Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 nov 2007 01:57:01

On Nov 15, 3:32 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

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.


In the medieval period, there are virtually no records of 'common
folk' - everyone for whom we have records was of the class where these
things were arranged. (Not just royals though - anyone with property
would have wanted to arrange its disposition.)

taf

Bill Arnold

Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 16 nov 2007 02:08:02

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

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!)



BA: Renia, you missed that "Caesar plus-code of 1803"?
Watch out, as ole DSH will clue us all in.

Bill
who was in crypto in the service...





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

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud Fitzalan

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 16 nov 2007 02:09:02

My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Nov 15, 2:59 pm, Jwc1...@aol.com wrote:
< 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.

Funny - I don't remember the applause, praise, and adulation. Are you
sure you're not talking about someone else?

< Be Happy !

I'm very happy, thank you. I do Yoga regularly. Makes me very calm.

DR

Gjest

Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 nov 2007 02:13:02

On Nov 15, 4:37 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

BA: I wish you all could have sat in on my English classes :)

For someone explicitly unimpressed with the professorial credentials
of other posters, you seem to mention your own with increasing
frequency. Anyhow, when a professor makes statements outside of his/
her area of expertise, their opinion has no particular special value
just because of their title.

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 isn't a court of public opinion, or any kind of court for that
matter.

taf

wjhonson

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av wjhonson » 16 nov 2007 02:35:04

On Nov 15, 4:39 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

----------------
Thank you Renia for the show of support.

Yes what I was saying was only to counter the unsupported statement
that she was born in 1370 or 1371 and had ten children, that there are
other unsupported statements that she was born abt 1369 and had only
seven.

Typically once we see that various sources say various things, we
would then move to the actual primary and/or secondary "reliable"
sources to see what they have to say. My Short History of England
doesn't mention how many children they had, and my volume of Costain's
History that deals with that time period must be at home :(

Will Johnson

wjhonson

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av wjhonson » 16 nov 2007 02:44:03

On Nov 15, 4:13 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> 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.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

So Douglas, since Mary Queen of Scots was sent to live with her
husband-to-be Francis when she was... six. Is it your opinion then,
that the night she arrived, at the age of 6, and began living *with
her husband*, that they had sex that night or the next day perhaps?

Will Johnson

wjhonson

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av wjhonson » 16 nov 2007 03:02:02

On Nov 15, 5:42 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
So Douglas, since Mary Queen of Scots was sent to live with her
husband-to-be Francis when she was... six. Is it your opinion then,
that the night she arrived, at the age of 6, and began living *with
her husband*, that they had sex that night or the next day perhaps?

Will Johnson

Anticipating that Richardson *might* respond with some form of logic
such as "they didn't actually LIVE together" or "what your proof that
they lived together", I submit this source
Henry Glassford Bell in his work "Life of Mary Queen of Scots"

where he states that Mary lived at the palace with all of her future
family, and in particular, he states that she and Francis were
playmates from childhood onwards, thereby dispelling any idea that
they didn't live in the same palace.

http://books.google.com/books?id=JnY0AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA67
About the early relationship between Mary and Francis, Henry Glassford
Bell in his work "Life of Mary Queen of Scots" states : "They had been
playmates since infancy; they had prosecuted all their studies
together; and though Francis cared little for the pleasures of
society, and rather shunned then encouraged those who wished to pay
their court to him, Mary was aware that for this very reason he was
only the more sincere in his passion for her."

Will Johnson

mhollick@mac.com

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av mhollick@mac.com » 16 nov 2007 03:07:02

But why cite to wikipedia? Even a search of google books gives you a
more reliable Britannica entry:
http://books.google.com/books?id=KGcEAA ... enry+iv%22


Typically once we see that various sources say various things, we
would then move to the actual primary and/or secondary "reliable"
sources to see what they have to say. My Short History of England
doesn't mention how many children they had, and my volume of Costain's
History that deals with that time period must be at home :(

Will Johnson

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 16 nov 2007 10:29:02

On 16 nov, 01:56, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
On Nov 15, 3:32 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

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.

In the medieval period, there are virtually no records of 'common
folk' - everyone for whom we have records was of the class where these
things were arranged. (Not just royals though - anyone with property
would have wanted to arrange its disposition.)

taf

Of course, by "medieval period", you have here in mind the early
medieval period, since for the 14th and 15th centuries we have plenty
of records on the marriages of comparatively "common" folks.

Pierre

Leticia Cluff

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

Legg inn av Leticia Cluff » 16 nov 2007 15:26:09

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:09:39 -0800 (PST), "pierre_aronax@hotmail.com"
<pierre_aronax@hotmail.fr> wrote:

On 15 nov, 20:44, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 15, 9:41 am, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 12, 6:19 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Amice of Gloucester, whom you cite, above. The medieval courts
were
rife
with women whose marriages were annulled by their husbands but
who
chose
to fight the annullment. An annullment meant a marriage had
never
legally taken place so the woman remained as a single woman.

You use the word annulment. Can you cite some medieval examples
of
that for us?

Annulment is the modern term for the concept - I thought you were in
favour
of modernising terms? Which modern terms would you use for the
following?
Your choices are: divorce, annulment, judicial separation.

divortium [divorcium] a mensa et thoro

divortium [divorcium] tori et cohabitationis

divortium [divorcium] a vinculo matrimonii

separatio quoad torum

separatio quoad cohabitationem

declaratio ad matrimonii nullitatem

dispensatio ab alterutro vel utroque coniuge

Can you give us some examples of annulment in medieval England, John?

Can you give us some examples of anything other than annulment?
--
John Briggs- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -

Of course he can not: a peculiarity of Western medieval marriage is
that it can not be dissolved except in rare cases. So there can only
be annulments.

Pierre


Looking at the only reference work I have at hand just now, I can
report what the Oxford English Dictionary says about the word "annul."

Under sense 3, "To destroy the force or validity of; to render void in
law, declare invalid or of none effect," there is a quotation from
1531: "The first marriage was annulled by that divorce."

That is a post-medieval (only just) reference. The dictionary has no
medieval examples.

This doesn't say very much, of course. There could be earlier examples
of this English usage which the editors missed. Nor does it say
anything at all about the use of Latin "annullare" in medieval times
with reference to marriage.

Tish

John Briggs

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

Legg inn av John Briggs » 16 nov 2007 16:08:22

Leticia Cluff wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:09:39 -0800 (PST), "pierre_aronax@hotmail.com"
pierre_aronax@hotmail.fr> wrote:
On 15 nov, 20:44, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 15, 9:41 am, "John Briggs" wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 12, 6:19 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Amice of Gloucester, whom you cite, above. The medieval courts were
rife with women whose marriages were annulled by their husbands but
who chose to fight the annullment. An annullment meant a marriage
had never legally taken place so the woman remained as a single
woman.

You use the word annulment. Can you cite some medieval examples of
that for us?

Annulment is the modern term for the concept - I thought you were in
favour of modernising terms? Which modern terms would you use for the
following?
Your choices are: divorce, annulment, judicial separation.

divortium [divorcium] a mensa et thoro

divortium [divorcium] tori et cohabitationis

divortium [divorcium] a vinculo matrimonii

separatio quoad torum

separatio quoad cohabitationem

declaratio ad matrimonii nullitatem

dispensatio ab alterutro vel utroque coniuge

Can you give us some examples of annulment in medieval England,
John?

Can you give us some examples of anything other than annulment?

Of course he can not: a peculiarity of Western medieval marriage is
that it can not be dissolved except in rare cases. So there can only
be annulments.

Looking at the only reference work I have at hand just now, I can
report what the Oxford English Dictionary says about the word "annul."

Under sense 3, "To destroy the force or validity of; to render void in
law, declare invalid or of none effect," there is a quotation from
1531: "The first marriage was annulled by that divorce."

That is a post-medieval (only just) reference. The dictionary has no
medieval examples.

This doesn't say very much, of course. There could be earlier examples
of this English usage which the editors missed. Nor does it say
anything at all about the use of Latin "annullare" in medieval times
with reference to marriage.

1531 is perfectly medieval enough for our purposes.

But some clear thinking (something sorely lacking on this newsgroup, and
also - it would seem - in the State of Utah) is required. A medieval sense
of the word "divorce" is being used to illustrate the modern meaning of the
word "annul"!

You would do better to look at what the OED says under "divorce".

Yes, they used the word "divorce" in the medieval period, but it would
(usually) mean what we now call "annulment". Divorce in the modern sense did
not exist in the medieval period. (In theory, of course. The practice was
remarkably similar to the present one where the Roman Catholic Church grants
annulments to Americans following a civil divorce.) All (or nearly all)
medieval "divorces" were what we would call "annulments". By 1531, "annul"
was being used in the modern sense, but the medieval use of "divorce" was
still used.

In modern terms, the 1531 quotation would be re-written: "The first marriage
was annulled by that Declaration of Nullity."
--
John Briggs

John Briggs

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

Legg inn av John Briggs » 16 nov 2007 17:26:51

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com wrote:
On 16 nov, 15:26, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:09:39 -0800 (PST), "pierre_aro...@hotmail.com"





pierre_aro...@hotmail.fr> wrote:
On 15 nov, 20:44, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 15, 9:41 am, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com
wrote: < Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 12, 6:19 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Amice of Gloucester, whom you cite, above. The medieval
courts were
rife
with women whose marriages were annulled by their husbands
but who
chose
to fight the annullment. An annullment meant a marriage had
never
legally taken place so the woman remained as a single woman.

You use the word annulment. Can you cite some medieval
examples of
that for us?

Annulment is the modern term for the concept - I thought you
were in favour
of modernising terms? Which modern terms would you use for the
following?
Your choices are: divorce, annulment, judicial separation.

divortium [divorcium] a mensa et thoro

divortium [divorcium] tori et cohabitationis

divortium [divorcium] a vinculo matrimonii

separatio quoad torum

separatio quoad cohabitationem

declaratio ad matrimonii nullitatem

dispensatio ab alterutro vel utroque coniuge

Can you give us some examples of annulment in medieval England,
John?

Can you give us some examples of anything other than annulment?
--
John Briggs- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -

Of course he can not: a peculiarity of Western medieval marriage is
that it can not be dissolved except in rare cases. So there can only
be annulments.

Pierre

Looking at the only reference work I have at hand just now, I can
report what the Oxford English Dictionary says about the word
"annul."

Under sense 3, "To destroy the force or validity of; to render void
in law, declare invalid or of none effect," there is a quotation from
1531: "The first marriage was annulled by that divorce."

That is not what an annullement is in canon law: an annullement
declares a marriage to have never existed (although strangely some of
its consequences can still exist). It is not a divorce in the modern
sense that is a dissolution of an existing marriage (this marriage
existed before, now it exists no more), although that also can happen
in few specific cases.

Yes, but the medieval term was "divorce" [divortium] - a more squeamish
Vatican now calls it "a declaration of nullity."
--
John Briggs

Francisco Tavares de Alme

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

Legg inn av Francisco Tavares de Alme » 16 nov 2007 17:30:05

On 16 Nov, 15:29, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
e by this method.
To annul a marriage, is and was to declared it void, as if it never
happened. This is not the same as divorce, which is to declare a
marriage did happen but is now over.

Almost perfect. Should be "as if it never happened between

themselves".
Against third parties - namely children born - the annuled marriage is
considered valid until the date of the decree of annulation so it
becomes the same as if it was a divorce.

Best regards,
Francisco

Gjest

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 nov 2007 17:45:05

On Nov 16, 8:16 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
BA: Well, you both have my support, as well. And my point was misunderstood
in a previous post. Restated: a fact is a fact until it is replaced by a better fact.

This is simply not the case, at least not by the definition of fact
you have been using. You would imply that any statement is a fact
until better information comes along, but I could invent something on
the spot, and it would not be fact just because no one knows any
better.

taf

Gjest

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 nov 2007 17:55:03

On Nov 16, 1:25 am, "pierre_aro...@hotmail.com"
<pierre_aro...@hotmail.fr> wrote:
On 16 nov, 01:56, t...@clearwire.net wrote:

In the medieval period, there are virtually no records of 'common
folk' - everyone for whom we have records was of the class where these
things were arranged. (Not just royals though - anyone with property
would have wanted to arrange its disposition.)

Of course, by "medieval period", you have here in mind the early
medieval period, since for the 14th and 15th centuries we have plenty
of records on the marriages of comparatively "common" folks.

It depends a little on where you are talking about, but In England,
you would be hard pressed to find anything prior to 1537. In most of
Germany (at least the parts I have worked with) you are unlikely to
find anything that old, while in Switzerland, there are tax records
that serve as census records for the period you talk about, but in
terms of documenting marriage, so they may represent an exception. In
Ireland, good luck finding anything on commoners prior to the 18th
century. As for France, I have only worked with Alsace, which I will
admit is not representative, but the available material only takes me
to the 1680s.

taf

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 16 nov 2007 18:15:08

On 16 nov, 17:53, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
On Nov 16, 1:25 am, "pierre_aro...@hotmail.com"

pierre_aro...@hotmail.fr> wrote:
On 16 nov, 01:56, t...@clearwire.net wrote:

In the medieval period, there are virtually no records of 'common
folk' - everyone for whom we have records was of the class where these
things were arranged. (Not just royals though - anyone with property
would have wanted to arrange its disposition.)

Of course, by "medieval period", you have here in mind the early
medieval period, since for the 14th and 15th centuries we have plenty
of records on the marriages of comparatively "common" folks.

It depends a little on where you are talking about, but In England,
you would be hard pressed to find anything prior to 1537. In most of
Germany (at least the parts I have worked with) you are unlikely to
find anything that old, while in Switzerland, there are tax records
that serve as census records for the period you talk about, but in
terms of documenting marriage, so they may represent an exception. In
Ireland, good luck finding anything on commoners prior to the 18th
century. As for France, I have only worked with Alsace, which I will
admit is not representative, but the available material only takes me
to the 1680s.

For what is of France, I think judiciary archives, particularly the
register of the Parliament of Paris, contain plenty of materials.
However, I was rather thinking of more Mediterranean countries where
notarial archives are abundant: here one can find contract of
marriages, documents relating to dotes, dowries, even spouses
separations, etc.: they are not limited to the upper classes. The same
can be said I think of the judiciary records. I know little about
medieval England, but I am surprised there is nothing of that kind
prior to 1537. Even in Byzantium, where documents are generaly so
rare, the patriarcal register gives some good insight on marriage
through various ranks of the society in the 14th century (for the 13th
century, there is also the register of Demetrios Chomatianos,
archbishop of Achrida, which gives the same kind of information): of
course here we are not dealing with catholic marriage but with
orthodox marriage, which is a different animal, although there are
many similarities.

Pierre

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 16 nov 2007 18:22:04

On 16 nov, 17:22, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
--- wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
On Nov 15, 4:13 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> 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.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

So Douglas, since Mary Queen of Scots was sent to live with her
husband-to-be Francis when she was... six. Is it your opinion then,
that the night she arrived, at the age of 6, and began living *with
her husband*, that they had sex that night or the next day perhaps?

Will Johnson

BA: would someone *clarify* something for me about this topic. I have
NOT read anyone who has stated the TIME and PLACE of this concept
in context? Is this "Age to Marry in Medieval England" restricted to
England? Did it include Scotland and Ireland? The Continent: as far
away as to Italy? If we bring in marriages across countries, then was
this a hold-over concept of the Holy Roman Empire? Was it church law,
or was it court law, or both/neither? What were key dates when it began
and/or ended?

Civil marriage has its one rules of course, but at those times there
can not be a civil marriage without a proper religious marriage (the
contrary is not necessarily true, depending of the place). So,
basically what counts is canon law.

John Briggs

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

Legg inn av John Briggs » 16 nov 2007 18:22:57

Renia wrote:
Francisco Tavares de Almeida wrote:

On 16 Nov, 15:29, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
e by this method.

To annul a marriage, is and was to declared it void, as if it never
happened. This is not the same as divorce, which is to declare a
marriage did happen but is now over.


Almost perfect. Should be "as if it never happened between
themselves".
Against third parties - namely children born - the annuled marriage
is considered valid until the date of the decree of annulation so it
becomes the same as if it was a divorce.

A reminder, that the children of an anulled marriage are and were
deemed illegitimate and that would affect inheritance.

