Blount-Ayala
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
In this example we see both the example where the editor has place
"Fitzalan" in brackets to indicate that they are *adding* this detail, and the
example, at the bottom, where the editor has not. You would think this means that
the name FitzAlan actually appears in the document itself.
It is known that the name, if indeed it disappeared, was later resurrected.
Even IF we assume this to be the case, the open question would be "When was
the name FitzAlan resurrected?"
Will Johnson
--------------------
Oswestry Town Council: Oswestry Borough records
Oswestry Borough Records
Catalogue Ref. OB
Creator(s): Oswestry Borough Council, c13th century - 1967
Oswestry Rural Borough Council, 1967-1974
Oswestry Town Council, 1974 - c21st century
The Unreformed Borough
Charters
'Oswestry Charters and Documents' - ref. OB/A20
FILE - Deed of gift of two shops in Leg Street, Edmund [Fitzalan].
Earl of Arundel to the Burgesses of Oswestry. - ref. OB/A20/1 - date: 29
Sep 1324
FILE - Charter of Thomas [Fitzalan], Earl of Arundel and Surrey and
Lord of Oswestry. - ref. OB/A20/3 - date: 25 Jan 1406/7
FILE - Quitclaim of £100 - ref. OB/A20/4 - date: 25 Jan 1406/7
[from Scope and Content] Left by Richard [Fitzalan], Earl of Arundel and
Surrey, to the Burgesses of Oswestry, and pardon to those who had dealings with
Welsh rebels in the late disturbances, made by Thomas [Fitzalan], Earl of
Arundel and Surrey, to the Burgesses of Oswestry.
FILE - Charter of John Fitzalan, Lord of Arundel (15th cent. copy)..
- ref. OB/A20/5A - date: 12 Jan 1262/3
Poor and Charities
General and Miscellaneous
Various Records of the Corporation - ref. OB/A75 - A90
FILE - Letter. - ref. OB/A76 - date: 16 Oct 1582
[from Scope and Content] From Philip Fitzalan, Earl of Arundel, urging the
exclusion of 'foreigners being Bakers' unless the incorporated bakers are not
able to serve the town.
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
"Fitzalan" in brackets to indicate that they are *adding* this detail, and the
example, at the bottom, where the editor has not. You would think this means that
the name FitzAlan actually appears in the document itself.
It is known that the name, if indeed it disappeared, was later resurrected.
Even IF we assume this to be the case, the open question would be "When was
the name FitzAlan resurrected?"
Will Johnson
--------------------
Oswestry Town Council: Oswestry Borough records
Oswestry Borough Records
Catalogue Ref. OB
Creator(s): Oswestry Borough Council, c13th century - 1967
Oswestry Rural Borough Council, 1967-1974
Oswestry Town Council, 1974 - c21st century
The Unreformed Borough
Charters
'Oswestry Charters and Documents' - ref. OB/A20
FILE - Deed of gift of two shops in Leg Street, Edmund [Fitzalan].
Earl of Arundel to the Burgesses of Oswestry. - ref. OB/A20/1 - date: 29
Sep 1324
FILE - Charter of Thomas [Fitzalan], Earl of Arundel and Surrey and
Lord of Oswestry. - ref. OB/A20/3 - date: 25 Jan 1406/7
FILE - Quitclaim of £100 - ref. OB/A20/4 - date: 25 Jan 1406/7
[from Scope and Content] Left by Richard [Fitzalan], Earl of Arundel and
Surrey, to the Burgesses of Oswestry, and pardon to those who had dealings with
Welsh rebels in the late disturbances, made by Thomas [Fitzalan], Earl of
Arundel and Surrey, to the Burgesses of Oswestry.
FILE - Charter of John Fitzalan, Lord of Arundel (15th cent. copy)..
- ref. OB/A20/5A - date: 12 Jan 1262/3
Poor and Charities
General and Miscellaneous
Various Records of the Corporation - ref. OB/A75 - A90
FILE - Letter. - ref. OB/A76 - date: 16 Oct 1582
[from Scope and Content] From Philip Fitzalan, Earl of Arundel, urging the
exclusion of 'foreigners being Bakers' unless the incorporated bakers are not
able to serve the town.
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
My comments are interspersed below. DR
On Nov 19, 11:51 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
Bracketed information in a modern transcript means that the material
is not found in the original document, but has been supplied by the
modern editor..
It has been claimed that the Fitz Alan surname was later revived by
the Arundel family. However, I haven't found any evidence to
substantiate this claim. I'm still lookng.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Nov 19, 11:51 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In this example we see both the example where the editor has place
"Fitzalan" in brackets to indicate that they are *adding* this detail, and the
example, at the bottom, where the editor has not. You would think this means that
the name FitzAlan actually appears in the document itself.
Bracketed information in a modern transcript means that the material
is not found in the original document, but has been supplied by the
modern editor..
It is known that the name, if indeed it disappeared, was later resurrected.
Even IF we assume this to be the case, the open question would be "When was
the name FitzAlan resurrected?"
It has been claimed that the Fitz Alan surname was later revived by
the Arundel family. However, I haven't found any evidence to
substantiate this claim. I'm still lookng.
Will Johnson
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
wjhonson
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
On Nov 19, 12:12 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
----------------
Will you share with us the address to which you wrote?
Thanks
Will Johnson
I've written the Oswestry Town Council and asked them to check the
original record. I'll post their response when I receive one. If the
surname Fitzalan was employed by Sir Philip Howard in 1582, it would
serve as good evidence that the surname, Fitz Alan, was revived by the
Howard family by 1582. However, it would obviously not be evidence
that any member of the Arundel family used the surname, Fitz Alan,
after 1313, just the Howard family.
I trust this answers your question.
DR
----------------
Will you share with us the address to which you wrote?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
On 19 nov, 21:12, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
In the past, you have already made such kind of promise concerning the
transcript of original documents you had invoked in support of one of
your pet theories without actually seeing them, and which you then
hoped to obtain by the industry of others. But ultimately you have not
post them, probably because it was not in accordance with your
speculations. Remember the wills of Bernard Ezi of Albret for example?
Pierre
On Nov 19, 12:34 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
See? No brackets. What does it mean when the editor doesn't put the
name in brackets? (and if you answer that he just forgot, that would
be begging the question)
taf
I've written the Oswestry Town Council and asked them to check the
original record. I'll post their response when I receive one.
In the past, you have already made such kind of promise concerning the
transcript of original documents you had invoked in support of one of
your pet theories without actually seeing them, and which you then
hoped to obtain by the industry of others. But ultimately you have not
post them, probably because it was not in accordance with your
speculations. Remember the wills of Bernard Ezi of Albret for example?
Pierre
-
Gjest
Re: A possible descent from Dracula?
this is old news presented as something new and groundbreaking; this
descent-line may be found on the internet on James Allen's site, and
appears in print as the ancestral-line of Queen Mary of Teck, King
George V's wife, in "British Chronicles", volume 2, Line 74B, page
599, by David Hughes
descent-line may be found on the internet on James Allen's site, and
appears in print as the ancestral-line of Queen Mary of Teck, King
George V's wife, in "British Chronicles", volume 2, Line 74B, page
599, by David Hughes
-
pj.evans
Re: Fw: Lady Eleanor Butler - who was she?
On Nov 19, 2:50 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
medievalgenealogy.org.uk has this correction online:
Volume 12, part 1, page 422:
Thomas Boteler, son and heir apparent of Ralph (Boteler), Lord Sudeley
(Ralph d. 1473):
His wife Eleanor was the daughter of John (Talbot), Earl of Shrewsbury
(d. 1453) by his second wife Margaret, daughter of Richard
(Beauchamp), Earl of Warwick; she was married to Thomas by 10 May 1453
(when both were living), but Thomas was dead by 15 January 1459/60.
I also received information from someone who used to contribute regularly,
but has been treated with derision by one of the "triangle of evil", and he
quoted John Ashdown-Hill in The Genealogists' Magazine, Vol 26 No 3, Sept.
1998 page 87 etc.
"She was the daughter of John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, by his second
wife, Lady Margaret Beachamp, and was wife (and "young widow") of Thomas
Butler, only son and heir of Ralph Butler, Lord Sudeley."
John Ashdown-Hill assigns her a birthdate of "c.1436".
Knowing now where to look for Thomas Butler, I went to CP Volume XII/1 page
422. "he d.v.p. and s.p. between 1450 and 1468. His widow died 30 June
1468."
Volume XIV does not show corrections for page 422.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "CE Wood" <wood...@msn.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 4:29 AM
Subject: Re: Lady Eleanor Butler - who was she?
Brad Verity cited evidence in a 2005 thread , "C.P. Addition:
Elizabeth, wife of Sir Ralph Boteler, Lord Sudeley." There have been
several other discussions which concluded that she was the daughter of
John, 1st Lord Talbot, and Margaret Beauchamp, and that she married
Thomas Boteler bef 10 May 1453.
CE Wood
On Nov 19, 12:05 am, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au
wrote:
Plantagenet Encyclopedia (editor Elizabeth Hallam) page 38 gives
Butler, Lady Eleanor
died 1468. Daughter of John Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury; said to have been
Edward IV's mistress in her youth. A rumour allegedly put about by
Richard, 3rd duke of Gloucester, later Richard III, claimed that Edward
IV had contracted to marry Lady Eleanor, that his marriage to Elizabeth
Woodville on 1 May 1464 was therefor invalid and that the young Edward V
was consequently illegitimate and not entitled to the throne.
This tells me that Lady Eleanor was born a Talbot. This also infers that
Lady Eleanor, to become a Butler _must_ have married, I guess, after 1
May 1464.
But why can't I find a Lady Eleanor Talbot, born in the appropriate
period, as a daughter of the 1st or 2rd Earl of Shrewsbury. Why doesn't
Burke's Peerage mention her? Keep in mind Edward IV was born in 1442.
BP 1999 page 2604 John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, married 2ndly 6
September 1425 Lady Margaret de Beauchamp. Here they speculate that Lady
Margaret de Beauchamp, by later doctrine, was Baroness Berkeley, and when
she died (according to the same doctrine) the title should have gone into
abeyance between her _three daughters_. This I do not understand, why
should her titles go to the daughters when she had a son (who died before
her and had a son and a daughter?) In any case, I can find only two
daughters mentioned :
1.Lady Joan Talbot who married in 1457 and again before 26 April 1474
2.Lady Elizabeth Talbot who married in 1448------------by the way Edward
IV was born in 1442 and so how much older was Lady Eleanor, if she was
the third daughter?
BP 1999 page 2605 John Talbot, 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury, married before
March 1445 Lady Elizabeth Butler. Here is said he had with other issue,
in other words here we cannot find all his children. I found (not
necessarily in the correct order)
1.John Talbot, 3rd Earl of Shrewsbury born 1448
2.Sir James died in 1471
3.Christopher died after 1474
4.George Talbot
5.Sir Gilbert born in 1452
6.Lady Anne who married in 1467 Sir Henry Vernon
Now Desmond Seward, in his "The War of the Roses" on page 227, tells
......while after hi8s (Edward IV) it was alleged that he had seduced a
daughter of the Earl of Salisbury (what another one !! ) with a promise
of marriage. More is tantalizing unspecific in his (Domenico Mancini)
account of the king's loves :
King Edward would say that he had three concubines which in three divers
properties diversely excelled, one the merriest, another the wisest, the
third the holiest harlot in his realm........
The last two seem to have been ladies of the court, and were probably
Elizabeth Lucy and Eleanor Butler. The merriest was Shore's wife.
On page 271 again Lady Eleanor Butler, daughter of the Earl of
Shrewsbury, to whom Edward IV was supposedly betrothed. I think the
reference to the daughter of the Earl of Salisbury was a slip, and meant
Earl of Shrewsbury.
Can anyone tell who the parents _and_ husband were of Lady Eleanor
Butler?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
medievalgenealogy.org.uk has this correction online:
Volume 12, part 1, page 422:
Thomas Boteler, son and heir apparent of Ralph (Boteler), Lord Sudeley
(Ralph d. 1473):
His wife Eleanor was the daughter of John (Talbot), Earl of Shrewsbury
(d. 1453) by his second wife Margaret, daughter of Richard
(Beauchamp), Earl of Warwick; she was married to Thomas by 10 May 1453
(when both were living), but Thomas was dead by 15 January 1459/60.
-
Gjest
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
On Nov 19, 12:12 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Actually, I asked three questions: 1) did you bother to read the post
before responding? (which was actually rhetorical, since even if you
did 'read' it, you did not read it); 2) See? meaning do you now see
that there are no brackets there? This you have left unanswered, but
the answer is implied by your actions; and 3) What does it mean? which
you have not answered, but indicated you are pursuing the answer.
Thus, no, you struck out in terms of answering my questions, but at
least left the answers implicit.
taf
On Nov 19, 12:34 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
See? No brackets. What does it mean when the editor doesn't put the
name in brackets? (and if you answer that he just forgot, that would
be begging the question)
taf
I've written the Oswestry Town Council and asked them to check the
original record. I'll post their response when I receive one. If the
surname Fitzalan was employed by Sir Philip Howard in 1582, it would
serve as good evidence that the surname, Fitz Alan, was revived by the
Howard family by 1582. However, it would obviously not be evidence
that any member of the Arundel family used the surname, Fitz Alan,
after 1313, just the Howard family.
I trust this answers your question.
Actually, I asked three questions: 1) did you bother to read the post
before responding? (which was actually rhetorical, since even if you
did 'read' it, you did not read it); 2) See? meaning do you now see
that there are no brackets there? This you have left unanswered, but
the answer is implied by your actions; and 3) What does it mean? which
you have not answered, but indicated you are pursuing the answer.
Thus, no, you struck out in terms of answering my questions, but at
least left the answers implicit.
taf
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Lady Eleanor Butler - Who Was She?
Hilarious!
Leo is STILL serving as Peter Stewart's front man, stooge and shill.
No better than a sock puppet.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.184.1195512740.28474.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Leo is STILL serving as Peter Stewart's front man, stooge and shill.
No better than a sock puppet.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.184.1195512740.28474.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
I also received information from someone who used to contribute regularly,
but has been treated with derision by one of the "triangle of evil", and
he quoted...
-
Mary Jane Battaglia
Re: Lady Eleanor Butler - who was she?
Leo,
Your comments are appreciated, I've found nothing on Lady Eleanor
Butler's parents. According to legend, she retired, brokenhearted, to a
convent where she died in1468. (A convenient conclusion for the times.)
However, there have been more to the story. James Gairdner apparently
considered it "highly probable" that, as Sir George Buck reported, Eleanor
Butler even had a child by Edward before she retired to the convent. It
would seem that the child (if she/he truly existed) either had died before
Stillington's report or it's existence was kept secret.
I know that it's all just one of those tantalizing historical mysteries
but I would be quite interested should you find her parents. Is the date of
her death helpful?
mary-jane
-- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:05 AM
Subject: Lady Eleanor Butler - who was she?
Your comments are appreciated, I've found nothing on Lady Eleanor
Butler's parents. According to legend, she retired, brokenhearted, to a
convent where she died in1468. (A convenient conclusion for the times.)
However, there have been more to the story. James Gairdner apparently
considered it "highly probable" that, as Sir George Buck reported, Eleanor
Butler even had a child by Edward before she retired to the convent. It
would seem that the child (if she/he truly existed) either had died before
Stillington's report or it's existence was kept secret.
I know that it's all just one of those tantalizing historical mysteries
but I would be quite interested should you find her parents. Is the date of
her death helpful?
mary-jane
-- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:05 AM
Subject: Lady Eleanor Butler - who was she?
Plantagenet Encyclopedia (editor Elizabeth Hallam) page 38 gives
Butler, Lady Eleanor
died 1468. Daughter of John Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury; said to have been
Edward IV's mistress in her youth. A rumour allegedly put about by
Richard, 3rd duke of Gloucester, later Richard III, claimed that Edward IV
had contracted to marry Lady Eleanor, that his marriage to Elizabeth
Woodville on 1 May 1464 was therefor invalid and that the young Edward V
was consequently illegitimate and not entitled to the throne.
This tells me that Lady Eleanor was born a Talbot. This also infers that
Lady Eleanor, to become a Butler _must_ have married, I guess, after 1 May
1464.
But why can't I find a Lady Eleanor Talbot, born in the appropriate
period, as a daughter of the 1st or 2rd Earl of Shrewsbury. Why doesn't
Burke's Peerage mention her? Keep in mind Edward IV was born in 1442.
BP 1999 page 2604 John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, married 2ndly 6
September 1425 Lady Margaret de Beauchamp. Here they speculate that Lady
Margaret de Beauchamp, by later doctrine, was Baroness Berkeley, and when
she died (according to the same doctrine) the title should have gone into
abeyance between her _three daughters_. This I do not understand, why
should her titles go to the daughters when she had a son (who died before
her and had a son and a daughter?) In any case, I can find only two
daughters mentioned :
1.Lady Joan Talbot who married in 1457 and again before 26 April 1474
2.Lady Elizabeth Talbot who married in 1448------------by the way Edward
IV was born in 1442 and so how much older was Lady Eleanor, if she was the
third daughter?
BP 1999 page 2605 John Talbot, 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury, married before
March 1445 Lady Elizabeth Butler. Here is said he had with other issue, in
other words here we cannot find all his children. I found (not necessarily
in the correct order)
1.John Talbot, 3rd Earl of Shrewsbury born 1448
2.Sir James died in 1471
3.Christopher died after 1474
4.George Talbot
5.Sir Gilbert born in 1452
6.Lady Anne who married in 1467 Sir Henry Vernon
Now Desmond Seward, in his "The War of the Roses" on page 227, tells
......while after hi8s (Edward IV) it was alleged that he had seduced a
daughter of the Earl of Salisbury (what another one !! ) with a promise of
marriage. More is tantalizing unspecific in his (Domenico Mancini) account
of the king's loves :
King Edward would say that he had three concubines which in three divers
properties diversely excelled, one the merriest, another the wisest, the
third the holiest harlot in his realm........
The last two seem to have been ladies of the court, and were probably
Elizabeth Lucy and Eleanor Butler. The merriest was Shore's wife.
On page 271 again Lady Eleanor Butler, daughter of the Earl of Shrewsbury,
to whom Edward IV was supposedly betrothed. I think the reference to the
daughter of the Earl of Salisbury was a slip, and meant Earl of
Shrewsbury.
Can anyone tell who the parents _and_ husband were of Lady Eleanor Butler?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
wjhonson
Re: Fw: Lady Eleanor Butler - who was she?
On Nov 19, 3:39 pm, "pj.evans" <pj.evans....@usa.net> wrote:
-----------
If that's all they say, I have no idea why they don't cite directly to
the primary source that tells us that he was dead by 15 Jan 1459/60,
so I shall.
Warwickshire County Record Office: Holbech of Farnborough
Holbech of Farnborough.
Catalogue Ref. L1
Creator(s): Holbech family of Farnborough Warwickshire
Deeds of Title.
FILE [no title] - ref. L1/82 - date: 15 Jan. 38 Hen.VI [1460]
[from Scope and Content] Quitclaim, with warranty, by Ralph Buttiller
lord of Sudeley knight to Eleanor Buttiller one of the daughters of
John Earl of Salop and lately the wife of Thomas Buttiller knight
Ralph's son of all his right and title of and in the manor of
Fennycompton' and in all the lands, tenements, meadows, pastures,
woods, rents, reversions and services in Fennycompton'.
Will Johnson
On Nov 19, 2:50 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
I also received information from someone who used to contribute regularly,
but has been treated with derision by one of the "triangle of evil", and he
quoted John Ashdown-Hill in The Genealogists' Magazine, Vol 26 No 3, Sept.
1998 page 87 etc.
"She was the daughter of John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, by his second
wife, Lady Margaret Beachamp, and was wife (and "young widow") of Thomas
Butler, only son and heir of Ralph Butler, Lord Sudeley."
John Ashdown-Hill assigns her a birthdate of "c.1436".
Knowing now where to look for Thomas Butler, I went to CP Volume XII/1 page
422. "he d.v.p. and s.p. between 1450 and 1468. His widow died 30 June
1468."
Volume XIV does not show corrections for page 422.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "CE Wood" <wood...@msn.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 4:29 AM
Subject: Re: Lady Eleanor Butler - who was she?
Brad Verity cited evidence in a 2005 thread , "C.P. Addition:
Elizabeth, wife of Sir Ralph Boteler, Lord Sudeley." There have been
several other discussions which concluded that she was the daughter of
John, 1st Lord Talbot, and Margaret Beauchamp, and that she married
Thomas Boteler bef 10 May 1453.
CE Wood
On Nov 19, 12:05 am, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au
wrote:
Plantagenet Encyclopedia (editor Elizabeth Hallam) page 38 gives
Butler, Lady Eleanor
died 1468. Daughter of John Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury; said to have been
Edward IV's mistress in her youth. A rumour allegedly put about by
Richard, 3rd duke of Gloucester, later Richard III, claimed that Edward
IV had contracted to marry Lady Eleanor, that his marriage to Elizabeth
Woodville on 1 May 1464 was therefor invalid and that the young Edward V
was consequently illegitimate and not entitled to the throne.
This tells me that Lady Eleanor was born a Talbot. This also infers that
Lady Eleanor, to become a Butler _must_ have married, I guess, after 1
May 1464.
But why can't I find a Lady Eleanor Talbot, born in the appropriate
period, as a daughter of the 1st or 2rd Earl of Shrewsbury. Why doesn't
Burke's Peerage mention her? Keep in mind Edward IV was born in 1442.
BP 1999 page 2604 John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, married 2ndly 6
September 1425 Lady Margaret de Beauchamp. Here they speculate that Lady
Margaret de Beauchamp, by later doctrine, was Baroness Berkeley, and when
she died (according to the same doctrine) the title should have gone into
abeyance between her _three daughters_. This I do not understand, why
should her titles go to the daughters when she had a son (who died before
her and had a son and a daughter?) In any case, I can find only two
daughters mentioned :
1.Lady Joan Talbot who married in 1457 and again before 26 April 1474
2.Lady Elizabeth Talbot who married in 1448------------by the way Edward
IV was born in 1442 and so how much older was Lady Eleanor, if she was
the third daughter?
BP 1999 page 2605 John Talbot, 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury, married before
March 1445 Lady Elizabeth Butler. Here is said he had with other issue,
in other words here we cannot find all his children. I found (not
necessarily in the correct order)
1.John Talbot, 3rd Earl of Shrewsbury born 1448
2.Sir James died in 1471
3.Christopher died after 1474
4.George Talbot
5.Sir Gilbert born in 1452
6.Lady Anne who married in 1467 Sir Henry Vernon
Now Desmond Seward, in his "The War of the Roses" on page 227, tells
......while after hi8s (Edward IV) it was alleged that he had seduced a
daughter of the Earl of Salisbury (what another one !! ) with a promise
of marriage. More is tantalizing unspecific in his (Domenico Mancini)
account of the king's loves :
King Edward would say that he had three concubines which in three divers
properties diversely excelled, one the merriest, another the wisest, the
third the holiest harlot in his realm........
The last two seem to have been ladies of the court, and were probably
Elizabeth Lucy and Eleanor Butler. The merriest was Shore's wife.
On page 271 again Lady Eleanor Butler, daughter of the Earl of
Shrewsbury, to whom Edward IV was supposedly betrothed. I think the
reference to the daughter of the Earl of Salisbury was a slip, and meant
Earl of Shrewsbury.
Can anyone tell who the parents _and_ husband were of Lady Eleanor
Butler?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
medievalgenealogy.org.uk has this correction online:
Volume 12, part 1, page 422:
Thomas Boteler, son and heir apparent of Ralph (Boteler), Lord Sudeley
(Ralph d. 1473):
His wife Eleanor was the daughter of John (Talbot), Earl of Shrewsbury
(d. 1453) by his second wife Margaret, daughter of Richard
(Beauchamp), Earl of Warwick; she was married to Thomas by 10 May 1453
(when both were living), but Thomas was dead by 15 January 1459/60.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
-----------
If that's all they say, I have no idea why they don't cite directly to
the primary source that tells us that he was dead by 15 Jan 1459/60,
so I shall.
Warwickshire County Record Office: Holbech of Farnborough
Holbech of Farnborough.
Catalogue Ref. L1
Creator(s): Holbech family of Farnborough Warwickshire
Deeds of Title.
FILE [no title] - ref. L1/82 - date: 15 Jan. 38 Hen.VI [1460]
[from Scope and Content] Quitclaim, with warranty, by Ralph Buttiller
lord of Sudeley knight to Eleanor Buttiller one of the daughters of
John Earl of Salop and lately the wife of Thomas Buttiller knight
Ralph's son of all his right and title of and in the manor of
Fennycompton' and in all the lands, tenements, meadows, pastures,
woods, rents, reversions and services in Fennycompton'.
Will Johnson
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Lady Eleanor Butler - who was she?
Dear Mary Jane,
By now her parents have been established, John Talbot 1st Earl of Shrewsbury
and his second wife.
By what you tell, it is obvious she was the holiest of the three concubines
of Edward IV. Perhaps Holy only because she retired to a convent.
With best wishes
Leo
---- Original Message -----
From: "Mary Jane Battaglia" <mjbatt@mindspring.com>
To: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>;
<GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: Lady Eleanor Butler - who was she?
By now her parents have been established, John Talbot 1st Earl of Shrewsbury
and his second wife.
By what you tell, it is obvious she was the holiest of the three concubines
of Edward IV. Perhaps Holy only because she retired to a convent.
With best wishes
Leo
---- Original Message -----
From: "Mary Jane Battaglia" <mjbatt@mindspring.com>
To: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>;
<GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: Lady Eleanor Butler - who was she?
Leo,
Your comments are appreciated, I've found nothing on Lady Eleanor
Butler's parents. According to legend, she retired, brokenhearted, to a
convent where she died in1468. (A convenient conclusion for the times.)
However, there have been more to the story. James Gairdner apparently
considered it "highly probable" that, as Sir George Buck reported,
Eleanor Butler even had a child by Edward before she retired to the
convent. It would seem that the child (if she/he truly existed) either
had died before Stillington's report or it's existence was kept secret.
I know that it's all just one of those tantalizing historical mysteries
but I would be quite interested should you find her parents. Is the date
of her death helpful?
mary-jane
-- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:05 AM
Subject: Lady Eleanor Butler - who was she?
Plantagenet Encyclopedia (editor Elizabeth Hallam) page 38 gives
Butler, Lady Eleanor
died 1468. Daughter of John Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury; said to have been
Edward IV's mistress in her youth. A rumour allegedly put about by
Richard, 3rd duke of Gloucester, later Richard III, claimed that Edward
IV had contracted to marry Lady Eleanor, that his marriage to Elizabeth
Woodville on 1 May 1464 was therefor invalid and that the young Edward V
was consequently illegitimate and not entitled to the throne.
This tells me that Lady Eleanor was born a Talbot. This also infers that
Lady Eleanor, to become a Butler _must_ have married, I guess, after 1
May 1464.
But why can't I find a Lady Eleanor Talbot, born in the appropriate
period, as a daughter of the 1st or 2rd Earl of Shrewsbury. Why doesn't
Burke's Peerage mention her? Keep in mind Edward IV was born in 1442.
BP 1999 page 2604 John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, married 2ndly 6
September 1425 Lady Margaret de Beauchamp. Here they speculate that Lady
Margaret de Beauchamp, by later doctrine, was Baroness Berkeley, and when
she died (according to the same doctrine) the title should have gone into
abeyance between her _three daughters_. This I do not understand, why
should her titles go to the daughters when she had a son (who died before
her and had a son and a daughter?) In any case, I can find only two
daughters mentioned :
1.Lady Joan Talbot who married in 1457 and again before 26 April 1474
2.Lady Elizabeth Talbot who married in 1448------------by the way Edward
IV was born in 1442 and so how much older was Lady Eleanor, if she was
the third daughter?
BP 1999 page 2605 John Talbot, 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury, married before
March 1445 Lady Elizabeth Butler. Here is said he had with other issue,
in other words here we cannot find all his children. I found (not
necessarily in the correct order)
1.John Talbot, 3rd Earl of Shrewsbury born 1448
2.Sir James died in 1471
3.Christopher died after 1474
4.George Talbot
5.Sir Gilbert born in 1452
6.Lady Anne who married in 1467 Sir Henry Vernon
Now Desmond Seward, in his "The War of the Roses" on page 227, tells
......while after hi8s (Edward IV) it was alleged that he had seduced a
daughter of the Earl of Salisbury (what another one !! ) with a promise
of marriage. More is tantalizing unspecific in his (Domenico Mancini)
account of the king's loves :
King Edward would say that he had three concubines which in three divers
properties diversely excelled, one the merriest, another the wisest, the
third the holiest harlot in his realm........
The last two seem to have been ladies of the court, and were probably
Elizabeth Lucy and Eleanor Butler. The merriest was Shore's wife.
On page 271 again Lady Eleanor Butler, daughter of the Earl of
Shrewsbury, to whom Edward IV was supposedly betrothed. I think the
reference to the daughter of the Earl of Salisbury was a slip, and meant
Earl of Shrewsbury.
Can anyone tell who the parents _and_ husband were of Lady Eleanor
Butler?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
-------------------------------
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: "The Queen" & "The Queen Of England"
It's good to get an intelligent, substantive answer to a quite valid and
sincerely meant question -- particularly after all the silly-buggers
folderol and rodomontade from others.
Thank You...
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"allan connochie" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:a6p0j.40770$9Y3.6156@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
sincerely meant question -- particularly after all the silly-buggers
folderol and rodomontade from others.
Thank You...
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"allan connochie" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:a6p0j.40770$9Y3.6156@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:sPf0j.704$Ig4.2824@eagle.america.net...
What are the most notable things that are different?
The most immediate thing on crossing the border is of course the language
in the mouths of the locals. The change is immediate too. You can walk
from Coldstream to Cornhill or Ladykirk to Norham, distances of less than
a mile or so, and the dialects 'of the locals' are markedy different. It
is a strange thing though that the border isn't uniform as such. Coming
from the central Scottish Borders I'd say to myself places like Berwick,
Norham or even Wooler still feel like home despite the dialects. Carlisle
though feels very different to me. I suppose someone from Gretna or
Dumfries may feel completely different. On the other hand you could quite
easily walk or bike to the border from Kelso to English villages like
Carham. They still feel like Kelso which isn't surprising as people from
there shop in Kelso etc and many even attend school here. On the other
hand if you drive from Jedburgh over Carter Bar and stop at places like
Otterburn then you are somewhere different which looks south to Newcastle
etc rather into the Borders.
Bob is right though. Not only do we live happily cheek to cheek with our
English Borderer neighbours but we have far more English incomers amongst
us than many other parts of Scotland do. A good proportion of my clients,
friends and neighbours are English, not to mention that half my bloody
family are English too. I have as yet not uncovered any English ancestors
but considering the proximity to the border I must have some! One thing
struck me one day when speaking to a local English woman who lived on a
farm near Norham. Her son was marrying a London girl. The woman didn't
look best pleased - probably just becaue of the distances involved. "Why
can't he marry a nice wee Scots lass like everyone else does?" she
complained. Of course the moral of this is that even though an English
Borderer, or a Scottish Borderer, are as English or Scottish as anyone
else is - the people they probably feel more at home with are other
Borderers whether they be English or Scottish.
-
John P. Ravilious
Re: Pennington & Longvillers ancestry of Huddleston of Millo
Hello All,
Following is the promised AT for Maud de Pennington, wife of Sir
John de Huddleston.
Should anyone have additional relevant documentation, comment,
correction or criticism, that would be welcome.
