Blount-Ayala
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Bill Arnold
Re: MIGRATION PATTERNS FROM DNA
DSH: Yes, that may well be what he means.
And I may be 1/32nd -- Cherokee.
And proud of it.
BA: But of course, everybody in the south who traces their personal
ancestry back to Colonial Days has a great-great-great-grandmother
who was captured by white traders and she was a full-blood Cherokee,
and this you can *see* because the testator of this unproven information
has high cheekbones. OK: O Insipid One, as you so often rant: PROVE IT!
SOURCES! BIRTH RECORDS, DEATH RECORDS, MARRIAGE RECORDS!!!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
And I may be 1/32nd -- Cherokee.
And proud of it.
BA: But of course, everybody in the south who traces their personal
ancestry back to Colonial Days has a great-great-great-grandmother
who was captured by white traders and she was a full-blood Cherokee,
and this you can *see* because the testator of this unproven information
has high cheekbones. OK: O Insipid One, as you so often rant: PROVE IT!
SOURCES! BIRTH RECORDS, DEATH RECORDS, MARRIAGE RECORDS!!!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: ORDER OF CHARLEMAGNE
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fikkbp$s7c$1@mouse.otenet.gr...
No Surprises There...
As we've seen on many occasions, Renia is just not all that proficient in
the English language.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
news:fikkbp$s7c$1@mouse.otenet.gr...
We are historical researchers, not writers. Writing is not our foremost
priority.
No Surprises There...
As we've seen on many occasions, Renia is just not all that proficient in
the English language.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: ORDER OF CHARLEMAGNE
<G>
That's because Renia Simmonds, our Brit expatriatrix in Athens, is clearly
an exhibitionist....
As well as more than a bit slutty.
Renia vociferously insists she's just "flirty"...
Hilarious!
DSH
"wjhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:335533ae-6bf4-4ce8-bc95-38edd10c4310@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
That's because Renia Simmonds, our Brit expatriatrix in Athens, is clearly
an exhibitionist....
As well as more than a bit slutty.
Renia vociferously insists she's just "flirty"...
Hilarious!
DSH
"wjhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:335533ae-6bf4-4ce8-bc95-38edd10c4310@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 28, 12:45 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
BA: No wonder you were called a *Hot Head*! But, I can see beneath it
all, of this writer's group, Douglas Richardson is *The Lion* and you are
*The
Ice Princess.*
Bill
Renia is both a hot head and an Ice Princess. Renia has the
remarkable ability to manifest every emotion known to mankind and
others ! And all at the same time!
I believe a mini-series on her remarkable abilities will soon appear.
Will "I was serious one time" Johnson
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: ORDER OF CHARLEMAGNE
taf has serious problems with Basic English too.
DSH
<taf@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:4c52710b-d6f9-45b6-bebb-d5a11c687c77@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
DSH
<taf@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:4c52710b-d6f9-45b6-bebb-d5a11c687c77@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Thereby making anyone with vocal chords and [sic] orator.
taf
-
Bill Arnold
Re: The Lion Of SGM
Renia: No, he wouldn't. He'd just change is ISP again. He's been around for a
decade or so and we've tried everything to get rid of him or shut him
up. We've been friendly to him, humoured him, ridiculed him, ignored
him. He's still here. And loving it.
BA: Well, The Ice Princess has got it *exactly* right. She is so cool, so
electric, so chilling in her accuracy. Note: folks, DSH does not reply directly
to posts as often as he, the teeny-tiny deconstructionist, finds one thing
to critique in a post, written by a person he wishes to deconstruct, that is
to say: destroy without mercy. Then he does his scissor and cut, paste
routine, and lastly: his incessant snippets of words, repetitive to the Nth
degree. He never writes coherent posts about genealogy. He deconstructs
others. And it is as a lone wolf on the edge of the pack, after the head wolf
takes down a prey. Then comes in our DSH with his snippets and bites off
a chunk to chew, and spit back. It is a predatory behaviour consistent with
wild wolves on the prowl. I believe The Ice Princess labeled him a troll.
Look, folks, there is even a page at wikipedia for the likes of him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
decade or so and we've tried everything to get rid of him or shut him
up. We've been friendly to him, humoured him, ridiculed him, ignored
him. He's still here. And loving it.
BA: Well, The Ice Princess has got it *exactly* right. She is so cool, so
electric, so chilling in her accuracy. Note: folks, DSH does not reply directly
to posts as often as he, the teeny-tiny deconstructionist, finds one thing
to critique in a post, written by a person he wishes to deconstruct, that is
to say: destroy without mercy. Then he does his scissor and cut, paste
routine, and lastly: his incessant snippets of words, repetitive to the Nth
degree. He never writes coherent posts about genealogy. He deconstructs
others. And it is as a lone wolf on the edge of the pack, after the head wolf
takes down a prey. Then comes in our DSH with his snippets and bites off
a chunk to chew, and spit back. It is a predatory behaviour consistent with
wild wolves on the prowl. I believe The Ice Princess labeled him a troll.
Look, folks, there is even a page at wikipedia for the likes of him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
-
Bill Arnold
Re: MIGRATION PATTERNS FROM DNA
Hi, Gen-medievalers :0
If there is one thing a *troll* hates it is to be proved a hypocrite!
The only time The Insipid One posts something about genealogy
is when he is trying to curry favor. Note: The Insipid One has *not*
responded to this post of his and my response to him. Why? I know
why: because he is a hypocrite, a troll with no identity. This post
below is the only time I have ever read where our resident troll
attempts to create an online identity. So: he needs to be baited
with a carcass he cannot eat. You must understand, folks, that
a troll cannot assume a real identity because then s/he will be
vulnerable. Have you never wondered why a troll remains anonymous?
Because they cannot be hurt, whereas they can kill real posters from
their anonymity. Go ahead, O Insipid One, spit out the truth and
certainty of your past, identify yourself to experts at *IDENTITY*:
genealogists!
DSH: Yes, that may well be what he means.
And I may be 1/32nd -- Cherokee.
And proud of it.
BA: But of course, everybody in the south who traces their personal
ancestry back to Colonial Days has a great-great-great-grandmother
who was captured by white traders and she was a full-blood Cherokee,
and this you can *see* because the testator of this unproven information
has high cheekbones. OK: O Insipid One, as you so often rant: PROVE IT!
SOURCES! BIRTH RECORDS, DEATH RECORDS, MARRIAGE RECORDS!!!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
If there is one thing a *troll* hates it is to be proved a hypocrite!
The only time The Insipid One posts something about genealogy
is when he is trying to curry favor. Note: The Insipid One has *not*
responded to this post of his and my response to him. Why? I know
why: because he is a hypocrite, a troll with no identity. This post
below is the only time I have ever read where our resident troll
attempts to create an online identity. So: he needs to be baited
with a carcass he cannot eat. You must understand, folks, that
a troll cannot assume a real identity because then s/he will be
vulnerable. Have you never wondered why a troll remains anonymous?
Because they cannot be hurt, whereas they can kill real posters from
their anonymity. Go ahead, O Insipid One, spit out the truth and
certainty of your past, identify yourself to experts at *IDENTITY*:
genealogists!
DSH: Yes, that may well be what he means.
And I may be 1/32nd -- Cherokee.
And proud of it.
BA: But of course, everybody in the south who traces their personal
ancestry back to Colonial Days has a great-great-great-grandmother
who was captured by white traders and she was a full-blood Cherokee,
and this you can *see* because the testator of this unproven information
has high cheekbones. OK: O Insipid One, as you so often rant: PROVE IT!
SOURCES! BIRTH RECORDS, DEATH RECORDS, MARRIAGE RECORDS!!!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
-
Bill Arnold
Re: MIGRATION PATTERNS FROM DNA
DSH: Yes, that may well be what he means.
And I may be 1/32nd -- Cherokee.
And proud of it.
BA: But of course, everybody in the south who traces their personal
ancestry back to Colonial Days has a great-great-great-grandmother
who was captured by white traders and she was a full-blood Cherokee,
and this you can *see* because the testator of this unproven information
has high cheekbones. OK: O Insipid One, as you so often rant: PROVE IT!
SOURCES! BIRTH RECORDS, DEATH RECORDS, MARRIAGE RECORDS!!!
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
And I may be 1/32nd -- Cherokee.
And proud of it.
BA: But of course, everybody in the south who traces their personal
ancestry back to Colonial Days has a great-great-great-grandmother
who was captured by white traders and she was a full-blood Cherokee,
and this you can *see* because the testator of this unproven information
has high cheekbones. OK: O Insipid One, as you so often rant: PROVE IT!
SOURCES! BIRTH RECORDS, DEATH RECORDS, MARRIAGE RECORDS!!!
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
-
Leticia Cluff
Re: ORDER OF CHARLEMAGNE
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:49:21 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
<panther@excelsior.com> wrote:
We note with amusement that DSH, the self-appointed but woefully
inadequate proofreader, pounces on Todd for making a trivial error,
typing "and" instead of "an," while failing to flag a much more
serious mistake in the same sentence, the common but nevertheless
incorrect spelling of "vocal cords."
Par for the course for the Master of Superficiality, I suppose.
Tish
<panther@excelsior.com> wrote:
taf has serious problems with Basic English too.
DSH
taf@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:4c52710b-d6f9-45b6-bebb-d5a11c687c77@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Thereby making anyone with vocal chords and [sic] orator.
We note with amusement that DSH, the self-appointed but woefully
inadequate proofreader, pounces on Todd for making a trivial error,
typing "and" instead of "an," while failing to flag a much more
serious mistake in the same sentence, the common but nevertheless
incorrect spelling of "vocal cords."
Par for the course for the Master of Superficiality, I suppose.
Tish
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Gramma's AT
TAF: Perhaps you didn't notice - none of the individuals named and numbered
are actually Medieval. That is likely to negatively impact the degree
of participation of people who have collected here due to a shared
interest in medieval genealogy.
JB: True ... and it's going to go all the way up to number 2000 (ie., a
loooong way yet to go). So perhaps it's best if people only comment
in private emails sent to me. (But it is *genealogy*, Toddy, not just endless
pointless bitching at someone who will never catch on [BA] ...)
BA: TAf has it right, JB. And I caught on to you in our first exchanges
re: Nat Taylor. So, on advice of counsel, this is my last post to you. I
tried to give credibility to your NE "Gramma's AT" by asking for documentation,
sources, et al., but you blew me away, even telling me to "bugger off."
Aren't you a polite ole codger? Trust me on this, JB. I caught on to you
a long time ago, and you have not changed. BTW: feel free to complete
your 2,000,000 unsubstantiated names, dates and places and ignore a
response to me. If you want the last word, by all means: make a fool
of yourself. I shall ignore DSH and JB, incessantly: C'est la vie!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
are actually Medieval. That is likely to negatively impact the degree
of participation of people who have collected here due to a shared
interest in medieval genealogy.
JB: True ... and it's going to go all the way up to number 2000 (ie., a
loooong way yet to go). So perhaps it's best if people only comment
in private emails sent to me. (But it is *genealogy*, Toddy, not just endless
pointless bitching at someone who will never catch on [BA] ...)
BA: TAf has it right, JB. And I caught on to you in our first exchanges
re: Nat Taylor. So, on advice of counsel, this is my last post to you. I
tried to give credibility to your NE "Gramma's AT" by asking for documentation,
sources, et al., but you blew me away, even telling me to "bugger off."
Aren't you a polite ole codger? Trust me on this, JB. I caught on to you
a long time ago, and you have not changed. BTW: feel free to complete
your 2,000,000 unsubstantiated names, dates and places and ignore a
response to me. If you want the last word, by all means: make a fool
of yourself. I shall ignore DSH and JB, incessantly: C'est la vie!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
John Brandon
Re: Gramma's AT
BA: TAF has it right, JB. And I caught on to you in our first exchanges
re: Nat Taylor. So, on advice of counsel, this is my last post to you. I
I am delighted to hear this, and hope you will stick to it. And just
for the record ... if you really are 70 years old, and not just a PFK
("pimply-faced kid," as the always-amusing DSH has speculated), then
I'm over thirty years younger than you.
-
Gjest
Re: Pedigree of Sir John de la Lee, Steward of the household
In a message dated 11/29/2007 1:25:20 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
WatsonJohnM@gmail.com writes:
Dis you really transcribe it or do copy & paste like I do, then
correct any OCR errors? It's much quicker.>>>
----------------
I do actually transcribe it.
Until yesterday (yes I'm dumb) I had no idea that you could *copy* the pdf
image. To me it looks like a photograph of the page when it comes up, and
there's no obvious button that says "copy", although there is one that says
print.
So accidentally yesterday, I went up to the Edit menu and there's a Copy.
So I tried it, to Notepad, and it worked, more or less. So old dog, new
trick, and all that.
Will
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
WatsonJohnM@gmail.com writes:
Dis you really transcribe it or do copy & paste like I do, then
correct any OCR errors? It's much quicker.>>>
----------------
I do actually transcribe it.
Until yesterday (yes I'm dumb) I had no idea that you could *copy* the pdf
image. To me it looks like a photograph of the page when it comes up, and
there's no obvious button that says "copy", although there is one that says
print.
So accidentally yesterday, I went up to the Edit menu and there's a Copy.
So I tried it, to Notepad, and it worked, more or less. So old dog, new
trick, and all that.
Will
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
-
Gjest
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
In a message dated 11/29/2007 10:15:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
panther@excelsior.com writes:
Of course, he's trolling to be spoon-fed and shown "the CORRECT descent from
Charlemagne to Arnold" ---- by nabobs here.
---------------------
Then do it
Will "Stir the pot, sit and watch" Johnson
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
panther@excelsior.com writes:
Of course, he's trolling to be spoon-fed and shown "the CORRECT descent from
Charlemagne to Arnold" ---- by nabobs here.
---------------------
Then do it
Will "Stir the pot, sit and watch" Johnson
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
-
wjhonson
Re: Gramma's AT
On Nov 28, 9:50 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
---------------
Yes... *but* we are evidently cousins, perhaps again, through Jonathan
Brewster. And I do show in my database, the notes regarding the
purported but false ascent through his mother, called Mary "Wentworth"
and attaching her as a daughter of Grace Gascoigne.
Although it's false, or at best "having no evidence", I retain it,
marked appropriately, with notes, so I can remember what was and
wasn't said.
Will Johnson
I checked a few dozen of these names but didn't find them already in my
database. For the most part, I chart descendents of Richard Cecil, plus all the
families interconnected with them, but only covering the Tudor and Jacobean
period.
No Cecil descents here, so you're off the hook young William.
---------------
Yes... *but* we are evidently cousins, perhaps again, through Jonathan
Brewster. And I do show in my database, the notes regarding the
purported but false ascent through his mother, called Mary "Wentworth"
and attaching her as a daughter of Grace Gascoigne.
Although it's false, or at best "having no evidence", I retain it,
marked appropriately, with notes, so I can remember what was and
wasn't said.
Will Johnson
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: My petition was rejected by No 10
<G>
DSH
"J A" <jantero159@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:568fd6d4-5fa1-46e6-ae2c-fd372099f94b@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
DSH
"J A" <jantero159@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:568fd6d4-5fa1-46e6-ae2c-fd372099f94b@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 29, 2:31 pm, Baldoni <baldoniXXV<nientespam>@gmail.com> wrote:
Peter Alaca formulated the question :
"Baldoni @gmail.com>" <baldoniXXV<nientespam> wrote in message
news:mn.b4117d7c9628d7e1.81063@gmail.co...
The buggers have turned me down and stifled my freedom. Next stop for
me
is the "European Court Of Human Rights".
So what? This is soc.history.medieval.
Exactly but can you not see my point.
If you would take your conical hat off, he would be able to see it.
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: My petition was rejected by No 10
<G>
DSH
"J A" <jantero159@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:568fd6d4-5fa1-46e6-ae2c-fd372099f94b@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
DSH
"J A" <jantero159@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:568fd6d4-5fa1-46e6-ae2c-fd372099f94b@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 29, 2:31 pm, Baldoni <baldoniXXV<nientespam>@gmail.com> wrote:
Peter Alaca formulated the question :
"Baldoni @gmail.com>" <baldoniXXV<nientespam> wrote in message
news:mn.b4117d7c9628d7e1.81063@gmail.co...
The buggers have turned me down and stifled my freedom. Next stop for
me
is the "European Court Of Human Rights".
So what? This is soc.history.medieval.
Exactly but can you not see my point.
If you would take your conical hat off, he would be able to see it.
-
James Dow Allen
Re: A Possible descent from Dracula
On Nov 20, 6:34 am, "Ford Mommaerts-Browne" <FordMommae...@cox.net>
wrote:
Although my site is called "Fabulous Pedigree", inclusion should
*not* be taken as conclusive proof the line is wrong. Some valid
lines
have snuck in.