Well, no - they usually weren't.
--
John Briggs

John Briggs

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

Legg inn av John Briggs » 16 nov 2007 18:23:57

Renia wrote:
John Briggs wrote:

Francisco Tavares de Almeida wrote:

On 16 Nov, 15:29, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
e by this method.

To annul a marriage, is and was to declared it void, as if it never
happened. This is not the same as divorce, which is to declare a
marriage did happen but is now over.


Almost perfect. Should be "as if it never happened between
themselves".
Against third parties - namely children born - the annuled marriage
is considered valid until the date of the decree of annulation so it
becomes the same as if it was a divorce.


That's not right either. Their status is as if the marriage had been
valid - which was also the medieval position.

Absolutely and utterly not.

Can you be more precise?
--
John Briggs

Renia

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

Legg inn av Renia » 16 nov 2007 18:24:51

John Briggs wrote:

Renia wrote:

Leticia Cluff wrote:

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:09:39 -0800 (PST), "pierre_aronax@hotmail.com"
pierre_aronax@hotmail.fr> wrote:



On 15 nov, 20:44, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:


Douglas Richardson wrote:


On Nov 15, 9:41 am, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com
wrote: < Douglas Richardson wrote:


On Nov 12, 6:19 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:


Amice of Gloucester, whom you cite, above. The medieval
courts were
rife
with women whose marriages were annulled by their husbands
but who
chose
to fight the annullment. An annullment meant a marriage had
never
legally taken place so the woman remained as a single woman.

You use the word annulment. Can you cite some medieval
examples of
that for us?

Annulment is the modern term for the concept - I thought you
were in favour
of modernising terms? Which modern terms would you use for the
following?
Your choices are: divorce, annulment, judicial separation.

divortium [divorcium] a mensa et thoro

divortium [divorcium] tori et cohabitationis

divortium [divorcium] a vinculo matrimonii

separatio quoad torum

separatio quoad cohabitationem

declaratio ad matrimonii nullitatem

dispensatio ab alterutro vel utroque coniuge

Can you give us some examples of annulment in medieval England,
John?

Can you give us some examples of anything other than annulment?
--
John Briggs- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -

Of course he can not: a peculiarity of Western medieval marriage is
that it can not be dissolved except in rare cases. So there can only
be annulments.

Pierre



Looking at the only reference work I have at hand just now, I can
report what the Oxford English Dictionary says about the word
"annul." Under sense 3, "To destroy the force or validity of; to render
void
in law, declare invalid or of none effect," there is a quotation from
1531: "The first marriage was annulled by that divorce."

That is a post-medieval (only just) reference. The dictionary has no
medieval examples.

This doesn't say very much, of course. There could be earlier
examples of this English usage which the editors missed. Nor does it
say anything at all about the use of Latin "annullare" in medieval
times with reference to marriage.

One thing to remember during the medieval period was that Christians
were members of the Catholic Church and most of the Catholic Church
laws which apply today, applied then.


Yes and no. The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.

Not always.


It is a mistake to equate the medieval church with the modern Roman Catholic
Church, the changes caused by extreme evolution (particularly the
Counter-Reformation and Vatican II) are almost as great as the revolutionary
changes in other churches caused by the Reformation.

True enough, but with regard to marital annulments, I think we're on
safe ground. To bring in Reformation and Council of Trent changes where
they don't impinge on what we are discussing, just serves to cloud the
issue.


One of those, is divorce and annulment. The Catholic Church does not
and never did recognise divorce. This is why Henry VIII broke from
the Pope who would not allow him to annul his marriage to Katherine
of Aragon.
Today, as always, Catholics who have been divorced in civil law are
still seen as married in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Should two
(civilly) divorced Catholics wish to marry each other in a Catholic
Church, they cannot, for the Church would see this as bigamy. In civil
law, they can do what they like. They only way they can marry again
in a Catholic Church, is to have their first marriages annulled. Under
special circumstances, today, this is possible. I know one Catholic
man who is on his third wife by this method.

To annul a marriage, is and was to declared it void, as if it never
happened. This is not the same as divorce, which is to declare a
marriage did happen but is now over.


Catholic annulments are not the same as civil annulments, which clouds the
issue. (There's a punther, I think...)

I'm not talking about civil annulments. Don't know about them. A
Catholic annulment means the marriage "never happened".

Renia

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

Legg inn av Renia » 16 nov 2007 18:25:08

John Briggs wrote:

Francisco Tavares de Almeida wrote:

On 16 Nov, 15:29, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
e by this method.

To annul a marriage, is and was to declared it void, as if it never
happened. This is not the same as divorce, which is to declare a
marriage did happen but is now over.


Almost perfect. Should be "as if it never happened between
themselves".
Against third parties - namely children born - the annuled marriage is
considered valid until the date of the decree of annulation so it
becomes the same as if it was a divorce.


That's not right either. Their status is as if the marriage had been valid -
which was also the medieval position.

Absolutely and utterly not.

Renia

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

Legg inn av Renia » 16 nov 2007 18:30:04

John Briggs wrote:

Renia wrote:

Francisco Tavares de Almeida wrote:


On 16 Nov, 15:29, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
e by this method.


To annul a marriage, is and was to declared it void, as if it never
happened. This is not the same as divorce, which is to declare a
marriage did happen but is now over.


Almost perfect. Should be "as if it never happened between
themselves".
Against third parties - namely children born - the annuled marriage
is considered valid until the date of the decree of annulation so it
becomes the same as if it was a divorce.

A reminder, that the children of an anulled marriage are and were
deemed illegitimate and that would affect inheritance.


Well, no - they usually weren't.

You'd better get back to your Catechism of Christian Doctrine.

And read up about Henry VIII.

Renia

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

Legg inn av Renia » 16 nov 2007 18:30:50

John Briggs wrote:

Renia wrote:

John Briggs wrote:


Francisco Tavares de Almeida wrote:


On 16 Nov, 15:29, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
e by this method.


To annul a marriage, is and was to declared it void, as if it never
happened. This is not the same as divorce, which is to declare a
marriage did happen but is now over.


Almost perfect. Should be "as if it never happened between
themselves".
Against third parties - namely children born - the annuled marriage
is considered valid until the date of the decree of annulation so it
becomes the same as if it was a divorce.


That's not right either. Their status is as if the marriage had been
valid - which was also the medieval position.

Absolutely and utterly not.


Can you be more precise?

See my previous post, above.

John Briggs

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

Legg inn av John Briggs » 16 nov 2007 18:38:08

Renia wrote:
John Briggs wrote:

Renia wrote:

Leticia Cluff wrote:

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:09:39 -0800 (PST),
"pierre_aronax@hotmail.com" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.fr> wrote:



On 15 nov, 20:44, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:


Douglas Richardson wrote:


On Nov 15, 9:41 am, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com
wrote: < Douglas Richardson wrote:


On Nov 12, 6:19 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:


Amice of Gloucester, whom you cite, above. The medieval
courts were
rife
with women whose marriages were annulled by their husbands
but who
chose
to fight the annullment. An annullment meant a marriage
had never
legally taken place so the woman remained as a single
woman.
You use the word annulment. Can you cite some medieval
examples of
that for us?

Annulment is the modern term for the concept - I thought you
were in favour
of modernising terms? Which modern terms would you use for
the following?
Your choices are: divorce, annulment, judicial separation.

divortium [divorcium] a mensa et thoro

divortium [divorcium] tori et cohabitationis

divortium [divorcium] a vinculo matrimonii

separatio quoad torum

separatio quoad cohabitationem

declaratio ad matrimonii nullitatem

dispensatio ab alterutro vel utroque coniuge

Can you give us some examples of annulment in medieval England,
John?

Can you give us some examples of anything other than annulment?
--
John Briggs- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -

Of course he can not: a peculiarity of Western medieval marriage
is that it can not be dissolved except in rare cases. So there
can only be annulments.

Pierre



Looking at the only reference work I have at hand just now, I can
report what the Oxford English Dictionary says about the word
"annul." Under sense 3, "To destroy the force or validity of; to
render void
in law, declare invalid or of none effect," there is a quotation
from 1531: "The first marriage was annulled by that divorce."

That is a post-medieval (only just) reference. The dictionary has
no medieval examples.

This doesn't say very much, of course. There could be earlier
examples of this English usage which the editors missed. Nor does
it say anything at all about the use of Latin "annullare" in
medieval times with reference to marriage.

One thing to remember during the medieval period was that Christians
were members of the Catholic Church and most of the Catholic Church
laws which apply today, applied then.


Yes and no. The past is a foreign country: they do things
differently there.

Not always.


It is a mistake to equate the medieval church with the modern Roman
Catholic Church, the changes caused by extreme evolution
(particularly the Counter-Reformation and Vatican II) are almost as
great as the revolutionary changes in other churches caused by the
Reformation.

True enough, but with regard to marital annulments, I think we're on
safe ground. To bring in Reformation and Council of Trent changes
where they don't impinge on what we are discussing, just serves to
cloud the issue.


One of those, is divorce and annulment. The Catholic Church does not
and never did recognise divorce. This is why Henry VIII broke from
the Pope who would not allow him to annul his marriage to Katherine
of Aragon.
Today, as always, Catholics who have been divorced in civil law are
still seen as married in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Should two
(civilly) divorced Catholics wish to marry each other in a Catholic
Church, they cannot, for the Church would see this as bigamy. In
civil law, they can do what they like. They only way they can marry
again in a Catholic Church, is to have their first marriages
annulled. Under special circumstances, today, this is possible. I
know one Catholic man who is on his third wife by this method.

To annul a marriage, is and was to declared it void, as if it never
happened. This is not the same as divorce, which is to declare a
marriage did happen but is now over.

Catholic annulments are not the same as civil annulments, which
clouds the issue. (There's a punther, I think...)

I'm not talking about civil annulments. Don't know about them. A
Catholic annulment means the marriage "never happened".

You were on safer ground with your earlier definition: "as if it never
happened".
--
John Briggs

John Briggs

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

Legg inn av John Briggs » 16 nov 2007 18:59:00

Renia wrote:
John Briggs wrote:

Renia wrote:

Francisco Tavares de Almeida wrote:


On 16 Nov, 15:29, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
e by this method.


To annul a marriage, is and was to declared it void, as if it
never happened. This is not the same as divorce, which is to
declare a marriage did happen but is now over.


Almost perfect. Should be "as if it never happened between
themselves".
Against third parties - namely children born - the annuled marriage
is considered valid until the date of the decree of annulation so
it becomes the same as if it was a divorce.

A reminder, that the children of an anulled marriage are and were
deemed illegitimate and that would affect inheritance.

Well, no - they usually weren't.

You'd better get back to your Catechism of Christian Doctrine.

Date? Edition? Which particular part?

And read up about Henry VIII.

How is that relevant?
--
John Briggs

mhollick@mac.com

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av mhollick@mac.com » 16 nov 2007 19:16:03

I think in genealogy you may get away with such logic, but I wouldn't
say your rule is universal.

I'm not sure if my friend Marshall Kirk actually coined this phrase or
not. Former ancestors are those people whom you thought were your
ancestors, but through continued research are proven not to be. You
still have a special affinity for them, because you did spend time
researching them, perhaps even adding them to your family tree, before
that crucial document was found and they were summarily pruned off.

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 nov 2007 20:25:05

In a message dated 11/16/2007 8:15:34 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
francisco.tavaresdealmeida@gmail.com writes:

Against third parties - namely children born - the annuled marriage is
considered valid until the date of the decree of annulation so it
becomes the same as if it was a divorce.


----------------
There is at least one example, where the *ending* of a marriage, in this
time period, resulted in the children being declared illegitimate. So I'm not
sure about your response above.

Will Johnson



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

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 nov 2007 20:30:05

I think the point being made is, regardless of the fact that H8 split from
Rome over it, he still adopted the current concept that children of an annulled
marriage were illegitimate.

There are several references where Mary is called a bastard or illegitimate,
and then later on, Elizabeth is as well after her mother was beheaded. So
I'm sure these children grew up in a state of confusion, never knowing if they
were going to become immensely wealthy and powerful one day, to being
consigned to a convent the next.



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

Gjest

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 nov 2007 20:36:03

On Nov 16, 8:16 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

So, if a certain
woman according to lore had 10 children, and another source comes along and
claims 5, then the FACT(s) are in dispute.

Odd definition of 'fact'. There are those who would argue that nothing
in genealogy is fact unless it is documented by contemporary records.
"Lore" does not fall into that category.

[rearranged from original order]

I do NOT believe ad hominems add
anything to the discussion.

Apparently
some do not understand what a *metaphor* is, nor when they are used in
writing.

Umm. . . . . What is this ad hominem adding to the discussion?

That is what gen-medieval is all
about here: resolution of FACTS so we can get at our ancestors.

Is it, or is it about revealing facts?

And that is
what I meant by the "we are a *court* of public opinion" metaphor.

The problem with metaphors is that you may have one specific aspect of
a term in mind when you apply it, but in doing so you cannot help but
apply all of the other baggage that comes along with the words. That
"some" (by which he means me) do not tease out your particular
relevant needle hidden within the haystack of irrelevancy is the fault
of the metaphor, not of that misinformed individual who failed to get
your point.

You, it would seem, are using "court of public opinion" in the sense
that courts are charged with finding fact (an issue up for debate in
and of itself) and that the discussion is public, but "court of public
opinion" also implies a lot of other things that are not applicable.
For example, the "court of public opinion" is an indication of how the
general population feels about an issue. The problem is that the
general population is occasionally misinformed, and their conclusion
is not the fact, but only misperception. (Not to get into politics,
but the court of public opinion among the evangelical community in
America has concluded that there really were weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq at the time of the invasion. After all this time,
that is still the majority viewpoint, in spite of the total absence of
evidence in support of their position.) General consensus is not the
same as fact.

It is never a fact that a person had 10 children unless they had 10
children. It doesn't matter how long this misperception persists,
whether there are conflicting resolutions, nor whether it is the
overwhelming consensus. There are never conflicting facts, or they
wouldn't both be facts.

taf

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 nov 2007 20:45:04

On Nov 16, 11:27 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
I think the point being made is, regardless of the fact that H8 split from
Rome over it, he still adopted the current concept that children of an annulled
marriage were illegitimate.

Not according to the Act of Succession he drafted.


There are several references where Mary is called a bastard or illegitimate,

Called by whom?

The fact is, Henry was making it up as he went along, even, if only
briefly, considering illegitimate son Henry Fitz Henry as heir. The
problem with Mary was not her birth, it was her upbringing (Catholic),
but in the end, she was named senior heir to her brother, irrespective
of both.

and then later on, Elizabeth is as well after her mother was beheaded.

But not because her mother was beheaded (which is somewhat different
than an annulment). It was because she was conceived in adultery or
fornication, depending on your view of the marriage to Catherine.

So
I'm sure these children grew up in a state of confusion, never knowing if they
were going to become immensely wealthy and powerful one day, to being
consigned to a convent the next.

(or to Tower Hill)

taf

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 nov 2007 20:55:05

In a message dated 11/16/2007 11:45:44 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
taf@clearwire.net writes:

But not because her mother was beheaded (which is somewhat different
than an annulment). It was because she was conceived in adultery or
fornication, depending on your view of the marriage to Catherine.


-------------------
The first marriage was annulled, the second was legitimate while he wanted
it to be.
She wasn't declared a bastard because her mother was beheaded.
The second marriage was declared void as well.



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

Gjest

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 nov 2007 20:56:02

I agree with Todd and it seems we see the source of the issue with Bill's
FACTS.

A source may say "this and that" and a second source may say "that and
this". Bill would apparently call these both FACTs and say they are in conflict.
I think most of the readers however would say that they are conflicting
sources, statements, quotations, citations, but not facts.

Sometimes apparently conflicting sources can be seen to merge into a single
coherent representation, as we've recently seen in the dispute over who
exactly Maud FitzAlan married, Robert the Brus Sr? or Robert the Brus Jr (later
King). I feel more comfortable with the new representation, as DR has just
posted, then the previous one.

Sometimes apparently conflicting sources can be demonstrated to have no
merged resolution.

I can see vaguely the possibility that one of these agreed-upon
reconstructions could be seen as a FACT, but I'm just not in that camp. They are all
merely the current reconstruction until a conflicting source arises which needs
its proper handling. The new source may destroy a previous reconstruction
entirely, so all genealogy trembles before the idea that our ancestor may lose
her head and her children be declared illegitimate. That's the practice of
genealogy :)

Will Johnson



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

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

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

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 16 nov 2007 21:36:06

On 16 nov, 18:22, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Francisco Tavares de Almeida wrote:

On 16 Nov, 15:29, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
e by this method.

