Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Renia

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Renia » 24 nov 2007 19:07:15

Bill Arnold wrote:

Renia: Dunno, but it's probably because it's fab and the place of my birth. One
of the most beautiful cities in the world, methinks, regardless that it can be damp.

BA: Well, this IS gen-medieval. If you do not mind, write me one paragraph
about Edinburgh: as a genealogist. I do not mean a tourist view. I have since
googled Edinburgh to its castles and rivers and bridges. You are The Ice Princess,
and I am more terrified of you now to see you write that it is the place of your
birth. There is something you will write about genealogy and Edinburgh which
will be meaningful to me: terribly so, I am afraid. But if you wish to indulge me
and this list, have a go at it. If you decline, I will understand.

Terrified? Terrified of moi? But I am la pussycat. :-)

When I was a raw beginner at genealogy some 30 years ago, I rushed off
to St Catherine's House in London to consult my parent's marriage in the
indexes. I couldn't find it. I was horrified. My parents had never
married! Then I looked for my own birth in the indexes and couldn't find
that, either. This was even worse, for it proved I had never been born.

It was a little while before I realisd that my birth had been registered
in Scotland and was to be found in Scottish archives. The next time I
was in Edinburgh, I found I had been born, after all, and my parents had
duly married 10 months previously.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 nov 2007 19:41:37

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi9p8g$qfq$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

When I was a raw beginner at genealogy some 30 years ago, I rushed off
to St Catherine's House in London to consult my parent's marriage in the
indexes. I couldn't find it. I was horrified. My parents had never
married! Then I looked for my own birth in the indexes and couldn't find
that, either. This was even worse, for it proved I had never been born.

It was a little while before I realisd that my birth had been registered
in Scotland and was to be found in Scottish archives. The next time I was
in Edinburgh, I found I had been born, after all, and my parents had duly
married 10 months previously.

Aha!

Renia slips in [actually out], just under the wire.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Bill Arnold

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 24 nov 2007 21:35:05

BA: Next, I separate out the inference aspects from the facts. It is why I tested
the waters here about Napoleon born in 1603: I know it was 04, 2 December,
according to history. That is a fact.

Renia: He was born 15th August 1769.

BA: Right you are: I meant to write crowned Emperor.

Bill

*****


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

Bill Arnold

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 24 nov 2007 21:40:07

BA: I was a writer at birth: my mother was doing crossword puzzles
when she conceived me:

Renia: I'm sorry, but I can't let this pass. I have this vision, you see . . .
Ooh! Aah! Darling! Ooh! I need 16 down. What do you find at the bottom
of a bird cage? I have three letters "HIT" preceded by a blank. Ooh!

BA: Well, you are quite right. That was my mother. She had a BU
education like her mother. It was her mother who gave me *Arundel*
by Kenneth Roberts and opened my eyes to historical events, and I
have since found out I cannot claim descendancy from Benedict Arnold
and always wondered if my grandmother was teaching me something
about his fatal march on Quebec in 1775. She probably was the one who
awakened my interest in genealogy. What is fascinating for me,
knowing your characterization of your parents, you do share some of
their *literary* mind to be sure. Your descriptive words remind me of
Ring Lardner's prose in his best short stories. You can rock, when you
want, Ice Princess!

Bill

*****




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

M.Sjostrom

Re: Ancestry of Elisabet Sevedsdotter Ribbing, the secret wi

Legg inn av M.Sjostrom » 24 nov 2007 21:58:02

Will Johnson:
"...that Elizabeth Ribbing was born 1597 and died
1662. It would be nice to have a primary source for,
from where these dates come.
Also can you name specifically the female daughter of
Charles VIII who married an Erik somebody, and do they
have dates?"

1)
Elisabet Sevedsdotter Ribbing's those dates are given
in all the literature I am aware (admittedly,
secondary and tertiary literature). One literature
reference would be: Gustav Elgenstierna, vol VI,
article about the noble house of Ribbing. She and her
marriage and daughter are fairly well-known in all
sorts of materials, which do not much disagree as to
her dates. I have had an impression that there is fair
amount of contemporary primary sources about her,
giving those dates etc (she was daughter of High
Treasurer, her originally secret marriage with the
royal duke became common knowledge and its documents
were displayed, afaik). There has been no reason for
me to go check primary sources about her those dates.

2)
I had thought that it were so-called common knowledge
that the only historically documented way anyone in
the present day (or even after fifty or so years after
his demise) can descend from king Charles VIII, is
through his eldest daughter, 'furstinna' Kristina
Karlsdotter, heiress of Fogelvik, who married 1446 the
Danish-born nobleman Erik Eriksen af Demmestrup
(dc1478).
Even one version of Europäische Stammtafeln seem to
give that marriage and some dates (and that very
daughter, born of the king's first marriage).
Also, Genealogics by Leo van de Pas is already
currently fairly well-filled as to medieval Swedish
high nobility, including these, after some voluminous
filling throughout the past year or two.

However, to draft these in clear words here:

Karl Knutson, lord of Fogelvik, king of Sweden three
periods between 1448-1470, king in Norway 1449-50 (for
further particulars, see his biographies). Married
firstly Birgitta Turesdotter av Kraakerum (bc1410
d1436), due to her early demise she never was queen,
as to her rank at the time of her death she was wife
of a high nobleman who held the High Marshalcy of
Sweden. Had also two later wives, neither of whom is
pertinent in this.

their surviving daughter:
furstinna Kristina Karlsdotter, heiress of Fogelvik
(bc1432, d bef 1500), married (1436, two years before
her father became king) Erik Eriksen af Demmestrup,
who became High Steward during his father-in-law's
reign; this Erik was agnatically from the Danish
Gyldenstjerne, and descendant of the Lunge, of the
Saltensee, of the Ordrup and of the Aagaard, noble
houses in Denmark.
* their children included (in presumed order of birth
between surviving, adult children, 5 others died
young):

2 Niilo Eerikinpoika av Fogelvik, lord of Tullgarn,
sometime castellan of Kastelholma, and sometime acting
governor of Viipuri and Eastern Finland (d1495) -
father of Kristina Nilsdotter av Fogelvik, heiress of
Tullgarn, fiefholder of Häme castle in Finland, etc
(bc1494, d1559); married firstly 'Sten Sture the
younger' (Sten Svanteson), lord of Ekesiö, 1513-20
Regent of Sweden (for fuller particulars, see his
biographies); married secondly, Johan Tursson av
Falun, lord of Lindholm. Two of her sons, one in each
marriage, became in 1561 created counts.

3 Kristina (Kerstin) Eriksdotter av Fogelvik, heiress
of Bjurum (received Bjurum from her maternal aunt, the
(d.s.p.s) 'furstinna' Magdalena Karlsdotter, known
occasionally as the Lady of Gotland island);
married Hans Aagesen av Hjulebjerg, justiciar of
Nericia (killed 1492) - one of their daughters was
lady Anne:
31 Anne Hannuntytär de Bjurum, settled in Finland,
from a Danish family [Thott]

5 Erik Eriksson 'den yngre', lord of Folgelvik
(killed 1502), in other words:
24 Erik Eriksson av Fogelvik; maternal grandson of
king Charles VIII

These three grandchildren of Charles VIII, and their
prolific issue, are the specific chief reason why,
after only a couple further generations, half or more
of the highest nobility of Sweden was attestedly
descended from king Charles. It became increasingly
more difficult to find a Swedish high noble who was
not so descended. However, the new royal house, the
Vasa, managed to keep themselves surprisingly free of
his descent. This was accomplished by obtaining
foreign ladies as wives of royals.



Isenburg in his volume II does give this marriage
but Schwennicke does not....

It would be sad, had ESNF omitted it.
I can assure that the relationship and the posthumous
daughter born of it, Elisabet Carlsdotter, was known
and well-documented in contemporary Sweden.




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

Bill Arnold

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 24 nov 2007 22:05:04

BA: So, let me make a disclaimer here about the Peck Pedigree. I
know it is not fact yet, according to genealogy scholars. I saw it on LDS and
Rootsweb and went, Wow, what if?

Renia: Rootsweb Worldconnect is useful, but it is only a starting-point. Some
databases are utter rubbish. It is so easy to cut-and-paste (or type out
and plagiarise) the pedigree one fancies on to one's own.

BA: Indeed, that is why I came to gen-medieval. As we journalists say:
trust me on this.

Renia: I have a second cousin who is a world-class genealogist. He keeps me
grounded, in genealogy. But he cannot tame the creative connotative side of me.
So, I tried to establish from Wm I The Lion King of Scots to the Pecks, being
unsure of what I read at LDS and Rootsweb.

Renia: That's the worst way to go about genealogy. One must go backwards, from
the known to the unknown. To go forwards and try and meet up with your
own branch is nigh on impossible, unless you have a very, very rare name.

BA: Please bear with me: yes and no. When I spoke with Gary Boyd Roberts he said
the same thing. I *do* know that for most genealogy. But in the rare event I came
upon that the Middleton lineage *might* descend from Charlemagne and William I
The Lion King of Scots I had to test the Middleton back to them. Thanks to John
Higgins that looks like a genuine possibility. There was no point in my going through
the painful process I did, knowing the 1930 articles by S. Allyn Peck on the BML
[BL] Peck Pedigree was anathema to the world of scholars. Trust me on this. My
second cousin, a professional genealogist, and I knew that the label of *fraudulent*
existed and why. My cousin rarely goes into European gen work so I was on my own.
The only reason I took all this trouble was to *peg* the sticking point: the sticking
point, as we all know now, is the Suffolk Pecks to the Wakefield Pecks. [BTW: the
reason I wrote BML as it used to be referred to as the British Museum, where the
Peck Pedigree resided, and since then it is now the British Library; I had visited their
website and communicated with their archivists. In fact, many on gen-medieval
doubted it even existed. Again: I thank a professor on gen-medieval, gentleman
and scholar Nat Taylor for his input. Trust me on this. I appreciate his efforts.
It was the banter of The Insipid One and The Deconstructionist which put logs
in the logjam as I tried to work it out. Anyway, that is all history now.

BA: Peck Pedigree has been put in its proper place in the minds of
gen-medievalers and it is in the records. What will become of it is beyond
me because I am in no position to authenticate it.

Renia: Why not?

BA: as a writer, I have deadlines, and I am not getting any younger. I am writing
my family history in book format and the one chapter on a possible royal lineage
is a minor sidebar. I have six to seven generations of my paternal southern and
my maternal northern American lines to write. As you can guess I will not write
a gen file book, but a *novelistic* approach: aimed for my descendants to read,
and yet the details can be gleaned for facts I have found. The facts, names, places
and dates, are important to other genealogists. My work since the 1960s begs
me to continue it and I will. I am *not* a medieval researcher and know what
it will entail. Someone such as John Ravilious with his skills in the manuscripts
and knowledge of the locations of materials is necessary to accomplish it. If
Douglas Richardson, down the road, does his book on *Charlemagne Ancestry*
then he can either look into it personally or have an assistant help him with that
aspect of his book. Gateway Ancestor Joseph Peck to America, if he had royal
lines, would open up hundreds of thousands of descendants. I have gone as
far as I can with this matter. I can tell you I did a history book on a two hundred
year period here in Florida, and at one point I knew I had to deadline it and did:
it is now history. It had some genealogy in it, and my cousin assisted me with
it. We resolved enough of the trouble areas to allow me to go to print. I am glad
I did. There were empty categories in history that I filled, and charted the way
for future researchers. As my studies in Dickinson and Shakespeare have taught
me, sometimes hundreds of years later documents come to light that open up
a whole new view on things. I cannot wait that long :)

BA: As any good scientist knows, you propose your theory based on your
best evidence and others must verify it:

Renia: Or you try and verify it yourself using primary sources. That's what a
genealogist does.

BA: True. But I am not in England, do not have the time, and once again say:
it will have to be up to others. Trust me on this. I do not care. Because I know
I am too old to do any thing about it. Sorry, but that is fact. As a scholar, I
have gone as far as I reasonably can on behalf of hundreds of thousands of
descendants.

BA: or put it to R.I.P. So, ending where we started: The Insipid
One *needs* to grow up! The Deconstructionist *needs* to stop deconstructing.

Renia: Of the former, he never will. Of that latter, that's how his mind works
and that's how an historian's mind works. You could learn from him. We
can all learn from each other. That's why we come on this newsgroup, to
share ideas and information and discuss them.

BA: I used that Literary School term for him because I personally find *deconstructionism*
a blight on modern scholarship. It is useful to a point: but at some point, scholars
must take a constructive approach to things. I single out Douglas Richardson,
Nat Taylor, John Higgins, John Ravilious as examples of the latter: true constructionists.

Bill

*****




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

Bill Arnold

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 24 nov 2007 22:15:04

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

Bill Arnold wrote:

Renia: Dunno, but it's probably because it's fab and the place of my birth. One
of the most beautiful cities in the world, methinks, regardless that it can be damp.

BA: Well, this IS gen-medieval. If you do not mind, write me one paragraph
about Edinburgh: as a genealogist. I do not mean a tourist view. I have since
googled Edinburgh to its castles and rivers and bridges. You are The Ice Princess,
and I am more terrified of you now to see you write that it is the place of your
birth. There is something you will write about genealogy and Edinburgh which
will be meaningful to me: terribly so, I am afraid. But if you wish to indulge me
and this list, have a go at it. If you decline, I will understand.

Terrified? Terrified of moi? But I am la pussycat. :-)

When I was a raw beginner at genealogy some 30 years ago, I rushed off
to St Catherine's House in London to consult my parent's marriage in the
indexes. I couldn't find it. I was horrified. My parents had never
married! Then I looked for my own birth in the indexes and couldn't find
that, either. This was even worse, for it proved I had never been born.

It was a little while before I realisd that my birth had been registered
in Scotland and was to be found in Scottish archives. The next time I
was in Edinburgh, I found I had been born, after all, and my parents had
duly married 10 months previously.


BA: I had a similar experience with my parent's marriage, because they never
celebrated their wedding anniversary. When I finally pulled their marriage
record, I was in for a surprise. You can only guess. As for Edinburgh: here
in America and in Canada, I found in the south a real difficulty with ancient
records because records were not kept and when kept they were not kept
well. A lot of dead ends. In the north, and in Canada, better record keeping.
Obviously, at some point, with administration of such matters records are
found and searchable. In Edinburgh, how far back can you go and not
run into a lot of dead ends?

