show how sloppy his translation was, not good when you are a
"trained historian and genealogist". A "strict rendering" surely is
preferred when trying to establish facts, as it leaves no room for doubt.
Especially as many people have only a very limited knowledge of other
languages.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson"
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To:
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan,the Almost Queen
of Scotland


On Nov 10, 2:19 pm, "Leo van de Pas" wrote:
With the restricted knowledge I have of French, la Femme, is the woman. A
widow is veuve. Just think of Veuve Cliquot.

A strict rendering of "qe fu la femme" is "who was the wife [of]."

DR


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



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


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

wjhonson

Re: Elizabeth Browne widow, John Harpur, Wistow and Newton H

Legg inn av wjhonson » 11 nov 2007 00:48:22

Thanks Adrian, I had not known that that Francis Browne, was supposed
to be the father of that Thomas Browne of Wistow who had married Mary
Cave dau of Brian (Bryand) Cave "fifth son" (d 1565/8) by his wife
Margaret Throckmorton

Mary Cave is a Cecil5 and also 8th generation from Edward III

I had not known until your message that she is supposed to have had a
child Francis Browne. As you can see Mary was born by 1569 as her
father was already deceased and I assume since you said Thomas Browne
was heir of his father that he was living in 1592 at least.

I'd like to see what documents you have that shows that Thomas and
Mary had this son Francis.
Thanks

Will

wjhonson

Re: Elizabeth Browne widow, John Harpur, Wistow and Newton H

Legg inn av wjhonson » 11 nov 2007 01:14:47

Fascinating.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/weston/section%20one.html
stating that Elizabeth Noel married three times
first Anthony Fount
second William Browne KB
third Joseph Harpur of Swarkston

Obviously the third husband was John Harpur not Joseph per what I sent
earlier. But I had no idea that she was that Elizabeth Noel daughter
of Andrew Noel of Dalby (d 1562) by his wife Elizabeth Hopton.

But who is William Browne KB ? Her announcement that she intends to
marry John Harpur, could possibly make her a good candidate for being
that Elizabeth, known to have been the wife of William Brown the Lord
Mayor. He died very opportunely in 1507/8, but I don't know why she's
have the rectory and advowson of Wistow in her hand as that Browne I
don't have connected to the Brownes of Wistow.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Elizabeth Browne widow, John Harpur, Wistow and Newton H

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 nov 2007 02:35:05

In a message dated 11/11/2007 00:15:23 GMT Standard Time, wjhonson@aol.com
writes:

Fascinating.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/weston/section%20one.html
stating that Elizabeth Noel married three times
first Anthony Fount
second William Browne KB
third Joseph Harpur of Swarkston

Obviously the third husband was John Harpur not Joseph per what I sent
earlier. But I had no idea that she was that Elizabeth Noel daughter
of Andrew Noel of Dalby (d 1562) by his wife Elizabeth Hopton.

But who is William Browne KB ? Her announcement that she intends to
marry John Harpur, could possibly make her a good candidate for being
that Elizabeth, known to have been the wife of William Brown the Lord
Mayor. He died very opportunely in 1507/8, but I don't know why she's
have the rectory and advowson of Wistow in her hand as that Browne I
don't have connected to the Brownes of Wistow.

Will Johnson



====

Looks dodgy to me. The only William Browne KB in Shaw's knight's was much
later (knt 1660). Although Shaw is not exhaustive, he probably is for KB's.
Its too late to check this further now, I will have another look when I get a
chance.

Adrian

wjhonson

Re: Elizabeth Browne widow, John Harpur, Wistow and Newton H

Legg inn av wjhonson » 11 nov 2007 03:03:27

The answer might be in the advowson on Wistow. Evidently Anthony
Faunt bought it and was seized of it in 1588. However the next
presenter was.... Francis Browne in 1592 ta da ! And then Thomas
Browne presented in 1601.

In 1608 it was sold by Henry and Barbara Faunt, who I presume, isn't
his sister of that name, but rather his second wife Barbara (Love)
Faunt.

As to how THOMAS Browne got to present, when he was only Elizabeth
Noel's step-son, I have no clue. But at least it appears that her
second husband was Francis Browne, not William. But then she had to
remain a widow for 16 to 17 years before she got an itch to remarry.
Which still sounds a bit odd.

But I think we're making progress.

Will Johnson

the_verminator@comcast.ne

Re: "Deus lo volt!" WAS Holy Grail or Holy Mess?

Legg inn av the_verminator@comcast.ne » 11 nov 2007 06:39:34

On Nov 10, 10:39 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
HI, GEN-MEDIEVAL PEOPLE:

Sheesh. I live in the south in the good ole USA too. And I certainly'
did not mean to imply all Americans were ignorant of William the
Conqueror but I sure know they know Charlemagne's name more:
and as for William being noble about women, I am sure Jesus of
the Gospels made his point first with the men who wanted to stone
to death a woman: and made it so early and importantly that a
Church was built upon a Rock and a Crusade by the Plantagenets
attempted to ride the world of burkas eons ago. So much for
"Deus lo volt!" among the peasantry.

Bill
aka William, son of...

*************************************
--- Leo van de Pas <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:





Dear Le,

In defense of Bill, I must agree with him that it seems the Conquest is
secondary to Plantagenet in the USA. I know in the USA you can find
Plantagent books and also books covering descendants of Charlemagne, but
are there any with William the Conqueror as its cetral point?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "Le Bateman" <LeBate...@ATT.Net
To: "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: Holy Grail or Holy Mess?

I should feel insulted by Bill's notion that we Americans are Ignorant of
this. I doubt very much if Richard I or II called himself Plantagenet.
He was referred to as Richard of England. I sure know about 1066. And its
ramifications especially for Women after the Conquest. They became more or
less chattel. Well nuff said. I quess I can count myself lucky to have a
BA
degree in History and come from a Region whose people know their history.
I
live in the Southeastern United States in the City of Montgomery, State
of
Alabama U.S.A.
Le
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au
To: "Bill Arnold" <billarnold...@yahoo.com
Cc: <GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: Holy Grail or Holy Mess?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Arnold" <billarnold...@yahoo.com
To: "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: Holy Grail or Holy Mess?

Hi, Leo.

Here is an interesting question for you:
and your response might interest a wider
audience, so feel free to share it. But:
I am curious: here in America we are very
well aware of who CHARLEMAGNE is, perhaps
because of the appelation EMPEROR OF THE
HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE and our awareness of
the Roman Church, but here in America we
seem to have little aware ness of THE CONQUEST
descedancy; why is that? Is it because it is
more important in English annals?

Bill

Dear Bill,
As usual there are several answers to your question. I am glad to hear
that
you think many Americans are aware of Charlemagne.
That so many are oblivious to the Conquest is not so surprising.

There are words and names which have a ring to them. As an example The
Royal
House of Anjou ruled England for several hundreds of years. But who knows
about the Angevins? That doesn't sound good and so Plantagenet replaced
Anjou, and Plantagenet certainly has a ring to it. Even so much that an
industry has developed in the USA selling the Plantagenet Ancestry.

This obsession with Plantagent descent you will not find to an equal
degree
in England. I believe it very much to be an USA thing. In a way it is
rather
sad that all the efforts of William the Conqueror to conquer England are
ignored because a grandson-in-law put a sprig of Broome (Planta genesta)
on
his helmet.

Also, of course, only two generations are being ignored, which in many
ways
is "close enough".

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

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

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

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

- Show quoted text -

Hey- don't knock burkas! I've made a small fortune selling see-thru
burkas to muslim hookers!

Gjest

Re: Elizabeth Browne widow, John Harpur, Wistow and Newton H

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 nov 2007 12:45:06

In a message dated 11/11/2007 01:33:42 GMT Standard Time,
ADRIANCHANNING02@aol.com writes:
In a message dated 11/11/2007 00:15:23 GMT Standard Time, wjhonson@aol.com
writes:

Fascinating.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/weston/section%20one.html
stating that Elizabeth Noel married three times
first Anthony Fount
second William Browne KB
third Joseph Harpur of Swarkston

Obviously the third husband was John Harpur not Joseph per what I sent
earlier. But I had no idea that she was that Elizabeth Noel daughter
of Andrew Noel of Dalby (d 1562) by his wife Elizabeth Hopton.

But who is William Browne KB ? Her announcement that she intends to
marry John Harpur, could possibly make her a good candidate for being
that Elizabeth, known to have been the wife of William Brown the Lord
Mayor. He died very opportunely in 1507/8, but I don't know why she's
have the rectory and advowson of Wistow in her hand as that Browne I
don't have connected to the Brownes of Wistow.

Will Johnson



====
I wrote;

Looks dodgy to me. The only William Browne KB in Shaw's knight's was much
later (knt 1660). Although Shaw is not exhaustive, he probably is for
KB's.
Its too late to check this further now, I will have another look when I get
a
chance.

Adrian

=====

I don't know what I looked up last night, but this is wrong, the only
William Browne KB in Shaw's knights was knighted 1603 and is the brother of Robert
Browne 1st Bart. of Walcot His widow was an Elizabeth.
Pym Yatemen writes of him:


Sir William Browne, Knight-who, by his will, proved March 16th 1603, appears
to have been a K.B. (44 Harte, P.C.C.), refers to his wife, the Lady
Elizabeth, and to Lord Burleigh, who owed him money, and to Sir William FitzWilliam
of Milton, Northamptonshire, who owned him £320, of which he gave £300 to
his brother, Robert Browne, and £20 to his wife. He forgave Frances Cavill, of
Henthorpe, £12. He gave Mr. John Browne, of Bourne, Lincolnshire, £20; and
he refers to his brothers, Sir Bernard Whetsone and Robert Whetstone.
(050, page 67)

His will reads:

1604 William Browne; Sir, of Walcot PRO 16 March 1604
Summary: William Browne (-Will pr 16 Mar 1604, sentance 31 May 1606); Sir
(KB); of Walcott, N’hants; Wife Lady Elizabeth Browne (sole exeutrix); br
Robert; debt due from Lord Burleigh, £320 due from William FitzWilliam* of Milton,
N’hants, £12 due from Frances Conell of Hinthorpe forgiven; Also mentioned
£20 or horse to John Browne of Bourne, Lincs; wife’s children; Brothers
[-in-law] Sir Barnard and Robert Whetstone; Francis Bonder apprenticed to Mr
Meddowes of Stanton. In Sentance, gift of £100 to poor of Barnack and £50pa to br
Robert Browne
In the name of God Amen I William Browne of Woollcot in the countie / of
Northhampton knight of the honorble Order of the Bath weke in Bodie but sound in
/ minde and memory doe appoint and constitute this heere following for my
last will and / testament Ffirst giving thanks unto God for his continnewall
goodnes towards me / during this my mortall and miserble life and imbelring[?]
joyfullie the sentence of deathe / deferred by my sinns, I bequeathe my
soule to him that gave itt, and my bodie to the earthe / [margin note:
unreadable] / from whence I receaved itt being fullie assured by the mercy of Christ to
receive itt in glorie / againe, And in this my will and testament I doe
institute and make my wife the Ladie / Elizabeth Browne my onelie and whole
executor, Item I give unto my brother Robert Browne / all the debt and monye w^ch^
is dewe unto me by the Lord of Burleigh by bond or bill Item / wheras Sir
William ffitzwilliames of Milton in the countie of Northhampton knight is
indepted / unto me in the some thee hundred and twentie poundes I bequeath of
that debt thre hundred / pounds unto my brother Robert Browne and the other
twentie I give unto my wife, Item // I forgive and remitt unto ffrances Conell of
Hinthorpe all the debts of monye wherin it standeth / indebpted unto me
viz^en^ Twelve pounds Item I give unto m^r^ John Browne of Bourne in the countie
/ of Lincoln other Twentie pounds in monye or my best horse at his choice
Item I bequeath unto / the right h^ble^ the lord of Burleighe and the right
H^ble^ his wife and Ladie, I bequeath unto them / as a pledge of the love I
have ever borne unto their house one peece of plate betwixt them requesting /
him the said Lo’ Burleigh to protect in all inst[?] causes my deere and loving
wife the ladie Elizabeth / Browne Item I bequeath as a testimany of my love
unto everie one of my wives children a peece / of plate of tenn pounds price
Item I give unto my two Brothers Sir Barnard Whetstones / and Robert
Whetstones and to the wife of the said Robert Whetstones five pounds a peece, to each
/ of the naturall children of the said Barnard and Robert five pounds a
peece provided allways / the children of them w^ch^be yet unmarried shall not
receive the said five pounds untill the / daye of their severall marriages Item
I bequeath unto ffrancis Bonder nowe an / apprentise unto M^r^ Meddowes of
Stanton I bequeath I saye at the expiring of his saide / prentiship the some of
ffiftie pounds in monye. / Probatum fuit testamentum sepraserispeum apld
London cartem benerabili ....Elizabeth Browne....
1606:
Memorandum That S^r^William Browne / knight late of Wallcott in the countie
of Northampton deceased about time of the // makinge of his last will and
testament proved in comon forme and remaining in the / registrie of this
prerogative courte being of perfect minde and memorie did will give / and bequeath
unto the poore people of the Towne of Barneck in the said countie the / some
of one hundred pounds lawfull English monie being present there and then / and
having the same diverse good and credibel witnesses
Secunda Echedula dodicillas / in peritencia predict pu’tibus amers
....
Memorandum that the said Sir W^m^ / Browne knight decease about the tyme of
the making and declaring of his last will ^and testament^ / afore saide
beinge of perfect minde and memoris did will and bequeath to his brother Sr Robert
/ Browne the some of ffyftie pounds a yeare being present and hearing the
same diverse / good and credible witnesses