To annul a marriage, is and was to declared it void, as if it never
happened. This is not the same as divorce, which is to declare a
marriage did happen but is now over.

Almost perfect. Should be "as if it never happened between
themselves".
Against third parties - namely children born - the annuled marriage is
considered valid until the date of the decree of annulation so it
becomes the same as if it was a divorce.

A reminder, that the children of an anulled marriage are and were deemed
illegitimate and that would affect inheritance.

Actually, no, not in canon law at least: if the marriage is considered
putative, then children are legitimate as far as canon law is
concerned, despite the fact that the marriage never existed for other
purpose. Of course, that's a point about which canon law and civil law
can be in conflict, although it is less about the marriage itself than
about the legitimacy of the children (a question about which law
conflicts were frequent).

Pierre

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

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

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 16 nov 2007 21:50:06

On 16 nov, 17:26, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
pierre_aro...@hotmail.com wrote:
On 16 nov, 15:26, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:09:39 -0800 (PST), "pierre_aro...@hotmail.com"

pierre_aro...@hotmail.fr> wrote:
On 15 nov, 20:44, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 15, 9:41 am, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com
wrote: < Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 12, 6:19 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Amice of Gloucester, whom you cite, above. The medieval
courts were
rife
with women whose marriages were annulled by their husbands
but who
chose
to fight the annullment. An annullment meant a marriage had
never
legally taken place so the woman remained as a single woman.

You use the word annulment. Can you cite some medieval
examples of
that for us?

Annulment is the modern term for the concept - I thought you
were in favour
of modernising terms? Which modern terms would you use for the
following?
Your choices are: divorce, annulment, judicial separation.

divortium [divorcium] a mensa et thoro

divortium [divorcium] tori et cohabitationis

divortium [divorcium] a vinculo matrimonii

separatio quoad torum

separatio quoad cohabitationem

declaratio ad matrimonii nullitatem

dispensatio ab alterutro vel utroque coniuge

Can you give us some examples of annulment in medieval England,
John?

Can you give us some examples of anything other than annulment?
--
John Briggs- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -

Of course he can not: a peculiarity of Western medieval marriage is
that it can not be dissolved except in rare cases. So there can only
be annulments.

Pierre

Looking at the only reference work I have at hand just now, I can
report what the Oxford English Dictionary says about the word
"annul."

Under sense 3, "To destroy the force or validity of; to render void
in law, declare invalid or of none effect," there is a quotation from
1531: "The first marriage was annulled by that divorce."

That is not what an annullement is in canon law: an annullement
declares a marriage to have never existed (although strangely some of
its consequences can still exist). It is not a divorce in the modern
sense that is a dissolution of an existing marriage (this marriage
existed before, now it exists no more), although that also can happen
in few specific cases.

Yes, but the medieval term was "divorce" [divortium] - a more squeamish
Vatican now calls it "a declaration of nullity."

In Latin, "divortium" just means "separation" ("divortium itinerum"
for example is the parting of the ways): "divortium" is of course one
of the consequence of an annulment, although a separation can also
happen without annulment of the marriage.

John Briggs

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

Legg inn av John Briggs » 16 nov 2007 22:07:30

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com wrote:
On 16 nov, 17:26, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
pierre_aro...@hotmail.com wrote:
On 16 nov, 15:26, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:09:39 -0800 (PST),
"pierre_aro...@hotmail.com"

pierre_aro...@hotmail.fr> wrote:
On 15 nov, 20:44, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 15, 9:41 am, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com
wrote: < Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 12, 6:19 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Amice of Gloucester, whom you cite, above. The medieval
courts were
rife
with women whose marriages were annulled by their husbands
but who
chose
to fight the annullment. An annullment meant a marriage
had never
legally taken place so the woman remained as a single
woman.
You use the word annulment. Can you cite some medieval
examples of
that for us?

Annulment is the modern term for the concept - I thought you
were in favour
of modernising terms? Which modern terms would you use for
the following?
Your choices are: divorce, annulment, judicial separation.

divortium [divorcium] a mensa et thoro

divortium [divorcium] tori et cohabitationis

divortium [divorcium] a vinculo matrimonii

separatio quoad torum

separatio quoad cohabitationem

declaratio ad matrimonii nullitatem

dispensatio ab alterutro vel utroque coniuge

Can you give us some examples of annulment in medieval England,
John?

Can you give us some examples of anything other than annulment?
--
John Briggs- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -

Of course he can not: a peculiarity of Western medieval marriage
is that it can not be dissolved except in rare cases. So there
can only be annulments.

Pierre

Looking at the only reference work I have at hand just now, I can
report what the Oxford English Dictionary says about the word
"annul."

Under sense 3, "To destroy the force or validity of; to render void
in law, declare invalid or of none effect," there is a quotation
from 1531: "The first marriage was annulled by that divorce."

That is not what an annullement is in canon law: an annullement
declares a marriage to have never existed (although strangely some
of its consequences can still exist). It is not a divorce in the
modern sense that is a dissolution of an existing marriage (this
marriage existed before, now it exists no more), although that also
can happen in few specific cases.

Yes, but the medieval term was "divorce" [divortium] - a more
squeamish Vatican now calls it "a declaration of nullity."

In Latin, "divortium" just means "separation" ("divortium itinerum"
for example is the parting of the ways): "divortium" is of course one
of the consequence of an annulment, although a separation can also
happen without annulment of the marriage.

Yes, of course - there were different types of "divortium" ("divorcium"),
listed elsethread. But that was just the conclusion of the process, so the
name got attached to it. "Annulment" isn't quite right either, as the
process was to determine that the marriage had been null (and void -
although there are distinctions between "void" and "voidable") from the
start.
--
John Briggs

Bill Arnold

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 16 nov 2007 22:10:05

--- taf@clearwire.net wrote:

On Nov 16, 8:16 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

BA: Well, you both have my support, as well. And my point was misunderstood
in a previous post. Restated: a fact is a fact until it is replaced by a better fact.

This is simply not the case, at least not by the definition of fact
you have been using. You would imply that any statement is a fact
until better information comes along, but I could invent something on
the spot, and it would not be fact just because no one knows any
better.

BA: I beg to differ. That is precisely my point: a statement of fact is a fact.
Unless it flies in the face of reality. Anyone on this forum can make a statement
and it is fact until challenged, unless of course it flies in the face of reality.

Bill

*****




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

Renia

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

Legg inn av Renia » 16 nov 2007 22:24:13

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com wrote:

On 16 nov, 18:22, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Francisco Tavares de Almeida wrote:


On 16 Nov, 15:29, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
e by this method.

To annul a marriage, is and was to declared it void, as if it never
happened. This is not the same as divorce, which is to declare a
marriage did happen but is now over.

Almost perfect. Should be "as if it never happened between
themselves".
Against third parties - namely children born - the annuled marriage is
considered valid until the date of the decree of annulation so it
becomes the same as if it was a divorce.

A reminder, that the children of an anulled marriage are and were deemed
illegitimate and that would affect inheritance.


Actually, no, not in canon law at least: if the marriage is considered
putative, then children are legitimate as far as canon law is
concerned, despite the fact that the marriage never existed for other
purpose. Of course, that's a point about which canon law and civil law
can be in conflict, although it is less about the marriage itself than
about the legitimacy of the children (a question about which law
conflicts were frequent).

Interesting.

When my children were young, I wanted them to go to my old Catholic
school because it was the best state school in the neighbourhood. Being
a good (lapsed) Catholic, I decided to take them to Mass every week and
began discussions with the Priest about getting them into the school
where he was one of the Governors. He sat in my house, with his halo
shining brightly, and declared my husband should get his first (Church
of England) marriage anulled, because in the eyes of the Catholic
Church, we were not married. How would I like it, the Priest asked, when
our neighbours found out our children were illegitimate? I decided my
hypocrisy could go no further and sent the to them Church of England
school instead.

At about the same time, a female relative found a new boyfriend. He was
a good Catholic and was on his third wife, having had his previous two
marriages anulled. He was thinking of having the third anulled, because
he wanted to marry my relative, who had been married in a Catholic
Church but who had been civilly divorced. The relative thought about it
(being wary of his marital record) and looked into it. She, too, would
have to have her Catholic marriage anulled and her children would be
declared illegitimate. She told her boyfriend to go back to his wife.

Renia

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Renia » 16 nov 2007 22:27:40

Bill Arnold wrote:

--- taf@clearwire.net wrote:


On Nov 16, 8:16 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

BA: Well, you both have my support, as well. And my point was misunderstood
in a previous post. Restated: a fact is a fact until it is replaced by a better fact.

This is simply not the case, at least not by the definition of fact
you have been using. You would imply that any statement is a fact
until better information comes along, but I could invent something on
the spot, and it would not be fact just because no one knows any
better.


BA: I beg to differ. That is precisely my point: a statement of fact is a fact.

I am 176 years old. Fact.

Unless it flies in the face of reality.

OK.

Anyone on this forum can make a statement
and it is fact until challenged, unless of course it flies in the face of reality.

OK, King Harold was killed by getting an arrow in the eye at the Battle
of Hastings. Fact or myth?

Bill Arnold

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 16 nov 2007 22:30:05

--- taf@clearwire.net wrote:

On Nov 16, 8:16 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

So, if a certain
woman according to lore had 10 children, and another source comes along and
claims 5, then the FACT(s) are in dispute.

Odd definition of 'fact'. There are those who would argue that nothing
in genealogy is fact unless it is documented by contemporary records.
"Lore" does not fall into that category.


BA: You still do not get it. By definition: a statement of fact is a fact. On
this forum I am reading post by post, and one statement reads that children
of an annulled marriage are illegitimate and that affects inheritance. Someone
else writes a fact that that is not a fact. So: which is it. The fact(s) will only
be settled when the dispute is settled and the fact is fact. Guess what:
Ptolemy was wrong and Copernicus was right: the earth goes round the sun.

Bill

*****


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

wjhonson

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av wjhonson » 16 nov 2007 22:31:05

On Nov 16, 1:06 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

BA: I beg to differ. That is precisely my point: a statement of fact is a fact.
Unless it flies in the face of reality. Anyone on this forum can make a statement
and it is fact until challenged, unless of course it flies in the face of reality.

Bill

Bill you say "a statement of fact is a fact" which is a tautology as
you well known I'm sure.

We are here discussing "statements", whether they are "statements of
fact" or "FACTS" is the central point. So to argue that the case is
closed, while we are discussing it, only serves to show that that is a
fatal *miss* in your procedure.

We can know for a fact, that a source says "this and that"; however,
*we* cannot know "for a fact" that they are accurate when they say
it. So we, cannot state, that these statements are "statements of
fact". We can say that this source *states* it, but to go from that
to "its a fact" is a step we simply cannot make.

Not all statements are facts. Are you stating that all statements are
facts unless shown to be not facts? So every three-headed psychic
baby reported in "The World News" is reality unless I can show another
statement that it doesn't exist?

I don't think you're going to get many bandwagon-joiners with the idea
that every statement must be seen as a presumed fact unless
contradicted by another statement.

Will Johnson

Renia

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

Legg inn av Renia » 16 nov 2007 22:32:04

taf@clearwire.net wrote:

On Nov 16, 11:27 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:

I think the point being made is, regardless of the fact that H8 split from
Rome over it, he still adopted the current concept that children of an annulled
marriage were illegitimate.


Not according to the Act of Succession he drafted.


I think he drafted it precisely because Mary was deemed illegitimate. He
still wanted her to succeed Edward.



There are several references where Mary is called a bastard or illegitimate,


Called by whom?

Personally, can't think of any off the top of my head, but it is well
known Mary was bastardized.


The fact is, Henry was making it up as he went along, even, if only
briefly, considering illegitimate son Henry Fitz Henry as heir. The
problem with Mary was not her birth, it was her upbringing (Catholic),
but in the end, she was named senior heir to her brother, irrespective
of both.

As far as he, himself, was concerned, Henry VIII never stopped being
Catholic even after he broke with Rome. All that had changed, in his
eyes, was he'd dumped the Pope in order to end his marriage to Katherine.



and then later on, Elizabeth is as well after her mother was beheaded.


But not because her mother was beheaded (which is somewhat different
than an annulment). It was because she was conceived in adultery or
fornication, depending on your view of the marriage to Catherine.

After Anne Boleyn's beheading, I seem to remember the Court talk
beginning to legitimize Mary which resulted in bastardising Elizabeth.
Hence Henry had to write the succession into his will.


So
I'm sure these children grew up in a state of confusion, never knowing if they
were going to become immensely wealthy and powerful one day, to being
consigned to a convent the next.


(or to Tower Hill)

Indeedy. Precisely where Elizabeth ended up.

wjhonson

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

Legg inn av wjhonson » 16 nov 2007 22:36:03

On Nov 16, 1:07 pm, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Yes, of course - there were different types of "divortium" ("divorcium"),
listed elsethread. But that was just the conclusion of the process, so the
name got attached to it. "Annulment" isn't quite right either, as the
process was to determine that the marriage had been null (and void -
although there are distinctions between "void" and "voidable") from the
start.
--
John Briggs

Being careful of course to distinguish between a "marriage contract"
which was for a future marriage ceremony, and which, if either party
were under the age of consummation could be voided by either party
once they reached the age at which the marriage would take place.

By the way, in the initial case DR did not submit the entire case
record but only a part. As we know, a marriage contract is binding on
the *adult* signers, that is, they could not change their mind later,
as the under-age *consenters* could. Regardless of whether the child
returned to her first *future* husband, the lawsuit presumably was
directed at the adults involved who were not doing their due diligence
at keeping her under their thumb.

Are their cases where a person actually sues a under-age child and not
their guardian?

Will Johnson

Renia

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Renia » 16 nov 2007 22:37:08

Bill Arnold wrote:

--- taf@clearwire.net wrote:


On Nov 16, 8:16 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:


So, if a certain
woman according to lore had 10 children, and another source comes along and
claims 5, then the FACT(s) are in dispute.

Odd definition of 'fact'. There are those who would argue that nothing
in genealogy is fact unless it is documented by contemporary records.
"Lore" does not fall into that category.



BA: You still do not get it. By definition: a statement of fact is a fact.

A statement of fact is no more than a statement of what someone thinks
the fact is. It doesn't make it a fact.

My best friend's husband knew for a fact that his father was his father
and his mother was his mother. Until he found out his father was his
uncle and his grandfather was his father. Or something like that. The
facts were not as he thought.

John Briggs

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

Legg inn av John Briggs » 16 nov 2007 22:40:14

Renia wrote:
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com wrote:

On 16 nov, 18:22, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Francisco Tavares de Almeida wrote:


On 16 Nov, 15:29, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
e by this method.

To annul a marriage, is and was to declared it void, as if it
never happened. This is not the same as divorce, which is to
declare a marriage did happen but is now over.

Almost perfect. Should be "as if it never happened between
themselves".
Against third parties - namely children born - the annuled
marriage is considered valid until the date of the decree of
annulation so it becomes the same as if it was a divorce.

A reminder, that the children of an anulled marriage are and were
deemed illegitimate and that would affect inheritance.


Actually, no, not in canon law at least: if the marriage is
considered putative, then children are legitimate as far as canon
law is concerned, despite the fact that the marriage never existed
for other purpose. Of course, that's a point about which canon law
and civil law can be in conflict, although it is less about the
marriage itself than about the legitimacy of the children (a
question about which law conflicts were frequent).

Interesting.

When my children were young, I wanted them to go to my old Catholic
school because it was the best state school in the neighbourhood.
Being a good (lapsed) Catholic, I decided to take them to Mass every
week and began discussions with the Priest about getting them into
the school where he was one of the Governors. He sat in my house,
with his halo shining brightly, and declared my husband should get
his first (Church of England) marriage anulled, because in the eyes
of the Catholic Church, we were not married. How would I like it, the
Priest asked, when our neighbours found out our children were
illegitimate? I decided my hypocrisy could go no further and sent the
to them Church of England school instead.

He was probably technically correct on that point. But you should have
called his bluff: had he told the neighbours you could have sued him for
slander.