Bill

*****



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

Bill Arnold

Re: Windsor vs. Wales: CORRECTION

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 24 nov 2007 22:25:06

BA: So, let me make a disclaimer here about the Peck Pedigree. I
know it is not fact yet, according to genealogy scholars. I saw it on LDS and
Rootsweb and went, Wow, what if?

Renia: Rootsweb Worldconnect is useful, but it is only a starting-point. Some
databases are utter rubbish. It is so easy to cut-and-paste (or type out
and plagiarise) the pedigree one fancies on to one's own.

BA: Indeed, that is why I came to gen-medieval. As we journalists say:
trust me on this.

BA[CORRECTION]: I have a second cousin who is a world-class genealogist. He keeps me
grounded, in genealogy. But he cannot tame the creative connotative side of me.
So, I tried to establish from Wm I The Lion King of Scots to the Pecks, being
unsure of what I read at LDS and Rootsweb.

Renia: That's the worst way to go about genealogy. One must go backwards, from
the known to the unknown. To go forwards and try and meet up with your
own branch is nigh on impossible, unless you have a very, very rare name.

BA: Please bear with me: yes and no. When I spoke with Gary Boyd Roberts he said
the same thing. I *do* know that for most genealogy. But in the rare event I came
upon that the Middleton lineage *might* descend from Charlemagne and William I
The Lion King of Scots I had to test the Middleton back to them. Thanks to John
Higgins that looks like a genuine possibility. There was no point in my going through
the painful process I did, knowing the 1930 articles by S. Allyn Peck on the BML
[BL] Peck Pedigree was anathema to the world of scholars. Trust me on this. My
second cousin, a professional genealogist, and I knew that the label of *fraudulent*
existed and why. My cousin rarely goes into European gen work so I was on my own.
The only reason I took all this trouble was to *peg* the sticking point: the sticking
point, as we all know now, is the Suffolk Pecks to the Wakefield Pecks. [BTW: the
reason I wrote BML as it used to be referred to as the British Museum, where the
Peck Pedigree resided, and since then it is now the British Library; I had visited their
website and communicated with their archivists. In fact, many on gen-medieval
doubted it even existed. Again: I thank a professor on gen-medieval, gentleman
and scholar Nat Taylor for his input. Trust me on this. I appreciate his efforts.
It was the banter of The Insipid One and The Deconstructionist which put logs
in the logjam as I tried to work it out. Anyway, that is all history now.

BA: Peck Pedigree has been put in its proper place in the minds of
gen-medievalers and it is in the records. What will become of it is beyond
me because I am in no position to authenticate it.

Renia: Why not?

BA: as a writer, I have deadlines, and I am not getting any younger. I am writing
my family history in book format and the one chapter on a possible royal lineage
is a minor sidebar. I have six to seven generations of my paternal southern and
my maternal northern American lines to write. As you can guess I will not write
a gen file book, but a *novelistic* approach: aimed for my descendants to read,
and yet the details can be gleaned for facts I have found. The facts, names, places
and dates, are important to other genealogists. My work since the 1960s begs
me to continue it and I will. I am *not* a medieval researcher and know what
it will entail. Someone such as John Ravilious with his skills in the manuscripts
and knowledge of the locations of materials is necessary to accomplish it. If
Douglas Richardson, down the road, does his book on *Charlemagne Ancestry*
then he can either look into it personally or have an assistant help him with that
aspect of his book. Gateway Ancestor Joseph Peck to America, if he had royal
lines, would open up hundreds of thousands of descendants. I have gone as
far as I can with this matter. I can tell you I did a history book on a two hundred
year period here in Florida, and at one point I knew I had to deadline it and did:
it is now history. It had some genealogy in it, and my cousin assisted me with
it. We resolved enough of the trouble areas to allow me to go to print. I am glad
I did. There were empty categories in history that I filled, and charted the way
for future researchers. As my studies in Dickinson and Shakespeare have taught
me, sometimes hundreds of years later documents come to light that open up
a whole new view on things. I cannot wait that long :)

BA: As any good scientist knows, you propose your theory based on your
best evidence and others must verify it:

Renia: Or you try and verify it yourself using primary sources. That's what a
genealogist does.

BA: True. But I am not in England, do not have the time, and once again say:
it will have to be up to others. Trust me on this. I do not care. Because I know
I am too old to do any thing about it. Sorry, but that is fact. As a scholar, I
have gone as far as I reasonably can on behalf of hundreds of thousands of
descendants.

BA: or put it to R.I.P. So, ending where we started: The Insipid
One *needs* to grow up! The Deconstructionist *needs* to stop deconstructing.

Renia: Of the former, he never will. Of that latter, that's how his mind works
and that's how an historian's mind works. You could learn from him. We
can all learn from each other. That's why we come on this newsgroup, to
share ideas and information and discuss them.

BA: I used that Literary School term for him because I personally find *deconstructionism*
a blight on modern scholarship. It is useful to a point: but at some point, scholars
must take a constructive approach to things. I single out Douglas Richardson,
Nat Taylor, John Higgins, John Ravilious as examples of the latter: true constructionists.

Bill

*****



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

Gjest

Re: Genealogical Scholarship : A Matter of Proof

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 nov 2007 22:50:06

Dear Nate ,
Arthur Sumner Boyd wrote his genealogy " THe Boyd Family "
back in the 1920s. Wishful Thinking ? probably. He contended that three sons
of Captain James Boyd, James, William and John Boyd migrated from Ireland to
Boston, Massachusetts. I am sorry I said the connection was probable. There
is not even enough evidence for that. I first saw the book which details Ihe
Lineage of the Kilmarnock Boyds
(the Various Barons and Earls) in the 1st part and the descendants of Captain
James Boyd`s supposed son who lived at Berwick, Maine in the second when I
was fourteen (1974). I was very partial to that lineage, rather like Mr Bill
Arnold is about his Peck pedigree.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

Renia

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Renia » 24 nov 2007 23:44:55

Bill Arnold wrote:
BA: Next, I separate out the inference aspects from the facts. It is why I tested
the waters here about Napoleon born in 1603: I know it was 04, 2 December,
according to history. That is a fact.

Renia: He was born 15th August 1769.

BA: Right you are: I meant to write crowned Emperor.

Oh, Bill. You are a darling.

You mean good old Nappy was crowned Emperor 165 years before he was
born? That's fantastic. :-)

Renia

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Renia » 24 nov 2007 23:48:31

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi9p8g$qfq$1@mouse.otenet.gr...


When I was a raw beginner at genealogy some 30 years ago, I rushed off

to St Catherine's House in London to consult my parent's marriage in the
indexes. I couldn't find it. I was horrified. My parents had never
married! Then I looked for my own birth in the indexes and couldn't find
that, either. This was even worse, for it proved I had never been born.

It was a little while before I realisd that my birth had been registered
in Scotland and was to be found in Scottish archives. The next time I was
in Edinburgh, I found I had been born, after all, and my parents had duly
married 10 months previously.


Aha!

Renia slips in [actually out], just under the wire.

Well within the wire, you blockhead.

Feb 22nd 1952 parents married. Me turn up 14th December 1952. And I was
early. Which is very unusual because I have spent the rest of my life
being late.

Perfect for gentry families who want a bairn to turn up as soon as
legitimately possible.

Renia

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Renia » 25 nov 2007 00:04:30

Bill Arnold wrote:

BA: So, let me make a disclaimer here about the Peck Pedigree. I
know it is not fact yet, according to genealogy scholars. I saw it on LDS and
Rootsweb and went, Wow, what if?

Renia: Rootsweb Worldconnect is useful, but it is only a starting-point. Some
databases are utter rubbish. It is so easy to cut-and-paste (or type out
and plagiarise) the pedigree one fancies on to one's own.

BA: Indeed, that is why I came to gen-medieval. As we journalists say:
trust me on this.

Renia:


Sorry, you need a BA here. I didn't utter this following para.


I have a second cousin who is a world-class genealogist. He keeps me
grounded, in genealogy. But he cannot tame the creative connotative side of me.
So, I tried to establish from Wm I The Lion King of Scots to the Pecks, being
unsure of what I read at LDS and Rootsweb.

Renia: That's the worst way to go about genealogy. One must go backwards, from
the known to the unknown. To go forwards and try and meet up with your
own branch is nigh on impossible, unless you have a very, very rare name.

BA: Please bear with me: yes and no. When I spoke with Gary Boyd Roberts he said
the same thing. I *do* know that for most genealogy. But in the rare event I came
upon that the Middleton lineage *might* descend from Charlemagne and William I
The Lion King of Scots I had to test the Middleton back to them. Thanks to John
Higgins that looks like a genuine possibility. There was no point in my going through
the painful process I did, knowing the 1930 articles by S. Allyn Peck on the BML
[BL] Peck Pedigree was anathema to the world of scholars. Trust me on this. My
second cousin, a professional genealogist, and I knew that the label of *fraudulent*
existed and why. My cousin rarely goes into European gen work so I was on my own.
The only reason I took all this trouble was to *peg* the sticking point: the sticking
point, as we all know now, is the Suffolk Pecks to the Wakefield Pecks. [BTW: the
reason I wrote BML as it used to be referred to as the British Museum, where the
Peck Pedigree resided, and since then it is now the British Library; I had visited their
website and communicated with their archivists. In fact, many on gen-medieval
doubted it even existed. Again: I thank a professor on gen-medieval, gentleman
and scholar Nat Taylor for his input. Trust me on this. I appreciate his efforts.
It was the banter of The Insipid One and The Deconstructionist which put logs
in the logjam as I tried to work it out. Anyway, that is all history now.

First, I hate the phrase "trust me on this". Second, ignore The Insipid One.

BA: Peck Pedigree has been put in its proper place in the minds of
gen-medievalers and it is in the records. What will become of it is beyond
me because I am in no position to authenticate it.

Renia: Why not?

BA: as a writer, I have deadlines, and I am not getting any younger. I am writing
my family history in book format and the one chapter on a possible royal lineage
is a minor sidebar. I have six to seven generations of my paternal southern and
my maternal northern American lines to write. As you can guess I will not write
a gen file book, but a *novelistic* approach: aimed for my descendants to read,
and yet the details can be gleaned for facts I have found. The facts, names, places
and dates, are important to other genealogists. My work since the 1960s begs
me to continue it and I will. I am *not* a medieval researcher and know what
it will entail. Someone such as John Ravilious with his skills in the manuscripts
and knowledge of the locations of materials is necessary to accomplish it. If
Douglas Richardson, down the road, does his book on *Charlemagne Ancestry*
then he can either look into it personally or have an assistant help him with that
aspect of his book. Gateway Ancestor Joseph Peck to America, if he had royal
lines, would open up hundreds of thousands of descendants. I have gone as
far as I can with this matter. I can tell you I did a history book on a two hundred
year period here in Florida, and at one point I knew I had to deadline it and did:
it is now history. It had some genealogy in it, and my cousin assisted me with
it. We resolved enough of the trouble areas to allow me to go to print. I am glad
I did. There were empty categories in history that I filled, and charted the way
for future researchers. As my studies in Dickinson

Who is Dickinson? D'ya mean Charlie Dickens?

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Genealogical Scholarship : A Matter of Proof

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 25 nov 2007 00:23:28

In article <mailman.436.1195940949.28474.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:

Dear Nate ,
Arthur Sumner Boyd wrote his genealogy " THe Boyd Family "
back in the 1920s. Wishful Thinking ? probably. He contended that three sons
of Captain James Boyd, James, William and John Boyd migrated from Ireland to
Boston, Massachusetts. I am sorry I said the connection was probable. There
is not even enough evidence for that. I first saw the book which details Ihe
Lineage of the Kilmarnock Boyds
(the Various Barons and Earls) in the 1st part and the descendants of Captain
James Boyd`s supposed son who lived at Berwick, Maine in the second when I
was fourteen (1974). I was very partial to that lineage, rather like Mr Bill
Arnold is about his Peck pedigree.

Perfectly understandable. Young or novice genealogists always cherish
such findings--and often it doesn't occur to us to reexamine them even
long after we have acquired the skills and instincts to do so.

Martin Hollick recently reminded us of Marshall Kirk's term for our
fondly remembered 'former ancestors'.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

norenxaq

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av norenxaq » 25 nov 2007 00:38:48

There were empty categories in history that I filled, and charted the way
for future researchers. As my studies in Dickinson



Who is Dickinson? D'ya mean Charlie Dickens?





perhaps he means Emily Dickinson the poet

norenxaq

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av norenxaq » 25 nov 2007 00:38:48

There were empty categories in history that I filled, and charted the way
for future researchers. As my studies in Dickinson



Who is Dickinson? D'ya mean Charlie Dickens?





perhaps he means Emily Dickinson the poet

Renia

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Renia » 25 nov 2007 00:53:00

Bill Arnold wrote:

BA: I had a similar experience with my parent's marriage, because they never
celebrated their wedding anniversary. When I finally pulled their marriage
record, I was in for a surprise. You can only guess. As for Edinburgh: here
in America and in Canada, I found in the south a real difficulty with ancient
records because records were not kept and when kept they were not kept
well. A lot of dead ends. In the north, and in Canada, better record keeping.
Obviously, at some point, with administration of such matters records are
found and searchable. In Edinburgh, how far back can you go and not
run into a lot of dead ends?

I have little experience of Edinburgh records other than what I have
recounted. I suppose I am fortunate in that much of my family pedigrees
are recounted in books. Some of them I have checked out and found
wanting, and investigated where necessary. Others, I just don't have
time for.

However, there is much online these days. Sometimes, you have to pay a
fee, but it's often worth it, and a lot cheaper than air fares and hotel
bills.

For example, if you subscribe to Ancestry.com you can examine the
original Scottish censuses from 1841-1891.

You can also find a few Parish Registers.

If you want to examine older Scottish records, then there is nowhere
better to try than the Origins Network, in affiliation with the Society
of Genealogists, in London.

http://www.originsnetwork.com/SOWelcome.aspx

They say of themselves:
Scots Origins features a Free IGI search, access to "Origins Experts"
research of Scottish Old Parish Registers Births, Baptisms, Marriages
and Death records and 1861 and 1871 Census Records, a Free Scottish
Place search, and expert articles and discussion on Scottish history.

Personally, I'm sure I've used this site to find old Scottish wills,
from the medieval period onwards, but at the moment, I can't find it.

Then there is Electric Scotland:

http://www.electricscotland.com/

Not particularly a genealogy site, but very useful for those with Scots
ancestors.