Cheers,
John
======================================
1 Maud de Pennington.
record of contract for her marriage to John de Huddleston,
dated 9 Jan 1316/7:
' [24] Sir Richard de Hodleston hath granted to Sir William de
Penington the marriage of John, his eldest son and heir, to
Maud, daughter of the said Sir William, for
250 marks ; and the said Sir Richard hath enfeoffed the said
John and Maud in twenty marks' worth of land in the towns of
Breeby, Seton, Botill, Millum, &c. Dated Monday before the
Feast of St. Hilary, 11 Edward II. (i.e., 9 January, 1317).
[Dodsworth MSS., vol. xli., p. 114b.] ' [Foster,
Pennington Pedigree, pp. 13-14[1]]
ca 9 Jan 1316 Maud married Sir John de Huddleston.[1]
2 Sir William de Pennington.
died aft 1318.[2]
knt., of Muncaster, Cumberland, Pennington, Lancashire and Orton,
Westmorland
' William de Pennington, son of Alan, next appears.
(fn. 12) He obtained a grant of free warren in his demesne
lands of Pennington in 1301, (fn. 13) and served in the Scotch
wars. In 1317 a dispute between him and the Abbot of Furness
was tried concerning the services due from the manor. (fn. 14)
The abbot had in 1314 at 'Quaildalflat' and the Moor in
Pennington seized a number of William's cattle by way of
distraint, alleging that the due reaping in autumn and
ploughing throughout the year had not been done. (fn. 15) The
abbot in 1318 made an agreement about it with Sir William,
(fn. 16) but the dispute was renewed, and in 1328 he formally
released the ploughing and reaping to John son of William de
Pennington, John acknowledging that he held the manor of the
abbot and convent by the service of the tenth part of a
knight's fee, doing suit at the abbot's court at Dalton from
three weeks to three weeks and a rent of 30s.
yearly. (fn. 17) ' [VCH Lancaster, VIII:338-342[2]]
4 Sir Alan de Pennington.
Born aft 27 Mar 1233.[3]
died aft 30 Nov 1292, he was 59.[4]
knt., of Muncaster, Cumberland, Pennington, Lancashire and
Orton, Westmorland
a minor on succeeding his father
b. after 27 Mar 1233:
record of the following transaction dated 27 Mar 1254:
' CCCIII. - Surrender to the Convent by Thomas de Greystock
and his wife Agnes of the right of marrying the sons and heirs
of the late Thomas de Pennington, whose widow the said Agnes
was, the right specified being hers by purchase from the
Convent.' [Furness Coucher II:487-8, no. CCCIII[3]]
sought 2 parts of the manor of Pennington from his mother
Agnes and her then husband - record of a writ in the
Lancashire Assize Rolls, dated at Westminster, 11 Feb
47 Hen III [1262-3]:
' Justice assigned: Peter de Percy
Plaintiffs: Alan de Penynton
Defendant: Thomas de Creistok and Agnes his wife
Writ and subject: Mort d'Ancestor, 2 parts of the manor
of Penynton. ' [Lancs. Assize Rolls p. 238[5], cites
Patent Roll 47 Hen. III, No. 77, m. 20d.]
' D'no Alano de Penington, Militibus ' [" lord Alan de
Pennington, knight[s] " ], witness {together with Sir
Ranulf Dacre and others] to an agreement settling a
dispute between Furness Abbey and Roger de Lancaster
concerning pasture and other rights in Ulverston, dated
at Ulverston, 29 June 1276 [ "in hac forma quievit in
vigilia Apostolorum Petri et Pauli apud Ulverston
A'o r. Regis Edwardi i. quarto.."] [Furness Coucher
II:384-5, no. CCXXIV[3]]
record of protection, dated at Worcester, 6 Jul 5 Edw I (1277):
' Protection with clause volumus, until Michaelmas
[unless otherwise specified], for the following, going
to Wales on the king's service: -
Alan de Penington, going with Robert de Percy. '
[CPR 5 Edw. I (1272-1281), p. 219, mem. 8[6]]
record of protection, dated at Worcester, 6 Jul 5 Edw I (1277):
' Protection with clause volumus, until Michaelmas [unless
otherwise specified], for the following, going to Wales
on the king's service: -
Alan de Penington, going with Robert de Percy. '
[CPR 5 Edw. I (1272-1281), p. 219, mem. 8[6]]
record of protection, dated at Chester, 20 Sept 5 Edw I (1277):
' Protection with clause volumus, until Christmas [unless
otherwise specified], for the following, going to Wales on
the king's service: -
Alan son of Thomas de Penyngton. '
[CPR 5 Edw. I (1272-1281), p. 222, mem. 8[6]]
summons to a court in Appleby, dated 3 Nov 1278:
" Robert de Molecastre ", summoned to answer ' Alan de
Penintone in a plea that he hold the convention between
them regarding the manor of Molecastre; wherein Alan says
that whereas he had agreed with Robert on Saturday next
before the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Mary
last, that Robert should deliver to him the manor of
Gyffyn in Coningham in Scotland, at the Feast of the
Nativity of St. John Baptist next following, and at
that term would acknowledge coram Rege Scotiae that
the manor of Giffyn was Alan's right, and also deliver
to him a certain charter whereby an ancestor of Alan
[Benedict de Penigton] whose heir he is, was enfeoffed
in said manor;...' [Bain, Cal. Docs. Scotland II:29-30[4],
no. 133, cites Assize Roll, Cumberland, 6 Edw I.]
record of a quitclaim, dated 1248x1293:
'DL 25/456
Alan son of Thomas de Penyngton to Furness Abbey: Quitclaim
of his villein Alan son of Waldev de Walthwayt: (Lancs) '[7]
evidently living after 30 Nov 1292:
record of his having received a grant of lands in Scotland
from King John [Baliol]:
' Lands alienated since Christmas 1294, and therefore
seized [in Yorkshire, by the English crown, order dated at
Berwick, 27 April 1296]:
Geoffry de Moubray of Scotland had 10l. of land in the vill
of Raskelf which he gave to Alan de Peningeton knight, in
exchange for land which the late K. John gave Alan in
Scotland. ' [Bain, Cal. Docs. Scotland II:171-2[4]]
identified as father of 'Alicia de Lascy of Crumwelbochyn,
widow, daughter of Alan de Pennington' [A2A, Pennington
papers at the Cumbria RO (D Pen/10/1)[8], courtesy Michael
Andrews-Reading[9]]
______________________________
' The custody of Alan son and heir of Thomas de Pennington
was in dispute in 1250. (fn. 10) The same Alan may still
have been in possession in 1292, when there were disputes
between Alan de Pennington and the Abbot of Furness and the
Prior of Conishead. The abbot, as head of the wapentake of
Furness, had made a distraint at Pennington for puture of
a servant and 'witnessman,' which Alan regarded as illegal,
but he was non-suited. ' [VCH Lancaster, VIII:338-342[2]]
8 Thomas de Pennington.
died bef 10 Dec 1248.[3]
of Muncaster, Cumberland, Pennington, Lancashire and
Orton, Westmorland
he d. before 10 Dec 1248 [Furness Coucher II:488-9,
no. CCCIV[3] - see text below]
Thomas married Agnes de Longvillers.
9 Agnes de Longvillers. Agnes died aft 11 Feb 1262.[5]
widow of Thomas de Pennington, she entered into the following
agreement on 10 Dec 1248:
' CCCIV. - Deed of Purchase from the Convent by Agnes,
widow of the late Thomas de Pennington, of the wardship
of the Pennington lands and the right of marriage of her
sons by her late husband.
Omnibus Christi, etc. Agnes, filia D'ni J[ohannis] de
Lungvilers, quondam uxor T[homae] de Peni[n]gton, s. in
Domino. Noveritis me, A.D. M'o CC'o XL'o VIII'o, mense
Decembris, die Jovis prox. praecedente festum S. Luciae,
finem fecisse cum Abbate et Conv. F[urnesii] pro warda
t'rae de Peni[n]gton, cum pert., simul et pro maritagiis
mei ipsius et haer. meorum de praedicto T[homa] de
Penigton, quondam d'no meo, et me procreatis - scil.,
pro c.li, de quibus prae manibus persolvi praedictis
Abbati et Conv....
Hiis Test: - D'nis J[ohanne] de Lungvilers, patre meo;
Mathaeo de Redmane, tunc Vicec. Lanc.; W[illelmo]
Greindorge, Militibus; J[ohanne] de Cancefelde; etc. '
[Furness Coucher II:488-9, no. CCCIV[3]]
she had remarried, to Thomas de Greystoke, before 27 Mar 1254:
' CCCIII. - Surrender to the Convent by Thomas de Greystock
and his wife Agnes of the right of marrying the sons and
heirs of the late Thomas de Pennington, whose widow the
said Agnes was, the right specified being hers by purchase
from the Convent.
Omnibus Christi fidelibus hoc scriptum etc. Thomas de
Creistock et Agnes uxor ejus, filia J[ohannis] de
Lungevilers, salutem in Domino. Noveritis nos, pro nobis
et haer. nostris, remisisse et quietum clamasse Abbati et
Conv. F[urnesii] in perp., totum jus et clamium quod
habuimus vel in posterum habere poterimus in maritagio
filiorum et haeredum T[homae] de Peni[n]gton, quondam
filii et haer. Alani de Peni[n]gton, quod quidem
maritagium praefati Abbas et Conventus michi, Agneti,
in mea viduitate vendiderunt,....
Acta apud Ebor. in Majori Ecclesia B. Petri, A.D.
M'o CC'o L'o IIII'o, die Veneris prox. post
Annuntiationem Dominicam.
Hiis Test. : - Magistro Rogero Pepin, tunc Subdecano
Ebor.; Magistro T. de Wenpont, Persona de Greistoc;
D'no J[ohanne] de Cancefelde; etc. ' [Furness Coucher
II:487-8, no. CCCIII[3]]
her son Alan de Pennington sought 2 parts of the manor of
Pennington from his mother Agnes and her then
husband - record of a writ in the Lancashire Assize Rolls,
dated at Westminster, 11 Feb 47 Hen III [1262-3]:
' Justice assigned: Peter de Percy
Plaintiffs: Alan de Penynton
Defendant: Thomas de Creistok and Agnes his wife
Writ and subject: Mort d'Ancestor, 2 parts of the
manor of Penynton. ' [Lancs. Assize Rolls p. 238[5],
cites Patent Roll 47 Hen. III, No. 77, m. 20d.]
she m. 1stly Thomas de Pennington,
2ndly Thomas de Greystoke
16 Alan de Pennington.
died aft 1210.[10]
of Muncaster, Cumberland, Pennington, Lancashire and Orton,
Westmorland
'Alan son of Benedict', witness to a quitclaim to the abbey
of Furness dated 1154 x 1189 [Foster, Pennington Pedigree,
p. 5[1]]
'Benedict de Peningtone, Alan and Alexander. his sons',
witnesses to a grant by William le Fleming of Furness to
the abbey of Furness dated 1175x 1187 [Foster, Pennington
Pedigree, p. 5[1]]
DL 25/367
Letters of ratification of the settlement of a dispute
between Furness Abbey and Alan son of Benedict, referred
to the oath of twelve knights: whether the land of Ulvedale
is held by Alan of the abbot, or by the abbot in demesne
(Lancs), dated 1189x1209 [National Archives, Records of
the Chancellor and Council of the Duchy of Lancaster[7]]
had grant of Ravenglass from Richard de Luci, 1208
' Alan de Penigtun ', witness [together with Henry fitz
Arthur, Adam de Carlisle, Henry de Millum, Alan de
Pennington, Robert de Boiville, Philip de Norreys and
others] of charter of Aliz de Rumelli of the lands of
Borrowdale to the priory of St. Mary of Furness,
ca. 1210x1212 [Bain, Cal. Docs. Scotland I:96-97, no. 554[10]]
__________________________________
' Benedict de Pennington and Alan his son and heir occur
in the latter part of the 12th century (fn.
; in 1202
Alan son of Benedict granted 2 oxgangs of land in
Pennington to Hugh son of Edward.' [VCH Lancaster,
VIII:338-342[2]]
18 Sir John de Longvillers.
died bef 5 Nov 1254.[11]
knt., of Hutton Longvilers and Farnelay, co. Yorks.
probably born ca. 1200x1205 (his mother born 1181 or before).
record of an assize of novel disseisin brought by John de
Lungvilers against Robert de Dayvill and Dionisia his wife,
concerning a tenement in Skegby, justiciars appointed at
Shirburn on 29 Dec 1229:
' Willelmus de Cressy, Willelmus de Chaurcis, Robertus de
Dun et Johannes le Breton constituti sunt justiciarii ad
assisam nova dissaisine capiendam apud Notingham a die
Sancti Hillarii in xv dies, quam Johannes de Lungvilers
aramiavit versus Robertum de Dayvill et Dionisiam,
uxorem ejus, de tenemento de Skegeby; salvis etc. Teste
ut supra ["apud Shireburn, xxix die Decembris."]. '
[CPR 14 Hen. III, p. 351, m. 7d[12]]
the King took his homage for half a knight's fee in
Lincolnshire on 11 June 1246, which his mother held in
chief, and for 2 knights' fees in Yorkshire, held of the
Earl of Lincoln [Yorks. Inqs. I:40[11]]
~ note also: his daughter Agnes was widowed, and had a son
and heir, before 10 Dec 1248, when he witnessed her
purchase of wardship and rights of marriage from
Furness Abbey [Furness Coucher II:488-9, no. CCCIV[3]]
evidently received a gift of the manor of Hornby, co.
Lancs. from his uncle, Roger de Montbegon [EYC 53[13]]
' John de Lungvilers [knight]', witness to exchange by
his cousin Mabel Malherbe of lands of her inheritance
in Cawthorne, co. Yorks. to her sister Olivia for
Olivia's lands in Culgaith, co. Cumbs. (grant undated
[est. 'Middle of 13th century' ]):
' Grant by Olyva de la Mare, widow, to Richard de Thornil,
her son, of all her land in Galthorn namely all that land
which she had of Geoffrey de Nevill and Mabel, his wife,
in exchange for land in Culgarth, in accordance of a deed
of quit claim which the said Richard has from William de
Arci, the said Olyva's son and heir.
Witnesses, John de Lungvilers, Robert de Stapelton,
William de Brettona, Adam de Mirfeud, Adam de Preston,
knights, Richard de Tanoreslay [sic: Tancreslay, or
Tankersley].' - A2A, West Yorkshire Archive Service,
Yorkshire Archaeological Society: Clarke Thornhill
of Fixby Collection, DD12/II/3/10[8]
IPM of Sir John de Longvilers, Yorks. Inqs. I:40-44[11]
Sir John married NN.
19 NN.
32 Benedict de Pennington.
of Muncaster, Cumberland, Pennington, Lancashire and
Orton, Westmorland
' B[e]n[e]dict[us] de Penytona ', one of the 30 ' persons
by whose verdict the division of the Fells was made '
between the monks of Furness priory and William de Lancaster,
confirmed by King Henry II dated at Woodstock, July 1163
[Farrer, Lancashire Pipe Rolls, Lancashire Cartulary
Series IV, pp. 311-4, Charter No. IX[14]; cites Duchy
of Lanc., Royal Charters, Class X, No. 27.]
' Benedictus de Penitona, et Meldredus frater meus ',
granted his lands in Skeldou Moor [ 'mora de Skeldhou' ]
to the monastery of Russyn in the isle of Man [witnessed
by Roger, prior of Furness, Ivo, dean of Coupland, Adam,
parson of Millum, William de Essebi and others - Furness
Coucher II:510-511, no. CCCXVIII[3]]
" B[enedictus] de peni[n]gtu[na] ", granted a charter
confirming the grant of the church of Muncaster and
the chapel of St. Aldeburg to the hospital of St.
Mary of Conishead, ' with the consent of Alan my
heir........for the health of my soul, and of my
wife Anneis (Anice) and of all our parents. This
gift was made in the face of the whole chapter of
Lancaster ', dated 1180x1199 and endorsed
" benedicti d[e] penigtu[n]." [Farrer, Lancashire
Pipe Rolls, Lancashire Cartulary Series XII,
pp. 360-1, Charter No. III[14]]
~ the above grant confirmed by King Edward II:
" Concessionem etiam et confirmationem, quas B. de
Penigton fecit hospitali et fratribus ejusdem loci,
de ecclesia de Molecastre, et capella dicta Aldeburge,
cum omnibus pertinentiis suis. ' [confirmation by King
Edward II, dated at York, 28 Sept 12 Edw II [1318]
- Mon. Angl. VI(1):556, Num. I[15]]
fl. 1185:
' In the 31st Henry II., Benedict de Pennington
(of Mulcaster) occurs.' [Pipe Rolls, p. lxiii[16]]
record dated 33 Hen II [1186-87]:
' De his qui totum reddiderunt.
.....
Benedictus de Peninton r. c. de c. s. pro defalta.
In th'ro v. m. Et debet xxxiij. s. et iiij. d. '
[ " William de Craven, Benedict de Pennington, of Bolton
in Furness, Adam de Blakeburn, Richard de Harwood, and
Robert, Archdeacon of Chester, owed sundry fines for
default;... " - Farrer, Lancashire Pipe Rolls,
pp. 63-64, Roll of 33 Henry II.[14]]
'Benedict de Peningtone, Alan and Alexander. his sons',
witnesses to a grant by William le Fleming of Furness
to the abbey of Furness dated 1175x 1187 [Foster,
Pennington Pedigree, p. 5[1]]
held Giffen in co. Ayr (Scotland) as indicated in a
summons to a court in Appleby, dated 3 Nov 1278
[Bain, Cal. Docs. Scotland II:29-30[4], no. 133,
cites Assize Roll, Cumberland, 6 Edw I. Re: which
see details under Alan de Pennington, no. 4 above]
________________________
' Benedict de Pennington and Alan his son and heir
occur in the latter part of the 12th century (fn.
'
[VCH Lancaster, VIII:338-342[2]]
cf. Foster, Pennington Pedigree, pp. 3-5[1]
Benedict married Agnes.
33 Agnes.
' Agnete, uxore Benedicti de Penintuna ', witness to
a grant dated 1160 x1189:
'[7] Grant made by Robert de Boiville and Margaret, his wife, with
William, their son, and his brothers, to the abbot and convent
of Furness, of a moiety of Newby, &c., which had been given
by charter of Waltheof, son of Edmund, to Robert de Boiville,
as a marriage portion with his daughter. Witnesses (many
names) et Agnete, uxore Benedicti de Penintuna. '
[Foster, Pennington Pedigree, p. 4[1], cites Bank's Annales
Furnessense, p. 148; Charters, Duchy of Lanc., box B., No.
176.]
her husband Benedict de Pennington granted a charter confirming
the grant of the church of Muncaster and the chapel of St.
Aldeburg to the hospital of St. Mary of Conishead, ' with
the consent of Alan my heir........for the health of my
soul, and of my wife Anneis (Anice) and of all our parents.
This gift was made in the face of the whole chapter of
Lancaster ', dated 1180x1199 [Farrer, Lancashire Pipe Rolls,
Lancashire Cartulary Series XII, pp. 360-1, Charter No.
III[14]]
36 Eudo de Longvillers.
died bef 29 Dec 1229.[17]
of Badsworth and Gargrave, co. Yorks.
cf. EYC III:319, no. 1663[17]
EYF 52-53[13]
Eudo married Clementia Malherbe.
37 Clementia Malherbe.
died bef 11 Jun 1246.[11]
she d. before 11 June 1246 [date her son rendered
homage (Yorks. Inqs. I:40)[11]]
cf. EYC III:319, no. 1663[17]
64 Gamel de Pennington.
died aft 1154.[18]
of Muncaster, Pennington and Orton, Westmorland
' Between the years 1154 and 1163 Gamel de Pennington
granted the churches of Pennington, Muncaster and
Sker-Overton, with the appurtenances thereof to the
priory of Conishead, and the same was confirmed by
John Bartholomew, prior of Carlisle, in the time of
Hugh, 3rd Bishop of Carlisle (1219-1223).'[18]
~ the above grant confirmed by King Edward II:
" Donationem, &c. quas Gamellus de Penygton fecit
canonicis ejusdem loci, de ecclesia de Penigton, cum
pertinentiis, et ecclesia de Molcastre, cum capellis
et omnibus aliis pertinentiis; et ecclesia de Wytebec
cum pertinentiis, et ecclesia de Skeroverton cum
omnibus pertinentiis; et Pultone cum rectis divisis. '
[confirmation by King Edward II, dated at York, 28 Sept
12 Edw II [1318] - Mon. Angl. VI(1):557, Num. I[15]]
his son Benedict granted a charter confirming the grant of
the church of Muncaster and the chapel of St. Aldeburg to
the hospital of St. Mary of Conishead, dated 1180x1199
[Farrer, Lancashire Pipe Rolls, Lancashire Cartulary
Series XII, pp. 360-1, Charter No. III[14]]
__________________________________
' Gamel de Pennington, whose name occurs on the ancient
tympanum at Beckside, is supposed to have been the
founder of Conishead Priory in the time of Henry II
(fn. 6) ; he gave it the church of Pennington. (fn. 7) '
[VCH Lancaster, VIII:338-342[2]]
cf. VCH Lancaster, VIII:338-342[2]
Foster, Pennington Pedigree, p. 2[1]
72 NN de Longvillers.
an apparent elder brother of William de Longvilers, name unknown:
Farrer wrote,
' It seems probable that Eudes de Longvilers, who held
1 fee of Henry de Lascy in 1166, was father of (1) Eudes,
who married Clementia, sister and coheir of John Malherbe,
(2) Ivo, who married Agnes de Reinevill and obtained
Badsworth with her, and (3) William, who gave 10 marks
in 1194 to have seisin of Honley (Hanlega) which Robert
de Lascy had given to him.' [EYC III:253, no. 1582[17]]
* this reconstruction appears partially flawed, as Yvo and
Eudo are in fact the same name. It appears most likely that
Eudo, husband of Clementia Malherbe, was a grandson of
the elder Eudes, and son of an otherwise unknown elder
son who likely ob.v.p.
74 John Malherbe. John died in 1181.[19]
of Appleby, co. Lincs.
acquired lands of Appleby by marriage
2nd husband of Matilda[20],[19]
cf. EYC III:319, no. 1663[17]
John married Matilda fitz Adam.
75 Matilda fitz Adam.
coheiress (received Appleby as inheritance or maritagium)[21]
she fined to have custody of the lands and heir of her husband
John Malherbe, 1185/6 and 1186/7:
"Matildisque fuit uxor Johannis
Malherbe redd. comp. de .xlvj. s. et .viij. d. pro custodia
de Appelbi cum herede suo [/hereditate sua] de qua finivit
cum rege." [Paul Reed, cites Pipe Rolls in 1185-6 (p. 73)
and 1186-7 (p. 70).[21] ]
she m. 1st Adam de Montbegon (d. bef. 1172),
2ndly John Malherbe,
3rdly Gerard de Glanville[20],[19]
cf. EYC III:319, no. 1663[17]
Rosie Bevan, <Re: de Montebegom with Hansard Up
Front Again>, 12 July 2001
1. Joseph Foster, "Pedigree of Sir Josslyn Pennington, Fifth Baron
Muncaster of Muncaster and Ninth Baronet," London: privately printed
at the Chiswick Press, 1878, courtesy Googlebooks, URL
http://books.google.com/books?id=7NMKAA ... 1#PPA13,M1.
2. "A History of the County of Lancaster," ' The parish of Pennington
', Oxford: published for the Institute of Historical Research, Oxford
Univ. Press, 1914, Vol. VIII, http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=53324,
courtesy University of London and History of Parliament Trust.
3. Rev. J. C. Atkinson, M.A., ed., "The Coucher Book of Furness
Abbey, Part II," Remains Historical and Literary connected with the
Palatine Counties of Lancaster and Chester, Vol. 11 (New Series),
Manchester: published for the Chetham Society, 1887, courtesy
Googlebooks.
4. Joseph Bain, ed., "Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland,"
Edinburgh: Her Majesty's General Register House, (Vol. II), full
title: Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland, Preserved in Her
Majesty's Public Record Office, London.
5. J. W. R. Parker, "A Calendar of the Lancashire Assize Rolls
Preserved in the Public Record Office, London," London: printed for
the Record Society, 1904.
6. "Calendar of the Patent Rolls," preserved in the Public Record
Office, Edward I. A.D. 1272-1281, London: for the Public Record
Office.
7. "National Archives," http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/,
PROB 20/671, Cunyngham, Robert: Cayon, island of St Christopher
(1743).
8. "Access to Archives," http://www.a2a.pro.gov.uk/, extracted 7
October, 2002, DEEDS OF TITLE AND COGNATE PAPERS, Nottinghamshire, DD/
4P/22/250 - re: Aldeby and minority, William de Morley (1 March
1339/40), Girlington: from Warwickshire County Record Office: Mordaunt
of Walton, Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch: The Iveagh
(Phillipps) Suffolk Manuscripts, ref. HD 1538/172/3 - date: 6 Aug 1272
(re: Weyland), Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch: The Iveagh
(Phillipps) Suffolk Manuscripts, Thredling and Stow Hundreds, HD
1538/15 Vol.15/fol.17/4 - date: 28 Dec 1394, (ref. to Robert Morley,
knt.), Hastings: from Norfolk Record Office: Hastings Family of
Gressenhall, charters and other documents re: Hastings of Elsing, from
FILE - Charter - Grant - ref. MR 72 241 x 3, also, Norfolk Record
Office: Collecton of Manorial Documents relating to Gressenhall and
Hunstanton, (includes COLLECTION of MANORIAL DOCUMENTS relating to
GRESSENHALL and HUNSTANTON).
9. Michael Andrews-Reading, "Pennington and Lacy," 15 June 2006,
cites A2A record transcripts (13th cent.), GEN-MEDIEVAL-
L@rootsweb.com, email mjcar@btinternet.com.
10. Joseph Bain, ed., "Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland,"
Edinburgh: Her Majesty's General Register House, 1881 (Vol. I), full
title: Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland, Preserved in Her
Majesty's Public Record Office, London.
11. William Brown, B.A., ed., "Yorkshire Inquisitions," The Yorkshire
Archaeological Society, Record Series), various dates:, Vol. I (Record
series vol. XII) - 1892, Vol. II(Record series vol. XXIII) - 1898,
Vol. III (Record series vol. XXXI) - 1902, Vol. IV (Record series vol.
XXXVII) - 1906.
12. "Calendar of the Patent Rolls," preserved in the Public Record
Office, Henry III. A.D. 1225-1232, London: for the Public Record
Office.
13. Sir Charles Clay, ed., "Early Yorkshire Families," The Yorkshire
Archaeological Society, Record Series), 1973, Vol. CXXXV.
14. William Farrer, ed., "The Lancashire Pipe Rolls of 31 Henry I.,
A.D. 1130, and of the Reigns of Henry II, Richard I and King John,"
Liverpool: Henry Young and Sons, 1902, courtesy Googlebooks.
15. Sir William Dugdale, "Monasticon Anglicanum," London: Harding &
Lepard; and Longman Rees... Green, 1830, Vol. VI, Pt. 1 - Austin Abbey
of Wigmore, in Herefordshire, pp. 348-356 [Fundationis et Fundatorum
Historia], Vol. VI, Pt. 2 - Priory of Bullington, co. Lincs., pp.
951-954, URL http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/bibliogra ... il&id=2659.
16. "The Pipe-Rolls, or Sheriff's Annual Accounts of the Revenues of
the Crown for the Counties of Cumberland, Westmorland, and Durham,
during the Reigns of Henry II., Richard I., and John," Newcastle: T.
and J. Hodgson, published for the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle
upon Tyne, 1847.
17. William Farrer, Hon.D.Litt., Editor, "Early Yorkshire Charters,"
Ballantyne, Hanson & Co., Edinburgh, 1915-1916, Vol. II (1915) Vol.
III (1916), Vol. XII [the family of Constable of Flamborough],
courtesy Rosie Bevan, Vol. V [Manfield fee, pp. 53-58 ], courtesy
Rosie Bevan, Vol. IX [Stuteville fee], <Re: Avice de Tanfield, wife of
Robert Marmion>, SGM, 26 Feb 2002.
18. Institute of Historical Research, "The Later Records relating to
North Westmorland: or the Barony of Appleby," 'Parishes (East Ward):
All Saints', Orton', pp. 195-213, 1932, online available, courtesy
British History Online, URL URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=43513.
19. Paul C. Reed, "De La Mare," Feb 24, 1999, GEN-MEDIEVAL-
L@rootsweb.com.
20. G. E. Cokayne, "The Complete Peerage," 1910 - [microprint,
1982 (Alan Sutton) ], The Complete Peerage of England Scotland Ireland
Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
21. Paul C. Reed, "William Longespee," Mar 7, 1998, GEN-MEDIEVAL-
L@rootsweb.com, Discussion of possible identity of mother of William
Longespee, Sources incl: Farrer, W. Early Yorkshire Charters, Vol. 3
p. 318.
On Nov 19, 10:29 pm, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
Following is the promised AT for Maud de Pennington, wife of Sir
John de Huddleston.
Should anyone have additional relevant documentation, comment,
correction or criticism, that would be welcome.
Cheers,
John
======================================
1 Maud de Pennington.
record of contract for her marriage to John de Huddleston,
dated 9 Jan 1316/7:
' [24] Sir Richard de Hodleston hath granted to Sir William de
Penington the marriage of John, his eldest son and heir, to
Maud, daughter of the said Sir William, for
250 marks ; and the said Sir Richard hath enfeoffed the said
John and Maud in twenty marks' worth of land in the towns of
Breeby, Seton, Botill, Millum, &c. Dated Monday before the
Feast of St. Hilary, 11 Edward II. (i.e., 9 January, 1317).
[Dodsworth MSS., vol. xli., p. 114b.] ' [Foster,
Pennington Pedigree, pp. 13-14[1]]
ca 9 Jan 1316 Maud married Sir John de Huddleston.[1]
2 Sir William de Pennington.
died aft 1318.[2]
knt., of Muncaster, Cumberland, Pennington, Lancashire and Orton,
Westmorland
' William de Pennington, son of Alan, next appears.
(fn. 12) He obtained a grant of free warren in his demesne
lands of Pennington in 1301, (fn. 13) and served in the Scotch
wars. In 1317 a dispute between him and the Abbot of Furness
was tried concerning the services due from the manor. (fn. 14)
The abbot had in 1314 at 'Quaildalflat' and the Moor in
Pennington seized a number of William's cattle by way of
distraint, alleging that the due reaping in autumn and
ploughing throughout the year had not been done. (fn. 15) The
abbot in 1318 made an agreement about it with Sir William,
(fn. 16) but the dispute was renewed, and in 1328 he formally
released the ploughing and reaping to John son of William de
Pennington, John acknowledging that he held the manor of the
abbot and convent by the service of the tenth part of a
knight's fee, doing suit at the abbot's court at Dalton from
three weeks to three weeks and a rent of 30s.
yearly. (fn. 17) ' [VCH Lancaster, VIII:338-342[2]]
4 Sir Alan de Pennington.
Born aft 27 Mar 1233.[3]
died aft 30 Nov 1292, he was 59.[4]
knt., of Muncaster, Cumberland, Pennington, Lancashire and
Orton, Westmorland
a minor on succeeding his father
b. after 27 Mar 1233:
record of the following transaction dated 27 Mar 1254:
' CCCIII. - Surrender to the Convent by Thomas de Greystock
and his wife Agnes of the right of marrying the sons and heirs
of the late Thomas de Pennington, whose widow the said Agnes
was, the right specified being hers by purchase from the
Convent.' [Furness Coucher II:487-8, no. CCCIII[3]]
sought 2 parts of the manor of Pennington from his mother
Agnes and her then husband - record of a writ in the
Lancashire Assize Rolls, dated at Westminster, 11 Feb
47 Hen III [1262-3]:
' Justice assigned: Peter de Percy
Plaintiffs: Alan de Penynton
Defendant: Thomas de Creistok and Agnes his wife
Writ and subject: Mort d'Ancestor, 2 parts of the manor
of Penynton. ' [Lancs. Assize Rolls p. 238[5], cites
Patent Roll 47 Hen. III, No. 77, m. 20d.]