In haste
Adrian

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Norman French (Was: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 11 nov 2007 12:52:33

On 11 nov, 00:25, terrence White <revenant1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<...>
Ordinary Parisian French was virtually unknown in England (unless one was either a scholar or well-travelled);
Chaucer informed his readers that his Nun/Prioress character "spak [Frensh] ful faire and fetisly, after the schole
of Stratford-atte-Bowe, for Frensh of Paris was to hir unknowe", illustrating how unusual it was for anyone in
England of the time to be very conversant in Parisian French. Even the famous motto of the Order of the Garter
was in Norman French--not Parisian French: "Honi soit qui mal y pense" (though any modern Frenchman could
probably understand it well enough).

And what do you suppose to be the translation of the same motto in
"Norman French" into "Parisian French"???

Pierre

jluc soler

Re: Norman French (Was: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz

Legg inn av jluc soler » 11 nov 2007 13:37:25

lol.. honni soit qui mal y pense!!!!!!

jl


"pierre_aronax@hotmail.com" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.fr> a écrit dans le
message de news: 1194781953.556865.70160@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 11 nov, 00:25, terrence White <revenant1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

...
Ordinary Parisian French was virtually unknown in England (unless one was
either a scholar or well-travelled);
Chaucer informed his readers that his Nun/Prioress character "spak
[Frensh] ful faire and fetisly, after the schole
of Stratford-atte-Bowe, for Frensh of Paris was to hir unknowe",
illustrating how unusual it was for anyone in
England of the time to be very conversant in Parisian French. Even the
famous motto of the Order of the Garter
was in Norman French--not Parisian French: "Honi soit qui mal y pense"
(though any modern Frenchman could
probably understand it well enough).

And what do you suppose to be the translation of the same motto in
"Norman French" into "Parisian French"???

Pierre


Gjest

Re: Baskerville of Eardisley marriages 14th century

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 nov 2007 14:38:06

Dear All,
Tony Ingham and I are attempting (off list so far) to sort out the
Baskerville descent in the 14th century.
We have provisionally identified the following succession::-
1. Richard Baskerville, heir of Eardisley on the death of his brother Walter
(IPM C133/44/1, 1386). Stated to have married a Solers heiress (the Solers
arms, argent a chevron between 3 lions' heads erased gules, are quartered in
later Baskerville arms). It is probable that his wife's name was Philippa. See
note 1.
2. His son Walter (dvp), married Sibyl Corbet of Caux, (sister or perhaps
daughter of Peter- but there are no "corbets" to be found on later Baskerville
arms)
3. Walter's son Richard (II), married Joan, daughter of Nicholas Poynings
[see Note 1]. He is said to have died 15 Edw III (c.1342), but he seems to have
been still alive in 1348 (see Note 2), and may have remarried the Isabel
mentioned in Note 3 at some date before 1354..
4. Richard (II)'s son Richard (III), married before 1348 Joan, daughter of
Adam de Everingham (see Note 2). He died 1374 (IPMs C135/236/13 and C136/8/7),
and after his death his widow Joan remarried Giles Malory: CPR EIII,
v.16,199. He seems to have been the Sir Richard who was in France during the
campaign which led up to the battle of Poitiers
5. Richard (III)'s son Sir Richard (IV). Born 30 Jan 1369/70 (CIPM16 RII
122-3). He is stated in various traditional pedigrees to have married Joan
Everingham, but this is clearly nonsense, since Joan was already married in 1348,
and therefore no doubt was his father' wife, and a daughter of the first,
rather than the second, Adam de Everingham and his wife Joan Deiville. This Sir
Richard died 16 Sept 1395.
6. Richard (IV)'s son Sir John, who married Elizabeth, daughter of John
Brugge of Letton, and fought at Agincourt. He left two sons, Sir John, married to
Elizabeth Touchet, daughter of John, Lord Audley, and Ralph, married to Anne,
daughter of Sir John Blaket, another veteran of the Agincourt campaign.



Note 1: Fine, 16 Edw. II., the manor of "Erdesley" was settled on Sir
Richard and Philippa his wife with remainder to Richard, son of Walter de
Baskerville and Johanna his wife, daughter of Nicholas Poynings and their issue, with
remainder to the rightful heirs of Richard, and by another Fine Orcop was
settled in a similar manner.

Note 2: Fine 1348, quinzaine of Hilary: Querents : Richard B and Joan, d. of
Adam de Everingham by John of Stretton their guardian. Deforciant: Sir
Richard Baskerville, Kt. Subject: manor of Combe Baskerville. Disposal:
settlement on the querents and the heirs of their bodies. Consideration: a rose at
the nativity of St John Baptist and 100 marks of silver.

Note 3: Extract from the Papal Letters cited in Yorkshire Antiquities,
Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 1907,p.243)
1354 July 30 Avignon
"Confirmation with exemplification at the request of Richard de Baskerville,
knt, and Isabella his wife, of the diocese of Hereford, of the letters
issued by Clement VI, 2 Non. Jul., anno 3, ruling in the case of John Earl of
Warenne and Joan de Barro, that dispensation of the marriage of persons related
in the fourth degree of kindred shall hold good if they are related in the
fourth and third degrees"
I do not know who this Isabel was, nor how she might have been related to
her husband. Secondary sources such as Burke's Commoners, Duncumb and Heraldic
Visitations suggest that she may have been a daughter and heiress of Sir
Walter de Paveley, but I doubt it, because the Paveley arms as shown in the St
George' s Roll (azure, a cross fleury or) do not as far as I know appear in any
later coat of arms of the Eardisley Baskervilles.
I believe that Isabel's husband Sir Richard was the son and heir of
Richard B (II), by his wife Joan, daughter of Nicholas Poynings, and that the Joan
who was remarried by 1375 to Giles Malory was Joan Everingham.

terrence White

Re: Norman French (Was: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz

Legg inn av terrence White » 11 nov 2007 15:37:03

Norman French Standard (Parisian) French
rey roy
real royal
canal channel

See also these links on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Norman_language

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

http://www.krysstal.com/borrow_normanfrench.html

http://www.explore.parliament.uk/Parlia ... ssary=true

Just a very few of the results from a very quick five-minute Google search. My main point(s) still stand valid, despite whatever ignorance of modern French I may possess. I never did find modern French interesting enough to warrant much study; but the variant forms (and older forms) of the language always have interested me.

I once resided in South Africa for nearly two years back in the 80s, and several years ago met a Dutch-speaking woman here in the States; after conversing with her--I using my Afrikaans, and she her Dutch (and both of us comprehending the other just fine, thank you), the good woman swore that I had been speaking only "Dutch" to her the whole time, and none of my arguments could persuade her otherwise. And yet linguists (and the Afrikaners themselves) insist that Afrikaans is a legitimately separate language from modern Dutch, with its own syntax, rules of grammar, etc. And they are right--even though it is even now over eighty per cent. identical to the Dutch it developed out of, and despite the fact that any Dutchman could easily comprehend it.

I'm sure the same could probably be said of the "Cajun" dialect of French in Louisiana. ....

The same holds true for both mediaeval and modern "Norman" French!

I rest my case.

T.J. White

jluc soler <jlucsoler@modulonet.fr> wrote:
lol.. honni soit qui mal y pense!!!!!!

jl


"pierre_aronax@hotmail.com" a écrit dans le
message de news: 1194781953.556865.70160@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 11 nov, 00:25, terrence White wrote:

...
Ordinary Parisian French was virtually unknown in England (unless one was
either a scholar or well-travelled);
Chaucer informed his readers that his Nun/Prioress character "spak
[Frensh] ful faire and fetisly, after the schole
of Stratford-atte-Bowe, for Frensh of Paris was to hir unknowe",
illustrating how unusual it was for anyone in
England of the time to be very conversant in Parisian French. Even the
famous motto of the Order of the Garter
was in Norman French--not Parisian French: "Honi soit qui mal y pense"
(though any modern Frenchman could
probably understand it well enough).

And what do you suppose to be the translation of the same motto in
"Norman French" into "Parisian French"???

Pierre





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


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

John P. Ravilious

Re: PLANTAGENET: Blame it on Hollywood (and Sir Walter Scott

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 11 nov 2007 18:15:36

Dear Bill (and Leo, et al.),

Actually, I tend to blame a conspiracy between Sir Walter Scott
and Hollywood *.

The historic impact of the Conquest is clear, and the career of
William the Conqueror of major interest and import. However, this
competes poorly when we have works like Ivanhoe and The Talisman, both
enjoyable to the reader and palatable to the rest (via Hollywood
versions, incl. "King Richard and the Crusader" in place of The
Talisman).

Add on top of that 'The Lion in Winter' and the the outcome of
the Plantagenet Popularity contest is certain (if not rigged). George
Sanders, Rex Harrison and Virginia Mayo are tough competition: beyond
that, if Henry II was not a mirror image of Peter O'Toole (likewise
Eleanor and Katherine Hepburn), then he/she should have been.

Cheers,

John




* PS - This is not meant to infer any direct contact between the two,
unless Shirley MacLean was involved.


On Nov 11, 11:20 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Leo van de Pas <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:

LvdP: "Dear Bill, As usual there are several answers to your question. I am
glad to hear that you think many Americans are aware of Charlemagne.
That so many are oblivious to the Conquest is not so surprising. There are
words and names which have a ring to them. As an example The Royal
House of Anjou ruled England for several hundreds of years. But who knows
about the Angevins? That doesn't sound good and so Plantagenet replaced
Anjou, and Plantagenet certainly has a ring to it. Even so much that an
industry has developed in the USA selling the Plantagenet Ancestry.
This obsession with Plantagent descent you will not find to an equal degree
in England. I believe it very much to be an USA thing. In a way it is rather
sad that all the efforts of William the Conqueror to conquer England are
ignored because a grandson-in-law put a sprig of Broome (Planta genesta) on
his helmet."

BA: Well, gen-medieval scholars, you can blame all this American love affair
with the Plantagenets on Emily Dickinson who lived in the good ole USA in the mid
1800s. In the 1850s-60s, Amherst was still a rural town in which horseback was
the means of travel as well as horse-drawn "chariots"--buckboards and coaches.
Thus, Emily Dickinson lived in a *medieval* town which was named for an English
"Earl," Lord Jeffry Amherst, and gen-medieval scholars should not be surprised by her
whole reference opus of literary allusions to European *Royalty*! She wrote nearly
one thousand poems to a secret "Master* as Sir and Sire and Master and King and
Plantagenet! Why? Her father was a congressman and a founder of the Republican
party in Washington, DC. So, why would she be so obsessed with English royalty and
an early obscure English king and fancy herself his "Queen"? And was *he* the
Plantagenet she called "the Plantagenet"?

Examples:

"If I amazed your kindness--My Love is my only apology...Would you--ask less for
your *Queen*--Mr Bowles?"

"Master. If it had been God's will that I might breathe where you breathed--and find
the place--myself--at night...if I wish with a might I cannot repress--that mine were
the Queen's place--the love of the Plantagenet
is my only apology."