At about the same time, a female relative found a new boyfriend. He
was a good Catholic and was on his third wife, having had his
previous two marriages anulled. He was thinking of having the third
anulled, because he wanted to marry my relative, who had been married
in a Catholic Church but who had been civilly divorced. The relative
thought about it (being wary of his marital record) and looked into
it. She, too, would have to have her Catholic marriage anulled and
her children would be declared illegitimate.

That last point is incorrect. Certainly now, and almost certainly then.
There seems to have been a choice in the medieval period, and they usually
weren't.
--
John Briggs

wjhonson

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

Legg inn av wjhonson » 16 nov 2007 22:47:03

On Nov 16, 1:32 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
t...@clearwire.net wrote:
On Nov 16, 11:27 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:

There are several references where Mary is called a bastard or illegitimate,

Called by whom?

Personally, can't think of any off the top of my head, but it is well
known Mary was bastardized.


Alison Weir in her book "The Children of Henry VIII" states that
"...Mary never saw her mother again. In 1533 she was declared a
bastard and unfit to inherit the crown and made to wait upon her half-
sister the Princess Elizabeth..."

1533 by the way is the same year in which Thomas Cranmer "...declared
that the King's marraige to Katherine of Aragon was null and void and
that the marriage Henry had already entered into with Anne Boleyn was
valid."

Will Johnson

wjhonson

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

Legg inn av wjhonson » 16 nov 2007 23:51:03

On Nov 16, 1:45 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
On Nov 16, 1:32 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

t...@clearwire.net wrote:
On Nov 16, 11:27 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:

There are several references where Mary is called a bastard or illegitimate,

Called by whom?

Personally, can't think of any off the top of my head, but it is well
known Mary was bastardized.

Alison Weir in her book "The Children of Henry VIII" states that
"...Mary never saw her mother again. In 1533 she was declared a
bastard and unfit to inherit the crown and made to wait upon her half-
sister the Princess Elizabeth..."

1533 by the way is the same year in which Thomas Cranmer "...declared
that the King's marraige to Katherine of Aragon was null and void and
that the marriage Henry had already entered into with Anne Boleyn was
valid."

Will Johnson

I would also point out, that Mary and Elizabeth for that matter were
*restored* to the succession by the influence of their last step-
mother Katherine Parr and the Act of Parliament was not passed until
1543. Pointedly, in that act *neither daughter* was declared
legitimate.

Anne Boleyn had gone to the block in May 1536, so both Mary and
Elizabeth were not in the succession for at least those 6 to 7 years.

As to Elizabeth, although the Act of Succession of 1533/4 made
Elizabeth his heir, when her mother was executed, she was declared a
bastard and struck from the succession (Weir, pg 7)
Will Johnson

Renia

Re: The Age To Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Renia » 16 nov 2007 23:52:35

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Renia has some VERY strange Best Friends.

Low-Lifes...

Tall tales.

John Briggs

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

Legg inn av John Briggs » 16 nov 2007 23:54:29

Renia wrote:
John Briggs wrote:

Renia wrote:

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com wrote:


On 16 nov, 18:22, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:


Francisco Tavares de Almeida wrote:



On 16 Nov, 15:29, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
e by this method.

To annul a marriage, is and was to declared it void, as if it
never happened. This is not the same as divorce, which is to
declare a marriage did happen but is now over.

Almost perfect. Should be "as if it never happened between
themselves".
Against third parties - namely children born - the annuled
marriage is considered valid until the date of the decree of
annulation so it becomes the same as if it was a divorce.

A reminder, that the children of an anulled marriage are and were
deemed illegitimate and that would affect inheritance.


Actually, no, not in canon law at least: if the marriage is
considered putative, then children are legitimate as far as canon
law is concerned, despite the fact that the marriage never existed
for other purpose. Of course, that's a point about which canon law
and civil law can be in conflict, although it is less about the
marriage itself than about the legitimacy of the children (a
question about which law conflicts were frequent).

Interesting.

When my children were young, I wanted them to go to my old Catholic
school because it was the best state school in the neighbourhood.
Being a good (lapsed) Catholic, I decided to take them to Mass every
week and began discussions with the Priest about getting them into
the school where he was one of the Governors. He sat in my house,
with his halo shining brightly, and declared my husband should get
his first (Church of England) marriage anulled, because in the eyes
of the Catholic Church, we were not married. How would I like it,
the Priest asked, when our neighbours found out our children were
illegitimate? I decided my hypocrisy could go no further and sent
the to them Church of England school instead.


He was probably technically correct on that point. But you should
have called his bluff: had he told the neighbours you could have
sued him for slander.


At about the same time, a female relative found a new boyfriend. He
was a good Catholic and was on his third wife, having had his
previous two marriages anulled. He was thinking of having the third
anulled, because he wanted to marry my relative, who had been
married in a Catholic Church but who had been civilly divorced. The
relative thought about it (being wary of his marital record) and
looked into it. She, too, would have to have her Catholic marriage
anulled and her children would be declared illegitimate.


That last point is incorrect. Certainly now, and almost certainly
then. There seems to have been a choice in the medieval period, and
they usually weren't.

I've consulted The Catholic Encyclopedia.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12584a.htm

Q
Putative Marriage

Putative (Latin, putativus supposed) signifies that which is commonly
thought, reputed, or believed. A putative marriage, consequently, in
canon law is a matrimonial alliance which is commonly reputed to be
valid, and is sincerely believed by one at least of the contracting
parties to be so in the eyes of the Church, because entered into in
good faith; but which in reality is null and void, owing to the
existence of a diriment impediment. The Church too in her external
forum recognizes such a marriage, until its invalidity be proved; and
concedes to the children born thereof the rights of legitimacy.
UNQ

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09131e.htm

Q
Legitimation

(Latin legitimatio).

The canonical term for the act by which the irregularity contracted by
being born out of lawful wedlock is removed (see IRREGULARITY).
Legitimation consequently presupposes illegitimacy. It is to be noted
that all children born of marriage are presumed in canon law to be
legitimate. This holds, not only for valid marriages, but also for
such as are commonly reputed to be valid, though really invalid,
provided such marriages were entered into, by at least one of the
parties, in good faith. A marriage of this latter kind is called a
putative marriage. If both parties to such marriage were in bad
faith, the children would be held legitimate in the external forum,
as this bad faith would not be manifest. In case both contractors
were in good faith, the children would be legitimate, even if the
marriage were afterwards declared to be null.

Presumption of legitimacy is always in favour of the children born of
a person in wedlock, unless evident proof be given that physical
reasons make the paternity of the husband impossible, such as absence,
impotence, etc.; and even a sworn confession of wrongdoing on the part
of either reputed parent will not otherwise affect the legitimacy of
the children. Infants born before the usual time of gestation or
after it, as, for example, at the beginning of the seventh month
after the marriage ceremony, or at the completion of the tenth month
after the death of the husband, are held to be legitimate. When
marriage is entered into by two parties who suspect there is an
impediment but make no inquiry into the truth, and it afterwards be
made plain that such obstacle to validity did exist, their offspring
is illegitimate, because affected ignorance is equivalent to
knowledge. If, however, the doubt arise after the consummation of the
marriage, children conceived before a sentence of invalidity is
rendered have the standing of legitimate children.
UNQ

Priests! Hah!

Was he Irish, by any chance?
--
John Briggs

Renia

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

Legg inn av Renia » 17 nov 2007 00:05:05

John Briggs wrote:


Was he Irish, by any chance?

Why?

D. Spencer Hines

Re: The Age To Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 17 nov 2007 00:17:02

Renia is LYING to us too -- like Pogue Highlander?

I'm shocked, shocked...

DSH

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhl6tt$8do$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Renia has some VERY strange Best Friends.

Low-Lifes...

Tall tales.

M.Sjostrom

Re: How Many Children Did King Henry IV & Mary de Bohun Have

Legg inn av M.Sjostrom » 17 nov 2007 00:29:26

cited:
"Philippa of England died 5 Jan 1430, so her and Eric
evidently enjoyed
about 23 years of marriage. I don't show any children
however. He
died in 1459. He wasn't the King of Denmark when they
married, that
crown coming to him in 1412. However he *was* the
King of Norway from
1389 and Sweden from 1396 so I suppose that was good
enough for ole
Hank

Will Johnson"


What source do you have of Eric of Pomerania becoming
king of Denmark, Eric VII there, as late as in 1412?

In Sweden he is retroactively Eric XIII in that
myth-infested count which is in use today as well as
the recent 450 years... The current Charles is really
tenth of that name on that specific throne, but there
do non-exist six invented early Charleses in some
other universe.

And in Norway he is Eric III.

However, no contemporary would have known those
ordinals.

Eric's foster-mother, Margaret, actually never seems
to have herself been formally titled as queen of
Denmark. Which makes me presume that she took care
that Eric was formally installed on that throne fairly
early. Like, in 1490 or so.

She was titled queen as consort of the late king
Haakon, whose titles were king of Norway and Sweden
(formally, Swedes and Goths).
When the current Danish queen ascended, that
historical point was reportedly discussed, and her
assumption of the ordinal II was explained as a
gesture towards the earlier female ruler despite of
her never having been titled queen of Denmark. I
believe she was for Denmark something like "queen
Margaret, plenipotentiary lady and heiress over the
Danes and Wends" and technically she was something
like regent.
It would be fairly similar phenomenon if a future Maud
on the UK throne takes the ordinal II. (Without taking
the title of Empress of the Holy Roman Empire.)

Moreover, all literature I browse, indicate that Eric
was crowned as king of all three kingdoms in Kalmar in
1397, so it is fairly difficult to see in what system
he was not king of Denmark (danorum sclavorumque)
until 1412.

Philippa's, or really, their childlessness, was an
unstabilizing factor in Scandinavia. The freshly
formed personal union would have been tad stronger if
they had had an obvious heir.

Philippa was, according to contemporary opinions,
better ruler than Eric, which was shown when she
various times acted as Eric's regent. - Eric travelled
abroad several times, and also the queen-consort
sometime was installed formally or informally as
regent in one kingdom where the king currently did not
reside.
According to analyses in history books, the true
downhill of Eric's rule came when Philippa was dead.
And, truly, he became deposed (1439-40), continuing
then his career as pirate chieftain in his castle in
Gotland (c 1440-c1450).

Some literature indicate that Eric felt Philippa
somewhat intimidating.




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

allan connochie

Re: The Age To Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av allan connochie » 17 nov 2007 00:36:53

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhl5be$7nv$1@mouse.otenet.gr...
D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Renia comes from a STRANGE social background.


Not my background, is it? It's someone else's. Might even be a Tall Tale.

I think that wouldn't be too uncommon at one time. I lived in as small town
where we all knew that my friend's parents were in fact his grandparents and
his aunt was in fact his mother. She was an unmarried teenage mum in the
late 1950s and when the baby came her parents simply took him as theirs. I
think he was about the only one who didn't know..........or at least we all
thoought he didn't know, as the subject was never brought up in his
presence.

Allan

My best friend's husband knew for a fact that his father was his father
and his mother was his mother. Until he found out his father was his
uncle and his grandfather was his father. Or something like that. The
facts were not as he thought.


John Briggs

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

Legg inn av John Briggs » 17 nov 2007 01:04:05

Renia wrote:
John Briggs wrote:

Was he Irish, by any chance?

Why?

Balance of probability?
--
John Briggs

Gjest

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 nov 2007 01:42:02

On Nov 16, 1:06 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
--- t...@clearwire.net wrote:
On Nov 16, 8:16 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

BA: Well, you both have my support, as well. And my point was misunderstood
in a previous post. Restated: a fact is a fact until it is replaced by a better fact.

This is simply not the case, at least not by the definition of fact
you have been using. You would imply that any statement is a fact
until better information comes along, but I could invent something on
the spot, and it would not be fact just because no one knows any
better.

BA: I beg to differ. That is precisely my point: a statement of fact is a fact.

No, not necessarily. A statement of fact is a _purported_ fact - it is
stated to be a fact, but that does not make it so. It is only a fact
in so much as it agrees with historical reality.

Unless it flies in the face of reality.

A fact is a fact unless it isn't?

Anyone on this forum can make a statement
and it is fact until challenged, unless of course it flies in the face of reality.


That is also wrong. Whether it is a fact or not depends on whether it
matches historical reality. That matching with reality is independent
of whether or not it has been challenged. A fact challenged is still
a fact. If the challenge is correct, that means it was never a fact
to begin with. A 'fact' is a fact only to the degree that it matches
reality, and whether it has been challenged has not a whit to do with
it.

taf

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 nov 2007 01:43:04

On Nov 16, 1:45 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
On Nov 16, 1:32 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

t...@clearwire.net wrote:
On Nov 16, 11:27 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:

There are several references where Mary is called a bastard or illegitimate,

Called by whom?

Personally, can't think of any off the top of my head, but it is well
known Mary was bastardized.

Alison Weir in her book "The Children of Henry VIII" states that
"...Mary never saw her mother again. In 1533 she was declared a
bastard and unfit to inherit the crown and made to wait upon her half-
sister the Princess Elizabeth..."

.. . .and then later declared legitimate.

1533 by the way is the same year in which Thomas Cranmer "...declared
that the King's marraige to Katherine of Aragon was null and void and
that the marriage Henry had already entered into with Anne Boleyn was
valid."

This would be the Thomas Cranmer who later recanted, then recanted his
recantation. They were all, to an extent, making it up as they went
along. They were breaking new ground, with a mixture of historical
baggage and private motivation that makes it virtually impossible to
fit anything consistently into either the traditional Catholic or
modern practice.

taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: The Age To Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 17 nov 2007 01:55:43

taf needs to tell that to Pogue Gans who says:

"There are no facts in history."

And:

"There are no historical facts."

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

<taf@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:95284c6d-a40f-405e-b066-06f679fe0a71@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

That is also wrong. Whether it is a fact or not depends on whether it
matches historical reality. That matching with reality is independent
of whether or not it has been challenged. A fact challenged is still
a fact. If the challenge is correct, that means it was never a fact
to begin with. A 'fact' is a fact only to the degree that it matches
reality, and whether it has been challenged has not a whit to do with
it.

taf

Gjest

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 nov 2007 02:10:03

On Nov 16, 1:25 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
--- t...@clearwire.net wrote:
On Nov 16, 8:16 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

So, if a certain
woman according to lore had 10 children, and another source comes along and
claims 5, then the FACT(s) are in dispute.

Odd definition of 'fact'. There are those who would argue that nothing
in genealogy is fact unless it is documented by contemporary records.
"Lore" does not fall into that category.

BA: You still do not get it. By definition: a statement of fact is a fact.

Since when? Even in your courtroom definitions, something stated as
fact and left unchallenge has the _standing_ of 'fact' for the
purposes of the issue at hand, but having the standing of fact does
not mean that it is fact - it may be nothing but perjury.

On
this forum I am reading post by post, and one statement reads that children
of an annulled marriage are illegitimate and that affects inheritance. Someone
else writes a fact that that is not a fact.

The act of writing something, of claiming something, does not make it
fact.

So: which is it. The fact(s) will only
be settled when the dispute is settled and the fact is fact.

No, the facts are independent of what we enthusiasts decide (if we
ever decide, which is unlikely). If someone writes that the world was
created by an invisible pink unicorn, that does not have any claim on
being a fact _unless_ the world was _actually_ created by said IPU.
Even if we all agree that the world was created by the IPU, that still
doesn't make it fact.

When arguing about illegitimacy, there is an added meta-layer. The
concept of legitimacy differs among cultures, and so are we arguing
what we consider to be legitimate, or what they considered to be
legitimate; but then they were diverse in their opinions as well.

Guess what:
Ptolemy was wrong and Copernicus was right: the earth goes round the sun.

And thanks to Galileo and Newton, we figured out that neither had the
facts (and to a degree, both were factual, but that gets into issues
of frames of reference). What appears to be the fact is that the sun
and the earth both go around their shared center of gravity, at
distances reflecting the inverse of their different gravitational
masses. (Do yourself a favor, stick to lecturing people about
English, not astrophysics.)

Oh, and if you were to go to India, you would have to conclude that
the earth rests on the heads of four elephants, and that the elephants
are standing on the back of a tortoise (and from there I guess it
is tortoises all the way down). That would be a fact based on your
description.

taf

Robert Peffers

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

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 17 nov 2007 02:23:30

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:%9S_i.588$Ig4.2203@eagle.america.net...
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



Let it be known if you write a wee filter to find the word, "pogue", and
delete all posts containing it you will eliminate most Hines posts.