' D'no Alano de Penington, Militibus ' [" lord Alan de
Pennington, knight[s] " ], witness {together with Sir
Ranulf Dacre and others] to an agreement settling a
dispute between Furness Abbey and Roger de Lancaster
concerning pasture and other rights in Ulverston, dated
at Ulverston, 29 June 1276 [ "in hac forma quievit in
vigilia Apostolorum Petri et Pauli apud Ulverston
A'o r. Regis Edwardi i. quarto.."] [Furness Coucher
II:384-5, no. CCXXIV[3]]
record of protection, dated at Worcester, 6 Jul 5 Edw I (1277):
' Protection with clause volumus, until Michaelmas
[unless otherwise specified], for the following, going
to Wales on the king's service: -
Alan de Penington, going with Robert de Percy. '
[CPR 5 Edw. I (1272-1281), p. 219, mem. 8[6]]
record of protection, dated at Worcester, 6 Jul 5 Edw I (1277):
' Protection with clause volumus, until Michaelmas [unless
otherwise specified], for the following, going to Wales
on the king's service: -
Alan de Penington, going with Robert de Percy. '
[CPR 5 Edw. I (1272-1281), p. 219, mem. 8[6]]
record of protection, dated at Chester, 20 Sept 5 Edw I (1277):
' Protection with clause volumus, until Christmas [unless
otherwise specified], for the following, going to Wales on
the king's service: -
Alan son of Thomas de Penyngton. '
[CPR 5 Edw. I (1272-1281), p. 222, mem. 8[6]]
summons to a court in Appleby, dated 3 Nov 1278:
" Robert de Molecastre ", summoned to answer ' Alan de
Penintone in a plea that he hold the convention between
them regarding the manor of Molecastre; wherein Alan says
that whereas he had agreed with Robert on Saturday next
before the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Mary
last, that Robert should deliver to him the manor of
Gyffyn in Coningham in Scotland, at the Feast of the
Nativity of St. John Baptist next following, and at
that term would acknowledge coram Rege Scotiae that
the manor of Giffyn was Alan's right, and also deliver
to him a certain charter whereby an ancestor of Alan
[Benedict de Penigton] whose heir he is, was enfeoffed
in said manor;...' [Bain, Cal. Docs. Scotland II:29-30[4],
no. 133, cites Assize Roll, Cumberland, 6 Edw I.]
record of a quitclaim, dated 1248x1293:
'DL 25/456
Alan son of Thomas de Penyngton to Furness Abbey: Quitclaim
of his villein Alan son of Waldev de Walthwayt: (Lancs) '[7]
evidently living after 30 Nov 1292:
record of his having received a grant of lands in Scotland
from King John [Baliol]:
' Lands alienated since Christmas 1294, and therefore
seized [in Yorkshire, by the English crown, order dated at
Berwick, 27 April 1296]:
Geoffry de Moubray of Scotland had 10l. of land in the vill
of Raskelf which he gave to Alan de Peningeton knight, in
exchange for land which the late K. John gave Alan in
Scotland. ' [Bain, Cal. Docs. Scotland II:171-2[4]]
identified as father of 'Alicia de Lascy of Crumwelbochyn,
widow, daughter of Alan de Pennington' [A2A, Pennington
papers at the Cumbria RO (D Pen/10/1)[8], courtesy Michael
Andrews-Reading[9]]
______________________________
' The custody of Alan son and heir of Thomas de Pennington
was in dispute in 1250. (fn. 10) The same Alan may still
have been in possession in 1292, when there were disputes
between Alan de Pennington and the Abbot of Furness and the
Prior of Conishead. The abbot, as head of the wapentake of
Furness, had made a distraint at Pennington for puture of
a servant and 'witnessman,' which Alan regarded as illegal,
but he was non-suited. ' [VCH Lancaster, VIII:338-342[2]]
8 Thomas de Pennington.
died bef 10 Dec 1248.[3]
of Muncaster, Cumberland, Pennington, Lancashire and
Orton, Westmorland
he d. before 10 Dec 1248 [Furness Coucher II:488-9,
no. CCCIV[3] - see text below]
Thomas married Agnes de Longvillers.
9 Agnes de Longvillers. Agnes died aft 11 Feb 1262.[5]
widow of Thomas de Pennington, she entered into the following
agreement on 10 Dec 1248:
' CCCIV. - Deed of Purchase from the Convent by Agnes,
widow of the late Thomas de Pennington, of the wardship
of the Pennington lands and the right of marriage of her
sons by her late husband.
Omnibus Christi, etc. Agnes, filia D'ni J[ohannis] de
Lungvilers, quondam uxor T[homae] de Peni[n]gton, s. in
Domino. Noveritis me, A.D. M'o CC'o XL'o VIII'o, mense
Decembris, die Jovis prox. praecedente festum S. Luciae,
finem fecisse cum Abbate et Conv. F[urnesii] pro warda
t'rae de Peni[n]gton, cum pert., simul et pro maritagiis
mei ipsius et haer. meorum de praedicto T[homa] de
Penigton, quondam d'no meo, et me procreatis - scil.,
pro c.li, de quibus prae manibus persolvi praedictis
Abbati et Conv....
Hiis Test: - D'nis J[ohanne] de Lungvilers, patre meo;
Mathaeo de Redmane, tunc Vicec. Lanc.; W[illelmo]
Greindorge, Militibus; J[ohanne] de Cancefelde; etc. '
[Furness Coucher II:488-9, no. CCCIV[3]]
she had remarried, to Thomas de Greystoke, before 27 Mar 1254:
' CCCIII. - Surrender to the Convent by Thomas de Greystock
and his wife Agnes of the right of marrying the sons and
heirs of the late Thomas de Pennington, whose widow the
said Agnes was, the right specified being hers by purchase
from the Convent.
Omnibus Christi fidelibus hoc scriptum etc. Thomas de
Creistock et Agnes uxor ejus, filia J[ohannis] de
Lungevilers, salutem in Domino. Noveritis nos, pro nobis
et haer. nostris, remisisse et quietum clamasse Abbati et
Conv. F[urnesii] in perp., totum jus et clamium quod
habuimus vel in posterum habere poterimus in maritagio
filiorum et haeredum T[homae] de Peni[n]gton, quondam
filii et haer. Alani de Peni[n]gton, quod quidem
maritagium praefati Abbas et Conventus michi, Agneti,
in mea viduitate vendiderunt,....
Acta apud Ebor. in Majori Ecclesia B. Petri, A.D.
M'o CC'o L'o IIII'o, die Veneris prox. post
Annuntiationem Dominicam.
Hiis Test. : - Magistro Rogero Pepin, tunc Subdecano
Ebor.; Magistro T. de Wenpont, Persona de Greistoc;
D'no J[ohanne] de Cancefelde; etc. ' [Furness Coucher
II:487-8, no. CCCIII[3]]
her son Alan de Pennington sought 2 parts of the manor of
Pennington from his mother Agnes and her then
husband - record of a writ in the Lancashire Assize Rolls,
dated at Westminster, 11 Feb 47 Hen III [1262-3]:
' Justice assigned: Peter de Percy
Plaintiffs: Alan de Penynton
Defendant: Thomas de Creistok and Agnes his wife
Writ and subject: Mort d'Ancestor, 2 parts of the
manor of Penynton. ' [Lancs. Assize Rolls p. 238[5],
cites Patent Roll 47 Hen. III, No. 77, m. 20d.]
she m. 1stly Thomas de Pennington,
2ndly Thomas de Greystoke
16 Alan de Pennington.
died aft 1210.[10]
of Muncaster, Cumberland, Pennington, Lancashire and Orton,
Westmorland
'Alan son of Benedict', witness to a quitclaim to the abbey
of Furness dated 1154 x 1189 [Foster, Pennington Pedigree,
p. 5[1]]
'Benedict de Peningtone, Alan and Alexander. his sons',
witnesses to a grant by William le Fleming of Furness to
the abbey of Furness dated 1175x 1187 [Foster, Pennington
Pedigree, p. 5[1]]
DL 25/367
Letters of ratification of the settlement of a dispute
between Furness Abbey and Alan son of Benedict, referred
to the oath of twelve knights: whether the land of Ulvedale
is held by Alan of the abbot, or by the abbot in demesne
(Lancs), dated 1189x1209 [National Archives, Records of
the Chancellor and Council of the Duchy of Lancaster[7]]
had grant of Ravenglass from Richard de Luci, 1208
' Alan de Penigtun ', witness [together with Henry fitz
Arthur, Adam de Carlisle, Henry de Millum, Alan de
Pennington, Robert de Boiville, Philip de Norreys and
others] of charter of Aliz de Rumelli of the lands of
Borrowdale to the priory of St. Mary of Furness,
ca. 1210x1212 [Bain, Cal. Docs. Scotland I:96-97, no. 554[10]]
__________________________________
' Benedict de Pennington and Alan his son and heir occur
in the latter part of the 12th century (fn.
Alan son of Benedict granted 2 oxgangs of land in
Pennington to Hugh son of Edward.' [VCH Lancaster,
VIII:338-342[2]]
18 Sir John de Longvillers.
died bef 5 Nov 1254.[11]
knt., of Hutton Longvilers and Farnelay, co. Yorks.
probably born ca. 1200x1205 (his mother born 1181 or before).
record of an assize of novel disseisin brought by John de
Lungvilers against Robert de Dayvill and Dionisia his wife,
concerning a tenement in Skegby, justiciars appointed at
Shirburn on 29 Dec 1229:
' Willelmus de Cressy, Willelmus de Chaurcis, Robertus de
Dun et Johannes le Breton constituti sunt justiciarii ad
assisam nova dissaisine capiendam apud Notingham a die
Sancti Hillarii in xv dies, quam Johannes de Lungvilers
aramiavit versus Robertum de Dayvill et Dionisiam,
uxorem ejus, de tenemento de Skegeby; salvis etc. Teste
ut supra ["apud Shireburn, xxix die Decembris."]. '
[CPR 14 Hen. III, p. 351, m. 7d[12]]
the King took his homage for half a knight's fee in
Lincolnshire on 11 June 1246, which his mother held in
chief, and for 2 knights' fees in Yorkshire, held of the
Earl of Lincoln [Yorks. Inqs. I:40[11]]
~ note also: his daughter Agnes was widowed, and had a son
and heir, before 10 Dec 1248, when he witnessed her
purchase of wardship and rights of marriage from
Furness Abbey [Furness Coucher II:488-9, no. CCCIV[3]]
evidently received a gift of the manor of Hornby, co.
Lancs. from his uncle, Roger de Montbegon [EYC 53[13]]
' John de Lungvilers [knight]', witness to exchange by
his cousin Mabel Malherbe of lands of her inheritance
in Cawthorne, co. Yorks. to her sister Olivia for
Olivia's lands in Culgaith, co. Cumbs. (grant undated
[est. 'Middle of 13th century' ]):
' Grant by Olyva de la Mare, widow, to Richard de Thornil,
her son, of all her land in Galthorn namely all that land
which she had of Geoffrey de Nevill and Mabel, his wife,
in exchange for land in Culgarth, in accordance of a deed
of quit claim which the said Richard has from William de
Arci, the said Olyva's son and heir.
Witnesses, John de Lungvilers, Robert de Stapelton,
William de Brettona, Adam de Mirfeud, Adam de Preston,
knights, Richard de Tanoreslay [sic: Tancreslay, or
Tankersley].' - A2A, West Yorkshire Archive Service,
Yorkshire Archaeological Society: Clarke Thornhill
of Fixby Collection, DD12/II/3/10[8]
IPM of Sir John de Longvilers, Yorks. Inqs. I:40-44[11]
Sir John married NN.
19 NN.
32 Benedict de Pennington.
of Muncaster, Cumberland, Pennington, Lancashire and
Orton, Westmorland
' B[e]n[e]dict[us] de Penytona ', one of the 30 ' persons
by whose verdict the division of the Fells was made '
between the monks of Furness priory and William de Lancaster,
confirmed by King Henry II dated at Woodstock, July 1163
[Farrer, Lancashire Pipe Rolls, Lancashire Cartulary
Series IV, pp. 311-4, Charter No. IX[14]; cites Duchy
of Lanc., Royal Charters, Class X, No. 27.]
' Benedictus de Penitona, et Meldredus frater meus ',
granted his lands in Skeldou Moor [ 'mora de Skeldhou' ]
to the monastery of Russyn in the isle of Man [witnessed
by Roger, prior of Furness, Ivo, dean of Coupland, Adam,
parson of Millum, William de Essebi and others - Furness
Coucher II:510-511, no. CCCXVIII[3]]
" B[enedictus] de peni[n]gtu[na] ", granted a charter
confirming the grant of the church of Muncaster and
the chapel of St. Aldeburg to the hospital of St.
Mary of Conishead, ' with the consent of Alan my
heir........for the health of my soul, and of my
wife Anneis (Anice) and of all our parents. This
gift was made in the face of the whole chapter of
Lancaster ', dated 1180x1199 and endorsed
" benedicti d[e] penigtu[n]." [Farrer, Lancashire
Pipe Rolls, Lancashire Cartulary Series XII,
pp. 360-1, Charter No. III[14]]
~ the above grant confirmed by King Edward II:
" Concessionem etiam et confirmationem, quas B. de
Penigton fecit hospitali et fratribus ejusdem loci,
de ecclesia de Molecastre, et capella dicta Aldeburge,
cum omnibus pertinentiis suis. ' [confirmation by King
Edward II, dated at York, 28 Sept 12 Edw II [1318]
- Mon. Angl. VI(1):556, Num. I[15]]
fl. 1185:
' In the 31st Henry II., Benedict de Pennington
(of Mulcaster) occurs.' [Pipe Rolls, p. lxiii[16]]
record dated 33 Hen II [1186-87]:
' De his qui totum reddiderunt.
.....
Benedictus de Peninton r. c. de c. s. pro defalta.
In th'ro v. m. Et debet xxxiij. s. et iiij. d. '
[ " William de Craven, Benedict de Pennington, of Bolton
in Furness, Adam de Blakeburn, Richard de Harwood, and
Robert, Archdeacon of Chester, owed sundry fines for
default;... " - Farrer, Lancashire Pipe Rolls,
pp. 63-64, Roll of 33 Henry II.[14]]
'Benedict de Peningtone, Alan and Alexander. his sons',
witnesses to a grant by William le Fleming of Furness
to the abbey of Furness dated 1175x 1187 [Foster,
Pennington Pedigree, p. 5[1]]
held Giffen in co. Ayr (Scotland) as indicated in a
summons to a court in Appleby, dated 3 Nov 1278
[Bain, Cal. Docs. Scotland II:29-30[4], no. 133,
cites Assize Roll, Cumberland, 6 Edw I. Re: which
see details under Alan de Pennington, no. 4 above]
________________________
' Benedict de Pennington and Alan his son and heir
occur in the latter part of the 12th century (fn.
[VCH Lancaster, VIII:338-342[2]]
cf. Foster, Pennington Pedigree, pp. 3-5[1]
Benedict married Agnes.
33 Agnes.
' Agnete, uxore Benedicti de Penintuna ', witness to
a grant dated 1160 x1189:
'[7] Grant made by Robert de Boiville and Margaret, his wife, with
William, their son, and his brothers, to the abbot and convent
of Furness, of a moiety of Newby, &c., which had been given
by charter of Waltheof, son of Edmund, to Robert de Boiville,
as a marriage portion with his daughter. Witnesses (many
names) et Agnete, uxore Benedicti de Penintuna. '
[Foster, Pennington Pedigree, p. 4[1], cites Bank's Annales
Furnessense, p. 148; Charters, Duchy of Lanc., box B., No.
176.]
her husband Benedict de Pennington granted a charter confirming
the grant of the church of Muncaster and the chapel of St.
Aldeburg to the hospital of St. Mary of Conishead, ' with
the consent of Alan my heir........for the health of my
soul, and of my wife Anneis (Anice) and of all our parents.
This gift was made in the face of the whole chapter of
Lancaster ', dated 1180x1199 [Farrer, Lancashire Pipe Rolls,
Lancashire Cartulary Series XII, pp. 360-1, Charter No.
III[14]]
36 Eudo de Longvillers.
died bef 29 Dec 1229.[17]
of Badsworth and Gargrave, co. Yorks.
cf. EYC III:319, no. 1663[17]
EYF 52-53[13]
Eudo married Clementia Malherbe.
37 Clementia Malherbe.
died bef 11 Jun 1246.[11]
she d. before 11 June 1246 [date her son rendered
homage (Yorks. Inqs. I:40)[11]]
cf. EYC III:319, no. 1663[17]
64 Gamel de Pennington.
died aft 1154.[18]
of Muncaster, Pennington and Orton, Westmorland
' Between the years 1154 and 1163 Gamel de Pennington
granted the churches of Pennington, Muncaster and
Sker-Overton, with the appurtenances thereof to the
priory of Conishead, and the same was confirmed by
John Bartholomew, prior of Carlisle, in the time of
Hugh, 3rd Bishop of Carlisle (1219-1223).'[18]
~ the above grant confirmed by King Edward II:
" Donationem, &c. quas Gamellus de Penygton fecit
canonicis ejusdem loci, de ecclesia de Penigton, cum
pertinentiis, et ecclesia de Molcastre, cum capellis
et omnibus aliis pertinentiis; et ecclesia de Wytebec
cum pertinentiis, et ecclesia de Skeroverton cum
omnibus pertinentiis; et Pultone cum rectis divisis. '
[confirmation by King Edward II, dated at York, 28 Sept
12 Edw II [1318] - Mon. Angl. VI(1):557, Num. I[15]]
his son Benedict granted a charter confirming the grant of
the church of Muncaster and the chapel of St. Aldeburg to
the hospital of St. Mary of Conishead, dated 1180x1199
[Farrer, Lancashire Pipe Rolls, Lancashire Cartulary
Series XII, pp. 360-1, Charter No. III[14]]
__________________________________
' Gamel de Pennington, whose name occurs on the ancient
tympanum at Beckside, is supposed to have been the
founder of Conishead Priory in the time of Henry II
(fn. 6) ; he gave it the church of Pennington. (fn. 7) '
[VCH Lancaster, VIII:338-342[2]]
cf. VCH Lancaster, VIII:338-342[2]
Foster, Pennington Pedigree, p. 2[1]
72 NN de Longvillers.
an apparent elder brother of William de Longvilers, name unknown:
Farrer wrote,
' It seems probable that Eudes de Longvilers, who held
1 fee of Henry de Lascy in 1166, was father of (1) Eudes,
who married Clementia, sister and coheir of John Malherbe,
(2) Ivo, who married Agnes de Reinevill and obtained
Badsworth with her, and (3) William, who gave 10 marks
in 1194 to have seisin of Honley (Hanlega) which Robert
de Lascy had given to him.' [EYC III:253, no. 1582[17]]
* this reconstruction appears partially flawed, as Yvo and
Eudo are in fact the same name. It appears most likely that
Eudo, husband of Clementia Malherbe, was a grandson of
the elder Eudes, and son of an otherwise unknown elder
son who likely ob.v.p.
74 John Malherbe. John died in 1181.[19]
of Appleby, co. Lincs.
acquired lands of Appleby by marriage
2nd husband of Matilda[20],[19]
cf. EYC III:319, no. 1663[17]
John married Matilda fitz Adam.
75 Matilda fitz Adam.
coheiress (received Appleby as inheritance or maritagium)[21]
she fined to have custody of the lands and heir of her husband
John Malherbe, 1185/6 and 1186/7:
"Matildisque fuit uxor Johannis
Malherbe redd. comp. de .xlvj. s. et .viij. d. pro custodia
de Appelbi cum herede suo [/hereditate sua] de qua finivit
cum rege." [Paul Reed, cites Pipe Rolls in 1185-6 (p. 73)
and 1186-7 (p. 70).[21] ]
she m. 1st Adam de Montbegon (d. bef. 1172),
2ndly John Malherbe,
3rdly Gerard de Glanville[20],[19]
cf. EYC III:319, no. 1663[17]
Rosie Bevan, <Re: de Montebegom with Hansard Up
Front Again>, 12 July 2001
1. Joseph Foster, "Pedigree of Sir Josslyn Pennington, Fifth Baron
Muncaster of Muncaster and Ninth Baronet," London: privately printed
at the Chiswick Press, 1878, courtesy Googlebooks, URL
http://books.google.com/books?id=7NMKAA ... 1#PPA13,M1.
2. "A History of the County of Lancaster," ' The parish of Pennington
', Oxford: published for the Institute of Historical Research, Oxford
Univ. Press, 1914, Vol. VIII, http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=53324,
courtesy University of London and History of Parliament Trust.
3. Rev. J. C. Atkinson, M.A., ed., "The Coucher Book of Furness
Abbey, Part II," Remains Historical and Literary connected with the
Palatine Counties of Lancaster and Chester, Vol. 11 (New Series),
Manchester: published for the Chetham Society, 1887, courtesy
Googlebooks.
4. Joseph Bain, ed., "Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland,"
Edinburgh: Her Majesty's General Register House, (Vol. II), full
title: Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland, Preserved in Her
Majesty's Public Record Office, London.
5. J. W. R. Parker, "A Calendar of the Lancashire Assize Rolls
Preserved in the Public Record Office, London," London: printed for
the Record Society, 1904.
6. "Calendar of the Patent Rolls," preserved in the Public Record
Office, Edward I. A.D. 1272-1281, London: for the Public Record
Office.
7. "National Archives," http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/,
PROB 20/671, Cunyngham, Robert: Cayon, island of St Christopher
(1743).
8. "Access to Archives," http://www.a2a.pro.gov.uk/, extracted 7
October, 2002, DEEDS OF TITLE AND COGNATE PAPERS, Nottinghamshire, DD/
4P/22/250 - re: Aldeby and minority, William de Morley (1 March
1339/40), Girlington: from Warwickshire County Record Office: Mordaunt
of Walton, Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch: The Iveagh
(Phillipps) Suffolk Manuscripts, ref. HD 1538/172/3 - date: 6 Aug 1272
(re: Weyland), Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch: The Iveagh
(Phillipps) Suffolk Manuscripts, Thredling and Stow Hundreds, HD
1538/15 Vol.15/fol.17/4 - date: 28 Dec 1394, (ref. to Robert Morley,
knt.), Hastings: from Norfolk Record Office: Hastings Family of
Gressenhall, charters and other documents re: Hastings of Elsing, from
FILE - Charter - Grant - ref. MR 72 241 x 3, also, Norfolk Record
Office: Collecton of Manorial Documents relating to Gressenhall and
Hunstanton, (includes COLLECTION of MANORIAL DOCUMENTS relating to
GRESSENHALL and HUNSTANTON).
9. Michael Andrews-Reading, "Pennington and Lacy," 15 June 2006,
cites A2A record transcripts (13th cent.), GEN-MEDIEVAL-
L@rootsweb.com, email mjcar@btinternet.com.
10. Joseph Bain, ed., "Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland,"
Edinburgh: Her Majesty's General Register House, 1881 (Vol. I), full
title: Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland, Preserved in Her
Majesty's Public Record Office, London.
11. William Brown, B.A., ed., "Yorkshire Inquisitions," The Yorkshire
Archaeological Society, Record Series), various dates:, Vol. I (Record
series vol. XII) - 1892, Vol. II(Record series vol. XXIII) - 1898,
Vol. III (Record series vol. XXXI) - 1902, Vol. IV (Record series vol.
XXXVII) - 1906.
12. "Calendar of the Patent Rolls," preserved in the Public Record
Office, Henry III. A.D. 1225-1232, London: for the Public Record
Office.
13. Sir Charles Clay, ed., "Early Yorkshire Families," The Yorkshire
Archaeological Society, Record Series), 1973, Vol. CXXXV.
14. William Farrer, ed., "The Lancashire Pipe Rolls of 31 Henry I.,
A.D. 1130, and of the Reigns of Henry II, Richard I and King John,"
Liverpool: Henry Young and Sons, 1902, courtesy Googlebooks.
15. Sir William Dugdale, "Monasticon Anglicanum," London: Harding &
Lepard; and Longman Rees... Green, 1830, Vol. VI, Pt. 1 - Austin Abbey
of Wigmore, in Herefordshire, pp. 348-356 [Fundationis et Fundatorum
Historia], Vol. VI, Pt. 2 - Priory of Bullington, co. Lincs., pp.
951-954, URL http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/bibliogra ... il&id=2659.
16. "The Pipe-Rolls, or Sheriff's Annual Accounts of the Revenues of
the Crown for the Counties of Cumberland, Westmorland, and Durham,
during the Reigns of Henry II., Richard I., and John," Newcastle: T.
and J. Hodgson, published for the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle
upon Tyne, 1847.
17. William Farrer, Hon.D.Litt., Editor, "Early Yorkshire Charters,"
Ballantyne, Hanson & Co., Edinburgh, 1915-1916, Vol. II (1915) Vol.
III (1916), Vol. XII [the family of Constable of Flamborough],
courtesy Rosie Bevan, Vol. V [Manfield fee, pp. 53-58 ], courtesy
Rosie Bevan, Vol. IX [Stuteville fee], <Re: Avice de Tanfield, wife of
Robert Marmion>, SGM, 26 Feb 2002.
18. Institute of Historical Research, "The Later Records relating to
North Westmorland: or the Barony of Appleby," 'Parishes (East Ward):
All Saints', Orton', pp. 195-213, 1932, online available, courtesy
British History Online, URL URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=43513.
19. Paul C. Reed, "De La Mare," Feb 24, 1999, GEN-MEDIEVAL-
L@rootsweb.com.
20. G. E. Cokayne, "The Complete Peerage," 1910 - [microprint,
1982 (Alan Sutton) ], The Complete Peerage of England Scotland Ireland
Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
21. Paul C. Reed, "William Longespee," Mar 7, 1998, GEN-MEDIEVAL-
L@rootsweb.com, Discussion of possible identity of mother of William
Longespee, Sources incl: Farrer, W. Early Yorkshire Charters, Vol. 3
p. 318.
On Nov 19, 10:29 pm, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
Monday, 19 November, 2007
Dear Leo, Will, et al.,
I noted over the weekend an interesting work by Joseph
Foster, entitled "Pedigree of Sir Josslyn Pennington, Fifth
Baron Muncaster of Muncaster and Ninth Baronet" (1878),
courtesy of our friends at LiveSearch. This has a great deal
of detail concerning the early history of the Penningtons of
Pennington, Muncaster/Mulcastre, etc.
In particular, this provides 14th century evidence as
to the marriage of Sir John de Huddleston of Millom with
Maud, daughter of Sir William de Pennington. More
importantly, the chronology involving the marriage
contract of January 1316/7 makes it certain that Sir William
de Pennington, son of Sir Alan (d. aft 30 Nov 1292) was the
father of Maud. This will enable you (Will) to extend
the Pennington ancestry now shown on your database, and
will also expand that currently on Genealogics for Sir
William de Pennington (#I00485050).
I will send a detailed AT for Maud de Pennington to
the newsgroup, with sources, giving the ancestry traced as
I now have it to Pennington, Longvillers, and Malherbe.
I'm also hopeful that some further evidence concerning the
Pennington holdings in Giffen, co. Ayr (Scotland) will
be forthcoming that will provide firm evidence of some
interesting 12th/13th century ancestry about which we only
have conjectures to date.
Cheers,
John *
=====================================
from Joseph Foster, Pedigree of Sir Josslyn Pennington,
Fifth Baron Muncaster of Muncaster and Ninth Baronet
(London: privately printed at the Chiswick Press, 1878),
pp. 13-14.
http://books.google.com/books?id=7NMKAA ... penigton...
' Marriage of John de Hodleston with Maud de Penington.
Sir Richard de Hudleston. = Sir William de Penington. =
________________I ____________I
I I
John de Hodleston, eldest son and heir. = Maud.
[24] Sir Richard de Hodleston hath granted to Sir William de
Penington the marriage of John, his eldest son and heir, to
Maud, daughter of the said Sir William, for
250 marks ; and the said Sir Richard hath enfeoffed the said
John and Maud in twenty marks' worth of land in the towns of
Breeby, Seton, Botill, Millum, &c. Dated Monday before the
Feast of St. Hilary, 11 Edward II. (i.e., 9 January, 1317).
[Dodsworth MSS., vol. xli., p. 114b.]
1351-2.
Grant by Joan de Penington.
Sir William de Penington, knt. =
_________________________I
I
Joane.
[Z5] To all, &c. Joan de Penyngton, daughter of Sir William
de Penington, knight, greeting. Be it known unto all men
that whereas John de Hudleston, lord of Millum, standeth
bounden unto me by his writing in the sum of l0l. 13s. 4d.
I will and grant that if the said John de Hodilleston, or
Maud his wife, or John, their son and heir, shall find me
in reasonable support for my life, &c. Dated at Millum,
on the morrow of the Epiphany, 25 Edward III. (7 January,
1351-2).
[Ibid., fo. 117b.]
Chapter VIII.
Sir John de Penington.
1323.
Demise to John de Harington, Rector of Aldingham, of the
demesne, lands, and park of tbe manor of Penington.
William>> de Penington. =
___________________________I
I
John de Penington, 2 June, 1323.
[26] This indenture witnesseth that John, Abbot of Furness,
hath demised to farm to Sir John de Haverington, rector of
the church of Aldingham, all the demesne, lands, and
park of the manor of Penington, with the services and
appurtenances, which the said abbot hath in custody, by
reason of the minority of J[ohn] de Penington, son and heir
of William de Penington, to have and to hold the same from
the feast-day of S. Martin-in-winter (11 November), 1323,
up to the full age of said John de Peniton, yielding
therefore, yearly, to the faid abbot and his successors,
40s. sterling, at Pentecost and S. Martin-in-winter, by
equal portions. So, nevertheless, if any thing due by
green wax on the said manor shall come in demand, and the
said Sir John shall be compelled to pay the same,
whatsoever so paid by him, the said abbot shall allow in
the said farm. ....'
* John P. Ravilious
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Hi, gen-medievalers 
ADDENDA:
ADDENDUM 2: the BML Peck Pedigree is a Medieval document unassailable
in its historical setting, creation, and primacy and provenance [ see gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007 ].
Will: "Of Beccles," blah, blah, blah.
BA: Of course, Will, you are trying to muddle the case. The
case is simple. Robert Peck, the Elder, is *stipulated* as one of the
9 sons of John Peck, of Wakefield, in the BML Peck Pedigree. Please
do not muddle that FACT. That FACT predate by several centuries
any bluster you or other naysayers wish to attach to a proposed pedigree
under resolution at gen-medieval. You *know* that in seeking ancestral roots
that to place Robert Peck, the Elder, in Beccles causes readers to believe
he was *born* there. Robert Peck, the Elder, was born elsewhere. So
why must you muddle with the pedigree? What *is* your hidden agenda?
Please state it? Inquiring minds want to know.
Remember when Will, and others, challenged the Middleton segment?
Once John Higgins, scholar, set you all straight did you all recant,
and remain silent and ignored the thread for days. Why? Because statements
of fact put you all in your place: muddlers with *no* basis in fact.
