Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
John Briggs

Re: Interesting disclosure from Hawaii

Legg inn av John Briggs » 14 nov 2007 13:48:52

Most interesting!
--
John Briggs

James Hogg wrote:
I thought I should draw everyone's attention to a post. It could
easily be missed, buried as it is in a thread about medieval
geneaology.

The poster sent the same message twice. Nothing unusual in that, I
hear you say. But there was a crucial difference in the groups to
which he sent the post. The second message was intended to remedy a
blunder in the first one, sent 44 minutes earlier.

The second message was addressed to:
alt.history.british

The first had inadvertently been sent to:
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.interracial

Maybe he wishes he hadn't cross-posted his reply to a message that had
only appeared in soc.genealogy.medieval.

I repost the messages with headers below.

James



Message 1
==========================================
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com
Newsgroups:
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.interracial,soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval
References: <1192648649.932989.128930@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com
1194729009.310748.301640@s15g2000prm.googlegroups.com
1194987372.973071.307270@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com
1194994678.750560.27850@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com
1195002397.126569.91160@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, The Almost
Queen of Scotland
Lines: 17
Organization: The Mory's Association
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Message-ID: <n2s_i.551$Ig4.2781@eagle.america.net
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 01:19:00 -0000
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.16.64.178
X-Trace: eagle.america.net 1195003155 63.16.64.178 (Tue, 13 Nov 2007
20:19:15 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:19:15 EST
Xref: news.motzarella.org soc.genealogy.medieval:30157916
soc.history.medieval:30488602

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
==========================================



Message 2
==========================================
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com
Newsgroups:
alt.history.british,soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval
Subject: Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, The Almost
Queen of Scotland
Lines: 19
Organization: The Mory's Association
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Message-ID: <jIs_i.554$Ig4.2797@eagle.america.net
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 02:03:44 -0000
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.16.64.178
X-Trace: eagle.america.net 1195005839 63.16.64.178 (Tue, 13 Nov 2007
21:03:59 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:03:59 EST
Xref: news.motzarella.org alt.history.british:5381591
soc.genealogy.medieval:30157922 soc.history.medieval:30488609

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
==========================================

Eugene Griessel

Re: Interesting disclosure from Hawaii

Legg inn av Eugene Griessel » 14 nov 2007 13:58:04

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Most interesting!

No, no, no! "Hilarious" is the only approved adjective.

Eugene L Griessel

Slang is language that has rolled up its sleeves, spat on its hands
and gone to work.

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

Renia

Re: dorcas/dorothy and Betsey/Beth/ElizaBETH

Legg inn av Renia » 14 nov 2007 14:34:33

Bill Arnold wrote:

BA: as a matter of fact, I do think that "Molly and Polly are 'real' names,
as well. Doesn't everyone?

No. Molly and Polly are nicknames for Mary.

Dantemortem

Re: dorcas/dorothy and Betsey/Beth/ElizaBETH

Legg inn av Dantemortem » 14 nov 2007 15:06:17

If a woman is christened Molly, Polly, Betsy or Fanny, it is arguably
her real name, not a diminutive.

Anyway, it's good advice to look twice at anything that remotely
resembles the names you are looking for as they are frequently
capriciously distorted by their owners, misheard by parish clerks and
census takers, and mistranscribed by compilers.

dm

On Nov 14, 2007 8:34 AM, Renia <renia@deleteotenet.gr> wrote:
Bill Arnold wrote:


BA: as a matter of fact, I do think that "Molly and Polly are 'real' names,
as well. Doesn't everyone?

No. Molly and Polly are nicknames for Mary.


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

La N

Re: Interesting disclosure from Hawaii

Legg inn av La N » 14 nov 2007 15:16:10

"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
news:473af0b1.20343011@news.uunet.co.za...
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Most interesting!

No, no, no! "Hilarious" is the only approved adjective.


Hmmm ... is Virginia now a porn star? ... ;)

- nilita

Renia

Re: Interesting disclosure from Hawaii

Legg inn av Renia » 14 nov 2007 15:25:05

La N wrote:

"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
news:473af0b1.20343011@news.uunet.co.za...

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:


Most interesting!

No, no, no! "Hilarious" is the only approved adjective.



Hmmm ... is Virginia now a porn star? ... ;)

And Veronica, come to that.

La N

Re: Interesting disclosure from Hawaii

Legg inn av La N » 14 nov 2007 15:25:36

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhf0er$sok$1@mouse.otenet.gr...
La N wrote:

"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
news:473af0b1.20343011@news.uunet.co.za...

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:


Most interesting!

No, no, no! "Hilarious" is the only approved adjective.



Hmmm ... is Virginia now a porn star? ... ;)

And Veronica, come to that.


Black on white grrrrl action!!!!??? Yeah, you go, boy!

- nilita

Renia

Re: dorcas/dorothy and Betsey/Beth/ElizaBETH

Legg inn av Renia » 14 nov 2007 15:28:39

Dantemortem wrote:

If a woman is christened Molly, Polly, Betsy or Fanny, it is arguably
her real name, not a diminutive.

In modern times, yes, but in the past, they were likely nicknames.


Anyway, it's good advice to look twice at anything that remotely
resembles the names you are looking for as they are frequently
capriciously distorted by their owners, misheard by parish clerks and
census takers, and mistranscribed by compilers.

Indeed. Sometimes, though, people's names changed altogether. For
example, I have someone who was shown as Ursula in the visitation and
baptismal records, but who was known as Frances throughout her life.


dm

On Nov 14, 2007 8:34 AM, Renia <renia@deleteotenet.gr> wrote:

Bill Arnold wrote:


BA: as a matter of fact, I do think that "Molly and Polly are 'real' names,
as well. Doesn't everyone?

No. Molly and Polly are nicknames for Mary.


-------------------------------
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: Interesting disclosure from Hawaii

Legg inn av Renia » 14 nov 2007 15:29:34

La N wrote:

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhf0er$sok$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

La N wrote:


"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
news:473af0b1.20343011@news.uunet.co.za...


"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:



Most interesting!

No, no, no! "Hilarious" is the only approved adjective.



Hmmm ... is Virginia now a porn star? ... ;)

And Veronica, come to that.



Black on white grrrrl action!!!!??? Yeah, you go, boy!

Unless Virginia and Veronica are his pet names for the two little
friends either side of his brain cell?

La N

Re: Interesting disclosure from Hawaii

Legg inn av La N » 14 nov 2007 15:32:33

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhf0mr$sqa$2@mouse.otenet.gr...
La N wrote:

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhf0er$sok$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

La N wrote:


"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
news:473af0b1.20343011@news.uunet.co.za...


"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:



Most interesting!

No, no, no! "Hilarious" is the only approved adjective.



Hmmm ... is Virginia now a porn star? ... ;)

And Veronica, come to that.



Black on white grrrrl action!!!!??? Yeah, you go, boy!

Unless Virginia and Veronica are his pet names for the two little friends
either side of his brain cell?

Hey, Renia, what photos you got?

I'll give you two hapa for three mulatta!

- nilita

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Dorcas/Dorothy & Betsy/Beth/Elizabeth

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 14 nov 2007 15:37:00

Correct.

DSH

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhetfl$rfc$6@mouse.otenet.gr...

Bill Arnold wrote:


BA: as a matter of fact, I do think that "Molly and Polly are 'real'
names,
as well. Doesn't everyone?

No. Molly and Polly are nicknames for Mary.

Dantemortem

Re: dorcas/dorothy and Betsey/Beth/ElizaBETH

Legg inn av Dantemortem » 14 nov 2007 15:46:23

On Nov 14, 2007 9:28 AM, Renia <renia@deleteotenet.gr> wrote:
Dantemortem wrote:

If a woman is christened Molly, Polly, Betsy or Fanny, it is arguably
her real name, not a diminutive.

In modern times, yes, but in the past, they were likely nicknames.



Anyway, it's good advice to look twice at anything that remotely
resembles the names you are looking for as they are frequently
capriciously distorted by their owners, misheard by parish clerks and
census takers, and mistranscribed by compilers.

Indeed. Sometimes, though, people's names changed altogether. For
example, I have someone who was shown as Ursula in the visitation and
baptismal records, but who was known as Frances throughout her life.




very maddening! I had an Edwin turn up as a Charles, nearly missed him.

dm


dm

On Nov 14, 2007 8:34 AM, Renia <renia@deleteotenet.gr> wrote:


Bill Arnold wrote:


BA: as a matter of fact, I do think that "Molly and Polly are 'real' names,
as well. Doesn't everyone?

No. Molly and Polly are nicknames for Mary.


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

Eugene Griessel

Re: Interesting disclosure from Hawaii

Legg inn av Eugene Griessel » 14 nov 2007 15:48:51

"La N" <nilita2004NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
news:473af0b1.20343011@news.uunet.co.za...
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Most interesting!

No, no, no! "Hilarious" is the only approved adjective.


Hmmm ... is Virginia now a porn star? ... ;)

Virginia does Vaudeville? Mmmm. Doesn't quite have the right sort of
cachet.

Eugene L Griessel

Do maths teachers have a lot of problems?

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

La N

Re: Interesting disclosure from Hawaii

Legg inn av La N » 14 nov 2007 15:55:58

"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
news:473b0a9a.24170789@news.uunet.co.za...
"La N" <nilita2004NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:


"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
news:473af0b1.20343011@news.uunet.co.za...
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Most interesting!

No, no, no! "Hilarious" is the only approved adjective.


Hmmm ... is Virginia now a porn star? ... ;)

Virginia does Vaudeville? Mmmm. Doesn't quite have the right sort of
cachet.

No. It's Virginia does Honolulu. Sequel to Debbie does Dallas.

- nilita

Eugene Griessel

Re: Interesting disclosure from Hawaii

Legg inn av Eugene Griessel » 14 nov 2007 16:15:41

"La N" <nilita2004NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
news:473b0a9a.24170789@news.uunet.co.za...
"La N" <nilita2004NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:


"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
news:473af0b1.20343011@news.uunet.co.za...
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Most interesting!

No, no, no! "Hilarious" is the only approved adjective.