Genealogy is a hit-and-miss game. Some Parish Records (PRs) in England,
for example, start as early as 1538. Others don't start until the mid
1700s. Most have a big gap during the Commonwealth Period (approx
1649-1660) but some do not. Some are complemented by Bishops Transcripts
(BTs), where the data varies a little from Parish Registers in that it
can hold more, or less, information than the PRs themselves.

There are all sorts of places to look. Often, genealogists have to look
sideways, to a brother, an uncle, a married aunt or niece. The elusive
ancestor may be living with the married niece in an obscure place with
their name spellt completely wrongly and so, mis-indexed (if there is an
index). Wills, censuses and even PRs can turn up all sorts of people in
places you least expect, when looking for a completely different relative.

Never believe the phrase "oh, our name was always spellt that way". It
wasn't, necessarily. It depended who was spelling it and how deaf they
were and how common or rare the name was.

Genealogy is much easier now than it was 30 years ago. Then, you had to
troop off to the local record office (now, invariably called History
Centres, or whatever), and personally browse through ancient
manuscripts, wills, PRs, censuses, etc. Not now. All
England/Wales/Scotland censuses and most American censuses are available
online at Ancestry.com. It's fair they charge because they have to
support it some way. Some people would say it should be freely
available, but it always costs money to put this stuff online,
especially in vast quantities.

Quite a few Parish Registers are available at Familysearch.com. You have
to read up about the source to work out whether it is from a PR (usually
a published one) or a BT, (the usual source), or whether the entry has
been made by an Latter Day Saints (LDS) member. If it has been made by
an LDS member, then there are two types. One type is reasonably
reliable, but always worth checking and that is those entries where
there is a definite date and place for an event. The LDS member has done
some research on that particular family, but has not made an extraction
of the whole PR or BT.

The second type is the one to be very wary of. This is the type which
says something like: "Mrs John Smith, born about 1567, of Wales". It
says nothing at all. We can guess John Smith may have married, but from
this entry, we don't know who she was, or where or when she was born.
That entry means nothing at all. Then there are the entries which say
"John Smith, born about 1567, Wherever-You-Like". Again, it says nothing.

Rootsweb Worldconnect can be useful. Some people have worked very hard
to put their pedigrees and connections online. We all have multiple
ancestors and none of us has the time to check them all, if we find some
of our clan in these databases. Maybe one day we will check it out, if
we have time, but ...

But others are complete disasters. They find two chaps called Michael
Chapman living within three villages (or even counties) of each other
and assume they are the same person and lock a whole family on when
there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever and they haven't bothered to
check the PRs, BTs, wills or anything else. There is even one database,
where I have found one of my own ancestors being born as so to his
ancestor, who lived 200 years previously. I wrote to the perpetrator but
he said he "couldn't be bothered" to change it. How many people have
done the same thing? Couldn't be bothered? All sorts of erroneous
pedigrees are out there being eating up by genealogists who expect
everything for nothing.

In the end, if we really want to know the truth, we will take these
databases with a pinch of salt, and check out what they say using
whatever sources we can.

Now, why am I rabbiting on like this? Ah, your question about how
reliable are Edinburgh records?

You just have to go and find out. As often as we can, genealogists need
more than one source (indeed, as many as possible) to help verify our
findings. Sometimes, there is only one source. Sometimes, there are no
sources at all.

I have a bit of a dilemma in my own ancestry. It is a rare name so it's
pretty confined but my ancestor, Thomas, wrote his will in 1546, naming
his sons Christopher, Thomas and William and daughter Janet. No parish
registers are available. I have no death for Christopher. I don't know
who or if he married. I imagine he was killed during the Uprising in the
North in 1569, but I have no proof. Yet.

However, his son, Thomas, wrote his will in 1584, naming some of the
lands which had been in the family prior to that other will of 1546. He
names his mother as Janet. The question is, was this the Janet, daughter
named in 1546 or was she really daughter-in-law? Was she the wife of
Christopher? (The other sons left wills and documents confirming their
relationship to each other, so I know it's the same people.

In an instance like this, you have to interpret what you find and that
is the nature of history and genealogy. Sometimes, you just don't have
the definite sources you want, you have only circumstantial evidence.
Maybe, one day, you will find what you want, but in the meantime, the
big question is: Do you conclude that Thomas died about 1546 leaving
sons Christopher and wife Janet, and sons Thomas and William? Or do you
leave it out altogether? Do you publish on the web and hope someone else
has the info you need?

The further back in time you go, the worse these dilemmas become. Often,
the only evidence you have is rare Christian names within a family.
Everyone is called Thomas, John and William, so that's no big deal, but
what about Phineas, Bartholomew, Nathaniel and other less popular names?
We have to take all sorts of strange clues into account, which in
Science, wouldn't count at all. Yet, if we ignore these clues, we'll get
nowhere. Someone, somewhere, may have the answer when we have gone.

Genealogy has been popular for at least 500 years. We are not the first
generation to discover its fascination and we won't be the last. We are
the first generation to be able to make our data available to everyone
else in the computerised world. How many of you have NOT received an
email from some obscure 20th cousin in Australia/South Africa/Russia or
elsewhere whom you would never have heard of if they had not found you
on the web?

There are genealogical purists who want every connection verified
absolutely but, in truth, that can't always happen. In this day-and-age,
when we can reach out to the furthest corners of our world, sometimes, a
published unproven pedigree is better than no pedigree. Someone,
somewhere out there, may know the answer.

Renia

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Renia » 25 nov 2007 00:53:51

Bill Arnold wrote:

BA: I used that Literary School term for him because I personally find *deconstructionism*
a blight on modern scholarship. It is useful to a point: but at some point, scholars
must take a constructive approach to things. I single out Douglas Richardson,
Nat Taylor, John Higgins, John Ravilious as examples of the latter: true constructionists.

Another thing I can't stand is 60s social science buzzwords like
"deconstructionism" and "constructionists".

Genealogy is a branch of history. History is one of the arts, and not
one of the sciences or social sciences, for a reason.

The disciplines within the arts are a matter of interpretation,
sometimes even of personal taste. But the word we need here, is
"interpretation".

None of us living today, was present at events in the past, with the
obvious exception of those who have witnessed or taken part in events
within living memory.

Regarding these latter people, it is not so amazing that three people
who witnessed the same event will see it or remember it in three
different ways. All of them have different perspectives as a result of
their different lifestyles, prejudices and counless other factors. But
as historians, we are interested in the events of the distant past, not
particularly those of living memory, so it is those we will discuss.

To repeat, none of us living today, was present at events in the past.
So none of us can EVER know the truth of whatever event happened. The
scribes and all others who wrote things down, wrote those things for a
reason. The reasons are varied, and within the medieval period, are
mostly concerned with property and the law - who owned what, how and why
they should keep it, and how and why they should extricate property from
someone else. Property in medieval times was the then equivalent of Big
Business. Everything revolved around it.

Renia

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Renia » 25 nov 2007 00:59:03

norenxaq wrote:

There were empty categories in history that I filled, and charted the way
for future researchers. As my studies in Dickinson



Who is Dickinson? D'ya mean Charlie Dickens?





perhaps he means Emily Dickinson the poet


Spose.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 25 nov 2007 01:12:11

Recte:

Wellington was also born in 1769.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Gjest

Re: Genealogical Scholarship : A Matter of Proof

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 nov 2007 01:16:03

Dear Nate,
Exactly so. In this case there is so insufficient
information that it still could be correct, but the Boyd family is a large one the
particulars of birthdates and places more speculated than anything else
could be in error. So far I have no alternate lineage with actual records,
records A S Boyd thought existed but went up in smoke in 1869. There is a
mention in a Captain Allen`s journal at the NEHGS (? Captain William Allen of
Brunswick, Maine who married Elizabeth (True) Giles in October of 1745 at Salisbury,
MA this particular Allen was born 1702- died 1784 both at Salisbury, MA.)
that He recieved a letter from James Boyd. That is all the Boyd Family book has
to say about it.
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

Renia

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Renia » 25 nov 2007 01:16:13

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Recte:

Wellington was also born in 1769.

So you said. Was anyone asking?

So, what was your mummy doing at the moment of your conception? I bet it
wasn't so interesting as a crossword.

Gjest

Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 nov 2007 01:45:04

Dear Todd,
We get the point.
5 is Isabel of Angouleme (and la
Marche) rather than Isabel of Aquitaine.
6 Raymond Berenger V, Count of
Provence
7 Beatrix of Savoy

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 25 nov 2007 02:15:43

Renia Stulta Disarmata REPEATS her error.

Hilarious!

New Subject:

Napoleon and Wellington were both born in the same year.

DSH

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fiaes9$36t$12@mouse.otenet.gr...

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Recte:

Wellington was also born in 1769.

So you said. Was anyone asking?

So, what was your mummy doing at the moment of your conception? I bet it
wasn't so interesting as a crossword.

Robert Peffers

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

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 25 nov 2007 02:20:04

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:4rK1j.3905$B97.1653@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Meat was still being rationed in 1954?

Grim Indeed...

Only the USA ended the war twice as rich as when it started.
--
John Briggs



Indeed and the UK were still paying for that grasping greed until last year
when we made the final payments.
The truth often hurts and both the, "Cash & Carry Act", and the, "Lease/Lend
Act", started with the words, "In defense of the US", proving, beyond doubt,
that they were well aware the European Allies were fighting and dying for
them. Yet they have the temerity to claim they came to fight for us when the
plain truth is that they only came to fight after both Japan and Germany
declared war upon them proving, also beyond doubt, that they only came to
fight their own corner AFTER they were forced to.
We were grateful for the help but was it necessary to tell lies about it to
themselves and to teach their children flawed history?
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

Robert Peffers

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

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 25 nov 2007 02:23:12

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi7m3q$2t0$3@mouse.otenet.gr...
Robert Peffers wrote:


Don't talk rubbish. If the UK had acted the same as those why really got
rid of their royals they would have been lucky to have escaped with their
heads still on their bodies.

So Cromwell lost his head, did he?

Who ever claimed that?

Robert Peffers

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

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 25 nov 2007 02:24:03

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi8tva$f6f$1@mouse.otenet.gr...
a.spencer3 wrote:

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi7m3q$2t0$3@mouse.otenet.gr...

Robert Peffers wrote:



Don't talk rubbish. If the UK had acted the same as those why really got
rid of their royals they would have been lucky to have escaped with
their heads still on their bodies.

So Cromwell lost his head, did he?


Actually, I believe he did, posthumously.

Yes he did, after he was dug up as a result of post-Commonwealth royalist
guilt.

But he kept his head and ruled the country having "got rid of the royals",
which was my point.

Trouble was he did not get rid of them.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

Robert Peffers

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

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 25 nov 2007 02:32:02

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi7lu1$2t0$1@mouse.otenet.gr...
Robert Peffers wrote:

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:EGA1j.27941$ib1.26818@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...


"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:JcydnWbzrucCc9janZ2dnUVZ8qijnZ2d@bt.com...

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:9Jj1j.42091$T8.14391@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
Robert Peffers wrote:
"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:fOSdnRXcepWpNtnanZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d@rcn.net...

his name isn't george.

It isn't Windsor either, but, as monarch, he can choose whatever
name
he likes.
After all there was never a Queen Elizabeth I of the UK but the
present incumbent called herself, Elizabeth II.

Quiz time: which king was the third of that name of England, the
second

of

Scotland, and the first of Ireland?
--
John Briggs


Who bloody cares?


Well, this is a History group, not soc.rabid.anti.royals

Surreyman



Oh! So just what, "group", did you think you posted your message into?
Your headers say,
"alt.history.british,alt.talk.royalty,soc.culture.scottish,soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval".
I, and several others, are reading your stuff in, "soc.culture.scottish",
and it is not yours, or anybody else's place to tell us what we should
discuss in the groups we are reading your posts in.
If you think them off topic in whatever group you are reading them in
then trim that group from the headers before you hit send.

Oh, dear. You were the one implying it was off-topic. Surreyman was saying
it was on-topic. I added it was a rare post which was on-topic for ALL the
groups it was posted to.

I hope you are not, as it seems, saying I said, or implied, anything was off
topic.
Quite the reverse. My only reference to topic was, "If you think them off
topic".
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

Gjest

Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 nov 2007 02:55:03

On Nov 24, 4:41 pm, Jwc1...@aol.com wrote:
Dear Todd,
We get the point.
5 is Isabel of Angouleme (and la
Marche) rather than Isabel of Aquitaine.

Yea, I did slip on this - the name Eleanor of Aquitaine cones so
readily to mind that I had to make a special effort not to type it in
place of Eleanor of Provence. . . . then I let my guard down and in
spite of thinking Angouleme, typed Aquitaine.

6 Raymond Berenger V, Count of
Provence

No. Raymond Berenger IV, Count of Provence. There were only three
prior counts of Provence named Raymond Berenger. A lot of sloppy
sources have called him RBV because his great grandfather was RBIV,
but that was as count of Barcelona, he being RBI of Provence. (I have
since seen a post hoc justification of this by claiming that Raymond
Berenger III of Barcelona was count of Provence jure uxoris, but the
concept of a jure uxoris count of Provence being numbered is a novel
one, and as best I can tell was only conceived of after it was decided
that the last RB was #V. I see no effort to number the other spouses
of Provence heiresses.)

taf

Renia

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

Legg inn av Renia » 25 nov 2007 03:02:52

Robert Peffers wrote:

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:4rK1j.3905$B97.1653@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Meat was still being rationed in 1954?

Grim Indeed...


Only the USA ended the war twice as rich as when it started.
--
John Briggs



Indeed and the UK were still paying for that grasping greed until last
year when we made the final payments.
The truth often hurts and both the, "Cash & Carry Act", and the,
"Lease/Lend Act", started with the words, "In defense of the US",
proving, beyond doubt, that they were well aware the European Allies
were fighting and dying for them. Yet they have the temerity to claim
they came to fight for us when the plain truth is that they only came to
fight after both Japan and Germany declared war upon them proving, also
beyond doubt, that they only came to fight their own corner AFTER they
were forced to.
We were grateful for the help but was it necessary to tell lies about it
to themselves and to teach their children flawed history?

Well said.

Renia

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

Legg inn av Renia » 25 nov 2007 03:03:28

Robert Peffers wrote:

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi8tva$f6f$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

a.spencer3 wrote:

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi7m3q$2t0$3@mouse.otenet.gr...

Robert Peffers wrote:



Don't talk rubbish. If the UK had acted the same as those why
really got
rid of their royals they would have been lucky to have escaped with
their heads still on their bodies.