Assertions with no basis in fact are *not* statements of fact. A statement
of fact is a fact. Everybody knows that, apparently, except you and your
cadre of muddlers. If you have *no* facts to contribute to the Peck pedigree
why don't you go attack another thread? Few scholars contribute original
scholarship to this list: the lead scholar amongst you is Douglas Richardson,
and few of you understand a gentleman and scholar when he posts to
gen-medieval. It is obvious most of you cannot *read* the printed word.
Scholar Douglas Richardson is a lion amongst wilderbeast, a *hunter* in
the tribe of *gatherers* and you do *not* understand the value of original
research. Scholar Douglas Richardson plans a book on Charlemagne Descent,
and in the appropriate time frame will deal with the BML Peck Pedigree. The
rest of you as breathless gatherers will pick up the twigs dropped from his
bundle of the hunter in the wilderness. Few dare enter those dark reaches
of medieval documents: you all are gatherers of left-over facts, and you all
know it, and should be *thankful* for the gentleman and scholar amongst
you, Douglas Richardson!
When the BML Peck Pedigree was under attack, by you and your cadre of
naysayers, with no basis in fact, just assertions that it was created in the
19thC by Somerby, I suggested you all consider *provenance* issues. What
did you all do? You all issued assertions with no basis in fact that Somerby
was a forger and therefore the BML Peck Pedigree was a forgery. Well, then
when Nat Taylor, scholar, set you all straight, did you all, once again, recant,
and go silent for days on end, leaving the thread alone. What a sorry bunch of
losers you all turned out to be, with your champion cheerleader leading the
pack from somewhere in the south Pacific: speaking on middle English
matters, and his main appetites being erotica and mindless attacks on the
diet of modern Englishmen. Please make sense of your support of such
nonsense, and supporters!
The reason the sun shows an appearance of going around the earth daily
has nothing to do with pseudo-astrophysics as your cadre would have have
all believe. Why did you look for support in others, in the Middleton segment,
and then in the science analogy? It is simple why the sun has an appearance
of reality: the earth turns on its axis, something Ptolemy could not conceive
of in his limited vision of planetary motion. Equally, in gen-medieval, some
would-be commentators, who love to dish and plish every thread that comes
along with their naysaying, have *not* the ability to research the FACTS of
the thread: so they make up stories. In journalism and scholarship, we call
these stories *red-herrings.* When commentators have no factual basis for
making statements of fact, they should move on and leave the floor to the
gentlemen and scholars. It demeans you to be a naysayer. Grow up! Get
some wisdom, and remember how the archives includes the FACT you "pooped"
when you were proven wrong by scholar John Higgins in the Middleton segment,
and in FACT were put in your silent and quiet place. You ought to understand
that the BML Peck Pedigree is as valid as a Visitation, a court document, a
chancery document, or any other Medieval document because that is what
*IT* is: a FACT in the record, a medieval document created by the College
of Heralds during the medieval period. You have *no* basis in FACT to challenge
it with assertions on the periphery of the illogic.
Thank you once again, one and all,
I remain your humble servant and scholar,
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ
ADDENDA:
ADDENDUM 2: the BML Peck Pedigree is a Medieval document unassailable
in its historical setting, creation, and primacy and provenance [ see gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007 ].
Will: "Of Beccles," blah, blah, blah.
BA: Of course, Will, you are trying to muddle the case. The
case is simple. Robert Peck, the Elder, is *stipulated* as one of the
9 sons of John Peck, of Wakefield, in the BML Peck Pedigree. Please
do not muddle that FACT. That FACT predate by several centuries
any bluster you or other naysayers wish to attach to a proposed pedigree
under resolution at gen-medieval. You *know* that in seeking ancestral roots
that to place Robert Peck, the Elder, in Beccles causes readers to believe
he was *born* there. Robert Peck, the Elder, was born elsewhere. So
why must you muddle with the pedigree? What *is* your hidden agenda?
Please state it? Inquiring minds want to know.
Remember when Will, and others, challenged the Middleton segment?
Once John Higgins, scholar, set you all straight did you all recant,
and remain silent and ignored the thread for days. Why? Because statements
of fact put you all in your place: muddlers with *no* basis in fact.
Assertions with no basis in fact are *not* statements of fact. A statement
of fact is a fact. Everybody knows that, apparently, except you and your
cadre of muddlers. If you have *no* facts to contribute to the Peck pedigree
why don't you go attack another thread? Few scholars contribute original
scholarship to this list: the lead scholar amongst you is Douglas Richardson,
and few of you understand a gentleman and scholar when he posts to
gen-medieval. It is obvious most of you cannot *read* the printed word.
Scholar Douglas Richardson is a lion amongst wilderbeast, a *hunter* in
the tribe of *gatherers* and you do *not* understand the value of original
research. Scholar Douglas Richardson plans a book on Charlemagne Descent,
and in the appropriate time frame will deal with the BML Peck Pedigree. The
rest of you as breathless gatherers will pick up the twigs dropped from his
bundle of the hunter in the wilderness. Few dare enter those dark reaches
of medieval documents: you all are gatherers of left-over facts, and you all
know it, and should be *thankful* for the gentleman and scholar amongst
you, Douglas Richardson!
When the BML Peck Pedigree was under attack, by you and your cadre of
naysayers, with no basis in fact, just assertions that it was created in the
19thC by Somerby, I suggested you all consider *provenance* issues. What
did you all do? You all issued assertions with no basis in fact that Somerby
was a forger and therefore the BML Peck Pedigree was a forgery. Well, then
when Nat Taylor, scholar, set you all straight, did you all, once again, recant,
and go silent for days on end, leaving the thread alone. What a sorry bunch of
losers you all turned out to be, with your champion cheerleader leading the
pack from somewhere in the south Pacific: speaking on middle English
matters, and his main appetites being erotica and mindless attacks on the
diet of modern Englishmen. Please make sense of your support of such
nonsense, and supporters!
The reason the sun shows an appearance of going around the earth daily
has nothing to do with pseudo-astrophysics as your cadre would have have
all believe. Why did you look for support in others, in the Middleton segment,
and then in the science analogy? It is simple why the sun has an appearance
of reality: the earth turns on its axis, something Ptolemy could not conceive
of in his limited vision of planetary motion. Equally, in gen-medieval, some
would-be commentators, who love to dish and plish every thread that comes
along with their naysaying, have *not* the ability to research the FACTS of
the thread: so they make up stories. In journalism and scholarship, we call
these stories *red-herrings.* When commentators have no factual basis for
making statements of fact, they should move on and leave the floor to the
gentlemen and scholars. It demeans you to be a naysayer. Grow up! Get
some wisdom, and remember how the archives includes the FACT you "pooped"
when you were proven wrong by scholar John Higgins in the Middleton segment,
and in FACT were put in your silent and quiet place. You ought to understand
that the BML Peck Pedigree is as valid as a Visitation, a court document, a
chancery document, or any other Medieval document because that is what
*IT* is: a FACT in the record, a medieval document created by the College
of Heralds during the medieval period. You have *no* basis in FACT to challenge
it with assertions on the periphery of the illogic.
Thank you once again, one and all,
I remain your humble servant and scholar,
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Peck Pedigree Non Resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Hilarious!
PFK...
Impervious To Reason...
Now that you've been skinned and flayed alive, run along like a good little
bugger.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.201.1195532485.28474.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
PFK...
Impervious To Reason...
Now that you've been skinned and flayed alive, run along like a good little
bugger.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.201.1195532485.28474.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
When the BML Peck Pedigree was under attack, by you and your cadre of
naysayers, with no basis in fact, just assertions that it was created in
the
19thC by Somerby, I suggested you all consider *provenance* issues. What
did you all do? You all issued assertions with no basis in fact that
Somerby
was a forger and therefore the BML Peck Pedigree was a forgery. Well,
then
when Nat Taylor, scholar, set you all straight, did you all, once again,
recant,
and go silent for days on end, leaving the thread alone. What a sorry
bunch of
losers you all turned out to be, with your champion cheerleader leading
the
pack from somewhere in the south Pacific: speaking on middle English
matters, and his main appetites being erotica and mindless attacks on the
diet of modern Englishmen. Please make sense of your support of such
nonsense, and supporters!
-
Bill Arnold
Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England
--- simon fairthorne <fairthorne@breathe.com> wrote:
BA: Excuse me, Simon, but you err. Let me clarify for you: a statement of fact is a fact.
The informant in my great-grandmother's death record stated that her father's surname
was *X* which for nearly one hundred years was a FACT. Now: until a counter-fact came
along, and that was that I consulted several census records and discovered that her
father's surname was *Y* and now I have published a NEW statement of fact which is fact.
So: what is the resolution? Just as in a court of law, the FACTS are weighed and a conclusion
or inference is drawn which FACT is true and certain. I can guarantee you, in genealogy,
the census records and other FACTS conclude that the first statement of fact which was
a fact for one hundred years was in error.
BA: in gen-medieval, a cadre of naysayers argued that 19thC Somerby forged a 17thC
document in the BML. Go figure! Their statements of FACT if left alone would have
the appearance of reality. Like Copernicus, I set them straight. With other scholars,
they were proven to be wrong and that Somerby had nothing to do with it. And in the
case of my great-grandmother, I found out that the statement of fact that her father's
surname was *X* was wrong and my statement of fact that it was *Y* will rule the day.
Rule Britannica! Gen-medieval rules: the archives speaks to future generations, and
will outlast the naysayers.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:55:55 +0000 , simon fairthorne <fairthorne@breathe.com> wrote:
and in the light of further information the probablity that the statement was true
sorry folks
last sentence was truncated and should have finished
the probability that the statement was true was changed (in this case to near zero)
BA: Excuse me, Simon, but you err. Let me clarify for you: a statement of fact is a fact.
The informant in my great-grandmother's death record stated that her father's surname
was *X* which for nearly one hundred years was a FACT. Now: until a counter-fact came
along, and that was that I consulted several census records and discovered that her
father's surname was *Y* and now I have published a NEW statement of fact which is fact.
So: what is the resolution? Just as in a court of law, the FACTS are weighed and a conclusion
or inference is drawn which FACT is true and certain. I can guarantee you, in genealogy,
the census records and other FACTS conclude that the first statement of fact which was
a fact for one hundred years was in error.
BA: in gen-medieval, a cadre of naysayers argued that 19thC Somerby forged a 17thC
document in the BML. Go figure! Their statements of FACT if left alone would have
the appearance of reality. Like Copernicus, I set them straight. With other scholars,
they were proven to be wrong and that Somerby had nothing to do with it. And in the
case of my great-grandmother, I found out that the statement of fact that her father's
surname was *X* was wrong and my statement of fact that it was *Y* will rule the day.
Rule Britannica! Gen-medieval rules: the archives speaks to future generations, and
will outlast the naysayers.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
wjhonson
Re: Fw: Adelaide of Brunswick-Grubenhagen m Henry King of Bo
On Nov 19, 2:26 pm, "pierre_aro...@hotmail.com"
<pierre_aro...@hotmail.fr> wrote:
---------
There is evidently some quotations from primary material on Medlands
I was just skimming through it to see what it says about there being
two Adelaides (which it does) and noticed it quoting some things in
reference to death dates for this immediate family.
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/CARINTHIA.htm
Will Johnson
<pierre_aro...@hotmail.fr> wrote:
from your quotation of ES, it would seem that those birthdates are
guesses based on the order of birth of the children of Duke Henry of
Brunswick-G. It would be interesting to know if that order is
mentioned in any contemporary source. I will try to look after that a
little more closely, although I have few notions about Welfian
history.
Pierre
---------
There is evidently some quotations from primary material on Medlands
I was just skimming through it to see what it says about there being
two Adelaides (which it does) and noticed it quoting some things in
reference to death dates for this immediate family.
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/CARINTHIA.htm
Will Johnson
-
wjhonson
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 19, 8:20 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No what it is, is a pedigree reported, by a known pedigree-forger, who
is known to have previously forged documents claiming to be older than
they really were, and this is most likely one of those as well.
I am trying to make you see, that you *relevation* that Robert was not
born in Beccles, is no revelation to anyone else. We all already knew
that calling him "Of Beccles" said nothing whatsoever about where he
was born. The FACT that somebody named Robert was a son of John of
Wakefield, is not relevant to the FACT that the pedigree you keep
insisting is medieval is in FACT a modern forgery.
My hidden agenda is to destory all joy, sanity and yes life itself. I
am the exterminator of ALL.
We may have challenged a thinly-drawn "segment", which was then more
strongly put forth. That is called collaborative scholarship. That
is the method by which people find the flaws and point them out, and
other people fill in those areas, or agree that the line is flawed, OR
they can do what you are doing. Glue yourself to one spot and scream
your thesis to anyone nearby, but please don't actually listen, you
know that will do no good. You KNOW your FACTS, the rest of us are
just bits of loose protoplasm.
Such as that the pedigree is genuine. That's an assertion that has
much against it. But don't let that stop you from telling us its a
FACT another fifty times.
I'm quite delighted that I have a cadre. Makes me feel special.
Wow, well that says it all. I'd best just Shut My Mouth ! I've leave
that to others to address.
What are you talking about? I haven't the foggiest idea about how
"Nat Taylor" set any of us straight about Somerby's known forgeries.
And yet it isn't as valid. It's much less valid. The basis in FACT
has been repeated to you many times. You simply refuse to listen.
Will Johnson
ADDENDA:
ADDENDUM 2: the BML Peck Pedigree is a Medieval document unassailable
in its historical setting, creation, and primacy and provenance [ see gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007 ].
No what it is, is a pedigree reported, by a known pedigree-forger, who
is known to have previously forged documents claiming to be older than
they really were, and this is most likely one of those as well.
Will: "Of Beccles," blah, blah, blah.
BA: Of course, Will, you are trying to muddle the case. The
case is simple. Robert Peck, the Elder, is *stipulated* as one of the
9 sons of John Peck, of Wakefield, in the BML Peck Pedigree. Please
do not muddle that FACT. That FACT predate by several centuries
any bluster you or other naysayers wish to attach to a proposed pedigree
under resolution at gen-medieval. You *know* that in seeking ancestral roots
that to place Robert Peck, the Elder, in Beccles causes readers to believe
he was *born* there. Robert Peck, the Elder, was born elsewhere. So
why must you muddle with the pedigree? What *is* your hidden agenda?
Please state it? Inquiring minds want to know.
I am trying to make you see, that you *relevation* that Robert was not
born in Beccles, is no revelation to anyone else. We all already knew
that calling him "Of Beccles" said nothing whatsoever about where he
was born. The FACT that somebody named Robert was a son of John of
Wakefield, is not relevant to the FACT that the pedigree you keep
insisting is medieval is in FACT a modern forgery.
My hidden agenda is to destory all joy, sanity and yes life itself. I
am the exterminator of ALL.
Remember when Will, and others, challenged the Middleton segment?
Once John Higgins, scholar, set you all straight did you all recant,
and remain silent and ignored the thread for days. Why? Because statements
of fact put you all in your place: muddlers with *no* basis in fact.
We may have challenged a thinly-drawn "segment", which was then more
strongly put forth. That is called collaborative scholarship. That
is the method by which people find the flaws and point them out, and
other people fill in those areas, or agree that the line is flawed, OR
they can do what you are doing. Glue yourself to one spot and scream
your thesis to anyone nearby, but please don't actually listen, you
know that will do no good. You KNOW your FACTS, the rest of us are
just bits of loose protoplasm.
Assertions with no basis in fact are *not* statements of fact. A statement
of fact is a fact.
Such as that the pedigree is genuine. That's an assertion that has
much against it. But don't let that stop you from telling us its a
FACT another fifty times.
Everybody knows that, apparently, except you and your cadre of muddlers.
I'm quite delighted that I have a cadre. Makes me feel special.
If you have *no* facts to contribute to the Peck pedigree why don't you go attack another thread? Few scholars contribute original scholarship to this list: the lead scholar amongst you is Douglas Richardson, and few of you understand a gentleman and scholar when he posts to
gen-medieval. It is obvious most of you cannot *read* the printed word.
Scholar Douglas Richardson is a lion amongst wilderbeast, a *hunter* in
the tribe of *gatherers* and you do *not* understand the value of original
research. Scholar Douglas Richardson plans a book on Charlemagne Descent,
and in the appropriate time frame will deal with the BML Peck Pedigree. The
rest of you as breathless gatherers will pick up the twigs dropped from his
bundle of the hunter in the wilderness. Few dare enter those dark reaches
of medieval documents: you all are gatherers of left-over facts, and you all
know it, and should be *thankful* for the gentleman and scholar amongst
you, Douglas Richardson!
Wow, well that says it all. I'd best just Shut My Mouth ! I've leave
that to others to address.
When the BML Peck Pedigree was under attack, by you and your cadre of
naysayers, with no basis in fact, just assertions that it was created in the
19thC by Somerby, I suggested you all consider *provenance* issues. What
did you all do? You all issued assertions with no basis in fact that Somerby
was a forger and therefore the BML Peck Pedigree was a forgery. Well, then
when Nat Taylor, scholar, set you all straight, did you all, once again, recant,
and go silent for days on end, leaving the thread alone. What a sorry bunch of
losers you all turned out to be, with your champion cheerleader leading the
pack from somewhere in the south Pacific: speaking on middle English
matters, and his main appetites being erotica and mindless attacks on the
diet of modern Englishmen. Please make sense of your support of such
nonsense, and supporters!
What are you talking about? I haven't the foggiest idea about how
"Nat Taylor" set any of us straight about Somerby's known forgeries.
The reason the sun shows an appearance of going around the earth daily
has nothing to do with pseudo-astrophysics as your cadre would have have
all believe. Why did you look for support in others, in the Middleton segment,
and then in the science analogy? It is simple why the sun has an appearance
of reality: the earth turns on its axis, something Ptolemy could not conceive
of in his limited vision of planetary motion. Equally, in gen-medieval, some
would-be commentators, who love to dish and plish every thread that comes
along with their naysaying, have *not* the ability to research the FACTS of
the thread: so they make up stories. In journalism and scholarship, we call
these stories *red-herrings.* When commentators have no factual basis for
making statements of fact, they should move on and leave the floor to the
gentlemen and scholars. It demeans you to be a naysayer. Grow up! Get
some wisdom, and remember how the archives includes the FACT you "pooped"
when you were proven wrong by scholar John Higgins in the Middleton segment,
and in FACT were put in your silent and quiet place. You ought to understand
that the BML Peck Pedigree is as valid as a Visitation, a court document, a
chancery document, or any other Medieval document because that is what
*IT* is: a FACT in the record, a medieval document created by the College
of Heralds during the medieval period. You have *no* basis in FACT to challenge
it with assertions on the periphery of the illogic.
And yet it isn't as valid. It's much less valid. The basis in FACT
has been repeated to you many times. You simply refuse to listen.
Will Johnson
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 19, 8:20 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
ADDENDA:
ADDENDUM 2: the BML Peck Pedigree is a Medieval document unassailable
in its historical setting, creation, and primacy and provenance [ see gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007 ].
Will: No what it is, is a pedigree reported, by a known pedigree-forger, who
is known to have previously forged documents claiming to be older than
they really were, and this is most likely one of those as well.
BA: you finally understand. You are making a statement of fact. Now go ahead
and PROVE it, big boy!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 19, 8:20 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Will: No what it is, is a pedigree reported, by a known pedigree-forger, who
is known to have previously forged documents claiming to be older than
they really were, and this is most likely one of those as well.
BA: And I thought you went to college? You get an *F* in my English Comp 101.
You must have skipped class, because scholar Nat Taylor showed the provenance
was 17thC. And "who is known" and "claiming to be older" and "most likely"
are qualifiers which clearly demonstrate your statement of fact is meaningless.
Do you *not* realize that those *qualifiers* defy logic? Sure, they are legitimate,
for writers to use, but they make your statement hollow, back-tracked, and put
the onus of PROOF upon you, the writer! Read the gen-medieval archives, posts
by Nat Taylor. And in the meantime, get a life! You are the one who has repeated,
repeatedly, for the umpteenth time, that a 17thC document, provenance BML, is
a forgery of a 19thC forgerer: how stupid is that? How naive? You must PROVE
such an assertion with no basis in fact.
Bill
****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
ADDENDA:
ADDENDUM 2: the BML Peck Pedigree is a Medieval document unassailable
in its historical setting, creation, and primacy and provenance [ see gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007 ].
Will: No what it is, is a pedigree reported, by a known pedigree-forger, who
is known to have previously forged documents claiming to be older than
they really were, and this is most likely one of those as well.
BA: And I thought you went to college? You get an *F* in my English Comp 101.
You must have skipped class, because scholar Nat Taylor showed the provenance
was 17thC. And "who is known" and "claiming to be older" and "most likely"
are qualifiers which clearly demonstrate your statement of fact is meaningless.
Do you *not* realize that those *qualifiers* defy logic? Sure, they are legitimate,
for writers to use, but they make your statement hollow, back-tracked, and put
the onus of PROOF upon you, the writer! Read the gen-medieval archives, posts
by Nat Taylor. And in the meantime, get a life! You are the one who has repeated,
repeatedly, for the umpteenth time, that a 17thC document, provenance BML, is
a forgery of a 19thC forgerer: how stupid is that? How naive? You must PROVE
such an assertion with no basis in fact.
Bill
****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 19, 8:20 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Where one will find that the document in question has been assailed on
every one of these characteristics, and to pretend otherwise is either
delusional or dishonest.
Muddle it with all those inconvenient TRUE and CERTAIN FACTS, or does
that terminology only apply to those things you choose to believe?
This is looking more like a tautology with every 'clarification'. A
statement of fact is a fact, but only if it has a basis in fact -
otherwise it is an assertion with no basis in fact. It is a fact if
it is a fact. It is not a fact if it is not a fact.
Given that everybody knows this but us muddlers, . . . and several
dictionaries, perhaps you could find someone on your side to step
forward. Or a dictionary that says "a statement of fact is a fact".
Otherwise, it sounds to me like this statement of fact of yours is
actually nothing but an assertion with no basis in fact.
[A lot of clueless dribble deleted.]
Please do.
You ought to understand that a Visitation has a different validity
than a court document, or a chancery document. You ought to understand
that the genealogy performed by medieval heralds was a combination of
research, the credulous recording of family fantasies, and creation of
their own.
You ought to know a lot more about medieval records before you
pronounce upon their relative values. You are a self-described novice
at this. Perhaps you should take that to heart.
I can see how your unfamiliarity with research in the period might
lead you to think so.
Given as you just got done insulting those you are now thanking, over
things you know nothing about, to describe yourself as a humble
servant, well, . . . .
taf
Hi, gen-medievalers
ADDENDA:
ADDENDUM 2: the BML Peck Pedigree is a Medieval document unassailable
in its historical setting, creation, and primacy and provenance [ see gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007 ].
Where one will find that the document in question has been assailed on
every one of these characteristics, and to pretend otherwise is either
delusional or dishonest.
Will: "Of Beccles," blah, blah, blah.
BA: Of course, Will, you are trying to muddle the case.
Muddle it with all those inconvenient TRUE and CERTAIN FACTS, or does
that terminology only apply to those things you choose to believe?
Assertions with no basis in fact are *not* statements of fact. A statement
of fact is a fact. Everybody knows that, apparently, except you and your
cadre of muddlers.
This is looking more like a tautology with every 'clarification'. A
statement of fact is a fact, but only if it has a basis in fact -
otherwise it is an assertion with no basis in fact. It is a fact if
it is a fact. It is not a fact if it is not a fact.
Given that everybody knows this but us muddlers, . . . and several
dictionaries, perhaps you could find someone on your side to step
forward. Or a dictionary that says "a statement of fact is a fact".
Otherwise, it sounds to me like this statement of fact of yours is
actually nothing but an assertion with no basis in fact.
[A lot of clueless dribble deleted.]
When commentators have no factual basis for
making statements of fact, they should move on and leave the floor to the
gentlemen and scholars.
Please do.
You ought to understand
that the BML Peck Pedigree is as valid as a Visitation, a court document, a
chancery document, or any other Medieval document because that is what
*IT* is: a FACT in the record, a medieval document created by the College
of Heralds during the medieval period.
You ought to understand that a Visitation has a different validity
than a court document, or a chancery document. You ought to understand
that the genealogy performed by medieval heralds was a combination of
research, the credulous recording of family fantasies, and creation of
their own.
You ought to know a lot more about medieval records before you
pronounce upon their relative values. You are a self-described novice
at this. Perhaps you should take that to heart.
You have *no* basis in FACT to challenge
it with assertions on the periphery of the illogic.
I can see how your unfamiliarity with research in the period might
lead you to think so.
Thank you once again, one and all, I remain your humble servant and scholar,
Given as you just got done insulting those you are now thanking, over
things you know nothing about, to describe yourself as a humble
servant, well, . . . .
taf
-
wjhonson
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 19, 9:12 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Show us where exactly "Nat Taylor showed the provenance was 17th
century" ?
BA: And I thought you went to college? You get an *F* in my English Comp 101.
You must have skipped class, because scholar Nat Taylor showed the provenance
was 17thC. And "who is known" and "claiming to be older" and "most likely"
are qualifiers which clearly demonstrate your statement of fact is meaningless.
Do you *not* realize that those *qualifiers* defy logic? Sure, they are legitimate,
for writers to use, but they make your statement hollow, back-tracked, and put
the onus of PROOF upon you, the writer! Read the gen-medieval archives, posts
by Nat Taylor. And in the meantime, get a life! You are the one who has repeated,
repeatedly, for the umpteenth time, that a 17thC document, provenance BML, is
a forgery of a 19thC forgerer: how stupid is that? How naive? You must PROVE
such an assertion with no basis in fact.
Bill
Show us where exactly "Nat Taylor showed the provenance was 17th
century" ?
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Peck Pedigree Non-Resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT NOT PR
Hilarious!
Little PFK...
Impervious To Reason...
Now that you've been skinned and flayed alive, run along like a good little
bugger and do your homework.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.201.1195532485.28474.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Little PFK...
Impervious To Reason...
Now that you've been skinned and flayed alive, run along like a good little
bugger and do your homework.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.201.1195532485.28474.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
When the BML Peck Pedigree was under attack, by you and your cadre of
naysayers, with no basis in fact, just assertions that it was created in
the
19thC by Somerby, I suggested you all consider *provenance* issues. What
did you all do? You all issued assertions with no basis in fact that
Somerby
was a forger and therefore the BML Peck Pedigree was a forgery. Well,
then
when Nat Taylor, scholar, set you all straight, did you all, once again,
recant,
and go silent for days on end, leaving the thread alone. What a sorry
bunch of
losers you all turned out to be, with your champion cheerleader leading
the
pack from somewhere in the south Pacific: speaking on middle English
matters, and his main appetites being erotica and mindless attacks on the
diet of modern Englishmen. Please make sense of your support of such
nonsense, and supporters!
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Fw: Lady Eleanor Butler - who was she?
Dear Will,
Here I see you quote (also elsewhere) "Earl of Salop" (Salisbury) when
Shrewsbury is meant (I am sure)
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "wjhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Lady Eleanor Butler - who was she?
Here I see you quote (also elsewhere) "Earl of Salop" (Salisbury) when
Shrewsbury is meant (I am sure)
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "wjhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Lady Eleanor Butler - who was she?
On Nov 19, 3:39 pm, "pj.evans" <pj.evans....@usa.net> wrote:
On Nov 19, 2:50 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
I also received information from someone who used to contribute
regularly,
but has been treated with derision by one of the "triangle of evil",
and he
quoted John Ashdown-Hill in The Genealogists' Magazine, Vol 26 No 3,
Sept.
1998 page 87 etc.
"She was the daughter of John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, by his
second
wife, Lady Margaret Beachamp, and was wife (and "young widow") of
Thomas
Butler, only son and heir of Ralph Butler, Lord Sudeley."
John Ashdown-Hill assigns her a birthdate of "c.1436".
Knowing now where to look for Thomas Butler, I went to CP Volume XII/1
page
422. "he d.v.p. and s.p. between 1450 and 1468. His widow died 30 June
1468."
Volume XIV does not show corrections for page 422.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "CE Wood" <wood...@msn.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 4:29 AM
Subject: Re: Lady Eleanor Butler - who was she?
Brad Verity cited evidence in a 2005 thread , "C.P. Addition:
Elizabeth, wife of Sir Ralph Boteler, Lord Sudeley." There have been
several other discussions which concluded that she was the daughter
of
John, 1st Lord Talbot, and Margaret Beauchamp, and that she married
Thomas Boteler bef 10 May 1453.
CE Wood
On Nov 19, 12:05 am, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au
wrote:
Plantagenet Encyclopedia (editor Elizabeth Hallam) page 38 gives
Butler, Lady Eleanor
died 1468. Daughter of John Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury; said to have
been
Edward IV's mistress in her youth. A rumour allegedly put about by
Richard, 3rd duke of Gloucester, later Richard III, claimed that
Edward
IV had contracted to marry Lady Eleanor, that his marriage to
Elizabeth
Woodville on 1 May 1464 was therefor invalid and that the young
Edward V
was consequently illegitimate and not entitled to the throne.
This tells me that Lady Eleanor was born a Talbot. This also infers
that
Lady Eleanor, to become a Butler _must_ have married, I guess, after
1
May 1464.
But why can't I find a Lady Eleanor Talbot, born in the appropriate
period, as a daughter of the 1st or 2rd Earl of Shrewsbury. Why
doesn't
Burke's Peerage mention her? Keep in mind Edward IV was born in
1442.
BP 1999 page 2604 John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, married 2ndly
6
September 1425 Lady Margaret de Beauchamp. Here they speculate that
Lady
Margaret de Beauchamp, by later doctrine, was Baroness Berkeley, and
when
she died (according to the same doctrine) the title should have gone
into
abeyance between her _three daughters_. This I do not understand,
why
should her titles go to the daughters when she had a son (who died
before
her and had a son and a daughter?) In any case, I can find only two
daughters mentioned :
1.Lady Joan Talbot who married in 1457 and again before 26 April
1474
2.Lady Elizabeth Talbot who married in 1448------------by the way
Edward
IV was born in 1442 and so how much older was Lady Eleanor, if she
was
the third daughter?
BP 1999 page 2605 John Talbot, 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury, married
before
March 1445 Lady Elizabeth Butler. Here is said he had with other
issue,
in other words here we cannot find all his children. I found (not
necessarily in the correct order)
1.John Talbot, 3rd Earl of Shrewsbury born 1448
2.Sir James died in 1471
3.Christopher died after 1474
4.George Talbot
5.Sir Gilbert born in 1452
6.Lady Anne who married in 1467 Sir Henry Vernon
Now Desmond Seward, in his "The War of the Roses" on page 227, tells
......while after hi8s (Edward IV) it was alleged that he had
seduced a
daughter of the Earl of Salisbury (what another one !! ) with a
promise
of marriage. More is tantalizing unspecific in his (Domenico
Mancini)
account of the king's loves :
King Edward would say that he had three concubines which in three
divers
properties diversely excelled, one the merriest, another the wisest,
the
third the holiest harlot in his realm........
The last two seem to have been ladies of the court, and were
probably
Elizabeth Lucy and Eleanor Butler. The merriest was Shore's wife.
On page 271 again Lady Eleanor Butler, daughter of the Earl of
Shrewsbury, to whom Edward IV was supposedly betrothed. I think the
reference to the daughter of the Earl of Salisbury was a slip, and
meant
Earl of Shrewsbury.