M.Sjostrom

Re: Fw: Fw: Maud Fitzalan

Legg inn av M.Sjostrom » 17 nov 2007 04:11:39

"- Alexander Sutherland of Dunbeath being son of earl
of Sutherland; and
- Catherine Stewart's mother being Eleanor
Sinclair..."


Both of these, alleged as mistakes by DMcD above,
however are presented so in for example Stirnet
genealogies. Which may be an error-riddled collection,
or not.
It seems to me that in these cases, usual, much relied
works of reference differ with each other.
The correct recipe, in my view, would be to check,
analyze and weigh primary evidence of the case.
(sometimes, someone has actually already collected all
such and published a study in some series or
journal... with conclusions and evaluations)
Not to decide such a matter by weighing the fame
pounds of tertiary publications and their
publishers/authors. If assignation of a parent is
allowed to depend upon who of so-called authoritative
genealogists has biggest wig, we will soon have
low-quality (but religion-like) lineages. Like some
national institutions yet today are haughtily
defending. (I refer here particularly to certain
Spanish genealogists -not present in this group afaik-
who apparently weigh medieval parentages on basis of
who of those who published about the question are
their friends and...)




____________________________________________________________________________________
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 » 17 nov 2007 05:15:04

BA: Anyone on this forum can make a statement and it is fact until
challenged, unless of course it flies in the face of reality.

TAF: That is also wrong. Whether it is a fact or not depends on whether it
matches historical reality. That matching with reality is independent
of whether or not it has been challenged. A fact challenged is still
a fact. If the challenge is correct, that means it was never a fact
to begin with. A 'fact' is a fact only to the degree that it matches
reality, and whether it has been challenged has not a whit to do with
it.

BA: You still do not get it. I repeat: someone wrote that if a marriage
was annulled then the children were illegitimate and their inheritance
so affected. Now, I ask you: is that a fact? Of course it is, because it
is a statement of fact.

BA: A case in point, which proves you still do not get it. I found a death
record [ your so-called "historical reality" ] of my great-grandmother and
her daughter was the informant and wrote "X" as the last name of her
mother's father. For years: in my files, that was a statement of fact.
I was doing research in census records and found that her daughter's
statement of fact was challenged by census records and that the last
name of her mother's father was "Y."

BA: If someone wishes to challenge the statement of fact that if a marriage
in medieval England was annulled and then children were NOT illegitimate
and ipso facto their inheritance was NOT so affect, I will entertain that
NEW statement of fact. Do you get it now, yes or no?

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 » 17 nov 2007 05:20:04

--- WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

I agree with Todd and it seems we see the source of the issue with Bill's
FACTS.

A source may say "this and that" and a second source may say "that and
this". Bill would apparently call these both FACTs and say they are in conflict.
I think most of the readers however would say that they are conflicting
sources, statements, quotations, citations, but not facts.


BA: Get thee to a dictionary :0

Bill

******


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

Gjest

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 nov 2007 05:39:01

On Nov 16, 7:35 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
BA: Anyone on this forum can make a statement and it is fact until
challenged, unless of course it flies in the face of reality.

TAF: That is also wrong. Whether it is a fact or not depends on whether it
matches historical reality. That matching with reality is independent
of whether or not it has been challenged. A fact challenged is still
a fact. If the challenge is correct, that means it was never a fact
to begin with. A 'fact' is a fact only to the degree that it matches
reality, and whether it has been challenged has not a whit to do with
it.

BA: You still do not get it.

Don't kid yourself. I get it, I just don't buy the silliness you are
trying to sell.

I repeat: someone wrote that if a marriage
was annulled then the children were illegitimate and their inheritance
so affected. Now, I ask you: is that a fact?

I don't know, first because the statement is imprecise with respect to
the context in which "illegitimate" is being used (there are cases/
times in which legitimacy in the eyes of the church and legitimacy in
the eyes of the English courts did not perfectly coincide), and
secondly because I am unfamiliar with the legal framework of the
period in question. I am pretty sure from the discussion that you
don't have any idea either.

Of course it is, because it is a statement of fact.

Of course? what rubbish. I own a beachfront condo on the western ocean
of the northern continent of the planet Marzipan 7. That is a
statement of fact. It is also a lie. It is most assuredly not a
fact, never was a fact, never will be a fact, and it is ridiculous to
think otherwise, just because I made this "statement of fact".

BA: A case in point, which proves you still do not get it. I found a death
record [ your so-called "historical reality" ]

Another lie. I notice this about your arguing style. You have this
habit of creating ridiculous caricatures of the positions of others,
either to make them appear foolish or boorish. This is not a fact, and
it was never a fact, not even when you typed it and before I
challenged it. It is falsity and always has been and had I not seen
it and never contradicted it it would still be just as deceitful and
dishonest and counterfactual.

of my great-grandmother and
her daughter was the informant and wrote "X" as the last name of her
mother's father. For years: in my files, that was a statement of fact.

It was a statement of purported fact. Basically, it was just a piece
of evidence. A true statement of fact would be that "the death record
had 'X' in the space for the last name of the father". That is a true
statement of fact, and that is the only known fact involving this
datum.

I was doing research in census records and found that her daughter's
statement of fact was challenged by census records and that the last
name of her mother's father was "Y."

And what is this supposed to prove? My own grandmother's death
certificate switches the surnames of her father and mother. It is a
fact that her death certificate says this. The information itself is
not fact, it is outright falsity, and it doesn't matter if anyone
finds a contradictory piece of evidence or not. It is not fact, was
never fact, and will never be fact. You have two different records
which make two different claims. No more than one of them can be
fact, and the one that was false was false even before you found the
other record.

BA: If someone wishes to challenge the statement of fact that if a marriage
in medieval England was annulled and then children were NOT illegitimate
and ipso facto their inheritance was NOT so affect, I will entertain that
NEW statement of fact. Do you get it now, yes or no?

I get what you are saying. I have always gotten what you were saying.
I just thought and continue to think it is completely wrongheaded.

taf

Bill Arnold

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 17 nov 2007 05:40:04

Will: Bill you say "a statement of fact is a fact" which is a tautology as
you well known I'm sure.

BA: I suggested you get theeself to a dictionary :0 I stand by my statement
that a statement of fact is a fact. I am NOT saying that an opinion is a fact.
Read what I wrote.

BA: by way of elaboration: in a court of law, one witness says he saw a gun.
A second witness says he saw two guns. A third witness says he saw no guns.
A fourth witness says he saw no guns. One defendant says he saw no guns.
Will the last defendant be found guilty of being a party to an event which
included guns?

BA: I know this is gen-medieval. And we have a discussion underway in
which all sorts of allegations [ statements of fact ] have been made. They
are/were statements of facts. Go, ahead, Will, convince me you have the
FACTS. Which is it: in what TIME period and in what PLACE in medieval
England were children of marriage which were annulled considered
illegitimate and ipso facto disinherited? That was a statement of fact
on this list, and you cannot deny that it was a statement of fact. I have
said and repeat that that statement of fact stands as fact until another
fact comes along to erase it from all our minds. Period. That is the
nature of the human mind. We can have all the mumblejumble about
records, documents, et al., when in fact nobody has produced one whit
of such to justify the statement of fact or its contrary.

Bill

*****



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

Bill Arnold

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 17 nov 2007 05:48:02

BA: I beg to differ. That is precisely my point: a statement of fact is a fact.

Renia: I am 176 years old. Fact. Unless it flies in the face of reality.
OK.

BA: Anyone on this forum can make a statement and it is fact until challenged,
unless of course it flies in the face of reality.

Renia: OK, King Harold was killed by getting an arrow in the eye at the Battle
of Hastings. Fact or myth?

BA: Precisely my point, Renia. Nobody knows because it is a statement of fact.
It stands on its own statement. I am not making this up: statements of facts
are facts. For instance: if I am sitting with you on a park bench in broad daylight
and ask you what if it is day or night, you might think I was blind, yes or no?
However, you answer day. You have made a statement of fact. Was it correct.
By the details I gave you of the event, you and I would conclude yes, that statement
of fact was correct. It you had answered night that would also have been a
statement of fact. Do you not understand? And of course, by the details given
you and I would conclude no, that that statement of fact was not correct.

BA: So, I ask YOU: someone on this list wrote that in the medieval period
if a marriage was annulled then the children were illegitimate and ipso facto
their inheritance was void, whatever. Understand, nobody has challenged
that statement of fact and it still lingers: yes, I know stabs have been made
at it, but I have not seen a subject heading which clearly establishes the
truth and certainty of that statement of fact. In fact, I am beginning to think
I am one of few on this list who understands reality :)

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

wjhonson

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av wjhonson » 17 nov 2007 05:57:02

Bill there is not one single reader who agrees with you.

Don't you find that odd?
Don't you feel like just possibly you are *not* getting across your
point in a cogent manner?
Or do you feel like everyone here is an idiot, except you, and we
can't get your point, even though you've repeated it twelve times now?

It should be crystal-clear by now, that we do understand what you're
attempting to say.
However we don't agree. So... should you continue to argue ad
infinitum a position with which no one has or will agree?

Will Johnson

Bill Arnold

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 17 nov 2007 06:27:03

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

Bill there is not one single reader who agrees with you.

BA: Perhaps you need agreements from the world for your security.
Only three writers [not readers] have expressed opinions on my
statements. Renia has an open mind. You do not. TAF is on another
planet. I will drop it to make you happy. Rest in peace.

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

Gjest

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 nov 2007 06:43:02

On Nov 16, 8:18 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
--- WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
I agree with Todd and it seems we see the source of the issue with Bill's
FACTS.

A source may say "this and that" and a second source may say "that and
this". Bill would apparently call these both FACTs and say they are in conflict.
I think most of the readers however would say that they are conflicting
sources, statements, quotations, citations, but not facts.

BA: Get thee to a dictionary :0

You had better be more specific than that - there must be some
specific dictionary I am unaware of that defines fact as "anything
that is said and is, as of yet, unchallenged".

taf

Gjest

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 nov 2007 07:46:02

On Nov 16, 8:34 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Will: Bill you say "a statement of fact is a fact" which is a tautology as
you well known I'm sure.

BA: I suggested you get theeself to a dictionary :0 I stand by my statement
that a statement of fact is a fact. I am NOT saying that an opinion is a fact.
Read what I wrote.

But many 'statements of fact' _are_ opinions. You seem to be setting
up a system like the papacy, where the Pope is infallible, but only
when he says what he is about to say is an infallible statement (which
if reduced to its logically absurd consequence, means that the Pope's
statement of the next statement being infallible must itself be
fallible, which means the next statement must not be infallible - it
is the Cretan Liar all over again). This puts you in good stead, as by
your definition a lie is a fact unless it has been challenged.


BA: by way of elaboration: in a court of law,

A court of law has a law unto itself, and its application of 'fact'
has little relevance outside the court.

one witness says he saw a gun.
A second witness says he saw two guns. A third witness says he saw no guns.
A fourth witness says he saw no guns. One defendant says he saw no guns.
Will the last defendant be found guilty of being a party to an event which
included guns?

Completely irrelevant to the facts of the case.

BA: I know this is gen-medieval. And we have a discussion underway in
which all sorts of allegations [ statements of fact ] have been made. They
are/were statements of facts. Go, ahead, Will, convince me you have the
FACTS. Which is it: in what TIME period and in what PLACE in medieval
England were children of marriage which were annulled considered
illegitimate and ipso facto disinherited? That was a statement of fact
on this list, and you cannot deny that it was a statement of fact.

He is not denying it. He made a statement of fact. That does not mean
that what he stated was fact.

I have
said and repeat that that statement of fact stands as fact until another
fact comes along to erase it from all our minds. Period.

And it has become no more true with its all-too-frequent repetition.
Period.

That is the nature of the human mind.

Great - now the English professor is playing at psychology (or more
appropriately, philosophy).

taf

Gjest

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 nov 2007 07:59:05

On Nov 16, 8:45 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Renia: OK, King Harold was killed by getting an arrow in the eye at the Battle
of Hastings. Fact or myth?

BA: Precisely my point, Renia. Nobody knows because it is a statement of fact.
It stands on its own statement. I am not making this up: statements of facts
are facts.

And yet you have provided no evidence to support this odd assertion -
Oh, I forgot, by stating it as fact it automatically becomes fact, so
you don't have to support it. Terribly convenient, that.

For instance: if I am sitting with you on a park bench in broad daylight
and ask you what if it is day or night, you might think I was blind, yes or no?
However, you answer day. You have made a statement of fact. Was it correct.
By the details I gave you of the event, you and I would conclude yes, that statement
of fact was correct. It you had answered night that would also have been a
statement of fact. Do you not understand? And of course, by the details given
you and I would conclude no, that that statement of fact was not correct.

Or to put it another way, the statement of fact is, in fact, not a
fact.

BA: So, I ask YOU: someone on this list wrote that in the medieval period
if a marriage was annulled then the children were illegitimate and ipso facto
their inheritance was void, whatever. Understand, nobody has challenged
that statement of fact and it still lingers: yes, I know stabs have been made
at it, but I have not seen a subject heading which clearly establishes the
truth and certainty of that statement of fact.

Great - now we are back to that panacea: "truth and certainty".

In fact, I am beginning to think
I am one of few on this list who understands reality :)

Ah yes, "I alone am sane - it is the rest of the world that is
insane," says the man in the straightjacket. Only rarely does someone
who thinks they have greater insight into the nature of reality have
any basis for that belief - most of the time they are just nuts.

taf

Renia

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Renia » 17 nov 2007 08:04:41

Bill Arnold wrote:

BA: Anyone on this forum can make a statement and it is fact until
challenged, unless of course it flies in the face of reality.

TAF: That is also wrong. Whether it is a fact or not depends on whether it
matches historical reality. That matching with reality is independent
of whether or not it has been challenged. A fact challenged is still
a fact. If the challenge is correct, that means it was never a fact
to begin with. A 'fact' is a fact only to the degree that it matches
reality, and whether it has been challenged has not a whit to do with
it.

BA: You still do not get it. I repeat: someone wrote that if a marriage
was annulled then the children were illegitimate and their inheritance
so affected. Now, I ask you: is that a fact? Of course it is, because it
is a statement of fact.

BA: A case in point, which proves you still do not get it. I found a death
record [ your so-called "historical reality" ] of my great-grandmother and
her daughter was the informant and wrote "X" as the last name of her
mother's father. For years: in my files, that was a statement of fact.
I was doing research in census records and found that her daughter's
statement of fact was challenged by census records and that the last
name of her mother's father was "Y."

BA: If someone wishes to challenge the statement of fact that if a marriage
in medieval England was annulled and then children were NOT illegitimate
and ipso facto their inheritance was NOT so affect, I will entertain that
NEW statement of fact. Do you get it now, yes or no?

You are discussing theories, not facts, Bill.

Renia

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Renia » 17 nov 2007 08:10:04

Bill Arnold wrote:

--- WJhonson@aol.com wrote:


I agree with Todd and it seems we see the source of the issue with Bill's
FACTS.

A source may say "this and that" and a second source may say "that and
this". Bill would apparently call these both FACTs and say they are in conflict.
I think most of the readers however would say that they are conflicting
sources, statements, quotations, citations, but not facts.



BA: Get thee to a dictionary :0

Bill

Collins English Dictionary (the one used by my newspaper in preference
to all others when I was a sub-editor)

FACT:
1. an event or thing known to have happened
2. a truth verifiable from experience or observation
3. a piece of information ("get me all the facts of this case")

Regarding no 3, this doesn't pertain to any old piece of information,
but the things known about this case.

Gjest

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 nov 2007 08:15:05

On Nov 16, 9:25 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
--- wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Bill there is not one single reader who agrees with you.

BA: Perhaps you need agreements from the world for your security.
Only three writers [not readers] have expressed opinions on my
statements. Renia has an open mind. You do not. TAF is on another
planet.

Just a reminder, at 8:16 this morning, in this very thread, the self-
same Mr. Arnold stated:

" I do NOT believe ad hominems add anything to the discussion."


How quickly adversity induces us to turn our backs on our ideals. An
idealist at sunrise becometh an hypocrite by midnight.

taf

Renia

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Renia » 17 nov 2007 08:21:10

Bill Arnold wrote:

Will: Bill you say "a statement of fact is a fact" which is a tautology as
you well known I'm sure.