So Cromwell lost his head, did he?



Actually, I believe he did, posthumously.


Yes he did, after he was dug up as a result of post-Commonwealth
royalist guilt.

But he kept his head and ruled the country having "got rid of the
royals", which was my point.


Trouble was he did not get rid of them.

Well, he did, for 11 years. And then they were invited back.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 25 nov 2007 04:22:16

Hilarious!

Yes, Renia does indeed RABBIT ON...

Constantly.

Deeeeeelightful!

DSH

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fiadgp$36t$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

Now, why am I rabbiting on like this? Ah, your question about how reliable
are Edinburgh records?

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Genealogical Scholarship: A Matter Of Proof

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 25 nov 2007 04:28:38

How did Marshall Kirk die?

DSH

Bill Arnold

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 25 nov 2007 05:55:05

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

Bill Arnold wrote:


BA: I had a similar experience with my parent's marriage, because they never
celebrated their wedding anniversary. When I finally pulled their marriage
record, I was in for a surprise. You can only guess. As for Edinburgh: here
in America and in Canada, I found in the south a real difficulty with ancient
records because records were not kept and when kept they were not kept
well. A lot of dead ends. In the north, and in Canada, better record keeping.
Obviously, at some point, with administration of such matters records are
found and searchable. In Edinburgh, how far back can you go and not
run into a lot of dead ends?

I have little experience of Edinburgh records other than what I have
recounted. I suppose I am fortunate in that much of my family pedigrees
are recounted in books. Some of them I have checked out and found
wanting, and investigated where necessary. Others, I just don't have
time for.

However, there is much online these days. Sometimes, you have to pay a
fee, but it's often worth it, and a lot cheaper than air fares and hotel
bills.

For example, if you subscribe to Ancestry.com you can examine the
original Scottish censuses from 1841-1891.

You can also find a few Parish Registers.

If you want to examine older Scottish records, then there is nowhere
better to try than the Origins Network, in affiliation with the Society
of Genealogists, in London.

http://www.originsnetwork.com/SOWelcome.aspx

They say of themselves:
Scots Origins features a Free IGI search, access to "Origins Experts"
research of Scottish Old Parish Registers Births, Baptisms, Marriages
and Death records and 1861 and 1871 Census Records, a Free Scottish
Place search, and expert articles and discussion on Scottish history.

Personally, I'm sure I've used this site to find old Scottish wills,
from the medieval period onwards, but at the moment, I can't find it.

Then there is Electric Scotland:

http://www.electricscotland.com/

Not particularly a genealogy site, but very useful for those with Scots
ancestors.

Genealogy is a hit-and-miss game. Some Parish Records (PRs) in England,
for example, start as early as 1538. Others don't start until the mid
1700s. Most have a big gap during the Commonwealth Period (approx
1649-1660) but some do not. Some are complemented by Bishops Transcripts
(BTs), where the data varies a little from Parish Registers in that it
can hold more, or less, information than the PRs themselves.

There are all sorts of places to look. Often, genealogists have to look
sideways, to a brother, an uncle, a married aunt or niece. The elusive
ancestor may be living with the married niece in an obscure place with
their name spellt completely wrongly and so, mis-indexed (if there is an
index). Wills, censuses and even PRs can turn up all sorts of people in
places you least expect, when looking for a completely different relative.

Never believe the phrase "oh, our name was always spellt that way". It
wasn't, necessarily. It depended who was spelling it and how deaf they
were and how common or rare the name was.

Genealogy is much easier now than it was 30 years ago. Then, you had to
troop off to the local record office (now, invariably called History
Centres, or whatever), and personally browse through ancient
manuscripts, wills, PRs, censuses, etc. Not now. All
England/Wales/Scotland censuses and most American censuses are available
online at Ancestry.com. It's fair they charge because they have to
support it some way. Some people would say it should be freely
available, but it always costs money to put this stuff online,
especially in vast quantities.

Quite a few Parish Registers are available at Familysearch.com. You have
to read up about the source to work out whether it is from a PR (usually
a published one) or a BT, (the usual source), or whether the entry has
been made by an Latter Day Saints (LDS) member. If it has been made by
an LDS member, then there are two types. One type is reasonably
reliable, but always worth checking and that is those entries where
there is a definite date and place for an event. The LDS member has done
some research on that particular family, but has not made an extraction
of the whole PR or BT.

The second type is the one to be very wary of. This is the type which
says something like: "Mrs John Smith, born about 1567, of Wales". It
says nothing at all. We can guess John Smith may have married, but from
this entry, we don't know who she was, or where or when she was born.
That entry means nothing at all. Then there are the entries which say
"John Smith, born about 1567, Wherever-You-Like". Again, it says nothing.

Rootsweb Worldconnect can be useful. Some people have worked very hard
to put their pedigrees and connections online. We all have multiple
ancestors and none of us has the time to check them all, if we find some
of our clan in these databases. Maybe one day we will check it out, if
we have time, but ...

But others are complete disasters. They find two chaps called Michael
Chapman living within three villages (or even counties) of each other
and assume they are the same person and lock a whole family on when
there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever and they haven't bothered to
check the PRs, BTs, wills or anything else. There is even one database,
where I have found one of my own ancestors being born as so to his
ancestor, who lived 200 years previously. I wrote to the perpetrator but
he said he "couldn't be bothered" to change it. How many people have
done the same thing? Couldn't be bothered? All sorts of erroneous
pedigrees are out there being eating up by genealogists who expect
everything for nothing.

In the end, if we really want to know the truth, we will take these
databases with a pinch of salt, and check out what they say using
whatever sources we can.

Now, why am I rabbiting on like this? Ah, your question about how
reliable are Edinburgh records?

You just have to go and find out. As often as we can, genealogists need
more than one source (indeed, as many as possible) to help verify our
findings. Sometimes, there is only one source. Sometimes, there are no
sources at all.

I have a bit of a dilemma in my own ancestry. It is a rare name so it's
pretty confined but my ancestor, Thomas, wrote his will in 1546, naming
his sons Christopher, Thomas and William and daughter Janet. No parish
registers are available. I have no death for Christopher. I don't know
who or if he married. I imagine he was killed during the Uprising in the
North in 1569, but I have no proof. Yet.

However, his son, Thomas, wrote his will in 1584, naming some of the
lands which had been in the family prior to that other will of 1546. He
names his mother as Janet. The question is, was this the Janet, daughter
named in 1546 or was she really daughter-in-law? Was she the wife of
Christopher? (The other sons left wills and documents confirming their
relationship to each other, so I know it's the same people.

In an instance like this, you have to interpret what you find and that
is the nature of history and genealogy. Sometimes, you just don't have
the definite sources you want, you have only circumstantial evidence.
Maybe, one day, you will find what you want, but in the meantime, the
big question is: Do you conclude that Thomas died about 1546 leaving
sons Christopher and wife Janet, and sons Thomas and William? Or do you
leave it out altogether? Do you publish on the web and hope someone else
has the info you need?

The further back in time you go, the worse these dilemmas become. Often,
the only evidence you have is rare Christian names within a family.
Everyone is called Thomas, John and William, so that's no big deal, but
what about Phineas, Bartholomew, Nathaniel and other less popular names?
We have to take all sorts of strange clues into account, which in
Science, wouldn't count at all. Yet, if we ignore these clues, we'll get
nowhere. Someone, somewhere, may have the answer when we have gone.

Genealogy has been popular for at least 500 years. We are not the first
generation to discover its fascination and we won't be the last. We are
the first generation to be able to make our data available to everyone
else in the computerised world. How many of you have NOT received an
email from some obscure 20th cousin in Australia/South Africa/Russia or
elsewhere whom you would never have heard of if they had not found you
on the web?

There are genealogical purists who want every connection verified
absolutely but, in truth, that can't always happen. In this day-and-age,
when we can reach out to the furthest corners of our world, sometimes, a
published unproven pedigree is better than no pedigree. Someone,
somewhere out there, may know the answer.


BA: A very thoughtful post. Thanks a lot. BTW: What was the Uprising in the
North of 1569?

Bill

*****


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

Bill Arnold

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 25 nov 2007 06:00:05

BA: I used that Literary School term for him because I personally find *deconstructionism*
a blight on modern scholarship. It is useful to a point: but at some point, scholars
must take a constructive approach to things. I single out Douglas Richardson,
Nat Taylor, John Higgins, John Ravilious as examples of the latter: true constructionists.

Renia: Another thing I can't stand is 60s social science buzzwords like
"deconstructionism" and "constructionists".

BA: We are on the same page: it is a blight, thus someone who uses it as a tool in
history, even on gen-medieval, is a blighter :)

Renia: To repeat, none of us living today, was present at events in the past.
So none of us can EVER know the truth of whatever event happened. The
scribes and all others who wrote things down, wrote those things for a
reason. The reasons are varied, and within the medieval period, are
mostly concerned with property and the law - who owned what, how and why
they should keep it, and how and why they should extricate property from
someone else. Property in medieval times was the then equivalent of Big
Business. Everything revolved around it.

BA: Agreed: and even today, probate records serve the same purpose, as in
the case of one of my great-greats from St. Petersburg, Florida, who did not
appear in records when the area was settled in the mid-19thC except probate,
wills, land records, tax and tax digests and military records re: The War Between
The States.

Bill

*****




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

Bill Arnold

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 25 nov 2007 06:15:05

Bill Arnold wrote:
BA: Next, I separate out the inference aspects from the facts. It is why I tested
the waters here about Napoleon born in 1603: I know it was 04, 2 December,
according to history. That is a fact.

Renia: He was born 15th August 1769.

BA: Right you are: I meant to write crowned Emperor.

Oh, Bill. You are a darling.

You mean good old Nappy was crowned Emperor 165 years before he was
born? That's fantastic. :-)


BA: Well, well, well, of course I live in West Palm Beach east of the Big Island
where, Dah'ling, is so hot! I did mean to type 1804! Sooner or later: the
truth will out!

Bill

*****


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

Gjest

Re: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 nov 2007 07:25:04

In a message dated 11/24/2007 10:21:28 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
WJhonson@aol.com writes:

Would this be the appropriate time to announce my new society for
descendent
s of Ramses ?


===========
Slap forehead, I'm so dumb....

Of course my society will be called the "Sons of Adam"
That would thereby include everyone on the planet as potential members, and
what proof would you need? You wouldn't need any! It can't fail!

Will Johnson



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

Gjest

Re: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 nov 2007 07:26:03

In a message dated 11/24/2007 8:10:18 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
nltaylor@nltaylor.net writes:

"Baronial Order of the Magna Charta and the
Military Order of the Crusades" in October 2006, which presents a line
from Charlemagne to Merovech. The path used is the one attaching
Bertrada of Prum to Theuderic III. The principal cited authority:
Roderick Stuart's _Royalty for Commoners_ (also cited: _Holy Blood, Holy
Grail_).


===============
Would this be the appropriate time to announce my new society for descendent
s of Ramses ?

I've been looking for some scheme... I mean *plan* to get rich quick.

Will Johnson



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

Gjest

Re: Fw: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 nov 2007 07:57:02

In a message dated 11/24/2007 10:45:26 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
taf@clearwire.net writes:

For the sake of full disclosure, the last time I
said something like this about his work, Stuart threatened to sue me
for defamation,


-----------------
You cannot libel garbage by saying it "stinks" :)

Will Johnson



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

Gjest

Re: Fw: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 nov 2007 08:11:03

On Nov 24, 10:51 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/24/2007 10:45:26 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

t...@clearwire.net writes:

For the sake of full disclosure, the last time I
said something like this about his work, Stuart threatened to sue me
for defamation,

-----------------
You cannot libel garbage by saying it "stinks" :)


But if the piece of garbage does sue you, you still have to pay a lot
of money to mount a defense, even if the case is frivolous - just look
at the idiot judge who drove that poor family-owned dry cleaners into
bankruptcy fighting his claim to over a million dollars in damages for
a lost pair of pants (which they offered to replace from the start).
By making the threat, the refuse is making a cynical calculation that
the critic will self-censor out of self-interest, and his stench will
then stand unchallenged.

taf

The Highlander

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av The Highlander » 25 nov 2007 08:41:33

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 01:15:43 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
<panther@excelsior.com> wrote:

Renia Stulta Disarmata REPEATS her error.

Hilarious!

New Subject:

Napoleon and Wellington were both born in the same year.

DSH

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fiaes9$36t$12@mouse.otenet.gr...

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Recte:

Wellington was also born in 1769.

So you said. Was anyone asking?

So, what was your mummy doing at the moment of your conception? I bet it
wasn't so interesting as a crossword.


Hines, get your nose out of other people's underwear. Your status as
Usenet's primary pederast is continually reinforced by these
drooling, slobbering, simpering, smirking attempts to drag this group
down to your schoolboy level.

Renia

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Renia » 25 nov 2007 10:25:33

Bill Arnold wrote:

BA: A very thoughtful post. Thanks a lot. BTW: What was the Uprising in the
North of 1569?

Thank you.

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

a.spencer3

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

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 25 nov 2007 12:30:00

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:kaZ1j.3$ag5.43@eagle.america.net...
So, blame it all on the Evil United States and your War Debts -- rather
than
silly-buggers British politics and National Security policies in the
1920's
and 1930's ---- under a series of Prime Ministers.

You should have listened to Cousin Winston.


What the xxxxx has that got to do with rationing?

Twit!

Surreyman

Seumas MacThómais

Re: Fw: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"

Legg inn av Seumas MacThómais » 25 nov 2007 13:31:02

On Nov 24, 11:08 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
On Nov 24, 10:51 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 11/24/2007 10:45:26 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

t...@clearwire.net writes:

For the sake of full disclosure, the last time I
said something like this about his work, Stuart threatened to sue me
for defamation,

-----------------
You cannot libel garbage by saying it "stinks" :)

But if the piece of garbage does sue you, you still have to pay a lot
of money to mount a defense, even if the case is frivolous - just look
at the idiot judge who drove that poor family-owned dry cleaners into
bankruptcy fighting his claim to over a million dollars in damages for
a lost pair of pants (which they offered to replace from the start).
By making the threat, the refuse is making a cynical calculation that
the critic will self-censor out of self-interest, and his stench will
then stand unchallenged.

taf

Have you ever seen a copy of the original Royalty for Commoners? It
was published by Heritage in Maryland in 1988 and then withdrawn by
them (they sent letters out to those of us who had bought them).
WorldCat shows 26 libraries still have copies, and I kept my copy for
amusement purposes for some time. It is interesting, to say the least.