Can anyone tell who the parents _and_ husband were of Lady Eleanor
Butler?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
medievalgenealogy.org.uk has this correction online:
Volume 12, part 1, page 422:
Thomas Boteler, son and heir apparent of Ralph (Boteler), Lord Sudeley
(Ralph d. 1473):
His wife Eleanor was the daughter of John (Talbot), Earl of Shrewsbury
(d. 1453) by his second wife Margaret, daughter of Richard
(Beauchamp), Earl of Warwick; she was married to Thomas by 10 May 1453
(when both were living), but Thomas was dead by 15 January 1459/60.- Hide
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
-----------
If that's all they say, I have no idea why they don't cite directly to
the primary source that tells us that he was dead by 15 Jan 1459/60,
so I shall.
Warwickshire County Record Office: Holbech of Farnborough
Holbech of Farnborough.
Catalogue Ref. L1
Creator(s): Holbech family of Farnborough Warwickshire
Deeds of Title.
FILE [no title] - ref. L1/82 - date: 15 Jan. 38 Hen.VI [1460]
[from Scope and Content] Quitclaim, with warranty, by Ralph Buttiller
lord of Sudeley knight to Eleanor Buttiller one of the daughters of
John Earl of Salop and lately the wife of Thomas Buttiller knight
Ralph's son of all his right and title of and in the manor of
Fennycompton' and in all the lands, tenements, meadows, pastures,
woods, rents, reversions and services in Fennycompton'.
Will Johnson
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Gjest
Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England
On Nov 19, 8:57 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
If he erred, there is no reason to excuse yourself in bringing it to
his attention. However, he has not.
You just keep saying this, again and again and again, as if by simple
repetition this becomes fact. It isn't. You still haven't provided
the slightest bit of relevant support for it.
No, it wasn't - it just appeared to be.
No.
This is not just like a court of law. We do not weigh facts, we
compile them and interpret them, and to say that a fact is true is
like saying that a lie is false - it is tautological. As to
certainty, that is a much more elusive animal, as it does not require
truth, only the appearance of truth, which may or may not be accurate,
while further some people (such as your paragon Richardson) have an
extremely low threashold for certainty. We have just seen with the
Fitz Alan/Brus example how ephemeral certainty can be. There is never
a question of which fact is true, only which is the fact and which
isn't.
It was never a fact if it was in error. Never.
This is a lie. It was argued that since Somerby was involved in its
transmission, it couldn't be trusted without further confirmation.
Still the champion of science that is 400 years out of date? He just
set them less crooked. (Note: you won't find an expert in the
mathamatics of epicircles working for NASA.)
He did have something to do with it, - he transmitted it but it is
clear he didn't invent it outright. Subtle distinctions are not your
strong suit, are they?
i.e. it was not a fact, and never was.
Your statement may rule the day, but that need not imply that you have
determined a fact.
To each his own, I guess, but I'd rather they didn't.
.. . . thus guaranteeing the survival of the legitimate criticisms of
this monumentally naive "a statement of fact is a fact" line of
argument long past their own time.
taf
--- simon fairthorne <fairtho...@breathe.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:55:55 +0000 , simon fairthorne <fairtho...@breathe.com> wrote:
and in the light of further information the probablity that the statement was true
sorry folks
last sentence was truncated and should have finished
the probability that the statement was true was changed (in this case to near zero)
BA: Excuse me, Simon, but you err.
If he erred, there is no reason to excuse yourself in bringing it to
his attention. However, he has not.
Let me clarify for you: a statement of fact is a fact.
You just keep saying this, again and again and again, as if by simple
repetition this becomes fact. It isn't. You still haven't provided
the slightest bit of relevant support for it.
The informant in my great-grandmother's death record stated that her father's surname
was *X* which for nearly one hundred years was a FACT.
No, it wasn't - it just appeared to be.
Now: until a counter-fact came
along, and that was that I consulted several census records and discovered that her
father's surname was *Y* and now I have published a NEW statement of fact which is fact.
No.
So: what is the resolution? Just as in a court of law, the FACTS are weighed and a conclusion
or inference is drawn which FACT is true and certain.
This is not just like a court of law. We do not weigh facts, we
compile them and interpret them, and to say that a fact is true is
like saying that a lie is false - it is tautological. As to
certainty, that is a much more elusive animal, as it does not require
truth, only the appearance of truth, which may or may not be accurate,
while further some people (such as your paragon Richardson) have an
extremely low threashold for certainty. We have just seen with the
Fitz Alan/Brus example how ephemeral certainty can be. There is never
a question of which fact is true, only which is the fact and which
isn't.
I can guarantee you, in genealogy,
the census records and other FACTS conclude that the first statement of fact which was
a fact for one hundred years was in error.
It was never a fact if it was in error. Never.
BA: in gen-medieval, a cadre of naysayers argued that 19thC Somerby forged a 17thC
document in the BML.
This is a lie. It was argued that since Somerby was involved in its
transmission, it couldn't be trusted without further confirmation.
Like Copernicus, I set them straight.
Still the champion of science that is 400 years out of date? He just
set them less crooked. (Note: you won't find an expert in the
mathamatics of epicircles working for NASA.)
With other scholars,
they were proven to be wrong and that Somerby had nothing to do with it.
He did have something to do with it, - he transmitted it but it is
clear he didn't invent it outright. Subtle distinctions are not your
strong suit, are they?
And in the
case of my great-grandmother, I found out that the statement of fact that her father's
surname was *X* was wrong
i.e. it was not a fact, and never was.
and my statement of fact that it was *Y* will rule the day.
Your statement may rule the day, but that need not imply that you have
determined a fact.
Rule Britannica!
To each his own, I guess, but I'd rather they didn't.
Gen-medieval rules: the archives speaks to future generations, and
will outlast the naysayers.
.. . . thus guaranteeing the survival of the legitimate criticisms of
this monumentally naive "a statement of fact is a fact" line of
argument long past their own time.
taf
-
wjhonson
Re: Fw: Lady Eleanor Butler - who was she?
On Nov 19, 10:03 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au>
wrote:
This quote isn't my transcription, the online text is pure text, so I
just cut-and-paste it. So that's what they say. Not sure what it
means
Will
wrote:
Dear Will,
Here I see you quote (also elsewhere) "Earl of Salop" (Salisbury) when
Shrewsbury is meant (I am sure)
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "wjhonson" <wjhon...@aol.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Lady Eleanor Butler - who was she?
On Nov 19, 3:39 pm, "pj.evans" <pj.evans....@usa.net> wrote:
On Nov 19, 2:50 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
I also received information from someone who used to contribute
regularly,
but has been treated with derision by one of the "triangle of evil",
and he
quoted John Ashdown-Hill in The Genealogists' Magazine, Vol 26 No 3,
Sept.
1998 page 87 etc.
"She was the daughter of John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, by his
second
wife, Lady Margaret Beachamp, and was wife (and "young widow") of
Thomas
Butler, only son and heir of Ralph Butler, Lord Sudeley."
John Ashdown-Hill assigns her a birthdate of "c.1436".
Knowing now where to look for Thomas Butler, I went to CP Volume XII/1
page
422. "he d.v.p. and s.p. between 1450 and 1468. His widow died 30 June
1468."
Volume XIV does not show corrections for page 422.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "CE Wood" <wood...@msn.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 4:29 AM
Subject: Re: Lady Eleanor Butler - who was she?
Brad Verity cited evidence in a 2005 thread , "C.P. Addition:
Elizabeth, wife of Sir Ralph Boteler, Lord Sudeley." There have been
several other discussions which concluded that she was the daughter
of
John, 1st Lord Talbot, and Margaret Beauchamp, and that she married
Thomas Boteler bef 10 May 1453.
CE Wood
On Nov 19, 12:05 am, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au
wrote:
Plantagenet Encyclopedia (editor Elizabeth Hallam) page 38 gives
Butler, Lady Eleanor
died 1468. Daughter of John Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury; said to have
been
Edward IV's mistress in her youth. A rumour allegedly put about by
Richard, 3rd duke of Gloucester, later Richard III, claimed that
Edward
IV had contracted to marry Lady Eleanor, that his marriage to
Elizabeth
Woodville on 1 May 1464 was therefor invalid and that the young
Edward V
was consequently illegitimate and not entitled to the throne.
This tells me that Lady Eleanor was born a Talbot. This also infers
that
Lady Eleanor, to become a Butler _must_ have married, I guess, after
1
May 1464.
But why can't I find a Lady Eleanor Talbot, born in the appropriate
period, as a daughter of the 1st or 2rd Earl of Shrewsbury. Why
doesn't
Burke's Peerage mention her? Keep in mind Edward IV was born in
1442.
BP 1999 page 2604 John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, married 2ndly
6
September 1425 Lady Margaret de Beauchamp. Here they speculate that
Lady
Margaret de Beauchamp, by later doctrine, was Baroness Berkeley, and
when
she died (according to the same doctrine) the title should have gone
into
abeyance between her _three daughters_. This I do not understand,
why
should her titles go to the daughters when she had a son (who died
before
her and had a son and a daughter?) In any case, I can find only two
daughters mentioned :
1.Lady Joan Talbot who married in 1457 and again before 26 April
1474
2.Lady Elizabeth Talbot who married in 1448------------by the way
Edward
IV was born in 1442 and so how much older was Lady Eleanor, if she
was
the third daughter?
BP 1999 page 2605 John Talbot, 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury, married
before
March 1445 Lady Elizabeth Butler. Here is said he had with other
issue,
in other words here we cannot find all his children. I found (not
necessarily in the correct order)
1.John Talbot, 3rd Earl of Shrewsbury born 1448
2.Sir James died in 1471
3.Christopher died after 1474
4.George Talbot
5.Sir Gilbert born in 1452
6.Lady Anne who married in 1467 Sir Henry Vernon
Now Desmond Seward, in his "The War of the Roses" on page 227, tells
......while after hi8s (Edward IV) it was alleged that he had
seduced a
daughter of the Earl of Salisbury (what another one !! ) with a
promise
of marriage. More is tantalizing unspecific in his (Domenico
Mancini)
account of the king's loves :
King Edward would say that he had three concubines which in three
divers
properties diversely excelled, one the merriest, another the wisest,
the
third the holiest harlot in his realm........
The last two seem to have been ladies of the court, and were
probably
Elizabeth Lucy and Eleanor Butler. The merriest was Shore's wife.
On page 271 again Lady Eleanor Butler, daughter of the Earl of
Shrewsbury, to whom Edward IV was supposedly betrothed. I think the
reference to the daughter of the Earl of Salisbury was a slip, and
meant
Earl of Shrewsbury.
Can anyone tell who the parents _and_ husband were of Lady Eleanor
Butler?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
medievalgenealogy.org.uk has this correction online:
Volume 12, part 1, page 422:
Thomas Boteler, son and heir apparent of Ralph (Boteler), Lord Sudeley
(Ralph d. 1473):
His wife Eleanor was the daughter of John (Talbot), Earl of Shrewsbury
(d. 1453) by his second wife Margaret, daughter of Richard
(Beauchamp), Earl of Warwick; she was married to Thomas by 10 May 1453
(when both were living), but Thomas was dead by 15 January 1459/60.- Hide
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
-----------
If that's all they say, I have no idea why they don't cite directly to
the primary source that tells us that he was dead by 15 Jan 1459/60,
so I shall.
Warwickshire County Record Office: Holbech of Farnborough
Holbech of Farnborough.
Catalogue Ref. L1
Creator(s): Holbech family of Farnborough Warwickshire
Deeds of Title.
FILE [no title] - ref. L1/82 - date: 15 Jan. 38 Hen.VI [1460]
[from Scope and Content] Quitclaim, with warranty, by Ralph Buttiller
lord of Sudeley knight to Eleanor Buttiller one of the daughters of
John Earl of Salop and lately the wife of Thomas Buttiller knight
Ralph's son of all his right and title of and in the manor of
Fennycompton' and in all the lands, tenements, meadows, pastures,
woods, rents, reversions and services in Fennycompton'.
Will Johnson
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
This quote isn't my transcription, the online text is pure text, so I
just cut-and-paste it. So that's what they say. Not sure what it
means
Will
-
Renia
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Bill Arnold wrote:
Will doesn't have to prove anything.
You, yourself have to prove it is NOT a forgery. You do that by going
backwards through the generations and re-examine it.
On Nov 19, 8:20 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
ADDENDA:
ADDENDUM 2: the BML Peck Pedigree is a Medieval document unassailable
in its historical setting, creation, and primacy and provenance [ see gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007 ].
Will: No what it is, is a pedigree reported, by a known pedigree-forger, who
is known to have previously forged documents claiming to be older than
they really were, and this is most likely one of those as well.
BA: you finally understand. You are making a statement of fact. Now go ahead
and PROVE it, big boy!
Will doesn't have to prove anything.
You, yourself have to prove it is NOT a forgery. You do that by going
backwards through the generations and re-examine it.
-
Renia
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Bill Arnold wrote:
Will doesn't have to prove anything.
It is your pedigree, you have to validate the pedigree.
On Nov 19, 8:20 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
ADDENDA:
ADDENDUM 2: the BML Peck Pedigree is a Medieval document unassailable
in its historical setting, creation, and primacy and provenance [ see gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007 ].
Will: No what it is, is a pedigree reported, by a known pedigree-forger, who
is known to have previously forged documents claiming to be older than
they really were, and this is most likely one of those as well.
BA: And I thought you went to college? You get an *F* in my English Comp 101.
You must have skipped class, because scholar Nat Taylor showed the provenance
was 17thC. And "who is known" and "claiming to be older" and "most likely"
are qualifiers which clearly demonstrate your statement of fact is meaningless.
Do you *not* realize that those *qualifiers* defy logic? Sure, they are legitimate,
for writers to use, but they make your statement hollow, back-tracked, and put
the onus of PROOF upon you, the writer! Read the gen-medieval archives, posts
by Nat Taylor. And in the meantime, get a life! You are the one who has repeated,
repeatedly, for the umpteenth time, that a 17thC document, provenance BML, is
a forgery of a 19thC forgerer: how stupid is that? How naive? You must PROVE
such an assertion with no basis in fact.
Will doesn't have to prove anything.
It is your pedigree, you have to validate the pedigree.
-
Renia
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Bill Arnold wrote:
Dear Bill,
Personally, I find your posts very difficult to understand.
First, your newsreader doesn't seem to handle quotes properly so it's
confusing to tell which is your post and what you are responding to.
Second, you go off at a tangent so often that it is all too much to take
in. I don't know about other people, but I usually give up half-way
through your posts because I don't have time to filter through to find
out what you are actually saying.
Third, you are so proud of your time as a teacher of English, you prefer
to use words than substance.
Fourth, I, for one, haven't actually understood your Peck pedigree. I've
been away for a while, so I might have missed something, but if I
haven't, then perhaps others are also finding it difficult to work with
your data in order to be able to try and help you.
To use your own words, "you ought to understand" that some visitations
are false, either deliberately, or through error, and that some medieval
documents are equally false or in error. You also "ought to understand"
that some pedigrees were myths, created to increase the standing of the
family involved. Not all, but some.
The whole point of genealogical scholarship, is to examine each part of
a pedigree and find as many primary sources as possible in order to back
up or refute it.
You get so carried away with discussions about "FACTS" and Ptolemy and
other such matters, that you are blind to what is being said to you.
Your insistence on all statements, ideas, allegations and theories all
being FACTS suggests you do not understand what the word FACT means. If
you do not understand what the word FACT means, then you will not be
able to understand how an historian works, thus, you will not be able to
understand how genealogy works.
Genealogy works backwards, from what you know to what you don't know.
And just because there is a document purporting some "fact" or other,
does not make that document true or valid. The "facts" have to be
ascertained, or proven, using other documents. Sometimes, that just
can't be done, because the documents are not there, or are lost.
To my knowledge, you have not said how you are related to the Pecks, in
the first place. If you want us to help you, and someone out there
possibly can help you, then you need to start at the beginning.
Which was your Peck ancestor and how do you know who his father was?
What sources do you have for the Peck ancestry back to medieval times?
What led you to the BML pedigree? (What is the BML pedigree?)
Just because a Peck married a Middleton, doesn't mean that both families
automatically belong to the well-documented families. That is what you
have to find out.
Hi, gen-medievalers
You ought to understand
that the BML Peck Pedigree is as valid as a Visitation, a court document, a
chancery document, or any other Medieval document because that is what
*IT* is: a FACT in the record, a medieval document created by the College
of Heralds during the medieval period. You have *no* basis in FACT to challenge
it with assertions on the periphery of the illogic.
Dear Bill,
Personally, I find your posts very difficult to understand.
First, your newsreader doesn't seem to handle quotes properly so it's
confusing to tell which is your post and what you are responding to.
Second, you go off at a tangent so often that it is all too much to take
in. I don't know about other people, but I usually give up half-way
through your posts because I don't have time to filter through to find
out what you are actually saying.
Third, you are so proud of your time as a teacher of English, you prefer
to use words than substance.
Fourth, I, for one, haven't actually understood your Peck pedigree. I've
been away for a while, so I might have missed something, but if I
haven't, then perhaps others are also finding it difficult to work with
your data in order to be able to try and help you.
To use your own words, "you ought to understand" that some visitations
are false, either deliberately, or through error, and that some medieval
documents are equally false or in error. You also "ought to understand"
that some pedigrees were myths, created to increase the standing of the
family involved. Not all, but some.
The whole point of genealogical scholarship, is to examine each part of
a pedigree and find as many primary sources as possible in order to back
up or refute it.
You get so carried away with discussions about "FACTS" and Ptolemy and
other such matters, that you are blind to what is being said to you.
Your insistence on all statements, ideas, allegations and theories all
being FACTS suggests you do not understand what the word FACT means. If
you do not understand what the word FACT means, then you will not be
able to understand how an historian works, thus, you will not be able to
understand how genealogy works.
Genealogy works backwards, from what you know to what you don't know.
And just because there is a document purporting some "fact" or other,
does not make that document true or valid. The "facts" have to be
ascertained, or proven, using other documents. Sometimes, that just
can't be done, because the documents are not there, or are lost.
To my knowledge, you have not said how you are related to the Pecks, in
the first place. If you want us to help you, and someone out there
possibly can help you, then you need to start at the beginning.
Which was your Peck ancestor and how do you know who his father was?
What sources do you have for the Peck ancestry back to medieval times?
What led you to the BML pedigree? (What is the BML pedigree?)
Just because a Peck married a Middleton, doesn't mean that both families
automatically belong to the well-documented families. That is what you
have to find out.
-
Renia
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
wjhonson wrote:
Having Googled, I find Nat said this on 23rd October:
On Nov 19, 9:12 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
BA: And I thought you went to college? You get an *F* in my English Comp 101.
You must have skipped class, because scholar Nat Taylor showed the provenance
was 17thC. And "who is known" and "claiming to be older" and "most likely"
are qualifiers which clearly demonstrate your statement of fact is meaningless.
Do you *not* realize that those *qualifiers* defy logic? Sure, they are legitimate,
for writers to use, but they make your statement hollow, back-tracked, and put
the onus of PROOF upon you, the writer! Read the gen-medieval archives, posts
by Nat Taylor. And in the meantime, get a life! You are the one who has repeated,
repeatedly, for the umpteenth time, that a 17thC document, provenance BML, is
a forgery of a 19thC forgerer: how stupid is that? How naive? You must PROVE
such an assertion with no basis in fact.
Bill
Show us where exactly "Nat Taylor showed the provenance was 17th
century" ?
Having Googled, I find Nat said this on 23rd October:
I hove now skimmed S. Allen Peck's 72-page article, and admit I share
John's yawn (overkill on the documents in extenso), except for the
forgery part. The alleged Yorkshire connection comes from a
20-generation pedigree supplied in 1853 to wealthy American descendant
Ira Peck by none other than Horatio Gates Somerby, the prolific forger.
It is gently impugned by S. Allyn Peck, without being too bald in
fingering Somerby. Somerby told Ira Peck it can be found in BL MS Add.
5524, folio 152 (recte 158), and S. Allyn Peck printed a facsimile, in
five plates tipped in before NEHGR 90 (1936):371. I wonder if anyone
familiar with Somerby's own manuscripts (maybe Paul Reed?) could say
definitely if this pedigree is in Somerby's own hand. What is the
acquisition date / provenance of BL Add. MS 5524? I do not find it in
the BL Catalogue, online.
Didn't someone (Paul?) years ago post a list of potentially suspect
Somerby projects found in FHL manuscripts? Or am I thinking only of the
Gustave Anjou bibliography found in the Evans festschrift?
If people are interested, I have posted the entirety of S. Allyn Peck's
72 page NEHGR article online, including the facsimile of the forged
20-generation pedigree, here (3.7 MB):
http://www.nltaylor.net/temp/Peck_NEHGR.pdf
-
wjhonson
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 20, 12:11 am, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
--------------------------
But the above quote does not say that the provenance is 17th century.
In fact it implies the opposite. That it could quite well be in
Somerby's own hand.
Will Johnson
wjhonson wrote:
On Nov 19, 9:12 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
BA: And I thought you went to college? You get an *F* in my English Comp 101.
You must have skipped class, because scholar Nat Taylor showed the provenance
was 17thC. And "who is known" and "claiming to be older" and "most likely"
are qualifiers which clearly demonstrate your statement of fact is meaningless.
Do you *not* realize that those *qualifiers* defy logic? Sure, they are legitimate,
for writers to use, but they make your statement hollow, back-tracked, and put
the onus of PROOF upon you, the writer! Read the gen-medieval archives, posts
by Nat Taylor. And in the meantime, get a life! You are the one who has repeated,
repeatedly, for the umpteenth time, that a 17thC document, provenance BML, is
a forgery of a 19thC forgerer: how stupid is that? How naive? You must PROVE
such an assertion with no basis in fact.
Bill
Show us where exactly "Nat Taylor showed the provenance was 17th
century" ?
Having Googled, I find Nat said this on 23rd October:
I hove now skimmed S. Allen Peck's 72-page article, and admit I share
John's yawn (overkill on the documents in extenso), except for the
forgery part. The alleged Yorkshire connection comes from a
20-generation pedigree supplied in 1853 to wealthy American descendant
Ira Peck by none other than Horatio Gates Somerby, the prolific forger.
It is gently impugned by S. Allyn Peck, without being too bald in
fingering Somerby. Somerby told Ira Peck it can be found in BL MS Add.
5524, folio 152 (recte 158), and S. Allyn Peck printed a facsimile, in
five plates tipped in before NEHGR 90 (1936):371. I wonder if anyone
familiar with Somerby's own manuscripts (maybe Paul Reed?) could say
definitely if this pedigree is in Somerby's own hand. What is the
acquisition date / provenance of BL Add. MS 5524? I do not find it in
the BL Catalogue, online.
Didn't someone (Paul?) years ago post a list of potentially suspect
Somerby projects found in FHL manuscripts? Or am I thinking only of the
Gustave Anjou bibliography found in the Evans festschrift?
If people are interested, I have posted the entirety of S. Allyn Peck's
72 page NEHGR article online, including the facsimile of the forged
20-generation pedigree, here (3.7 MB):
http://www.nltaylor.net/temp/Peck_NEHGR.pdf- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
--------------------------
But the above quote does not say that the provenance is 17th century.
In fact it implies the opposite. That it could quite well be in
Somerby's own hand.
Will Johnson
-
Renia
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
wjhonson wrote:
Exactly.
On Nov 20, 12:11 am, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
wjhonson wrote:
On Nov 19, 9:12 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
BA: And I thought you went to college? You get an *F* in my English Comp 101.
You must have skipped class, because scholar Nat Taylor showed the provenance
was 17thC. And "who is known" and "claiming to be older" and "most likely"
are qualifiers which clearly demonstrate your statement of fact is meaningless.
Do you *not* realize that those *qualifiers* defy logic? Sure, they are legitimate,
for writers to use, but they make your statement hollow, back-tracked, and put
the onus of PROOF upon you, the writer! Read the gen-medieval archives, posts
by Nat Taylor. And in the meantime, get a life! You are the one who has repeated,
repeatedly, for the umpteenth time, that a 17thC document, provenance BML, is
a forgery of a 19thC forgerer: how stupid is that? How naive? You must PROVE
such an assertion with no basis in fact.
Bill
Show us where exactly "Nat Taylor showed the provenance was 17th
century" ?
Having Googled, I find Nat said this on 23rd October:
I hove now skimmed S. Allen Peck's 72-page article, and admit I share
John's yawn (overkill on the documents in extenso), except for the
forgery part. The alleged Yorkshire connection comes from a
20-generation pedigree supplied in 1853 to wealthy American descendant
Ira Peck by none other than Horatio Gates Somerby, the prolific forger.
It is gently impugned by S. Allyn Peck, without being too bald in
fingering Somerby. Somerby told Ira Peck it can be found in BL MS Add.
5524, folio 152 (recte 158), and S. Allyn Peck printed a facsimile, in
five plates tipped in before NEHGR 90 (1936):371. I wonder if anyone
familiar with Somerby's own manuscripts (maybe Paul Reed?) could say
definitely if this pedigree is in Somerby's own hand. What is the
acquisition date / provenance of BL Add. MS 5524? I do not find it in
the BL Catalogue, online.
Didn't someone (Paul?) years ago post a list of potentially suspect
Somerby projects found in FHL manuscripts? Or am I thinking only of the
Gustave Anjou bibliography found in the Evans festschrift?
If people are interested, I have posted the entirety of S. Allyn Peck's
72 page NEHGR article online, including the facsimile of the forged
20-generation pedigree, here (3.7 MB):
http://www.nltaylor.net/temp/Peck_NEHGR.pdf- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
--------------------------
But the above quote does not say that the provenance is 17th century.
In fact it implies the opposite. That it could quite well be in
Somerby's own hand.
Exactly.
-
Gjest
Re: Fw: Lady Eleanor Butler - who was she?
In a message dated 20/11/2007 10:41:02 GMT Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
I have also been told that Salop appears to be correct, it does not mean
Salisbury (Sarum). my mistake.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
===
Salop is an abbr. for Shropshire.
Adrian
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
I have also been told that Salop appears to be correct, it does not mean
Salisbury (Sarum). my mistake.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
===
Salop is an abbr. for Shropshire.
Adrian
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
--- wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
BA: Source: gen-medieval archives, 0ct-Nov, 2007.
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
On Nov 19, 9:12 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
BA: And I thought you went to college? You get an *F* in my English Comp 101.
You must have skipped class, because scholar Nat Taylor showed the provenance
was 17thC. And "who is known" and "claiming to be older" and "most likely"
are qualifiers which clearly demonstrate your statement of fact is meaningless.
Do you *not* realize that those *qualifiers* defy logic? Sure, they are legitimate,
for writers to use, but they make your statement hollow, back-tracked, and put
the onus of PROOF upon you, the writer! Read the gen-medieval archives, posts
by Nat Taylor. And in the meantime, get a life! You are the one who has repeated,
repeatedly, for the umpteenth time, that a 17thC document, provenance BML, is
a forgery of a 19thC forgerer: how stupid is that? How naive? You must PROVE
such an assertion with no basis in fact.
Bill
Show us where exactly "Nat Taylor showed the provenance was 17th
century" ?
BA: Source: gen-medieval archives, 0ct-Nov, 2007.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 19, 8:20 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
ADDENDA:
ADDENDUM 2: the BML Peck Pedigree is a Medieval document unassailable
in its historical setting, creation, and primacy and provenance [ see gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007 ].
Will: No what it is, is a pedigree reported, by a known pedigree-forger, who
is known to have previously forged documents claiming to be older than
they really were, and this is most likely one of those as well.
BA: you finally understand. You are making a statement of fact. Now go ahead
and PROVE it, big boy!
Renia: Will doesn't have to prove anything. You, yourself have to prove it is NOT a
forgery. You do that by going backwards through the generations and re-examine it.
BA: No, I do not. Renia, you and Will are making an assertion with no basis in fact.
Apparently you do not read either. Nat Taylor [see gen-medieval archives, Oct-Nov,
2007] clarified the *provenance* of the BML Peck Pedigree. Of course, you may excuse
yourself and offer an addendum that you did not read Nat Taylor's post. I suggest
you look it up before offering anymore silly notions that I have to somehow prove
something which has already been proven. You and Will and all other naysayers
of the Peck Pedigree in the BML are making assertions with no basis in fact. It
has clearly been established that Somerby was of the 19thC and the BML Peck Pedigree
has a *provenance* of the 17thC. In fact, Ira B. Peck in his book on Joseph Peck
clearly STATED that the brother of Nicholas Peck, a 16thC-17thC gent in England
*commissioned* the Peck Pedigree, paid hard money and spent considerable time
on its behalf. So, for anyone to impugn Ira B. Peck, Somerby, and Nicholas Peck
and the College of Heralds is beyond the pale: such naysayers MUST PROVE their
assertions with no basis in fact, which defy all logic that 19thC persons created
a 17thC document which has been in the BML since the 17thC.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Renia: To my knowledge, you have not said how you are related to the Pecks,
in the first place. If you want us to help you, and someone out there
possibly can help you, then you need to start at the beginning.
BA: No, I do not. As this list concerns itself with pedigrees in which none of
the contributors are related to: your remark is gratuitous, irrelevant and quite
immaterial. There are hundreds of thousands of Peck descendants from this
lineage back to Charlemagne, and it is a subject proposed pedigree worthy
of gen-medieval discussion. If you, personally, have an interest in contributing,
and down the road wish to offer assistance to a book on Charlemagne descents,
then you must do your homework. The archives of gen-medieval, Oct-No, 2007,
are easily searched, researched and if you have not followed this thread then
you owe yourself some time with it. You would not review a movie for a newspaper
without seeing it first, would you?
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
in the first place. If you want us to help you, and someone out there
possibly can help you, then you need to start at the beginning.
BA: No, I do not. As this list concerns itself with pedigrees in which none of
the contributors are related to: your remark is gratuitous, irrelevant and quite
immaterial. There are hundreds of thousands of Peck descendants from this
lineage back to Charlemagne, and it is a subject proposed pedigree worthy
of gen-medieval discussion. If you, personally, have an interest in contributing,
and down the road wish to offer assistance to a book on Charlemagne descents,
then you must do your homework. The archives of gen-medieval, Oct-No, 2007,
are easily searched, researched and if you have not followed this thread then
you owe yourself some time with it. You would not review a movie for a newspaper
without seeing it first, would you?
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Renia: Having Googled, I find Nat said this on 23rd October:
"[ in part ]...What is the acquisition date / provenance of BL
Add. MS 5524? I do not find it in the BL Catalogue, online."
BA: Renia, you are hopelessly out-of-date with this matter.
You need to read more than one post. In fact, as a statement
of fact, Nat Taylor did all this research on his own as a
gentleman and a scholar, and *found* the *provenance*
of the Peck Pedigree. He also *published* it online: search
the gen-medieval archives, Oct-Nov, 2007.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
"[ in part ]...What is the acquisition date / provenance of BL
Add. MS 5524? I do not find it in the BL Catalogue, online."
BA: Renia, you are hopelessly out-of-date with this matter.
You need to read more than one post. In fact, as a statement
of fact, Nat Taylor did all this research on his own as a
gentleman and a scholar, and *found* the *provenance*
of the Peck Pedigree. He also *published* it online: search
the gen-medieval archives, Oct-Nov, 2007.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
simon fairthorne
Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:57:21 -0800 (PST) , Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:
We have a major difference of opinion here
Your understanding of a "fact" and mine are different
For me a "fact" is something which is true, no maybe, no changing its status at a later stage
A statement is an assertion which maybe true, maybe be false - one hopes to determine which by logical reasoning from the set of facts - this would be by a form of predicate logic
However in genealogy / history this is not possible - and so a form of fuzzy logic is required where statements now have a probability attached to them and the rules of deduction now have a measure of probability built in
I'm not a logician - does anyone know if fuzzy logic has been applied to genealogy?
it is the deductions from the facts which are being tested
"X killed Y" is not a fact
the facts would be of the form "Witness A says that he saw X kill Y"
that is a fact and the judge / jury have to decide whether the statement "X killed Y" can reasonably be inferred from this. "Reasonably" means there is a level of probability involved - the level will differ depending on whether a civil or a criminal case
Copernicus didn't "set them straight", he proposed a different interpretation, one which was more consistent with observed facts than the Ptolemaic version
I suspect that we are just going to differ over this
cheers
Simon
BA: Excuse me, Simon, but you err. Let me clarify for you: a statement of fact is a fact.