[author: Emily Dickinson]

Was not the first of the Plantagenet Kings married to Eleanor of Aquitaine who was the
first Queen of the troubadours? is that who she meant? And the rest, as they say, is history?
Was she not the "adulterous" Queen who married the English King and brought to England
the tradition of "troubadour" poetry and Courtly Love, which had reigned under her grandfather,
Duke William IX, "The Troubadour"? Of course, Emily Dickinson poems were read and studied
in every *English* class for a century now, and her fame spread like a comet in the night sky.
So blame the fame of the Plantagenets in America on Emily Dickinson.

Bill

******

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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: PLANTAGENET: Blame It On Emily Dickinson

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 11 nov 2007 18:27:12

Yes, Hollywood too.

No good films about William The Conqueror.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Kay Allen

Re: American multiplication - or pie in the sky?

Legg inn av Kay Allen » 11 nov 2007 22:37:03

That can be said of virtually any genealogical
software. A good product is also based on the skill,
knowledge, and integrity of the individual researcher.

Kay Allen AG


(As for "produced using the Mormon Family Search PAF
software" -
that's no guarantee of quality of genealogical work.
Using Family
Search and PAF software, you could invent an entire
pedigree, and it
would *still* be invented.)

P J Evans



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

Gjest

Re: PLANTAGENET: Blame it on Emily Dickinson

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 nov 2007 23:14:36

On Nov 11, 11:20 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Leo van de Pas <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:

LvdP: "Dear Bill, As usual there are several answers to your question. I am
glad to hear that you think many Americans are aware of Charlemagne.
That so many are oblivious to the Conquest is not so surprising. There are
words and names which have a ring to them. As an example The Royal
House of Anjou ruled England for several hundreds of years. But who knows
about the Angevins? That doesn't sound good and so Plantagenet replaced
Anjou, and Plantagenet certainly has a ring to it. Even so much that an
industry has developed in the USA selling the Plantagenet Ancestry.
This obsession with Plantagent descent you will not find to an equal degree
in England. I believe it very much to be an USA thing. In a way it is rather
sad that all the efforts of William the Conqueror to conquer England are
ignored because a grandson-in-law put a sprig of Broome (Planta genesta) on
his helmet."

BA: Well, gen-medieval scholars, you can blame all this American love affair
with the Plantagenets on Emily Dickinson who lived in the good ole USA in the mid
1800s. In the 1850s-60s, Amherst was still a rural town in which horseback was
the means of travel as well as horse-drawn "chariots"--buckboards and coaches.
Thus, Emily Dickinson lived in a *medieval* town which was named for an English
"Earl," Lord Jeffry Amherst, and gen-medieval scholars should not be surprised by her
whole reference opus of literary allusions to European *Royalty*! She wrote nearly
one thousand poems to a secret "Master* as Sir and Sire and Master and King and
Plantagenet! Why? Her father was a congressman and a founder of the Republican
party in Washington, DC. So, why would she be so obsessed with English royalty and
an early obscure English king and fancy herself his "Queen"? And was *he* the
Plantagenet she called "the Plantagenet"?

Examples:

"If I amazed your kindness--My Love is my only apology...Would you--ask less for
your *Queen*--Mr Bowles?"

"Master. If it had been God's will that I might breathe where you breathed--and find
the place--myself--at night...if I wish with a might I cannot repress--that mine were
the Queen's place--the love of the Plantagenet
is my only apology."

[author: Emily Dickinson]

Was not the first of the Plantagenet Kings married to Eleanor of Aquitaine who was the
first Queen of the troubadours? is that who she meant? And the rest, as they say, is history?
Was she not the "adulterous" Queen who married the English King and brought to England
the tradition of "troubadour" poetry and Courtly Love, which had reigned under her grandfather,
Duke William IX, "The Troubadour"? Of course, Emily Dickinson poems were read and studied
in every *English* class for a century now, and her fame spread like a comet in the night sky.
So blame the fame of the Plantagenets in America on Emily Dickinson.

Bill

******

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

The 'Mr. Bowles' that Emily refers to is Samuel Bowles, editor of the
Springfield Republican newspaper, which published 10 of Emily's poems.
Most of her poetry wasn't published until after her death. Emily was
somewhat of a recluse which is perhaps the reason for the mystery
surrounding her. The 'Master' letters are an enigma, no one knows
exactly what their content refers to, or to whom Emily addressed them.

Gjest

Re: PLANTAGENET: Blame it on Emily Dickinson

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 nov 2007 00:07:17

On Nov 11, 11:20 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Leo van de Pas <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:

LvdP: "Dear Bill, As usual there are several answers to your question. I am
glad to hear that you think many Americans are aware of Charlemagne.
That so many are oblivious to the Conquest is not so surprising. There are
words and names which have a ring to them. As an example The Royal
House of Anjou ruled England for several hundreds of years. But who knows
about the Angevins? That doesn't sound good and so Plantagenet replaced
Anjou, and Plantagenet certainly has a ring to it. Even so much that an
industry has developed in the USA selling the Plantagenet Ancestry.
This obsession with Plantagent descent you will not find to an equal degree
in England. I believe it very much to be an USA thing. In a way it is rather
sad that all the efforts of William the Conqueror to conquer England are
ignored because a grandson-in-law put a sprig of Broome (Planta genesta) on
his helmet."

BA: Well, gen-medieval scholars, you can blame all this American love affair
with the Plantagenets on Emily Dickinson who lived in the good ole USA in the mid
1800s. In the 1850s-60s, Amherst was still a rural town in which horseback was
the means of travel as well as horse-drawn "chariots"--buckboards and coaches.
Thus, Emily Dickinson lived in a *medieval* town which was named for an English
"Earl," Lord Jeffry Amherst, and gen-medieval scholars should not be surprised by her
whole reference opus of literary allusions to European *Royalty*! She wrote nearly
one thousand poems to a secret "Master* as Sir and Sire and Master and King and
Plantagenet! Why? Her father was a congressman and a founder of the Republican
party in Washington, DC. So, why would she be so obsessed with English royalty and
an early obscure English king and fancy herself his "Queen"? And was *he* the
Plantagenet she called "the Plantagenet"?

Examples:

"If I amazed your kindness--My Love is my only apology...Would you--ask less for
your *Queen*--Mr Bowles?"

"Master. If it had been God's will that I might breathe where you breathed--and find
the place--myself--at night...if I wish with a might I cannot repress--that mine were
the Queen's place--the love of the Plantagenet
is my only apology."

[author: Emily Dickinson]

Was not the first of the Plantagenet Kings married to Eleanor of Aquitaine who was the
first Queen of the troubadours? is that who she meant? And the rest, as they say, is history?
Was she not the "adulterous" Queen who married the English King and brought to England
the tradition of "troubadour" poetry and Courtly Love, which had reigned under her grandfather,
Duke William IX, "The Troubadour"? Of course, Emily Dickinson poems were read and studied
in every *English* class for a century now, and her fame spread like a comet in the night sky.
So blame the fame of the Plantagenets in America on Emily Dickinson.

Bill

******

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

Lord Jeffrey Amherst, after whom Amherst, Massachusetts (which
contains Amherst College as well as the University of Massachusetts)
was named, was a British military commander in the French and Indian
War. He was also the first Governor-General of British North America.
He was well-respected in his lifetime, and was raised to the peerage
as 1st Baron Amherst. Recently though he has come under attack for his
advocacy of biological warfare (the spreading of smallpox) among the
Indians. After the French and Indian War concluded, and Britain took
over formerly French Canada, many Indian tribes who'd been French
allies remained hostile. They mounted an uprising, known as the
Conspiracy of Pontiac. Lord Jeffrey approved a plan initiated by one
of his subordinates to give as gifts to the Indians smallpox-infected
blankets in the hope of spreading that disease among the tribes.
Evidently unknown to Lord Jeffrey a military commander had already
tried that. (It's unknown whether or not it was successful, or whether
it was repeated). Smallpox was extremely lethal to the American
Indians who had no immunity to it. The Indian uprising was eventually
suppressed militarily.

Lord Jeffrey was succeeded in his title by his nephew, who became the
1st 'Earl Amherst'. The title was hereditary in his family until it
became extinct in 1993. Sevenoaks, England was the family seat, where
Lord Jeffrey was born and where he died.

Leo van de Pas

Re: PLANTAGENET: Blame it on Emily Dickinson

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 12 nov 2007 00:23:52

Dear Viridmontane,

You confuse me with your contribution. We are talking about the interest in
the USA into the Plantagenets and the Magna Carta barons and you bring up
this fascinating story about Jeffrey Amherst.

To be honest I have not consciously searched his ancestors but I can find
that he is a descendant of

Heinrich I the Fowler, Emperor
Louis II the Stammerer, King of West-France
Edward I the Elder, King of England
Charles the Bald, Emperor
Alfred the Great, King of England
Charlemagne, Emperor

Can you link him to the Plantagenets?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: <viridmontane@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: PLANTAGENET: Blame it on Emily Dickinson


On Nov 11, 11:20 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Leo van de Pas <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:

LvdP: "Dear Bill, As usual there are several answers to your question. I
am
glad to hear that you think many Americans are aware of Charlemagne.
That so many are oblivious to the Conquest is not so surprising. There
are
words and names which have a ring to them. As an example The Royal
House of Anjou ruled England for several hundreds of years. But who knows
about the Angevins? That doesn't sound good and so Plantagenet replaced
Anjou, and Plantagenet certainly has a ring to it. Even so much that an
industry has developed in the USA selling the Plantagenet Ancestry.
This obsession with Plantagent descent you will not find to an equal
degree
in England. I believe it very much to be an USA thing. In a way it is
rather
sad that all the efforts of William the Conqueror to conquer England are
ignored because a grandson-in-law put a sprig of Broome (Planta genesta)
on
his helmet."

BA: Well, gen-medieval scholars, you can blame all this American love
affair
with the Plantagenets on Emily Dickinson who lived in the good ole USA in
the mid
1800s. In the 1850s-60s, Amherst was still a rural town in which
horseback was
the means of travel as well as horse-drawn "chariots"--buckboards and
coaches.
Thus, Emily Dickinson lived in a *medieval* town which was named for an
English
"Earl," Lord Jeffry Amherst, and gen-medieval scholars should not be
surprised by her
whole reference opus of literary allusions to European *Royalty*! She
wrote nearly
one thousand poems to a secret "Master* as Sir and Sire and Master and
King and
Plantagenet! Why? Her father was a congressman and a founder of the
Republican
party in Washington, DC. So, why would she be so obsessed with English
royalty and
an early obscure English king and fancy herself his "Queen"? And was
*he* the
Plantagenet she called "the Plantagenet"?

Examples:

"If I amazed your kindness--My Love is my only apology...Would you--ask
less for
your *Queen*--Mr Bowles?"

"Master. If it had been God's will that I might breathe where you
breathed--and find
the place--myself--at night...if I wish with a might I cannot
repress--that mine were
the Queen's place--the love of the Plantagenet
is my only apology."

[author: Emily Dickinson]

Was not the first of the Plantagenet Kings married to Eleanor of
Aquitaine who was the
first Queen of the troubadours? is that who she meant? And the rest, as
they say, is history?
Was she not the "adulterous" Queen who married the English King and
brought to England
the tradition of "troubadour" poetry and Courtly Love, which had reigned
under her grandfather,
Duke William IX, "The Troubadour"? Of course, Emily Dickinson poems were
read and studied
in every *English* class for a century now, and her fame spread like a
comet in the night sky.
So blame the fame of the Plantagenets in America on Emily Dickinson.

Bill

******

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

Lord Jeffrey Amherst, after whom Amherst, Massachusetts (which
contains Amherst College as well as the University of Massachusetts)
was named, was a British military commander in the French and Indian
War. He was also the first Governor-General of British North America.
He was well-respected in his lifetime, and was raised to the peerage
as 1st Baron Amherst. Recently though he has come under attack for his
advocacy of biological warfare (the spreading of smallpox) among the
Indians. After the French and Indian War concluded, and Britain took
over formerly French Canada, many Indian tribes who'd been French
allies remained hostile. They mounted an uprising, known as the
Conspiracy of Pontiac. Lord Jeffrey approved a plan initiated by one
of his subordinates to give as gifts to the Indians smallpox-infected
blankets in the hope of spreading that disease among the tribes.
Evidently unknown to Lord Jeffrey a military commander had already
tried that. (It's unknown whether or not it was successful, or whether
it was repeated). Smallpox was extremely lethal to the American
Indians who had no immunity to it. The Indian uprising was eventually
suppressed militarily.