If you have evidence that any lineage shown at my site is correct,
please advise me and I will consider removing it.
James
wrote:
| this is old news presented as something new and groundbreaking; this
| descent-line may be found on the internet on James Allen's site, and
Although my site is called "Fabulous Pedigree", inclusion should
*not* be taken as conclusive proof the line is wrong. Some valid
lines
have snuck in.
If you have evidence that any lineage shown at my site is correct,
please advise me and I will consider removing it.
James
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Latin Form Alphonso Versus Alphonse/Alfonse
Ricahrd II also spoke some English.
DSH
DSH
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Latin Form Alphonso Versus Alphonse/Alfonse
Recte:
Richard II also spoke some English.
DSH
Lux et Veritss et Libertas
Richard II also spoke some English.
DSH
Lux et Veritss et Libertas
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Gramma's AT
Of course he's not 70.
He's been lying about that too.
DSH
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:119c1b1d-4393-443b-8ae6-b08ac8049570@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
He's been lying about that too.
DSH
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:119c1b1d-4393-443b-8ae6-b08ac8049570@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
BA: TAF has it right, JB. And I caught on to you in our first exchanges
re: Nat Taylor. So, on advice of counsel, this is my last post to you.
I
I am delighted to hear this, and hope you will stick to it. And just
for the record ... if you really are 70 years old, and not just a PFK
("pimply-faced kid," as the always-amusing DSH has speculated), then
I'm over thirty years younger than you.
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Gramma's AT
How do you descend from Jonathan Brewster?
DSH
"wjhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6502e4a8-4a66-4469-a08b-c584f7249b34@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
DSH
"wjhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6502e4a8-4a66-4469-a08b-c584f7249b34@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 28, 9:50 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I checked a few dozen of these names but didn't find them already in my
database. For the most part, I chart descendents of Richard Cecil,
plus all the
families interconnected with them, but only covering the Tudor and
Jacobean
period.
No Cecil descents here, so you're off the hook young William.
---------------
Yes... *but* we are evidently cousins, perhaps again, through Jonathan
Brewster. And I do show in my database, the notes regarding the
purported but false ascent through his mother, called Mary "Wentworth"
and attaching her as a daughter of Grace Gascoigne.
Although it's false, or at best "having no evidence", I retain it,
marked appropriately, with notes, so I can remember what was and
wasn't said.
Will Johnson
-
Bill Arnold
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
John Brandon: Doug, I *trust* Bill Arnold's ridiculous Peck pedigree
won't make an appearance in your next book (when will that be out,
by the way?). Although perhaps some "miraculous new evidence" will
emerge in the meantime ...
Douglas Richardson: You're expressing your opinion, John. I want to
see evidence, not your opinion. If Mr. Arnold has evidence, well and
good. That will become manifest rather quickly. If you have counter
evidence, then after Mr. Arnold has posted his evidence, be sure to
provide it along with your source(s). So far my impression that most
of the people who have posted on this topic are guilty of posturing.
They actually have no counter evidence. If you have that counter
evidence, I definitely want to see it. For now, the floor is Mr. Arnold's.
Now Mr. Arnold, what have you got? Please be concise, detailed, and
be sure to provide your sources.
Bill Arnold: Yesterday I posted that there is ample evidence of the Peck
pedigree descent from Charlemagne, and it exists in the Brit Lib in five
plates.
From: Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com>
Subject: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:33:28 -0800 (PST)
PEDIGREE OF PECK IN THE BRITISH LIBRARY SHOWS THROUGH
MIDDLETONS AND PLUMPTONS DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE:
Those who have not *viewed* those plates even in facsimile and challenge
it are merely voicing personal opinions. I have read allegations of fraud,
beginning in the 1930s but none have demonstrated evidence. Supposition
of fraud by Somerby because of his reputation has been set aside by
the details of the *provenance* of the plates by Nat Taylor's research and
his post cited in my post of yesterday. The facsimiles published in the New
England Historical Genealogical Register of 1936 clearly demonstrate
the case of the Peck Pedigree descent through Middleton and Plumpton
from Charlemagne. Any gentleman scholar would at least view facsimiles
which are readily available in the New England Historical Genealogical
Register, 1936. Then after such a viewing, a gentleman scholar with
knowledge of the handwriting and content of documents of that period
could dispel further doubts and then the door might be shut on the
fraud allegation aspect of this case. At this juncture in the discussion,
the door is wide open to scholarly discussion and viewing of the evidence
I presented of the Peck Pedigree and the provenance proved by the work
of Nat Taylor. The probability that the Peck Pedigree descent from
Charlemagne exists as a fact of English record dating from a document
reportedly created in the 17thC and received shortly thereafter in the
Brit Lib archives is on the table. As the doubters have been challenged
by gentleman and scholar Douglas Richardson, simply stating that those
who challenge need to marshall their evidence, it behooves naysayers to
prove their counter challenge. Scholarship needs evidence, and so far those
who would claim fraud of the Peck Pedigree in the Brit Lib have not offered
it in light of the provenance issue clarity offered by our other resident
gentleman scholar Nat Taylor. Credible challenges to that document should
only be made by reputable gentlemen scholars who have viewed either
facsimiles or had access on site to the original in the Brit Lib. Only a scholar
versed in medieval documents, who can read the Latin and/or old English and
are familiar with the tendencies of writing of that period can settle this issue.
That is the essence of scholarship: rendering evidence yea or nay. To offer
an opinion yea or nay without evidence is hollow and wanting on such a
weighty question. Facsimiles of the plates in Brit Lib appeared in 1936
New England Historical Genealogical Register and are available in most major
university libraries worldwide, from Salt Lake City, Utah, to Harvard and
the Boston Public Library across the Charles river, to London and Paris, et al..
Scholars have access to these facsimiles merely by stepping through the
door of their local library. The NEHG Register is also on CD-ROM and it
too is available at local history centers of LDS all across America. English
based scholars know more about their available resources than I. Others
can obtain interlibrary loan copies of the 1936 Register. The plates are
tipped in just before the article in the hardbound edition I possess, and
are in the front of the CD-ROM version of that year. In the event all of
these possible sources prove lacking, if any gentleman scholar emails me
off-list with a request, I will email an attachment back with these plates
viewable for their study of the evidence I have presented yesterday. So
that there is no misunderstanding, please do not email such requests
to gen-medieval and cloud this Peck Descent From Charlemagne with
any more extraneous sidebars, and only gentleman or gentlewoman
scholars familiar with documents of this time period should apply by
sending me an off-list email. I have no desire to debate this question
off-list and make this offer in the best interests of scholarship and
resolution of this question of a possible Peck Descent From Charlemagne
once and for all while interested minds are attentive.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
won't make an appearance in your next book (when will that be out,
by the way?). Although perhaps some "miraculous new evidence" will
emerge in the meantime ...
Douglas Richardson: You're expressing your opinion, John. I want to
see evidence, not your opinion. If Mr. Arnold has evidence, well and
good. That will become manifest rather quickly. If you have counter
evidence, then after Mr. Arnold has posted his evidence, be sure to
provide it along with your source(s). So far my impression that most
of the people who have posted on this topic are guilty of posturing.
They actually have no counter evidence. If you have that counter
evidence, I definitely want to see it. For now, the floor is Mr. Arnold's.
Now Mr. Arnold, what have you got? Please be concise, detailed, and
be sure to provide your sources.
Bill Arnold: Yesterday I posted that there is ample evidence of the Peck
pedigree descent from Charlemagne, and it exists in the Brit Lib in five
plates.
From: Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com>
Subject: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:33:28 -0800 (PST)
PEDIGREE OF PECK IN THE BRITISH LIBRARY SHOWS THROUGH
MIDDLETONS AND PLUMPTONS DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE:
Those who have not *viewed* those plates even in facsimile and challenge
it are merely voicing personal opinions. I have read allegations of fraud,
beginning in the 1930s but none have demonstrated evidence. Supposition
of fraud by Somerby because of his reputation has been set aside by
the details of the *provenance* of the plates by Nat Taylor's research and
his post cited in my post of yesterday. The facsimiles published in the New
England Historical Genealogical Register of 1936 clearly demonstrate
the case of the Peck Pedigree descent through Middleton and Plumpton
from Charlemagne. Any gentleman scholar would at least view facsimiles
which are readily available in the New England Historical Genealogical
Register, 1936. Then after such a viewing, a gentleman scholar with
knowledge of the handwriting and content of documents of that period
could dispel further doubts and then the door might be shut on the
fraud allegation aspect of this case. At this juncture in the discussion,
the door is wide open to scholarly discussion and viewing of the evidence
I presented of the Peck Pedigree and the provenance proved by the work
of Nat Taylor. The probability that the Peck Pedigree descent from
Charlemagne exists as a fact of English record dating from a document
reportedly created in the 17thC and received shortly thereafter in the
Brit Lib archives is on the table. As the doubters have been challenged
by gentleman and scholar Douglas Richardson, simply stating that those
who challenge need to marshall their evidence, it behooves naysayers to
prove their counter challenge. Scholarship needs evidence, and so far those
who would claim fraud of the Peck Pedigree in the Brit Lib have not offered
it in light of the provenance issue clarity offered by our other resident
gentleman scholar Nat Taylor. Credible challenges to that document should
only be made by reputable gentlemen scholars who have viewed either
facsimiles or had access on site to the original in the Brit Lib. Only a scholar
versed in medieval documents, who can read the Latin and/or old English and
are familiar with the tendencies of writing of that period can settle this issue.
That is the essence of scholarship: rendering evidence yea or nay. To offer
an opinion yea or nay without evidence is hollow and wanting on such a
weighty question. Facsimiles of the plates in Brit Lib appeared in 1936
New England Historical Genealogical Register and are available in most major
university libraries worldwide, from Salt Lake City, Utah, to Harvard and
the Boston Public Library across the Charles river, to London and Paris, et al..
Scholars have access to these facsimiles merely by stepping through the
door of their local library. The NEHG Register is also on CD-ROM and it
too is available at local history centers of LDS all across America. English
based scholars know more about their available resources than I. Others
can obtain interlibrary loan copies of the 1936 Register. The plates are
tipped in just before the article in the hardbound edition I possess, and
are in the front of the CD-ROM version of that year. In the event all of
these possible sources prove lacking, if any gentleman scholar emails me
off-list with a request, I will email an attachment back with these plates
viewable for their study of the evidence I have presented yesterday. So
that there is no misunderstanding, please do not email such requests
to gen-medieval and cloud this Peck Descent From Charlemagne with
any more extraneous sidebars, and only gentleman or gentlewoman
scholars familiar with documents of this time period should apply by
sending me an off-list email. I have no desire to debate this question
off-list and make this offer in the best interests of scholarship and
resolution of this question of a possible Peck Descent From Charlemagne
once and for all while interested minds are attentive.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
Gjest
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
On Nov 30, 4:59 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Oh, we don't like opinions? well, then, how about providing evidence
that the vernacular form is the correct one - oops, that is just your
opinion.
Which only proves you are completely unfamiliar with the case, and
hence are, that's right, guilty of posturing.
No, it does not. Please familiarize yourself with your own source.
The 'plates' are the facsimile.
Untrue. Here is your first chance - prove that none of the critiques
of the pedigree have provided evidence.
They clearly demonstrate that sometime before about the end of the
19th century, someone drafted a pedigree which reports this to have
been the case - they do not actually demonstrate that the
relationships presented were authentic.
Well, the script looks later than early-17th century to me too (same
as Nat suggested).
It was received 200 years after, which is less time than it had been
in the British Library when it was communicated to Peck. That is not
'shortly thereafter'. Beyond that, the sentence is so disjointed it
is hard to tell what you think is a "fact of English record" (which is
another pseudo-legalistic but otherwise meaningless turn of phrase).
Are you suggesting that the pedigree exists? Well, yes, it exists
there in the British Library. If, on the other hand, you are
suggesting the the descent itself is a "fact of English record" that
is untrue, unless you are using 'fact of English record' to mean
'anything a herald wrote on paper'.
Given that the 'gentleman scholar' couldn't be troubled to familiarize
himself with the question before pontificating, what makes you think
anyone is going to let him frame the discussion.
What rubbish. A credible challenge can be made by anyone who can
marshal an appropriate argument.
Not even them, as you have ignored the opinion of one such scholar
already.
The question is hardly weighty.
taf
Douglas Richardson: You're expressing your opinion, John. I want to
see evidence, not your opinion.
Oh, we don't like opinions? well, then, how about providing evidence
that the vernacular form is the correct one - oops, that is just your
opinion.
If Mr. Arnold has evidence, well and
good. That will become manifest rather quickly. If you have counter
evidence, then after Mr. Arnold has posted his evidence, be sure to
provide it along with your source(s). So far my impression that most
of the people who have posted on this topic are guilty of posturing.
They actually have no counter evidence.
Which only proves you are completely unfamiliar with the case, and
hence are, that's right, guilty of posturing.
Bill Arnold: Yesterday I posted that there is ample evidence of the Peck
pedigree descent from Charlemagne, and it exists in the Brit Lib in five
plates.
No, it does not. Please familiarize yourself with your own source.
Those who have not *viewed* those plates even in facsimile and challenge
it are merely voicing personal opinions.
The 'plates' are the facsimile.
I have read allegations of fraud,
beginning in the 1930s but none have demonstrated evidence.
Untrue. Here is your first chance - prove that none of the critiques
of the pedigree have provided evidence.
The facsimiles published in the New
England Historical Genealogical Register of 1936 clearly demonstrate
the case of the Peck Pedigree descent through Middleton and Plumpton
from Charlemagne.
They clearly demonstrate that sometime before about the end of the
19th century, someone drafted a pedigree which reports this to have
been the case - they do not actually demonstrate that the
relationships presented were authentic.
Then after such a viewing, a gentleman scholar with
knowledge of the handwriting and content of documents of that period
could dispel further doubts and then the door might be shut on the
fraud allegation aspect of this case.
Well, the script looks later than early-17th century to me too (same
as Nat suggested).
The probability that the Peck Pedigree descent from
Charlemagne exists as a fact of English record dating from a document
reportedly created in the 17thC and received shortly thereafter in the
Brit Lib archives is on the table.
It was received 200 years after, which is less time than it had been
in the British Library when it was communicated to Peck. That is not
'shortly thereafter'. Beyond that, the sentence is so disjointed it
is hard to tell what you think is a "fact of English record" (which is
another pseudo-legalistic but otherwise meaningless turn of phrase).
Are you suggesting that the pedigree exists? Well, yes, it exists
there in the British Library. If, on the other hand, you are
suggesting the the descent itself is a "fact of English record" that
is untrue, unless you are using 'fact of English record' to mean
'anything a herald wrote on paper'.
As the doubters have been challenged
by gentleman and scholar Douglas Richardson, simply stating that those
who challenge need to marshall their evidence, it behooves naysayers to
prove their counter challenge.
Given that the 'gentleman scholar' couldn't be troubled to familiarize
himself with the question before pontificating, what makes you think
anyone is going to let him frame the discussion.
Credible challenges to that document should
only be made by reputable gentlemen scholars who have viewed either
facsimiles or had access on site to the original in the Brit Lib.
What rubbish. A credible challenge can be made by anyone who can
marshal an appropriate argument.
Only a scholar
versed in medieval documents, who can read the Latin and/or old English and
are familiar with the tendencies of writing of that period can settle this issue.
Not even them, as you have ignored the opinion of one such scholar
already.
That is the essence of scholarship: rendering evidence yea or nay. To offer
an opinion yea or nay without evidence is hollow and wanting on such a
weighty question.
The question is hardly weighty.
taf
-
simon fairthorne
Re: Descents From Charlemange
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 02:21:18 -0800 (PST) , John Watson <WatsonJohnM@gmail.com> wrote:
Although commonly called his last theorem
it was not his last, he lived and worked for another 25 years
cheers
Simon
On Nov 30, 4:50 pm, James Dow Allen <jdallen2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Stating Fermat's last theorem isn't a big deal either.
Proving it is.
James
I have a truly marvelous proof of Fermat's last proposition but there
isn't enough space here to write it all down.
Although commonly called his last theorem
it was not his last, he lived and worked for another 25 years
cheers
Simon
-
John Brandon
Re: Gramma's AT
How do you descend from Jonathan Brewster?
Yes, Will, tell us about your most interesting New England line(s) ...
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Descents From Charlemange
simon fairthorne wrote:
It was called that because it was the last one of his propositions which
remained unproven, until very recently.
Doug McDonald
I have a truly marvelous proof of Fermat's last proposition but there
isn't enough space here to write it all down.