We have a major difference of opinion here
Your understanding of a "fact" and mine are different
For me a "fact" is something which is true, no maybe, no changing its status at a later stage
A statement is an assertion which maybe true, maybe be false - one hopes to determine which by logical reasoning from the set of facts - this would be by a form of predicate logic
However in genealogy / history this is not possible - and so a form of fuzzy logic is required where statements now have a probability attached to them and the rules of deduction now have a measure of probability built in
I'm not a logician - does anyone know if fuzzy logic has been applied to genealogy?
The informant in my great-grandmother's death record stated that her father's surname
was *X* which for nearly one hundred years was a FACT. Now: until a counter-fact came
along, and that was that I consulted several census records and discovered that her
father's surname was *Y* and now I have published a NEW statement of fact which is fact.
So: what is the resolution? Just as in a court of law, the FACTS are weighed and a conclusion
or inference is drawn which FACT is true and certain.
it is the deductions from the facts which are being tested
"X killed Y" is not a fact
the facts would be of the form "Witness A says that he saw X kill Y"
that is a fact and the judge / jury have to decide whether the statement "X killed Y" can reasonably be inferred from this. "Reasonably" means there is a level of probability involved - the level will differ depending on whether a civil or a criminal case
Like Copernicus, I set them straight.
Copernicus didn't "set them straight", he proposed a different interpretation, one which was more consistent with observed facts than the Ptolemaic version
I suspect that we are just going to differ over this
cheers
Simon
-
Renia
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Bill Arnold wrote:
I did and he refuted it, above.
Renia: Having Googled, I find Nat said this on 23rd October:
"[ in part ]...What is the acquisition date / provenance of BL
Add. MS 5524? I do not find it in the BL Catalogue, online."
BA: Renia, you are hopelessly out-of-date with this matter.
You need to read more than one post. In fact, as a statement
of fact, Nat Taylor did all this research on his own as a
gentleman and a scholar, and *found* the *provenance*
of the Peck Pedigree. He also *published* it online: search
the gen-medieval archives, Oct-Nov, 2007.
I did and he refuted it, above.
-
Renia
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Bill Arnold wrote:
Read my words. I don't make any assertion save to say it is up to YOU to
prove your case. It is up to YOU to prove to yourself that the Peck
pedigree is not a forgery.
I repeat, you do not seem to understand what the word "fact" means.
But has it?
People did commission genealogists and heralds to look into their
ancestry, usually for property reasons. If a family wanted to ally
themselves in marriage to a higher-ranked family, their genealogist
would ensure that a suitable ancestrial rank would be found. After all,
who's to know? Didn't have the internet in those days. The info would
all be buried under dusty piles of parchment.
I don't have to prove a thing. I'm neither a Peck, nor descended from a
Peck, nor have relatives who even thought about marrying a Peck. So I
don't actually care about the Peck pedigree.
But you do. The onus is on you to prove what you want to know.
If you can't accept what scholars and others say on this newsgroup, then
do what many others do: accept your genealogy, back to Adam and Eve, if
you must, but please don't expect to be taken seriously.
And learn to use the word "fact" properly. You are talking to historians
and scientists.
On Nov 19, 8:20 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
ADDENDA:
ADDENDUM 2: the BML Peck Pedigree is a Medieval document unassailable
in its historical setting, creation, and primacy and provenance [ see gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007 ].
Will: No what it is, is a pedigree reported, by a known pedigree-forger, who
is known to have previously forged documents claiming to be older than
they really were, and this is most likely one of those as well.
BA: you finally understand. You are making a statement of fact. Now go ahead
and PROVE it, big boy!
Renia: Will doesn't have to prove anything. You, yourself have to prove it is NOT a
forgery. You do that by going backwards through the generations and re-examine it.
BA: No, I do not. Renia, you and Will are making an assertion with no basis in fact.
Read my words. I don't make any assertion save to say it is up to YOU to
prove your case. It is up to YOU to prove to yourself that the Peck
pedigree is not a forgery.
I repeat, you do not seem to understand what the word "fact" means.
Apparently you do not read either. Nat Taylor [see gen-medieval archives, Oct-Nov,
2007] clarified the *provenance* of the BML Peck Pedigree. Of course, you may excuse
yourself and offer an addendum that you did not read Nat Taylor's post. I suggest
you look it up before offering anymore silly notions that I have to somehow prove
something which has already been proven.
But has it?
You and Will and all other naysayers
of the Peck Pedigree in the BML are making assertions with no basis in fact. It
has clearly been established that Somerby was of the 19thC and the BML Peck Pedigree
has a *provenance* of the 17thC. In fact, Ira B. Peck in his book on Joseph Peck
clearly STATED that the brother of Nicholas Peck, a 16thC-17thC gent in England
*commissioned* the Peck Pedigree, paid hard money and spent considerable time
on its behalf.
People did commission genealogists and heralds to look into their
ancestry, usually for property reasons. If a family wanted to ally
themselves in marriage to a higher-ranked family, their genealogist
would ensure that a suitable ancestrial rank would be found. After all,
who's to know? Didn't have the internet in those days. The info would
all be buried under dusty piles of parchment.
So, for anyone to impugn Ira B. Peck, Somerby, and Nicholas Peck
and the College of Heralds is beyond the pale: such naysayers MUST PROVE their
assertions with no basis in fact, which defy all logic that 19thC persons created
a 17thC document which has been in the BML since the 17thC.
I don't have to prove a thing. I'm neither a Peck, nor descended from a
Peck, nor have relatives who even thought about marrying a Peck. So I
don't actually care about the Peck pedigree.
But you do. The onus is on you to prove what you want to know.
If you can't accept what scholars and others say on this newsgroup, then
do what many others do: accept your genealogy, back to Adam and Eve, if
you must, but please don't expect to be taken seriously.
And learn to use the word "fact" properly. You are talking to historians
and scientists.
-
Renia
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Bill Arnold wrote:
What homework should I be doing, Bill? I have no personal interest in
the Peck pedigree.
Why should I spend time researching a family which is not my own in this
newsgroup's archives?
What am I reviewing, here, Bill?
Renia: To my knowledge, you have not said how you are related to the Pecks,
in the first place. If you want us to help you, and someone out there
possibly can help you, then you need to start at the beginning.
BA: No, I do not. As this list concerns itself with pedigrees in which none of
the contributors are related to: your remark is gratuitous, irrelevant and quite
immaterial. There are hundreds of thousands of Peck descendants from this
lineage back to Charlemagne, and it is a subject proposed pedigree worthy
of gen-medieval discussion. If you, personally, have an interest in contributing,
and down the road wish to offer assistance to a book on Charlemagne descents,
then you must do your homework.
What homework should I be doing, Bill? I have no personal interest in
the Peck pedigree.
The archives of gen-medieval, Oct-No, 2007,
are easily searched, researched and if you have not followed this thread then
you owe yourself some time with it.
Why should I spend time researching a family which is not my own in this
newsgroup's archives?
You would not review a movie for a newspaper
without seeing it first, would you?
What am I reviewing, here, Bill?
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 20, 6:47 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No, he found information _about_ the provenance of the Peck Pedigree.
There was no absolute resolution, but he expressed certain doubts.
"published" it? You do have your way with the language.
taf
Renia: Having Googled, I find Nat said this on 23rd October:
"[ in part ]...What is the acquisition date / provenance of BL
Add. MS 5524? I do not find it in the BL Catalogue, online."
BA: Renia, you are hopelessly out-of-date with this matter.
You need to read more than one post. In fact, as a statement
of fact, Nat Taylor did all this research on his own as a
gentleman and a scholar, and *found* the *provenance*
of the Peck Pedigree.
No, he found information _about_ the provenance of the Peck Pedigree.
There was no absolute resolution, but he expressed certain doubts.
of the Peck Pedigree.
He also *published* it online: search
the gen-medieval archives, Oct-Nov, 2007.
"published" it? You do have your way with the language.
taf
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
BA: The archives of gen-medieval, Oct-No, 2007, are easily searched,
researched and if you have not followed this thread then
you owe yourself some time with it.
Renia: Why should I spend time researching a family which is not my own in this
newsgroup's archives?
BA: OK, to quote your favorite author, "Good-bye," go back to his thread which is why
you are on gen-medieval, and dish out some more on terrible British food. Forget
about Charlemagne descent.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
researched and if you have not followed this thread then
you owe yourself some time with it.
Renia: Why should I spend time researching a family which is not my own in this
newsgroup's archives?
BA: OK, to quote your favorite author, "Good-bye," go back to his thread which is why
you are on gen-medieval, and dish out some more on terrible British food. Forget
about Charlemagne descent.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
John Brandon
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
No, he found information _about_ the provenance of the Peck Pedigree.
There was no absolute resolution, but he expressed certain doubts.
He felt it could be contemporary (or at least produced for Nicholas
Peck, living 1620, or one of his earlier descendants, say late 1600s),
but there is still a strong presumption that it's a fake. This was a
social-climbing family.
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
--- Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
BA: You and Walt Whitman have something in common. Someone
accused him of contradicting himself, and he said, “Do I contradict
myself? / Very well then . . . . I contradict myself; / I am large . . . .
I contain multitudes.” But then, you have your dates mixed up,
the cart before the horse. Renia, you are still hopelessly out-of-date
with this matter. So, unless you do some research, it is hopeless,
you will remain out-of-date with this matter. Therefore, what the
matter for your responses? Go back to your terrible British food
with that paragon of insensitity.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Bill Arnold wrote:
Renia: Having Googled, I find Nat said this on 23rd October:
"[ in part ]...What is the acquisition date / provenance of BL
Add. MS 5524? I do not find it in the BL Catalogue, online."
BA: Renia, you are hopelessly out-of-date with this matter.
You need to read more than one post. In fact, as a statement
of fact, Nat Taylor did all this research on his own as a
gentleman and a scholar, and *found* the *provenance*
of the Peck Pedigree. He also *published* it online: search
the gen-medieval archives, Oct-Nov, 2007.
I did and he refuted it, above.
BA: You and Walt Whitman have something in common. Someone
accused him of contradicting himself, and he said, “Do I contradict
myself? / Very well then . . . . I contradict myself; / I am large . . . .
I contain multitudes.” But then, you have your dates mixed up,
the cart before the horse. Renia, you are still hopelessly out-of-date
with this matter. So, unless you do some research, it is hopeless,
you will remain out-of-date with this matter. Therefore, what the
matter for your responses? Go back to your terrible British food
with that paragon of insensitity.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Renia: I don't have to prove a thing. I'm neither a Peck, nor descended from a
Peck, nor have relatives who even thought about marrying a Peck. So I
don't actually care about the Peck pedigree. But you do. The onus is on you to
prove what you want to know.
BA: So, I take it then that Charlemagne descent is on an equal basis with you
with terrible British food?
BA: I have stated the fact that the Peck Pedigree dates from the 17thC and it
is so noted that Nat Taylor proved the *provenance* online in gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007. The rest is history!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Peck, nor have relatives who even thought about marrying a Peck. So I
don't actually care about the Peck pedigree. But you do. The onus is on you to
prove what you want to know.
BA: So, I take it then that Charlemagne descent is on an equal basis with you
with terrible British food?
BA: I have stated the fact that the Peck Pedigree dates from the 17thC and it
is so noted that Nat Taylor proved the *provenance* online in gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007. The rest is history!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 20, 7:55 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Again the focus on Charlemagne descent - it is not about finding the
true Peck ancestry, but about finding a descent from Charlemagne. And
as always, when genealogy is taken in hand with a specific target in
mind, then all sources are viewed through that lens rather than
dispassionately on their own merits.
taf
BA: OK, to quote your favorite author, "Good-bye," go back to his thread which is why
you are on gen-medieval, and dish out some more on terrible British food. Forget
about Charlemagne descent.
Again the focus on Charlemagne descent - it is not about finding the
true Peck ancestry, but about finding a descent from Charlemagne. And
as always, when genealogy is taken in hand with a specific target in
mind, then all sources are viewed through that lens rather than
dispassionately on their own merits.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 20, 7:55 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Again the focus on Charlemagne descent - it is not about finding the
true Peck ancestry, but about finding a descent from Charlemagne. And
as always, when genealogy is taken in hand with a specific target in
mind, then all sources are viewed through that lens rather than
dispassionately on their own merits.
taf
BA: OK, to quote your favorite author, "Good-bye," go back to his thread which is why
you are on gen-medieval, and dish out some more on terrible British food. Forget
about Charlemagne descent.
Again the focus on Charlemagne descent - it is not about finding the
true Peck ancestry, but about finding a descent from Charlemagne. And
as always, when genealogy is taken in hand with a specific target in
mind, then all sources are viewed through that lens rather than
dispassionately on their own merits.
taf
-
Duvall, Jeffery A
RE: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
I know this is a waste of time, but here goes...
Even if your beloved "Peck Pedigree" does indeed date back to the seventeenth century -- and having no known Peck ancestry of my own (a fact for which I'm increasingly grateful), I've long since given up trying to keep track of all this -- it still does not mean that the pedigree is accurate in all of its details. Many of us who read this list can also find 17th or even 16th century pedigrees which purport to be for one or more of our ancestors. The real work is documenting that (A) our ancestor actually belongs to the family in question and (B) that the pedigree itself is correct...both steps being necessary for all of the various reasons which have already been pointed out repeatedly. It's an unfortunate "fact," but the truth is that many of us have had to accept that various of our ancestors, turn out to not be entitled to the pedigrees that have been proposed for them over the years (or centuries in some cases). My own list of such cases would include William Rittenhouse (not an illegitimate Hapsburg), Matthew Howard (not the descendant of a secret love-child of Lady Margaret Douglas and Lord Thomas Howard), William Thornton (not a descendant of Edward I via the Westbys of
Yorkshire), Abraham Larew (not a Valois descendant), Richard Well's wife Frances (not a granddaughter of the first Earl of Portland), and Peter Montague (not a descendant of either the Earls of Salisbury or the King of the Isle of Man).
Jeff Duvall
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Bill Arnold
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:16 AM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
BA: I have stated the fact that the Peck Pedigree dates from the 17thC and it
is so noted that Nat Taylor proved the *provenance* online in gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007. The rest is history!
Bill
*****
Even if your beloved "Peck Pedigree" does indeed date back to the seventeenth century -- and having no known Peck ancestry of my own (a fact for which I'm increasingly grateful), I've long since given up trying to keep track of all this -- it still does not mean that the pedigree is accurate in all of its details. Many of us who read this list can also find 17th or even 16th century pedigrees which purport to be for one or more of our ancestors. The real work is documenting that (A) our ancestor actually belongs to the family in question and (B) that the pedigree itself is correct...both steps being necessary for all of the various reasons which have already been pointed out repeatedly. It's an unfortunate "fact," but the truth is that many of us have had to accept that various of our ancestors, turn out to not be entitled to the pedigrees that have been proposed for them over the years (or centuries in some cases). My own list of such cases would include William Rittenhouse (not an illegitimate Hapsburg), Matthew Howard (not the descendant of a secret love-child of Lady Margaret Douglas and Lord Thomas Howard), William Thornton (not a descendant of Edward I via the Westbys of
Yorkshire), Abraham Larew (not a Valois descendant), Richard Well's wife Frances (not a granddaughter of the first Earl of Portland), and Peter Montague (not a descendant of either the Earls of Salisbury or the King of the Isle of Man).
Jeff Duvall
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Bill Arnold
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:16 AM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
BA: I have stated the fact that the Peck Pedigree dates from the 17thC and it
is so noted that Nat Taylor proved the *provenance* online in gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007. The rest is history!
Bill
*****
-
Renia
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Bill Arnold wrote:
I also post from soc.history.medieval where that thread is also
crossposted. Which threads I contribute to have nothing to do with you,
not that I've contributed much to that particular thread.
Nonetheless your Charlemagne ancestry means nothing to me, so it is
about as important as British food.
What is important to me, is that the genealogies and pedigrees discussed
her and on the internet, generally, should be as accurate as possible.
Who knows where we all fit in?
I don't believe the "provenance" of that pedigree has been proved. It
looks rather like you take after your social-climbing Peck ancestor.
Renia: I don't have to prove a thing. I'm neither a Peck, nor descended from a
Peck, nor have relatives who even thought about marrying a Peck. So I
don't actually care about the Peck pedigree. But you do. The onus is on you to
prove what you want to know.
BA: So, I take it then that Charlemagne descent is on an equal basis with you
with terrible British food?
I also post from soc.history.medieval where that thread is also
crossposted. Which threads I contribute to have nothing to do with you,
not that I've contributed much to that particular thread.
Nonetheless your Charlemagne ancestry means nothing to me, so it is
about as important as British food.
What is important to me, is that the genealogies and pedigrees discussed
her and on the internet, generally, should be as accurate as possible.
Who knows where we all fit in?
BA: I have stated the fact that the Peck Pedigree dates from the 17thC and it
is so noted that Nat Taylor proved the *provenance* online in gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007. The rest is history!
I don't believe the "provenance" of that pedigree has been proved. It
looks rather like you take after your social-climbing Peck ancestor.
-
Renia
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Bill Arnold wrote:
You rattle on too much. Keep to the case in point.
What on? It's not my pedigree.
You rattle on too much. Keep to the case in point.
--- Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Bill Arnold wrote:
Renia: Having Googled, I find Nat said this on 23rd October:
"[ in part ]...What is the acquisition date / provenance of BL
Add. MS 5524? I do not find it in the BL Catalogue, online."
BA: Renia, you are hopelessly out-of-date with this matter.
You need to read more than one post. In fact, as a statement
of fact, Nat Taylor did all this research on his own as a
gentleman and a scholar, and *found* the *provenance*
of the Peck Pedigree. He also *published* it online: search
the gen-medieval archives, Oct-Nov, 2007.
I did and he refuted it, above.
BA: You and Walt Whitman have something in common. Someone
accused him of contradicting himself, and he said, “Do I contradict
myself? / Very well then . . . . I contradict myself; / I am large . . . .
You rattle on too much. Keep to the case in point.
I contain multitudes.” But then, you have your dates mixed up,
the cart before the horse. Renia, you are still hopelessly out-of-date
with this matter. So, unless you do some research,
What on? It's not my pedigree.
it is hopeless,
you will remain out-of-date with this matter. Therefore, what the
matter for your responses? Go back to your terrible British food
with that paragon of insensitity.
You rattle on too much. Keep to the case in point.
-
Gjest
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
But Douglas you did not address the post from Peter Stewart with his
examples.
What about those?
Will Johnson
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
examples.
What about those?
Will Johnson
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
In a message dated 11/20/2007 8:56:38 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
jduvall@iupui.edu writes:
The real work is documenting that (A) our ancestor actually belongs to the
family in question and (B) that the pedigree itself is correct...both steps
being necessary for all of the various reasons which have already been pointed
out repeatedly
----------------
Oh Jeff you silly. The person in question isn't really interested in doing
"work", they came here for an argument ! (This is abuse, argument is down the
hall)
Will Johnson
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
jduvall@iupui.edu writes:
The real work is documenting that (A) our ancestor actually belongs to the
family in question and (B) that the pedigree itself is correct...both steps
being necessary for all of the various reasons which have already been pointed
out repeatedly
----------------
Oh Jeff you silly. The person in question isn't really interested in doing
"work", they came here for an argument ! (This is abuse, argument is down the
hall)
Will Johnson
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-
Gjest
Re: Picot?
A Topographical History of Surrey. Edward Wedlake Brayley. P. 413
TOLWORTH. It was held by Taleorde. Its Domesday Assets were: 1. Picot from Richard de Tonebrige 2. Radulf (Ralph) from the Bishop of Bayeux. It rendered (in total): (Total) 21/2 hides; also 4 hides with Long Ditton. 1 mill without dues, 8 ploughs, 101/2 acres and 1/2 rod of meadow (a rod was a square perch, 51/2 yards) It rendered (in total): (Total) £6.
I believe the manor of Tolworth was halved. By 1150 Peter de Tolworth was holding of the de Clares and I find no further mention of Picot. Tolworth also held Long Ditton since about 171 he granted the church there to Merton Priory.
Some sources identify Picot as a Norman in the retinue of Richard Fitz Gilbert but thereafter, I find no reference to him singularly.
Thank you for responding,
Pat
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr>
TOLWORTH. It was held by Taleorde. Its Domesday Assets were: 1. Picot from Richard de Tonebrige 2. Radulf (Ralph) from the Bishop of Bayeux. It rendered (in total): (Total) 21/2 hides; also 4 hides with Long Ditton. 1 mill without dues, 8 ploughs, 101/2 acres and 1/2 rod of meadow (a rod was a square perch, 51/2 yards) It rendered (in total): (Total) £6.
I believe the manor of Tolworth was halved. By 1150 Peter de Tolworth was holding of the de Clares and I find no further mention of Picot. Tolworth also held Long Ditton since about 171 he granted the church there to Merton Priory.
Some sources identify Picot as a Norman in the retinue of Richard Fitz Gilbert but thereafter, I find no reference to him singularly.
Thank you for responding,
Pat
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr>
pajunkin@bellsouth.net wrote:
I have seen Picot/Pycot used both as a surname and forname.
I am interested in the "Picot" who held Talerode, Surrey from Richard of
Tonbridge.
Was he a "de Say"? Progenitor of the Picot family of Cambridge? Ancestor of
Picot, sheriff of Kent?
Any help appreciated.
Pat
Domesday People by Keats-Rohan has:
Picot De Sai
Norman, Robert Picot de Sai, orne, arr. and Cant. Argentan. Domesday
tenant of Earl Roger in Shropshire. Benefactor of the Montgomery
foundation at Saint-Martin-de-Sees, where he occurs with his wife
Adeloia (previously the wife of William de Coimes) and sons Robert and
Henry, and in association with his brother Payn de Sai and an Oismelin
de Sai. He was succeeded by his son Henry, baron of Clun, before 1121.
But there were other Picots:
Picot De Friardel
Picot De Grentebrige
Picot De Lascels
Picot De Percy
There is nothing on Richard of Tonbridge. What (approx) year are you
speaking of?
-------------------------------
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
-
Dolores C. Phifer
Re: Picot? / possible different spellings
Hello. I am not related to this line.
I have seen this variation of the spelling on my mom's side. One of my
great-grandfathers and back came through Daniel Piquette who lived in Md. I
believe that one of the earliest Piquette's names was Louis Piquette.
Daniel Piquette's daughter was Hanorah 'Nora' Piquette and she is one of my
great-grandmothers. Over the years I have seen various versions of the
surname -Piquette... Piqot, Pigot, Picot, Piquet, Piquett, Paquette, to name
a few. The origin of our Piquette line goes up from MD... up through the
East Coast... possibly into Canada since that is where we find most of the
distant cousins, then further back into England for a while, and then back
further into France. We haven't gone much further back than that yet.
Best Regards,
Dolores Phifer
----- Original Message -----
From: <pajunkin@bellsouth.net>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: Picot?
I have seen this variation of the spelling on my mom's side. One of my
great-grandfathers and back came through Daniel Piquette who lived in Md. I
believe that one of the earliest Piquette's names was Louis Piquette.
Daniel Piquette's daughter was Hanorah 'Nora' Piquette and she is one of my
great-grandmothers. Over the years I have seen various versions of the
surname -Piquette... Piqot, Pigot, Picot, Piquet, Piquett, Paquette, to name
a few. The origin of our Piquette line goes up from MD... up through the
East Coast... possibly into Canada since that is where we find most of the
distant cousins, then further back into England for a while, and then back
further into France. We haven't gone much further back than that yet.
Best Regards,
Dolores Phifer
----- Original Message -----
From: <pajunkin@bellsouth.net>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: Picot?
-
Renia
Re: Picot?
Domesday Book: A Complete Translation (Penguin)
The land of Richard, son of Count Gilbert
IN TANDRIDGE HUNDRED
RICHARD OF TONBRIDGE holds in demesne CHEVINGTON . . .
Richard himself hold BLETCHINGLEY . . .
(i.e. Richard, son of Count Gilbert)
IN KINGSTON HUNDRED
Picot holds of Richard TOLWORTH.
ditto LONG DITTON
ditto "a piece of land" called Ember in Thames Ditton
Richard, son of Count Gilbert, is the same as Richard Fitz Gilbert, whom
you mention below. He was also known as Richard of Tonbridge (according
to Wikipedia, but I'm not sure about that.) He also founded the De Clare
family.
Domesday People (by Keats-Rohan) says:
Picot De Friardel, Norman, from Friardel, Calvados, arr. Lisieux, cant.
Orbec. Picot de Friadel attested a charter of Gilbert fitz Richard
before 1100; he is probably to be identified with Picot, Domesday tenant
of Richard de Clare.
Renia
pajunkin@bellsouth.net wrote:
The land of Richard, son of Count Gilbert
IN TANDRIDGE HUNDRED
RICHARD OF TONBRIDGE holds in demesne CHEVINGTON . . .
Richard himself hold BLETCHINGLEY . . .
(i.e. Richard, son of Count Gilbert)
IN KINGSTON HUNDRED
Picot holds of Richard TOLWORTH.
ditto LONG DITTON
ditto "a piece of land" called Ember in Thames Ditton
Richard, son of Count Gilbert, is the same as Richard Fitz Gilbert, whom
you mention below. He was also known as Richard of Tonbridge (according
to Wikipedia, but I'm not sure about that.) He also founded the De Clare
family.
Domesday People (by Keats-Rohan) says:
Picot De Friardel, Norman, from Friardel, Calvados, arr. Lisieux, cant.
Orbec. Picot de Friadel attested a charter of Gilbert fitz Richard
before 1100; he is probably to be identified with Picot, Domesday tenant
of Richard de Clare.
Renia
pajunkin@bellsouth.net wrote:
A Topographical History of Surrey. Edward Wedlake Brayley. P. 413
TOLWORTH. It was held by Taleorde. Its Domesday Assets were: 1. Picot from Richard de Tonebrige 2. Radulf (Ralph) from the Bishop of Bayeux. It rendered (in total): (Total) 21/2 hides; also 4 hides with Long Ditton. 1 mill without dues, 8 ploughs, 101/2 acres and 1/2 rod of meadow (a rod was a square perch, 51/2 yards) It rendered (in total): (Total) £6.
I believe the manor of Tolworth was halved. By 1150 Peter de Tolworth was holding of the de Clares and I find no further mention of Picot. Tolworth also held Long Ditton since about 171 he granted the church there to Merton Priory.
Some sources identify Picot as a Norman in the retinue of Richard Fitz Gilbert but thereafter, I find no reference to him singularly.
Thank you for responding,
Pat
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr
pajunkin@bellsouth.net wrote:
I have seen Picot/Pycot used both as a surname and forname.
I am interested in the "Picot" who held Talerode, Surrey from Richard of
Tonbridge.
Was he a "de Say"? Progenitor of the Picot family of Cambridge? Ancestor of
Picot, sheriff of Kent?
Any help appreciated.
Pat
Domesday People by Keats-Rohan has:
Picot De Sai
Norman, Robert Picot de Sai, orne, arr. and Cant. Argentan. Domesday
tenant of Earl Roger in Shropshire. Benefactor of the Montgomery
foundation at Saint-Martin-de-Sees, where he occurs with his wife
Adeloia (previously the wife of William de Coimes) and sons Robert and
Henry, and in association with his brother Payn de Sai and an Oismelin
de Sai. He was succeeded by his son Henry, baron of Clun, before 1121.
But there were other Picots:
Picot De Friardel
Picot De Grentebrige
Picot De Lascels
Picot De Percy
There is nothing on Richard of Tonbridge. What (approx) year are you
speaking of?
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
in the subject and the body of the message
-
Renia
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Bill Arnold wrote:
I did challenge you. Nat Taylor did not say what you said he said. I
notice he is markedly absent from this thread.
Further, I think you believe the existence of the Tooth Fairy is a FACT.
I'm sorry to say it, but you need to straighten out your thinking.
I sent you a pile of stuff on the Middletons a few weeks ago. Took quite
some time out of my own genealogical research. I wish I hadn't bothered.
BA: I have stated the fact that the Peck Pedigree dates from the 17thC and it
is so noted that Nat Taylor proved the *provenance* online in gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007. The rest is history!
Renia: I don't believe the "provenance" of that pedigree has been proved. It
looks rather like you take after your social-climbing Peck ancestor.
BA: Do you also *"believe" in the tooth fairy? You know, Renia, I have suggested
if you wish to continue to post to this thread you ought to *search* the gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007. You really are now challenging not me but Nat Taylor.
Bon appetit!
I did challenge you. Nat Taylor did not say what you said he said. I
notice he is markedly absent from this thread.
Further, I think you believe the existence of the Tooth Fairy is a FACT.
I'm sorry to say it, but you need to straighten out your thinking.
I sent you a pile of stuff on the Middletons a few weeks ago. Took quite
some time out of my own genealogical research. I wish I hadn't bothered.
-
Renia
Re: Picot? / possible different spellings
Dolores C. Phifer wrote:
It's not one line. There were several different people with the forename
of Picot in the 11th century in England and France.
Hello. I am not related to this line.
It's not one line. There were several different people with the forename
of Picot in the 11th century in England and France.
I have seen this variation of the spelling on my mom's side. One of my
great-grandfathers and back came through Daniel Piquette who lived in
Md. I believe that one of the earliest Piquette's names was Louis
Piquette. Daniel Piquette's daughter was Hanorah 'Nora' Piquette and she
is one of my great-grandmothers. Over the years I have seen various
versions of the surname -Piquette... Piqot, Pigot, Picot, Piquet,
Piquett, Paquette, to name a few. The origin of our Piquette line goes
up from MD... up through the East Coast... possibly into Canada since
that is where we find most of the distant cousins, then further back
into England for a while, and then back further into France. We haven't
gone much further back than that yet.
Best Regards,
Dolores Phifer
----- Original Message ----- From: <pajunkin@bellsouth.net
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: Picot?
-
Renia
Re: Picot?
wjhonson wrote:
Seems reasonable enough, but I'm just not comfortable with it, myself.
Picot, being French, is pronounced _pea-coh_ (as in a baby's bed without
the 't' being pronounced.
Piggott has the 't' pronounced and the 'g' said hard, as in _pig_.
Old spellings of Piggot include Pygott, which removes it further from
the French name. It's predominantly a Yorkshire name. I forget its
purported meaning.
Could not Picot be the same name as Pigott ?
The "c" and "g" forms when you speak them seem likely to be
interchangeable.
Will Johnson
Seems reasonable enough, but I'm just not comfortable with it, myself.
Picot, being French, is pronounced _pea-coh_ (as in a baby's bed without
the 't' being pronounced.
Piggott has the 't' pronounced and the 'g' said hard, as in _pig_.
Old spellings of Piggot include Pygott, which removes it further from
the French name. It's predominantly a Yorkshire name. I forget its
purported meaning.
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
BA: I have stated the fact that the Peck Pedigree dates from the 17thC and it
is so noted that Nat Taylor proved the *provenance* online in gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007. The rest is history!