Lord Jeffrey was succeeded in his title by his nephew, who became the
1st 'Earl Amherst'. The title was hereditary in his family until it
became extinct in 1993. Sevenoaks, England was the family seat, where
Lord Jeffrey was born and where he died.


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

Renia

Re: Ancestors & Descendants

Legg inn av Renia » 12 nov 2007 00:40:25

Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:

Dear Spencer, Renia , and Mike,
What would you think of
ancestral cousin as a term or ancestral aunt or uncle for that matter for back
beyond the great grands ?


Never heard such a term being used.

Ray O'Hara

Re: PLANTAGENET: Blame It On Emily Dickinson

Legg inn av Ray O'Hara » 12 nov 2007 00:51:42

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:ZXGZi.484$Ig4.2009@eagle.america.net...
Yes, Hollywood too.

No good films about William The Conqueror.


are there even any bad films about him?

Gjest

Re: Ancestors & Descendants

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 nov 2007 01:00:07

Dear Renia,
New Terminologies must begin somehow. I think "ancestral
cousin " is more concise than the third cousin of my 3rd Great grandfather or
grandmother for instance. or describing my 5th Great grandmother Phebe
Maguire (nee Washburn)`s brother Hosea Washburn jr is more concisely my ancestral
uncle than my 5th Great grand Uncle (is there really any term to describe that
relationship ?).
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



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

Gjest

Re: American multiplication - or pie in the sky?

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 nov 2007 01:15:06

In a message dated 11/11/2007 3:15:17 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
lostcooper@yahoo.com writes:

And there is no way to contribute new data with resource
information that corrects previous mistakes.


-----------------
This part isn't true. Anyone can contribute, at any time, to the Pedigree
Resource File at familysearch.org

Will Johnson



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

Leo van de Pas

Re: American multiplication - or pie in the sky?

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 12 nov 2007 01:16:43

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: American multiplication - or pie in the sky?


In a message dated 11/11/2007 3:15:17 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
lostcooper@yahoo.com writes:

And there is no way to contribute new data with resource
information that corrects previous mistakes.


-----------------
This part isn't true. Anyone can contribute, at any time, to the
Pedigree
Resource File at familysearch.org

Will Johnson


But Will don't they retain the previous (wrong) submissions?

Leo


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

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

Gjest

Re: Nicholas Louveyne=Margaret?

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 nov 2007 02:16:36

All,
Did Walter L. Sheppard identify his source for the conclusion that Margaret ___de Pultney de Lovaine was a Bereford? I find that most of the lands that Margaret brought to her marrieage to Nicholas Louvaine came as dower in her marriage with Sir John de Pulteney.
Certainly. Louvaine mentions the St. Johns, but what did Margaret as a Bereford bring to the marriage?
Was the John Bereford that is supposed;ly the fater of Margaret, the John of Hendon, Kent? And what the connection with this family and the Zouches?
C 143/197 William la Zousche of Haryngworth to grant rent out of his manor of Eaton to Simon de Bereford for life. Bedford. 2 EDWARD III.
BHO--Kings Norton By 1313 the manor was held from Alan la Zouche by William de Bereford, (fn. 27) and a Bereford held it in 1328 and 1454. (fn. 28)
Thank you in advance,
Pat


-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: pajunkin@bellsouth.net
All,
I realize most sources state that Nicholas Louveyne married Margaret Bereford,
widow of Sir John de Pultney. However, could she have been a St. John?
British History Online:
Roger (St. John) in 1351 conveyed the reversion of Lagham after the death of his
mother Katherine to Nicholas de Loveine and Margaret his wife. (fn. 28)
Katherine and Peter de St. John, his kinsman and heir, afterwards quitclaimed
their right to Nicholas, (fn. 29) who received a grant of free warren here in
1356. (fn. 30)
And, according to Douglas, Nicholas in his will requests prayers for Katherine
and Roger since he held their inheritance.
Does anyone know first, who Katherine was and secondly, why Nicholas should have
received their inheritance?
Thank you in advance,
Pat

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

Lockehead

Re: Baskerville of Eardisley marriages 14th century

Legg inn av Lockehead » 12 nov 2007 02:38:44

On Nov 11, 8:36 am, Millerfairfi...@aol.com wrote:
Dear All,
Tony Ingham and I are attempting (off list so far) to sort out the
Baskerville descent in the 14th century.
We have provisionally identified the following succession::-
1. Richard Baskerville, heir of Eardisley on the death of his brother Walter
(IPM C133/44/1, 1386). Stated to have married a Solers heiress (the Solers
arms, argent a chevron between 3 lions' heads erased gules, are quartered in
later Baskerville arms). It is probable that his wife's name was Philippa. See
note 1.
2. His son Walter (dvp), married Sibyl Corbet of Caux, (sister or perhaps
daughter of Peter- but there are no "corbets" to be found on later Baskerville
arms)
3. Walter's son Richard (II), married Joan, daughter of Nicholas Poynings
[see Note 1]. He is said to have died 15 Edw III (c.1342), but he seems to have
been still alive in 1348 (see Note 2), and may have remarried the Isabel
mentioned in Note 3 at some date before 1354..
4. Richard (II)'s son Richard (III), married before 1348 Joan, daughter of
Adam de Everingham (see Note 2). He died 1374 (IPMs C135/236/13 and C136/8/7),
and after his death his widow Joan remarried Giles Malory: CPR EIII,
v.16,199. He seems to have been the Sir Richard who was in France during the
campaign which led up to the battle of Poitiers
5. Richard (III)'s son Sir Richard (IV). Born 30 Jan 1369/70 (CIPM16 RII
122-3). He is stated in various traditional pedigrees to have married Joan
Everingham, but this is clearly nonsense, since Joan was already married in 1348,
and therefore no doubt was his father' wife, and a daughter of the first,
rather than the second, Adam de Everingham and his wife Joan Deiville. This Sir
Richard died 16 Sept 1395.
6. Richard (IV)'s son Sir John, who married Elizabeth, daughter of John
Brugge of Letton, and fought at Agincourt. He left two sons, Sir John, married to
Elizabeth Touchet, daughter of John, Lord Audley, and Ralph, married to Anne,
daughter of Sir John Blaket, another veteran of the Agincourt campaign.

Note 1: Fine, 16 Edw. II., the manor of "Erdesley" was settled on Sir
Richard and Philippa his wife with remainder to Richard, son of Walter de
Baskerville and Johanna his wife, daughter of Nicholas Poynings and their issue, with
remainder to the rightful heirs of Richard, and by another Fine Orcop was
settled in a similar manner.

Note 2: Fine 1348, quinzaine of Hilary: Querents : Richard B and Joan, d. of
Adam de Everingham by John of Stretton their guardian. Deforciant: Sir
Richard Baskerville, Kt. Subject: manor of Combe Baskerville. Disposal:
settlement on the querents and the heirs of their bodies. Consideration: a rose at
the nativity of St John Baptist and 100 marks of silver.

Note 3: Extract from the Papal Letters cited in Yorkshire Antiquities,
Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 1907,p.243)
1354 July 30 Avignon
"Confirmation with exemplification at the request of Richard de Baskerville,
knt, and Isabella his wife, of the diocese of Hereford, of the letters
issued by Clement VI, 2 Non. Jul., anno 3, ruling in the case of John Earl of
Warenne and Joan de Barro, that dispensation of the marriage of persons related
in the fourth degree of kindred shall hold good if they are related in the
fourth and third degrees"
I do not know who this Isabel was, nor how she might have been related to
her husband. Secondary sources such as Burke's Commoners, Duncumb and Heraldic
Visitations suggest that she may have been a daughter and heiress of Sir
Walter de Paveley, but I doubt it, because the Paveley arms as shown in the St
George' s Roll (azure, a cross fleury or) do not as far as I know appear in any
later coat of arms of the Eardisley Baskervilles.
I believe that Isabel's husband Sir Richard was the son and heir of
Richard B (II), by his wife Joan, daughter of Nicholas Poynings, and that the Joan
who was remarried by 1375 to Giles Malory was Joan Everingham.

Sort of off-topic:

Have either of you come across a daughter of John Baskerville (12 Feb
1403 -23 Dec 1455) and Elizabeth Tuchet who married a William Beckwith
( 1425-1500)? This has been a hole in my chart for many years. I only
have found "unknown daughter of Sir John Baskerville".

thank you,

Frank Locke

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 nov 2007 06:09:58

[I had intended a more extended answer, but find it is taking more
time than I have, so this will have to do for the time being.]

On Nov 3, 4:07 am, "Paulo Gomes Jardim" <darwin+use...@spamcop.net>
wrote:
I tried to search for the primary source for this account by Opispo
Pelayo, and I guess I found it - Liber Chronicorum - though I was not able
to find the actual text online by a simple search on Google.

Nevertheless, I found the following:

"la obra histórica del obispo Pelayo de Oviedo (Liber Chronicorum, Li-
ber Itacii), que habría modificado o creado ex novo este docu-
mento, con el objetivo de salir favorecido en sus disputas entre su sede y
la de Lugo"

.. . . .

This seems to cast some doubts about the mentioned Chronicle, parts of it
allegedly being a forgery to favour the Obispado de Oviedo over Lugo
and/or Toledo.

In this case, however, (and, plese, note that I've not read the original
text) possibly there is no reason to believe this passage of the Chronicle
is biased or forged.

He certainly had an agenda, but the text seems authentic.

"Hic habuit quinque uxores legitimas: primam Agnetem, secundam
Constanciam reginam, ex qua genuit Urracam reginam, coniugem comitis
Raimundi, de qua ipse genuit Sanciam et Adelfonsum regem; tertiam
Bertam, Tuscia oriundam, quartam Elisabeth, ex qua genuit Sanciam,
coniugem comitis Roderici, et Geloiram, quam duxit Rogerius, dux
Siciliae; quintam Beatricem, quae, mortuo eo, repedavit in patriam
suam.
Habuit etam duas concubinas, tamen nobilissomas: priorem Xemenam
Munionis, ex qua genuit Geloiran, uxorem comitis Raimundi Tolosani,
patris ex ea Adelfonsi Iordanis, et Tarasiam, uxorem Henrici comitis,
patris ex ea Urracae, Geloirae et Adelfonsi. Posteriorem nomine
Ceidam, filiam Abenabeth, regis Hispalensis, quae baptizata Elisabeth
fuit vocata, ex hac genuit Sanciam, qui obiit in lite de Ocles."


For Agnes, the Chronicon Malleacense reports under 1069, "His diebus
Hildefonsus, rex Hispanorum, duxerat filiam Guidonis, comitis ducis
Aquitanorum, quam habuit de Mateode, uxore suprascripta."

For the final three wives, there is a charter of Urraca that includes
the phrase "sicut eam habuerunt et tenuerunt regine uxores patris mei,
scilicet Berta, Isabel et Beatrix."

wife: Berta of Lombardy
children: none

Have her as Berta da Borgonha?
But certainly not the same house of Borgonha Constança belongs to.
Have it as Condado Palatino de Borgonha.

You see above where she is said to be of Tuscany. Palencia says of
her the following:

"Y apenas podemos captar detalles sobre la vida de esta reina dona
Berta, tambien de origen frances, aunque a veces unos historiadores la
titulan Berta de Toscana y hasta en la Chronica General hay confusion
sobre su patria, aunque declara luego: 'que don Enrique, el que caso
con dona Teresa, hija de Alfonso VI, tuvo a dona Berta, como natural
de Borgona'."


wife: Isabel
children: Elvira m. Roger of Sicily

Strangely enough, I do not have this marriage.
Do you know who were the parents of Rogerio, and if there was sucession
from this marriage?

He is Roger II, king of Sicily, (son of Roger I) and the subsequent
kings came from this marriage.


Sancha m. Rodrigo Gonzalez de Lara

Yes.

Sanchez de Mora, in his Lara dissertation, reports a document by
Rodrigo Gonzalez and his wife Sancha, "filia prolis Alfonsi regis".
Thus while Pelayo only calls her wife of "count Rodrigo" it is clear
that the Rodrigo in question was Rodrigo Gonzalez de Lara.


wife: Beatrice
children: none

Beatriz de Aquitania, ok.