As to the Merovingians, beyond Chaume's "possible" line (he seems to
have been big on those!), Settipani provides a whole group of them
(all "possibles") in his book on Charlemagne's ancestry. One of the
more probable lines, not covered by either one, is the possible female
descent of England's first king, Ecgbert, from the Kentish royal
family, which had a proven descent from the Merovingians. The ever-
colorful Moncreiffe of That Ilk did some work on that a generation
ago.

Of course, anything that cites Holy Blood, Holy Grail or the hilarious
works connected with the Belgian formerly known as Prince Michael of
Albany is tainted at the start.

Seumas

Bill Arnold

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 25 nov 2007 13:35:07

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

Bill Arnold wrote:

BA: A very thoughtful post. Thanks a lot. BTW: What was the Uprising in the
North of 1569?

Thank you.

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


BA: The figure-head ladies contending with each other is about all Americans are
aware of this unless, of course, the American in question majored in English history.
A few of us have seen Hollywood versions of the doomed damsels fighting over the
throne and Queendom. It reminds me how fragile were our ancestors of York
and Suffolk and along the Scottish-English border with aristocrats killing each
other over land. No different than The War Between The States in America. We
earthlings have such a *civilized* history :)

Bill

*****


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

Bill Arnold

Re: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 25 nov 2007 13:50:06

Will Johnson: Slap forehead, I'm so dumb....

BA: You heard it here, first, folks: from the *Master's Voice.*

Will: of course my society will be called the "Sons of Adam" [sic]
That would thereby include everyone on the planet as potential members, and
what proof would you need? You wouldn't need any! It can't fail!

BA: Why not: Sons of God? Then you include *ALL CREATIONS* in the Universe?
Or *of <G>* aka TGAOTU?

http://www.macgregorministries.org/cult ... mason.html

Bill
<G>

*****


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

Gjest

Re: Fw: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 nov 2007 14:38:03

Deatr Todd, Spencer , Leo and others,
I still have my copy
of Stuart`s " Royalty for Commoners " too. Very interesting premises but not
to be taken seriously. the last Edition was online in Ancestry.com`s Family
and Local Histories database (or maybe the European database). But that`s
Ancestry .com for you. equal time for the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

Doug McDonald

Re: Fw: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 25 nov 2007 16:07:34

Seumas MacThómais wrote:
The ever-
colorful Moncreiffe of That Ilk did some work on that a generation
ago.


I have on my desk Moncreiffe's book that shows on its inside front
cover a chart which make me a descendant, in the male line,
of the god Odin. You do of course have to refer to the Sagas too.
It's a plausible chart, just a suggestion though. Mark MacDonald's
is just as good.

"In the pure male line" of course is the real, real, real biggie ...
no one claims descent from Merovech in the male line!

How many of you folks have even bogus all male like to God?

Adam does not count.

Fun fun fun. This can be real fun.

Doug McDonald

Kay Robinson

Re: The Black Queen: Five Pieces of Evidence

Legg inn av Kay Robinson » 25 nov 2007 16:43:11

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 02:30:09 -0800 (PST), RICLAND
<riclanders@gmail.com> sharpened a new quill and scratched:

On Nov 20, 3:55 am, Liz <pand...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
RICLAND wrote:

snip useful stuff from Ian

You work hard at being a bag of wind, don't you, Ian?

There was so much in Ian's post that could have been helpful to you, but
no, you know best. Like calling Professor Robertson uneducated... it's
that sort of thing that makes those of us who know which respondents are
experienced educated and good at research look with disfavour on your
maunderings. You have amply demonstrated that you have no skills at
research and a limited understanding of British History. One or two
people have taken the time to be helpful, only to be rudely rejected.



I'm not aware I called a person who identified himself as a full
professor "uneducated."
But your point is valid. I'll pay more attention to sigs in the
future.



I've researched the Abram Petrovich Gannibal lead and it doesn't work.

Why? This illustrates my point. No proper researcher would simply make a
bald statement like that without explaining, with references where
necessary, how they had concluded this was a false trail. We are hardly
going to take your word for it, are we?

How would you know what a proper researcher would do since you're as
far from being one as I am from the White Cliffs of Dover.

And the exchange was an informal one and as such my comment was fine.

You have the silly notion in your head that if a person doesn't
footnote every word he utters he's not a "proper" researcher. This is
the kind of notion either a fool or child would bandy about.

Abram Petrovich Gannibal, a black man and adopted son of Peter the
Great, visited Germany with Peter the Great in 1713, which is three
years before Charlotte's mother was born. History tells us of no other
visits made to Germany by him and no visits made outside of Germany by
either Charlotte's grandmother or mother. (See, "Gannibal:The Stolen
Prince" by Hugh Barnes, ISBN-13: 978-0-06-621265-4 )


BTW ..... you said that after the break with the Catholic Church we did
not have English-born Queens. Well, actually there was one called
Elizabeth 1 .... or did you mean to say consort, not queen? Sloppy of you.

Liz (Greenwich UK)

My mistake, Liz. is assuming you possessed a modicum of intelligence.
I won't make that mistake again.

ricland

Good, we're so glad you won't'''promise now
--
All replies to newsgroup thank you

Kay Robinson

Re: The Black Queen: Five Pieces of Evidence

Legg inn av Kay Robinson » 25 nov 2007 16:43:11

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 02:35:24 -0800 (PST), RICLAND
<riclanders@gmail.com> sharpened a new quill and scratched:

On Nov 20, 4:31 am, Roy Bailey <n...@waitrose.com> wrote:
In article <1195548973.3930...@iris.uk.clara.net>, Liz
pand...@dircon.co.uk> writes

BTW ..... you said that after the break with the Catholic Church we did
not have English-born Queens. Well, actually there was one called
Elizabeth 1 .... or did you mean to say consort, not queen? Sloppy of
you.

And Mary II, Anne, Victoria; all queens regnant.

Also Mary, queen of George V.

Anne Hyde, first wife of James II, would also have been an English-born
queen had she not died before her husband succeeded to the throne.

All of these were born in London.

Roy.
--
Roy Bailey
West Berkshire.

I really wasn't paying attention.

I meant from George I to George III.

ricland



You haven't been paying attention for the first reply to your first
post. Go to the bottom of the class and stay there.

Kay

--
All replies to newsgroup thank you

Kay Robinson

Re: The Black Queen:online link to portraits of her (via Nat

Legg inn av Kay Robinson » 25 nov 2007 16:57:16

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 05:23:00 -0800 (PST), RICLAND
<riclanders@gmail.com> sharpened a new quill and scratched:

On Nov 19, 4:38 am, <Christine.Ander...@london.ac.uk> wrote:
A search of the National Portrait Gallery website produced seven pages
of portraits of Charlotte Sophia of Mecklenburg-Strelitz and these can
be viewed at:

http://www.npg.org.uk/live/search/perso ... ID=mp00845

Christine


Sure, but the problem is the first one by Allan Ramsay, does not click
to full view. This means the subject's features cannot be inspected
closely. I believe this was purposely done.

Bottom line, at full view there is no other opinion to be reached
other than the subject is a woman with very distinct African features.

I came to this conclusion years ago. The problem, is I've yet figured
out how she could have happened.

Can anyone offer advice?

And, please, not that complete rubbish about a 15th century Portuguese
line.

The woman in the painting -- Queen Charlotte Sophia, consort of George
III -- is most definitely the product of one black parent, or at the
very least, one black grandparent.

ricland

And you base your entire argument on your opinion of a portrait couple
with two contemporary comments about her looks. You need to do some
solid research.

Kay

--
All replies to newsgroup thank you

Kay Robinson

Re: The Black Queen:online link to portraits of her (via Nat

Legg inn av Kay Robinson » 25 nov 2007 16:57:17

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:31:38 -0000, "Roy Stockdill"
<roy.stockdill@btinternet.com> sharpened a new quill and scratched:

From: RICLAND <riclanders@gmail.com

On Nov 19, 4:38 am, <Christine.Ander...@london.ac.uk> wrote:
A search of the National Portrait Gallery website produced seven
pages of portraits of Charlotte Sophia of Mecklenburg-Strelitz and
these can be viewed at:

http://www.npg.org.uk/live/search/perso ... ID=mp00845

Christine


Sure, but the problem is the first one by Allan Ramsay, does not click
to full view. This means the subject's features cannot be inspected
closely. I believe this was purposely done.

Bottom line, at full view there is no other opinion to be reached
other than the subject is a woman with very distinct African features.

I came to this conclusion years ago. The problem, is I've yet figured
out how she could have happened.

Can anyone offer advice?

And, please, not that complete rubbish about a 15th century Portuguese
line.

The woman in the painting -- Queen Charlotte Sophia, consort of
George III -- is most definitely the product of one black parent, or at the
very least, one black grandparent.

As you have already been told, you are unlikely to get an answer in this
group since very few of us CARE! This is a list/newsgroup for ordinary
people to discuss their ancestry, not for debating royal genealogy or royal
myths and mysteries. Since no-one here is likely to be descended from
Queen Charlotte, the interest is minimal.

You would be well advised to try other, more specialist groups where you
are likely to find a more receptive audience for your theories. You should
be able to find some royal groups and mailing lists if you go to the main
Rootsweb site (find it with Google).

A good idea Roy, however, this guy doesn't seem to really want help.

Kay

--
All replies to newsgroup thank you

pj.evans

Re: Fw: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"

Legg inn av pj.evans » 25 nov 2007 17:47:02

On Nov 25, 4:29 am, "Seumas MacThómais" <jwt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 24, 11:08 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:


On Nov 24, 10:51 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 11/24/2007 10:45:26 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

t...@clearwire.net writes:

For the sake of full disclosure, the last time I
said something like this about his work, Stuart threatened to sue me
for defamation,

-----------------
You cannot libel garbage by saying it "stinks" :)

But if the piece of garbage does sue you, you still have to pay a lot
of money to mount a defense, even if the case is frivolous - just look
at the idiot judge who drove that poor family-owned dry cleaners into
bankruptcy fighting his claim to over a million dollars in damages for
a lost pair of pants (which they offered to replace from the start).
By making the threat, the refuse is making a cynical calculation that
the critic will self-censor out of self-interest, and his stench will
then stand unchallenged.

taf

Have you ever seen a copy of the original Royalty for Commoners? It
was published by Heritage in Maryland in 1988 and then withdrawn by
them (they sent letters out to those of us who had bought them).
WorldCat shows 26 libraries still have copies, and I kept my copy for
amusement purposes for some time. It is interesting, to say the least.

[snip]

Of course, anything that cites Holy Blood, Holy Grail or the hilarious
works connected with the Belgian formerly known as Prince Michael of
Albany is tainted at the start.

Seumas- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My father had a copy of that first edition, with the letter recalling
it inside. After he died, I made sure it went into the pile of tree
branches to be burned. (The next edition I kept, but only to keep it
out of further circulation - and I may disassemble it and shred the
pages.)
I gave up on it when I found him conflating three women - it's based
on a page in Moriarty, so easy to check - which gave the one left two
marriages _after her death_. It was so obvious an error that I was
surprised it had gotten into print. I'm sure there are other errors in
it; it's so badly done it's hard to tell. I wanted to enter it in a
decent lineage-linked program to check for duplications, but that one-
out-of-three ended it.

Gjest

Re: The Black Queen:online link to portraits of her (via Nat

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 nov 2007 18:02:05

On Nov 25, 4:57 pm, Kay Robinson <Kay_Robin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:31:38 -0000, "Roy Stockdill"
roy.stockd...@btinternet.com> sharpened a new quill and scratched:



From: RICLAND <ricland...@gmail.com

On Nov 19, 4:38 am, <Christine.Ander...@london.ac.uk> wrote:
A search of the National Portrait Gallery website produced seven
pages of portraits of Charlotte Sophia of Mecklenburg-Strelitz and
these can be viewed at:

http://www.npg.org.uk/live/search/perso ... ID=mp00845

Christine

Sure, but the problem is the first one by Allan Ramsay, does not click
to full view. This means the subject's features cannot be inspected
closely. I believe this was purposely done.

Bottom line, at full view there is no other opinion to be reached
other than the subject is a woman with very distinct African features.

I came to this conclusion years ago. The problem, is I've yet figured
out how she could have happened.

Can anyone offer advice?

And, please, not that complete rubbish about a 15th century Portuguese
line.

The woman in the painting -- Queen Charlotte Sophia, consort of
George III -- is most definitely the product of one black parent, or at the
very least, one black grandparent.

As you have already been told, you are unlikely to get an answer in this
group since very few of us CARE! This is a list/newsgroup for ordinary
people to discuss their ancestry, not for debating royal genealogy or royal
myths and mysteries. Since no-one here is likely to be descended from
Queen Charlotte, the interest is minimal.

You would be well advised to try other, more specialist groups where you
are likely to find a more receptive audience for your theories. You should
be able to find some royal groups and mailing lists if you go to the main
Rootsweb site (find it with Google).

A good idea Roy, however, this guy doesn't seem to really want help.

Kay

--
All replies to newsgroup thank you

These crazy threads have been raging on Soc.Genealogy Britain for
days. Why on earth would anyone in their right mind want to cross post
replies to this and another group?

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 25 nov 2007 18:14:12

Renia Discovers The Benefits Of Wikipedia...

Which She Had Previously Excoriated & Condemned...

Hilarious!

Next Thing We Know Pogue Gans Will Be Citing Wikipedia Too.

How Sweet It Is!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fibf29$d8u$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

Bill Arnold wrote:

BA: A very thoughtful post. Thanks a lot. BTW: What was the Uprising in
the
North of 1569?

Thank you.

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

alden@mindspring.com

Re: The Black Queen:online link to portraits of her (via Nat

Legg inn av alden@mindspring.com » 25 nov 2007 18:59:03

Charlotte Sophie von Mecklenburg-Strelitz has a well known ancestry -
see genealogics.org. Her parents, grand parents, and great grand
parents were German.

Doug Smith

Kay Robinson wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 05:23:00 -0800 (PST), RICLAND
riclanders@gmail.com> sharpened a new quill and scratched:

On Nov 19, 4:38 am, <Christine.Ander...@london.ac.uk> wrote:
A search of the National Portrait Gallery website produced seven pages
of portraits of Charlotte Sophia of Mecklenburg-Strelitz and these can
be viewed at:

http://www.npg.org.uk/live/search/perso ... ID=mp00845

Christine


Sure, but the problem is the first one by Allan Ramsay, does not click
to full view. This means the subject's features cannot be inspected
closely. I believe this was purposely done.