Although commonly called his last theorem
it was not his last, he lived and worked for another 25 years
It was called that because it was the last one of his propositions which
remained unproven, until very recently.
Doug McDonald
-
Gjest
Re: Gramma's AT
Dear John Brandon,
I also have several Hampton area families
including the Sanborns who link to the Marstons, and Prescott (James) and of
course the Bachelders (Reverend Stephen), the Sanborns intermaried with the
Dearborns several times one notable descendant being novelist Louis L` Amour. One of
my personal favorites is Steven Flanders, a probable French Protestant who
was valuable enough to the puritains so that they didn`t drive him out even
though He declined to join their church. He was a land surveyor and a man of
bookish habits whose will reveals that He owned two pair of spectacles, one
stronger than the other.
Isaac Cummings who settled at Watertown and Topsfield, MA was a Decon of
the church and owned in addition to a Testament (? copy of The New Testament and
a Prayer Book, a volume about The Histoey of the World, which in his will He
left to his grandson Isaac, son of his 2nd son Isaac Jr. Isaac stipulated that
his will was to be followed without objection or the Objector would be out of
the will completely. Evidently He suspected some griping when He made 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)
I also have several Hampton area families
including the Sanborns who link to the Marstons, and Prescott (James) and of
course the Bachelders (Reverend Stephen), the Sanborns intermaried with the
Dearborns several times one notable descendant being novelist Louis L` Amour. One of
my personal favorites is Steven Flanders, a probable French Protestant who
was valuable enough to the puritains so that they didn`t drive him out even
though He declined to join their church. He was a land surveyor and a man of
bookish habits whose will reveals that He owned two pair of spectacles, one
stronger than the other.
Isaac Cummings who settled at Watertown and Topsfield, MA was a Decon of
the church and owned in addition to a Testament (? copy of The New Testament and
a Prayer Book, a volume about The Histoey of the World, which in his will He
left to his grandson Isaac, son of his 2nd son Isaac Jr. Isaac stipulated that
his will was to be followed without objection or the Objector would be out of
the will completely. Evidently He suspected some griping when He made 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)
-
John Brandon
Re: Gramma's AT
Dear John Brandon,
I also have several Hampton area families
including the Sanborns who link to the Marstons, and Prescott (James) and of
course the Bachelders (Reverend Stephen), the Sanborns intermaried with the
Dearborns several times one notable descendant being novelist Louis L` Amour. One of
Yep, I think maybe it was about L'Amour's multiple descents from the
Sanborns and Dearborns.
-
Renia
Re: Gramma's AT
John Brandon wrote:
Were your Marstons in Kingston, Virginia?
Dear John Brandon,
I also have several Hampton area families
including the Sanborns who link to the Marstons, and Prescott (James) and of
course the Bachelders (Reverend Stephen), the Sanborns intermaried with the
Dearborns several times one notable descendant being novelist Louis L` Amour. One of
Yep, I think maybe it was about L'Amour's multiple descents from the
Sanborns and Dearborns.
Were your Marstons in Kingston, Virginia?
-
Renia
Re: Gramma's AT
Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:
Thank you. Not my clan but I was in contact with a Marston descendant
whose ancestors were in Kingston, Virginia (not New Hampshire).
Dear Renia,
No. I don`t believe so They were in Hampton New Hampshire,
though some may well have gone through Kingston, New Hampshire, which is
close to Hampton.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Thank you. Not my clan but I was in contact with a Marston descendant
whose ancestors were in Kingston, Virginia (not New Hampshire).
-
Gjest
Re: Gramma's AT
Dear Renia,
No. I don`t believe so They were in Hampton New Hampshire,
though some may well have gone through Kingston, New Hampshire, which is
close to Hampton.
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)
No. I don`t believe so They were in Hampton New Hampshire,
though some may well have gone through Kingston, New Hampshire, which is
close to Hampton.
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)
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
Dear Bill ~
I'd be happy to look at the plates of the Peck Pedigree for you. I'll
contact you shortly by private e-mail. After viewing the plates, I'll
give you my opinion of them here on the newsgroup.
If I understand you correctly, these plates are "facsimiles" of the
original pedigree in the British Library, which plates were published
in 1936 as part of an article on the Peck family in the New England
Register. Is that correct?
I believe a typewritten transcript of this same pedigree was also
published in an article on the Peck family sometime in the past by the
Rhode Island Historical Society. Is that correct? Do you have a
citation for that article by any chance?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
I'd be happy to look at the plates of the Peck Pedigree for you. I'll
contact you shortly by private e-mail. After viewing the plates, I'll
give you my opinion of them here on the newsgroup.
If I understand you correctly, these plates are "facsimiles" of the
original pedigree in the British Library, which plates were published
in 1936 as part of an article on the Peck family in the New England
Register. Is that correct?
I believe a typewritten transcript of this same pedigree was also
published in an article on the Peck family sometime in the past by the
Rhode Island Historical Society. Is that correct? Do you have a
citation for that article by any chance?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Gjest
Re: A Possible descent from Dracula
On Nov 30, 12:53 am, James Dow Allen <jdallen2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Now THERE'S a Freudian slip...
If you have evidence that any lineage shown at my site is correct,
please advise me and I will consider removing it.
Now THERE'S a Freudian slip...
-
Bill Arnold
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
--- Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
BA: Thank you for the offer to *view* the plates and give your gentleman
scholar judgment of their authenticity as to the dating of the provenance
stated in gentleman scholar Nat Taylor's post cited previously. The plates
referred to are, indeed, facsimiles of the original pedigree in the British
Library and published in the 1936 Register. As to the typescript, I know
that such exists in the front of Ira B. Peck's 1868 *Genealogy of the Descendants
of Joseph Peck* and it substantially agrees with the British Library pedigree,
according to the 1936 Register authors. One of those authors was
Stanhope Peck of the Rhode Island Pecks and a number of excerpts of his
articles on the Pecks appears online at the Rhode Island Historical page.
I have not seen the pedigree there. In the 1868 typescript by Ira B. Peck
he does state the last two generations were added subsequent to the
British Library pedigree, inasmuch as the pedigree in BL dates from about
1620-1631. I did note a date on Plate IVa of 1631 but I am sure you can
read the handwritten manuscript pedigree of that time period better than I.
As to the accuracy of the pedigree in the BL, that is another matter. I have
stated all along it is alleged to have been done in the 17thC although Nat
Taylor found a later provenance. I am sure medieval scholars will have to
go over it *with a fine tooth comb* and compare it against other known
pedigrees, i.e. Visitations, wills, chancery records, church records, as I
do know of several church windows referring to named individuals in the
key Suffolk-to-Yorkshire segment. Certainly yourself, and someone of
the scholarly talents of John Ravilious who posts often in Latin could read
original documents and verify the veracity of the pedigree in the BL and
in the front of Ira B. Peck's book. Inasmuch as Ira B. Peck depended upon
the BL Peck Pedigree, and whatever other documents he had at his disposal,
I will be curious to read your findings for the record in gen-medieval.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Dear Bill ~
I'd be happy to look at the plates of the Peck Pedigree for you. I'll
contact you shortly by private e-mail. After viewing the plates, I'll
give you my opinion of them here on the newsgroup.
If I understand you correctly, these plates are "facsimiles" of the
original pedigree in the British Library, which plates were published
in 1936 as part of an article on the Peck family in the New England
Register. Is that correct?
I believe a typewritten transcript of this same pedigree was also
published in an article on the Peck family sometime in the past by the
Rhode Island Historical Society. Is that correct? Do you have a
citation for that article by any chance?
BA: Thank you for the offer to *view* the plates and give your gentleman
scholar judgment of their authenticity as to the dating of the provenance
stated in gentleman scholar Nat Taylor's post cited previously. The plates
referred to are, indeed, facsimiles of the original pedigree in the British
Library and published in the 1936 Register. As to the typescript, I know
that such exists in the front of Ira B. Peck's 1868 *Genealogy of the Descendants
of Joseph Peck* and it substantially agrees with the British Library pedigree,
according to the 1936 Register authors. One of those authors was
Stanhope Peck of the Rhode Island Pecks and a number of excerpts of his
articles on the Pecks appears online at the Rhode Island Historical page.
I have not seen the pedigree there. In the 1868 typescript by Ira B. Peck
he does state the last two generations were added subsequent to the
British Library pedigree, inasmuch as the pedigree in BL dates from about
1620-1631. I did note a date on Plate IVa of 1631 but I am sure you can
read the handwritten manuscript pedigree of that time period better than I.
As to the accuracy of the pedigree in the BL, that is another matter. I have
stated all along it is alleged to have been done in the 17thC although Nat
Taylor found a later provenance. I am sure medieval scholars will have to
go over it *with a fine tooth comb* and compare it against other known
pedigrees, i.e. Visitations, wills, chancery records, church records, as I
do know of several church windows referring to named individuals in the
key Suffolk-to-Yorkshire segment. Certainly yourself, and someone of
the scholarly talents of John Ravilious who posts often in Latin could read
original documents and verify the veracity of the pedigree in the BL and
in the front of Ira B. Peck's book. Inasmuch as Ira B. Peck depended upon
the BL Peck Pedigree, and whatever other documents he had at his disposal,
I will be curious to read your findings for the record in gen-medieval.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
Bill Arnold
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
Renia: I have to ask whether Bill Arnold has actually read this article. It's
very illuminating.
BA: I am happy to respond. When I first posted to gen-medieval in Sep, 07,
I began with extensive references to the serialized article of the 1930 and
was the first person, as far as I know, on gen-medieval to bring this matter
to the attention of this forum. I back-tracked into the Peck pedigree through
the Plumpton/Middleton segments, which were verified by gentleman scholar
John Higgins. There was no point in my raising the issue of the Pecks/Middletons
or Pecks/Plumptons if the Middletons or Plumptons were not lineages to royalty,
inasmuch as I noted in my posts on several occasions that I had discussed this
matter with Gary Boyd Roberts and he assured me that the lineage from William
I *The Lion* King of Scots descent through Ross/Plumpton was sound but he
stopped short of its alleged link to Peck as noted on LDS and Rootsweb online.
Thus, my sojourn here began with the above, and extensively cited S. Allyn Peck
and Stanhope Peck's serialized articles in the New England Historical Genealogical
Register. I did not then nor do I now agree with all their opinions about thie
Peck pedigree. They certainly did not go into collateral lines of the Plumptons
and Middletons but stayed primarily with the Pecks. In a few footnotes which
I noted they discussed Alice Middleton who married Richard Peck, parents of
John Peck, alleged father of Robert Peck, the Elder, thence called "of Beccles."
I quoted their wills, court records, IPMs, church records, church windows, et al.,
so that none should doubt that I am very very familiar with the Register works,
even citing 1870 articles about Ira B. Peck's genealogy book and his subsequent
response in Notes & Queries. Again: I maintain as we all know that opinions are
like noses, everybody's got one: and I agreed in some instances and disagreed
in others. I believe I have been justified, inasmuch as the maligning of the BL
pedigree as a forgery by Somerby has been put aside and dispelled by the work
of Nat Taylor re: the provenance issue. I had the distinct impression and was
justified in it that many at gen-medieval had not a clue of its relevance to the
scholarship of the question of the veracity of the BL Peck Pedigree.
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
If you're interested in reading about the Peck pedigree, you should
start with:
S[hirley] Allyn Peck: "The English Ancestry of Joseph Peck, of Hingham,
Mass., in 1638," _New England Historical and Genealogical Register_ 89
(1935):327-39; 90 (1936):58-67, 194-198, 263-68, 371-73 [and plates
I-IVa]; 91 (1937):7-15, 282-86, 355-63; 92 (1938):71-73; 93 (1939),
176-78, 359-61; 94 (1940):71-73.
Some time ago I placed this serialized article online as a pdf file at:
http://www.nltaylor.net/temp/Peck_NEHGR.pdf
Renia: I have to ask whether Bill Arnold has actually read this article. It's
very illuminating.
BA: I am happy to respond. When I first posted to gen-medieval in Sep, 07,
I began with extensive references to the serialized article of the 1930 and
was the first person, as far as I know, on gen-medieval to bring this matter
to the attention of this forum. I back-tracked into the Peck pedigree through
the Plumpton/Middleton segments, which were verified by gentleman scholar
John Higgins. There was no point in my raising the issue of the Pecks/Middletons
or Pecks/Plumptons if the Middletons or Plumptons were not lineages to royalty,
inasmuch as I noted in my posts on several occasions that I had discussed this
matter with Gary Boyd Roberts and he assured me that the lineage from William
I *The Lion* King of Scots descent through Ross/Plumpton was sound but he
stopped short of its alleged link to Peck as noted on LDS and Rootsweb online.
Thus, my sojourn here began with the above, and extensively cited S. Allyn Peck
and Stanhope Peck's serialized articles in the New England Historical Genealogical
Register. I did not then nor do I now agree with all their opinions about thie
Peck pedigree. They certainly did not go into collateral lines of the Plumptons
and Middletons but stayed primarily with the Pecks. In a few footnotes which
I noted they discussed Alice Middleton who married Richard Peck, parents of
John Peck, alleged father of Robert Peck, the Elder, thence called "of Beccles."
I quoted their wills, court records, IPMs, church records, church windows, et al.,
so that none should doubt that I am very very familiar with the Register works,
even citing 1870 articles about Ira B. Peck's genealogy book and his subsequent
response in Notes & Queries. Again: I maintain as we all know that opinions are
like noses, everybody's got one: and I agreed in some instances and disagreed
in others. I believe I have been justified, inasmuch as the maligning of the BL
pedigree as a forgery by Somerby has been put aside and dispelled by the work
of Nat Taylor re: the provenance issue. I had the distinct impression and was
justified in it that many at gen-medieval had not a clue of its relevance to the
scholarship of the question of the veracity of the BL Peck Pedigree.
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: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
On Nov 30, 7:52 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
.. . . conveniently ignoring the other possible levels of fraud which
Nat mentioned.
As much as you harp on it, if, for the sake of argument, the pedigree
does turn out to have been drafted in 1605, that doesn't prove that
its contents are authentic. Likewise, if it turns out to be
demonstrably written in say, 1750, that doesn't mean the data it
presents is false. That Somerby had a role in transmission was not
the only reason for doubting it, it was just one more reason. You
keep harping on Somerby not forging it, but "not forged by Somerby"
does not immediately imply authenticity, only that *this particular*
forger wasn't involved. Useful information, but a baby step.
You just can't get through an entire post without going off the rails,
can you?
For all the emphasis you put on this heraldic pedigree, you have yet
to explain why John of Wakefield would have left one son out of his
own visitation pedigree. Likewise you have not addressed the
chronological difficulties of making Robert son of John. If his age
in a later document is accurately recorded, that makes him older than
John's oldest recorded son, Richard. Robert would thus have been the
heir of his father and not a yeoman off in search of a landed wife.
taf
I believe I have been justified, inasmuch as the maligning of the BL
pedigree as a forgery by Somerby has been put aside and dispelled by the work
of Nat Taylor re: the provenance issue.
.. . . conveniently ignoring the other possible levels of fraud which
Nat mentioned.
As much as you harp on it, if, for the sake of argument, the pedigree
does turn out to have been drafted in 1605, that doesn't prove that
its contents are authentic. Likewise, if it turns out to be
demonstrably written in say, 1750, that doesn't mean the data it
presents is false. That Somerby had a role in transmission was not
the only reason for doubting it, it was just one more reason. You
keep harping on Somerby not forging it, but "not forged by Somerby"
does not immediately imply authenticity, only that *this particular*
forger wasn't involved. Useful information, but a baby step.
I had the distinct impression and was
justified in it that many at gen-medieval had not a clue of its relevance to the
scholarship of the question of the veracity of the BL Peck Pedigree.
You just can't get through an entire post without going off the rails,
can you?
For all the emphasis you put on this heraldic pedigree, you have yet
to explain why John of Wakefield would have left one son out of his
own visitation pedigree. Likewise you have not addressed the
chronological difficulties of making Robert son of John. If his age
in a later document is accurately recorded, that makes him older than
John's oldest recorded son, Richard. Robert would thus have been the
heir of his father and not a yeoman off in search of a landed wife.
taf
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
In article
<639016bc-ec60-4584-8046-e69df1c489a8@s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
taf@clearwire.net wrote:
While we're on this, I -- and, of course, some of the lurkers who
support me in e-mail [refrain] -- am not 100% satisfied that Somerby did
NOT interpolate page 5 of this pedigree (the Yorkshire - Suffolk link).
These questions (and many others), could, as I have said, be well
settled with perhaps two hours of a disinterested expert's time looking
at the original MS & finding aids in London. For the amount of time
we've spent on it here, we could have pooled resources and contacts and
resolved the thing...