Renia: I don't believe the "provenance" of that pedigree has been proved. It
looks rather like you take after your social-climbing Peck ancestor.
BA: Do you also *"believe" in the tooth fairy? You know, Renia, I have suggested
if you wish to continue to post to this thread you ought to *search* the gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007. You really are now challenging not me but Nat Taylor.
Bon appetit!
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
is so noted that Nat Taylor proved the *provenance* online in gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007. The rest is history!
Renia: I don't believe the "provenance" of that pedigree has been proved. It
looks rather like you take after your social-climbing Peck ancestor.
BA: Do you also *"believe" in the tooth fairy? You know, Renia, I have suggested
if you wish to continue to post to this thread you ought to *search* the gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007. You really are now challenging not me but Nat Taylor.
Bon appetit!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ
-
Bill Arnold
RE: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Jeff: Even if your beloved "Peck Pedigree" does indeed date back to the seventeenth century...
BA: it does. Why do you put in that pejorative "beloved"?
Jeff: Many of us who read this list can also find 17th or even 16th century pedigrees which
purport to be for one or more of our ancestors. The real work is documenting that (A) our
ancestor actually belongs to the family in question and (B) that the pedigree itself is correct...
BA: What makes you think that every pedigree on this list relates to Douglas Richardson,
Leo van de Pas, Will Johnson, Renia, et al.? Why do you not believe I could care less about
the Peck pedigree? At this point the dim-watts on this list have got my dander up, and on
behalf of the Charlemagne descendants worldwide through that lineage have my dedication
to the proposed lineage, and my assurance that dim-watts cannot rule Britannica! There are
some genuine gents and scholars on this list, and I intend to keep the focus on the fact that
the BML has a pedigree dating from the 17thC which they will not keep eternally under wraps.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
BA: it does. Why do you put in that pejorative "beloved"?
Jeff: Many of us who read this list can also find 17th or even 16th century pedigrees which
purport to be for one or more of our ancestors. The real work is documenting that (A) our
ancestor actually belongs to the family in question and (B) that the pedigree itself is correct...
BA: What makes you think that every pedigree on this list relates to Douglas Richardson,
Leo van de Pas, Will Johnson, Renia, et al.? Why do you not believe I could care less about
the Peck pedigree? At this point the dim-watts on this list have got my dander up, and on
behalf of the Charlemagne descendants worldwide through that lineage have my dedication
to the proposed lineage, and my assurance that dim-watts cannot rule Britannica! There are
some genuine gents and scholars on this list, and I intend to keep the focus on the fact that
the BML has a pedigree dating from the 17thC which they will not keep eternally under wraps.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
--- wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
BA: Will, you are more of a sick puppy than the insensitive one who
signs himself from the south Pacific. Anyway, what do I care? British
authorities might hang you by your thumbs in a dungeon in the cellars
of the BML for eternity. What a happy ending to a sad existence!
What you fail to realize, you and your cadre, is that I could care
less. I cannot very well wear a proposed pedigree on my sleeve
to impress people. Nobody reads this gen-medieval forum but
other Gen-Medievalers! Why do you doubt my candor? The proposed
pedigree is not going to get me a brew at the Centaur pub on Fleet
Street, London, now is it? HM the Queen is not about to invite
me to a private meeting for tea and crumpets. What annoys you
and Renia is anyone *DISAGREEING* with you. How sad! Barring
DNA: all these proposed pedigrees you all *worry* and fret about
so much are academic exercises in paper entrails, and you know it.
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
On Nov 20, 1:12 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
BA: Renia, you are still hopelessly out-of-date
with this matter. So, unless you do some research,
Renia: What on? It's not my pedigree.
BA: Nor mine. It is just another Charlemagne descent pedigree
on gen-medieval with hundreds of thousands of living descendants.
The list can take it or leave it. I suggest you go back to eating
terrible British food stories with the paragon of insensitivity.
Let others deal with the pedigrees during the Medieval period.
Bill
Next time I'm in Britian, I'm going to hunt up this supposed Peck MS.
I will take it quitely to a private reading room, and there I will sit
slicing it up into little tiny bits and consuming it. Then I'll enjoy
a private laugh.
BA: Will, you are more of a sick puppy than the insensitive one who
signs himself from the south Pacific. Anyway, what do I care? British
authorities might hang you by your thumbs in a dungeon in the cellars
of the BML for eternity. What a happy ending to a sad existence!
What you fail to realize, you and your cadre, is that I could care
less. I cannot very well wear a proposed pedigree on my sleeve
to impress people. Nobody reads this gen-medieval forum but
other Gen-Medievalers! Why do you doubt my candor? The proposed
pedigree is not going to get me a brew at the Centaur pub on Fleet
Street, London, now is it? HM the Queen is not about to invite
me to a private meeting for tea and crumpets. What annoys you
and Renia is anyone *DISAGREEING* with you. How sad! Barring
DNA: all these proposed pedigrees you all *worry* and fret about
so much are academic exercises in paper entrails, and you know it.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
BA: Renia, you are still hopelessly out-of-date
with this matter. So, unless you do some research,
Renia: What on? It's not my pedigree.
BA: Nor mine. It is just another Charlemagne descent pedigree
on gen-medieval with hundreds of thousands of living descendants.
The list can take it or leave it. I suggest you go back to eating
terrible British food stories with the paragon of insensitivity.
Let others deal with the pedigrees during the Medieval period.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
with this matter. So, unless you do some research,
Renia: What on? It's not my pedigree.
BA: Nor mine. It is just another Charlemagne descent pedigree
on gen-medieval with hundreds of thousands of living descendants.
The list can take it or leave it. I suggest you go back to eating
terrible British food stories with the paragon of insensitivity.
Let others deal with the pedigrees during the Medieval period.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 20, 1:02 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Given the vehemence and irrationality of your defense of it, it seems
apt.
What in his post leads you to this non sequitur?
Fanaticism does not go well with dispassionate evaluation of sources.
.. . . purporting to date from the 17thC . . .
What do you mean "keep eternally under wraps"? There is no conspiracy
to keep it from you. It is right there to be consulted. Go consult
it.
taf
Jeff: Even if your beloved "Peck Pedigree" does indeed date back to the seventeenth century...
BA: it does. Why do you put in that pejorative "beloved"?
Given the vehemence and irrationality of your defense of it, it seems
apt.
Jeff: Many of us who read this list can also find 17th or even 16th century pedigrees which
purport to be for one or more of our ancestors. The real work is documenting that (A) our
ancestor actually belongs to the family in question and (B) that the pedigree itself is correct...
BA: What makes you think that every pedigree on this list relates to Douglas Richardson,
Leo van de Pas, Will Johnson, Renia, et al.?
What in his post leads you to this non sequitur?
Why do you not believe I could care less about
the Peck pedigree? At this point the dim-watts on this list have got my dander up, and on
behalf of the Charlemagne descendants worldwide through that lineage have my dedication
to the proposed lineage,
Fanaticism does not go well with dispassionate evaluation of sources.
and my assurance that dim-watts cannot rule Britannica! There are
some genuine gents and scholars on this list, and I intend to keep the focus on the fact that
the BML has a pedigree dating from the 17thC
.. . . purporting to date from the 17thC . . .
which they will not keep eternally under wraps.
What do you mean "keep eternally under wraps"? There is no conspiracy
to keep it from you. It is right there to be consulted. Go consult
it.
taf
-
wjhonson
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
And P.S. *IF* Douglas is going to produce another work on the
"descents from Charlemagne" or some such thing, the liklihood that he
would include the preposterous Peck pedigree, most known *solely* from
the work of a known fraudster... is slim to none.
So you're getting all worked up over nothing.
Will Johnson
"descents from Charlemagne" or some such thing, the liklihood that he
would include the preposterous Peck pedigree, most known *solely* from
the work of a known fraudster... is slim to none.
So you're getting all worked up over nothing.
Will Johnson
-
wjhonson
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 20, 1:36 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nat already said that he was not going to comment any longer on the
thread. And he pointedly stated not to take his silence as assent to
your opinion.
Now that you've completely twisted his words, you expect the rest of
us to forget what he said and presume that he agreed and you're
backing him up. What is actually occurring is that you're abusing his
non-response to try to give an impression that *anyone* agrees with
you. They don't.
No entity in the known universe, of any shape, size or intelligent,
who has ever lived or who will ever live, agrees with you
Well maybe one.
Will Johnson
BA: I have stated the fact that the Peck Pedigree dates from the 17thC and it
is so noted that Nat Taylor proved the *provenance* online in gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007. The rest is history!
Renia: I don't believe the "provenance" of that pedigree has been proved. It
looks rather like you take after your social-climbing Peck ancestor.
BA: Do you also *"believe" in the tooth fairy? You know, Renia, I have suggested
if you wish to continue to post to this thread you ought to *search* the gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007. You really are now challenging not me but Nat Taylor.
Bon appetit!
I did challenge you. Nat Taylor did not say what you said he said. I
notice he is markedly absent from this thread.
BA: Renia, I have the highest regard for your genealogical contributions to this
list, although I cannot say the same for some of your abuse re: this thread. Let
me at least say this about your statement: "Nat Taylor did not say what you said
he did." You, Renia, are in for a *rude awakening."
Bill
PS If Nat Taylor wishes to not comment at this point, how does that make your
point?
Nat already said that he was not going to comment any longer on the
thread. And he pointedly stated not to take his silence as assent to
your opinion.
Now that you've completely twisted his words, you expect the rest of
us to forget what he said and presume that he agreed and you're
backing him up. What is actually occurring is that you're abusing his
non-response to try to give an impression that *anyone* agrees with
you. They don't.
No entity in the known universe, of any shape, size or intelligent,
who has ever lived or who will ever live, agrees with you
Well maybe one.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 20, 1:07 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
That you stated it is a fact. That doesn't mean that _what_ you stated
is fact. If you think otherwise (you are, after all, the one making
the claim) then you can quote precisely what he said. Unless you do,
you are just passing wind.
No, she is challenging your misrepresentation of Mr. Taylor's
conclusions.
In these threads, you have claimed a bizarre definition of "fact" and
then commanded others to look it up in a dictionary (which Renia did,
but failed to find your definition). You have also said that Mr.
Taylor reached a specific conclusion, but then demand others find the
evidence in the archives. This fits in with proclaiming the pedigree
to be valid and then demanding others disprove you. They all invert
the responsibilities of the person making the claim. However, given
that you think the very act of stating something makes it fact, it is
not surprising.
taf
BA: I have stated the fact that the Peck Pedigree dates from the 17thC and it
is so noted that Nat Taylor proved the *provenance* online in gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007. The rest is history!
That you stated it is a fact. That doesn't mean that _what_ you stated
is fact. If you think otherwise (you are, after all, the one making
the claim) then you can quote precisely what he said. Unless you do,
you are just passing wind.
Renia: I don't believe the "provenance" of that pedigree has been proved. It
looks rather like you take after your social-climbing Peck ancestor.
BA: Do you also *"believe" in the tooth fairy? You know, Renia, I have suggested
if you wish to continue to post to this thread you ought to *search* the gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007. You really are now challenging not me but Nat Taylor.
No, she is challenging your misrepresentation of Mr. Taylor's
conclusions.
In these threads, you have claimed a bizarre definition of "fact" and
then commanded others to look it up in a dictionary (which Renia did,
but failed to find your definition). You have also said that Mr.
Taylor reached a specific conclusion, but then demand others find the
evidence in the archives. This fits in with proclaiming the pedigree
to be valid and then demanding others disprove you. They all invert
the responsibilities of the person making the claim. However, given
that you think the very act of stating something makes it fact, it is
not surprising.
taf
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
BA: I have stated the fact that the Peck Pedigree dates from the 17thC and it
is so noted that Nat Taylor proved the *provenance* online in gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007. The rest is history!
Renia: I don't believe the "provenance" of that pedigree has been proved. It
looks rather like you take after your social-climbing Peck ancestor.
BA: Do you also *"believe" in the tooth fairy? You know, Renia, I have suggested
if you wish to continue to post to this thread you ought to *search* the gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007. You really are now challenging not me but Nat Taylor.
Bon appetit!
I did challenge you. Nat Taylor did not say what you said he said. I
notice he is markedly absent from this thread.
BA: Renia, I have the highest regard for your genealogical contributions to this
list, although I cannot say the same for some of your abuse re: this thread. Let
me at least say this about your statement: "Nat Taylor did not say what you said
he did." You, Renia, are in for a *rude awakening."
Bill
PS If Nat Taylor wishes to not comment at this point, how does that make your
point?
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
-
wjhonson
Re: Picot?
Could not Picot be the same name as Pigott ?
The "c" and "g" forms when you speak them seem likely to be
interchangeable.
Will Johnson
The "c" and "g" forms when you speak them seem likely to be
interchangeable.
Will Johnson
-
wjhonson
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 20, 1:12 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Next time I'm in Britian, I'm going to hunt up this supposed Peck MS.
I will take it quitely to a private reading room, and there I will sit
slicing it up into little tiny bits and consuming it. Then I'll enjoy
a private laugh.
Will Johnson
BA: Renia, you are still hopelessly out-of-date
with this matter. So, unless you do some research,
Renia: What on? It's not my pedigree.
BA: Nor mine. It is just another Charlemagne descent pedigree
on gen-medieval with hundreds of thousands of living descendants.
The list can take it or leave it. I suggest you go back to eating
terrible British food stories with the paragon of insensitivity.
Let others deal with the pedigrees during the Medieval period.
Bill
Next time I'm in Britian, I'm going to hunt up this supposed Peck MS.
I will take it quitely to a private reading room, and there I will sit
slicing it up into little tiny bits and consuming it. Then I'll enjoy
a private laugh.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 20, 1:57 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think you will have a hard time convincing anyone who has read your
posts that this is the case.
I won't speak for them, but what annoys me is your insistence on
applying inapplicable definitions and models, your inability to
dispassionately evaluate the documentary record, your inappropriate
shifting of the burden of proof, your distortion of the words and
motivations of others . . . . .
.. . . ah yes, and your use of a nihilism as an excuse for fuzzy-headed
illogic (he is essentially saying "because we can never know for sure,
the flaws in my logic are superfluous").
taf
What you fail to realize, you and your cadre, is that I could care
less.
I think you will have a hard time convincing anyone who has read your
posts that this is the case.
What annoys you
and Renia is anyone *DISAGREEING* with you. How sad!
I won't speak for them, but what annoys me is your insistence on
applying inapplicable definitions and models, your inability to
dispassionately evaluate the documentary record, your inappropriate
shifting of the burden of proof, your distortion of the words and
motivations of others . . . . .
Barring
DNA: all these proposed pedigrees you all *worry* and fret about
so much are academic exercises in paper entrails, and you know it.
.. . . ah yes, and your use of a nihilism as an excuse for fuzzy-headed
illogic (he is essentially saying "because we can never know for sure,
the flaws in my logic are superfluous").
taf
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
BA: Renia, I have the highest regard for your genealogical contributions to this
list, although I cannot say the same for some of your abuse re: this thread. Let
me at least say this about your statement: "Nat Taylor did not say what you said
he did." You, Renia, are in for a *rude awakening."
Bill
PS If Nat Taylor wishes to not comment at this point, how does that make your
point?
Will: Nat already said that he was not going to comment any longer on the
thread. And he pointedly stated not to take his silence as assent to
your opinion.
BA: I seem to recall he said he had said his last. However, your statement
"And he pointedly stated not to take his silence as assent to your opinion."
Can you direct gen-medieval members to the exact post in which he wrote
that? Strange, you could find *that* but NOT find wherein Nat Taylor found
the 17thC *provenance* of the BML Pedigree of Peck. Are you sure you know
how to use the 8SEARCH* function at gen-medieval?
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/GEN-MEDIEVAL/
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
list, although I cannot say the same for some of your abuse re: this thread. Let
me at least say this about your statement: "Nat Taylor did not say what you said
he did." You, Renia, are in for a *rude awakening."
Bill
PS If Nat Taylor wishes to not comment at this point, how does that make your
point?
Will: Nat already said that he was not going to comment any longer on the
thread. And he pointedly stated not to take his silence as assent to
your opinion.
BA: I seem to recall he said he had said his last. However, your statement
"And he pointedly stated not to take his silence as assent to your opinion."
Can you direct gen-medieval members to the exact post in which he wrote
that? Strange, you could find *that* but NOT find wherein Nat Taylor found
the 17thC *provenance* of the BML Pedigree of Peck. Are you sure you know
how to use the 8SEARCH* function at gen-medieval?
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/GEN-MEDIEVAL/
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: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 20, 1:57 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You don't know the half of it. The rights to my life story are even
now being fought over between all the major networks.
Maybe I enjoy that sort of thing.
That's it Bill. Have your cadre meet my cadre on the corner at 11.
We'll settle this.
Sure you could.
I don't doubt your "candor", mister English Professor. I'm sure your
candor has just returned from the dry-cleaners all fluffed and folded.
What I doubt is your ability to participate in a logical argument. I
however have no doubts on your ability to present thousands of words
which in the end, say nothing. You are the absolute pre-eminent
authority in that field as far as I'm concerned.
It might allow you admittance to our ultra-secret society where us
true royal descendents sit around and laugh at all you wanna bes.
Perhaps you can get her sister to invite you to a viewing of soap
operas and a TV dinner ?
As long Bill as you admit that you're in the same boat as the rest of
us. You are just as sad, pathetic, fretsome, worrisome and frustrated
as the rest of us "Gen-Medievalers. I'll send you a mirror so you can
see that FACT.
Will Johnson
BA: Will, you are more of a sick puppy than the insensitive one who
signs himself from the south Pacific.
You don't know the half of it. The rights to my life story are even
now being fought over between all the major networks.
Anyway, what do I care? British
authorities might hang you by your thumbs in a dungeon in the cellars
of the BML for eternity. What a happy ending to a sad existence!
Maybe I enjoy that sort of thing.
What you fail to realize, you and your cadre, is that I could care less.
That's it Bill. Have your cadre meet my cadre on the corner at 11.
We'll settle this.
I cannot very well wear a proposed pedigree on my sleeve
to impress people.
Sure you could.
Nobody reads this gen-medieval forum but
other Gen-Medievalers! Why do you doubt my candor?
I don't doubt your "candor", mister English Professor. I'm sure your
candor has just returned from the dry-cleaners all fluffed and folded.
What I doubt is your ability to participate in a logical argument. I
however have no doubts on your ability to present thousands of words
which in the end, say nothing. You are the absolute pre-eminent
authority in that field as far as I'm concerned.
The proposed pedigree is not going to get me a brew at the Centaur pub on Fleet
Street, London, now is it?
It might allow you admittance to our ultra-secret society where us
true royal descendents sit around and laugh at all you wanna bes.
HM the Queen is not about to invite
me to a private meeting for tea and crumpets.
Perhaps you can get her sister to invite you to a viewing of soap
operas and a TV dinner ?
What annoys you and Renia is anyone *DISAGREEING* with you. How sad! Barring
DNA: all these proposed pedigrees you all *worry* and fret about
so much are academic exercises in paper entrails, and you know it.
Bill
As long Bill as you admit that you're in the same boat as the rest of
us. You are just as sad, pathetic, fretsome, worrisome and frustrated
as the rest of us "Gen-Medievalers. I'll send you a mirror so you can
see that FACT.
Will Johnson
-
Renia
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Bill Arnold wrote:
Pot. Kettle. Black.
--- wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
On Nov 20, 1:12 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
BA: Renia, you are still hopelessly out-of-date
with this matter. So, unless you do some research,
Renia: What on? It's not my pedigree.
BA: Nor mine. It is just another Charlemagne descent pedigree
on gen-medieval with hundreds of thousands of living descendants.
The list can take it or leave it. I suggest you go back to eating
terrible British food stories with the paragon of insensitivity.
Let others deal with the pedigrees during the Medieval period.
Bill
Next time I'm in Britian, I'm going to hunt up this supposed Peck MS.
I will take it quitely to a private reading room, and there I will sit
slicing it up into little tiny bits and consuming it. Then I'll enjoy
a private laugh.
BA: Will, you are more of a sick puppy than the insensitive one who
signs himself from the south Pacific. Anyway, what do I care? British
authorities might hang you by your thumbs in a dungeon in the cellars
of the BML for eternity. What a happy ending to a sad existence!
What you fail to realize, you and your cadre, is that I could care
less. I cannot very well wear a proposed pedigree on my sleeve
to impress people. Nobody reads this gen-medieval forum but
other Gen-Medievalers! Why do you doubt my candor? The proposed
pedigree is not going to get me a brew at the Centaur pub on Fleet
Street, London, now is it? HM the Queen is not about to invite
me to a private meeting for tea and crumpets. What annoys you
and Renia is anyone *DISAGREEING* with you. How sad! Barring
DNA: all these proposed pedigrees you all *worry* and fret about
so much are academic exercises in paper entrails, and you know it.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Will: And P.S. *IF* Douglas is going to produce another work on the
"descents from Charlemagne" or some such thing, the liklihood that he
would include the preposterous Peck pedigree, most known *solely* from
the work of a known fraudster... is slim to none. So you're getting all worked
up over nothing.
BA: So on the one hand you diss me and you diss Douglas Richardson, and
then you demonstrate to us that you now *speak* for him? What a pompous
individual, you are, Monsieur! I revert to French, for obvious reasons! In
his *ACKNOWLEDGMENTS* Douglas Richardson thanks, among others:
John Ravilious, Gary Boyd Roberts, and Renia Simonds. Your name, Will
Johnson, is *conspicuously* absent, along with other *wilderbeasts* who
roam this gen-medieval list. And:
you also prove to Douglas Richardson for being a *spokesperson* for him,
that you have NOT read *PLANTAGENET ANCESTRY* by him, Royal Ancestry
Series, Genealogical pub. co., 2004, hdbd, page ix, *"Introduction," viz.:
"PUBLICATION PLAN: This book is the first in a series of volumes on the
ancestry of the American colonial immigrants who have English gentry, noble,
or royal ancestry. Succeeding volumes will present descents from the Magna
Carta Sureties of 1215, early feudal English barons, and Emperor Charlemagne."
Touche, Monsieur!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
"descents from Charlemagne" or some such thing, the liklihood that he
would include the preposterous Peck pedigree, most known *solely* from
the work of a known fraudster... is slim to none. So you're getting all worked
up over nothing.
BA: So on the one hand you diss me and you diss Douglas Richardson, and
then you demonstrate to us that you now *speak* for him? What a pompous
individual, you are, Monsieur! I revert to French, for obvious reasons! In
his *ACKNOWLEDGMENTS* Douglas Richardson thanks, among others:
John Ravilious, Gary Boyd Roberts, and Renia Simonds. Your name, Will
Johnson, is *conspicuously* absent, along with other *wilderbeasts* who
roam this gen-medieval list. And:
you also prove to Douglas Richardson for being a *spokesperson* for him,
that you have NOT read *PLANTAGENET ANCESTRY* by him, Royal Ancestry
Series, Genealogical pub. co., 2004, hdbd, page ix, *"Introduction," viz.:
"PUBLICATION PLAN: This book is the first in a series of volumes on the
ancestry of the American colonial immigrants who have English gentry, noble,
or royal ancestry. Succeeding volumes will present descents from the Magna
Carta Sureties of 1215, early feudal English barons, and Emperor Charlemagne."
Touche, Monsieur!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
Dolores C. Phifer
Re: Picot? / other spellings
Hello. In our line as far back as we got was to France... It was Piquet...
which meant 'common wine'. The variations in the spelling mostly occurred
while in England. Then a few more after they were here in North America...
the last of which is Piquette. Yes, I have seen the Pigott as well in my
travels. I have not seen in our line the 'Pickett' yet, nor have I seen the
'Paquett'.
Dolores
----- Original Message -----
From: "Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: Picot?
which meant 'common wine'. The variations in the spelling mostly occurred
while in England. Then a few more after they were here in North America...
the last of which is Piquette. Yes, I have seen the Pigott as well in my
travels. I have not seen in our line the 'Pickett' yet, nor have I seen the
'Paquett'.
Dolores
----- Original Message -----
From: "Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: Picot?
wjhonson wrote:
Could not Picot be the same name as Pigott ?
The "c" and "g" forms when you speak them seem likely to be
interchangeable.
Will Johnson
Seems reasonable enough, but I'm just not comfortable with it, myself.
Picot, being French, is pronounced _pea-coh_ (as in a baby's bed without
the 't' being pronounced.
Piggott has the 't' pronounced and the 'g' said hard, as in _pig_.
Old spellings of Piggot include Pygott, which removes it further from
the French name. It's predominantly a Yorkshire name. I forget its
purported meaning.
-
Renia
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Bill Arnold wrote:
You obviously don't.
Try this from Nat Taylor:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... d954e37f1e
which was accessed through:
http://groups.google.com/
BA: Renia, I have the highest regard for your genealogical contributions to this
list, although I cannot say the same for some of your abuse re: this thread. Let
me at least say this about your statement: "Nat Taylor did not say what you said
he did." You, Renia, are in for a *rude awakening."
Bill
PS If Nat Taylor wishes to not comment at this point, how does that make your
point?
Will: Nat already said that he was not going to comment any longer on the
thread. And he pointedly stated not to take his silence as assent to
your opinion.
BA: I seem to recall he said he had said his last. However, your statement
"And he pointedly stated not to take his silence as assent to your opinion."
Can you direct gen-medieval members to the exact post in which he wrote
that? Strange, you could find *that* but NOT find wherein Nat Taylor found
the 17thC *provenance* of the BML Pedigree of Peck. Are you sure you know
how to use the 8SEARCH* function at gen-medieval?
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/GEN-MEDIEVAL/
You obviously don't.
November 2007 1476 messages
Try this from Nat Taylor:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... d954e37f1e
which was accessed through:
http://groups.google.com/
(4 users) More options Nov 1, 4:41 pm
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:41:11 -0400
Local: Thurs, Nov 1 2007 4:41 pm
Subject: Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck, the Elder: IDENTITY FACT 3: Leeke and Norton
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
In article <mailman.829.1193924970.19317.gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>,
Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
... What you are
trying to say here is that based on your allegation, one Visitation is worth
more than one pedigree, both from dated sources we *all* suspect *all*
the time, otherwise Douglas Richardson would be of a job as a creator
of books about this stuff. You cannot play that game, and you know better,
as a scholar and professor. I carry the same credentials, Sir, scholar and
professor. There IS linkage between the Pecks and Leekes of Wakefield
and the Pecks and Suffolk: it is called SURNAMES, Sir.
I don't care about credentials. I do care that evidence, interpretation,
and criticism are handled in a way which would be generally understood
as 'scholarly'--which to me means exhibiting sound logic, sufficient
expertise with the evidence used, and concise prose. Your posts on the
Peck problem have not met those standards.
What I have tried to say is that you are continually mistaking evidence
for fact. In litigators' terms, you are trying to have the statements
found in one source stipulated as facts, then argue in a circle back to
those facts. That cannot be done. The evidence we have on thie Peck
question is contradictory and incomplete, and some of it comes from a
source of self-evidently questionable value. For each piece of evidence
you have to dispassionately assess its value, both intrinsically and
when weighed against other evidence.
The Peck pedigree on which you choose to rely is self-evidently
untrustworthy. Can you summarize why? Tonge's and Flower's visitations
are to be preferred to it in part because they are offering testimony
only on the generation (or two, or perhaps three) closest to that in
which the data was collected from that immediate family; also, they have
no polemical undertext of linking two families in disparate counties, or
supplying ancient armigerous status. One rule of thumb: the shorter the
pedigree, the more likely it is to be accurate, unless it displays other
common red flags. Given these issues--and others--in matters where the
later pedigree contradicts the earlier ones you simply cannot accept ANY
of its statements as fact without independent documentary evidence.
It is very typical, when an enthusiast encounters critics saying "you
cannot trust evidence X," to counter with a complaint of the type "you
naysayers would have us reject all early evidence, leaving us with
nothing." Sometimes this is deliberately misrepresenting or supressing
the logical basis of the criticism; usually it shows that the enthusiast
doesn't understand the basis of the criticism at all.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
Renia
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Bill Arnold wrote:
AND:
from the post below:
BA: Renia, I have the highest regard for your genealogical contributions to this
list, although I cannot say the same for some of your abuse re: this thread. Let
me at least say this about your statement: "Nat Taylor did not say what you said
he did." You, Renia, are in for a *rude awakening."
Bill
PS If Nat Taylor wishes to not comment at this point, how does that make your
point?
Will: Nat already said that he was not going to comment any longer on the
thread. And he pointedly stated not to take his silence as assent to
your opinion.
BA: I seem to recall he said he had said his last. However, your statement
"And he pointedly stated not to take his silence as assent to your opinion."
Can you direct gen-medieval members to the exact post in which he wrote
that? Strange, you could find *that* but NOT find wherein Nat Taylor found
the 17thC *provenance* of the BML Pedigree of Peck. Are you sure you know
how to use the 8SEARCH* function at gen-medieval?
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/GEN-MEDIEVAL/
AND:
The fact that I now suspect Somerby is innocent of physical forgery in
this particular case, does not mean that one should view the Peck
pedigree with any less suspicion than that in which S. Allyn Peck held
it.
from the post below:
Nathaniel Taylor
View profile
(4 users) More options Nov 1, 7:04 pm
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:04:11 -0400
Local: Thurs, Nov 1 2007 7:04 pm
Subject: Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck, the Elder: IDENTITY FACT 3: Leeke and Norton
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
In article <mailman.836.1193929267.19317.gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>,
Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
NT: I don't care about credentials.
BA: Good, I can go there: then we might get somewhere [no pun intended].
Sly. That makes it seem as if I've conceded some point; but you are the
only one who brought credentials up. In 12 years of participation in
this group, I have never made them an issue. I believe each
contribution to a discussion stands or falls on its own merits.
NT: I do care that evidence, interpretation, and criticism are handled in a
way which would be generally understood as 'scholarly'--which to me
means exhibiting sound logic, sufficient expertise with the evidence used,
and concise prose. Your posts on the Peck problem have not met those
standards."
BA: My posts, you allege, have not met YOUR standards. How convenient?
I assume if they are your standards, and the standards we all must meet,
then you must readily admit that your first post violated them all: based
on supposition, you maligned not only Mr. Somerby as it pertained to the
Pedigree of Peck MERELY because he had an infamous reputation.
To label what I have articulated above 'my' standards shows that you
don't understand broadly accepted standards of scholarly genealogy. To
claim that my raising the question of Somerby's responsibility for the
Peck Pedigree failed to meet the standards I have summarized above shows
that you did not understand the basis for that question.
I did not 'malign' Somerby: his reputation is already tarnished.
Consult the scholarly literature. Given that he is known to have
committed fraud (vide, e.g., Paul Reed's TAG article I cited a while
ago), thenceforth every one of his contributions to the field need to be
viewed with skepticism. In this case, I raised the possibility of the
physical forgery as a side issue, because (1) Somerby has an infamous
reputation, (2) the pedigree bears many hallmarks of a false pedigree;
(3) the information is conveniently just what would have pleased Ira
Peck (Somerby's client) enormousely; and (4) the document also bears
several apparent marks of a creation later than the early 17th century.
The fact that I now suspect Somerby is innocent of physical forgery in
this particular case, does not mean that one should view the Peck
pedigree with any less suspicion than that in which S. Allyn Peck held
it.