Bottom line, at full view there is no other opinion to be reached
other than the subject is a woman with very distinct African features.

I came to this conclusion years ago. The problem, is I've yet figured
out how she could have happened.

Can anyone offer advice?

And, please, not that complete rubbish about a 15th century Portuguese
line.

The woman in the painting -- Queen Charlotte Sophia, consort of George
III -- is most definitely the product of one black parent, or at the
very least, one black grandparent.

ricland

And you base your entire argument on your opinion of a portrait couple
with two contemporary comments about her looks. You need to do some
solid research.

Kay

--
All replies to newsgroup thank you

Gjest

Re: The Black Queen:online link to portraits of her (via Nat

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 nov 2007 19:55:08

On Nov 25, 9:00 am, david11000ca...@yahoo.fr wrote:

These crazy threads have been raging on Soc.Genealogy Britain for
days. Why on earth would anyone in their right mind want to cross post
replies to this and another group?

It appears to have first been suggested by a participant in that
discussion:

: Perhaps we
: should point ricland at soc.gen.med and watch him and DSH go into
: meltdown trying to out-insult each other.

In all seriousness, folks, this ricland bloke is a seriously disturbed
conspiracy nut, and if he gets started here, we will likely br stuck
with him for a long, long time.

Please, *PLEASE* do not encourage this attempt to introduce him into
this group. Do not respond to these threads, even in jest.

taf

David Teague

RE: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"

Legg inn av David Teague » 25 nov 2007 19:55:45

From: WJhonson@aol.com
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 01:23:36 -0500
Subject: Re: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com


In a message dated 11/24/2007 10:21:28 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
WJhonson@aol.com writes:

Would this be the appropriate time to announce my new society for descendents of Ramses ?


===========
Slap forehead, I'm so dumb....

Of course my society will be called the "Sons of Adam"
That would thereby include everyone on the planet as potential members, and
what proof would you need? You wouldn't need any! It can't fail!

Will Johnson


Of course, to give it a really exotic sound, you could use the Hebrew and dub it the "Order of the Benai Adam".

David Teague

_________________________________________________________________
You keep typing, we keep giving. Download Messenger and join the i’m Initiative now.
http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGLM

Robert Peffers

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

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 25 nov 2007 20:49:59

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fial5d$5ne$3@mouse.otenet.gr...
Robert Peffers wrote:

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi8tva$f6f$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

a.spencer3 wrote:

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi7m3q$2t0$3@mouse.otenet.gr...

Robert Peffers wrote:



Don't talk rubbish. If the UK had acted the same as those why really
got
rid of their royals they would have been lucky to have escaped with
their heads still on their bodies.


So Cromwell lost his head, did he?



Actually, I believe he did, posthumously.


Yes he did, after he was dug up as a result of post-Commonwealth
royalist guilt.

But he kept his head and ruled the country having "got rid of the
royals", which was my point.


Trouble was he did not get rid of them.

Well, he did, for 11 years. And then they were invited back.

Exactly. He didn't get rid of them.

Gjest

Re: The Black Queen:online link to portraits of her (via Nat

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 nov 2007 20:53:03

On Nov 25, 7:57 am, Kay Robinson <Kay_Robin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 05:23:00 -0800 (PST), RICLAND
ricland...@gmail.com> sharpened a new quill and scratched:





On Nov 19, 4:38 am, <Christine.Ander...@london.ac.uk> wrote:
A search of the National Portrait Gallery website produced seven pages
of portraits of Charlotte Sophia of Mecklenburg-Strelitz and these can
be viewed at:

http://www.npg.org.uk/live/search/perso ... ID=mp00845

Christine

Sure, but the problem is the first one by Allan Ramsay, does not click
to full view. This means the subject's features cannot be inspected
closely. I believe this was purposely done.

Bottom line, at full view there is no other opinion to be reached
other than the subject is a woman with very distinct African features.

I came to this conclusion years ago. The problem, is I've yet figured
out how she could have happened.

Can anyone offer advice?

And, please, not that complete rubbish about a 15th century Portuguese
line.

The woman in the painting -- Queen Charlotte Sophia, consort of George
III -- is most definitely the product of one black parent, or at the
very least, one black grandparent.

ricland

And you base your entire argument on your opinion of a portrait couple
with two contemporary comments about her looks. You need to do some
solid research.

Kay

--
All replies to newsgroup thank you- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I waddled into this fray late but, since I have some background as an
anthropologist, thought I would throw in my penny's worth. Physical
features are so variable that no particular racial identification is
possible from this assortment of portraits - added to which is the
usual lordly (and lady-ly) desire for an idealized image that may
downplay whatever the current idea of "unattractive" might be. I see
nothing in the portraits that would identify the Queen as anything
other than northern European. Skin color & hair texture are among the
most variable of traits, running the gamut between dark & light,
straight & tightly curled, within the northern European population.
The bone structure of her face is also well within northern European
norms & is not distinctly African. One does not need to go onto
another continent to find such traits. I would assume that, unless
there is actual historical evidence to back it up, there is nothing to
the claim. Her physical appearance does not support it. Best, Bronwen

Gjest

Re: De Vere and Verley, Verlye

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 nov 2007 22:02:03

On Nov 25, 12:07 pm, "Graham Ward" <graham.w...@gmx.net> wrote:
is it just a coincidence that a
family in a parish in the 15th century is called de Vere or might they be
related to a 17th century family variously spelled as Vyrlye, Verlie, Verly
etc. in the same parish.

Yes, it is just a coincidence.

Was this an Anglicisation of the name?

No. English -ley/-ly names almost invariably derive from Anglo-Saxon
place names. -lega (pronounced 'leya') was AS for a field. (Mattingly,
Chudlegh, Knightley, Marley as well as Lee and Leigh all come from
this source) The first part derives from a person's name (Chudlegh -
Chuda's field) or description (Knightley knight's field or field of
knights - perhaps a jousting ground) or from a characteristic of the
field (Marley, where mar is a swamp - marshy field). Perhaps ver- is
from vert = green, hence green field.

taf

Gjest

Re: Fw: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 nov 2007 22:02:29

On Nov 25, 8:09 am, "pj.evans" <pj.evans....@usa.net> wrote:
On Nov 25, 4:29 am, "Seumas MacThómais" <jwt...@yahoo.com> wrote:





On Nov 24, 11:08 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:

On Nov 24, 10:51 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 11/24/2007 10:45:26 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

t...@clearwire.net writes:

For the sake of full disclosure, the last time I
said something like this about his work, Stuart threatened to sue me
for defamation,

-----------------
You cannot libel garbage by saying it "stinks" :)

But if the piece of garbage does sue you, you still have to pay a lot
of money to mount a defense, even if the case is frivolous - just look
at the idiot judge who drove that poor family-owned dry cleaners into
bankruptcy fighting his claim to over a million dollars in damages for
a lost pair of pants (which they offered to replace from the start).
By making the threat, the refuse is making a cynical calculation that
the critic will self-censor out of self-interest, and his stench will
then stand unchallenged.

taf

Have you ever seen a copy of the original Royalty for Commoners? It
was published by Heritage in Maryland in 1988 and then withdrawn by
them (they sent letters out to those of us who had bought them).
WorldCat shows 26 libraries still have copies, and I kept my copy for
amusement purposes for some time. It is interesting, to say the least.

[snip]

Of course, anything that cites Holy Blood, Holy Grail or the hilarious
works connected with the Belgian formerly known as Prince Michael of
Albany is tainted at the start.

Seumas- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My father had a copy of that first edition, with the letter recalling
it inside. After he died, I made sure it went into the pile of tree
branches to be burned. (The next edition I kept, but only to keep it
out of further circulation - and I may disassemble it and shred the
pages.)
I gave up on it when I found him conflating three women - it's based
on a page in Moriarty, so easy to check - which gave the one left two
marriages _after her death_. It was so obvious an error that I was
surprised it had gotten into print. I'm sure there are other errors in
it; it's so badly done it's hard to tell. I wanted to enter it in a
decent lineage-linked program to check for duplications, but that one-
out-of-three ended it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let us please not get into book burning! Even the bad ones are history
of a sort. Future genealogists, sociologists & politicians will
certainly want to see what some people wanted to believe. What if
displeased true believers had burned the records you depend on now?

Bill Arnold

Re: Fw: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 25 nov 2007 22:30:05

lostcooper@yahoo.com wrote:
Let us please not get into book burning! Even the bad ones are history
of a sort. Future genealogists, sociologists & politicians will
certainly want to see what some people wanted to believe. What if
displeased true believers had burned the records you depend on now?

BA: *Fahrenheit 451* is alive and well on gen-medieval?

Bill

*****



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

Ian Goddard

Re: The Black Queen:online link to portraits of her (via Nat

Legg inn av Ian Goddard » 25 nov 2007 23:43:53

lostcooper@yahoo.com wrote:

I waddled into this fray late but, since I have some background as an
anthropologist, thought I would throw in my penny's worth. Physical
features are so variable that no particular racial identification is
possible from this assortment of portraits - added to which is the
usual lordly (and lady-ly) desire for an idealized image that may
downplay whatever the current idea of "unattractive" might be. I see
nothing in the portraits that would identify the Queen as anything
other than northern European. Skin color & hair texture are among the
most variable of traits, running the gamut between dark & light,
straight & tightly curled, within the northern European population.
The bone structure of her face is also well within northern European
norms & is not distinctly African. One does not need to go onto
another continent to find such traits. I would assume that, unless
there is actual historical evidence to back it up, there is nothing to
the claim. Her physical appearance does not support it. Best, Bronwen

Seeing as the picture on which so much weight was placed was clearly a
copy it would have been difficult to rely on it anyway.

And the version painted for and still in the Royal Collection was a
forgery - allegedly!!

--
Ian

Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard
at nildram co uk

Gjest

Re: The Black Queen:online link to portraits of her (via Nat

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 nov 2007 00:15:06

Dear Fellow Listers,
It`s actually rather foolish to assume that
she or anyone else who had their portrait painted in any way resembled said
portrait. A couple of my eighteenth century ancestors, Captain Abiel Lovejoy and
his wife Mary (nee Brown) were painted by John Singleton Copley. They looked
like brother and sister and to the best of my knowledge were not close
relatives (more precisely I know of no common ancestor between them)
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Note: I saw the photographic black and white images of said portraits in a
Lovejoy genealogy by Clarence E Lovejoy.



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

tim sewell

Re: The Black Queen:online link to portraits of her (via Nat

Legg inn av tim sewell » 26 nov 2007 00:21:01

"Ian Goddard" <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote

Seeing as the picture on which so much weight was placed was clearly a
copy .....

And merely a thumbnail of a photograph of it, let us not forget ....... :-)


--
Cheers,
Tim S.
(2nd rank dolt)
(please delete myfairlyobviousspamtrap if you wish to reply directly)

pj.evans

Re: Fw: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"

Legg inn av pj.evans » 26 nov 2007 02:11:02

On Nov 25, 12:02 pm, lostcoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 25, 8:09 am, "pj.evans" <pj.evans....@usa.net> wrote:





On Nov 25, 4:29 am, "Seumas MacThómais" <jwt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Nov 24, 11:08 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:

On Nov 24, 10:51 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 11/24/2007 10:45:26 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

t...@clearwire.net writes:

For the sake of full disclosure, the last time I
said something like this about his work, Stuart threatened to sue me
for defamation,

-----------------
You cannot libel garbage by saying it "stinks" :)

But if the piece of garbage does sue you, you still have to pay a lot
of money to mount a defense, even if the case is frivolous - just look
at the idiot judge who drove that poor family-owned dry cleaners into
bankruptcy fighting his claim to over a million dollars in damages for
a lost pair of pants (which they offered to replace from the start).
By making the threat, the refuse is making a cynical calculation that
the critic will self-censor out of self-interest, and his stench will
then stand unchallenged.

taf

Have you ever seen a copy of the original Royalty for Commoners? It
was published by Heritage in Maryland in 1988 and then withdrawn by
them (they sent letters out to those of us who had bought them).
WorldCat shows 26 libraries still have copies, and I kept my copy for
amusement purposes for some time. It is interesting, to say the least.

[snip]

Of course, anything that cites Holy Blood, Holy Grail or the hilarious
works connected with the Belgian formerly known as Prince Michael of
Albany is tainted at the start.

Seumas- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My father had a copy of that first edition, with the letter recalling
it inside. After he died, I made sure it went into the pile of tree
branches to be burned. (The next edition I kept, but only to keep it
out of further circulation - and I may disassemble it and shred the
pages.)
I gave up on it when I found him conflating three women - it's based
on a page in Moriarty, so easy to check - which gave the one left two
marriages _after her death_. It was so obvious an error that I was
surprised it had gotten into print. I'm sure there are other errors in
it; it's so badly done it's hard to tell. I wanted to enter it in a
decent lineage-linked program to check for duplications, but that one-
out-of-three ended it.- Hide quoted text -

Let us please not get into book burning! Even the bad ones are history
of a sort. Future genealogists, sociologists & politicians will
certainly want to see what some people wanted to believe. What if
displeased true believers had burned the records you depend on now?- Hide quoted text -


You missed the point. This was a book so bad that the publisher
_recalled_ it, as in _returned to the publisher for destruction_.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Fw: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 26 nov 2007 03:54:30

How did the recall letter read"

Can anyone post it?

DSH

"pj.evans" <pj.evans.gen@usa.net> wrote in message
news:f97061c7-9e61-4945-babc-4d30950dc8f0@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

You missed the point. This was a book so bad that the publisher
_recalled_ it, as in _returned to the publisher for destruction_.

Renia

Re: Fw: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"

Legg inn av Renia » 26 nov 2007 03:58:00

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

How did the recall letter read"

Can anyone post it?

I think it was posted years ago. :-)


DSH

"pj.evans" <pj.evans.gen@usa.net> wrote in message
news:f97061c7-9e61-4945-babc-4d30950dc8f0@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

You missed the point. This was a book so bad that the publisher
_recalled_ it, as in _returned to the publisher for destruction_.


Bill Arnold

Re: Fw: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 26 nov 2007 05:17:02

--- "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote:

Perhaps his estate would threaten to sue.

But I think the entire threat by Mr. Stuart against taf was simply designed
to scare him off.

DSH

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:6fb43660-414e-4357-ab15-b268c9c7c59d@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 24, 11:51 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

Stuart can sue me too.