That she was from Aquitaine is speculation, and, I think, unlikely. It
would have violated canon law to marry a close relative of his former
wife.


mistress: Jimena Munoz
children: Elvira m. Raymond of Toulouse
Teresa m. Henry of Burgundy

The mother of Portugal. :)

mistress: Zaida, renamed Isabel
children: Sancho

Now this is more clear to me. I had both his daughters Sancha and Elvira
assigned to Zaida, which I understand from the discussion going on is not
clear at all.
What is known is that they are children of "Isabel, Regina", correct?

Yes, and if there were two queens of this name (as suggested by
Reilly) then they would be children of the first and not the second,
who would be Zaida.


BTW, I also have this, according to the author of "Os Braganções", José C.
Lourinho Soares (page 63):

Fernão Mendes de Bragança, o Velho (d. after Aug. 1117) married an
unnamed, illegitimate daughter of Afonso VI de Castela, by an unnamed
mother.

"Documenta-se como governador de Chaves por D. Afonso VI, com cuja filha
(certamente uma bastarda) parece que casou, segundo o Livro Velho."

This refers to the Livro Velho, which I presume is the Nobiliary of Count
D. Pedro (now online, as I posted), which I have not cheched yet. It's not
a primary source, and must be taken with care.

I have not seen this in anything close to contemporary, and have to
view it with skepticism.

Just about all of this is confirmed by other sources: contemporary
charters and the like. As we have been talking about, there is
significant disagreement over whether Alfonso married Zaida/Isabel,
either as the Queen Isabel who was mother of Sancha and Elvira, or as
a second queen of the same name.

It is the mother of Elvira and Sancha who is reputed to be of France,
daughter of Louis, but this is found in a late (by 150 years)
chronicle and a monumental inscription that was actually installed
even later and appears to be based on the chronicle. It is false,
there being no Louis who could have been her father, and the French
royals had never used the name Isabel before this time.

Yes. I've checked the chronology, and it's impossible that she was
daughter of Louis Le Gros, b. 1081.
I apologize if I'm asking something obvious, but could you please
summarise why did it appear the hypotesis of the 2 Isabel? Why can't we
merge them at once? Is there any documental evidence to oppose this?

The primary argument against is that Bishop Pelayo, as seen above,
mentions the two without giving the slightest indication that they are
the same. Reilly also presents the 1106 document referring to Alfonso
and his wife Isabella, now legally married. He reads this to mean
that they had just married and as Alfonso had appeared for years with
a queen Isabel, there must have been a new marriage to a second
Isabel, making Pelayo guilty of failing to mention a marriage, rather
than of failing to mention that a mistress and wife was the same. (The
counter argument to this is that Urraca, in reporting her father's
wives, names only one Isabel.)

As you have seen if you have followed this thread, there are those who
find this unpersuasive, and would unite the two, as you have
suggested.


As to a Sancha who married Rodrigo Alvarez, I know of no evidence for
her. I strongly suspect confusion with the authentic Sancha who
married Rodrigo Gonzalez.

Having reviewed the data, I am more convinced of this. Bishop Pelayo
says a daughter Sancha married a count Rodrigo. This family claims a
count Rodrigo, and made the obvious connection, even though it is
clearly the wrong count Rodrigo.

Who is this Rodrigo Alvarez supposed to be.

Son of Alvaro Rodriguez de Asturias and Maria Pelaez de Cisneros.
G-son of Rodrigo Diaz de Asturias and Jimena Gomez (this couple is
documented)
Gdaughter of Pelayo Pelaez de Cisneros and Mayor Gonzalez.

I have Maria Pelaez de Cisneros also married to Diego Ansurez de Monzon.

There was a count of this name under Alfonso VII, but he appears too
young, and married Maria Ponce.

Can you provide me more info on this Rodrigo Alvarez married to Maria
Ponce?

fl 1161 x 1187, son of Alvaro Rodriguez and his wife Sancha Fernandez.
(This Alvar Rodriguez was son of Rodrigo Velaz and Urraca Alvarez.)
He held land in Allariz, Llemos, Monterroso and Sarria, which he gave
up in 1171 to join the Order of Santiago, but left on 1174 to found
what would become the Order of Mountjoy. He had married Maria Ponce,
daughter of Ponce de Minerva and Estefania Ramirez.

Does your source give additional
information that would tell me where I should be looking for this
Rodrigo Alvarez?

"Era ALVAR DÍAZ, como queda dicho, hijo de RODRIGO ÁLVAREZ DE ASTURIAS,
3&ordm; de este nombre, el que sirvió al Rey San Fernando en la conquista
de Sevilla con sus hermanos ALVAR PÉREZ DE QUIÑONES, tronco de la familia
de QUIÑONES y RUI PÉREZ DE AVILÉS, maestro de Calatrava, que figura tan
brillantemente en la toma de Sevilla, los cuales eran hijos de otro
RODRIGO ÁLVAREZ DE ASTURIAS, 2&ordm;de este nombre, que se casara con la
Infanta DOÑA SANCHA ALFONSO, hija del Rey ALFONSO VI DE CASTILLA y de LEÓN
y de la Infanta DOÑA ISABEL, hija de LUIS VI Rey de Francia. Era RODRIGO
ÁLVAREZ DE ASTURIAS, el 2&ordm; de este nombre, Gobernador de Asturias y
en una escritura que otorgaron a favor de la Iglesia de Burgos, el Rey
Alfonso VII y su mujer Doña Berenguela, le llama Conde de Asturias y aún
solían darle el título de Rey de Gozón y Pravia por haber dado el Rey
ALFONSO VI a su hija DOÑA SANCHA mujer de DON RODRIGO estos lugares sin
sujeción alguna a la jurisdicción Real.

If I am reading this right, it makes Rodrigo Alvarez a contemporary of
San Fernando, and grandson of Alfonso VI - too few generations.
Further it makes Rodrigo Alvarez son of another Rodrigo Alvarez at a
time when one would still have expected the more traditional
patronymic usage (the son would be Rodrigo Rodriguez).


RODRIGO ÁLVAREZ DE ASTURIAS, el segundo de este nombre, era hijo de ÁLVARO
RODRÍGUEZ DE ASTURIAS y de su mujer MARÍA PELÁEZ y nieto de RODRIGO
ÁLVAREZ DE ASTURIAS, el primero, y de su mujer XIMENA GÓMEZ hija de DON
GÓMEZ DÍAZ DE GORMAZ a quien los romances antiguos llaman El Conde Lozano
y de DOÑA TERESA PELÁEZ, Condes de Carrión, hija esta señora de la Condesa
DOÑA ALDONZA ORDÓÑEZ y del INFANTE DON PELAYO FLÓREZ nieto del Rey FRUELA
II."

From:
"La casa de Ron y sus agregadas: Ibias, Quirós, Valcarce Caballero y
otras. Estudio genealógico y heráldico", Antonio de Ron, 1932

Available online at:http://www.ghg.net/albertron/LA%20CASA%20DE%20RON.html

I have taken a quick look, and unfortunately this work is more
reminiscent of the 'Old School' of Iberian genealogy. It reports
material for which there is not the slightest documentary support
(particularly the material dating from Pelayo's period). It manages to
make connection to every noteworthy family, even incorporating
conflicting versions of the same pedigrees as maternal and paternal
lineages. I think extreme care needs be used in relying on anything
found in this source.

taf

jl

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av jl » 12 nov 2007 11:53:02

In article <O6mdnWNFNKYmaqjanZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Turlough <turlough@comcast.net> wrote:
D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?

How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?

Watch two people doing sign language?

Jochen

--

------------------------------------
Limavady and the Roe Valley
http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com

Turlough

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Turlough » 12 nov 2007 12:19:55

jl wrote:

How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?


Watch two people doing sign language?

I'm afraid we'll never know, Jochen. The man is quite shy, you
understand. You have a great web site though... :>)

Janet

De Lacy to Lacy

Legg inn av Janet » 12 nov 2007 13:24:03

I wondering if anyone knows if the Lacy is related to de Lacy of England

The roll of the house of Lacy : pedigrees, military memoirs and synoptical
history of the ancient and illustrious family of De Lacy, from the earliest
times, in all its branches, to the present day : full notices on allied
families and a memoir of the Brownes (Camas)
Baltimore: unknown, 1928, 450 pgs by De Lacy-Bellingari, Edward
Page 157
"Thomas de Lacy of the Cromwell-Botham family came from England into America
in 1702 his wife Anne Brunley
Thomas Lacy had 7 known children:
Stephen Lacy (ca 1705/10-1772)
Thomas Lacy III (ca 1705/8-)
William Lacy (1713-1775)
Nathaniel Lacy (1715-1781)
Phoebe Lacy (?)
Elkanah Lacy (ca 1720/30-1777)
Elliott Lacy (ca 1725-1777)

Janet

The Hodgsons' ancestor se

Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 1554

Legg inn av The Hodgsons' ancestor se » 12 nov 2007 13:33:48

"ancestor" does just fine for any aunt or uncle so
many generations removed, regardless of whether you are a direct
descendant of them, hence the use of the term "direct descendant". The
same applies to a first or second cousin contemporary with an era under
discussion.

To add my pennyworth in, I think there is an "emotional" difference between
those whom one is descended from (ie one's ancestors), whose genes are (even
in the tiniest fraction) part of one's make-up, and those who are relations
of any other sort.

Also, surely preciseness is essential in the genealogy game (or business?),
and the possibility of describing as one's ancestor a man or woman who had
no issue, is just plain confusing for all concerned!

Of course calling someone your 1st cousin 23xtimes removed, may be
unnecessarily pedantic in normal conversation. Why not just say "X was my
ancestor's cousin"?

Richard Hodgson
West Sussex, UK
Email for genealogical matters: mail@ancestorsearch.co.uk

My family database at Rootsweb¹s free WorldConnect website:
http://www.ancestorsearch.co.uk

Database of 58,204 individuals: 50,151 of them being my children¹s ancestors
(21,474 of their father¹s ancestors, and 48,503 of their mother¹s ancestors.
19,863 of the individuals are ancestors of both their father and mother.)

Renia

Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 1554

Legg inn av Renia » 12 nov 2007 13:54:35

The Hodgsons' ancestor search wrote:

"ancestor" does just fine for any aunt or uncle so
many generations removed, regardless of whether you are a direct
descendant of them, hence the use of the term "direct descendant". The
same applies to a first or second cousin contemporary with an era under
discussion.


To add my pennyworth in, I think there is an "emotional" difference between
those whom one is descended from (ie one's ancestors), whose genes are (even
in the tiniest fraction) part of one's make-up, and those who are relations
of any other sort.

Also, surely preciseness is essential in the genealogy game (or business?),
and the possibility of describing as one's ancestor a man or woman who had
no issue, is just plain confusing for all concerned!

Of course calling someone your 1st cousin 23xtimes removed, may be
unnecessarily pedantic in normal conversation. Why not just say "X was my
ancestor's cousin"?

In genealogical parlance, yes, of course. But my reply, above, was to
Leo who said there are times for being exact (genealogical parlance) and
time for being more general (an odd discussion of the non-genealogical
type, for example).

Kay Allen

Re: American multiplication - or pie in the sky?

Legg inn av Kay Allen » 12 nov 2007 19:07:03

LDS researchers are probably no better or no worse
than any random sampling of genealogical researchers.

I am one of them. My calling in the Church for 35
years has been with Family History. I have tried to
instill good research practices in my pupils. I have
probably broken more hears than I can count because I
was breaking fabulous royal descents from their
stemmas and telling them they needed to do more
research on a line they were going to submit, even
though it might have met the bare minimum of standards
for submission. Many members are also continuing work
that was done years ago before the Information Age. I,
and others, continue to encourage them to double-check
and correct this work.

Non-members also make submissions, even to the IGI.
Pedigree Resource File has replaced Ancestral File,
but the mistakes are still being generated. Part of
this is due to on-line genealogy.

On one list I have shown, thanks to an English
researcher, the proper ancestry for Simon Hoyt. And
everytime, I get scathing posts telling me what do I
know. I didn't get my AG by being lazy, anything less
than terminally thorough, being ignorant, or
displaying a lack of academic integrity. I try to
instill these qualities in my students. I also have
the advantage of holding a very big stick, guilt. I
ask them if they wish to present work to Heavenly
Father which is shoddy and less than perfect;
perfection being based on record availability. It
usually is a good motivator to encourage them to
better work and gain more experience.