Hmmm ... is Virginia now a porn star? ... ;)

Virginia does Vaudeville? Mmmm. Doesn't quite have the right sort of
cachet.

No. It's Virginia does Honolulu. Sequel to Debbie does Dallas.

It rather loses out on the alliteration, doesn't it?


Eugene L Griessel

Do maths teachers have a lot of problems?

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

La N

Re: Interesting disclosure from Hawaii

Legg inn av La N » 14 nov 2007 16:18:20

"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
news:473b10d8.25769381@news.uunet.co.za...
"La N" <nilita2004NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:


"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
news:473b0a9a.24170789@news.uunet.co.za...
"La N" <nilita2004NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:


"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
news:473af0b1.20343011@news.uunet.co.za...
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Most interesting!

No, no, no! "Hilarious" is the only approved adjective.


Hmmm ... is Virginia now a porn star? ... ;)

Virginia does Vaudeville? Mmmm. Doesn't quite have the right sort of
cachet.

No. It's Virginia does Honolulu. Sequel to Debbie does Dallas.

It rather loses out on the alliteration, doesn't it?


I know ... ;(. I don't know any Hawaiian cities that start with "V". Do
you? I want to do this right, you know.

- nilita

The Highlander

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

Legg inn av The Highlander » 14 nov 2007 16:19:29

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:13:07 GMT, Baldoni
<baldoniXXIV<nientespam>@gmail.com> 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.

My dear Count, allow me to express my gratitude for your unexpected
and unsolicited support. I trust that my response to Mr. Hines will
meet with your approval and thank you for standing up to the tyrant of
soc.medieval with such a glowing tribute. You and I shall be friends
hereafter; on that you have my hand and word.

D. Spencer Hines

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

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 14 nov 2007 17:00:35

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."...

Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United States". it
would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


So, just as I've previously pointed out, the assertions supra are:

Blithering Nonsense...

As well as:

Errant Codswallop, Balderdash & Twaddle.

How Sweet It Is!

Pogue Highlander has been hoist with his own petar.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Bill Arnold

Re: dorcas/dorothy and Betsey/Beth/ElizaBETH

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 14 nov 2007 17:55:05

My point with this thread addenda seems to be hitting home. I found
a Charles Arnold in South Carolina 1790s which was listed as ? Arnold
by the census record, and ignored by the transcription people.

QUESTION: how reliable are Medieval records on this question of people
being listed under different names in different records? Is it a common
or rare event?

Bill

**********
--- Dantemortem <dantemortem@gmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 14, 2007 9:28 AM, Renia <renia@deleteotenet.gr> wrote:
Dantemortem wrote:

If a woman is christened Molly, Polly, Betsy or Fanny, it is arguably
her real name, not a diminutive.

In modern times, yes, but in the past, they were likely nicknames.



Anyway, it's good advice to look twice at anything that remotely
resembles the names you are looking for as they are frequently
capriciously distorted by their owners, misheard by parish clerks and
census takers, and mistranscribed by compilers.

Indeed. Sometimes, though, people's names changed altogether. For
example, I have someone who was shown as Ursula in the visitation and
baptismal records, but who was known as Frances throughout her life.




very maddening! I had an Edwin turn up as a Charles, nearly missed him.

dm



dm

On Nov 14, 2007 8:34 AM, Renia <renia@deleteotenet.gr> wrote:


Bill Arnold wrote:


BA: as a matter of fact, I do think that "Molly and Polly are 'real' names,
as well. Doesn't everyone?

No. Molly and Polly are nicknames for Mary.


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


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




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

John Brandon

Re: dorcas/dorothy and Betsey/Beth/ElizaBETH

Legg inn av John Brandon » 14 nov 2007 17:59:52

No. Molly and Polly are nicknames for Mary.

We better go ahead and tell him about "Peggy" for "Margaret." He'll
*never* figure that one out on his own ...

Renia

Re: dorcas/dorothy and Betsey/Beth/ElizaBETH

Legg inn av Renia » 14 nov 2007 18:29:28

Bill Arnold wrote:

My point with this thread addenda seems to be hitting home. I found
a Charles Arnold in South Carolina 1790s which was listed as ? Arnold
by the census record, and ignored by the transcription people.

QUESTION: how reliable are Medieval records on this question of people
being listed under different names in different records? Is it a common
or rare event?

Quite common. The part of speech in Latin has to be taken into account
regarding spelling of forenames, for example. For those lower down the
social scale, the differing surnames according to circumstances should
be taken into account. For example, in his own village, a man might be
referred to in documents as John the Baker, because he was the village
baker. But in the next village or nearest market town, the same man
might be referred to as John de Kirby (or John of Kirby), because there
were any number of Johns who were bakers. Elsewhere, he might be known
as John Richardson (etc) the son of Richard.

Renia

Re: dorcas/dorothy and Betsey/Beth/ElizaBETH

Legg inn av Renia » 14 nov 2007 18:29:49

John Brandon wrote:

No. Molly and Polly are nicknames for Mary.


We better go ahead and tell him about "Peggy" for "Margaret." He'll
*never* figure that one out on his own ...

Don't forget Daisy for Margaret, as well.

Gjest

Re: dorcas/dorothy and Betsey/Beth/ElizaBETH

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 nov 2007 19:30:04

It's not limited to women.
How do you get "Jack" out of "John" ?



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

Gjest

Re: dorcas/dorothy and Betsey/Beth/ElizaBETH

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 nov 2007 19:31:03

In a message dated 11/14/2007 6:07:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dantemortem@gmail.com writes:

If a woman is christened Molly, Polly, Betsy or Fanny, it is arguably
her real name, not a diminutive.


But we are all waiting for the proof that anyone has this christened name.



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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Dorcas/Dorothy & Betsy/Beth/Elizabeth

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 14 nov 2007 19:45:59

I've seen _Fanny_ as the Christian Name on several birth certificates.

It was apparently quite popular in the 19th Century.

DSH

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.528.1195064816.7651.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 11/14/2007 6:07:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dantemortem@gmail.com writes:

If a woman is christened Molly, Polly, Betsy or Fanny, it is arguably
her real name, not a diminutive.

But we are all waiting for the proof that anyone has this christened
name.

nycram

Re: Interesting disclosure from Hawaii

Legg inn av nycram » 14 nov 2007 20:23:55

On Nov 14, 10:18 am, "La N" <nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message

news:473b10d8.25769381@news.uunet.co.za...



"La N" <nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
news:473b0a9a.24170789@news.uunet.co.za...
"La N" <nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
news:473af0b1.20343011@news.uunet.co.za...
"John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Most interesting!

No, no, no! "Hilarious" is the only approved adjective.

Hmmm ... is Virginia now a porn star? ... ;)

Virginia does Vaudeville? Mmmm. Doesn't quite have the right sort of
cachet.

No. It's Virginia does Honolulu. Sequel to Debbie does Dallas.

It rather loses out on the alliteration, doesn't it?

I know ... ;(. I don't know any Hawaiian cities that start with "V". Do
you? I want to do this right, you know.

- nilita

In the native Hawaiian language, the equivalent of Veronica is
Walonika, per the Hawaiian name finder:

http://www.alohafriendsluau.com/names_q-z.html

Walonika does Waikiki, anyone?

John Brandon

Re: Interesting disclosure from Hawaii

Legg inn av John Brandon » 14 nov 2007 20:33:59

Walonika does Waikiki, anyone?

More likely nycram does nobody.

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 nov 2007 20:35:05

In a message dated 11/14/2007 8:10:46 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
micheil@shaw.ca writes:

Even in the United States, where it took a civil war to "unite" North
and South; that contempt lingers on. I know so, because I have visited
both regions.


The Civil War did not unite North and South... yankee.

Will Johnson



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

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 nov 2007 20:37:06

In a message dated 11/14/2007 9:05:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
royalistperson@yahoo.com writes:

As you your comments about Prince Charles "abdicating", he can't. This
has been explained to you. Charles will become King by virtue of
operation of law when Queen Elizabeth dies.l


He can abdicate after he becomes King.



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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Maud Fitzalan

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 14 nov 2007 20:43:28

Translation from the Pogue Stewartian:

"I intend to keep on using Leo as my front man, stooge and shill, so I can
hide behind a mask of relative anonymity, when I want to post something to
SGM/GEN-MEDIEVAL."

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1195020039.916867.154250@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Leo's Genealogics enterprise is more influential, and less ephemeral,
than SGM discussions - I have abandoned these because they became too
tedious, beset by idiots, but I will go on corresponding with Leo and
pointing out errors or making other comments to him; and he can go on
posting snippets from my emails to SGM, or not, as he pleases. I will
not be posting further.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

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

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 14 nov 2007 21:05:46

Leo and Peter continue to indulge themselves in a Long Hissy Fit against
Douglas Richardson.....

taf has now joined them.

Tempest in a teapot.

Douglas Richardson did the right thing -- he REVISED and EXTENDED his
REMARKS.

Anyone is entitled to do that. Congressmen and Senators do it all the time.

If DR did indeed remove the original "wrong" message from Google, that's a
Good Thing too. It won't be there to mislead someone in the future.

What do Leo, Peter and taf think happens in the publishing world when a new
edition of a book comes out? Things are CHANGED and CORRECTED, including
factual errors.

To then stress that DR must go around and thank everyone who may have
spurred him to make some corrections is also overwrought, unreasonable and
tedious.

That can become a long battle of who shot John, who should get credit, _mea
culpas_ and all other sorts of wastes of time.

Better just to move on and do Real Genealogy without all the small-minded
back-biting that Leo, Peter and taf have become past Masters of.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.486.1194996672.7651.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

He send [sic] out a message.

He is told he is wrong

He removes his original message from the Google archives

He sends his re-written message-------without saying it is a re-write,
without acknowledging he was wrong in the first place.