And has anyone looked at Corder's _Dictionary of Suffolk Arms_ for Peck
of Beccles?
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
<639016bc-ec60-4584-8046-e69df1c489a8@s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
taf@clearwire.net wrote:
On Nov 30, 7:52 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I believe I have been justified, inasmuch as the maligning of the BL
pedigree as a forgery by Somerby has been put aside and dispelled by the
work
of Nat Taylor re: the provenance issue.
. . . conveniently ignoring the other possible levels of fraud which
Nat mentioned.
As much as you harp on it, if, for the sake of argument, the pedigree
does turn out to have been drafted in 1605, that doesn't prove that
its contents are authentic. Likewise, if it turns out to be
demonstrably written in say, 1750, that doesn't mean the data it
presents is false. That Somerby had a role in transmission was not
the only reason for doubting it, it was just one more reason. You
keep harping on Somerby not forging it, but "not forged by Somerby"
does not immediately imply authenticity, only that *this particular*
forger wasn't involved. Useful information, but a baby step.
While we're on this, I -- and, of course, some of the lurkers who
support me in e-mail [refrain] -- am not 100% satisfied that Somerby did
NOT interpolate page 5 of this pedigree (the Yorkshire - Suffolk link).
These questions (and many others), could, as I have said, be well
settled with perhaps two hours of a disinterested expert's time looking
at the original MS & finding aids in London. For the amount of time
we've spent on it here, we could have pooled resources and contacts and
resolved the thing...
And has anyone looked at Corder's _Dictionary of Suffolk Arms_ for Peck
of Beccles?
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
Gjest
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
On Nov 30, 10:14 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
I note that in the 1660s, William, son of Nicholas of Beccles, is
recorded as using the Peck Wakefield arms. (This was in one of the
NEHGR serial sections.) That, by the way, is what has more or less
convinced me that Somerby didn't interpolate the claim (as convinced
as one can be without looking at the original).
taf
And has anyone looked at Corder's _Dictionary of Suffolk Arms_ for Peck
of Beccles?
I note that in the 1660s, William, son of Nicholas of Beccles, is
recorded as using the Peck Wakefield arms. (This was in one of the
NEHGR serial sections.) That, by the way, is what has more or less
convinced me that Somerby didn't interpolate the claim (as convinced
as one can be without looking at the original).
taf
-
wjhonson
Re: Sir Thomas More's mother
While on the trail of something else, I just happened to accidently
stumble over an extension to this ancestry of Anne (Cresacre) More.
At least this is an extension to what *I* had.
When I put things in quote, that means I am quoting some authority,
even though in this brief report, I don't state what. But if anyone
questions a particular fact, let me know and I'll check again.
What I had had for her was
1 Anne Cresacre sole heiress of her father "aged one year" at his
death, born 1511, died 2 Dec 1577 "aged 66"
2 Edward Cresacre born 1484/5 *as* he was called "aged 27" at his
death in 1512
3 Jane Basset, born sometime in the last quarter of the 15th century
4 John Cresacre of Barnborough, co Yorks
5 Margaret Hastings married 18 E 4 (i.e. 1478/9)
6 Richard Basset, Knt of Fledborough, co Notts, born sometime in the
third quarter of the 15th century, Will dated 15 Jun 1522
7 Elizabeth Dunham, her jointure in the Manor of Normanton; Will dated
30 June 1535
Now to that, for 4, I can now add an authority stated that John died 3
Feb 1501, upon which Edward, aged 16 was his heir.
Then behind John I had had nothing, but can now add an authority
stating that the *Will* of Percival Cresacre of Barnbourgh (he of the
famous man-and-cat legend), will dated 19 Jan 1476/7 in which he makes
"my son John" one of his executors.
Percival Cresacre has a monument at Barnborough near-to his wife, whom
he names in his will as already deceased and wishing to be buried near
her, as Alice which is also the name on her slab. She is called, by
an authority Alice Mountney, dau of Thomas Mountney. And her slab
states "ob 1450"
Interestingly this would mean that John Cresacre would likely be "of
an age" with his parents-in-law, perhaps slightly younger, but his
wife must have been more than a bit younger than he.
At any rate, we're not done!
It turns out, that there exists yet another will of Peter de la Haye
of Spaldington dated 8 Aug 1426 in which, not only does he mention his
dead wife Elizabeth, but also his living wife, also Elizabeth, *and*
states that this second Elizabeth was married previously to James
Cresacre !
THEN in Elizabeth's will herself (the second Elizabeth), dated 9 Jul
1434, she also mentions her dead husband James Cresacre (of
Barnborough), her dead husband Peter de la Haye, AND "my son"
Percival.
So there ya go. What a hoot. I had no idea that my search for
Thomas de la Haye's father-in-law would bring me back to the Cresacre
clan.
Will Johnson
stumble over an extension to this ancestry of Anne (Cresacre) More.
At least this is an extension to what *I* had.
When I put things in quote, that means I am quoting some authority,
even though in this brief report, I don't state what. But if anyone
questions a particular fact, let me know and I'll check again.
What I had had for her was
1 Anne Cresacre sole heiress of her father "aged one year" at his
death, born 1511, died 2 Dec 1577 "aged 66"
2 Edward Cresacre born 1484/5 *as* he was called "aged 27" at his
death in 1512
3 Jane Basset, born sometime in the last quarter of the 15th century
4 John Cresacre of Barnborough, co Yorks
5 Margaret Hastings married 18 E 4 (i.e. 1478/9)
6 Richard Basset, Knt of Fledborough, co Notts, born sometime in the
third quarter of the 15th century, Will dated 15 Jun 1522
7 Elizabeth Dunham, her jointure in the Manor of Normanton; Will dated
30 June 1535
Now to that, for 4, I can now add an authority stated that John died 3
Feb 1501, upon which Edward, aged 16 was his heir.
Then behind John I had had nothing, but can now add an authority
stating that the *Will* of Percival Cresacre of Barnbourgh (he of the
famous man-and-cat legend), will dated 19 Jan 1476/7 in which he makes
"my son John" one of his executors.
Percival Cresacre has a monument at Barnborough near-to his wife, whom
he names in his will as already deceased and wishing to be buried near
her, as Alice which is also the name on her slab. She is called, by
an authority Alice Mountney, dau of Thomas Mountney. And her slab
states "ob 1450"
Interestingly this would mean that John Cresacre would likely be "of
an age" with his parents-in-law, perhaps slightly younger, but his
wife must have been more than a bit younger than he.
At any rate, we're not done!
It turns out, that there exists yet another will of Peter de la Haye
of Spaldington dated 8 Aug 1426 in which, not only does he mention his
dead wife Elizabeth, but also his living wife, also Elizabeth, *and*
states that this second Elizabeth was married previously to James
Cresacre !
THEN in Elizabeth's will herself (the second Elizabeth), dated 9 Jul
1434, she also mentions her dead husband James Cresacre (of
Barnborough), her dead husband Peter de la Haye, AND "my son"
Percival.
So there ya go. What a hoot. I had no idea that my search for
Thomas de la Haye's father-in-law would bring me back to the Cresacre
clan.
Will Johnson
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
In article
<135c2872-1d0a-4268-9d05-f1bf0b5409e1@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
taf@clearwire.net wrote:
Ah; OK, I missed this.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
<135c2872-1d0a-4268-9d05-f1bf0b5409e1@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
taf@clearwire.net wrote:
On Nov 30, 10:14 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
And has anyone looked at Corder's _Dictionary of Suffolk Arms_ for Peck
of Beccles?
I note that in the 1660s, William, son of Nicholas of Beccles, is
recorded as using the Peck Wakefield arms. (This was in one of the
NEHGR serial sections.) That, by the way, is what has more or less
convinced me that Somerby didn't interpolate the claim (as convinced
as one can be without looking at the original).
Ah; OK, I missed this.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
Francisco Tavares de Alme
Re: A Possible descent from Dracula
On 1 Dez, 02:55, lostcoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Now THERE'S (american?) incapacity to recognize (british?) irony ...
On Nov 30, 12:53 am, James Dow Allen <jdallen2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
If you have evidence that any lineage shown at my site is correct,
please advise me and I will consider removing it.
Now THERE'S a Freudian slip...
Now THERE'S (american?) incapacity to recognize (british?) irony ...
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Descents From Charlemagne
--- Nathaniel Taylor <nltaylor@nltaylor.net> wrote:
BA: Thanks much for the information, gentleman scholar, Nat Taylor.
I recently went to your website and viewed your royal ancestral lines
and others you designate "bogus" or questionable. Perhaps we are
cousins and share a common link through my ancestral *Magruder* lineage.
If I find others as I complete my ancestral lines, I will let you know.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
... reference tool.
As for reference tools not already mentioned, I would recommend
Christian Settipani, _La Préhistoire des Capétiens, 481-987, première
partie: Mérovingiens, Carolingiens et Robertiens_, (_Nouvelle histoire
généalogique de l'auguste maison de France_, 1.1, Villeneuve d'Asq:
Patrick Van Kerrebrouck, 1993), which treats all male-line Carolingian
descendants down to the 13th century; and
Karl Ferdinand Werner, "Die Nachkommen Karls des Grossen bis um das Jahr
1000 (1.-8. Generation)," in _Karl der Grosse: Lebenswerk und
Nachleben_, Gen. ed. Wolfgang Braunfels, 4 vols. (Dusseldorf, 1965-68),
vol. 4 (_Das Nachleben_, ed. Braunfels & Percy Ernst Schramm), pp.
403ff., which deals with all lines (male and female) in the crucial
early period. Not exhaustively documented and no longer fully current,
but a magnificent overview with its enormous charts.
BA: Thanks much for the information, gentleman scholar, Nat Taylor.
I recently went to your website and viewed your royal ancestral lines
and others you designate "bogus" or questionable. Perhaps we are
cousins and share a common link through my ancestral *Magruder* lineage.
If I find others as I complete my ancestral lines, I will let you know.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
Bill Arnold
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
TAF: For all the emphasis you put on this heraldic pedigree, you have yet
to explain why John of Wakefield would have left one son out of his
own visitation pedigree. Likewise you have not addressed the
chronological difficulties of making Robert son of John. If his age
in a later document is accurately recorded, that makes him older than
John's oldest recorded son, Richard. Robert would thus have been the
heir of his father and not a yeoman off in search of a landed wife.
BA: Well, I can think of many, but...I will mention a few: maybe the son
were illegitimate? Maybe the son were *persona non grata*? Maybe the
son got some unfortunate lady pregnant and left the manor? As to ages:
I find few medieval records I have viewed, which is not many, but a fair
amount, wanting in specifics as to ages of the principals therein named.
And on the other hand: I see large leeway granted by many scholars
to make fit certain folk into pedigree/lineages. A better question might
be: what went through the minds of the heralds who drafted the Peck
Pedigree which granted Nicholas's William to bear heraldic arms of the
Wakefield Pecks? Perhaps Robert Peck, the Elder, was indeed a Peck
of Wakefield; he had to have come from somewhere, and did not spring
like Dionysus from the thigh of Zeus? So, instead of deconstructing the
Peck Pedigree, why not accept its blatant production of the College of
Arms heralds and make you best constructive judgment of *what in
blazes* caused it to be drafted in the early 1600s, and *who* was the
father of Robert Peck, the Elder, if *not* John? You understand: despite
the harping of others with their opinions to the contrary, I still have an
open mind about this conundrum of medieval scholarship.
Bill
*****
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
to explain why John of Wakefield would have left one son out of his
own visitation pedigree. Likewise you have not addressed the
chronological difficulties of making Robert son of John. If his age
in a later document is accurately recorded, that makes him older than
John's oldest recorded son, Richard. Robert would thus have been the
heir of his father and not a yeoman off in search of a landed wife.
BA: Well, I can think of many, but...I will mention a few: maybe the son
were illegitimate? Maybe the son were *persona non grata*? Maybe the
son got some unfortunate lady pregnant and left the manor? As to ages:
I find few medieval records I have viewed, which is not many, but a fair
amount, wanting in specifics as to ages of the principals therein named.
And on the other hand: I see large leeway granted by many scholars
to make fit certain folk into pedigree/lineages. A better question might
be: what went through the minds of the heralds who drafted the Peck
Pedigree which granted Nicholas's William to bear heraldic arms of the
Wakefield Pecks? Perhaps Robert Peck, the Elder, was indeed a Peck
of Wakefield; he had to have come from somewhere, and did not spring
like Dionysus from the thigh of Zeus? So, instead of deconstructing the
Peck Pedigree, why not accept its blatant production of the College of
Arms heralds and make you best constructive judgment of *what in
blazes* caused it to be drafted in the early 1600s, and *who* was the
father of Robert Peck, the Elder, if *not* John? You understand: despite
the harping of others with their opinions to the contrary, I still have an
open mind about this conundrum of medieval scholarship.
Bill
*****
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
-
Renia
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
Bill Arnold wrote:
See the following for Peck references on this newsgroup: >
AND
etailed in a couple of articles in _TAG_ ('40s or '50s). Rev. Robert Peck's ancestral lines of Babbs and Parkhurst were treated by John B. Threlfall in one of his books. 8. Robert O'Connor's 4/26/1999 posting to s.g.m. showed that the wife Amicia ___, of Edmund Lee of Pightlesthorne (#7340), was actually Amicia (or Alice) Ashfield.
<snip>
AND
AND
BA: I am happy to respond. When I first posted to gen-medieval in Sep, 07,
I began with extensive references to the serialized article of the 1930 and
was the first person, as far as I know, on gen-medieval to bring this matter
to the attention of this forum.
See the following for Peck references on this newsgroup: >
Marlyn Lewis
View profile
More options Mar 22 1998, 10:00 am
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: mar...@earthworld.com (Marlyn Lewis)
Date: 1998/03/22
Subject: Reade.
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Have you seen anything on the Reade family of Beccles, Norfolk? According to the
Visitations, this family of William Reade of Beccles (born, say 1475) had a
daughter Elizabeth who married Augustine Steward, Esq. of Norwich (son of Geoffrey
Steward and Cycelle Boyce, daughter of Augustine Boyce), and their daughter
Elizabeth married Thomas Sotherton. The son of Thomas Sotherton and Elizabeth
Steward was Augustine Sotherton of Hesleden, Norfolk who married 22 Sep 1572 to
Anne Peche (Peck) and he died 26 Mar 1585. The line then descends to the their
daughter Elizabeth Sotherton who married Thomas Warner, and their son Augustine
Warner (1611-1674) died in Virginia.
Can anyone help on the Steward, Sotherton, or Reade lines?
AND
John Brandon
View profile
It's nice to see the constant additions and corrections to Sen. John Kerry's ancestry at ... http://members.aol.com/wreitwiesn/candi ... kerry.html Here are a few things that caught my eye. 1. The following persons could be added from John T. Fitch, _Puritan in the Wilderness: A Biography of the Reverend James Fitch, 1622-1702_: --968. Rev. James Fitch, b. Bocking, Essex, England 24 Dec. 1622 d. Lebanon, CT, 18 Nov. 1702 m. 2) 1664 --969. Priscilla Mason --970. Matthew Sherwood --971. Mary Fitch A later volume by John T. Fitch, _Descendants of the Rev. James Fitch_, would probably be a better source. 2. Mary Veren (#909), wife of Timothy Lindall (#908), was the daughter of Nathaniel Veren by his wife Mary ___, according to Sidney Perley, _A History of Salem Massachusetts_, 1:304. 3. Some of the ancestry of Elizabeth Tailer (#459), wife of John Nelson (#458) is shown at http://cybrary.uwinnipeg.ca/people/dobs ... ferin.html
Portraits of John Nelson's father Robert Nelson (#916), and his wife Mary Temple, are reproduced in _Ancestral Records and Portraits_ (New York: Grafton Press, 1910), volume 2, opposite page 480. Robert and Mary Nelson are also the ancestors of Franklin Roosevelt. 4. I'm sure that the identity of #7591, Sarah ___, wife of Rev. Zechariah Symmes, has been discussed somewhere by John Brooks Threlfall. 5. Almost certainly, John Gardner (#936) and Hannah Gardner (#949) were members of the Gardner family of Salem, Mass. Probably Frank A. Gardner's _Gardner Genealogy_ (1907) would help in sorting them out. 6. An article in _The American Genealogist_ (1997) shows that the father of Hatevil Nutter (#3818) was an Edmund Nutter, not Anthony as given here. 7. The father of Ann Peck (#1921) was the Rev. Robert Peck, whose ancestry was treated extensively in a series of articles in the _Register_ in the late 1930s / early 1940s. The ancestry of her mother, Ann (Lawrence) Peck, was d
etailed in a couple of articles in _TAG_ ('40s or '50s). Rev. Robert Peck's ancestral lines of Babbs and Parkhurst were treated by John B. Threlfall in one of his books. 8. Robert O'Connor's 4/26/1999 posting to s.g.m. showed that the wife Amicia ___, of Edmund Lee of Pightlesthorne (#7340), was actually Amicia (or Alice) Ashfield.