I hope that this will not become an excuse to attack
me and my LDS faith. I am just trying to express my
perspective. Second amendment and all that, ioncluding
common courtesy.

Kay Allen AG


--- lostcooper@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 11, 12:46 pm, Kay Allen <all...@pacbell.net
wrote:
That can be said of virtually any genealogical
software. A good product is also based on the
skill,
knowledge, and integrity of the individual
researcher.

Kay Allen AG

(As for "produced using the Mormon Family Search
PAF



software" -
that's no guarantee of quality of genealogical
work.
Using Family
Search and PAF software, you could invent an
entire
pedigree, and it
would *still* be invented.)

P J Evans

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

- Show quoted text -

It is a bit of a stretch to refer to the LDS
pedigree donors as
researchers in many instances. What you find on
Family Search is more
often garbled than not. There is a pedgiree for my
grandfather, for
example, that is entirely and completely wrong but
very detailed all
the same. And there is no way to contribute new data
with resource
information that corrects previous mistakes. At
best it can be used
only to suggest new avenues of research that may or
may not pan out.


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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: American multiplication - or pie in the sky?

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 12 nov 2007 19:15:32

Sound Thinking, Kay.

Thanks for this Elucidation.

DSH

"Kay Allen" <allenk@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.411.1194890754.7651.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

LDS researchers are probably no better or no worse
than any random sampling of genealogical researchers.

I am one of them. My calling in the Church for 35
years has been with Family History. I have tried to
instill good research practices in my pupils. I have
probably broken more hears than I can count because I
was breaking fabulous royal descents from their
stemmas and telling them they needed to do more
research on a line they were going to submit, even
though it might have met the bare minimum of standards
for submission. Many members are also continuing work
that was done years ago before the Information Age. I,
and others, continue to encourage them to double-check
and correct this work.

Non-members also make submissions, even to the IGI.
Pedigree Resource File has replaced Ancestral File,
but the mistakes are still being generated. Part of
this is due to on-line genealogy.

On one list I have shown, thanks to an English
researcher, the proper ancestry for Simon Hoyt. And
everytime, I get scathing posts telling me what do I
know. I didn't get my AG by being lazy, anything less
than terminally thorough, being ignorant, or
displaying a lack of academic integrity. I try to
instill these qualities in my students. I also have
the advantage of holding a very big stick, guilt. I
ask them if they wish to present work to Heavenly
Father which is shoddy and less than perfect;
perfection being based on record availability. It
usually is a good motivator to encourage them to
better work and gain more experience.

I hope that this will not become an excuse to attack
me and my LDS faith. I am just trying to express my
perspective. Second amendment and all that, ioncluding
common courtesy.

Kay Allen AG

Nancy L. Allen

Re: William Peverel's Holdings in Domesday

Legg inn av Nancy L. Allen » 12 nov 2007 19:15:51

Robert Kelham, Domesday Book (London: Printed by John Nichols For Edward Brooke, 1788), Vol. I, pp. 20-22, 23, 47, 77, 99, 108, 116, and 117 and Vol. II, p. 137; at books.google.com has the following holdings for William Peverel:

Berrochescire (Berkshire) 61 a.
Bochinghascire (Buckinghamshire) 148 a.
Oxenfordscire (Oxfordshire) 157 b.
Bedefordscire (Bedfordshire) 212 b.
Ledecestrescire (Leicestershire) 235 a.
Derbyscire (Derbyshire) 276 a.
Snotinghscire (Nottinghamshire) 287 a.
Exsessa (Essex) 90 b.

Does "a." and "b." above mean acres and bovates, respectively?

Nancy

Gjest

Re: American multiplication - or pie in the sky?

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 nov 2007 02:04:42

On Nov 11, 4:09 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/11/2007 3:15:17 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

lostcoo...@yahoo.com writes:

And there is no way to contribute new data with resource
information that corrects previous mistakes.

-----------------
This part isn't true. Anyone can contribute, at any time, to the Pedigree
Resource File at familysearch.org

Will Johnson

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

It does not correct mistakes, however, even when it comes with
supporting documentation. It is just added to the existing pile.

wjhonson

Re: American multiplication - or pie in the sky?

Legg inn av wjhonson » 13 nov 2007 02:16:34

On Nov 12, 5:04 pm, lostcoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 11, 4:09 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 11/11/2007 3:15:17 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

lostcoo...@yahoo.com writes:

And there is no way to contribute new data with resource
information that corrects previous mistakes.

-----------------
This part isn't true. Anyone can contribute, at any time, to the Pedigree
Resource File at familysearch.org

Will Johnson

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

It does not correct mistakes, however, even when it comes with
supporting documentation. It is just added to the existing pile.

---------------------------
The Pedigree Resource File is not a person who can interpret sources.
It's an automatic program that merely presents whatever is fed to it.
WorldConnect is the same way. Gencircles is the same as well.

All multi-users systems work that way with the exception of wikis were
there is only room for one entry under each name. Even the Ancestral
File, which was *supposed* to work the way you are envisioning, did
not fulfill it's promise because at a certain point it becomes
impossible for humans to agree upon what the sources actually say.

Will Johnson

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Court Of The King's Bench

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 13 nov 2007 02:43:04

"Leticia 'Tish' Cluff " is, of course, simply another scruffy little sock
puppet.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Kay Allen

Re: American multiplication - or pie in the sky?

Legg inn av Kay Allen » 13 nov 2007 02:49:02

If one is a competent researcher, one will sift
through the pile, but. unfortunately, not everyone has
sufficient patience or interest to do the job right.

I was corresponding with someone else about my
husband's Clark family. He took my accurate
information and grafted it improperly.

Some people are also overly zealous. Someone submitted
my husband for sealing to his parents, but that person
was inaccurate concerning his date of birth, his date
of death, and his place of death. They also did not
have the courtesy to ask me.

All one can do is submit to Pedigree Resouce file
one's own corrections and hope that researchers will
do their due diligence.

Kay Allen AG

--- lostcooper@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 11, 4:09 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/11/2007 3:15:17 P.M. Pacific
Standard Time,

lostcoo...@yahoo.com writes:

And there is no way to contribute new data with
resource
information that corrects previous mistakes.

-----------------
This part isn't true. Anyone can contribute, at
any time, to the Pedigree
Resource File at familysearch.org

Will Johnson

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

It does not correct mistakes, however, even when it
comes with
supporting documentation. It is just added to the
existing pile.


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

Le Bateman

Re: PLANTAGENET: Blame it on Emily Dickinson

Legg inn av Le Bateman » 13 nov 2007 05:13:01

Alfred the Great did have a descendant that married the Count of Anjou.
Maud of England married Geoffrey of Anjou. Her grandmother was Margaret
Æþeling Her parents were Henry I and Maud of Scotland. St. Margaret's
father was Edward The Exile. So doesn't this link Alfred to the
Plantagenets. See Faris., David Plantagenet Ancestry Genealogical Publishing
Company Baltimore, Maryland 1st Edition 1996 p.222 I also believe the book
The Conquerors Family has something about his connection to Charlemagne.
Le

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
To: <viridmontane@gmail.com>
Cc: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: PLANTAGENET: Blame it on Emily Dickinson


Dear Viridmontane,

You confuse me with your contribution. We are talking about the interest in
the USA into the Plantagenets and the Magna Carta barons and you bring up
this fascinating story about Jeffrey Amherst.

To be honest I have not consciously searched his ancestors but I can find
that he is a descendant of

Heinrich I the Fowler, Emperor
Louis II the Stammerer, King of West-France
Edward I the Elder, King of England
Charles the Bald, Emperor
Alfred the Great, King of England
Charlemagne, Emperor

Can you link him to the Plantagenets?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: <viridmontane@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: PLANTAGENET: Blame it on Emily Dickinson


On Nov 11, 11:20 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Leo van de Pas <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:

LvdP: "Dear Bill, As usual there are several answers to your question. I
am
glad to hear that you think many Americans are aware of Charlemagne.
That so many are oblivious to the Conquest is not so surprising. There
are
words and names which have a ring to them. As an example The Royal
House of Anjou ruled England for several hundreds of years. But who knows
about the Angevins? That doesn't sound good and so Plantagenet replaced
Anjou, and Plantagenet certainly has a ring to it. Even so much that an
industry has developed in the USA selling the Plantagenet Ancestry.
This obsession with Plantagent descent you will not find to an equal
degree
in England. I believe it very much to be an USA thing. In a way it is
rather
sad that all the efforts of William the Conqueror to conquer England are
ignored because a grandson-in-law put a sprig of Broome (Planta genesta)
on
his helmet."

BA: Well, gen-medieval scholars, you can blame all this American love
affair
with the Plantagenets on Emily Dickinson who lived in the good ole USA in
the mid
1800s. In the 1850s-60s, Amherst was still a rural town in which
horseback was
the means of travel as well as horse-drawn "chariots"--buckboards and
coaches.
Thus, Emily Dickinson lived in a *medieval* town which was named for an
English
"Earl," Lord Jeffry Amherst, and gen-medieval scholars should not be
surprised by her
whole reference opus of literary allusions to European *Royalty*! She
wrote nearly
one thousand poems to a secret "Master* as Sir and Sire and Master and
King and
Plantagenet! Why? Her father was a congressman and a founder of the
Republican
party in Washington, DC. So, why would she be so obsessed with English
royalty and
an early obscure English king and fancy herself his "Queen"? And was
*he* the
Plantagenet she called "the Plantagenet"?

Examples:

"If I amazed your kindness--My Love is my only apology...Would you--ask
less for
your *Queen*--Mr Bowles?"

"Master. If it had been God's will that I might breathe where you
breathed--and find
the place--myself--at night...if I wish with a might I cannot
repress--that mine were
the Queen's place--the love of the Plantagenet
is my only apology."

[author: Emily Dickinson]

Was not the first of the Plantagenet Kings married to Eleanor of
Aquitaine who was the
first Queen of the troubadours? is that who she meant? And the rest, as
they say, is history?
Was she not the "adulterous" Queen who married the English King and
brought to England
the tradition of "troubadour" poetry and Courtly Love, which had reigned
under her grandfather,
Duke William IX, "The Troubadour"? Of course, Emily Dickinson poems were
read and studied
in every *English* class for a century now, and her fame spread like a
comet in the night sky.
So blame the fame of the Plantagenets in America on Emily Dickinson.

Bill

******

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

Lord Jeffrey Amherst, after whom Amherst, Massachusetts (which
contains Amherst College as well as the University of Massachusetts)
was named, was a British military commander in the French and Indian
War. He was also the first Governor-General of British North America.
He was well-respected in his lifetime, and was raised to the peerage
as 1st Baron Amherst. Recently though he has come under attack for his
advocacy of biological warfare (the spreading of smallpox) among the
Indians. After the French and Indian War concluded, and Britain took
over formerly French Canada, many Indian tribes who'd been French
allies remained hostile. They mounted an uprising, known as the
Conspiracy of Pontiac. Lord Jeffrey approved a plan initiated by one
of his subordinates to give as gifts to the Indians smallpox-infected
blankets in the hope of spreading that disease among the tribes.
Evidently unknown to Lord Jeffrey a military commander had already
tried that. (It's unknown whether or not it was successful, or whether
it was repeated). Smallpox was extremely lethal to the American
Indians who had no immunity to it. The Indian uprising was eventually
suppressed militarily.

Lord Jeffrey was succeeded in his title by his nephew, who became the
1st 'Earl Amherst'. The title was hereditary in his family until it
became extinct in 1993. Sevenoaks, England was the family seat, where
Lord Jeffrey was born and where he died.


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


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

Bill Arnold

Re: Robert Peck of Beccles: WAS American multiplication - or

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 13 nov 2007 05:15:04

leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

"But Will don't they retain the previous (wrong) submissions?"

Will Johnson: "Yes of course, but who is the judge of what's wrong?
That's the problem"

BA: Well, I accept: as judge, I declare that Robert Peck of Beccles, born
elsewhere, was according to the College of Heralds the son of John Peck
of Wakefield, and ipso facto, FACT: all previous PRFs at LDS are wrong,
and this new FACT will tell us which FACT trees at home base manor
rootsweb to retain on the TREE FARM and all others are to be destroyed.
Also: ipso facto, gateway ancestor Joseph Peck, emigrant to USA, 1638,
is a descendant of Charlemagne.