Dantemortem

Re: dorcas/dorothy and Betsey/Beth/ElizaBETH

Legg inn av Dantemortem » 14 nov 2007 21:34:39

I know of several in my own family, think they are all 18th & 19th
century, mostly Devonshire, Hampshire and Dorset, though I don't think
the variation is particularly regional. I also have at least one
christened "Peggy" (a Manxwoman).

dm


On Nov 14, 2007 1:25 PM, <WJhonson@aol.com> wrote:


In a message dated 11/14/2007 6:07:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dantemortem@gmail.com writes:
If a woman is christened Molly, Polly, Betsy or Fanny, it is arguably
her real name, not a diminutive.

But we are all waiting for the proof that anyone has this christened name.


________________________________
See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

wjhonson

Re: dorcas/dorothy and Betsey/Beth/ElizaBETH

Legg inn av wjhonson » 14 nov 2007 21:52:33

But as we all should know, mere statements that something is the case
are insufficient proof that something is the case.

So if anyone can produce documentation, *which is in the public view*,
that would be helpful.

Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson

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

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 14 nov 2007 22:58:28

On Nov 14, 1:05 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
< Leo and Peter continue to indulge themselves in a Long Hissy Fit
against
< Douglas Richardson.....
<
< taf has now joined them.

I don't think he ever left them.

DR

Bill Arnold

Re: dorcas/dorothy and Betsey/Beth/ElizaBETH

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 14 nov 2007 23:24:02

--- Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Bill Arnold wrote:

My point with this thread addenda seems to be hitting home. I found
a Charles Arnold in South Carolina 1790s which was listed as ? Arnold
by the census record, and ignored by the transcription people.

QUESTION: how reliable are Medieval records on this question of people
being listed under different names in different records? Is it a common
or rare event?

Quite common. The part of speech in Latin has to be taken into account
regarding spelling of forenames, for example. For those lower down the
social scale, the differing surnames according to circumstances should
be taken into account. For example, in his own village, a man might be
referred to in documents as John the Baker, because he was the village
baker. But in the next village or nearest market town, the same man
might be referred to as John de Kirby (or John of Kirby), because there
were any number of Johns who were bakers. Elsewhere, he might be known
as John Richardson (etc) the son of Richard.


BA: Was it according to *class*? Would it be as true if someone were, in
the vernacular, a *commoner* more often vs. someone of *status*? For
instance, I believe I have noted in the records I have seen that the descent
from William I The Lion King of Scots/Scotland had issue with "Miss Avenal"
and not once have I seen that the lady had a given name?

Bill

******


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

Renia

Re: dorcas/dorothy and Betsey/Beth/ElizaBETH

Legg inn av Renia » 14 nov 2007 23:29:55

Bill Arnold wrote:

--- Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:


Bill Arnold wrote:


My point with this thread addenda seems to be hitting home. I found
a Charles Arnold in South Carolina 1790s which was listed as ? Arnold
by the census record, and ignored by the transcription people.

QUESTION: how reliable are Medieval records on this question of people
being listed under different names in different records? Is it a common
or rare event?

Quite common. The part of speech in Latin has to be taken into account
regarding spelling of forenames, for example. For those lower down the
social scale, the differing surnames according to circumstances should
be taken into account. For example, in his own village, a man might be
referred to in documents as John the Baker, because he was the village
baker. But in the next village or nearest market town, the same man
might be referred to as John de Kirby (or John of Kirby), because there
were any number of Johns who were bakers. Elsewhere, he might be known
as John Richardson (etc) the son of Richard.



BA: Was it according to *class*?

It was according to whomsoever wrote the document.


Would it be as true if someone were, in
the vernacular, a *commoner* more often vs. someone of *status*? For
instance, I believe I have noted in the records I have seen that the descent
from William I The Lion King of Scots/Scotland had issue with "Miss Avenal"
and not once have I seen that the lady had a given name?

Different issue. I don't know this line, but others will. I would guess
she's written down as daughter of (whoever) Avenal in the primary
sources, without mentioning her Christian name.

Bill Arnold

Re: dorcas/dorothy and Betsey/Beth/ElizaBETH

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 14 nov 2007 23:33:03

--- Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

John Brandon wrote:

No. Molly and Polly are nicknames for Mary.


We better go ahead and tell him about "Peggy" for "Margaret." He'll
*never* figure that one out on his own ...

Don't forget Daisy for Margaret, as well.


BA: You would be surprised what *I* can figure out on my own. You ought
to read my books. But that is another story. One point I was making was
that times have changed, and names like Molly Bloom are more interesting
than Mary Bloom: if any of you even understand that literary allusion? But
let us keep this on gen-medieval, shall we? Am I to understand that in the
Medieval period in merry ole England that men were named William Tell,
and not John William Charles Harold Spencer Tell? And am I to understand
that if the Visitation taker arrived at some royal's estate, and he asked names
of ancestors and descendants, and perhaps, siblings of the informant who
came to the gate, or the door, that the royal was under *oath* and with fear
from the King/Queen s/he had to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth?
And what if the royal of the manor wanted to fabricate, how could the
Visitation taker know better if it were his first trip there, ever? I do not
assume he took records for comparison? My knowledge of census takers,
and having read of their methods in America, a century ago, suggests that
if the weather was bad and the river had overflowed, then certain houses
in a section would not get done, then, that day, and maybe never. Was
that true of Visitation takers?

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 » 14 nov 2007 23:46:03

--- WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 11/14/2007 6:07:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dantemortem@gmail.com writes:

If a woman is christened Molly, Polly, Betsy or Fanny, it is arguably
her real name, not a diminutive.


But we are all waiting for the proof that anyone has this christened name.


BA: Surely you jest, or you mean way back when? Frank Zappa proved that
his children would bear the burden of such *real* names such as Moon Unit
and Dweezil and Diva Muffin: you go figure which are boys or girls? And
Gwyneth Paltrow named her daughter Apple Blythe Alison Martin, the latter
the surname of her rocker husband. And who can forget that Dandelion is
the daughter of a band member of the Rolling Stones, those bright Brit boys?

Bill

*****


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

Bill Arnold

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

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 15 nov 2007 00:11:02

--- WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 11/14/2007 8:10:46 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
micheil@shaw.ca writes:

Even in the United States, where it took a civil war to "unite" North
and South; that contempt lingers on. I know so, because I have visited
both regions.


The Civil War did not unite North and South... yankee.

BA: of course not, as Renia reminds us all, in the case of the Brits and the
Americans, divided by a common language: the same is the case in America
between the North and the South: divided by a common language: it was
to the South NOT a Civil War but The War Between The States! And to a
native Floridian with ancestors back to the Indian Wars when we were
The Territory Of Florida I can assure you we do NOT refer to the carpetbaggers
as anything but Nawth'ners: today, *snowbirds* and*touristos*!

Bill

********


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

Renia

Re: dorcas/dorothy and Betsey/Beth/ElizaBETH

Legg inn av Renia » 15 nov 2007 00:16:02

Bill Arnold wrote:

--- Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:


John Brandon wrote:


No. Molly and Polly are nicknames for Mary.


We better go ahead and tell him about "Peggy" for "Margaret." He'll
*never* figure that one out on his own ...

Don't forget Daisy for Margaret, as well.



BA: You would be surprised what *I* can figure out on my own. You ought
to read my books. But that is another story. One point I was making was
that times have changed, and names like Molly Bloom are more interesting
than Mary Bloom: if any of you even understand that literary allusion? But
let us keep this on gen-medieval, shall we? Am I to understand that in the
Medieval period in merry ole England that men were named William Tell,
and not John William Charles Harold Spencer Tell?

If you are asking whether people had more than one forename in the
medieval period, then, no, they did not. Some of them hardly had
surnames, just nicknames they were known by, such as Arnold the Baker.

And am I to understand
that if the Visitation taker arrived at some royal's estate, and he asked names
of ancestors and descendants, and perhaps, siblings of the informant who
came to the gate, or the door, that the royal was under *oath* and with fear
from the King/Queen s/he had to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth?
And what if the royal of the manor wanted to fabricate, how could the
Visitation taker know better if it were his first trip there, ever? I do not
assume he took records for comparison? My knowledge of census takers,
and having read of their methods in America, a century ago, suggests that
if the weather was bad and the river had overflowed, then certain houses
in a section would not get done, then, that day, and maybe never. Was
that true of Visitation takers?

The visitation heralds wrote down what they were told. It was the
families themselves who could make up the stories, or recite the stories
they had been told. However, the point of the visitation wasn't to
compile a census, but to find out who was armigerous and whether they
were entitled to be.

wjhonson

Re: dorcas/dorothy and Betsey/Beth/ElizaBETH

Legg inn av wjhonson » 15 nov 2007 00:17:27

On Nov 14, 2:43 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
BA: Surely you jest, or you mean way back when? Frank Zappa proved that
his children would bear the burden of such *real* names such as Moon Unit
and Dweezil and Diva Muffin: you go figure which are boys or girls? And
Gwyneth Paltrow named her daughter Apple Blythe Alison Martin, the latter
the surname of her rocker husband. And who can forget that Dandelion is
the daughter of a band member of the Rolling Stones, those bright Brit boys?

Bill

--------------------------
No one is disputing that in the United States we enjoy a certain
amount of freedom to name our children anything from Xdot5 to Mister
Myyzilpliq. That sort of freedom however is not enjoyed by everyone
of our European neighbors.

And I'd say you might be hard-pressed to come up with an example from
the Medieval period of truly outlandish names. Someone actually
christening their child Molly or Jack would be tantamount to calling
them Fido or Fatty. So I'm quite skeptical that this occurred.

Will Johnson

Kay Allen

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

Legg inn av Kay Allen » 15 nov 2007 00:18:02

But you will cheerfully take the "Carpetbaggers' "
cash. :-)

K, a Connecticut Yankee, but never in King
Arthur's Court


--- Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:

--- WJhonson@aol.com wrote:


In a message dated 11/14/2007 8:10:46 A.M. Pacific
Standard Time,
micheil@shaw.ca writes:

Even in the United States, where it took a civil
war to "unite" North
and South; that contempt lingers on. I know so,
because I have visited
both regions.


The Civil War did not unite North and South...
yankee.