More options Apr 5 2004, 11:21 pm
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: starbuc...@hotmail.com (John Brandon)
Date: 5 Apr 2004 14:21:44 -0700
Local: Mon, Apr 5 2004 11:21 pm
Subject: Additions to John Kerry's ancestor table
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
It's nice to see the constant additions and corrections to Sen. John
Kerry's ancestry at ...
http://members.aol.com/wreitwiesn/candi ... kerry.html
Here are a few things that caught my eye.
1. The following persons could be added from John T. Fitch, _Puritan
in the Wilderness: A Biography of the Reverend James Fitch,
1622-1702_:
snip
7. The father of Ann Peck (#1921) was the Rev. Robert Peck, whose
ancestry was treated extensively in a series of articles in the
_Register_ in the late 1930s / early 1940s. The ancestry of her
mother, Ann (Lawrence) Peck, was detailed in a couple of articles in
_TAG_ ('40s or '50s). Rev. Robert Peck's ancestral lines of Babbs and
Parkhurst were treated by John B. Threlfall in one of his books.
<snip>
AND
John Brandon
View profile
(1 user) More options Oct 31 2006, 12:25 am
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: "John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com
Date: 30 Oct 2006 14:25:50 -0800
Local: Tues, Oct 31 2006 12:25 am
Subject: Peck descent [?] of the Lakes of Normanton, Erby, and New England
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Back in July, I posted on the supposed New England line from the Lake
family of Normanton, Yorks. (see attached copy of that post below).
One of the generations was said to be "JOHN LAKE, of Normanton Manor,
who m. Catherine, daughter of John Peake, or Pake, of Wakefield,
Yorks." Surely this is the same "Kateren [Peck] wife to John Leake
_Lake_ of Normanton" on p. 236 of _Visitations of Yorkshire in the
Years 1563 and 1564: Made by William Flower ..._
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC6 ... J&pg=PA2...
*******
AND
John Brandon
View profile
(2 users) More options Feb 13, 1:39 am
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: "John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com
Date: 12 Feb 2007 15:39:40 -0800
Local: Tues, Feb 13 2007 1:39 am
Subject: Clue to origin of immigrant Jonathan Negus
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1 ... AAJ&pg=R...
Would the Thomas Peck discussed be son of Rev. Robert Peck of Hingham,
Norfolk, and Hingham, New England?
-
Gjest
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
On Dec 1, 8:19 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Any time you start having to come up with ad hoc explanations to avoid
the inconvenient data it doesn't look good. It also is not a sign of
an open mind.
I am not sure I get what point you are trying to make, but a person
appointed administrator or executor is going to be an adult, full
stop.
The pedigree didn't grant the arms, it just showed that William was
using them.
The 'why not' proof?
Where deconstructing equates with critical analysis, apparently.
How does a blatantly produced pedigree differ from one that has been
done subtly?
Money.
The 'who else' defense?
Your actions belie your self-characterization. The very way you
framed the question above - who else if not John - indicates this is
not the case.
taf
TAF: For all the emphasis you put on this heraldic pedigree, you have yet
to explain why John of Wakefield would have left one son out of his
own visitation pedigree. Likewise you have not addressed the
chronological difficulties of making Robert son of John. If his age
in a later document is accurately recorded, that makes him older than
John's oldest recorded son, Richard. Robert would thus have been the
heir of his father and not a yeoman off in search of a landed wife.
BA: Well, I can think of many, but...I will mention a few: maybe the son
were illegitimate? Maybe the son were *persona non grata*? Maybe the
son got some unfortunate lady pregnant and left the manor?
Any time you start having to come up with ad hoc explanations to avoid
the inconvenient data it doesn't look good. It also is not a sign of
an open mind.
As to ages:
I find few medieval records I have viewed, which is not many, but a fair
amount, wanting in specifics as to ages of the principals therein named
And on the other hand: I see large leeway granted by many scholars.
to make fit certain folk into pedigree/lineages.
I am not sure I get what point you are trying to make, but a person
appointed administrator or executor is going to be an adult, full
stop.
A better question might
be: what went through the minds of the heralds who drafted the Peck
Pedigree which granted Nicholas's William to bear heraldic arms of the
Wakefield Pecks?
The pedigree didn't grant the arms, it just showed that William was
using them.
Perhaps Robert Peck, the Elder, was indeed a Peck
of Wakefield; he had to have come from somewhere, and did not spring
like Dionysus from the thigh of Zeus?
The 'why not' proof?
So, instead of deconstructing the
Where deconstructing equates with critical analysis, apparently.
Peck Pedigree, why not accept its blatant production of the College of
Arms heralds
How does a blatantly produced pedigree differ from one that has been
done subtly?
and make you best constructive judgment of *what in
blazes* caused it to be drafted in the early 1600s,
Money.
and *who* was the
father of Robert Peck, the Elder, if *not* John?
The 'who else' defense?
You understand: despite
the harping of others with their opinions to the contrary, I still have an
open mind about this conundrum of medieval scholarship.
Your actions belie your self-characterization. The very way you
framed the question above - who else if not John - indicates this is
not the case.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Descents From Charlemagne
Speaking of references, I've been checking various book stores for a
[perhaps mythical] book which would have something like the following format:
Half of the book (or more) would simply be family tree charts of *all*
European noble houses, the remainder taken up by discussion.
The vast majority of books have only a few charts, maybe ten at the most.
While the heraldry book I quote from-time-to-time is closer to what I want,
its so heavy on the heraldry that it skimps on the people (for space). So it
shows perhaps only a third of the people I wish it would show in order to have
space for all the shields.
*IS* there such a book (perhaps even in print) where half or more is family
tree charts? I have seen a few oblique references to a book purported to show
*all* living descendents from Edward III (of England) in chart form, but
what I'm looking for is something, perhaps more medieval in scope, showing all
Europe, not just all England.
Will Johnson
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
[perhaps mythical] book which would have something like the following format:
Half of the book (or more) would simply be family tree charts of *all*
European noble houses, the remainder taken up by discussion.
The vast majority of books have only a few charts, maybe ten at the most.
While the heraldry book I quote from-time-to-time is closer to what I want,
its so heavy on the heraldry that it skimps on the people (for space). So it
shows perhaps only a third of the people I wish it would show in order to have
space for all the shields.
*IS* there such a book (perhaps even in print) where half or more is family
tree charts? I have seen a few oblique references to a book purported to show
*all* living descendents from Edward III (of England) in chart form, but
what I'm looking for is something, perhaps more medieval in scope, showing all
Europe, not just all England.
Will Johnson
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
-
Gjest
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
In a message dated 12/1/2007 9:10:20 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
taf@clearwire.net writes:
I am not sure I get what point you are trying to make, but a person
appointed administrator or executor is going to be an adult, full
stop.
------------------
I have to pause on this. There have been examples, even named here, where
someone is *named* an executor (in the testator's will, as opposed by a court
"de bonis non") and yet they were, at that time, apparently, under-age. I'm
not happy with that, but it seems to have occurred. We even speculated here
that perhaps a testator might do this *in order* to delay execution, but I'm
not sure.
I would have to agree on the administrator/trix however, since this are
appointed by a court of competence and so would have to be in their majority at
that time.
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
taf@clearwire.net writes:
I am not sure I get what point you are trying to make, but a person
appointed administrator or executor is going to be an adult, full
stop.
------------------
I have to pause on this. There have been examples, even named here, where
someone is *named* an executor (in the testator's will, as opposed by a court
"de bonis non") and yet they were, at that time, apparently, under-age. I'm
not happy with that, but it seems to have occurred. We even speculated here
that perhaps a testator might do this *in order* to delay execution, but I'm
not sure.
I would have to agree on the administrator/trix however, since this are
appointed by a court of competence and so would have to be in their majority at
that time.
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
-
Gjest
Re: Gramma's AT
In a message dated 12/1/2007 9:20:56 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
lmahler@att.net writes:
First, you'll have to make a public apology to David Greene.
And you'll have to say some nice things about me as well.>>
---------------------
Folks we may be on the verge of a historic event of major proportions
here....
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
lmahler@att.net writes:
First, you'll have to make a public apology to David Greene.
And you'll have to say some nice things about me as well.>>
---------------------
Folks we may be on the verge of a historic event of major proportions
here....
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
-
Gjest
Re: Margaret Butler of Tighes Cuckfield Sussex Ancestor of G
In a message dated 12/1/2007 9:40:37 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
butlergrt@aol.com writes:
<<Precisely what I thought and thank you for responding, just wondering
why others continued in their lines this in-correct venue of Tighes
descent when data shows otherwise.>>
Because the vast majority of online family trees merely copy each other
without doing any original research. Once a mistake is present, it's picked up
over and over and over. One of the reasons I've started a few "correction"
pages. As has others for various things.
<<Concerning Walter Butler instead of
William Butler as the father of Margaret, wife of Lawrence Washington,
in the book,
"Some Colonial Mansions And Those Who Lived In Them With Genealogies
Of The Various Families Mentioned" by Thomas Allen Glenn
copyright 1899, published 1900 by Henry Coates & Co. p. 24,
It states that Sir Henry Dryden, the Northamptonshire Antiquarian
found that the Washington house in Brington, after the forced sale of
Sulgrave Manor due to it being heavily mortgaged, had the coat of arms
for the Washingtons >>
What does this mean he "had the coat of arms for the Washingtons". A coat
of arms is only given to a particular man and his eldest son, you can buy it
or take it.
Will Johnson
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
butlergrt@aol.com writes:
<<Precisely what I thought and thank you for responding, just wondering
why others continued in their lines this in-correct venue of Tighes
descent when data shows otherwise.>>
Because the vast majority of online family trees merely copy each other
without doing any original research. Once a mistake is present, it's picked up
over and over and over. One of the reasons I've started a few "correction"
pages. As has others for various things.
<<Concerning Walter Butler instead of
William Butler as the father of Margaret, wife of Lawrence Washington,
in the book,
"Some Colonial Mansions And Those Who Lived In Them With Genealogies
Of The Various Families Mentioned" by Thomas Allen Glenn
copyright 1899, published 1900 by Henry Coates & Co. p. 24,
It states that Sir Henry Dryden, the Northamptonshire Antiquarian
found that the Washington house in Brington, after the forced sale of
Sulgrave Manor due to it being heavily mortgaged, had the coat of arms
for the Washingtons >>
What does this mean he "had the coat of arms for the Washingtons". A coat
of arms is only given to a particular man and his eldest son, you can buy it
or take it.
Will Johnson
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
< t...@clearwire.net writes:
<
< I am not sure I get what point you are trying to make, but a person
< appointed administrator or executor is going to be an adult, full
< stop.
You're wrong, again, Todd. Whilte it is certainly rare, a minor can
be appointed executor or administrator of an estate, much as in
medieval times a minor husband can be granted his wife's lands, even
though his own lands are still in the hands of a guardian.
I think you're judging medieval times by modern standards. This is
dangerous and ill advised, Todd.
DR
<
< I am not sure I get what point you are trying to make, but a person
< appointed administrator or executor is going to be an adult, full
< stop.
You're wrong, again, Todd. Whilte it is certainly rare, a minor can
be appointed executor or administrator of an estate, much as in
medieval times a minor husband can be granted his wife's lands, even
though his own lands are still in the hands of a guardian.
I think you're judging medieval times by modern standards. This is
dangerous and ill advised, Todd.
DR
-
Gjest
Re: Margaret Butler of Tighes Cuckfield Sussex Ancestor of G
In a message dated 12/1/2007 9:54:29 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
WJhonson@aol.com writes:
What does this mean he "had the coat of arms for the Washingtons". A coat
of arms is only given to a particular man and his eldest son, you can buy
it
or take it.>>
------------------
I mean you CANNOT buy it or take it
Kinda changes the meaning...
Will
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
WJhonson@aol.com writes:
What does this mean he "had the coat of arms for the Washingtons". A coat
of arms is only given to a particular man and his eldest son, you can buy
it
or take it.>>
------------------
I mean you CANNOT buy it or take it
Kinda changes the meaning...
Will
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Descents From Charlemagne
In article <mailman.86.1196529538.4586.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
This is the dealbreaker. You're asking about a series, not a book, to
include *all*.
Well, Europaische Stammtafeln maintains the agnatic organizing
principle, so it does not have every-descendant charts for anyone. The
8-generation chart included with Werner's "Nachkommen Karls des Grossen"
in the Dusseldorf volume is the most ambitious every-descendant chart
I've seen, for any medieval individual, included in any published book.
But generally, for all its faults, ES fits your bill best of any work
out there. There have also been plenty of one-volume greatest hit
historical genealogy works which offer incomplete charts for basic
historical purposes: I have often used such charts for teaching. One
nicely printed volume I have and enjoy is and edition of the old
_Genealogical Tables Illustrative of Modern History_, ed. Hereford B.
George & successors (Oxford: Clarendon Press, editions from 1874 through
about WWII). This uses 'Modern' in the English academic meaning of
post-Classical.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Speaking of references, I've been checking various book stores for a
[perhaps mythical] book which would have something like the following
format:
Half of the book (or more) would simply be family tree charts of *all*
European noble houses, the remainder taken up by discussion.
This is the dealbreaker. You're asking about a series, not a book, to
include *all*.
The vast majority of books have only a few charts, maybe ten at the most.
*IS* there such a book (perhaps even in print) where half or more is family
tree charts? I have seen a few oblique references to a book purported to
show
*all* living descendents from Edward III (of England) in chart form, but
what I'm looking for is something, perhaps more medieval in scope, showing
all Europe, not just all England.
Well, Europaische Stammtafeln maintains the agnatic organizing
principle, so it does not have every-descendant charts for anyone. The
8-generation chart included with Werner's "Nachkommen Karls des Grossen"
in the Dusseldorf volume is the most ambitious every-descendant chart
I've seen, for any medieval individual, included in any published book.
But generally, for all its faults, ES fits your bill best of any work
out there. There have also been plenty of one-volume greatest hit
historical genealogy works which offer incomplete charts for basic
historical purposes: I have often used such charts for teaching. One
nicely printed volume I have and enjoy is and edition of the old
_Genealogical Tables Illustrative of Modern History_, ed. Hereford B.
George & successors (Oxford: Clarendon Press, editions from 1874 through
about WWII). This uses 'Modern' in the English academic meaning of
post-Classical.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
John Brandon
Re: Gramma's AT
lmah...@att.net writes:
First, you'll have to make a public apology to David Greene.
And you'll have to say some nice things about me as well.
---------------------
Folks we may be on the verge of a historic event of major proportions
here....
No, not really ...
I think this just demonstrates how foolishly power-hungry and
delusional certain FAGSs are. Imagine having had someone say a large
number of "nice things" to you in private emails over ten years or
more, then refusing to name a certain surname just because you _could_
withhold the secret. Never mind that nothing more can be discovered
about the family (and they are probably **very** minor gentry anyway).
David Greene, on the other hand, has become so caught up in the
secrecy of the grand secret society of the FAGSs, and so doubtful that
the unwashed masses should be let in on their specialized and esoteric
knowledge, that he only reluctantly puts out a new issue of his
quarterly publication every six months or so, letting his poor little
rag fall further and further behind. Now that he's retired, the
"requirements of vetting and proofreading" (an eight or nine-step
process) have actually become MORE time-consuming rather than less
so. Who would have thunk?
Or maybe he is really trying to attract the attention of major
genealogical philanthropist Ruth Bishop ...
Ha ha, too stupid ...
-
Gjest
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
On Dec 1, 9:54 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
OK, Mr. 'cite your evidence' - here is your chance. Give me a
specific example of someone in th mid-16th century who acted as
administrator of an estate while a minor.
I think you're posturing and pontificating, as usual. Don't letting
the fawning admiration of your groupie go to your head.
taf
You're wrong, again, Todd. Whilte it is certainly rare, a minor can
be appointed executor or administrator of an estate, much as in
medieval times a minor husband can be granted his wife's lands, even
though his own lands are still in the hands of a guardian.
OK, Mr. 'cite your evidence' - here is your chance. Give me a
specific example of someone in th mid-16th century who acted as
administrator of an estate while a minor.
I think you're judging medieval times by modern standards. This is
dangerous and ill advised, Todd.