DSH

Mr. Stuart won't be suing anyone. The good Mr. Stuart is deceased.

DR


BA: Dead people cannot be libelled. Especially, public figures. However,
an estate can protect the reputation of a dead person but again, generally,
there has to be perceived damages and the libel has to be malicious. Also:
internet is a special case, because it crosses international boundaries. I have
suggested all along that ad hominems should be addressed, and members
should discuss messages and not the messenger. When dealing with public
figures there is more latitude because the issue of *privacy* cannot be invoked.
Journalists understand where the fine line resides. There is also the fair comment
and right to express opinions of American citizens under US law. I know that
English law is different, as is every country under the sun.

Bill

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/libelling


TheFreeDictionary Google

libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio,
television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her
reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others.
Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral
defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or
political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement
about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which
claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that
the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it
need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however,
does allow a party defamed to sue for "general damages" for damage to reputation, while an
inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called "special
damages." "Libel per se" involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not
require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a
person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages.
Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the
correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly
immune for actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity,
and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known
case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state
government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct.
The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental
person) are special, based on U. S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right
to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute
grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs.
Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or
publish a written defamatory statement. (See: defamation, slander, libel per se, public figure)

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.



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

Gjest

Re: The Black Queen:online link to portraits of her (via Nat

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 nov 2007 05:21:03

On Nov 25, 7:31 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jwc1...@aol.com wrote:
Dear Fellow Listers,
It`s actually rather foolish to assume that
she or anyone else who had their portrait painted in any way resembled said
portrait. A couple of my eighteenth century ancestors, Captain Abiel Lovejoy and
his wife Mary (nee Brown) were painted by John Singleton Copley. They looked
like brother and sister and to the best of my knowledge were not close
relatives (more precisely I know of no common ancestor between them)

BA: it is well-known [ warning: this is an opinion based on reading and human
experience ] that people seek out mates with matching-facial features, more
often than not.

The same has been said of people and their dogs. That they pick their
mates and their dogs based on similar criteria, well, the less
said . . . .

taf

Bill Arnold

Re: The Black Queen:online link to portraits of her (via Nat

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 26 nov 2007 05:22:02

Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:

Dear Fellow Listers,
It`s actually rather foolish to assume that
she or anyone else who had their portrait painted in any way resembled said
portrait. A couple of my eighteenth century ancestors, Captain Abiel Lovejoy and
his wife Mary (nee Brown) were painted by John Singleton Copley. They looked
like brother and sister and to the best of my knowledge were not close
relatives (more precisely I know of no common ancestor between them)

BA: it is well-known [ warning: this is an opinion based on reading and human
experience ] that people seek out mates with matching-facial features, more
often than not.

Bill

*****


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

Gjest

Re: Sir Thomas More's mother

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 nov 2007 06:27:04

It's a bit circular to claim a manuscript is "believe to be in John More's
handwriting" unless we in-fact known what his handwriting looked like.

Believed by whom? Where did they publish their belief and how was it
reviewed and evidenced?

Will Johnson



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

Gjest

Re: The Black Queen:online link to portraits of her (via Nat

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 nov 2007 06:51:03

On Nov 25, 7:55 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
On Nov 25, 7:31 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jwc1...@aol.com wrote:
Dear Fellow Listers,
It`s actually rather foolish to assume that
she or anyone else who had their portrait painted in any way resembled said
portrait. A couple of my eighteenth century ancestors, Captain Abiel Lovejoy and
his wife Mary (nee Brown) were painted by John Singleton Copley. They looked
like brother and sister and to the best of my knowledge were not close
relatives (more precisely I know of no common ancestor between them)

BA: it is well-known [ warning: this is an opinion based on reading and human
experience ] that people seek out mates with matching-facial features, more
often than not.

The same has been said of people and their dogs. That they pick their
mates and their dogs based on similar criteria, well, the less
said . . . .

taf

Oh dear, that could explain the Corgies, couldn't it...

A. Sharp

Re: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"

Legg inn av A. Sharp » 26 nov 2007 10:02:43

Will Johnson:

Would this be the appropriate time to announce my new society for
descendents of Ramses ?

I've been looking for some scheme... I mean *plan* to get rich quick.

Ann:

You'll have to lay out your requirements to qualify for membership.
Must a prospective member be descended from one of the Great Royal Wives, or
a specific one? I don't think you can require that parents be married,
since the concept doesn't quite seem to have existed in Ramses' day ...

Membership certificates on parchment in hieroglyphs -- luckily there are
Windows-based utilities to deal with that. The Society Journal should
properly be published IN hieroglyphs ON a scroll. Dress code: kilts for
men and shifts for women -- you'd probably better schedule the Annual
Meeting in warm weather. Instead of a pin and sash, the officers could wear
differentiated bead collars. The Society's Chaplain General has an
interesting challenge ahead; Amun is always popular.

L.P.H.,

Ann

Leo van de Pas

Re: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 26 nov 2007 10:09:03

----- Original Message -----
From: "A. Sharp" <axsc@sbcglobal.net>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"


Will Johnson:

Would this be the appropriate time to announce my new society for
descendents of Ramses ?

I've been looking for some scheme... I mean *plan* to get rich quick.

Ann:

You'll have to lay out your requirements to qualify for membership.
Must a prospective member be descended from one of the Great Royal Wives,
or a specific one? I don't think you can require that parents be married,
since the concept doesn't quite seem to have existed in Ramses' day ...

Membership certificates on parchment in hieroglyphs -- luckily there
are Windows-based utilities to deal with that. The Society Journal should
properly be published IN hieroglyphs ON a scroll. Dress code: kilts for
men and shifts for women -- you'd probably better schedule the Annual
Meeting in warm weather. Instead of a pin and sash, the officers could
wear differentiated bead collars. The Society's Chaplain General has an
interesting challenge ahead; Amun is always popular.

L.P.H.,

Ann
...........For the Society also suggested by Will "The Sons and daughters of

Adam" (we can't do without the daughters), attire for men a figleave, but
nothing for women, except long hair. :-)
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia

D. Spencer Hines

Re: "Order Of The Merovingian Dynasty"

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 26 nov 2007 10:34:35

Nonsense...

The women are entitled to wear a feather boa constrictor and apple
blossoms...

And snake-skin boots of course.

DSH

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.507.1196068204.28474.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

..........For the Society also suggested by Will "The Sons and daughters
of Adam" (we can't do without the daughters), attire for men a figleave
[sic], but nothing for women, except long hair. :-)
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia

Renia

Re: Sir Thomas More's mother

Legg inn av Renia » 26 nov 2007 12:49:36

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
It's a bit circular to claim a manuscript is "believe to be in John More's
handwriting" unless we in-fact known what his handwriting looked like.

Believed by whom? Where did they publish their belief and how was it
reviewed and evidenced?

There is often not room on newsgroup posts to wade into long arguments
and evidence to pre-empt and answer such a question.

Historians may have examined documents signed by John More; property
deeds, wills, other writings.

However, the previous poster would have done well to qualify his statement.

Bill Arnold

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 26 nov 2007 13:20:04

Renia: First, I hate the phrase "trust me on this".

BA: The *Golden Rule* between journalists, who man/woman the same
flagship IS: "Trust me on this." If a journalist is found to be a fraud once,
s/he is done. Witness a reporter in America at a major City Daily, I won't
name where, who won a Pulitzer which was withdrawn once the reporter
was shown to have fabricated stories for which that Pulitzer had been
awarded. Usually, two sources are needed for most stories. When a
reporter has weight the "Trust me on this" is enough. Hate it, but love
it from me :)

Bill
Re: Dickinson, not Dickens

http://www.emilydickinson.org/edis/scho ... holars.htm

*****




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

Bill Arnold

Re: The Black Queen:online link to portraits of her (via Nat

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 26 nov 2007 13:25:05

--- lostcooper@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 25, 7:55 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
On Nov 25, 7:31 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jwc1...@aol.com wrote:
Dear Fellow Listers,
It`s actually rather foolish to assume that
she or anyone else who had their portrait painted in any way resembled said
portrait. A couple of my eighteenth century ancestors, Captain Abiel Lovejoy and
his wife Mary (nee Brown) were painted by John Singleton Copley. They looked
like brother and sister and to the best of my knowledge were not close
relatives (more precisely I know of no common ancestor between them)

BA: it is well-known [ warning: this is an opinion based on reading and human
experience ] that people seek out mates with matching-facial features, more
often than not.

The same has been said of people and their dogs. That they pick their
mates and their dogs based on similar criteria, well, the less
said . . . .

taf

Oh dear, that could explain the Corgies, couldn't it...


BA: I hope you don't live in England! If you have ever wondered what the *inside*
of the Tower of London looks like, you might get your chance :0

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: Types of Inherited Colon Cancer

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 26 nov 2007 13:30:04

--- "dgpvgjqajtun@yahoo.com" <dgpvgjqajtun@yahoo.com> wrote:

Colon cancer is becoming more common. There will be around 125,000 new
cases diagnosed in America this year. Many of these cases are in
people more than 50 years old and are random. A small percentage,
approximately 10%, however are not random, they have an inherited form
of colon cancer. This could be caused by four different hereditary
conditions, hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer, familial
adenomatous polyposis, juvenile polyposis (this may also be
nonhereditary) and Peutz-Jegher's syndrome.
Colon cancer is caused by damage to the genes in your colon cells.
These damages can cause the cells to grow unrestricted. This
unrestricted growth becomes a polyp, which will become cancerous if
it's not removed. Usually it takes a long time for polyps to develop
and even longer to become cancerous. That's why colon cancer is rare
in people less than 50 years old. The cases in people less than 50 are
frequently caused by an inherited condition.
Inherited colon cancers are difficult to accurately diagnose. It is
first considered when a person has a strong family history of colon
cancer and the affected family members are from separate generations.
For example - a man has two uncles and a cousin that have been
diagnosed, this would be a strong family history. With a bit of
research into that patient's family tree, many more cases of colon
cancer may be found and documented....

http://groups.google.com/group/familytreesyvs


BA: Or you could *read* and *obey* the wisdom inherent in the book
*Food Combining* by Jeffrey Mannix and avoid it altogether. The book
was published in 1987 and is still the *Bible* of dietary intake, and for
naifs: the concept originated in England in the 19thC.

Bill

*****


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

Renia

Re: The Black Queen:online link to portraits of her (via Nat

Legg inn av Renia » 26 nov 2007 14:25:05

Bill Arnold wrote:


The same has been said of people and their dogs. That they pick their
mates and their dogs based on similar criteria, well, the less
said . . . .

taf

Oh dear, that could explain the Corgies, couldn't it...



BA: I hope you don't live in England! If you have ever wondered what the *inside*
of the Tower of London looks like, you might get your chance :0

I've been there. You have to pay to get in, not out, these days.

Renia

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Renia » 26 nov 2007 14:28:09

Bill Arnold wrote:

Renia: First, I hate the phrase "trust me on this".

BA: The *Golden Rule* between journalists, who man/woman the same
flagship IS: "Trust me on this." If a journalist is found to be a fraud once,
s/he is done. Witness a reporter in America at a major City Daily, I won't
name where, who won a Pulitzer which was withdrawn once the reporter
was shown to have fabricated stories for which that Pulitzer had been
awarded. Usually, two sources are needed for most stories. When a
reporter has weight the "Trust me on this" is enough. Hate it, but love
it from me :)

No way. It sucks. Never trust ANYONE who says "Trust me on this." They
are always lying or hiding something.


Indeed, I realise that now.

Duvall, Jeffery A

RE: CHARLEMAGNE ORDER: WAS "Order of the Merovingian Dynast

Legg inn av Duvall, Jeffery A » 26 nov 2007 16:13:53

Yes, that's the same Thomas Keene who was used by one of the members of the "Order of the Merovingian Dynsasty." My understanding has been that there is no clear evidence that the Thomas Keene named as a grandson by Robert Gosnold in his 1615 will is the same Thomas Keene who settled in Virginia.

Jeff Duvall
________________________________________
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com [gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Bill Arnold [billarnoldfla@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 9:54 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: CHARLEMAGNE ORDER: WAS "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"

--- "Jeffery A. Duvall" <jeffery@iquest.net> wrote:

In addition to Walter Aston, I just noticed that Thomas Keene of Virginia has also been used as
a gateway to Charlemagne, etc. While I'd be delighted to find out that such a descent has been
proven, I have my doubts that such is the case...

Does anyone know differently?


BA: Did you mean here? This Thomas Keene?

http://www.charlemagne.org/ui43.htm

Bill

*****


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

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

William Black

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

Legg inn av William Black » 26 nov 2007 16:45:06

<NicholasIII@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:121f4f0c-83da-4030-94ad-15f71e9539f3@g21g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 24, 2:50 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:
Nicholas...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:9f3ad395-5565-42ae-8973-a6ad0fc14c85@j44g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...

The
army was the personal body guard of the ruler.

When and where?

In the Middle Ages.

No it wasn't.

There was no personal bodyguard for the English kings (Unless you count the
Anglo-Saxon Huscarls) until Henry VII.

That's changed now, but it's the reason the oldest
regiment in the British Army was raised during the English Civil War.

It wasn't. Both the Buffs and the HAC are older.

And that every British soldier swears loyalty to the Queen, not the
kingdom or the Government.

Nope.

They swear loyalty the 'The Queen and their lawful sucessors'.

The lawful sucessor is decided by parliament.

Also the 'Army Act' that raises the funds to pay for the armed forces has to
be passed every year.

Parlimant is supreme in the matter of the armed forces.


Unless there's been a specific act repealing that status, legally the
Crown Estate belongs to the Queen. Period. End of story. Do not pass
go, do not collect $200.

The Crown Estates Office is an arm of the Home Civil Service coming under
the control of a Cabinet Minister called The Chancellor of the Duchy of
Lancaster.

In other words the stuff may belong to her but she doesn't get to run
them,
have any say in the management of them or appoint any of the staff who
work
on them.

She trades those rights to the government for Civil List payments.
AKA: the Queen rents the Crown Estate to the Government.

No.

The Crown Estate is the property of the nation.

The nation chooses to give the Queen and some of her family some money.

No rental takes place.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Bill Arnold

Re: The Black Queen:online link to portraits of her (via Nat

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 26 nov 2007 17:02:03

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

Bill Arnold wrote:



The same has been said of people and their dogs. That they pick their
mates and their dogs based on similar criteria, well, the less
said . . . .

taf

Oh dear, that could explain the Corgies, couldn't it...