BA: of course not, as Renia reminds us all, in the
case of the Brits and the
Americans, divided by a common language: the same is
the case in America
between the North and the South: divided by a common
language: it was
to the South NOT a Civil War but The War Between The
States! And to a
native Floridian with ancestors back to the Indian
Wars when we were
The Territory Of Florida I can assure you we do NOT
refer to the carpetbaggers
as anything but Nawth'ners: today, *snowbirds*
and*touristos*!

Bill

********




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

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

wjhonson

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

Legg inn av wjhonson » 15 nov 2007 00:26:00

On Nov 14, 3:15 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
BA: perhaps you all missed my post on this matter: they seem to come or
not come as they wish, and in order defying scientific concepts of time
and space: but at any rate, the Brits who still research and write the tabloid
stories in America say: HM the Queen will abdicate: she will bypass the
Charles and Camilla and put the crown on William's head, but he will
abdicate and marry Kate Middleton and move to Canada, and thence
Harry the Red will assume the throne: Rule Britannica!

Bill

What makes you think that if the Queen abdicates, that she has any say
at all in who becomes the next ruler ? If she were to abdicate, it
would automatically be Charles, she doesn't have the liberty to decide.

Bill Arnold

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

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 15 nov 2007 00:28:02

But of course, like the Kings and Queens of olde England
it was the carpetbaggers who took our land and killed our
men folk, some of my cousins died in their teens and never
saw adulthood. The women folk, as I noted, had to take
the children and animals and climb in covered wagons
clanging with pots and pans and leave livestocks and
farms behind for the Nawth'ners to burn to the ground!
Such are the vagaries of war: and in this case, The Uncivil War:
The War Between The States!

Bill
PS I wrote a history of a part of Palm Beach County a few
years ago, and the history of the south is a story unknown
to Nawth'ners!

**********
--- Kay Allen <allenk@pacbell.net> wrote:

But you will cheerfully take the "Carpetbaggers' "
cash. :-)

K, a Connecticut Yankee, but never in King
Arthur's Court


--- Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:


--- WJhonson@aol.com wrote:


In a message dated 11/14/2007 8:10:46 A.M. Pacific
Standard Time,
micheil@shaw.ca writes:

Even in the United States, where it took a civil
war to "unite" North
and South; that contempt lingers on. I know so,
because I have visited
both regions.


The Civil War did not unite North and South...
yankee.

BA: of course not, as Renia reminds us all, in the
case of the Brits and the
Americans, divided by a common language: the same is
the case in America
between the North and the South: divided by a common
language: it was
to the South NOT a Civil War but The War Between The
States! And to a
native Floridian with ancestors back to the Indian
Wars when we were
The Territory Of Florida I can assure you we do NOT
refer to the carpetbaggers
as anything but Nawth'ners: today, *snowbirds*
and*touristos*!

Bill

********




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

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






____________________________________________________________________________________
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: dorcas/dorothy and Betsey/Beth/ElizaBETH

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 15 nov 2007 00:35:03

--- Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Bill Arnold wrote:

--- Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:


John Brandon wrote:


No. Molly and Polly are nicknames for Mary.


We better go ahead and tell him about "Peggy" for "Margaret." He'll
*never* figure that one out on his own ...

Don't forget Daisy for Margaret, as well.



BA: You would be surprised what *I* can figure out on my own. You ought
to read my books. But that is another story. One point I was making was
that times have changed, and names like Molly Bloom are more interesting
than Mary Bloom: if any of you even understand that literary allusion? But
let us keep this on gen-medieval, shall we? Am I to understand that in the
Medieval period in merry ole England that men were named William Tell,
and not John William Charles Harold Spencer Tell?

If you are asking whether people had more than one forename in the
medieval period, then, no, they did not. Some of them hardly had
surnames, just nicknames they were known by, such as Arnold the Baker.

And am I to understand
that if the Visitation taker arrived at some royal's estate, and he asked names
of ancestors and descendants, and perhaps, siblings of the informant who
came to the gate, or the door, that the royal was under *oath* and with fear
from the King/Queen s/he had to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth?
And what if the royal of the manor wanted to fabricate, how could the
Visitation taker know better if it were his first trip there, ever? I do not
assume he took records for comparison? My knowledge of census takers,
and having read of their methods in America, a century ago, suggests that
if the weather was bad and the river had overflowed, then certain houses
in a section would not get done, then, that day, and maybe never. Was
that true of Visitation takers?

The visitation heralds wrote down what they were told. It was the
families themselves who could make up the stories, or recite the stories
they had been told. However, the point of the visitation wasn't to
compile a census, but to find out who was armigerous and whether they
were entitled to be.

BA: I believe I understand what you say, because the truth of the matter
was the same for census takers and their informants. As for the purpose
of Visitations and College of Heralds' pedigrees: it stands that my Peck
ancestors were *armigerous* according to the Pedigree of Peck created
by the College of Heralds, but Douglas Richardson has yet to speak to
the matter, but once his *hunting* instincts kick in when he begins his
Charlemagne book, it will be dealt with, I am sure. So: I guess what we
are concluding IS: the *names* were Given-Surname, simple and precise,
and if armigerous then coats of arms would be attached in the pedigrees?

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 » 15 nov 2007 00:42:02

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

On Nov 14, 2:43 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
BA: Surely you jest, or you mean way back when? Frank Zappa proved that
his children would bear the burden of such *real* names such as Moon Unit
and Dweezil and Diva Muffin: you go figure which are boys or girls? And
Gwyneth Paltrow named her daughter Apple Blythe Alison Martin, the latter
the surname of her rocker husband. And who can forget that Dandelion is
the daughter of a band member of the Rolling Stones, those bright Brit boys?

Bill

--------------------------
No one is disputing that in the United States we enjoy a certain
amount of freedom to name our children anything from Xdot5 to Mister
Myyzilpliq. That sort of freedom however is not enjoyed by everyone
of our European neighbors.

And I'd say you might be hard-pressed to come up with an example from
the Medieval period of truly outlandish names. Someone actually
christening their child Molly or Jack would be tantamount to calling
them Fido or Fatty. So I'm quite skeptical that this occurred.

Will Johnson


BA: *freedom* is an interesting word, eh? A professional genealogist
who knows my ancestral tree told me that some of the ancient Greek
and Roman names in families of the 19thC were common, as were
children named for our first Presidents of the USA, and other famous
political and famous people. Is there a *common* thread to the names
used in the Medieval period? I have read here on gen-med that the
names Maud/Matilda/Mahut (I believe I have that right) was common:
but am unclear which was the name of the day, and which is the name
we wish to attribute in our modernized name-calling pedigrees!

Bill

*******





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

wjhonson

Re: dorcas/dorothy and Betsey/Beth/ElizaBETH

Legg inn av wjhonson » 15 nov 2007 00:48:58

On Nov 14, 3:40 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
BA: *freedom* is an interesting word, eh? A professional genealogist
who knows my ancestral tree told me that some of the ancient Greek
and Roman names in families of the 19thC were common, as were
children named for our first Presidents of the USA, and other famous
political and famous people. Is there a *common* thread to the names
used in the Medieval period? I have read here on gen-med that the
names Maud/Matilda/Mahut (I believe I have that right) was common:
but am unclear which was the name of the day, and which is the name
we wish to attribute in our modernized name-calling pedigrees!

Bill
----------------

Common would be incorrect. That ancient names, reappeared in the 19th
century is well-known, but they were quite rare even then. Children
were named after every president, general, and governor, but it wasn't
the preponderence of names. The name Maud and the name Matilda are
the same during the medieval period (at least part of it), same as
Jane and Joan are the same name. They were interchangeable.

At one time, in the more recent past, the names Agnes and Nancy were
interchangeable. They certainly aren't today, and I haven't seen any
indication of the name Nancy in the medieval period, so I'm not sure
when that came into being. Similarly today, if you knew a Mary and
called her Polly one day, she might look at you strangely.

But we are speaking of the medieval period, not today, and not the
19th century.

By the way, naming a child after a famous person did not spontaneously
appear in recent times. There is at least one example (and probably
many more) where a female was named Julia after the famous one of the
Augustan house, without any blood or marriage linkage between the
families, and without the name having existed in the family previously
(as far as we know), so evidently it was done for flattery.

Will Johnson

Will Johnson

Bill Arnold

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

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 15 nov 2007 00:49:02

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

On Nov 14, 3:15 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
BA: perhaps you all missed my post on this matter: they seem to come or
not come as they wish, and in order defying scientific concepts of time
and space: but at any rate, the Brits who still research and write the tabloid
stories in America say: HM the Queen will abdicate: she will bypass the
Charles and Camilla and put the crown on William's head, but he will
abdicate and marry Kate Middleton and move to Canada, and thence
Harry the Red will assume the throne: Rule Britannica!

Bill

What makes you think that if the Queen abdicates, that she has any say
at all in who becomes the next ruler ? If she were to abdicate, it
would automatically be Charles, she doesn't have the liberty to decide.


BA: Oh, are you suggesting the Brits have become *civil* in their olde age?
What: no more "Off with his head!"?

Bill
PS You must know you are challenging the highest minds on earth, the
Brit tabloid writers of the world! It is THEY who have writ!

******








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

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 nov 2007 01:07:02

Dear Bill and others,
The only Persons who may say Elizabeth II may
abdicate and in whose favor are the Queen herself who wouldn`t be heard from
until she is ready to do it or until Parliament decides to pass an Act
compelling her to do so. Likewise Parliament would need to pass an Act to remove The
Prince of Wales from the order of succession. That... No Tabloid Journalist
would be who and how it would be conducted.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



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

Renia

Re: dorcas/dorothy and Betsey/Beth/ElizaBETH

Legg inn av Renia » 15 nov 2007 01:12:02

Bill Arnold wrote:


BA: I believe I understand what you say, because the truth of the matter
was the same for census takers and their informants. As for the purpose
of Visitations and College of Heralds' pedigrees: it stands that my Peck
ancestors were *armigerous* according to the Pedigree of Peck created
by the College of Heralds, but Douglas Richardson has yet to speak to
the matter, but once his *hunting* instincts kick in when he begins his
Charlemagne book, it will be dealt with, I am sure.


Not to criticise Douglas, but why should he particularly know of your
Peck ancestors and what would that have to do with Charlemagne? How do
you know you descend from the armigerous Pecks?