BA: I suggested you get theeself to a dictionary :0 I stand by my statement
that a statement of fact is a fact. I am NOT saying that an opinion is a fact.
Read what I wrote.

But most of what you take to be "statements of facts" are no more than
opinions.

BA: by way of elaboration: in a court of law, one witness says he saw a gun.
A second witness says he saw two guns. A third witness says he saw no guns.
A fourth witness says he saw no guns. One defendant says he saw no guns.
Will the last defendant be found guilty of being a party to an event which
included guns?

The four witnesses had differing opinions based on what they thought
they saw. Based on their opinions, we can't tell the facts about this.
We don't know whether or not there were any guns.


BA: I know this is gen-medieval. And we have a discussion underway in
which all sorts of allegations [ statements of fact ] have been made.

An allegation is not a statement of fact. It's an allegation. It's an
opinion. It's a theory.

They
are/were statements of facts.

No, they're not. They're allegations, opinions or theories.


Go, ahead, Will, convince me you have the
FACTS. Which is it: in what TIME period and in what PLACE in medieval
England were children of marriage which were annulled considered
illegitimate and ipso facto disinherited? That was a statement of fact
on this list, and you cannot deny that it was a statement of fact.

It was a statement I made, not a fact.
It was a statement I made of what I believe, not a fact.
It was a statement I made based on what I was told by a priest, not a fact.
Because I was told this by a priest, I thought it was a fact.
But just because I thought something WAS a fact, doesn't make it an
actual fact.
The priest might have been lying to me (would they ever!) or perhaps he
was trying to frighten me or "persuade" me by making a statement which
may or not have been completely true. It still doesn't make it a fact.

I have
said and repeat that that statement of fact stands as fact until another
fact comes along to erase it from all our minds. Period.

No, such statements are theories, opinions, allegations. Most statements
fall into this category.

That is the
nature of the human mind. We can have all the mumblejumble about
records, documents, et al., when in fact nobody has produced one whit
of such to justify the statement of fact or its contrary.

One whit of what?

Renia

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Renia » 17 nov 2007 08:32:46

Bill Arnold wrote:

BA: I beg to differ. That is precisely my point: a statement of fact is a fact.

Renia: I am 176 years old. Fact. Unless it flies in the face of reality.
OK.

BA: Anyone on this forum can make a statement and it is fact until challenged,
unless of course it flies in the face of reality.

Renia: OK, King Harold was killed by getting an arrow in the eye at the Battle
of Hastings. Fact or myth?

BA: Precisely my point, Renia. Nobody knows because it is a statement of fact.

I'm sorry, Bill, but are you trolling?

If nobody knows, then it is not a fact at all.


It stands on its own statement. I am not making this up: statements of facts
are facts. For instance: if I am sitting with you on a park bench in broad daylight
and ask you what if it is day or night, you might think I was blind, yes or no?

I might think you had your eyes shut or wonder if you were about to make
a joke.


However, you answer day. You have made a statement of fact. Was it correct.
By the details I gave you of the event, you and I would conclude yes, that statement
of fact was correct. It you had answered night that would also have been a
statement of fact. Do you not understand? And of course, by the details given
you and I would conclude no, that that statement of fact was not correct.

Therefore it is not a fact. I have to ask, do you not understand?

You are talking about facts. By cloaking it in the phrase "statement of
fact", does not make these opinions and ideas into facts.

I thought you said you taught English?


BA: So, I ask YOU: someone on this list wrote that in the medieval period
if a marriage was annulled then the children were illegitimate and ipso facto
their inheritance was void, whatever. Understand, nobody has challenged
that statement of fact and it still lingers: yes, I know stabs have been made
at it, but I have not seen a subject heading which clearly establishes the
truth and certainty of that statement of fact. In fact, I am beginning to think
I am one of few on this list who understands reality :)

Many people make statements which they think are facts based on what
they have been told or taught.

On a forum such as this, other people will come along who have a
different interpretation of what they have been told or taught.

This is the nature of history. All history is interpretation of the
evidence. Another word for "evidence", in this context, is the word "fact".

The word "fact" is often used wrongly, when people declare
"such-and-such" to be true, when, actually, they are quite mistaken.

Facts are only things KNOWN to be true, not things which are THOUGHT to
be true.

This forum is a long catalogue of debates over genealogical and
historical evidence. It is a long catalogue of differing theories and
interpretations.

This is perfectly normal in historical studies and not at all unusual.

Unlike science, in history, there are no absolutes. Everything is open
to interpretation. That is why it is one of the humanities, not one of
the sciences.

Renia

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Renia » 17 nov 2007 08:34:08

Bill Arnold wrote:

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


Bill there is not one single reader who agrees with you.


BA: Perhaps you need agreements from the world for your security.
Only three writers [not readers] have expressed opinions on my
statements. Renia has an open mind. You do not. TAF is on another
planet. I will drop it to make you happy. Rest in peace.

I do not have an open mind. You do not know what the word "fact" means.

Taf is not on another planet. He is a very logical person trying to deal
with an illogical one.

Gjest

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 nov 2007 08:52:02

On Nov 16, 11:21 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Bill Arnold wrote:

That is the
nature of the human mind. We can have all the mumblejumble about
records, documents, et al., when in fact nobody has produced one whit
of such to justify the statement of fact or its contrary.

One whit of what?

such - can't you read? The lack of even one whit of such is called
Nonesuch, the name of the record label which produced many classical
and global music albums (presumably the "records" he mentions above).
Several of their recordings were placed on the Voyager spacecraft,
which is even now exerting a minuscule gravitational pull on both the
earth and the sun, bringing us full circle (or is it epicircle) back
to Copernicus and Ptolemy.

taf

Ray O'Hara

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

Legg inn av Ray O'Hara » 17 nov 2007 09:09:57

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:Rno%i.636$Ig4.2497@eagle.america.net...
And the Roman Catholic Church no doubt said -- Good Riddance!

I'm sure the priest understood Renia was only trying to get her boys into
the parochial school.


you don't hsve to be a catholic to go to a catholic school

and "parochial" is not another term for catholic, there are jewish and even
prot schools that are parochial.

Renia

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Renia » 17 nov 2007 09:13:02

taf@clearwire.net wrote:

On Nov 16, 11:21 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Bill Arnold wrote:


That is the
nature of the human mind. We can have all the mumblejumble about
records, documents, et al., when in fact nobody has produced one whit
of such to justify the statement of fact or its contrary.

One whit of what?


such - can't you read? The lack of even one whit of such is called
Nonesuch, the name of the record label which produced many classical
and global music albums (presumably the "records" he mentions above).
Several of their recordings were placed on the Voyager spacecraft,
which is even now exerting a minuscule gravitational pull on both the
earth and the sun, bringing us full circle (or is it epicircle) back
to Copernicus and Ptolemy.

I'm sorry, Todd, but I must disagree with you. The whit must refer to
Nonsuch, the deer park and palace made famous by Henry VIII near Cheam,
Surrey.

Gjest

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 nov 2007 10:16:02

On Nov 17, 12:13 am, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

I'm sorry, Todd, but I must disagree with you. The whit must refer to
Nonsuch, the deer park and palace made famous by Henry VIII near Cheam,
Surrey.

Well, you said it. It must be fact.

taf

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

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

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 17 nov 2007 10:30:08

On 16 nov, 22:07, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
pierre_aro...@hotmail.com wrote:
On 16 nov, 17:26, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
pierre_aro...@hotmail.com wrote:
On 16 nov, 15:26, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:09:39 -0800 (PST),
"pierre_aro...@hotmail.com"

pierre_aro...@hotmail.fr> wrote:
On 15 nov, 20:44, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 15, 9:41 am, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com
wrote: < Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 12, 6:19 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Amice of Gloucester, whom you cite, above. The medieval
courts were
rife
with women whose marriages were annulled by their husbands
but who
chose
to fight the annullment. An annullment meant a marriage
had never
legally taken place so the woman remained as a single
woman.
You use the word annulment. Can you cite some medieval
examples of
that for us?

Annulment is the modern term for the concept - I thought you
were in favour
of modernising terms? Which modern terms would you use for
the following?
Your choices are: divorce, annulment, judicial separation.

divortium [divorcium] a mensa et thoro

divortium [divorcium] tori et cohabitationis

divortium [divorcium] a vinculo matrimonii

separatio quoad torum

separatio quoad cohabitationem

declaratio ad matrimonii nullitatem

dispensatio ab alterutro vel utroque coniuge

Can you give us some examples of annulment in medieval England,
John?

Can you give us some examples of anything other than annulment?
--
John Briggs- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -

Of course he can not: a peculiarity of Western medieval marriage
is that it can not be dissolved except in rare cases. So there
can only be annulments.

Pierre

Looking at the only reference work I have at hand just now, I can
report what the Oxford English Dictionary says about the word
"annul."

Under sense 3, "To destroy the force or validity of; to render void
in law, declare invalid or of none effect," there is a quotation
from 1531: "The first marriage was annulled by that divorce."

That is not what an annullement is in canon law: an annullement
declares a marriage to have never existed (although strangely some
of its consequences can still exist). It is not a divorce in the
modern sense that is a dissolution of an existing marriage (this
marriage existed before, now it exists no more), although that also
can happen in few specific cases.

Yes, but the medieval term was "divorce" [divortium] - a more
squeamish Vatican now calls it "a declaration of nullity."

In Latin, "divortium" just means "separation" ("divortium itinerum"
for example is the parting of the ways): "divortium" is of course one
of the consequence of an annulment, although a separation can also
happen without annulment of the marriage.

Yes, of course - there were different types of "divortium" ("divorcium"),
listed elsethread. But that was just the conclusion of the process, so the
name got attached to it. "Annulment" isn't quite right either, as the
process was to determine that the marriage had been null (and void -
although there are distinctions between "void" and "voidable") from the
start.

Annulment is the important part of the process: divortium is just its
consequence. Moreover, annulment avoids the confusion that divortium
can create with the modern divorce. And a divortium can happen without
annulment, which means that the marriage still exists (the spouses can
not remarry for example).

Pierre

Renia

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

Legg inn av Renia » 17 nov 2007 16:10:04

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com wrote:
On 16 nov, 22:07, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

pierre_aro...@hotmail.com wrote:

On 16 nov, 17:26, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

pierre_aro...@hotmail.com wrote:

On 16 nov, 15:26, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:09:39 -0800 (PST),
"pierre_aro...@hotmail.com"

pierre_aro...@hotmail.fr> wrote:

On 15 nov, 20:44, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:

On Nov 15, 9:41 am, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com
wrote: < Douglas Richardson wrote:

On Nov 12, 6:19 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:


Amice of Gloucester, whom you cite, above. The medieval
courts were
rife
with women whose marriages were annulled by their husbands
but who
chose
to fight the annullment. An annullment meant a marriage
had never
legally taken place so the woman remained as a single
woman.
You use the word annulment. Can you cite some medieval
examples of
that for us?

Annulment is the modern term for the concept - I thought you
were in favour
of modernising terms? Which modern terms would you use for
the following?
Your choices are: divorce, annulment, judicial separation.

divortium [divorcium] a mensa et thoro

divortium [divorcium] tori et cohabitationis

divortium [divorcium] a vinculo matrimonii

separatio quoad torum

separatio quoad cohabitationem

declaratio ad matrimonii nullitatem

dispensatio ab alterutro vel utroque coniuge

Can you give us some examples of annulment in medieval England,
John?

Can you give us some examples of anything other than annulment?
--
John Briggs- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -

Of course he can not: a peculiarity of Western medieval marriage
is that it can not be dissolved except in rare cases. So there
can only be annulments.

Pierre

Looking at the only reference work I have at hand just now, I can
report what the Oxford English Dictionary says about the word
"annul."

Under sense 3, "To destroy the force or validity of; to render void
in law, declare invalid or of none effect," there is a quotation
from 1531: "The first marriage was annulled by that divorce."

That is not what an annullement is in canon law: an annullement
declares a marriage to have never existed (although strangely some
of its consequences can still exist). It is not a divorce in the
modern sense that is a dissolution of an existing marriage (this
marriage existed before, now it exists no more), although that also
can happen in few specific cases.

Yes, but the medieval term was "divorce" [divortium] - a more
squeamish Vatican now calls it "a declaration of nullity."

In Latin, "divortium" just means "separation" ("divortium itinerum"
for example is the parting of the ways): "divortium" is of course one
of the consequence of an annulment, although a separation can also
happen without annulment of the marriage.

Yes, of course - there were different types of "divortium" ("divorcium"),
listed elsethread. But that was just the conclusion of the process, so the
name got attached to it. "Annulment" isn't quite right either, as the
process was to determine that the marriage had been null (and void -
although there are distinctions between "void" and "voidable") from the
start.


Annulment is the important part of the process: divortium is just its
consequence. Moreover, annulment avoids the confusion that divortium
can create with the modern divorce. And a divortium can happen without
annulment, which means that the marriage still exists (the spouses can
not remarry for example).

Divorce is not the consequence of annulment and annulment is not a
process within divorce. They are two separate means of ending a marriage.

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

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

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 17 nov 2007 16:56:02

On 17 nov, 16:10, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
pierre_aro...@hotmail.com wrote:
On 16 nov, 22:07, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

pierre_aro...@hotmail.com wrote:

On 16 nov, 17:26, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

pierre_aro...@hotmail.com wrote:

On 16 nov, 15:26, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:09:39 -0800 (PST),
"pierre_aro...@hotmail.com"

pierre_aro...@hotmail.fr> wrote:

On 15 nov, 20:44, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:

On Nov 15, 9:41 am, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com
wrote: < Douglas Richardson wrote:

On Nov 12, 6:19 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:


Amice of Gloucester, whom you cite, above. The medieval
courts were
rife
with women whose marriages were annulled by their husbands
but who
chose
to fight the annullment. An annullment meant a marriage
had never
legally taken place so the woman remained as a single
woman.
You use the word annulment. Can you cite some medieval
examples of
that for us?

Annulment is the modern term for the concept - I thought you
were in favour
of modernising terms? Which modern terms would you use for
the following?
Your choices are: divorce, annulment, judicial separation.

divortium [divorcium] a mensa et thoro

divortium [divorcium] tori et cohabitationis

divortium [divorcium] a vinculo matrimonii

separatio quoad torum

separatio quoad cohabitationem

declaratio ad matrimonii nullitatem

dispensatio ab alterutro vel utroque coniuge

Can you give us some examples of annulment in medieval England,
John?

Can you give us some examples of anything other than annulment?
--
John Briggs- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -

Of course he can not: a peculiarity of Western medieval marriage
is that it can not be dissolved except in rare cases. So there
can only be annulments.

Pierre

Looking at the only reference work I have at hand just now, I can
report what the Oxford English Dictionary says about the word
"annul."

Under sense 3, "To destroy the force or validity of; to render void
in law, declare invalid or of none effect," there is a quotation
from 1531: "The first marriage was annulled by that divorce."

That is not what an annullement is in canon law: an annullement
declares a marriage to have never existed (although strangely some
of its consequences can still exist). It is not a divorce in the
modern sense that is a dissolution of an existing marriage (this
marriage existed before, now it exists no more), although that also
can happen in few specific cases.

Yes, but the medieval term was "divorce" [divortium] - a more
squeamish Vatican now calls it "a declaration of nullity."

In Latin, "divortium" just means "separation" ("divortium itinerum"
for example is the parting of the ways): "divortium" is of course one
of the consequence of an annulment, although a separation can also
happen without annulment of the marriage.

Yes, of course - there were different types of "divortium" ("divorcium"),
listed elsethread. But that was just the conclusion of the process, so the
name got attached to it. "Annulment" isn't quite right either, as the
process was to determine that the marriage had been null (and void -
although there are distinctions between "void" and "voidable") from the
start.

Annulment is the important part of the process: divortium is just its
consequence. Moreover, annulment avoids the confusion that divortium
can create with the modern divorce. And a divortium can happen without
annulment, which means that the marriage still exists (the spouses can
not remarry for example).

Divorce is not the consequence of annulment and annulment is not a
process within divorce. They are two separate means of ending a marriage.- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -

I don't know what you call divorce here, but if it is divortium, it
means separation and is a consequence of an annulment (although it can
happen without an annulment). It is not the divortium which ends the
marriage.