BA: I hope you don't live in England! If you have ever wondered what the *inside*
of the Tower of London looks like, you might get your chance :0

I've been there. You have to pay to get in, not out, these days.


BA: figures. Who gets the pounds sterling? Any ghosts?

Bill

*****


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

Bill Arnold

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 26 nov 2007 17:04:03

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

Bill Arnold wrote:

Renia: First, I hate the phrase "trust me on this".

BA: The *Golden Rule* between journalists, who man/woman the same
flagship IS: "Trust me on this." If a journalist is found to be a fraud once,
s/he is done. Witness a reporter in America at a major City Daily, I won't
name where, who won a Pulitzer which was withdrawn once the reporter
was shown to have fabricated stories for which that Pulitzer had been
awarded. Usually, two sources are needed for most stories. When a
reporter has weight the "Trust me on this" is enough. Hate it, but love
it from me :)

No way. It sucks. Never trust ANYONE who says "Trust me on this." They
are always lying or hiding something.

Bill
Re: Dickinson, not Dickens

http://www.emilydickinson.org/edis/scho ... holars.htm

Indeed, I realise that now.


BA: Moi? Lie to my Ice Princess?

Bill

*****


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

Renia

Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan

Legg inn av Renia » 26 nov 2007 18:07:42

Bill Arnold wrote:


Leo, I
say to you: THIS forum is where you will find scholars giving and taking about
genealogy of the medieval period.


Leo's been here about 10 years or more. I think he knows that. Have you
seen his web site? It's based on what was the largest private
genealogical database in the world before the advent of the internet.

http://www.genealogics.org/index.php

Ian Goddard

Re: The Black Queen:online link to portraits of her (via Nat

Legg inn av Ian Goddard » 26 nov 2007 18:09:44

Renia wrote:
Bill Arnold wrote:



The same has been said of people and their dogs. That they pick their
mates and their dogs based on similar criteria, well, the less
said . . . .

taf

Oh dear, that could explain the Corgies, couldn't it...



BA: I hope you don't live in England! If you have ever wondered what
the *inside*
of the Tower of London looks like, you might get your chance :0

I've been there. You have to pay to get in, not out, these days.

Back in the 1960s someone noticed that the guard-hut door opened
outwards so if you tied a piece of rope round the hut the warders
couldn't get out. The Tower was taken over as a rag-day stunt.

--
Ian

Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard
at nildram co uk

simon fairthorne

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av simon fairthorne » 26 nov 2007 18:56:38

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:28:09 +0200 , Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Renia: First, I hate the phrase "trust me on this".


No way. It sucks. Never trust ANYONE who says "Trust me on this." They
are always lying or hiding something.

The Rev A R P Blair, ex Vicar of St Albions, often used this phrase

nuff said

cheers

Simon

Renia

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Renia » 26 nov 2007 19:13:37

simon fairthorne wrote:

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:28:09 +0200 , Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:


Renia: First, I hate the phrase "trust me on this".


No way. It sucks. Never trust ANYONE who says "Trust me on this." They
are always lying or hiding something.


The Rev A R P Blair, ex Vicar of St Albions, often used this phrase

nuff said

Any relation to our own, beloved Anthony Blair - Tone to you and me?

simon fairthorne

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av simon fairthorne » 26 nov 2007 19:35:49

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:13:37 +0200 , Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
simon fairthorne wrote:
No way. It sucks. Never trust ANYONE who says "Trust me on this." They
are always lying or hiding something.


The Rev A R P Blair, ex Vicar of St Albions, often used this phrase

nuff said

Any relation to our own, beloved Anthony Blair - Tone to you and me?


one and the same (though remove the word "beloved" )

his parish newsletter appeared each fortnight in Private Eye, continuing a long tradition which started with Mrs Wilson's Diary and included the Dear Bill letters

cheers

Simon

Bill Arnold

Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 26 nov 2007 21:05:08

BA: Leo, I say to you: THIS forum is where you will find scholars giving and taking about
genealogy of the medieval period.

Renia: Leo's been here about 10 years or more. I think he knows that. Have you
seen his web site? It's based on what was the largest private
genealogical database in the world before the advent of the internet.

http://www.genealogics.org/index.php

BA: Yes, I have been there. I am surprised this post is still bouncing around these
various lists. I also mentioned in my original, that I had respect for Will and Leo's
websites, but that they should show some respect to scholars who's reputations
precede them. I did not mean they could not *critique* messages. But they should
be able to stay on focus and not launch into ad hominems. In other words: Leo and
Douglas and Will ought to be able to get along. I have looked at past posts, and I
know how a lot of the history between the various members already. At any rate:
if my message of *moderation* of attacks on the members is not heard, it is not
heard.

Bill

*****



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

Renia

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Renia » 26 nov 2007 21:13:29

simon fairthorne wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:13:37 +0200 , Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

simon fairthorne wrote:

No way. It sucks. Never trust ANYONE who says "Trust me on this." They
are always lying or hiding something.


The Rev A R P Blair, ex Vicar of St Albions, often used this phrase

nuff said

Any relation to our own, beloved Anthony Blair - Tone to you and me?



one and the same (though remove the word "beloved" )

his parish newsletter appeared each fortnight in Private Eye, continuing a long tradition which started with Mrs Wilson's Diary and included the Dear Bill letters

cheers


I thought it sounded a bit Hislopian. I'm denied Private Eye over here,
not that I've been a regular reader. More my son's cuppa.

Renia

Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan

Legg inn av Renia » 26 nov 2007 21:14:37

Bill Arnold wrote:

BA: Leo, I say to you: THIS forum is where you will find scholars giving and taking about
genealogy of the medieval period.

Renia: Leo's been here about 10 years or more. I think he knows that. Have you
seen his web site? It's based on what was the largest private
genealogical database in the world before the advent of the internet.

http://www.genealogics.org/index.php

BA: Yes, I have been there. I am surprised this post is still bouncing around these
various lists.


Oh? It only arrived on my newsreader today.

Bill Arnold

Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 26 nov 2007 22:23:05

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

Bill Arnold wrote:

BA: Leo, I say to you: THIS forum is where you will find scholars giving and taking about
genealogy of the medieval period.

Renia: Leo's been here about 10 years or more. I think he knows that. Have you
seen his web site? It's based on what was the largest private
genealogical database in the world before the advent of the internet.

http://www.genealogics.org/index.php

BA: Yes, I have been there. I am surprised this post is still bouncing around these
various lists.


Oh? It only arrived on my newsreader today.


BA: I raised this point way back when Nat Taylor first posted a reply to me in Sep, 07.
A number of posts responded with my now understanding that even though I, Bill
Arnold, send only to gen-medieval, it is simultaneously posted at google, whatever.

Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan by Bill Arnold (Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:42:42 -0800 (PST))
Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan by Douglas Richardson (Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:57:20 -0800 (PST))
Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan by Bill Arnold (Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:13:07 -0800 (PST))
Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan by Douglas Richardson (Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:19:26 -0800 (PST))
Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan by Leo van de Pas (Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:22:10 +1100)
Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan by Bill Arnold (Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:25:34 -0800 (PST))
Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan by Bill Arnold (Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:37:45 -0800 (PST))
Fw: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan by Leo van de Pas (Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:38:24 +1100)
Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan by Bill Arnold (Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:47:48 -0800 (PST))
Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan by Renia (Fri, 16 Nov 2007 02:48:06 +0200)
Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan by Bill Arnold (Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:53:09 -0800 (PST))
Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan by Bill Arnold (Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:06:04 -0800 (PST))
Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan by taf (Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:12:08 -0800 (PST))
Re: Fw: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan by wjhonson (Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:28:10 -0800 (PST))
Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan by D. Spencer Hines (Fri, 16 Nov 2007 03:29:37 -0000)
Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan by Renia (Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:07:42 +0200)
Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan by Bill Arnold (Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:02:16 -0800 (PST))
Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan by Renia (Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:14:37 +0200)
Re: Terrible British Food by Cory Bhreckan (Thu, 15 Nov 2007 23:56:32 GMT)
Re: Maud Fitzalan by Douglas Richardson (Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:16:46 -0800 (PST))
Re: Maud Fitzalan by Renia (Fri, 16 Nov 2007 02:26:20 +0200)
Re: DECORUM: WAS Maud Fitzalan by Douglas Richardson (Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:28:47 -0800 (PST))


BA: Renia, as you can *see* this thread has been around according to the archives since 15 Nov.
Somewhere in there I had an exchange with Leo and I would not want him to think I was bringing
this up again. God knows, I do not know how some of these messages arrive ten days late, but
in my in-box I find messages totally out of order, some of the originals arrived a week after the
resolution.

Bill

*****


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

Gjest

Re: Sir Thomas More's mother

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 nov 2007 23:43:02

Hi Will, Renia,

You're quite right. I meant to qualify the statement with the "as I
remember". I *think* I read a piece in Notes & Queries explaining why
the manuscript is attributed to John More. However, I have mislaid my
copy of the article and am (very) far from certain about this. So I am
contacting Trinity College to try to establish exactly what is known
about the MS. I will post back if and as I learn more. For the time
being, I can cite no good evidence on the question.

Mark

On Nov 26, 11:49 am, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
It's a bit circular to claim a manuscript is "believe to be in John More's
handwriting" unless we in-fact known what his handwriting looked like.

Believed by whom? Where did they publish their belief and how was it
reviewed and evidenced?

There is often not room on newsgroup posts to wade into long arguments
and evidence to pre-empt and answer such a question.

Historians may have examined documents signed by John More; property
deeds, wills, other writings.

However, the previous poster would have done well to qualify his statement.

Bill Arnold

Re: IGI SEARCH: WAS Tiplady

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 27 nov 2007 02:30:11

Ian Goddard: An approach I like to use is to search IGI for hits for the early days
of the parish registers (yes, I know it's an erratic source but can you
find me something better?). Some years ago you could actually put an
asterisk in the Christian name box and a date range. Now you can leave
the Christian name box blank but can't put in a date and have to inspect
the full yield by mark one eyeball... There were southern clusters in Dunstable
and Castor in Northants. In the north all the hits are on the right sight of
Pennines...It would be an interesting exercise for the OP to plot the
spread half century by half century to get some idea when a family moved
Holderness.

BA: All right, I'll bite...what is IGI and how do you search it? Is it online?

Bill

*****




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

Renia

Re: IGI SEARCH: WAS Tiplady

Legg inn av Renia » 27 nov 2007 02:40:27

Bill Arnold wrote:

Ian Goddard: An approach I like to use is to search IGI for hits for the early days
of the parish registers (yes, I know it's an erratic source but can you
find me something better?). Some years ago you could actually put an
asterisk in the Christian name box and a date range. Now you can leave
the Christian name box blank but can't put in a date and have to inspect
the full yield by mark one eyeball... There were southern clusters in Dunstable
and Castor in Northants. In the north all the hits are on the right sight of
Pennines...It would be an interesting exercise for the OP to plot the
spread half century by half century to get some idea when a family moved
Holderness.

BA: All right, I'll bite...what is IGI and how do you search it? Is it online?

http://www.familysearch.org/

It's a huge database run by the Mormons (Church of Latter Day Saints).
If you click on "search", it will take you to a page where you can
choose what to search, for example, the IGI "International Genealogical
Index". You have to be careful how to use it.

Let's say we are looking for Robert Peck in Suffolk. It gives us more
than 200 possible answers with a variety of related or variant
spellings. Sometimes these variants are closely related, at other times,
they are completely different surnames. (To reduce the numbers, fill in
the dates.)

When you see someone born, baptised or married "about", on that page,
then you know automatically, the entry has been made by an Latter Day
Saints (LDS) member who doesn't know when the event happened. These
sorts of entries can be highly unreliable.

When you see a specific date, you are possibly on safer ground, but only
if the "message" section for the person concerned, contains this notice:

Extracted birth or christening record for the locality listed in the
record.

Click on the Source Call Number, and you can see what the source or
record is. If it is from a Parish Register (PR) or Bishop's Transcript
(BT), you are on safer ground. Usually, these Parish Registers are ones
already printed and available in libraries from which the IGI has
extracted the data.

Bill Arnold

Re: ORDER OF CHARLEMAGNE

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 27 nov 2007 05:15:05

Hi, Gen-Medievalers.

The following website, which has been labeled suspect in its simplicity,
without footnotes, offers us the descent of Charlemagne, for gateway
to American ancestors:

http://www.charlemagne.org/ui60.htm

If, it is not to be trusted, what is a better source for the descent of
Charlemagne, worldwide?

Bill

*****




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

Bill Arnold

Re: IGI SEARCH: WAS Tiplady

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 27 nov 2007 05:16:02

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

Bill Arnold wrote:

Ian Goddard: An approach I like to use is to search IGI for hits for the early days
of the parish registers (yes, I know it's an erratic source but can you
find me something better?). Some years ago you could actually put an
asterisk in the Christian name box and a date range. Now you can leave
the Christian name box blank but can't put in a date and have to inspect
the full yield by mark one eyeball... There were southern clusters in Dunstable
and Castor in Northants. In the north all the hits are on the right sight of
Pennines...It would be an interesting exercise for the OP to plot the
spread half century by half century to get some idea when a family moved
Holderness.

BA: All right, I'll bite...what is IGI and how do you search it? Is it online?

http://www.familysearch.org/

It's a huge database run by the Mormons (Church of Latter Day Saints).
If you click on "search", it will take you to a page where you can
choose what to search, for example, the IGI "International Genealogical
Index". You have to be careful how to use it.

Let's say we are looking for Robert Peck in Suffolk. It gives us more
than 200 possible answers with a variety of related or variant
spellings. Sometimes these variants are closely related, at other times,
they are completely different surnames. (To reduce the numbers, fill in
the dates.)

When you see someone born, baptised or married "about", on that page,
then you know automatically, the entry has been made by an Latter Day
Saints (LDS) member who doesn't know when the event happened. These
sorts of entries can be highly unreliable.

When you see a specific date, you are possibly on safer ground, but only
if the "message" section for the person concerned, contains this notice:

Extracted birth or christening record for the locality listed in the
record.

Click on the Source Call Number, and you can see what the source or
record is. If it is from a Parish Register (PR) or Bishop's Transcript
(BT), you are on safer ground. Usually, these Parish Registers are ones
already printed and available in libraries from which the IGI has
extracted the data.


BA: Thank you for taking the time to write such a thoughtful response.
I will save it in my files. You are a gentlewoman and a scholar, par excellence!

Bill

*****




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

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»