So: I guess what we
are concluding IS: the *names* were Given-Surname, simple and precise,
and if armigerous then coats of arms would be attached in the pedigrees?

That's not what we are concluding at all. I gave you one example of a
girl called by one name in the visitation and by a completely different
name elsewhere. All genealogical sources should be verified by other
sources, where possible. The visitations we find in books and on the
internet are secondary sources, transcribed from the primary source made
by the herald himself. This gives us 3 different POSSIBLE sources for
errors.
1. The error (or deliberate lie) made by the family
2. The error in transcription by the herald
3. The error in transcription by the publishing company

Where known, the herald wrote the blazon of the arms, yes.

John Brandon

Re: Bachelor-Mercer-Priaulx

Legg inn av John Brandon » 15 nov 2007 01:27:23

On Nov 14, 7:26 pm, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
This chart might help with the ancestry of Hester (Mercer) Bachelor,
known to be related in some way to the Priaulx family.


Errkk ---

http://books.google.com/books?id=LdQKAA ... n#PPA81,M1

Bill Arnold

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

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 15 nov 2007 01:40:04

--- Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:

Dear Bill and others,
The only Persons who may say Elizabeth II may
abdicate and in whose favor are the Queen herself who wouldn`t be heard from
until she is ready to do it or until Parliament decides to pass an Act
compelling her to do so. Likewise Parliament would need to pass an Act to remove The
Prince of Wales from the order of succession. That... No Tabloid Journalist
would be who and how it would be conducted.


BA: You realize, James, you just trashed [ pun intended ] my faith in the Brit tabbies!

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 » 15 nov 2007 01:48:03

--- Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Bill Arnold wrote:



BA: I believe I understand what you say, because the truth of the matter
was the same for census takers and their informants. As for the purpose
of Visitations and College of Heralds' pedigrees: it stands that my Peck
ancestors were *armigerous* according to the Pedigree of Peck created
by the College of Heralds, but Douglas Richardson has yet to speak to
the matter, but once his *hunting* instincts kick in when he begins his
Charlemagne book, it will be dealt with, I am sure.


Not to criticise Douglas, but why should he particularly know of your
Peck ancestors and what would that have to do with Charlemagne? How do
you know you descend from the armigerous Pecks?

So: I guess what we
are concluding IS: the *names* were Given-Surname, simple and precise,
and if armigerous then coats of arms would be attached in the pedigrees?

That's not what we are concluding at all. I gave you one example of a
girl called by one name in the visitation and by a completely different
name elsewhere. All genealogical sources should be verified by other
sources, where possible. The visitations we find in books and on the
internet are secondary sources, transcribed from the primary source made
by the herald himself. This gives us 3 different POSSIBLE sources for
errors.
1. The error (or deliberate lie) made by the family
2. The error in transcription by the herald
3. The error in transcription by the publishing company

Where known, the herald wrote the blazon of the arms, yes.

BA: I understand through the *grapevine* that Douglas Richardson
is planning a book *Charlemagne Ancestry* and I do descend from
Robert Peck, the Elder, erstwhile of Beccles, and in the British Museum
Peck Pedigree the arms are so noted and stated that he was the son
of John Peck, the son of Richard Peck=Alice Middleton, and the rest
is history. So: when DR does his Charlemagne book, he will have
to study it, accept/or reject it as a good researcher, gentleman and
scholar!

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: dorcas/dorothy and Betsey/Beth/ElizaBETH

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 15 nov 2007 01:49:03

--- Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Bill Arnold wrote:



BA: I believe I understand what you say, because the truth of the matter
was the same for census takers and their informants. As for the purpose
of Visitations and College of Heralds' pedigrees: it stands that my Peck
ancestors were *armigerous* according to the Pedigree of Peck created
by the College of Heralds, but Douglas Richardson has yet to speak to
the matter, but once his *hunting* instincts kick in when he begins his
Charlemagne book, it will be dealt with, I am sure.


Not to criticise Douglas, but why should he particularly know of your
Peck ancestors and what would that have to do with Charlemagne? How do
you know you descend from the armigerous Pecks?

So: I guess what we
are concluding IS: the *names* were Given-Surname, simple and precise,
and if armigerous then coats of arms would be attached in the pedigrees?

That's not what we are concluding at all. I gave you one example of a
girl called by one name in the visitation and by a completely different
name elsewhere. All genealogical sources should be verified by other
sources, where possible. The visitations we find in books and on the
internet are secondary sources, transcribed from the primary source made
by the herald himself. This gives us 3 different POSSIBLE sources for
errors.
1. The error (or deliberate lie) made by the family
2. The error in transcription by the herald
3. The error in transcription by the publishing company

Where known, the herald wrote the blazon of the arms, yes.

BA: I understand through the *grapevine* that Douglas Richardson
is planning a book *Charlemagne Ancestry* and I do descend from
Robert Peck, the Elder, erstwhile of Beccles, and in the British Museum
Peck Pedigree the arms are so noted and stated that he was the son
of John Peck, the son of Richard Peck=Alice Middleton, and the rest
is history. So: when DR does his Charlemagne book, he will have
to study it, accept/or reject it as a good researcher, gentleman and
scholar!

Bill

*****


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

D. Spencer Hines

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

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 15 nov 2007 03:06:00

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."...

Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United States". it
would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


So, just as I've previously pointed out, the assertions supra are:

Blithering Nonsense...

As well as:

Errant Codswallop, Balderdash & Twaddle.

How Sweet It Is!

Pogue Highlander [Michael Paterson] has been hoist with his own petar...

And he has made no effort at all to vindicate himself by defending what he
wrote above with EVIDENCE -- buttressed with discrete, relevant QUOTATIONS
and CITATIONS -- as I've done in the initial post to this thread.

He has clearly screwed the pooch on this one.

The hilarious thing about it is that this matter concerns his allegedly
Native SCOTLAND, about which he is so PROUD.

Clearly, he simply doesn't know his Scottish History -- and only attended a
secondary school -- but apparently never went to university.

So, his Ignorance has Compounded over the years....

Which means he offers Great Entertainment Value.

Deeeeeeeelightful!...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Renia

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

Legg inn av Renia » 15 nov 2007 03:20:11

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
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."...

Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United States". it
would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".

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

So, just as I've previously pointed out, the assertions supra are:

Blithering Nonsense...

As well as:

Errant Codswallop, Balderdash & Twaddle.

How Sweet It Is!

Pogue Highlander [Michael Paterson] has been hoist with his own petar...

And he has made no effort at all to vindicate himself by defending what he
wrote above with EVIDENCE -- buttressed with discrete, relevant QUOTATIONS
and CITATIONS -- as I've done in the initial post to this thread.

Wikipedia. Right.


He has clearly screwed the pooch on this one.

The hilarious thing about it is that this matter concerns his allegedly
Native SCOTLAND, about which he is so PROUD.

Clearly, he simply doesn't know his Scottish History -- and only attended a
secondary school -- but apparently never went to university.

Clearly, you simply don't know your Scottish History -- and only
attended an American school.


So, his Ignorance has Compounded over the years....

Which means he offers Great Entertainment Value.

Deeeeeeeelightful!...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum


D. Spencer Hines

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

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 15 nov 2007 03:36:53

"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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Sensible Simulposting

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 15 nov 2007 04:43:25

Translation from the Pogue Stewartesque:

"Since I often cannot defend what I post and greatly resent the criticism I
have engendered, I intend to keep on using Leo as my front man, stooge and
shill, so I can hide behind a mask of protected, relative anonymity, when I
want to post something to SGM/GEN-MEDIEVAL."

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1195020039.916867.154250@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Leo's Genealogics enterprise is more influential, and less ephemeral,
than SGM discussions - I have abandoned these because they became too
tedious, beset by idiots, but I will go on corresponding with Leo and
pointing out errors or making other comments to him; and he can go on
posting snippets from my emails to SGM, or not, as he pleases. I will
not be posting further.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Sensible Simulposting

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 15 nov 2007 05:37:39

Yes, that's sensible.

taf, constrained by an Academic, Linear Model of Communication -- which
wants to keep the participants in this exercise limited to a single
CLASSROOM -- simply doesn't understand how the Free Market Of Ideas, with a
much larger Global Audience -- in multiple THEATRES -- works.

He is incapable of thinking outside the box he has created for himself.

Sometimes one should even address the X-Rated theatres as well, for reasons
taf does not understand, but which are quite obvious to the cognoscenti.
<g>

DSH

Lux et Veritas

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:5f764e59-dd93-43db-8af7-
adc6b66a59c9@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...

When I respond to any poster, I try to remove offensive newsgroups
from crossposted items that have no obvious reason for being
included. Conversely, I occasionally add extra newsgroups to my
response if that is deemed appropriate. This is sensible crossposting
which is both encouraged and supported by Google.

In this instance, I have chosen to post to one newsgroup. That is my
right. It's called free speech.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Sensible Simulposting

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 15 nov 2007 06:33:40

Some readers SHOULD be filtered out...

Because they are not in the intended audience.

If they filter THEMSELVES out that is to be welcomed and applauded.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Don Stone" <don@donstonetech.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.560.1195102426.7651.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Douglas Richardson wrote:

When I respond to any poster, I try to remove offensive newsgroups
from crossposted items that have no obvious reason for being
included. Conversely, I occasionally add extra newsgroups to my
response if that is deemed appropriate.

Doug,

When you crosspost, you automatically lose some readers: those who filter
out all crossposts. (Readers who don't want to waste time dealing with
messages about terrible British food, for example.)

-- Don Stone

The Highlander

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

Legg inn av The Highlander » 15 nov 2007 07:05:10

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:00:35 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
<panther@excelsior.com> wrote:

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."...

Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United States". it
would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, just as I've previously pointed out, the assertions supra are:

Blithering Nonsense...

As well as:

Errant Codswallop, Balderdash & Twaddle.

How Sweet It Is!

Pogue Highlander has been hoist with his own petar.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

What rubbish! You're nothing more than a semi-literate, posturing as a

scholar. There is very little you have ever posted to back that claim
and even less for us to learn from you, except to be wary of con
artists playing to the gallery, which is your stock in trade. If it
wasn't for Google, you'd have nothing to say.