I think you're posturing and pontificating, as usual. Don't letting
the fawning admiration of your groupie go to your head.
taf
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
Dear Bill ~
I've had a chance to examine the five plates which you sent me which
contain the pedigree of the Peck family. According to what you have
told me, these plates are reproductions of an original 17th Century
pedigree which is found in the British Library. The plates themselves
are taken from an article on the Peck family which was published in
the New England Register.
As far as I can tell, the pedigree is genuine and authentic. I have
no reason to think the pedigree has been tampered with or altered in
any way. The handwriting is consistent throughout the pedigree.
As best I can tell without spending a great deal of time on it, the
handwriting appears to be about 1631-1650. I make that assessment on
three factors. First, in the time of the Great Migration to the New
World, people were in the process of dropping the final "e" off of
many names. In the Peck pedigree, the name Peck is spelled Pecke with
the final "e" throughout, except for twice on the last page (Plate
IVa) where it is spelled Peck. These two references are to later
members of the Peck family of Beccles. Since we have Peck twice
without a final "e," I would date the pedigree as being c. 1630 or
later. Second, I find on Plate III a capital C which is typical of
capital C's written in 1650. For an example of such a capital C dated
1650, I refer newsgroup members to the weblink below. Click on
Report on Cromwell's Christmas ban 1650.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pala ... actice.htm
We can be reasonably sure that the pedigree dates from after 1631, as
I note there is a stray reference on Plate IVa to that date. The
handwriting of this stray entry seems to be the same as that of the
Peck pedigree.
Given these factors, I doubt the pedigree is earlier than 1630 because
of the capital C. Thus, the date 1631-1650.
Now onto the real crux of the matter. The pedigree alleges that the
grandfather of the immigrant Peck brothers was Robert Pecke (died
1556), of Beccles, Suffolk, which can be substantiated from other
sources. Robert Pecke of Beccles is placed in the pedigree as a son
of John Pecke, of Wakefield, Yorkshire, by his wife, ____, daughter of
John Anne. Fortunately, there are two other visitations of the Peck
family of Wakefield from this time period, and, surprisingly, neither
of them mention Robert as this John's son. In one of them, the Tonge
visitation, John Pecke is assigned six sons, whose order of birth is
specified. No Robert.
In the Peck pedigree in the British Library, John Peck is similarly
assigned six sons, whose birth order is stated, plus a seventh son,
Robert Pecke of Beccles whose birth order is NOT stated. This tells
me two things. First, the person who made the pedigree believed that
Robert Pecke, of Beccles, was the son of John Pecke, of Wakefield.
Second, the person who made the pedigree knew of John Peck's six sons
and their birth order, and was unsure where to place Robert Pecke of
Beccles in this family. It is unclear why the person who made this
pedigree was unsure about Robert Pecke's placement. Suffice to say,
this was evidently a problem for the pedigree maker.
And, well it should have been. By my estimation, John Pecke of
Wakefield (husband of Joan Anne) was born say 1490, whereas Robert
Pecke of Beccles appears to have been an adult by 1527, or born in or
before 1506. Also, we know that John Pecke, of Wakefield, died in
1558, and Robert Pecke, of Beccles, died in 1556. If these dates are
correct, then it is impossible chronologically for John Pecke to have
been the father of Robert Pecke, of Beccles. As far as I can tell,
the two men were contemporaries to one another, almost if not the same
age.
Having said that, one must ask why did the pedigree maker think that
Robert Pecke, of Beccles, was a member of the Wakefield family? We
are in the dark about that. All we can know is that he believed that
was the case. If wishes were fishes, I would say that the Beccles
family in the 1630's believed that this was the case. If that was
true, the pedigree maker should have taken the Beccles family pedigree
back to the generation of Robert Pecke, and then said "descended from
the Pecke family of Wakefield, Yorkshire" and left it at that.
Casting around for alternative solutions, if Robert Pecke of Beccles
was not the son of John Pecke, then it is difficult to determine just
where he might fit into the Wakefield family tree. John Pecke of
Wakefield had no brothers, nor did his father. However, John Pecke's
father did have an uncle named Robert Pecke, and it's possible that
this uncle could be the father of Robert Pecke, of Beccles. However,
we have few particulars of the uncle Robert Pecke, except that he was
living in 1516. So even though we have an earlier Robert Pecke in the
Wakefield family tree, there appears to be insufficient evidence to
make a link between him and the later Robert Pecke of Beccles. Sour
grapes (at least for now).
The short end of it: Robert Pecke, of Beccles, Suffolk (died 1556) can
not have been the son of John Pecke, of Wakefield, Yorkshire (died
1558), as alleged by the Pecke pedigree in the British Library. The
proposed royal lineage for the Peck family of New England which you
have set forth has been disproven by contemporary records. If at some
point you find that you're able to establish a link between Robert
Pecke, of Beccles, and the earlier Robert Pecke of the Wakefield
family, you might still be able to work out a valid royal line. For
now, however, you're dead in the water.
I recommend we move onto other matters.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
I've had a chance to examine the five plates which you sent me which
contain the pedigree of the Peck family. According to what you have
told me, these plates are reproductions of an original 17th Century
pedigree which is found in the British Library. The plates themselves
are taken from an article on the Peck family which was published in
the New England Register.
As far as I can tell, the pedigree is genuine and authentic. I have
no reason to think the pedigree has been tampered with or altered in
any way. The handwriting is consistent throughout the pedigree.
As best I can tell without spending a great deal of time on it, the
handwriting appears to be about 1631-1650. I make that assessment on
three factors. First, in the time of the Great Migration to the New
World, people were in the process of dropping the final "e" off of
many names. In the Peck pedigree, the name Peck is spelled Pecke with
the final "e" throughout, except for twice on the last page (Plate
IVa) where it is spelled Peck. These two references are to later
members of the Peck family of Beccles. Since we have Peck twice
without a final "e," I would date the pedigree as being c. 1630 or
later. Second, I find on Plate III a capital C which is typical of
capital C's written in 1650. For an example of such a capital C dated
1650, I refer newsgroup members to the weblink below. Click on
Report on Cromwell's Christmas ban 1650.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pala ... actice.htm
We can be reasonably sure that the pedigree dates from after 1631, as
I note there is a stray reference on Plate IVa to that date. The
handwriting of this stray entry seems to be the same as that of the
Peck pedigree.
Given these factors, I doubt the pedigree is earlier than 1630 because
of the capital C. Thus, the date 1631-1650.
Now onto the real crux of the matter. The pedigree alleges that the
grandfather of the immigrant Peck brothers was Robert Pecke (died
1556), of Beccles, Suffolk, which can be substantiated from other
sources. Robert Pecke of Beccles is placed in the pedigree as a son
of John Pecke, of Wakefield, Yorkshire, by his wife, ____, daughter of
John Anne. Fortunately, there are two other visitations of the Peck
family of Wakefield from this time period, and, surprisingly, neither
of them mention Robert as this John's son. In one of them, the Tonge
visitation, John Pecke is assigned six sons, whose order of birth is
specified. No Robert.
In the Peck pedigree in the British Library, John Peck is similarly
assigned six sons, whose birth order is stated, plus a seventh son,
Robert Pecke of Beccles whose birth order is NOT stated. This tells
me two things. First, the person who made the pedigree believed that
Robert Pecke, of Beccles, was the son of John Pecke, of Wakefield.
Second, the person who made the pedigree knew of John Peck's six sons
and their birth order, and was unsure where to place Robert Pecke of
Beccles in this family. It is unclear why the person who made this
pedigree was unsure about Robert Pecke's placement. Suffice to say,
this was evidently a problem for the pedigree maker.
And, well it should have been. By my estimation, John Pecke of
Wakefield (husband of Joan Anne) was born say 1490, whereas Robert
Pecke of Beccles appears to have been an adult by 1527, or born in or
before 1506. Also, we know that John Pecke, of Wakefield, died in
1558, and Robert Pecke, of Beccles, died in 1556. If these dates are
correct, then it is impossible chronologically for John Pecke to have
been the father of Robert Pecke, of Beccles. As far as I can tell,
the two men were contemporaries to one another, almost if not the same
age.
Having said that, one must ask why did the pedigree maker think that
Robert Pecke, of Beccles, was a member of the Wakefield family? We
are in the dark about that. All we can know is that he believed that
was the case. If wishes were fishes, I would say that the Beccles
family in the 1630's believed that this was the case. If that was
true, the pedigree maker should have taken the Beccles family pedigree
back to the generation of Robert Pecke, and then said "descended from
the Pecke family of Wakefield, Yorkshire" and left it at that.
Casting around for alternative solutions, if Robert Pecke of Beccles
was not the son of John Pecke, then it is difficult to determine just
where he might fit into the Wakefield family tree. John Pecke of
Wakefield had no brothers, nor did his father. However, John Pecke's
father did have an uncle named Robert Pecke, and it's possible that
this uncle could be the father of Robert Pecke, of Beccles. However,
we have few particulars of the uncle Robert Pecke, except that he was
living in 1516. So even though we have an earlier Robert Pecke in the
Wakefield family tree, there appears to be insufficient evidence to
make a link between him and the later Robert Pecke of Beccles. Sour
grapes (at least for now).
The short end of it: Robert Pecke, of Beccles, Suffolk (died 1556) can
not have been the son of John Pecke, of Wakefield, Yorkshire (died
1558), as alleged by the Pecke pedigree in the British Library. The
proposed royal lineage for the Peck family of New England which you
have set forth has been disproven by contemporary records. If at some
point you find that you're able to establish a link between Robert
Pecke, of Beccles, and the earlier Robert Pecke of the Wakefield
family, you might still be able to work out a valid royal line. For
now, however, you're dead in the water.
I recommend we move onto other matters.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Gjest
Re: Margaret Butler of Tighes Cuckfield Sussex Ancestor of G
On Dec 1, 12:02�pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
Good Afternoon,
What I was trying to say and it did not or must not have come out
right was, the Washingtons had their coat or arms and the various
allied family coat of arms(that they married into) in their house as
windows, I presume as stained glass? but not for sure, which is why 6
of them were probably in the church at Tawsley. Google search the
book, page 24, read it and see if you gain better understanding and
interpret it as I did. You will also read the excerpt of Walter Butler
as the father of Margaret Butler who married Lawrence Washington
rather than William Butler as Margarets father.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler
In a message dated 12/1/2007 9:54:29 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, �
WJhon...@aol.com writes:
What �does this mean he "had the coat of arms for the Washingtons".. �A � coat
of arms is only given to a particular man and his eldest son, you can �buy �
it
or take it.
------------------
I mean you CANNOT buy it or take it
Kinda changes the meaning...
Will
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
Good Afternoon,
What I was trying to say and it did not or must not have come out
right was, the Washingtons had their coat or arms and the various
allied family coat of arms(that they married into) in their house as
windows, I presume as stained glass? but not for sure, which is why 6
of them were probably in the church at Tawsley. Google search the
book, page 24, read it and see if you gain better understanding and
interpret it as I did. You will also read the excerpt of Walter Butler
as the father of Margaret Butler who married Lawrence Washington
rather than William Butler as Margarets father.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler
-
Gjest
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
On Dec 1, 10:53 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Including in all three signatures - in other words, it is a copy, and
in dating the writing, you are dating the copy, not the original.
Based on . . . ? Come on, go ahead and say it. Because he was acting
as executor of an estate.
Maybe this will carry more weight coming from the 'gentleman and
scholar' than from everyone else who has raised the same point, dating
back to S. Allyn Peck.
taf
Dear Bill ~
I've had a chance to examine the five plates which you sent me which
contain the pedigree of the Peck family. According to what you have
told me, these plates are reproductions of an original 17th Century
pedigree which is found in the British Library. The plates themselves
are taken from an article on the Peck family which was published in
the New England Register.
As far as I can tell, the pedigree is genuine and authentic. I have
no reason to think the pedigree has been tampered with or altered in
any way. The handwriting is consistent throughout the pedigree.
Including in all three signatures - in other words, it is a copy, and
in dating the writing, you are dating the copy, not the original.
And, well it should have been. By my estimation, John Pecke of
Wakefield (husband of Joan Anne) was born say 1490, whereas Robert
Pecke of Beccles appears to have been an adult by 1527, or born in or
before 1506.
Based on . . . ? Come on, go ahead and say it. Because he was acting
as executor of an estate.
The short end of it: Robert Pecke, of Beccles, Suffolk (died 1556) can
not have been the son of John Pecke, of Wakefield, Yorkshire (died
1558), as alleged by the Pecke pedigree in the British Library.
Maybe this will carry more weight coming from the 'gentleman and
scholar' than from everyone else who has raised the same point, dating
back to S. Allyn Peck.
taf
-
John Brandon
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
Maybe this will carry more weight coming from the 'gentleman and
scholar' than from everyone else who has raised the same point, dating
back to S. Allyn Peck.
taf
More likely it will prove equally unacceptable, and the "gentleman and
scholar" will begin to be called something less attractive.
I think we have to face the fact that BA has his mind made up about
the way he wants to write up his family history. It will be a
romanticised, novelistic account, very lacking in accurate
genealogy ... and, judging by the *awful* style of all his postings
here, no work of true and certain literature either.
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
My comments are interspersed below. DR
On Dec 1, 12:21 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
The acting assumption is that anyone appointed an executor or
administrator of an estate is an adult. Since the vast bulk of
executors and administrators were in fact adults, I believe it
is`reasonable to assume that this was the case with Robert Pecke, of
Beccles, who in 1529, was appointed the executor of the estate of his
grandfather or uncle, John Leeke, of Beccles, Suffolk.
In my post earlier today, by the way, I inadvertedly stated that
Robert Pecke, of Beccles, was born by 1506, as I thought he was named
the executor of John Leeke's will in 1527. The correct date of John
Leeke's will is 1529, not 1527. Thus, Robert Pecke would have been
born sometime before 1508, not 1506. If the slip in dates confused
anyone, I apologize.
Gentleman and scholar? Well, thanks, Todd.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Dec 1, 12:21 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
Based on . . . ? Come on, go ahead and say it. Because he was acting
as executor of an estate.
The acting assumption is that anyone appointed an executor or
administrator of an estate is an adult. Since the vast bulk of
executors and administrators were in fact adults, I believe it
is`reasonable to assume that this was the case with Robert Pecke, of
Beccles, who in 1529, was appointed the executor of the estate of his
grandfather or uncle, John Leeke, of Beccles, Suffolk.
In my post earlier today, by the way, I inadvertedly stated that
Robert Pecke, of Beccles, was born by 1506, as I thought he was named
the executor of John Leeke's will in 1527. The correct date of John
Leeke's will is 1529, not 1527. Thus, Robert Pecke would have been
born sometime before 1508, not 1506. If the slip in dates confused
anyone, I apologize.
Maybe this will carry more weight coming from the 'gentleman and
scholar' than from everyone else who has raised the same point, dating
back to S. Allyn Peck.
Gentleman and scholar? Well, thanks, Todd.
taf
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Bill Arnold
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
TAF: Maybe this will carry more weight coming from the 'gentleman and
scholar' than from everyone else who has raised the same point, dating
back to S. Allyn Peck.
Douglas Richardson: Gentleman and scholar? Well, thanks, Todd.
BA: Occasionally, TAF can get it right, and on this point he does have
it right about gentleman and scholar Douglas Richardson. Thank you,
*The Lion* Douglas Richardson, for that long thoughtful post which
obviously took you considerable time to *construct* and I want all
gen-medieval writers to understand I do appreciate it. Several things
are clear to me, if I can paraphrase your points: The BL Peck Pedigree
is authentic and dates from the mid 17thC, and was probably as stated
by Ira. B. Peck drafted by the College of Arms heralds at the behest
of Nicholas Peck, brother of the Rev. Robert and gateway ancestor
to America Joseph Peck. We all are puzzled *why* Robert Peck,
the Elder, is identified as a member of the Wakefield Peck family?
As a true constructionist, I will continue to ponder it, and those
descendants of Robert Peck, the Elder, who wonder where his
true ancestors came from can be assured if I have something further
to say on this matter, you will hear from me again. So, to put this
in the final sentence of this constructive post: I once again thank
*The Lion* Douglas Richardson known worldwide as the author
or royal ancestry books. Here is hoping that will down the road
The Lion will complete *Charlemagne Ancestry*!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
scholar' than from everyone else who has raised the same point, dating
back to S. Allyn Peck.
Douglas Richardson: Gentleman and scholar? Well, thanks, Todd.