Renia

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

Legg inn av Renia » 17 nov 2007 17:10:04

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com wrote:

On 17 nov, 16:10, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

pierre_aro...@hotmail.com wrote:

On 16 nov, 22:07, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

pierre_aro...@hotmail.com wrote:

On 16 nov, 17:26, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

pierre_aro...@hotmail.com wrote:

On 16 nov, 15:26, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:09:39 -0800 (PST),
"pierre_aro...@hotmail.com"

pierre_aro...@hotmail.fr> wrote:

On 15 nov, 20:44, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:

On Nov 15, 9:41 am, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com
wrote: < Douglas Richardson wrote:

On Nov 12, 6:19 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:


Amice of Gloucester, whom you cite, above. The medieval
courts were
rife
with women whose marriages were annulled by their husbands
but who
chose
to fight the annullment. An annullment meant a marriage
had never
legally taken place so the woman remained as a single
woman.
You use the word annulment. Can you cite some medieval
examples of
that for us?

Annulment is the modern term for the concept - I thought you
were in favour
of modernising terms? Which modern terms would you use for
the following?
Your choices are: divorce, annulment, judicial separation.

divortium [divorcium] a mensa et thoro

divortium [divorcium] tori et cohabitationis

divortium [divorcium] a vinculo matrimonii

separatio quoad torum

separatio quoad cohabitationem

declaratio ad matrimonii nullitatem

dispensatio ab alterutro vel utroque coniuge

Can you give us some examples of annulment in medieval England,
John?

Can you give us some examples of anything other than annulment?
--
John Briggs- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -

Of course he can not: a peculiarity of Western medieval marriage
is that it can not be dissolved except in rare cases. So there
can only be annulments.

Pierre

Looking at the only reference work I have at hand just now, I can
report what the Oxford English Dictionary says about the word
"annul."

Under sense 3, "To destroy the force or validity of; to render void
in law, declare invalid or of none effect," there is a quotation

from 1531: "The first marriage was annulled by that divorce."

That is not what an annullement is in canon law: an annullement
declares a marriage to have never existed (although strangely some
of its consequences can still exist). It is not a divorce in the
modern sense that is a dissolution of an existing marriage (this
marriage existed before, now it exists no more), although that also
can happen in few specific cases.

Yes, but the medieval term was "divorce" [divortium] - a more
squeamish Vatican now calls it "a declaration of nullity."

In Latin, "divortium" just means "separation" ("divortium itinerum"
for example is the parting of the ways): "divortium" is of course one
of the consequence of an annulment, although a separation can also
happen without annulment of the marriage.

Yes, of course - there were different types of "divortium" ("divorcium"),
listed elsethread. But that was just the conclusion of the process, so the
name got attached to it. "Annulment" isn't quite right either, as the
process was to determine that the marriage had been null (and void -
although there are distinctions between "void" and "voidable") from the
start.

Annulment is the important part of the process: divortium is just its
consequence. Moreover, annulment avoids the confusion that divortium
can create with the modern divorce. And a divortium can happen without
annulment, which means that the marriage still exists (the spouses can
not remarry for example).

Divorce is not the consequence of annulment and annulment is not a
process within divorce. They are two separate means of ending a marriage.- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -


I don't know what you call divorce here, but if it is divortium, it
means separation and is a consequence of an annulment (although it can
happen without an annulment). It is not the divortium which ends the
marriage.

I haven't come across "divortium" before. I presumed you meant "divorce".

John Briggs

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

Legg inn av John Briggs » 17 nov 2007 19:06:41

Renia wrote:
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com wrote:

On 17 nov, 16:10, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

pierre_aro...@hotmail.com wrote:

On 16 nov, 22:07, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

pierre_aro...@hotmail.com wrote:

On 16 nov, 17:26, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com
wrote:

pierre_aro...@hotmail.com wrote:

On 16 nov, 15:26, Leticia Cluff
leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:09:39 -0800 (PST),
"pierre_aro...@hotmail.com"

pierre_aro...@hotmail.fr> wrote:

On 15 nov, 20:44, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com
wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:

On Nov 15, 9:41 am, "John Briggs"
john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote: < Douglas Richardson
wrote:

On Nov 12, 6:19 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:


Amice of Gloucester, whom you cite, above. The
medieval courts were
rife
with women whose marriages were annulled by their
husbands but who
chose
to fight the annullment. An annullment meant a
marriage had never
legally taken place so the woman remained as a single
woman.
You use the word annulment. Can you cite some medieval
examples of
that for us?

Annulment is the modern term for the concept - I thought
you were in favour
of modernising terms? Which modern terms would you use
for the following?
Your choices are: divorce, annulment, judicial
separation.
divortium [divorcium] a mensa et thoro

divortium [divorcium] tori et cohabitationis

divortium [divorcium] a vinculo matrimonii

separatio quoad torum

separatio quoad cohabitationem

declaratio ad matrimonii nullitatem

dispensatio ab alterutro vel utroque coniuge

Can you give us some examples of annulment in medieval
England, John?

Can you give us some examples of anything other than
annulment? --
John Briggs- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -

Of course he can not: a peculiarity of Western medieval
marriage is that it can not be dissolved except in rare
cases. So there can only be annulments.

Pierre

Looking at the only reference work I have at hand just now, I
can report what the Oxford English Dictionary says about the
word "annul."

Under sense 3, "To destroy the force or validity of; to
render void in law, declare invalid or of none effect," there
is a quotation

from 1531: "The first marriage was annulled by that divorce."

That is not what an annullement is in canon law: an annullement
declares a marriage to have never existed (although strangely
some of its consequences can still exist). It is not a divorce
in the modern sense that is a dissolution of an existing
marriage (this marriage existed before, now it exists no
more), although that also can happen in few specific cases.

Yes, but the medieval term was "divorce" [divortium] - a more
squeamish Vatican now calls it "a declaration of nullity."

In Latin, "divortium" just means "separation" ("divortium
itinerum" for example is the parting of the ways): "divortium"
is of course one of the consequence of an annulment, although a
separation can also happen without annulment of the marriage.

Yes, of course - there were different types of "divortium"
("divorcium"), listed elsethread. But that was just the
conclusion of the process, so the name got attached to it.
"Annulment" isn't quite right either, as the process was to
determine that the marriage had been null (and void - although
there are distinctions between "void" and "voidable") from the
start.

Annulment is the important part of the process: divortium is just
its consequence. Moreover, annulment avoids the confusion that
divortium can create with the modern divorce. And a divortium can
happen without annulment, which means that the marriage still
exists (the spouses can not remarry for example).

Divorce is not the consequence of annulment and annulment is not a
process within divorce. They are two separate means of ending a
marriage

I don't know what you call divorce here, but if it is divortium, it
means separation and is a consequence of an annulment (although it
can happen without an annulment). It is not the divortium which ends
the marriage.

I haven't come across "divortium" before. I presumed you meant
"divorce".

It would be helpful, when you make your ex cathedra pronouncements, if you
specified the historical period to which you imagine they might apply.
--
John Briggs

D. Spencer Hines

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

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 17 nov 2007 19:11:09

"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-------------------------------------

Errant Nonsense from "The Highlander", Michael Paterson, posing as a Real
Scot who actually knows what he's writing about.

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.

King David I of Scotland styled himself as both King of Scotland [Rex
Scotiae] and King of Scots [Rex Scottorum] in the 12th Century.

From David I onwards, the Royal Style is either King of Scotland or King of
Scots.

For the last three Monarchs of Scotland, the preferred style was King/Queen
of Scotland.

They were:

William II of Scotland (William III of England)

Mary II of Scotland (Mary II of England)

Queen Anne who became Anne of Great Britain following the Acts of Union in
1707

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat opus

Renia

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

Legg inn av Renia » 17 nov 2007 19:11:17

John Briggs wrote:

Renia wrote:

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com wrote:


On 17 nov, 16:10, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:


pierre_aro...@hotmail.com wrote:


On 16 nov, 22:07, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

pierre_aro...@hotmail.com wrote:

On 16 nov, 17:26, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com
wrote:

pierre_aro...@hotmail.com wrote:

On 16 nov, 15:26, Leticia Cluff
leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:09:39 -0800 (PST),
"pierre_aro...@hotmail.com"

pierre_aro...@hotmail.fr> wrote:

On 15 nov, 20:44, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com
wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:

On Nov 15, 9:41 am, "John Briggs"
john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote: < Douglas Richardson
wrote:

On Nov 12, 6:19 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:


Amice of Gloucester, whom you cite, above. The
medieval courts were
rife
with women whose marriages were annulled by their
husbands but who
chose
to fight the annullment. An annullment meant a
marriage had never
legally taken place so the woman remained as a single
woman.
You use the word annulment. Can you cite some medieval
examples of
that for us?

Annulment is the modern term for the concept - I thought
you were in favour
of modernising terms? Which modern terms would you use
for the following?
Your choices are: divorce, annulment, judicial
separation.
divortium [divorcium] a mensa et thoro

divortium [divorcium] tori et cohabitationis

divortium [divorcium] a vinculo matrimonii

separatio quoad torum

separatio quoad cohabitationem

declaratio ad matrimonii nullitatem

dispensatio ab alterutro vel utroque coniuge

Can you give us some examples of annulment in medieval
England, John?

Can you give us some examples of anything other than
annulment? --
John Briggs- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -

Of course he can not: a peculiarity of Western medieval
marriage is that it can not be dissolved except in rare
cases. So there can only be annulments.

Pierre

Looking at the only reference work I have at hand just now, I
can report what the Oxford English Dictionary says about the
word "annul."

Under sense 3, "To destroy the force or validity of; to
render void in law, declare invalid or of none effect," there
is a quotation

from 1531: "The first marriage was annulled by that divorce."

That is not what an annullement is in canon law: an annullement
declares a marriage to have never existed (although strangely
some of its consequences can still exist). It is not a divorce
in the modern sense that is a dissolution of an existing
marriage (this marriage existed before, now it exists no
more), although that also can happen in few specific cases.

Yes, but the medieval term was "divorce" [divortium] - a more
squeamish Vatican now calls it "a declaration of nullity."

In Latin, "divortium" just means "separation" ("divortium
itinerum" for example is the parting of the ways): "divortium"
is of course one of the consequence of an annulment, although a
separation can also happen without annulment of the marriage.

Yes, of course - there were different types of "divortium"
("divorcium"), listed elsethread. But that was just the
conclusion of the process, so the name got attached to it.
"Annulment" isn't quite right either, as the process was to
determine that the marriage had been null (and void - although
there are distinctions between "void" and "voidable") from the
start.

Annulment is the important part of the process: divortium is just
its consequence. Moreover, annulment avoids the confusion that
divortium can create with the modern divorce. And a divortium can
happen without annulment, which means that the marriage still
exists (the spouses can not remarry for example).

Divorce is not the consequence of annulment and annulment is not a
process within divorce. They are two separate means of ending a
marriage

I don't know what you call divorce here, but if it is divortium, it
means separation and is a consequence of an annulment (although it
can happen without an annulment). It is not the divortium which ends
the marriage.

I haven't come across "divortium" before. I presumed you meant
"divorce".


It would be helpful, when you make your ex cathedra pronouncements, if you
specified the historical period to which you imagine they might apply.

I thought we were talking about the medieval period.

John Briggs

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

Legg inn av John Briggs » 17 nov 2007 19:30:05

Renia wrote:
John Briggs wrote:

Renia wrote:

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com wrote:


On 17 nov, 16:10, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:


pierre_aro...@hotmail.com wrote:


On 16 nov, 22:07, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com
wrote:

pierre_aro...@hotmail.com wrote:

On 16 nov, 17:26, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com
wrote:

pierre_aro...@hotmail.com wrote:

On 16 nov, 15:26, Leticia Cluff
leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:09:39 -0800 (PST),
"pierre_aro...@hotmail.com"

pierre_aro...@hotmail.fr> wrote:

On 15 nov, 20:44, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com
wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:

On Nov 15, 9:41 am, "John Briggs"
john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote: < Douglas Richardson
wrote:

On Nov 12, 6:19 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr
wrote:


Amice of Gloucester, whom you cite, above. The
medieval courts were
rife
with women whose marriages were annulled by their
husbands but who
chose
to fight the annullment. An annullment meant a
marriage had never
legally taken place so the woman remained as a
single woman.
You use the word annulment. Can you cite some
medieval examples of
that for us?

Annulment is the modern term for the concept - I
thought you were in favour
of modernising terms? Which modern terms would you use
for the following?
Your choices are: divorce, annulment, judicial
separation.
divortium [divorcium] a mensa et thoro

divortium [divorcium] tori et cohabitationis

divortium [divorcium] a vinculo matrimonii

separatio quoad torum

separatio quoad cohabitationem

declaratio ad matrimonii nullitatem

dispensatio ab alterutro vel utroque coniuge

Can you give us some examples of annulment in medieval
England, John?

Can you give us some examples of anything other than
annulment? --
John Briggs- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -

Of course he can not: a peculiarity of Western medieval
marriage is that it can not be dissolved except in rare
cases. So there can only be annulments.

Pierre

Looking at the only reference work I have at hand just now,
I can report what the Oxford English Dictionary says about
the word "annul."

Under sense 3, "To destroy the force or validity of; to
render void in law, declare invalid or of none effect,"
there is a quotation

from 1531: "The first marriage was annulled by that
divorce."

That is not what an annullement is in canon law: an
annullement declares a marriage to have never existed
(although strangely some of its consequences can still
exist). It is not a divorce in the modern sense that is a
dissolution of an existing marriage (this marriage existed
before, now it exists no more), although that also can
happen in few specific cases.

Yes, but the medieval term was "divorce" [divortium] - a more
squeamish Vatican now calls it "a declaration of nullity."

In Latin, "divortium" just means "separation" ("divortium
itinerum" for example is the parting of the ways): "divortium"
is of course one of the consequence of an annulment, although a
separation can also happen without annulment of the marriage.

Yes, of course - there were different types of "divortium"
("divorcium"), listed elsethread. But that was just the
conclusion of the process, so the name got attached to it.
"Annulment" isn't quite right either, as the process was to
determine that the marriage had been null (and void - although
there are distinctions between "void" and "voidable") from the
start.

Annulment is the important part of the process: divortium is just
its consequence. Moreover, annulment avoids the confusion that
divortium can create with the modern divorce. And a divortium can
happen without annulment, which means that the marriage still
exists (the spouses can not remarry for example).

Divorce is not the consequence of annulment and annulment is not a
process within divorce. They are two separate means of ending a
marriage

I don't know what you call divorce here, but if it is divortium, it
means separation and is a consequence of an annulment (although it
can happen without an annulment). It is not the divortium which
ends the marriage.

I haven't come across "divortium" before. I presumed you meant
"divorce".


It would be helpful, when you make your ex cathedra pronouncements,
if you specified the historical period to which you imagine they
might apply.

I thought we were talking about the medieval period.

Fine. What we are trying to establish is an appropriate vocabulary to
describe the medieval situation. The medieval word "divorce" (in Latin:
divortium/divorcium) does not mean 'divorce' in modern English. The closest
modern equivalent is "annulment", which was not used in the medieval period
(just to complicate matters, modern Roman Catholic Canon Law does not use
"annulment", in either the Latin or English texts). "Annulment" in Civil Law
has significant differences from medieval use and modern Roman Catholic
(colloquial) use of the term. Some (rare) forms of medieval "divorce"
equate to the modern term 'judicial separation' rather than 'divorce'.
--
John Briggs

The Highlander

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

Legg inn av The Highlander » 17 nov 2007 19:38:58

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 12:45:49 -0400, Leticia Cluff
<leticia.cluff@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:

[newsgroups trimmed]
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:22:59 GMT, The Highlander <micheil@shaw.ca
wrote:

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

The Highlander wrote:

How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specialized agendas:

Men who want to be Braveheart.

Women who want to be interfered with by Braveheart.

Men who want to have a shower with Braveheart.

Men who want to join an IRA Active Service Unit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

People who get off on tormenting the demented.

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


A very entertaining and no doubt astutely observed list,
but of little relevance to soc.genealogy.medieval.

I note that you are posting from alt.fan.crossposting, and
alt.support.crossdressing and will adjust my headers accordingly, as
your interests and mine do not coincide. I have added
soc.genealogy.medieval so you will know that I gave you the courtesy
of a reply.
And--yes--I know you didn't start the crossposting.
These things always begin in Hawaii.