Any other rulings need arbitered? Please do NOT seek arbitration of DHS
because LDS has too many PRFs for DHS to straighten out and he will only
muddle with his meddling :0

Bill

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Bill Arnold

Re: Robert Peck of Beccles: WAS American multiplication - or

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 13 nov 2007 05:16:02

lostcooper@yahoo.com writes:
"And there is no way to contribute new data with resource
information that corrects previous mistakes."

Will Johnson writes:
"This part isn't true. Anyone can contribute, at any time, to the Pedigree
Resource File at familysearch.org"

BA: But how does THAT correct PRFs at LDS? As noted by yours-truly:
Robert Peck of Beccles is either the son of John Peck of Wakefield or
Henry Peck of Suffolk in countless PRFs at LDS. And it appears that the
ICON of medieval genealogy cannot tell us which is which, and still those
pesky PRFs at LDS sit there throughout eternity spitting out family trees
which suddenly sprout and blossom at the home manor of rootsweb?

Bill

******


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ

Bill Arnold

Re: Ancestors & Descendants

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 13 nov 2007 05:17:02

Christopher Ingham wrote, "There you have it, Leo, an endorsement from
DSH, the arbiter-general of many newsgroups (in his own mind, at least)."

BA: Gosh, how generous of you, Christopher, to even suggest such a snippet-
maker could possess a mind, of his own, no less [ pun intended ]!

Bill

******


____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

wjhonson

Re: Robert Peck of Beccles: WAS American multiplication - or

Legg inn av wjhonson » 13 nov 2007 05:17:31

Well fortunately or not, it doesn't work that way.

Not on the Pedigree Resource File, not in the IGI, and not on
WorldConnect or Gencircles. Each person is responsible for their own
postings and there are no "corrections" made and thus no one has to
judge what sources are reliable and what ones are not.

Wikipedia on the other hand, works in the opposite way. Each person
biographed, has only a single entry and all the editors have to
collaborate or have knock-down-drag-out fights to decide what goes in,
and what stays out of a biography. However Wikipedia, unlike the PRF,
IGI, et al, does not allow every person you *wish* to enter to be so
entered, it only wants those who are *notable* in some way.

So you have here a rock, and there a hard place, and you are between
them. That's why, in part, I run my own wiki. In my universe I can
be king of the hill, even if it's a very small place indeed.

Will Johnson

wjhonson

Re: PLANTAGENET: Blame it on Emily Dickinson

Legg inn av wjhonson » 13 nov 2007 05:27:36

On Nov 12, 9:48 am, viridmont...@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 11, 6:23 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
this fascinating story about Jeffrey Amherst.

Can you link him to the Plantagenets?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

Actually I don't know of any genealogical connection between Lord
Jeffrey Amherst and the Plantagenets. I mentioned his background
because Emily Dickinson lived all her life in the town of Amherst,

Jeffrey, 1st Baron Amherst is in my system, but only because of his
very thin connection back to the marriage of his great-grandparents
Maximilian Dalison to Frances Stanley.

For Maximilian I only have 6 of his 16 great-grandparents
16 William Dalison, Judge of the King's Bench
17 Unknown
18 Robert Dene, Gent of Haling
19 Unknown
20 Sir John Spencer, Knt of Wormleighton
21 Catherine Kytson
22 Francis Bowyer, Alderman of London
23 Elizabeth Tillesworth

The sole royal link I've found so far is through Sir John Spencer who
in 19 steps reaches Berenger, King of Italy and his wife Willa of
Tuscany

In 20 steps we can reach Henry "the Fowler" HR Emperor and his wife
Matilda
and also Louis IV of France and his wife Gerberge

Will Johnson

Bill Arnold

Re: LET'S GET REAL: WAS Ancestors & Descendants

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 13 nov 2007 05:31:02

Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

"Exactly, which is why 'ancestor' does just fine for any aunt or uncle so
many generations removed, regardless of whether you are a direct
descendant of them, hence the use of the term "direct descendant". The
same applies to a first or second cousin contemporary with an era under
discussion."

BA: OK: the ole English prof in me is kicking in!

BA: An *ancestral* chart means just that, that that person before you made
you and nobody else is to blame [ discounting DNA research: but for our
paper-trail entrails here, this is standard genealogy fare ]. And that includes
ancestors who made them: meaning, by the grace of <G> except those twos
mated, we would not be here, and the fours that mated to make those twos,
and so forth, back in time: ad infinitum. Period. End of point. Coming in
the other direction: we have descendants. Period. End of point. Going
sideways from these *ancestral* lines, if blood, we have cousins. Period.
End of point. Now: argue with that, please.

Bill
PS consult an easy online resource *wiki* if you please :0
*****

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

Ancestor

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with genealogy.
An ancestor is a parent or (recursively) the parent of an ancestor (i.e., a grandparent,
great-grandparent, and so on)."

Two individuals have a genetic relationship if one is the ancestor of the other, or if they
share a common ancestor.


____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Bill Arnold

Re: Fw: Ancestors & Descendants

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 13 nov 2007 05:43:03

DSH wrote:
" _Ancestral_, the adjective and _Ancestor_, the noun, obviously have quite
different connotations."

BA: Excuse me? Do you even know the difference between *connotation*
and *denotation*? I think not.

Bill

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/

Bill Arnold

Re: dorcas/dorothy and Betsey/Beth/ElizaBETH

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 13 nov 2007 06:07:03

In support, I offer that Dorothy was probably *anglicized* from Dorcas,
as I also have a Dorcas which was so changed later. As a case in point,
I found a Betsey, with Irish ancestry, and could not find her in earlier
census records until I realized she was a Beth m. to the same man with
the same children of ten-years' earlier ages, and another ten earlier
show her as ElizaBETH.

Bill
PS I was quite proud of myself, for figuring that out all on my lonesome.

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

In article <mailman.420.1194903500.7651.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
Dantemortem <dantemortem@gmail.com> wrote:

thx Tish, I came across it in a baptism and wondered if it might be a
Dorothy I had in mind.

They are distinct in origin and in usage as you've been told, but for
what it's worth I know of a 17th-century New Englander (an ancestor of
mine) who appears to have been known by both Dorcas and Dorothy: the
wife of Joseph-2 Phippen (son of David-1 Phippen, carpenter, of Boston).
A wife of this man appears in contemporary records by both names and it
appears, from chronology and the types of records, that the same person
is being referred to by both names. This may be an unusual case, though.

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




____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Bill Arnold

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 13 nov 2007 06:15:10

Citizen Jimserac wrote:
"With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy."

Turenne <richard.lichten1@virgin.net> wrote:
"I can only assume that you are joking when you make that assertion.
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he has no
inclination to do so either."

BA: obviously, no one single gen-medieval scholar on this list is well-read :0
HM the Queen will abdicate: she intends to name descendant grandson William
King: however, William intends to marry Kate Middleton and forgo any
further involvement with such trappings, and move to Canada, and the
crown will fall to Harry the Red: thus reports The National Enquirer:
inquiring minds want to know, and now know!

Bill

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ

The Highlander

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av The Highlander » 13 nov 2007 06:17:34

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:50:24 -0800, Feck all sassanaigh
<seamusot@gmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 10, 4:42 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?

Interesting Connection...

Perhaps he waxed rhapsodic during an American visit? <g

DSH

Jwc1...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:mailman.288.1194712182.7651.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...



Dear Spencer,
As I recall George III and Prince Charles have a hobby
in common ... both being avid farmers. Charles is very interested in
organic
farming.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And in the USA he could become George Michael 11 and hang around
public loos acting as a tampon..

Even despite your example, I find that unlikely.

The Highlander

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av The Highlander » 13 nov 2007 06:18:35

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 13:23:57 -0500, Turlough <turlough@comcast.net>
wrote:

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?

How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?

He's fishing for a chance to announce that Charles and he are cousins.

Turlough

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Turlough » 13 nov 2007 12:37:02

The Highlander wrote:

How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?

He's fishing for a chance to announce that Charles and he are cousins.

Where did all these kooks come from, Highlander? I was going to ask Auld
Bob to wheel out the Burns Unit, to speed up the inevitable, but these
whacks would probably enjoy the poetry and prose and start threads on
the pros and cons of alliteration and other incredibly fascinating
devices. I was also going to toss out one of my standard incendiary
*some of Queen Mum's ancestors came from Roscommon, etc* quips, but I
didn't want to be responsible for any of these olde duffers having a
stroke...

D. Spencer Hines

Re: King/Queen Of Scots & King/Queen Of Scotland

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 13 nov 2007 15:47:29

Gentle Readers will note with amusement that Pogue Highlander [Michael
Paterson] has lit out for the tall grass, running as fast as those withered
legs will carry him -- with tail between legs and whining like a dog who has
had his arse kicked and a load of birdshot emptied into it -- for that is
indeed the case.

How Sweet It Is!

Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Enjoy!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
-------------------------------------------------

"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:k38ij35snb1nt7ta3ss04dr3aqnlkig23v@4ax.com...

Allow me to remind you that there is no such title as "XXX, King of
Scotland. The Scottish monarch is "XXX, King of Scots" or "XXX, Queen
of Scots."

------------Cordon Sanitaire-------------------------------------

Pogue Highlander [Michael Paterson], absolutely *determined* to flaunt his
ignorance, make a fool of himself and prove to all and sundry he is as dumb
as a sack of hammers, has posted New Entertaining Gibberish [NEG] for our
dalliance, dissection and delectation.

Posing as a Real Scot, this scrofulous Canadian [Vancouver] resident, Pogue
Highlander, has - once again -- bared his pimpled, scarred, flaccid arse and
presented it for a Good Robust Kicking.

I've put on my best sturdy boots, with the steel toes, and am happy to
oblige him in his masochistic pursuits into the slough of depravity -- by
leaving him with a few more scars.

It is a GREAT MYTH that the monarchs of Scotland have always styled
themselves as King or Queen of SCOTS and NEVER as King or Queen of SCOTLAND.

That is simply NOT TRUE.

Pogue Highlander [Michael Paterson] has proven himself to be pig ignorant
even about SCOTLAND and Styles Adopted By Scottish Monarchs.

Vide infra pro sapientia.

Pax Vobiscum.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat
----------------------------------

"David Dei gratia Rex Scotiae -- David by the Grace of God, King of
Scotland." [1124-1153]

"David Dei gratia Rex Scottorum -- David by the Grace of God, King of the
Scots" [1124-1153]

"From David I onwards, the royal style is either "rex Scottorum" or "rex
Scotiae"."

"In the late Middle Ages the styles "rex Scottorum" [King of Scots -- DSH]
and "rex Scotiae" [King of Scotland -- DSH] were used interchangeably."

"Similarly, the Monarchs of England could be referred to as the "king of the
English" as indeed Edward II of England was in the Declaration of Arbroath
(1320)."

"King of the Scots was used in "The Declaration of the Clergy in favour of
Robert the Bruce" (1334), as it was in the charter by which Edward Balliol
ceded the southern counties of Scotland to England."

"However, in many other documents King of Scotland was the preferred style,
including "The Letter of the Magnates of Scotland to the King of France"
(1308), "The Settlement of Succession on Robert the Bruce" (1315), the
Treaty of Corbeuil (1326), the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton (1328), the
Papal Bull authorising the anointing of Scottish Kings (1329) and the Treaty
of Berwick (1357)."

"This remained the case until the last three monarchs of Scotland, William
II of Scotland (William III of England), Mary II of Scotland (Mary II of
England), and Queen Anne, who became Anne of Great Britain following the
Acts of Union 1707."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_of_the_monarchs_of_Scotland>

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat opus

Dies Irae

Renia

Re: LET'S GET REAL: WAS Ancestors & Descendants

Legg inn av Renia » 13 nov 2007 16:45:03

Bill Arnold wrote:

Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

"Exactly, which is why 'ancestor' does just fine for any aunt or uncle so
many generations removed, regardless of whether you are a direct
descendant of them, hence the use of the term "direct descendant". The
same applies to a first or second cousin contemporary with an era under
discussion."

BA: OK: the ole English prof in me is kicking in!

BA: An *ancestral* chart means just that, that that person before you made
you and nobody else is to blame [ discounting DNA research: but for our
paper-trail entrails here, this is standard genealogy fare ]. And that includes
ancestors who made them: meaning, by the grace of <G> except those twos
mated, we would not be here, and the fours that mated to make those twos,
and so forth, back in time: ad infinitum. Period. End of point. Coming in
the other direction: we have descendants. Period. End of point. Going
sideways from these *ancestral* lines, if blood, we have cousins. Period.
End of point. Now: argue with that, please.