BA: Occasionally, TAF can get it right, and on this point he does have
it right about gentleman and scholar Douglas Richardson. Thank you,
*The Lion* Douglas Richardson, for that long thoughtful post which
obviously took you considerable time to *construct* and I want all
gen-medieval writers to understand I do appreciate it. Several things
are clear to me, if I can paraphrase your points: The BL Peck Pedigree
is authentic and dates from the mid 17thC, and was probably as stated
by Ira. B. Peck drafted by the College of Arms heralds at the behest
of Nicholas Peck, brother of the Rev. Robert and gateway ancestor
to America Joseph Peck. We all are puzzled *why* Robert Peck,
the Elder, is identified as a member of the Wakefield Peck family?
As a true constructionist, I will continue to ponder it, and those
descendants of Robert Peck, the Elder, who wonder where his
true ancestors came from can be assured if I have something further
to say on this matter, you will hear from me again. So, to put this
in the final sentence of this constructive post: I once again thank
*The Lion* Douglas Richardson known worldwide as the author
or royal ancestry books. Here is hoping that will down the road
The Lion will complete *Charlemagne Ancestry*!
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
Gjest
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
On Dec 1, 11:40 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Yes, quite. I guess you just find it more persuasive after you have
repeated someone else's point.
Don't kid yourself.
taf
My comments are interspersed below. DR
On Dec 1, 12:21 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
Based on . . . ? Come on, go ahead and say it. Because he was acting
as executor of an estate.
The acting assumption is that anyone appointed an executor or
administrator of an estate is an adult. Since the vast bulk of
executors and administrators were in fact adults, I believe it
is`reasonable to assume that this was the case with Robert Pecke, of
Beccles, who in 1529, was appointed the executor of the estate of his
grandfather or uncle, John Leeke, of Beccles, Suffolk.
Yes, quite. I guess you just find it more persuasive after you have
repeated someone else's point.
Maybe this will carry more weight coming from the 'gentleman and
scholar' than from everyone else who has raised the same point, dating
back to S. Allyn Peck.
Gentleman and scholar? Well, thanks, Todd.
Don't kid yourself.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
On Dec 1, 12:07 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
And you could have found everything of what he said concerning the
descent in the various writings since the '30s, and other than a
document showing the letter C from about 1650, no new evidence, which
was supposedly required. Clearly, you care more about the messenger
than the message. That is never good.
''Authentic" is a loaded term, and hence not very useful. What he
concluded was that it was entirely in the same script, and that script
dates from the mid-17th century. Now for a document to be in the
same script, that means that it was probably written by the same
person at about the same time - there are no later interpolations into
the document. However, if the surviving manuscript is a copy, that
would eliminate any valuable conclusion except when the copy was made.
The act of copying would cause the interpolation and the original text
to both be written in the same script, a script of the date that the
copy was made, not when originally composed. That the supposed
signatures also appear to be in that same script is suggestive that it
is a copy.
Mr. Richardson never said anything that could be accurately
paraphrased in this manner.
Speak for yourself. Here is how the process works. Your name is Peck
and you don't know where your family came from. You go to a
professional genealogist and say, I want you to find a long pedigree
for me. The professional looks at the collections of his guild and
traces your family as far as he can. Unfortunately, that isn't very
far, so then he looks for any other family in the records with the
same name and finds this Peck family of somewhere else, and they have
a pedigree going back much earlier. So, the genealogist approximates
what the right generation should be and makes the connection. The
client is happy, the herald gets paid, and we get misled.
taf
TAF: Maybe this will carry more weight coming from the 'gentleman and
scholar' than from everyone else who has raised the same point, dating
back to S. Allyn Peck.
BA: Occasionally, TAF can get it right, and on this point he does have
it right about gentleman and scholar Douglas Richardson. Thank you,
*The Lion* Douglas Richardson, for that long thoughtful post which
obviously took you considerable time to *construct* and I want all
gen-medieval writers to understand I do appreciate it.
And you could have found everything of what he said concerning the
descent in the various writings since the '30s, and other than a
document showing the letter C from about 1650, no new evidence, which
was supposedly required. Clearly, you care more about the messenger
than the message. That is never good.
Several things
are clear to me, if I can paraphrase your points: The BL Peck Pedigree
is authentic and dates from the mid 17thC,
''Authentic" is a loaded term, and hence not very useful. What he
concluded was that it was entirely in the same script, and that script
dates from the mid-17th century. Now for a document to be in the
same script, that means that it was probably written by the same
person at about the same time - there are no later interpolations into
the document. However, if the surviving manuscript is a copy, that
would eliminate any valuable conclusion except when the copy was made.
The act of copying would cause the interpolation and the original text
to both be written in the same script, a script of the date that the
copy was made, not when originally composed. That the supposed
signatures also appear to be in that same script is suggestive that it
is a copy.
and was probably as stated
by Ira. B. Peck drafted by the College of Arms heralds at the behest
of Nicholas Peck, brother of the Rev. Robert and gateway ancestor
to America Joseph Peck.
Mr. Richardson never said anything that could be accurately
paraphrased in this manner.
We all are puzzled *why* Robert Peck,
the Elder, is identified as a member of the Wakefield Peck family?
Speak for yourself. Here is how the process works. Your name is Peck
and you don't know where your family came from. You go to a
professional genealogist and say, I want you to find a long pedigree
for me. The professional looks at the collections of his guild and
traces your family as far as he can. Unfortunately, that isn't very
far, so then he looks for any other family in the records with the
same name and finds this Peck family of somewhere else, and they have
a pedigree going back much earlier. So, the genealogist approximates
what the right generation should be and makes the connection. The
client is happy, the herald gets paid, and we get misled.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: A Possible descent from Dracula
Now THERE'S (american?) incapacity to recognize (british?) irony ...
----------------------------------
so true, James Allen has a brilliant sense of humor, i have been
referring to his response all day...and that guy
"lostcoo...@yahoo.com" must have no sense of humor, what he needs is
to take a college level course of psychology to learn to distinguish
between a Freudian slip from a sense of humor ... James Allen has an
endearing sense of cockiness that is very attractive and wants me to
hear more from him
-----------------------------------------
chris
-
Gjest
Re: Gramma's AT
On Dec 1, 10:13 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yes, power mad. I will continue to torment you in the future.
Really, you are asking for it.
Wasnt it a few months ago, you admitted the 'nice things'
you said were untrue?
As for the family in Bedfordshire, theres supposed to be a lawsuit,
which
includes a pedigree, taking the line across the 1500s.
If you only knew of the other secrets that I haven't shared.
Speaking of stupid, who's the whiner on here who one minute insults
TAG,
the next minute is wondering why it hasn't arrived in the mail?
Leslie
I think this just demonstrates how foolishly power-hungry and
delusional certain FASGs are. Imagine having had someone say a large
number of "nice things" to you in private emails over ten years or
more, then refusing to name a certain surname just because you _could_
withhold the secret. Never mind that nothing more can be discovered
about the family (and they are probably **very** minor gentry anyway).
Yes, power mad. I will continue to torment you in the future.
Really, you are asking for it.
Wasnt it a few months ago, you admitted the 'nice things'
you said were untrue?
As for the family in Bedfordshire, theres supposed to be a lawsuit,
which
includes a pedigree, taking the line across the 1500s.
If you only knew of the other secrets that I haven't shared.
David Greene, on the other hand, has become so caught up in the
secrecy of the grand secret society of the FAGSs, and so doubtful that
the unwashed masses should be let in on their specialized and esoteric
knowledge, that he only reluctantly puts out a new issue of his
quarterly publication every six months or so, letting his poor little
rag fall further and further behind. Now that he's retired, the
"requirements of vetting and proofreading" (an eight or nine-step
process) have actually become MORE time-consuming rather than less
so. Who would have thunk?
Or maybe he is really trying to attract the attention of major
genealogical philanthropist Ruth Bishop ...
Ha ha, too stupid ...
Speaking of stupid, who's the whiner on here who one minute insults
TAG,
the next minute is wondering why it hasn't arrived in the mail?
Leslie
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Gramma's AT
Yep...
Brandon is Manic-Depressive.
Always either at your throat or your feet.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
<lmahler@att.net> wrote in message
news:ad891a80-08e6-494f-8947-6710ac694ff5@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Brandon is Manic-Depressive.
Always either at your throat or your feet.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
<lmahler@att.net> wrote in message
news:ad891a80-08e6-494f-8947-6710ac694ff5@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 1, 10:13 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Speaking of stupid, who's the whiner on here who one minute insults
TAG, the next minute is wondering why it hasn't arrived in the mail?
Leslie
-
Renia
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
Douglas Richardson wrote:
It's later than that. It's either 18th-19th century purporting to be
17th century, or it's straight late 17th-century. The handwriting veers
from the 17th-18th century. It's cusp handwriting, viz, it's during the
transition from late 17th-century writing, but prior to copperplate.
My personal view is one of the family falsely logged on to the older
Peck pedigree. The NEHGS article suggests whom.
More later.
Given these factors, I doubt the pedigree is earlier than 1630 because
of the capital C. Thus, the date 1631-1650.
It's later than that. It's either 18th-19th century purporting to be
17th century, or it's straight late 17th-century. The handwriting veers
from the 17th-18th century. It's cusp handwriting, viz, it's during the
transition from late 17th-century writing, but prior to copperplate.
My personal view is one of the family falsely logged on to the older
Peck pedigree. The NEHGS article suggests whom.
More later.
-
Renia
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
Douglas Richardson wrote:
I agree. More later.
The short end of it: Robert Pecke, of Beccles, Suffolk (died 1556) can
not have been the son of John Pecke, of Wakefield, Yorkshire (died
1558), as alleged by the Pecke pedigree in the British Library.
I agree. More later.
-
Renia
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE
John Brandon wrote:
Plainly, Bill Arnold has not read and digested the NEHGR article.
Maybe this will carry more weight coming from the 'gentleman and
scholar' than from everyone else who has raised the same point, dating
back to S. Allyn Peck.
taf
More likely it will prove equally unacceptable, and the "gentleman and
scholar" will begin to be called something less attractive.
I think we have to face the fact that BA has his mind made up about
the way he wants to write up his family history. It will be a
romanticised, novelistic account, very lacking in accurate
genealogy ... and, judging by the *awful* style of all his postings
here, no work of true and certain literature either.
Plainly, Bill Arnold has not read and digested the NEHGR article.
-
Renia
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE - Belton, Yorkshire
There is no Belton in Yorkshire.
Belton is in Suffolk, about 12 miles or so north-east from Beccles. It
is just outside Great Yarmouth.
Belton is in Suffolk, about 12 miles or so north-east from Beccles. It
is just outside Great Yarmouth.
-
Renia
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE - Peck in Visitation of No
http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/england/ ... isitation/
This is the pedigree of the Pecks of Woodalling (Wood Dalling), Norfolk.
Pecks had been in the county since at least the 14th century.
This is the pedigree of the Pecks of Woodalling (Wood Dalling), Norfolk.
Pecks had been in the county since at least the 14th century.
-
Renia
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE - Belton, Yorkshire
Renia wrote:
It's in Norfolk, just off what is called the Beccles Road.
There is no Belton in Yorkshire.
Belton is in Suffolk, about 12 miles or so north-east from Beccles. It
is just outside Great Yarmouth.
It's in Norfolk, just off what is called the Beccles Road.
-
Gjest
Re: Tancred de Hauteville, and 'Muriel, the sister of Richar
Dear Peter,
So Robert Guiscard was nepos of a Norman named Richard ,
rather than Duke Richard of Normany. very interesting. thank you.
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)
So Robert Guiscard was nepos of a Norman named Richard ,
rather than Duke Richard of Normany. very interesting. thank you.
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)
-
Gjest
Re: Mauger de Carteret
taf
Thank you for replying.
Mauger de Carteret (Cartrai)
Ref to Domesday Book .
P.49.Mauger de Cartrai "holds 2 Hides Winterburne No 182 and part of No 128
Wool of Count de Mortain "Wintreburne"Three Thegns ther is land of I plough
has 1 Villein 3 Fulongs of pasture value 30s Mauger was also ,a tenent of the
Count in Somerset,
He is listed as a Champion of William. He was a knight. His family (for
many generations) held Sark and St. Ouen on the Island of Jersey. A
predominent name in the generations following Mauger is Phillip. I have reference in
the Domesday Devon under the 73 manors occupied by Drogo that Drogo was "son
of Mauger". I have seen on a website that Mauger's father was Godefroy De
Carteret Seig Carteret. There is no reference as to where this came from.
Another site says he was a young knight and therefore around 21. Again no
reference as to where this came from. If this is true than in 1085 when
Domesday was compiled his son Drogo would have been a very young man to have held
73 manors for the Bishop of Coutances. Here is where the problem starts.
One part of Domesday says "son of Mauger" beside one of 73 holdings. There are
exactly 73 with the name Drogo beside them. Only one with Mauger attached
to it but that one is needed to make the count right.
Domesday online landholders says:
FitzPoyntz, Drogo - Son of William of Poyntz. Holdings in Gloucs.,
Herefords., Wilts., Worcs. Also 73 holdings in Devon as under-tenant of Bishop of
Coutances.
All I can find of this man is that the son of William Poyntz (Pons) held
property in Glouchester and murdered his wife who was related to William and
fled to Belgium to escape his wrath. Never returned and left no children.
Drogo is my pet project so I'm left stumped as to which Domesday listing is
correct and that is why finding out about Mauger is the only way to include or
exclude him as the father.
Thank you for your time.
Peggy Large UE
"I'd rather die while I'm living than live while I'm dead"
thanks to Jimmy Buffett!
Thank you for replying.
Mauger de Carteret (Cartrai)
Ref to Domesday Book .
P.49.Mauger de Cartrai "holds 2 Hides Winterburne No 182 and part of No 128
Wool of Count de Mortain "Wintreburne"Three Thegns ther is land of I plough
has 1 Villein 3 Fulongs of pasture value 30s Mauger was also ,a tenent of the
Count in Somerset,
He is listed as a Champion of William. He was a knight. His family (for
many generations) held Sark and St. Ouen on the Island of Jersey. A
predominent name in the generations following Mauger is Phillip. I have reference in
the Domesday Devon under the 73 manors occupied by Drogo that Drogo was "son
of Mauger". I have seen on a website that Mauger's father was Godefroy De
Carteret Seig Carteret. There is no reference as to where this came from.
Another site says he was a young knight and therefore around 21. Again no
reference as to where this came from. If this is true than in 1085 when
Domesday was compiled his son Drogo would have been a very young man to have held
73 manors for the Bishop of Coutances. Here is where the problem starts.
One part of Domesday says "son of Mauger" beside one of 73 holdings. There are
exactly 73 with the name Drogo beside them. Only one with Mauger attached
to it but that one is needed to make the count right.
Domesday online landholders says:
FitzPoyntz, Drogo - Son of William of Poyntz. Holdings in Gloucs.,
Herefords., Wilts., Worcs. Also 73 holdings in Devon as under-tenant of Bishop of
Coutances.
All I can find of this man is that the son of William Poyntz (Pons) held
property in Glouchester and murdered his wife who was related to William and
fled to Belgium to escape his wrath. Never returned and left no children.
Drogo is my pet project so I'm left stumped as to which Domesday listing is
correct and that is why finding out about Mauger is the only way to include or
exclude him as the father.
Thank you for your time.
Peggy Large UE
"I'd rather die while I'm living than live while I'm dead"
thanks to Jimmy Buffett!
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Descents From Charlemagne
Nathaniel Taylor <nltaylor@nltaylor.net> wrote:
BA: Well, hello, Cousin Nat Taylor, once again: herein you will find our
common lineage, way back when: is this a Charlemagne or Plantagenet
descent?
Bill
*****[see below]
[key part of mine which links to yours]
My line branches off at generation 15.