News of a sudden death in Kailua will brighten my day immeasurably.
:-)

Tish

Gjest

Re: Fw: Scots Peerage Correction: Robert de Brus (died 1304)

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 nov 2007 15:32:03

Dea Leo ,
To be Fair , I have never seen Mr Andrew MacEwen , who
strictly speaking in terms of this list is a close neighbor of mine
(Stockton Springs where He lives in some thirty-forty miles from my home in East
Dixmont) refer to himself as a resident Expert in All things Scottish in
print but He could have done. I think He has himself posted here some few times,
but not frequently and whatever his knowledge orf the sources He appears to
have done some fine work.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA




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

Deirdre Sholto Douglas

Re: Terrible British Food

Legg inn av Deirdre Sholto Douglas » 19 nov 2007 01:03:21

"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:
"Deirdre Sholto Douglas" <finch.enteract@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:47406ECA.71F2A38F@sbcglobal.net...

sigh> That's not available _anywhere_ on this side of
the Great Undrinkable...which is not to say there aren't
some good locally baked breads, they're just not the
same.

I have an excellent supplier of French bread here -- two, in fact -- which
ensures Good Capitalistic Competition.

Hm...you're a bit too far to commute for a loaf though. :-)

Hm...so you _are_ using canned (sauce and paste) in-
gredients. Well, yes, that _would_ make things easier
but it doesn't fly in my world because His Lordship's
heart condition means that all fats, salts and sugars
need to be carefully monitored which means no pro-
cessed foods.

Smart, even for folks WITHOUT a heart condition -- helping to avoid
DEVELOPING one.

No question about that, but it doesn't make for quick
and easy meals when everything starts out as a pile
of raw ingredients/produce on the counter...I've always
cooked that way to a degree, but since this heart non-
sense has cropped up I've become positively militant
about it.

Deirdre

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Terrible British Food

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 19 nov 2007 01:12:53

Good for you!

I'm sure your husband appreciates it.

DSH

"Deirdre Sholto Douglas" <finch.enteract@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4740D2C9.C3BF0BDF@sbcglobal.net...

Hm...so you _are_ using canned (sauce and paste) in-
gredients. Well, yes, that _would_ make things easier
but it doesn't fly in my world because His Lordship's
heart condition means that all fats, salts and sugars
need to be carefully monitored which means no pro-
cessed foods.

Smart, even for folks WITHOUT a heart condition -- helping to avoid
DEVELOPING one.

No question about that, but it doesn't make for quick
and easy meals when everything starts out as a pile
of raw ingredients/produce on the counter...I've always
cooked that way to a degree, but since this heart non-
sense has cropped up I've become positively militant
about it.

Deirdre

John Watson

Re: Uhtred Earl of Northumbria

Legg inn av John Watson » 19 nov 2007 01:55:06

Hi Le,

The historical record is silent on what happened to the bodies of
Uhtred and his forty retainers after they were murdered by Canute's
men at Wiheal (conjectured by some to be Wighill, near Tadcaster).
Around that time, the Angles and Saxons practised both cremation and
inhumation.

Regards,

John

On Nov 19, 5:05 am, "Le Bateman" <LeBate...@att.net> wrote:
When Uhtred died in 1016, perhaps at Wiheal, was he interred in a Mound or a Regular Tomb? Where would it be located?.
Le

Leo van de Pas

Re: A possible descent from Dracula?

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 19 nov 2007 05:30:58

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ford Mommaerts-Browne" <FordMommaerts@cox.net>
To: "Gen-Medieval@RootsWeb.com" <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 2:28 PM
Subject: A possible descent from Dracula?


I have not been able to verify the older generations of this line.

1475

Vlad Tepes======2)Ilana Szilagy

1431-1476 | ob. p. 1497

|

Vlad Dracula, fl. 1485

ES Volume III Band I Tafel 194 makes this Vlad unmarried and no children,
see further below
|

Laszlo Dracula de Sentesti===Anna Vass de Czege

|

1554 |

Mihaly Kornis=====2)Borbara Bilki Dracula de Sentesti----------simply as
Barbara Bikli (sic) she is M5386 in Gerald Paget's book

I think you are very close as Laszlo Dracula de Sentesti could well be a son
of Vald Dracula, all we need is proof (sigh)
The rest below looks pretty safe.
with best wishes
Leo van de Pas


ob. 1582 | ob. pr. 1562

|________________________

| |

Gaspar Kendeffy===Vanesca Kornis Farkas Kornis===1)Katalin Petky de Ders

ob. 1600 | ob. 1602 |

___________| |

| |

Gaspar Kendeffy===Zsuzsanna Bornemisza Ferenc Kornis===Judit Bornemisza

| ob. 1625 | ob. 1636

_|____________ |

| | |

Elizabeta===Gabor Judit===Zsigmond Margit Kornis===Janos Rhedey

Kemeny | Kendeffy Kendeffy | Banffy | ob. 1655/8

| ob. c. 1661 | |

| | |

Gaspar Kendeffy Agnes Banffy Janos Rhedey

m. Katalin Kun m. Gyorgy Kapy ob. 1696

| | ob. 1670 m. Erzsebet
Macskasi

| | |

Agnes Kendeffy Dora Kapy |

m. Gergely Inczedy m. Istvan Toroczkay |

| ob. c. 1750 | ob. 1712 |

| | |

Gergely Inczedy Maria Toroczkay==========Laszlo Rhedey, ob. 1722

ob. 1816 1687-1738 |

m. 1797 Karolina Barcsay, ob. 1810 |

| | 1765

| Mihaly Rhedey ======Terez Banffy

| 1720-1791 | 1740-1807

| |

Agnes Inczedy, ca. 1788-ca. 1856===========Laszlo Rhedey, 1775-1835

|

Claudine Rhedey de Kis-Rhede, Ctss. Hohenstein, 1812-1841



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

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Terrible British Food

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 19 nov 2007 06:40:10

............ And your point regarding medieval genealogy is? Like Todd, I
was hoping the topic would just fade away, and the foodafiles would likewise
fade away - obviously not from lack of hunger if they're so interested in
the topic.

Merilyn







-------Original Message-------



From: norenxaq

Date: 11/19/07 14:23:55

To: taf@clearwire.net

Cc: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com

Subject: Re: Terrible British Food



taf@clearwire.net wrote:






One dimwit decides his whim is worthy of five different newsgroups and

the rest of you just can't resist repeating his folly.



Have you no self-control?









your whining is NOT helping matters





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

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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Terrible British Food

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 19 nov 2007 07:20:20

Whinging, Whining, Whining....

Doesn't taf have any self control over what he chooses to READ?

DSH

taf@clearwire.net wrote:

Have you no self-control?

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 19 nov 2007 13:36:02

Hi, gen-medievalers :)

ADDENDA:

ADDENDUM 1: *Robert Peck, the Elder* son of John Peck, of Wakefield.
No longer is Robert Peck, the Elder known as Robert Peck, of Beccles.
In PRFs at LDS and family trees elsewhere, including ROOTSWEB, the
challenge to Robert Peck, the Elder being one of 9 sons of John Peck,
of Wakefield, is that he would have been the ONLY son born in Beccles.
Obviously: it is a *FRAUD* to make the statement of fact that Robert
Peck, the Elder, was of Beccles, when Medieval English documents
clearly place him elsewhere than Beccles prior to the chancery court
case involving him and a child of John Leeke. Scholars are cautioned
to ignore red herrings such as this violation of *IDENTITY FACTS* about
Robert Peck, the Elder, testator/will 20 Nov 1556, Beccles, Suffolk,
England. In plain English for those who have extreme difficulties
reading the language, Robert Peck, the Elder, died in Beccles,
Suffolk, but was born elsewhere. Period. So all readers can get it
straight and correct, the true and certain IDENTITY FACT is that
Robert Peck, the Elder, was NOT born in Beccles. Any posts to the
contrary show an agenda bias of the im-poster to gen-medieval
who claim membership amongst scholars but clearly are NOT.

Originally I, Bill Arnold, came to gen-medieval to establish
the Peck Pedigree prior to gateway ancestor Joseph Peck, emigrant
to USA, 1638. Today there are hundreds of thousands of living
descendants of him in America. His grandfather was Robert Peck,
the Elder, testator/will 20 Nov 1556, Beccles, Suffolk, England.
Today there are hundreds of thousands of living descendants
of Robert Peck, the Elder, in England and America, and elsewhere
in the world. With the help a few on gen-medieval, I have been
able to establish a few IDENTITIES OF FACT about Robert Peck,
the Elder.
(1) Robert Peck, the Elder, was not according to lore born in
Beccles but arrived there, date known [see gen-medieval archives,
Oct 2007].
(2) Robert Peck, the Elder, was stipulated in the BML Peck Pedigree,
drafted in 1620 by College of Heralds, provenance to BML 17thC,
to have been the son of John Peck of Wakefield, who had 9 sons
and 9 dau's [see gen-medieval archives, Oct 2007].
(3) Robert Peck, the Elder, links to the Middleton line back to
Charlemagne [see gen-medieval archives, Oct-Nov, 2007].
____________
Richard Peck, Esq.=Alice, dau. of Sir Peter Middleton, Knt.
____________
John Peck, of Wakefield, Esq.=Joan, dau. of John Anne, of Frickley
____________
Robert Peck, the Elder=dau. of Norton, 2dly, dau. of Waters...siblings
mar. Leyke/Leake/Leeke
____________
(4) Robert Peck, the Elder, named in will of John Peck of Wakefield,
as granted land and as associated with Norton, re: that land [see
gen-medieval archives, Oct-Nov, 2007].
(5) Robert Peck, the Elder, was the "neve" of John Leeke of Beccles,
nephew of John Leeke and brother-in-law of Leeke children,
testator of will 6 Sep 1529 [see gen-medieval, oct-Nov, 2007].
(6) Robert Peck, the Elder, testator of will in Beccles, 20 Nov 1556
[see gen-medieval archives, Oct-Nov, 2007].

BA: Peck descendants, and others, with other interests in the matter,
would appreciate any further IDENTITY facts posted to gen-medieval
archives, particularly as they relate to the disputed area of the lineage
noted above in this post, already established as FACT by the noted
sources in gen-medieval archives, Oct-Nov, 2007. Please post any
new FACTS about the IDENTITY of Robert Peck, the Elder, to
gen-medieval under the subject heading:

*Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT*!

BA: Peck descendants, who have emailed me offlist, have expressed
appreciation for this Peck Pedigree thread on gen-medieval, and on
their behalf and my own, I thank the gentlemen/women and scholars
who have contributed to resolution of the proposed segment which
had been in contention since the 1930s, and no longer is, establishing
the Pecks to have descended from Charlemagne [see gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007].

BA: Peck descendants welcome anyone so interested to post this
Peck family tree with CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT at LDS, Rootsweb,
and anywhere else with citations as noted to gen-medieval archives,
Oct-Nov, 2007.

Thank you once again, one and all,
I remain your humble servant and scholar,

Bill

*****






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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Erotica On The Internet -- Usenet Newsgroups & Websites

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 19 nov 2007 14:16:33

I've received several angry emails from:

Foot Fetishists

Ear Fetishists

And:

Navel Fetishists

They were quite upset I did not include their proclivities in my original
posting.

My sincere apologies to all of them and I have revised and extended my
message, infra, making sure their desires are given full equality alongside
the others.

Mea Culpa.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

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

There must be THOUSANDS of these Erotica Newsgroups on USENET as well as
THOUSANDS of Erotica Websites.

They offer a rich tapestry of Exotic Erotica, tailored to individual tastes
and proclivities.

Yes, Veronica, there is a Free Market of Erotica on the Internet -- and we
are the better for it.

What I find quite amusing is that our pogues and poguettes see no use for
such material except for indulgence in the Solitary Vice of Masturbation.

The Sin Of Onanism.

Hilarious!

Onanism (c. 1741) 1. MASTURBATION 2. COITUS INTERRUPTUS 3.
SELF-GRATIFICATION Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 11th Edition]

[Genesis 38:9 [KJV]: "And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it
came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled [it]
on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother."]

Erotica is MOST useful for its Educational & Entertainment Values.

Positions, Techniques, Timing, Emphases, Number of Participants, Ears, Feet,
Navels, Species, ...

The Creative, Sensitive, Attentive Lover will understand that the blonde
likes this, while the brunette likes that and the redhead is quite curious
and eager to experiment with these and those.

Sex Is A Smorgasbord of Infinite Variety -- Just Ask The Swedish Canadian,
Our Own Nilita Gay, about that.

Parisians attend Live Sex Shows, Farm Boys watch stallions mount mares,
Anatolian Sheepherders pick out a ewe and have a go.

Hollywood starlets and wannabe starlets participate as the Meat Dish de Jour
in multiple partner orgies with producers, directors and stars.

Fraternity Boys enjoy toga parties, doing their best to imitate our Ancient
Roman Ancestors and outdo Caligula in their innovative staging, excess and
presentation.

As Mao would say, in an American context:

"Let a thousand cornstalks grow."

"Let a thousand flowers open, blossom and bloom."

Yet all these little members of The Great Unwashed Poguenoscenti can think
of to do with such marvelous, scintillating material is to MASTURBATE with
it...

Which, of course, is what they THEMSELVES DO.

Hilarious!

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

Enjoy!

How Sweet It Is!

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat opus

Gjest

Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 nov 2007 18:21:04

In a message dated 11/19/2007 4:30:49 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:

Obviously: it is a *FRAUD* to make the statement of fact that Robert
Peck, the Elder, was of Beccles, when Medieval English documents
clearly place him elsewhere than Beccles prior to the chancery court
case involving him and a child of John Leeke.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------

"OF Beccles" does not mean born at Beccles.
I think you were told this a while ago, but you continue to state it.
"OF" Beccles only means that a person *lived* sometime at a place, or in the
case of Manors is presumed to have "at one time" owned the Manor.

Will Johnson "of Chicago", "of New York", "of Seattle", etc.



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

simon fairthorne

Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av simon fairthorne » 19 nov 2007 18:55:55

Bill Arnold wrote:

BA: Anyone on this forum can make a statement and it is fact until
challenged, unless of course it flies in the face of reality.


I disagreer - a fact is something which is true, full stop

a statement is something which may be true, may be false or may be unprovable

In genealogy most statements which are accepted as true are actually just probably true >>
BA: A case in point, which proves you still do not get it. I found a death
record [ your so-called "historical reality" ] of my great-grandmother and
her daughter was the informant and wrote "X" as the last name of her
mother's father. For years: in my files, that was a statement of fact.

the fact is

"the informant wrote "X" as the last name of her mother's father"

a statement is

"X" is the last name of her mother's father

that is not a fact but a statement which is probably true

I was doing research in census records and found that her daughter's
statement of fact was challenged by census records and that the last
name of her mother's father was "Y."

and in the light of further information the probablity that the statement was true

cheers

Simon

Gjest

Re: De Lacy to Lacy

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 nov 2007 19:01:03

On Nov 12, 4:23 am, "Janet" <mon...@getgoin.net> wrote:
I wondering if anyone knows if theLacyis related to deLacyof England

The roll of the house ofLacy: pedigrees, military memoirs and synoptical
history of the ancient and illustrious family of DeLacy, from the earliest
times, in all its branches, to the present day : full notices on allied
families and a memoir of the Brownes (Camas)
Baltimore: unknown, 1928, 450 pgs by DeLacy-Bellingari, Edward
Page 157
"Thomas deLacyof the Cromwell-Botham family came from England into America
in 1702 his wife Anne Brunley

If, (and that is a big if) the Thomas de Lacy who emigrated to America
in 1702 really was of Cromwellbottom, these Lacys have a pedigree
appearing in the 1664/5 Visitation of Lancashire. It was a Thomas who
provided the information, and he would be of the generation of the
grandfather of this immigrant Thomas, but you need to beware that such
identifications of immigrants are frequently nothing more than wild
guesses.

The Cromwellbotton Lacys descend from Gilbert de Lacy, who appears to
have been kinsman of the last Lacy of Pontefract, Robert, who died
1193. (The Pontefract Chartulary names him "filius Roberti de Lasci"
- son of Robert de Lacy, by which the lord is understood, but this
parentage has been added to the entry in a later hand.

taf

taf

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»