D. Spencer Hines

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

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 15 nov 2007 08:01:17

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."...

Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United States". it
would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".

The Highlander
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's keep in mind THAT'S what Pogue Highlander has been asserting.

He keeps trying to weasel away from it -- and throw out red herrings,
insults and strawmen.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Gjest

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 nov 2007 08:09:02

In a message dated 11/14/2007 10:45:26 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

Regardless, the church's
position on the matter regarding a LEGAL contract is very clear. What
is unclear is the issue as to when the marriage was to be consumated.


----------------
If it's *very* clear, then it should be *very* easy for you to cite an
authority on the matter.

Will Johnson



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

James Hogg

Re: Sensible Simulposting

Legg inn av James Hogg » 15 nov 2007 17:07:26

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 06:50:23 -0800 (PST), John Brandon
<starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote:

The problem is, in your theatre visits, X-Rated or not, your always
sure to be using an empty popcorn box....

Ewwww, all that fake butter everywhere ...

.... a widespread problem when it comes from a man who advocates
"thinking outside the box" while aiming at a global audience in
multiple theatres.

James

The Highlander

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

Legg inn av The Highlander » 15 nov 2007 17:36:43

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 07:01:17 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
<panther@excelsior.com> wrote:

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."...

Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United States". it
would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".

The Highlander
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's keep in mind THAT'S what Pogue Highlander has been asserting.

He keeps trying to weasel away from it -- and throw out red herrings,
insults and strawmen.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum


You're so full of shit that your eyes must be brown.

Larry Swain

Re: Sensible Simulposting

Legg inn av Larry Swain » 15 nov 2007 17:50:26

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Some readers SHOULD be filtered out...

INDEED!

Because they are not in the intended audience.

What happened to the Free Market of Ideas? If you start filtering, you
no longer have a free market.
If they filter THEMSELVES out that is to be welcomed and applauded.


Oh, how we wish you would. We'd probably even applaud you.

The Highlander

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

Legg inn av The Highlander » 15 nov 2007 17:58:02

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 04:20:47 +0200, Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr>
wrote:

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
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."...

Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United States". it
would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".

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

So, just as I've previously pointed out, the assertions supra are:

Blithering Nonsense...

As well as:

Errant Codswallop, Balderdash & Twaddle.

How Sweet It Is!

Pogue Highlander [Michael Paterson] has been hoist with his own petar...

And he has made no effort at all to vindicate himself by defending what he
wrote above with EVIDENCE -- buttressed with discrete, relevant QUOTATIONS
and CITATIONS -- as I've done in the initial post to this thread.

Wikipedia. Right.



He has clearly screwed the pooch on this one.

No. Mr. Hines, that's your line of country, not mine.

I'm amazed that you have the gall to show your face in this group
after we all read the details of the Great Exposé.
The hilarious thing about it is that this matter concerns his allegedly
Native SCOTLAND, about which he is so PROUD.

Clearly, he simply doesn't know his Scottish History -- and only attended a
secondary school -- but apparently never went to university.

Clearly, you simply don't know your Scottish History -- and only
attended an American school.

Thank you for taking my side Renia - and by the way, have no fears -
this post is certified bestiality-free!


So, his Ignorance has Compounded over the years....

Which means he offers Great Entertainment Value.

Deeeeeeeelightful!...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum


Mr. Hines, during your intensive course of Scottish studies, I gather

you have not delved deeply enough to have learned that when you insult
someone like me, it is never forgotten and never forgiven.

Many people think we are the most vicious people in the world when it
comes to retaliating against someone defaming our honour.

So let me ask you a question: How did Mrs. Hines react on hearing she
has competition - and that it doesn't walk on two legs?

The Highlander

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

Legg inn av The Highlander » 15 nov 2007 18:13:41

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 02:36:53 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
<panther@excelsior.com> wrote:

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

The only pig around here Hines is your Companion of the Moment as
featured in alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.interracial/ínterspecial.

You'll be getting a few knowing winks from now on when you're copping
salutes at the Kaneohe/Kailua commissary, I'd imagine.

I've already had my Border Collie fitted with anti-Hines gear which
clamps round her waist to protect her from unwanted rear-end advances
and from now on I shall be going nowhere without clutching my trusty
spray can of "Down David!"

The Highlander

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

Legg inn av The Highlander » 15 nov 2007 18:33:51

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 07:01:17 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
<panther@excelsior.com> wrote:

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."...

Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United States". it
would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".

The Highlander
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's keep in mind THAT'S what Pogue Highlander has been asserting.

He keeps trying to weasel away from it -- and throw out red herrings,
insults and strawmen.

Here's a pretty young interracial sweetheart for you to get into!

As a farmer's boy, I can tell you she's ready for some hot locker room
gear stick action!

With your genuine imitation plastic, flashing Koh-i-Noor diamond front
and centre on your Guru Turban, she'll find you irresistible!
http://www.thepigpage.com/marek/images/ ... ow32-8.jpg


My inkwell. Cute, eh?
http://www.kermijul.pe.kr/10-dandelion/snake.jpg

The Highlander

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

Legg inn av The Highlander » 15 nov 2007 19:08:59

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 04:20:47 +0200, Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr>
wrote:

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
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."...

Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United States". it
would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".

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

So, just as I've previously pointed out, the assertions supra are:

Blithering Nonsense...

As well as:

Errant Codswallop, Balderdash & Twaddle.

How Sweet It Is!

Pogue Highlander [Michael Paterson] has been hoist with his own petar...

And he has made no effort at all to vindicate himself by defending what he
wrote above with EVIDENCE -- buttressed with discrete, relevant QUOTATIONS
and CITATIONS -- as I've done in the initial post to this thread.

Wikipedia. Right.



He has clearly screwed the pooch on this one.

The hilarious thing about it is that this matter concerns his allegedly
Native SCOTLAND, about which he is so PROUD.

Clearly, he simply doesn't know his Scottish History -- and only attended a
secondary school -- but apparently never went to university.

Here's my school, Hines.
http://www.merchiston.co.uk/

And here's where I did Law.
http://www.ubc.ca/

And here's where you failed your degree course...
http://www.yale.edu/

And here's where your career came to a grinding halt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor

Clearly, you simply don't know your Scottish History -- and only
attended an American school.

Ah yes, the Junior Hines alma mater!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/educa ... hools.html

Perhaps you'd be good eouigh to post your family tree so we can all
have a good sneer. I'm especially interested in your ancestor who ran
the whorehouse in Alabama. I'm also anxious to make it crystal clear
that you have no connection with either side of my family. Apart from
anything else, we never did herd pigs for profit - or recreation...


So, your Ignorance has Compounded over the years....

Which means you offer Great Entertainment Value.

Deeeeeeeelightful!...

MP.
Whose signet ring bears the motto, Dominus Providebit - the Lord will

provide. He's done a fair job so far, but given the Great Exposé, He's
suddenly really started to pile on the pleasure!!

I think I feel another song about you coming on...

Before I go though, how come there are so many part-German,
part-native people living in Hawai'i? I do hope we won't be getting
into any "von Heinz" nonsense - the Almanach de Gotha is only an arm's
length away from me. We can't have people mistaking you for a
gentleman - obviously the USN didn't think you were or you'd still be
employed.
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
There's been very little of that in your posting history on Usenet.

Like, "None?"

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
Now you've got yourself pegged!


Cuiusvis hominis est errare; nullius nisi insipientis in errore
perseverare - anyone can make a mistake; only a fool keeps making the
same one.

Douglas Richardson

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 15 nov 2007 19:56:03

On Nov 15, 12:07 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/14/2007 10:45:26 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

royalances...@msn.com writes:

Regardless, the church's
position on the matter regarding a LEGAL contract is very clear. What
is unclear is the issue as to when the marriage was to be consumated.

----------------
If it's *very* clear, then it should be *very* easy for you to cite an
authority on the matter.

Will Johnson

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

This has been hashed out in earlier threads, Will. You can find many
posts regarding this issue in the archives of soc.genealogy.medieval.

DR

Gjest

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 nov 2007 19:57:03

Since Canon law is at issue, lets see what Pope Alexander says

C.10 Alexander III to the Archbishop of Genoa
" A contract before puberty, even with attempted carnal intercourse, does
not create matrimony."


Note the "even WITH attempted carnal intercourse", so any claim that they
did have sex of whatever sort, before puberty, did not make them married.

Will Johnson



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

Douglas Richardson

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 15 nov 2007 20:25:04

On Nov 15, 11:52 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
Since Canon law is at issue, lets see what Pope Alexander says

C.10 Alexander III to the Archbishop of Genoa
" A contract before puberty, even with attempted carnal intercourse, does
not create matrimony."

Note the "even WITH attempted carnal intercourse", so any claim that they
did have sex of whatever sort, before puberty, did not make them married.

Will Johnson

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

You're fully aware that couples were contracted to marry all the time
in medieval England before puberty. In fact, in the lawsuit in
question, one of the girls' husbands stated that he had married her at
age eight and he claimed this was a valid marriage. He won the case,
by the way. I might remind you that had his marriage not been
legal, then he would have had no standing whatsoever before the law.

DR

Le Bateman

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Le Bateman » 15 nov 2007 21:18:40

Mary de Bohun, who was 10 years of age when she married
Henry Bolingbroke, did her parents give written consent? Or did she reach
maturity early. Did he commit sometype a crime by marrying a minor? They
had ten children and she died at the age of 24.
Le

Gjest

Re: Maud Fitzalan

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 nov 2007 23:02:02

Dear Douglas,
I realize that being the author of two enormous tomes
with a third likely well on it`s way to completion must do terrifying things to
One`s Ego, it becoming so swollen and bloated from all that delicious
applause , praise and adulation. While I expect it shall be very interesting please
remember two things
1. The Only true Authorities on Medieval genealogy have been
dead these long centuries past.
2. Massive Ego looks good on no one.
Oh, If a Number of Persons are sufficiently interested in what You may report
on... especially if They don`t care to comment and get in a great argument
because their Latin is better than yours and They disagree with your assessment
of what it means. Be Happy !
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA




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

Bill Arnold

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

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 15 nov 2007 23:44:03

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
"The hilarious thing about it is that this matter concerns his allegedly
Native SCOTLAND, about which he is so PROUD. Clearly, he simply
doesn't know his Scottish History -- and only attended a
secondary school -- but apparently never went to university."

--- Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
"Clearly, you simply don't know your Scottish History -- and only
attended an American school."

BA: No American would EVER claim a *handle* such as
"D. Spencer Hines." Not EVEN in SoHo or Palm Bleach!
The Donald would NEVER let him cross the threshold
of Mar-a-lago! The US Social Security Administration
would NOT issue him a card as a member of our society.


Bill

*****


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

Bill Arnold

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

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 16 nov 2007 00:18:04

--- The Highlander <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote:
[ referring to D. Spencer Hines ]
"It is an argument which is certainly not going to be resolved by an
elderly, disgraced, USN Commander eking out his days in Kailua by
trying to score retaliation brownie points on Usenet at the expense of
others, such as myself."

BA: Ah, yes, we come to the meat of the matter, for a gen-medieval
forum: IDENTITY. And, so, I take it that our fake Americano-Brit is
olde, infamous, vet, retired? Interesante. I have NO fear of him,
so why should anyone? I too am olde, not infamous, vet, retired.
But then I AM cognoscenti, and he is NOT!

Bill

*****


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

Bill Arnold

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 16 nov 2007 00:28:03

--- Vance Mead <vance.mead@mead.inet.fi> wrote:

I can't give a source, but I've read in several places that the usual
age for consent and consummation was about 12 or 13 for girls and 14
or 15 for boys. Of course, most people married quite a lot later. When
the parish records started, the average age of marriage was in the mid-
twenties for working people, a bit earlier for gentry.

BA: Well, finally we have a subject worthy of discussion on gen-medieval.
I have read here recently that certain lineages were in question based on
interpretation of the ages of the principals, and those ages were calculated
based on age of consent, in which someone appeared in a situation where
that person was named as an executor of a will, or that person was married,
et al. So: I agree, this subject needs some *scholarly* pursuit because it
puts to question many conclusions of pedigrees and lineages.

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: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 16 nov 2007 00:34:02

--- "AGw. (Usenet)" <frederick@southernskies.co.uk> wrote:
Blackstone's Commentaries has the ages as 12 for girls and 14 for
boys, a situation that was still unchanged as late as the 1920s. I
don't know for a fact that this also represented the law during the
middle ages, but it seems probable; marriage was almost entirely
unregulated by statute prior to the mid-eighteenth century (shortly
before when Blackstone was writing).

A footnote in Halsbury's 1st edition agrees with remarks made by
Blackstone:
"A marriage under the age of consent is not absolutely void, but only
voidable by either party on the person under age reaching the age of
consent".

Neither work cites either a statutory authority or a judgment for the
ages, which implies that they were a matter of long-established common
law in England.


BA: Certainly, a scholar has written on this matter? It seems to me that
normalcy of matters of marriage had something to do with the club coming
into the cave to take out the woman? Genetics, shall we say? So, this idea
of marriage of children had to have come about from ARRANGEMENT of
royals of their offspring to unite LAND. Surely, common folk were not into
these sorts of things.

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

Renia

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av Renia » 16 nov 2007 00:41:47

Bill Arnold wrote:

BA: Certainly, a scholar has written on this matter? It seems to me that
normalcy of matters of marriage had something to do with the club coming
into the cave to take out the woman? Genetics, shall we say? So, this idea
of marriage of children had to have come about from ARRANGEMENT of
royals of their offspring to unite LAND. Surely, common folk were not into
these sorts of things.

Two cows was better than one cow. Three is a small herd. In other words,
marriage was still a business arrangement, however far down the social
scale among those with assets.

wjhonson

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av wjhonson » 16 nov 2007 00:42:02

In this thread DR has stated that the marriage contract enabled the
bridge and groom to be considered "as man and wife", and typically
would then live together (i.e. under the same roof).

However he earlier states, and later as well, that since the lawsuit
states that they "lived together as man and wife" then means that they
slept in the same bed and had sex.

An careful reading shows the alternate interpretation, which DR gives
in his own words. The contract itself enabled them (in some cases at
least) to be considered "as man and wife", they did not also need to
sleep together.

In fact, since the girl, under the age of puberty, would be hopelessly
compromised should she lose her virginity and *then* decide to nullify
the contract, which she could do, it would be very bizarre that a
guardian would allow or contemplate such a thing.

Will Johnson

Bill Arnold

Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 16 nov 2007 00:45:05

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

Dear Merilyn,

Richardson and Hines have no shame. By edging out people they expect to
become the big fish, but it will be a very small pond.

By edging out people who critise Richardson simply will mean that Richardson
is always right and become the big genealogical guru he already thinks he
is. Only gullible people will remain and be in awe of the _oh so
knowledgeable_ Mr. Richardson, and then he will sell even more books, the
books he regularly touts on gen-med.

Richardson is trying to high-jack gen-med for his selfish reasons. His
simulposting games are just to taunt Todd Farmerie and Don Stone.
I really wonder about his sanity, his indecent behaviour is already known,
where will he lead himself? A nervous breakdown? It will be self inflicted.
And in the mean time Gen-Med already damaged by Hines goes even further down
the gurgler.

If only we could start afresh, and do without these two.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas


BA: I came to gen-medieval to seek assistance on my medieval ancestors.
No doubt: Robert Peck of Beccles, erstwhile of elsewhere, was of the era:
and for that I say I am in the right place. I find Douglas Richardson and
Leo van de Pas, when they post on genealogy of the Medieval period to be
scholars. I do NOT understand the quibbling between them, and others.
Sure, I KNOW what underlies the matter: but I am sure I speak for many,
they are scholars and their scholarship is appreciated. The ad hominems
I read, smile a little, and MOVE ON! It is like watching EXTRA, EXTRA! in the
USA or reading a tabbie, something you expect between Americans and Brits!
Love em, or leave em. I love it: as an Brit once told me: it is an Englishism,
so just accept it. Now: as to D. Spencer Hines, he will SELF-destruct upon
his own delusions, hoisted upon his own pitard. At times I delete him faster
than a speeding bullet, and at other times, I read his garbage to make myself
realize this world is full of nuts and the chipmunks are merrier for them.

Bill

*********


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

wjhonson

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av wjhonson » 16 nov 2007 00:52:02

On Nov 15, 12:18 pm, "Le Bateman" <LeBate...@att.net> wrote:
Mary de Bohun, who was 10 years of age when she married
Henry Bolingbroke, did her parents give written consent? Or did she reach
maturity early. Did he commit sometype a crime by marrying a minor? They
had ten children and she died at the age of 24.
Le

----------
And for a contrary opinion, Mary was born about 1369, and they had
seven children. This is stated on Wikipedia.

Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson

Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 16 nov 2007 00:59:01

On Nov 15, 4:42 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

< Now: as to D. Spencer Hines, he will SELF-destruct upon
< his own delusions, hoisted upon his own pitard.

< Bill

It hasn't happened so far, Bill. I wouldn't hold your breath.

DR

Bill Arnold

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 16 nov 2007 01:04:02

--- Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Bill Arnold wrote:


BA: Certainly, a scholar has written on this matter? It seems to me that
normalcy of matters of marriage had something to do with the club coming
into the cave to take out the woman? Genetics, shall we say? So, this idea
of marriage of children had to have come about from ARRANGEMENT of
royals of their offspring to unite LAND. Surely, common folk were not into
these sorts of things.

Two cows was better than one cow. Three is a small herd. In other words,
marriage was still a business arrangement, however far down the social
scale among those with assets.


BA: I do understand that. But surely not at the age of 7 among common folk?
I have ancestors in the 19thC in America who married at 13-14 but then that
was normal back then because the genes kick in at that age, and even did back
then. And once the genes kick in, the individual is ON HIS OR HER OWN so to
speak: otherwise there would not be so many unwed mothers. So, please do
not tell me that in merrie ole England of the Medieval period common folk
arranged for 4 years olds to marry? If so, well, my mind must accept it.

Bill

*******




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

Douglas Richardson

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 16 nov 2007 01:15:04

On Nov 15, 4:40 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

< In this thread DR has stated that the marriage contract enabled the
< bridge and groom to be considered "as man and wife", and typically
< would then live together (i.e. under the same roof).
<
< However he earlier states, and later as well, that since the lawsuit
< states that they "lived together as man and wife" then means that
they
< slept in the same bed and had sex.

You keep ignoring what I said. Had the man and the 9 year old girl
not consumated the marriage, and they only be contracted to marry, she
would have been living with her guardian, not her husband to be.
Living together as "man and wife" for three years presumes the couple
were sharing a bed. It's that simple.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Bill Arnold

Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 16 nov 2007 01:16:02

--- Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

On Nov 15, 4:42 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Now: as to D. Spencer Hines, he will SELF-destruct upon
his own delusions, hoisted upon his own pitard.

Bill

It hasn't happened so far, Bill. I wouldn't hold your breath.

DR


BA: Oh, the inadequacies of language. What I meant to say, IS:
I own a few message boards on Yahoo! and have posted on SHAKSPER
and other heavy-hitting boards before I came to gen-medieval. There
is NO doubt that D. Spencer Hines *poses* as a nut for chipmunks; we
all SEE that and KNOW that: and therefore, nobody leaves this message
board because of him. They DELETE him and MOVE on! There is real
SUBSTANCE on gen-medieval and those who are here for the substance
continue to READ it and quibble, if they must, but take the gleanings
with the verbiage along the way. I respect anyone on gen-medieval
who gives me substance on medieval matters: including yourself,
Leo, Will, John Higgins, Renia, and a host of others, too numerous to
mention.