Won't argue with it. Quite agree. But I was talking in non-pedigree
terms. Just in the same way as we might refer, in conversation, to Aunty
Dora, who was no aunt at all, but just a family friend.

The Highlander

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av The Highlander » 13 nov 2007 17:22:59

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 06:37:02 -0500, Turlough <turlough@comcast.net>
wrote:

The Highlander wrote:

How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?

He's fishing for a chance to announce that Charles and he are cousins.

Where did all these kooks come from, Highlander? I was going to ask Auld
Bob to wheel out the Burns Unit, to speed up the inevitable, but these
whacks would probably enjoy the poetry and prose and start threads on
the pros and cons of alliteration and other incredibly fascinating
devices. I was also going to toss out one of my standard incendiary
*some of Queen Mum's ancestors came from Roscommon, etc* quips, but I
didn't want to be responsible for any of these olde duffers having a
stroke...

That's very caring of you, Turlough! Here's how it works:

soc.culture.scottish and soc.culture.irish are irresistible targets
because they are two of the world's most interesting cultures.

In both groups the same agendas are at work. They are as follows:

People who are of Scottish or Irish descent who want to connect with
their roots.

People who aren't of Scottish or Irish descent but would love to be.

People with an axe to grind, aka "The English" and "The Australians".

People overcome with envy because the Scots can move smoothly into sex
mode by merely flipping up their kilts instead of spending hours
trying to disentangle their Y-fronts from their Doc Martins while
hobbling after their encounter of the evening, shouting, "Come back!
I love you! Didn't I buy you two rum and cokes!"

Irish people overcome with envy because the Scots have the knack of
wheedling free drinks out of tourists.

Scots overcome with envy because the Irish can blow up pubs where
tourists don't offer them free drinks and get away with it. "It was da
Rah, yer honour!"

Specialized agendas:

Men who want to be Braveheart.

Women who want to be interfered with by Braveheart.

Men who want to have a shower with Braveheart.

Men who want to join an IRA Active Service Unit.

Men who read Ray's memoirs and decide to pass.

Men who are drawn to the Scots/Irish image of unlimited violence.

Women who believe that Ireland is the land of the fairies.

Men who hope that Ireland is the land of the fairies.

People who think the Scots and Irish are "cute".

People who hate the Scots and the Irish for being "cute".

People who want to wear skirts but are afraid their mothers will find
out, unless there is an excuse, like "wearing the dress of my
ancestors!" (Fashion warning: a cute little summer number with polka
dots and a low bustline just isn't going to cut it, If you decide to
go for it anyway, at least shave your chest.)

People who want to spend the rest of their lives in a drunken stupor
shouting "fillern the Bastard English!" or "Feck da Prods/Taigs!"

People who are bored with soc.culture.british and want more out of
Usenet than whining in four-part harmony.

People who are demented and think scs/sci can be a home on the Net.

People who get off on tormenting the demented.

People like you and I who watch all this with bemused wonder.

Baldoni

Re: King/Queen Of Scots & King/Queen Of Scotland

Legg inn av Baldoni » 13 nov 2007 22:13:07

D. Spencer Hines submitted this idea :
Gentle Readers will note with amusement that Pogue Highlander [Michael
Paterson] has lit out for the tall grass, running as fast as those withered
legs will carry him -- with tail between legs and whining like a dog who has
had his arse kicked and a load of birdshot emptied into it -- for that is
indeed the case.

How Sweet It Is!

Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Enjoy!

DSH

The Highlander's posts are some of the best on Usenet Hines.


Is that how you spend your time ? Stupid if you ask me as you will
never get these lost days back.

I hope you never end up lying in your own piss and excrement wishing
you had not wasted your time on earth, like some poor souls.

--
Count Baldoni

Kay Allen

Re: American multiplication - or pie in the sky?

Legg inn av Kay Allen » 13 nov 2007 22:45:09

Thank you for you kind words about my professionalism.

Pedigree Resource File does have room for sources, but
again it is up to the researcher to glean the wheat
from the chaff.

I would encourage you to submit more recent material,
so that researchers do have some kernals of wheat to
find. Or publish it so that it is available for
thorough researchers.

Originally, the AF was supposed to do exactly what you
desire. But it became, so they say, economically
unfeasible. I haven't worked enough with Pedigree
Resource File to be able to thoroughly evaluate it. I
do know that I spotted what may be wheat for one of my
ancestors. I also am familiar with the submitter, so I
will write him for more information on his source(s).

The IGI is not totally worthless. Some origins have
been found in the extracted material, which eagle-eyed
researchers have built upon to have a published
article.

K
--- lostcooper@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 12, 10:05 am, Kay Allen <all...@pacbell.net
wrote:
LDS researchers are probably no better or no worse
than any random sampling of genealogical
researchers.

I am one of them. My calling in the Church for 35
years has been with Family History. I have tried
to
instill good research practices in my pupils. I
have
probably broken more hears than I can count
because I
was breaking fabulous royal descents from their
stemmas and telling them they needed to do more
research on a line they were going to submit, even
though it might have met the bare minimum of
standards
for submission. Many members are also continuing
work
that was done years ago before the Information
Age. I,
and others, continue to encourage them to
double-check
and correct this work.

Non-members also make submissions, even to the
IGI.
Pedigree Resource File has replaced Ancestral
File,
but the mistakes are still being generated. Part
of
this is due to on-line genealogy.

On one list I have shown, thanks to an English
researcher, the proper ancestry for Simon Hoyt.
And
everytime, I get scathing posts telling me what do
I
know. I didn't get my AG by being lazy, anything
less
than terminally thorough, being ignorant, or
displaying a lack of academic integrity. I try to
instill these qualities in my students. I also
have
the advantage of holding a very big stick, guilt.
I
ask them if they wish to present work to Heavenly
Father which is shoddy and less than perfect;
perfection being based on record availability. It
usually is a good motivator to encourage them to
better work and gain more experience.

I hope that this will not become an excuse to
attack
me and my LDS faith. I am just trying to express
my
perspective. Second amendment and all that,
ioncluding
common courtesy.

Kay Allen AG



--- lostcoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 11, 12:46 pm, Kay Allen
all...@pacbell.net
wrote:
That can be said of virtually any genealogical
software. A good product is also based on the
skill,
knowledge, and integrity of the individual
researcher.

Kay Allen AG

(As for "produced using the Mormon Family
Search
PAF

software" -
that's no guarantee of quality of
genealogical
work.
Using Family
Search and PAF software, you could invent an
entire
pedigree, and it
would *still* be invented.)

P J Evans

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

- Show quoted text -

It is a bit of a stretch to refer to the LDS
pedigree donors as
researchers in many instances. What you find on
Family Search is more
often garbled than not. There is a pedgiree for
my
grandfather, for
example, that is entirely and completely wrong
but
very detailed all
the same. And there is no way to contribute new
data
with resource
information that corrects previous mistakes. At
best it can be used
only to suggest new avenues of research that may
or
may not pan out.

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

- Show quoted text -

My criticism was not about theology, beliefs, or LDS
as a religion. It
was only about the Family Search program. I also
acknowledge and
respect your professionalism and the high quality of
your work. I am
not surprised that you pass on that high quality to
others. I agree
that any such program that depends on submitted
pedigrees, such as
OneWorldTree & FamilySearch, will run the gamut of
abilities on the
part of the donors. My experience, so far, has been
that most of the
donors whose work I have consulted have not been up
to your level. I
don't really know how it could be improved in that
it would be a
tremendous job to check the references for the
donated pedigrees.
Best, Bronwen


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

Gjest

Re: Rodrigo Alvarez de Asturias

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 nov 2007 02:25:56

On Nov 12, 6:34 am, maria emma escobar <memaesco...@yahoo.es> wrote:
There are only one Rodrigo Alvarez de Asturias, an asturian man, as all his family, who died near 1.333.
.. . .

They were sons of another Pedro Álvarez and a woman named Sancha. But, ¿who was Sancha? For some investigators was Sancha Rodríguez de Lara, a daughter of Rodrigo Gonzalez de Lara and the "infanta" Sancha.
.. . .



It never ceases to amaze me what people will do to doctor a pedigree.
A man who died about 1333 cannot possibly be great-grandson (through
two female generations) of a man who died in 1109. That would be 75
years per generation.

taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, The Almost Qu

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 14 nov 2007 03:03:44

taf, Todd A. Farmerie, The Illiterate strikes again...

In the throes of another hissy fit.

DSH

<taf@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:1195002397.126569.91160@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...

Well,
when someone treats a public discussion forum as nothing but a vehicle
for self-promotion, when they make their expertise rather than the
genealogical facts the central issue, they reap what they sew. [sic]

taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan,The Almost Que

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 14 nov 2007 03:50:59

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.489.1195007448.7651.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

<baldersnip>

It's a pity Leo and Peter can't put their efforts into Genealogy,
Prosopography, History and Biography, rather than just continuing to rag on
Douglas Richardson.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Ray O'Hara

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, The Almost Qu

Legg inn av Ray O'Hara » 14 nov 2007 04:07:29

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:jIs_i.554$Ig4.2797@eagle.america.net...
taf, Todd A. Farmerie, The Illiterate strikes again...

It seems they do most of their striking about your head.

Bill Arnold

Re: King/Queen Of Scots & King/Queen Of Scotland

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 14 nov 2007 05:10:04

--- "Baldoni wrote:

D. Spencer Hines submitted this idea :
Gentle Readers will note with amusement that Pogue Highlander [Michael
Paterson] has lit out for the tall grass, running as fast as those withered
legs will carry him -- with tail between legs and whining like a dog who has
had his arse kicked and a load of birdshot emptied into it -- for that is
indeed the case.

How Sweet It Is!

Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Enjoy!

DSH

The Highlander's posts are some of the best on Usenet Hines.

Is that how you spend your time ? Stupid if you ask me as you will
never get these lost days back.

I hope you never end up lying in your own piss and excrement wishing
you had not wasted your time on earth, like some poor souls.

--
Count Baldoni

BA: Bonjour, Count Baldoni! Were I a member of Parliament, I would rouse
my rusty sabre and rattle it on the table, exclaiming profusely,
"Hear, hear...hear, hear!"

Bill

*****



____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Bill Arnold

Re: dorcas/dorothy and Betsey/Beth/ElizaBETH

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 14 nov 2007 05:40:05

--- taf@clearwire.net wrote:

On Nov 13, 1:41 pm, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't see the two as being analogous. Beth and Betsey are known
shortening nicknames for Elizabeth. Neither is an anglicized version
of the longer name. On the other hand, Dorothy and Dorcas are
completely distinct names, neither is an anglicized version of the
other, and both were used independently by Colonial American
families. There is no inherent equivalence as there is with
Elizabeth and its shorter forms.

Yep, ... and who doesn't know Beth and Betsy are derivatives of
Elizabeth? Bet he thinks Molly and Polly are "real" names, as
well ...

I have seen some odd local equivalencies - in some W. Pa. German
families, Jane was used for girls whose formal name was Christina.
Without knowing the specifics, I have to suspect that the Dorcas/
Dorothy thing Nat reported is either 1) a personal/regional quirk, or
2) a case of recorders reconstructing records from ambiguous shorthand
abbreviations.

BA: as a matter of fact, I do think that "Molly and Polly are 'real' names,
as well. Doesn't everyone?

BA: Aside from these snippets from snippet-makers, the real point is
that in my case I have seen Dorcas/Dorrey Ann/Dorothy. In the case
of census records in America, I have seen people answer census records
all kinds of different ways with *real* names. I have seen [ actually held
offical copies from state archives ] death records in which the informant
said so-in-so was Betsey when census records said Beth and other census
records said Elizabeth, or Eliza or Lizzie, for Heaven's sake! Is this not
valuable KNOWLEDGE to gen-medieval genealogists who do NOT know?
I think so, and also know the difference between *do* and *due* and *dew*!
Do you?

BA: my last point is cryptic: when the Visitation taker showed up in Suffolk
and/or Yorkshire, and asked Dear John who were his parents and siblings
and children, I bet that a John who was a Younger and he was jealous that
his sibling had that name with William as a middle, that he told the Visitation
taker that his sibling was William and ignored the family tradition that ole
J.W. was John to the family and William to aunt Liza and J.W. to his dear ole
Mum :0

Bill

*****











____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»