Now,
you say you should have isolated supposition from evidence, which you
later provided from index records at the BML. I will make this next thought,
short and sweet: you make allegations, that certain documents carry more
validity than others, for various reasons, provenance, date, et al.,
That 'certain documents carry more validity than others' is a
generalization which no experienced genealogist would argue with. Do
understand the basis of my specific allegation contrasting the Peck
pedigree with Tonge's and Flower's visitation?
then
sweeping dismiss certain FACTS I set before you calling them NON-FACTS
which is your right to challenge. But you do NOT win your case with the
jury--
You simply don't see the basic rule operating here. Your 'facts' (all
caps) are planks of an interpretation. I merely point out you have not
proved any of them. In genealogy, every theory--every claim of
descent--is unproved until proved. It is not necessary to prove
something false, in order to show simply that it is not proved and
therefore should not be called a 'fact'. As I believe I said already,
the converse of proof is not disproof: it is lack of proof.
that is to say, scholars who see it in opposition to your position--
with sentences littered with handgrenades with labels such as "preferred"
visitations over a pedigree, when we all admit that such visitations may
have been based on LIES of the informant. You get my drift.
In the corpus of Visitations, I expect far more people have lied about
who their ancestors are than who their children are.
In order for
you to challenge FACTS in a proposed lineage/pedigree, YOU must present
FACTS which PROVE your case. So far: I read too many *preferred* and
*more likelys* than I like.
NO! See above. In order to challenge your interpretation, one must
merely point out how and why you have failed to prove your case. It is
not necessary to prove anything else. Qualified terms like 'more
likely' or 'preferred' will kill any theory if they are not dealt with
one by one.
If you *still* don't understand the fundamental basis of the various
criticisms (not just my own) of your attempts to raise and sustain the
Peck case, I'm going to have to stop trying, as someone said, to teach a
dog to play the piano.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
--- Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
BA: Renia, you obviously have NOT used the *SEARCH* function
well. You have NOT found Nat Taylor's last word on the BML
Peck pedigree, now have you? It is easy: you type in "Nat Taylor"
to th *SEARCH* function and it will list all the posts. Find the
LAST one about the BML Peck pedigree, and bingo! As I wrote:
"you, Renia, are in for a *rude awakening.* Do you know how
to *eat crow*?
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ
Bill Arnold wrote:
BA: Renia, I have the highest regard for your genealogical contributions to this
list, although I cannot say the same for some of your abuse re: this thread. Let
me at least say this about your statement: "Nat Taylor did not say what you said
he did." You, Renia, are in for a *rude awakening."
Bill
PS If Nat Taylor wishes to not comment at this point, how does that make your
point?
Will: Nat already said that he was not going to comment any longer on the
thread. And he pointedly stated not to take his silence as assent to
your opinion.
BA: I seem to recall he said he had said his last. However, your statement
"And he pointedly stated not to take his silence as assent to your opinion."
Can you direct gen-medieval members to the exact post in which he wrote
that? Strange, you could find *that* but NOT find wherein Nat Taylor found
the 17thC *provenance* of the BML Pedigree of Peck. Are you sure you know
how to use the 8SEARCH* function at gen-medieval?
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/GEN-MEDIEVAL/
You obviously don't.
November 2007 1476 messages
Try this from Nat Taylor:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... d954e37f1e
BA: Renia, you obviously have NOT used the *SEARCH* function
well. You have NOT found Nat Taylor's last word on the BML
Peck pedigree, now have you? It is easy: you type in "Nat Taylor"
to th *SEARCH* function and it will list all the posts. Find the
LAST one about the BML Peck pedigree, and bingo! As I wrote:
"you, Renia, are in for a *rude awakening.* Do you know how
to *eat crow*?
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Hi, Gen-Medievalers,
Renia finally needs to write an agreement to the following:
we all know that Nat Taylor, gentleman and scholar,
posted two key points about the "Peck Pedigree resolution:
CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT" and they are, viz.:
(1) the BML Peck Pedigree *provenance* is 17thC.
and
(2) Somerby was *innocent* of involvement with its
provenance.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Renia finally needs to write an agreement to the following:
we all know that Nat Taylor, gentleman and scholar,
posted two key points about the "Peck Pedigree resolution:
CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT" and they are, viz.:
(1) the BML Peck Pedigree *provenance* is 17thC.
and
(2) Somerby was *innocent* of involvement with its
provenance.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
Renia
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Bill Arnold wrote:
Oh, I found it all right. You could have reproduced it yourself, but I
doubt you knew how. I have posted it already, but you don't seem to have
seen it yet. He said:
--- Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Bill Arnold wrote:
BA: Renia, I have the highest regard for your genealogical contributions to this
list, although I cannot say the same for some of your abuse re: this thread. Let
me at least say this about your statement: "Nat Taylor did not say what you said
he did." You, Renia, are in for a *rude awakening."
Bill
PS If Nat Taylor wishes to not comment at this point, how does that make your
point?
Will: Nat already said that he was not going to comment any longer on the
thread. And he pointedly stated not to take his silence as assent to
your opinion.
BA: I seem to recall he said he had said his last. However, your statement
"And he pointedly stated not to take his silence as assent to your opinion."
Can you direct gen-medieval members to the exact post in which he wrote
that? Strange, you could find *that* but NOT find wherein Nat Taylor found
the 17thC *provenance* of the BML Pedigree of Peck. Are you sure you know
how to use the 8SEARCH* function at gen-medieval?
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/GEN-MEDIEVAL/
You obviously don't.
November 2007 1476 messages
Try this from Nat Taylor:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... d954e37f1e
BA: Renia, you obviously have NOT used the *SEARCH* function
well. You have NOT found Nat Taylor's last word on the BML
Peck pedigree, now have you? It is easy: you type in "Nat Taylor"
to th *SEARCH* function and it will list all the posts. Find the
LAST one about the BML Peck pedigree, and bingo! As I wrote:
"you, Renia, are in for a *rude awakening.* Do you know how
to *eat crow*?
Oh, I found it all right. You could have reproduced it yourself, but I
doubt you knew how. I have posted it already, but you don't seem to have
seen it yet. He said:
The fact that I now suspect Somerby is innocent of physical forgery in
this particular case, does not mean that one should view the Peck
pedigree with any less suspicion than that in which S. Allyn Peck held
it.
-
Renia
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Bill Arnold wrote:
But he also said:
Hi, Gen-Medievalers,
Renia finally needs to write an agreement to the following:
we all know that Nat Taylor, gentleman and scholar,
posted two key points about the "Peck Pedigree resolution:
CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT" and they are, viz.:
(1) the BML Peck Pedigree *provenance* is 17thC.
and
(2) Somerby was *innocent* of involvement with its
provenance.
But he also said:
The fact that I now suspect Somerby is innocent of physical forgery in
this particular case, does not mean that one should view the Peck
pedigree with any less suspicion than that in which S. Allyn Peck held
it.
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 20, 3:20 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
So wake her up! Don't just _say_ she needs it - post the actual text
that is going to obliterate her REM. Feed her the crow. Otherwise,
you are just serving her the rude part, without the awakening.
I don't know that further 'discussion' is going to be helpful. Mr.
Arnold has now progressed to the internet equivalent of putting his
fingers in his ears and shouting, "La, La, La, La, La, . . . . I can't
hear you . . . . La, La, La."
You could reproduce every post that Nat has made since 1996, and he
would still claim that you haven't found the 'right' one, and that you
obviously don't know how to search the archives.
taf
Bill Arnold wrote:
BA: Renia, you obviously have NOT used the *SEARCH* function
well. You have NOT found Nat Taylor's last word on the BML
Peck pedigree, now have you? It is easy: you type in "Nat Taylor"
to th *SEARCH* function and it will list all the posts. Find the
LAST one about the BML Peck pedigree, and bingo! As I wrote:
"you, Renia, are in for a *rude awakening.* Do you know how
to *eat crow*?
So wake her up! Don't just _say_ she needs it - post the actual text
that is going to obliterate her REM. Feed her the crow. Otherwise,
you are just serving her the rude part, without the awakening.
Oh, I found it all right. You could have reproduced it yourself, but I
doubt you knew how. I have posted it already, but you don't seem to have
seen it yet. He said:
I don't know that further 'discussion' is going to be helpful. Mr.
Arnold has now progressed to the internet equivalent of putting his
fingers in his ears and shouting, "La, La, La, La, La, . . . . I can't
hear you . . . . La, La, La."
You could reproduce every post that Nat has made since 1996, and he
would still claim that you haven't found the 'right' one, and that you
obviously don't know how to search the archives.
taf
-
Ken Ozanne
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Bill,
Are you aware that the British Library will copy documents? They might
also be able to comment on the provenance of that pedigree.
Best,
Ken
On 21/11/07 8:58, "gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com"
<gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com> wrote:
Are you aware that the British Library will copy documents? They might
also be able to comment on the provenance of that pedigree.
Best,
Ken
On 21/11/07 8:58, "gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com"
<gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com> wrote:
From: Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:36:33 -0800 (PST)
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
BA: I have stated the fact that the Peck Pedigree dates from the 17thC and
it
is so noted that Nat Taylor proved the *provenance* online in gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007. The rest is history!
Renia: I don't believe the "provenance" of that pedigree has been proved. It
looks rather like you take after your social-climbing Peck ancestor.
BA: Do you also *"believe" in the tooth fairy? You know, Renia, I have
suggested
if you wish to continue to post to this thread you ought to *search* the
gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007. You really are now challenging not me but Nat
Taylor.
Bon appetit!
I did challenge you. Nat Taylor did not say what you said he said. I
notice he is markedly absent from this thread.
BA: Renia, I have the highest regard for your genealogical contributions to
this
list, although I cannot say the same for some of your abuse re: this thread.
Let
me at least say this about your statement: "Nat Taylor did not say what you
said
he did." You, Renia, are in for a *rude awakening."
Bill
PS If Nat Taylor wishes to not comment at this point, how does that make your
point?
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Ken Ozanne <kenozanne@bordernet.com.au> wrote:
Bill, Are you aware that the British Library will copy documents? They might
also be able to comment on the provenance of that pedigree.
BA: Ken, thanks for your interest. I have been in communication with
staff at BML. Copies of the Peck pedigree are tipped into the 1930s
article in NEHGSR. They are also available in the CD-ROM of the
NEHGSR. I have the copies. I think Nat Taylor even put them as a
clickable in the gen-medieval archives, Oct-Nov, 2007. As to *provenance*
it is established by Nat Taylor that the Peck Pedigree is 17thC. Beyond
all this, the reality is that the Peck Pedigree states clearly that Robert
Peck, the Elder, was one of 9 sons of John Peck of Wakefield. Now,
at some point, Douglas Richardson doing his book on Charlemagne
Descent will consider the question and resolve the matter to his
satisfaction prior to publication. That is always the methodology.
So will others research primary records, as we note John Ravilious
reads and quotes the original Latin documents. Then all those
scholars will dispute the issue. For the present, there is no doubt
that the proposed pedigree rests on medieval foundations and the
naysayers cannot unshake that fact. The naysayers have understood
that a statement of fact is a fact. That is why they have hammered
the drum that their statement of fact that it was all Somerby's forgery
is fact, when in fact their statements of fact were fraud. We all know
that I can make a statement of fact that Napoleon was crowned Emperor
in 1603. Then I can pound the table all I want and say anyone to
the contrary of that statement of fact is part of Somerby's fraud army.
That is what the naysayers are doing and have done. As a scholar,
in many fields, I have seen it and heard it all again and again. Yes,
Virginia, the sun goes around the earth because the eyes do not lie!
We can argue this until we are black and blue. I enjoy the debate.
It is more in line with gen-medieval than terrible British food which
really belongs in the Fleet Street tabbies.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ
Bill, Are you aware that the British Library will copy documents? They might
also be able to comment on the provenance of that pedigree.
BA: Ken, thanks for your interest. I have been in communication with
staff at BML. Copies of the Peck pedigree are tipped into the 1930s
article in NEHGSR. They are also available in the CD-ROM of the
NEHGSR. I have the copies. I think Nat Taylor even put them as a
clickable in the gen-medieval archives, Oct-Nov, 2007. As to *provenance*
it is established by Nat Taylor that the Peck Pedigree is 17thC. Beyond
all this, the reality is that the Peck Pedigree states clearly that Robert
Peck, the Elder, was one of 9 sons of John Peck of Wakefield. Now,
at some point, Douglas Richardson doing his book on Charlemagne
Descent will consider the question and resolve the matter to his
satisfaction prior to publication. That is always the methodology.
So will others research primary records, as we note John Ravilious
reads and quotes the original Latin documents. Then all those
scholars will dispute the issue. For the present, there is no doubt
that the proposed pedigree rests on medieval foundations and the
naysayers cannot unshake that fact. The naysayers have understood
that a statement of fact is a fact. That is why they have hammered
the drum that their statement of fact that it was all Somerby's forgery
is fact, when in fact their statements of fact were fraud. We all know
that I can make a statement of fact that Napoleon was crowned Emperor
in 1603. Then I can pound the table all I want and say anyone to
the contrary of that statement of fact is part of Somerby's fraud army.
That is what the naysayers are doing and have done. As a scholar,
in many fields, I have seen it and heard it all again and again. Yes,
Virginia, the sun goes around the earth because the eyes do not lie!
We can argue this until we are black and blue. I enjoy the debate.
It is more in line with gen-medieval than terrible British food which
really belongs in the Fleet Street tabbies.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Renia: Oh, I found it all right. You could have reproduced it yourself, but I
doubt you knew how. I have posted it already, but you don't seem to have
seen it yet. He[Nat Taylor] said: "The fact that I now suspect Somerby is
innocent of physical forgery in this particular case, does not mean that one
should view the Peck pedigree with any less suspicion than that in which S.
Allyn Peck held it."
BA: I guess, Renia, we can withdraw from that long drawn-out muddled
quotation of yours that Somerby was "innocent of physical forgery in this
particular case"?
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
doubt you knew how. I have posted it already, but you don't seem to have
seen it yet. He[Nat Taylor] said: "The fact that I now suspect Somerby is
innocent of physical forgery in this particular case, does not mean that one
should view the Peck pedigree with any less suspicion than that in which S.
Allyn Peck held it."
BA: I guess, Renia, we can withdraw from that long drawn-out muddled
quotation of yours that Somerby was "innocent of physical forgery in this
particular case"?
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Bill Arnold wrote:
Hi, Gen-Medievalers,
Renia finally needs to write an agreement to the following:
we all know that Nat Taylor, gentleman and scholar,
posted two key points about the "Peck Pedigree resolution:
CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT" and they are, viz.:
(1) the BML Peck Pedigree *provenance* is 17thC.
and
(2) Somerby was *innocent* of involvement with its
provenance.
Renia: But he also said: The fact that I now suspect Somerby is
innocent of physical forgery in this particular case, does not mean
that one should view the Peck pedigree with any less suspicion than
that in which S. Allyn Peck held it.
BA: But what does his personal opinion about the matter got to do
with his statement of fact that:
(1) the BML Peck Pedigree *provenance* is 17thC.
and
(2) Somerby was *innocent* of involvement with its
provenance.
BA: Renia, I KNOW what you are trying to do. But it does NOT wash
cleanly with an English professor. You do NOT believe everything anyone
says, anymore Nat Taylor than me. So, why are you so attached to what
his personal opinion is about the facts in the case? The facts are, with
no doubt anymore, that the BML Peck Pedigree is *provenance* 17thC
and Somerby was *innocent* of involvement with its provenance. As
you so aptly have written elsewhere: stay with the facts in the case.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Hi, Gen-Medievalers,
Renia finally needs to write an agreement to the following:
we all know that Nat Taylor, gentleman and scholar,
posted two key points about the "Peck Pedigree resolution:
CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT" and they are, viz.:
(1) the BML Peck Pedigree *provenance* is 17thC.
and
(2) Somerby was *innocent* of involvement with its
provenance.
Renia: But he also said: The fact that I now suspect Somerby is
innocent of physical forgery in this particular case, does not mean
that one should view the Peck pedigree with any less suspicion than
that in which S. Allyn Peck held it.
BA: But what does his personal opinion about the matter got to do
with his statement of fact that:
(1) the BML Peck Pedigree *provenance* is 17thC.
and
(2) Somerby was *innocent* of involvement with its
provenance.
BA: Renia, I KNOW what you are trying to do. But it does NOT wash
cleanly with an English professor. You do NOT believe everything anyone
says, anymore Nat Taylor than me. So, why are you so attached to what
his personal opinion is about the facts in the case? The facts are, with
no doubt anymore, that the BML Peck Pedigree is *provenance* 17thC
and Somerby was *innocent* of involvement with its provenance. As
you so aptly have written elsewhere: stay with the facts in the case.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
wjhonson
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
I had already mentioned that I'd gleaned it quite well that Bill is
not interested in doing the work. He is completely satisfied that the
documents he already has are enough and nothing futher will change his
mind. He certainly would not want to get an original photograph of
any pages from the MS to compare the handwriting to Somerby's own.
As for Nat *saying* that Somerby "was innocent" of any physical
forgery in this case, he did not say that at all. Bill is simply
trying desperately to confuse the minds of the unwary. If you produce
enough fog, it's hard to see.
Will Johnson
not interested in doing the work. He is completely satisfied that the
documents he already has are enough and nothing futher will change his
mind. He certainly would not want to get an original photograph of
any pages from the MS to compare the handwriting to Somerby's own.
As for Nat *saying* that Somerby "was innocent" of any physical
forgery in this case, he did not say that at all. Bill is simply
trying desperately to confuse the minds of the unwary. If you produce
enough fog, it's hard to see.
Will Johnson
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Will: I had already mentioned that I'd gleaned it quite well that Bill is
not interested in doing the work. He is completely satisfied that the
documents he already has are enough and nothing futher will change his
mind. He certainly would not want to get an original photograph of
any pages from the MS to compare the handwriting to Somerby's own.
As for Nat *saying* that Somerby "was innocent" of any physical
forgery in this case, he did not say that at all. Bill is simply
trying desperately to confuse the minds of the unwary. If you produce
enough fog, it's hard to see.
BA: Indeed. Everything Will writes is fact. All his statements of fact
are fact. Read the archives and you will see he is found in error so
often as to make us wonder what his purpose is in challenging a scholar
such as Nat Taylor who clearly wrote that Somerby was "innocent" of
the *provenance* of the BML Peck pedigree. Perhaps, Will has not
the foggiest notions of what *provenance* means? He is so unfocused
in writing about every little piece that comes along that he has not
time nor volition to consult a dictionary and look under *p*!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
not interested in doing the work. He is completely satisfied that the
documents he already has are enough and nothing futher will change his
mind. He certainly would not want to get an original photograph of
any pages from the MS to compare the handwriting to Somerby's own.
As for Nat *saying* that Somerby "was innocent" of any physical
forgery in this case, he did not say that at all. Bill is simply
trying desperately to confuse the minds of the unwary. If you produce
enough fog, it's hard to see.
BA: Indeed. Everything Will writes is fact. All his statements of fact
are fact. Read the archives and you will see he is found in error so
often as to make us wonder what his purpose is in challenging a scholar
such as Nat Taylor who clearly wrote that Somerby was "innocent" of
the *provenance* of the BML Peck pedigree. Perhaps, Will has not
the foggiest notions of what *provenance* means? He is so unfocused
in writing about every little piece that comes along that he has not
time nor volition to consult a dictionary and look under *p*!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Will: And P.S. *IF* Douglas is going to produce another work on the
"descents from Charlemagne" or some such thing, the liklihood that he
would include the preposterous Peck pedigree, most known *solely* from
the work of a known fraudster... is slim to none. So you're getting all worked
up over nothing.
BA: So on the one hand you diss me and you diss Douglas Richardson, and
then you demonstrate to us that you now *speak* for him? What a pompous
individual, you are, Monsieur! I revert to French, for obvious reasons! In
his *ACKNOWLEDGMENTS* Douglas Richardson thanks, among others:
John Ravilious, Gary Boyd Roberts, and Renia Simonds. Your name, Will
Johnson, is *conspicuously* absent, along with other *wilderbeasts* who
roam this gen-medieval list. And:
you also prove to Douglas Richardson for being a *spokesperson* for him,
that you have NOT read *PLANTAGENET ANCESTRY* by him, Royal Ancestry
Series, Genealogical pub. co., 2004, hdbd, page ix, *"Introduction," viz.:
"PUBLICATION PLAN: This book is the first in a series of volumes on the
ancestry of the American colonial immigrants who have English gentry, noble,
or royal ancestry. Succeeding volumes will present descents from the Magna
Carta Sureties of 1215, early feudal English barons, and Emperor Charlemagne."
Touche, Monsieur!
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
"descents from Charlemagne" or some such thing, the liklihood that he
would include the preposterous Peck pedigree, most known *solely* from
the work of a known fraudster... is slim to none. So you're getting all worked
up over nothing.
BA: So on the one hand you diss me and you diss Douglas Richardson, and
then you demonstrate to us that you now *speak* for him? What a pompous
individual, you are, Monsieur! I revert to French, for obvious reasons! In
his *ACKNOWLEDGMENTS* Douglas Richardson thanks, among others:
John Ravilious, Gary Boyd Roberts, and Renia Simonds. Your name, Will
Johnson, is *conspicuously* absent, along with other *wilderbeasts* who
roam this gen-medieval list. And:
you also prove to Douglas Richardson for being a *spokesperson* for him,
that you have NOT read *PLANTAGENET ANCESTRY* by him, Royal Ancestry
Series, Genealogical pub. co., 2004, hdbd, page ix, *"Introduction," viz.:
"PUBLICATION PLAN: This book is the first in a series of volumes on the
ancestry of the American colonial immigrants who have English gentry, noble,
or royal ancestry. Succeeding volumes will present descents from the Magna
Carta Sureties of 1215, early feudal English barons, and Emperor Charlemagne."
Touche, Monsieur!
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: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 20, 8:57 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm glad you've finally seen the light. Hallelujah.
You are a great magician, but then only for the unwary. Nat did not
write that. You took two words out of what he wrote, and re-arranged
the meaning to suit yourself. We can see clearly what Nat actually
wrote, and it's not what you're implying above.
Sorry Bill, you're not going to get me to do your dictionary look-ups
for you. Nice try however. Isn't it bedtime in Florida yet?
Will Johnson
BA: Indeed. Everything Will writes is fact. All his statements of fact
are fact.
I'm glad you've finally seen the light. Hallelujah.
Read the archives and you will see he is found in error so
often as to make us wonder what his purpose is in challenging a scholar
such as Nat Taylor who clearly wrote that Somerby was "innocent" of
the *provenance* of the BML Peck pedigree.
You are a great magician, but then only for the unwary. Nat did not
write that. You took two words out of what he wrote, and re-arranged
the meaning to suit yourself. We can see clearly what Nat actually
wrote, and it's not what you're implying above.
Perhaps, Will has not
the foggiest notions of what *provenance* means? He is so unfocused
in writing about every little piece that comes along that he has not
time nor volition to consult a dictionary and look under *p*!
Bill
Sorry Bill, you're not going to get me to do your dictionary look-ups
for you. Nice try however. Isn't it bedtime in Florida yet?
Will Johnson
-
Renia
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
wjhonson wrote:
That's exactly what I was thinking.
On Nov 20, 8:57 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
BA: Indeed. Everything Will writes is fact. All his statements of fact
are fact.
I'm glad you've finally seen the light. Hallelujah.
Read the archives and you will see he is found in error so
often as to make us wonder what his purpose is in challenging a scholar
such as Nat Taylor who clearly wrote that Somerby was "innocent" of
the *provenance* of the BML Peck pedigree.
You are a great magician, but then only for the unwary. Nat did not
write that. You took two words out of what he wrote, and re-arranged
the meaning to suit yourself. We can see clearly what Nat actually
wrote, and it's not what you're implying above.
Perhaps, Will has not
the foggiest notions of what *provenance* means? He is so unfocused
in writing about every little piece that comes along that he has not
time nor volition to consult a dictionary and look under *p*!
Bill
Sorry Bill, you're not going to get me to do your dictionary look-ups
for you. Nice try however. Isn't it bedtime in Florida yet?
That's exactly what I was thinking.
-
Renia
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Renia wrote:
Only I wasn't thinking of Florida, but somewhere much further west.
wjhonson wrote:
On Nov 20, 8:57 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
BA: Indeed. Everything Will writes is fact. All his statements of fact
are fact.
I'm glad you've finally seen the light. Hallelujah.
Read the archives and you will see he is found in error so
often as to make us wonder what his purpose is in challenging a scholar
such as Nat Taylor who clearly wrote that Somerby was "innocent" of
the *provenance* of the BML Peck pedigree.
You are a great magician, but then only for the unwary. Nat did not
write that. You took two words out of what he wrote, and re-arranged
the meaning to suit yourself. We can see clearly what Nat actually
wrote, and it's not what you're implying above.
Perhaps, Will has not
the foggiest notions of what *provenance* means? He is so unfocused
in writing about every little piece that comes along that he has not
time nor volition to consult a dictionary and look under *p*!
Bill
Sorry Bill, you're not going to get me to do your dictionary look-ups
for you. Nice try however. Isn't it bedtime in Florida yet?
That's exactly what I was thinking.
Only I wasn't thinking of Florida, but somewhere much further west.
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Hi, gen-medievalers 
ADDENDA:
ADDENDUM 3: the BML Peck Pedigree is a Medieval document unassailable
in its historical setting, creation, and primacy and provenance: attested to
by gen-medieval scholarship [ see gen-medieval archives, Oct-Nov,
2007 ].
Nat Taylor, gentleman and scholar, posted two key points about the
"Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT" and they are, viz.:
(1) the BML Peck Pedigree *provenance* is 17thC.
and
(2) Somerby was *innocent* of involvement with its
provenance.
Thank you once again, one and all,
I remain your humble servant and scholar,
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
ADDENDA:
ADDENDUM 3: the BML Peck Pedigree is a Medieval document unassailable
in its historical setting, creation, and primacy and provenance: attested to
by gen-medieval scholarship [ see gen-medieval archives, Oct-Nov,
2007 ].
Nat Taylor, gentleman and scholar, posted two key points about the
"Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT" and they are, viz.:
(1) the BML Peck Pedigree *provenance* is 17thC.
and
(2) Somerby was *innocent* of involvement with its
provenance.
Thank you once again, one and all,
I remain your humble servant and scholar,
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
BA: Perhaps, Will has not the foggiest notions of what *provenance* means?
He is so unfocused in writing about every little piece that comes along that
he has not time nor volition to consult a dictionary and look under *p*!
Will: Sorry Bill, you're not going to get me to do your dictionary look-ups
for you. Nice try however. Isn't it bedtime in Florida yet?
Renia: That's exactly what I was thinking.
BA: Now, c'mon, while the riff-raff take bubble baths, you all know in your
heart-of-hearts that gentleman-scholars slave at manuscripts and never sleep!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
He is so unfocused in writing about every little piece that comes along that
he has not time nor volition to consult a dictionary and look under *p*!
Will: Sorry Bill, you're not going to get me to do your dictionary look-ups
for you. Nice try however. Isn't it bedtime in Florida yet?
Renia: That's exactly what I was thinking.
BA: Now, c'mon, while the riff-raff take bubble baths, you all know in your
heart-of-hearts that gentleman-scholars slave at manuscripts and never sleep!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 20, 8:46 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Untrue.
taf
The facts are, with
no doubt anymore, that the BML Peck Pedigree is *provenance* 17thC
Untrue.
taf
-
Renia
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
Bill Arnold wrote:
You are no gentleman, at least not here. You are certainly no scholar.
You are far too irrational for that.
Regarding "provenance". Will has looked it up. He even found it under
"p", and it does not mean what you think it means.
Now it is time for you to look the word.
BA: Perhaps, Will has not the foggiest notions of what *provenance* means?
He is so unfocused in writing about every little piece that comes along that
he has not time nor volition to consult a dictionary and look under *p*!
Will: Sorry Bill, you're not going to get me to do your dictionary look-ups
for you. Nice try however. Isn't it bedtime in Florida yet?
Renia: That's exactly what I was thinking.
BA: Now, c'mon, while the riff-raff take bubble baths, you all know in your
heart-of-hearts that gentleman-scholars slave at manuscripts and never sleep!
You are no gentleman, at least not here. You are certainly no scholar.
You are far too irrational for that.
Regarding "provenance". Will has looked it up. He even found it under
"p", and it does not mean what you think it means.
Now it is time for you to look the word.
-
Gjest
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
On Nov 21, 9:52 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
If its provenance is 17th Century, which I don't believe, how can it
be a medieval document? We know Somerby is innocent of creating the
document. What we don't know is whether he knowingly passed along a
forgery. Nothing like a forger to spot another forger.
The salient points about Robert Peck of Beccles were also discussed in
2003 at the Peck Family Mailing List:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/pe ... 1055651042
Fred Chalfant
Hi, gen-medievalers
ADDENDA:
ADDENDUM 3: the BML Peck Pedigree is a Medieval document unassailable
in its historical setting, creation, and primacy and provenance: attested to
by gen-medieval scholarship [ see gen-medieval archives, Oct-Nov,
2007 ].
Nat Taylor, gentleman and scholar, posted two key points about the
"Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT" and they are, viz.:
(1) the BML Peck Pedigree *provenance* is 17thC.
and
(2) Somerby was *innocent* of involvement with its
provenance.
Thank you once again, one and all,
I remain your humble servant and scholar,
Bill
*****
___________________________________________________________________________ _________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
If its provenance is 17th Century, which I don't believe, how can it
be a medieval document? We know Somerby is innocent of creating the
document. What we don't know is whether he knowingly passed along a
forgery. Nothing like a forger to spot another forger.
The salient points about Robert Peck of Beccles were also discussed in
2003 at the Peck Family Mailing List:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/pe ... 1055651042
Fred Chalfant
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
BA: Perhaps, Will has not the foggiest notions of what *provenance* means?
He is so unfocused in writing about every little piece that comes along that
he has not time nor volition to consult a dictionary and look under *p*!
Will: Sorry Bill, you're not going to get me to do your dictionary look-ups
for you. Nice try however. Isn't it bedtime in Florida yet?
Renia: That's exactly what I was thinking.
BA: Now, c'mon, while the riff-raff take bubble baths, you all know in your
heart-of-hearts that gentleman-scholars slave at manuscripts and never sleep!
Renia: You are no gentleman, at least not here. You are certainly no scholar.
BA: Sheesh. Over here in America, we remember: the Boston Tea Party and
why most royalists took off for the Canadian hills in their tacky Red jackets with
Brassy buttons when my Ancestors Peck in the Colonial Militia stood their ground!
So: we all know HM the Renia is just saying that because I would not curtsy to
her skirt. O: and I still *will* not!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
He is so unfocused in writing about every little piece that comes along that
he has not time nor volition to consult a dictionary and look under *p*!
Will: Sorry Bill, you're not going to get me to do your dictionary look-ups
for you. Nice try however. Isn't it bedtime in Florida yet?
Renia: That's exactly what I was thinking.
BA: Now, c'mon, while the riff-raff take bubble baths, you all know in your
heart-of-hearts that gentleman-scholars slave at manuscripts and never sleep!
Renia: You are no gentleman, at least not here. You are certainly no scholar.
BA: Sheesh. Over here in America, we remember: the Boston Tea Party and
why most royalists took off for the Canadian hills in their tacky Red jackets with
Brassy buttons when my Ancestors Peck in the Colonial Militia stood their ground!
So: we all know HM the Renia is just saying that because I would not curtsy to
her skirt. O: and I still *will* not!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
Gjest
Re: Happy Holidays to All
Thank you, John. May I add my wishes for a Happy Thanksgiving.
Pat
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com>
Pat
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com>
Hello All,
As those west of The Pond are about to enjoy Thanksgiving with
their most immediate ancestors and descendants (direct or otherwise),
I wanted to wish everyone a happy and healthy Thanksgiving. For those
living to the east, Happy Stir-up Sunday!
Cheers,
John
-------------------------------
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