Bill

*******






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

Douglas Richardson

Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 16 nov 2007 01:21:02

On Nov 15, 5:13 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

< BA: Oh, the inadequacies of language. What I meant to say, IS:
< I own a few message boards on Yahoo! and have posted on SHAKSPER
< and other heavy-hitting boards before I came to gen-medieval.
<
< Bill

I descend from the Shakespeare family. So does our respected list
owner, Don Stone.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Renia

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av Renia » 16 nov 2007 01:22:02

Douglas Richardson wrote:

On Nov 15, 4:40 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

In this thread DR has stated that the marriage contract enabled the
bridge and groom to be considered "as man and wife", and typically
would then live together (i.e. under the same roof).

However he earlier states, and later as well, that since the lawsuit
states that they "lived together as man and wife" then means that
they
slept in the same bed and had sex.

You keep ignoring what I said. Had the man and the 9 year old girl
not consumated the marriage, and they only be contracted to marry, she
would have been living with her guardian, not her husband to be.
Living together as "man and wife" for three years presumes the couple
were sharing a bed. It's that simple.

Not necessarily. Some daughters were sent to the future in-laws to live
to learn the ways of that family, not her own.

Leo van de Pas

Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 16 nov 2007 01:22:10

Dear Bill,

If there is an offering of pearls and swines, it is worthwhile staying, but
when the swines trample on the pearls and only swines remain, whyever stay?

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan


--- Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

On Nov 15, 4:42 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Now: as to D. Spencer Hines, he will SELF-destruct upon
his own delusions, hoisted upon his own pitard.

Bill

It hasn't happened so far, Bill. I wouldn't hold your breath.

DR


BA: Oh, the inadequacies of language. What I meant to say, IS:
I own a few message boards on Yahoo! and have posted on SHAKSPER
and other heavy-hitting boards before I came to gen-medieval. There
is NO doubt that D. Spencer Hines *poses* as a nut for chipmunks; we
all SEE that and KNOW that: and therefore, nobody leaves this message
board because of him. They DELETE him and MOVE on! There is real
SUBSTANCE on gen-medieval and those who are here for the substance
continue to READ it and quibble, if they must, but take the gleanings
with the verbiage along the way. I respect anyone on gen-medieval
who gives me substance on medieval matters: including yourself,
Leo, Will, John Higgins, Renia, and a host of others, too numerous to
mention.

Bill

*******







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

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

Douglas Richardson

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 16 nov 2007 01:23:03

On Nov 15, 4:50 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

< And for a contrary opinion, Mary was born about 1369, and they had
< seven children. This is stated on Wikipedia.
<
< Will Johnson

Will believes everything he reads on the internet. That's why he's an
authority, and I'm not.

DR

Renia

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Renia » 16 nov 2007 01:27:38

Douglas Richardson wrote:

On Nov 15, 4:50 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

And for a contrary opinion, Mary was born about 1369, and they had
seven children. This is stated on Wikipedia.

Will Johnson

Will believes everything he reads on the internet. That's why he's an
authority, and I'm not.

I don't think he was being "an authority". My take is he was just
illustrating one of the various sources for the various numbers of
children born to Mary Bohun.

Bill Arnold

Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 16 nov 2007 01:28:03

--- Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

On Nov 15, 5:13 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

BA: Oh, the inadequacies of language. What I meant to say, IS:
I own a few message boards on Yahoo! and have posted on SHAKSPER
and other heavy-hitting boards before I came to gen-medieval.

Bill

I descend from the Shakespeare family. So does our respected list
owner, Don Stone.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

BA: then you would both enjoy my book on Jesus and Will Shakespeare.
Google it.

Bill

*****









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

Douglas Richardson

Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 16 nov 2007 01:30:04

On Nov 15, 5:22 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:

< If there is an offering of pearls and swines, it is worthwhile
staying, but
< when the swines trample on the pearls and only swines remain,
whyever stay?

Egad! What a drama queen.

DR

Douglas Richardson

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 16 nov 2007 01:35:03

On Nov 15, 5:27 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 15, 4:50 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

And for a contrary opinion, Mary was born about 1369, and they had
seven children. This is stated on Wikipedia.

Will Johnson

Will believes everything he reads on the internet. That's why he's an
authority, and I'm not.

I don't think he was being "an authority". My take is he was just
illustrating one of the various sources for the various numbers of
children born to Mary Bohun.

Will was citing the internet as if it was a primary source. Doesn't
that strike you as odd, Renia?

DR

Renia

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Renia » 16 nov 2007 01:39:59

Douglas Richardson wrote:

On Nov 15, 5:27 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:

On Nov 15, 4:50 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

And for a contrary opinion, Mary was born about 1369, and they had
seven children. This is stated on Wikipedia.

Will Johnson

Will believes everything he reads on the internet. That's why he's an
authority, and I'm not.

I don't think he was being "an authority". My take is he was just
illustrating one of the various sources for the various numbers of
children born to Mary Bohun.


Will was citing the internet as if it was a primary source. Doesn't
that strike you as odd, Renia?

Did he mention the words "primary source"? No, he didn't. He was
responding to one poster who had mentioned Mary Bohun had 10 children,
and another who said they only had 3 or 4 for her. As I said, I
understand him to be simply saying that any number and quality of
different types of sources give accounts of different numbers of childen
for her. In other words, it is unknown how many children she truly had.

We are all sitting here using the internet as a source, Douglas. The
historians and experienced genealogists among us know the difference
between the types of sources and how to evaluate them. All part of the
job spec.

Bill Arnold

Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 16 nov 2007 01:40:04

--- Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

On Nov 15, 5:08 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 15, 3:56 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Douglas Richardson's material could

form valuable subjects for discussion but he cannot take criticism or
accept that his historical knowledge lacks somewhat.

This is utter balderdash, Renia. A good debate never hurt anyone.
Says me.

At least we agree on the value of debate. We are all here to learn.

Well, some of us are. I'm not sure about Peter's shill.

DR

BA: I wish you all could have sat in on my English classes :) One thing I
taught was the difference between facts, inferences and value judgments.
As gen-medieval is a *court* of public opinion, like an English class, it
should share the freedom of academic freedom. I taught students that
I know everything and have the answer to every question: when a bright-
eyed bushy-tailed D. Spencer Hines then raised his nutty hand and baited
me with a question nobody in the world could answer, I answered:
"I don't know." And therefore I taught my students my two answers to
every question answer. You either know or you don't know. Now my
point is: I do NOT know about gen-medieval and that is why I am here:
to educate myself. I come with a goal. Therefore a fact put before me
is a *fact* until it is set aside by a better fact. For instance, I might write
that Napoleon was crowned Emperor in Caesar plus-code of 1803, and
raise the hackles of an historian. If I said 1803 it would BE a fact until
someone said 1804. So, which is it? It has nothing to do with inference
or value judgment: which so many on this list get sidetracked with. But
as members of this court of opinion, through the constant messages to
the thread, a common inference can be drawn as to the truth of the matter
of a question. I know personally that personalities and personal agendas
rule a lot of the dialogue. That is to be expected. We are only one step
above the apes. But we are evolving :)

Bill

*****










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

Renia

Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan

Legg inn av Renia » 16 nov 2007 01:48:06

Bill Arnold wrote:

--- Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:


On Nov 15, 5:08 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:

On Nov 15, 3:56 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Douglas Richardson's material could

form valuable subjects for discussion but he cannot take criticism or
accept that his historical knowledge lacks somewhat.

This is utter balderdash, Renia. A good debate never hurt anyone.
Says me.

At least we agree on the value of debate. We are all here to learn.

Well, some of us are. I'm not sure about Peter's shill.

DR


BA: I wish you all could have sat in on my English classes :) One thing I
taught was the difference between facts, inferences and value judgments.
As gen-medieval is a *court* of public opinion, like an English class, it
should share the freedom of academic freedom. I taught students that
I know everything and have the answer to every question: when a bright-
eyed bushy-tailed D. Spencer Hines then raised his nutty hand and baited
me with a question nobody in the world could answer, I answered:
"I don't know." And therefore I taught my students my two answers to
every question answer. You either know or you don't know.

Better to teach your students how to find out what it is they want to
know, whether you actually know the answer yourself or not.

Now my
point is: I do NOT know about gen-medieval and that is why I am here:
to educate myself. I come with a goal. Therefore a fact put before me
is a *fact* until it is set aside by a better fact. For instance, I might write
that Napoleon was crowned Emperor in Caesar plus-code of 1803, and
raise the hackles of an historian. If I said 1803 it would BE a fact until
someone said 1804. So, which is it?

It would be a wrong fact. Until you have done the research and are
_sure_ of your facts, it is merely an idea, not a fact.

(And let's not get into the "there are no facts in history" debate!)

Bill Arnold

Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 16 nov 2007 01:50:04

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

Dear Bill,

If there is an offering of pearls and swines, it is worthwhile staying, but
when the swines trample on the pearls and only swines remain, whyever stay?

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


BA: You, too, ought to read my book on Jesus and Will Shakespeare.
Jesus did say, “Cast not pearls before swine.” The general interpretation is that
"Jesus appears to be warning his disciples to preach only before receptive audiences."
But Jesus was also criticized by his disciples for hanging out with thieves and
publicans, and noted that they are those who most need healing. So, Leo, I
say to you: THIS forum is where you will find scholars giving and taking about
genealogy of the medieval period. And I might add: Period. I think I will stay.





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

Bill Arnold

Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 16 nov 2007 01:55:05

--- Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:

On Nov 15, 5:08 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:

On Nov 15, 3:56 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Douglas Richardson's material could

form valuable subjects for discussion but he cannot take criticism or
accept that his historical knowledge lacks somewhat.

This is utter balderdash, Renia. A good debate never hurt anyone.
Says me.

At least we agree on the value of debate. We are all here to learn.


Well, some of us are. I'm not sure about Peter's shill.

I really cannot understand why some people have a go at Leo. He has
worked hard for decades to produce material of use and benefit to many.
As have you, Douglas. We've all been sgm buddies for years. Why the
bickering? It only amuses you-know-who and gives him stuff to troll with.


BA: hear, hear! This DECORUM question reminds of sitting in *faculty* meetings.
Our Chair of the English department used to suddenly stop all the bickering of
MAs and MFAs and Ph.Ds. with the curt snort, "Are we going to fish or cut bait?"

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

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»