16. Ninian Offutt Magruder and Mary Harris (she may have a royal descent as well)
17. John Magruder and Sarah Prior
18. Pamelia Magruder and Thomas Jefferson Wright
19. John Thomas Wright and Mary Caroline Eugenia Cliett
20. William Thomas Wright and Frances Louise Overton
[Nat Taylor's from his clickable: http://www.nltaylor.net/ancestry/royald ... gruder.htm]
Cassandra Elizabeth Taylor's royal descents:
via Alexander Magruder of Prince George’s County, Maryland († 1677):
to Robert II, King of Scotland († 1390)
1. Robert I Bruce, King of Scotland († 1329) ∞ Isabel, dau. of Donald, Earl of Mar
2. Marjorie († 1316), Princess of Scotland ∞ Walter Stewart (1293-1326), 6th High Steward of
Scotland
3. Robert II (1316-1390), 1st Stewart King of Scotland 1371-1390 ∞ Elizabeth (†1355), dau.
Sir Adam Mure
4. Robert Stewart (~1340-1420) , 1st Duke of Albany, Regent of Scotland ∞ Margaret Graham of
Menteith (†1380)
5. Marjory Stewart († 1432) ∞ Duncan Campbell, 1st Lord Campbell (~1370-1453)
6. Archibald Campbell, Master of Campbell (~1393-1431/40) ∞ Elizabeth Somerville
7. Colin Campbell († 1493), 1st Earl of Argyll ∞ Isabel, daughter of John Stewart, Lord Lorn
8. Archibald Campbell († at the Battle of Flodden, 1513), 2d Earl of Argyll ∞ Elizabeth,
dau. John Stewart, Earl of Lenox
9. Donald Campbell, O. C. (1492-1562), Abbot of Coupar Angus, Lord Privy Seal for Mary, Queen of
Scots
10. (illegitimate:) Nicholas Campbell, dean of Lismore Cathedral ∞ Katherine Drummond
11. Margaret Campbell ∞ Alexander Magruder of Dunblane, Perthshire (1569- )
12. Alexander Magruder of Prince George's County, Maryland (1610-1677) ∞ Sarah ___ [see
comment]
13. Captain Samuel Magruder (ca. 1660-1711) ∞ Sarah ___ ( - 1734)
14. Ninian Magruder (1686-1751) ∞ Elizabeth Brewer (1690-<1751)
15. Samuel Magruder III (1708-1786) ∞ Margaret Jackson (1711-1801)
16. Elizabeth Magruder (1730-1812) ∞ William Offutt III (1729-1786)
17. Margaret Offutt (1760-1820) ∞ Baruch Odell (1755-1789)
18. Cassandra Odell (1780-1832) ∞ John Kendrick Austin (1770-1854)
19. Elizabeth Austin (1807-1888) ∞ Blackstone Taylor (1806-1870)
20. William Harrison Taylor (1838-1911) ∞ Elizabeth Caroline Barnes (1841-1930)
21. Henry Barnes Taylor (1863-1926) ∞ Mildred Ann Matlack (1861-1939)
22. Marvin Hunter Taylor (1896-1941) ∞ Emma Katherine Schmitt (1894-1973)
23. Marvin Hunter Taylor (b. 1929) ∞ Elaine Doris Tucker (b. 1929)
24. Nathaniel Lane Taylor (b. 1965) ∞ Julie Harmon Scott (b. 1968)
25. Cassandra Elizabeth Taylor (b. 2000)
Sources:
Gens. 1-12: Gary B. Roberts, Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants to the American Colonies or the
United States (1st ed., Baltimore, 1993), 99, and his principal sources: Charles G. Kurz & Thomas
G. Magruder, Jr., "The Ancestral History of Margaret Campbell of Keithick," Yearbook of the
American Clan Gregor Society, 62 (1978), 55-65; and idem, "The McGruder Lineage in Scotland to
Magruder Family in America," Yearbook... 63 (1979), 53-71. See also the not-yet-published work of
Brice M. Clagett: Seven Centuries: Ancestors for Twenty Generations of John Brice de Treville
Clagett and Ann Calvert Brooke Clagett (Friendship, Maryland: the author, 200x).
Comment:
Clagett's manuscript (in notes, s.n. 'Magruder') contains a concise account of the compelling but
circumstantial evidence to identify Alexander Magruder of Maryland with the parentage shown here.
Clagett also indicates a possible descent from King Robert III through Katherine Drummond, wife of
Nicholas Campbell of Lismore.
back to CET royal descents index
[source: http://www.nltaylor.net/ancestry/royald ... gruder.htm
rev 08/18/2004]
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
... reference tool.
As for reference tools not already mentioned, I would recommend
Christian Settipani, _La Préhistoire des Capétiens, 481-987, première
partie: Mérovingiens, Carolingiens et Robertiens_, (_Nouvelle histoire
généalogique de l'auguste maison de France_, 1.1, Villeneuve d'Asq:
Patrick Van Kerrebrouck, 1993), which treats all male-line Carolingian
descendants down to the 13th century; and
Karl Ferdinand Werner, "Die Nachkommen Karls des Grossen bis um das Jahr
1000 (1.-8. Generation)," in _Karl der Grosse: Lebenswerk und
Nachleben_, Gen. ed. Wolfgang Braunfels, 4 vols. (Dusseldorf, 1965-68),
vol. 4 (_Das Nachleben_, ed. Braunfels & Percy Ernst Schramm), pp.
403ff., which deals with all lines (male and female) in the crucial
early period. Not exhaustively documented and no longer fully current,
but a magnificent overview with its enormous charts.
BA: Thanks much for the information, gentleman scholar, Nat Taylor.
I recently went to your website and viewed your royal ancestral lines
and others you designate "bogus" or questionable. Perhaps we are
cousins and share a common link through my ancestral *Magruder* lineage.
If I find others as I complete my ancestral lines, I will let you know.
BA: Well, hello, Cousin Nat Taylor, once again: herein you will find our
common lineage, way back when: is this a Charlemagne or Plantagenet
descent?
Bill
*****[see below]
[key part of mine which links to yours]
My line branches off at generation 15.
From Ninian Magruder and Elizabeth Brewer, my line comes down as follows:
15. John Magruder and Jane Offutt
16. Ninian Offutt Magruder and Mary Harris (she may have a royal descent as well)
17. John Magruder and Sarah Prior
18. Pamelia Magruder and Thomas Jefferson Wright
19. John Thomas Wright and Mary Caroline Eugenia Cliett
20. William Thomas Wright and Frances Louise Overton
[Nat Taylor's from his clickable: http://www.nltaylor.net/ancestry/royald ... gruder.htm]
Cassandra Elizabeth Taylor's royal descents:
via Alexander Magruder of Prince George’s County, Maryland († 1677):
to Robert II, King of Scotland († 1390)
1. Robert I Bruce, King of Scotland († 1329) ∞ Isabel, dau. of Donald, Earl of Mar
2. Marjorie († 1316), Princess of Scotland ∞ Walter Stewart (1293-1326), 6th High Steward of
Scotland
3. Robert II (1316-1390), 1st Stewart King of Scotland 1371-1390 ∞ Elizabeth (†1355), dau.
Sir Adam Mure
4. Robert Stewart (~1340-1420) , 1st Duke of Albany, Regent of Scotland ∞ Margaret Graham of
Menteith (†1380)
5. Marjory Stewart († 1432) ∞ Duncan Campbell, 1st Lord Campbell (~1370-1453)
6. Archibald Campbell, Master of Campbell (~1393-1431/40) ∞ Elizabeth Somerville
7. Colin Campbell († 1493), 1st Earl of Argyll ∞ Isabel, daughter of John Stewart, Lord Lorn
8. Archibald Campbell († at the Battle of Flodden, 1513), 2d Earl of Argyll ∞ Elizabeth,
dau. John Stewart, Earl of Lenox
9. Donald Campbell, O. C. (1492-1562), Abbot of Coupar Angus, Lord Privy Seal for Mary, Queen of
Scots
10. (illegitimate:) Nicholas Campbell, dean of Lismore Cathedral ∞ Katherine Drummond
11. Margaret Campbell ∞ Alexander Magruder of Dunblane, Perthshire (1569- )
12. Alexander Magruder of Prince George's County, Maryland (1610-1677) ∞ Sarah ___ [see
comment]
13. Captain Samuel Magruder (ca. 1660-1711) ∞ Sarah ___ ( - 1734)
14. Ninian Magruder (1686-1751) ∞ Elizabeth Brewer (1690-<1751)
15. Samuel Magruder III (1708-1786) ∞ Margaret Jackson (1711-1801)
16. Elizabeth Magruder (1730-1812) ∞ William Offutt III (1729-1786)
17. Margaret Offutt (1760-1820) ∞ Baruch Odell (1755-1789)
18. Cassandra Odell (1780-1832) ∞ John Kendrick Austin (1770-1854)
19. Elizabeth Austin (1807-1888) ∞ Blackstone Taylor (1806-1870)
20. William Harrison Taylor (1838-1911) ∞ Elizabeth Caroline Barnes (1841-1930)
21. Henry Barnes Taylor (1863-1926) ∞ Mildred Ann Matlack (1861-1939)
22. Marvin Hunter Taylor (1896-1941) ∞ Emma Katherine Schmitt (1894-1973)
23. Marvin Hunter Taylor (b. 1929) ∞ Elaine Doris Tucker (b. 1929)
24. Nathaniel Lane Taylor (b. 1965) ∞ Julie Harmon Scott (b. 1968)
25. Cassandra Elizabeth Taylor (b. 2000)
Sources:
Gens. 1-12: Gary B. Roberts, Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants to the American Colonies or the
United States (1st ed., Baltimore, 1993), 99, and his principal sources: Charles G. Kurz & Thomas
G. Magruder, Jr., "The Ancestral History of Margaret Campbell of Keithick," Yearbook of the
American Clan Gregor Society, 62 (1978), 55-65; and idem, "The McGruder Lineage in Scotland to
Magruder Family in America," Yearbook... 63 (1979), 53-71. See also the not-yet-published work of
Brice M. Clagett: Seven Centuries: Ancestors for Twenty Generations of John Brice de Treville
Clagett and Ann Calvert Brooke Clagett (Friendship, Maryland: the author, 200x).
Comment:
Clagett's manuscript (in notes, s.n. 'Magruder') contains a concise account of the compelling but
circumstantial evidence to identify Alexander Magruder of Maryland with the parentage shown here.
Clagett also indicates a possible descent from King Robert III through Katherine Drummond, wife of
Nicholas Campbell of Lismore.
back to CET royal descents index
[source: http://www.nltaylor.net/ancestry/royald ... gruder.htm
rev 08/18/2004]
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
Bob Turcott
RE: crusaders
I see a lot of people asking on the web where we come from originally. I would say that all depends how far they want to go back and wicg branch of the the family they are speaking of. There are turcottes in a few other countries that have been there a while and share the name most notable among them is Whales. The welch Turcotte are believed to have arrived in the early 1300's around the time of the false accusations of Phillip the fair alleging Herasy against all those in France associated with the Poor Knights. Prior to that most of the blood line wich shares the name lived in Provence France. Prior to that in Burgundy wich be came provance. They weathered the sericen invasions and where spared do to a resemblance to the invaders. The family is said to have been founded by a man and women of great importance from the holy land some time during the first century CE, And the name originally Turcus was acquired during Roman providence. Any way I degress, But it must be noted that the original hereldric crest's center peice is the same as that use by the Poor Knights for a sigil. I do not speak of the common twins on a horse but instead of the lamb of god bearing a blue streaming
banner and adorned aloft with a gold splayed cross. Wich literally translated means bearer of the blood of God and Devine providence. How ever figuratives where used in that time as well and therefore we must not draw rash conclusions of the facts at hand as some have tried in the past. I must also tell you that the name has different meaning depending on what region it is used in. For example it can mean chopped off tower in welch, in ancient norse it mean House of Thor, and in old burgundian dialect it can mean Female of the serisan (or)in newer French translation supposedly Female Turkish soldier
----------------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________
Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com/connect.html ... ays_112007
banner and adorned aloft with a gold splayed cross. Wich literally translated means bearer of the blood of God and Devine providence. How ever figuratives where used in that time as well and therefore we must not draw rash conclusions of the facts at hand as some have tried in the past. I must also tell you that the name has different meaning depending on what region it is used in. For example it can mean chopped off tower in welch, in ancient norse it mean House of Thor, and in old burgundian dialect it can mean Female of the serisan (or)in newer French translation supposedly Female Turkish soldier
----------------------------------------
From: no@nospam.com.invalid
Subject: Re: crusaders
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:16:25 -0500
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 17:48:52 +0000 (UTC), FordMommaerts@Cox.net ("Ford
Mommaerts-Browne") wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
Dear Bob,
Re. Ricardus filius Torke: Torke looks, to me, to be an Anglish [sic], (or,
possibly, Danish), name, derived from Tor (Thor), which at such a time and
place, (i.e. eleventh-to-thirteenth-century Yorkshire) was not uncommon.
Re. William le Turk: With the introduction of Norman-type surnames, which
you mentioned, the insertion of a 'de', or, less frequently, a 'le', became
common practice, in an effort to climb into the dominant paradigm socially;
much the same as American immigrants of a later period would (ironically)
shorten their names. However, the forenames William and Robert, (which you
cite), being French, would seem to indicate that such was not the case for
these more Southern 'forebarers' of your surname.
Non sense.
Old records shown the name to be TURCAULT or TURQUAULT. Example:
TURCOT name found at Mouilleron-en-Pareds (Vendée) in 1610 and 1617,
but records are missing 1618 to 1700.
There is an Abel TURCAULT in the parish of St-Maurice-le-Girard, same
town.
In French, -OT or -AULT or -AUT or -EAUX etc. are common meaningless
terminations. Root is definitely TURC or TURQUE. Since family names
appeared in the 1300s, you have to think about what it could mean
at that time. It was after the crusades, so it could mean someone
with dark skin or dark hair or very strong (an expression in French
means strong as a Turk), but also many other local words.
See http://notrefamille.com/v2/services-nom ... le/nom.asp
for distribution of the names. Try with TURCOT (half are in Vendée),
as other variations are less common.
Denis
--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique - http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1716 - http://www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
/ | Mes associations de généalogie: http://www.SGCF.com/ (soc. gén. can.-fr.)
oo oo http://www.genealogie.org/club/sglj/index2.html (soc. de gén. de La Jemmerais)
_________________________________________________________________
Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com/connect.html ... ays_112007
-
Gjest
Re: Gramma's AT
In a message dated 12/1/2007 1:50:18 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
lmahler@att.net writes:
If you only knew of the other secrets that I haven't shared.>>>
----------------
It was you on the grassy knoll wasn't it?
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
lmahler@att.net writes:
If you only knew of the other secrets that I haven't shared.>>>
----------------
It was you on the grassy knoll wasn't it?
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
-
Gjest
Re: crusaders
In a message dated 12/1/2007 9:04:07 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
bobturcott@msn.com writes:
There are turcottes in a few other countries that have been there a while
and share the name most notable among them is Whales.
--------
The most notable Turcott's are whales ?
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
bobturcott@msn.com writes:
There are turcottes in a few other countries that have been there a while
and share the name most notable among them is Whales.
--------
The most notable Turcott's are whales ?
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
-
Gjest
Re: Margaret Butler of Tighes Cuckfield Sussex Ancestor of G
In a message dated 12/1/2007 11:20:30 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
I note that the words "of Tighes, of Sussex, Esq." and "of Sulgrave,
Esq." are set in italics in the published pedigree. There is a reason
for this. I suggest you consult the published visitation to find out
the reason for the italics.>>
--------------------------------------
Assuming you mean specifically, but in general the italics mean that
information does not come from the visitation itself, but an additional source (or
sources) has (have) been collated with the visitation to "improve" it.
Sometimes, but not always, the bottom of the page will indicate what source.
Will
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
I note that the words "of Tighes, of Sussex, Esq." and "of Sulgrave,
Esq." are set in italics in the published pedigree. There is a reason
for this. I suggest you consult the published visitation to find out
the reason for the italics.>>
--------------------------------------
Assuming you mean specifically, but in general the italics mean that
information does not come from the visitation itself, but an additional source (or
sources) has (have) been collated with the visitation to "improve" it.
Sometimes, but not always, the bottom of the page will indicate what source.
Will
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
-
Gjest
Re: Descents From Charlemange
In a message dated 12/1/2007 11:45:25 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
jdallen2000@yahoo.com writes:
No, the math is right for a "first-order" approximation.
That a mother and father may be related is implicit.
(Otherwise you'd have a *maximum* of one descent from
Charlemagne, not a million!)>>
--------------------------------------------------------
That makes no sense.
That *a* mother and father may be related, does not say you'd have one
descent.
If your parents are siblings, and their parents (who let's say aren't
related closely) each have 90 unique descents from Charles, you still have those
descents regardless of your parents being related. And the mere fact that they
are related, doesn't merge all the descents into one.
Maybe you could restate that.
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
jdallen2000@yahoo.com writes:
No, the math is right for a "first-order" approximation.
That a mother and father may be related is implicit.
(Otherwise you'd have a *maximum* of one descent from
Charlemagne, not a million!)>>
--------------------------------------------------------
That makes no sense.
That *a* mother and father may be related, does not say you'd have one
descent.
If your parents are siblings, and their parents (who let's say aren't
related closely) each have 90 unique descents from Charles, you still have those
descents regardless of your parents being related. And the mere fact that they
are related, doesn't merge all the descents into one.
Maybe you could restate that.
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Descents From Charlemagne
In article <mailman.121.1196571517.4586.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:
Via what gateway?
Well, given the caveat that the case for Maryland planter Alexander
Magruder's identity (and, crucially, maternity) is only circumstantial,
if he is who he been identified as, then certainly, numerous paths to
Charlemagne are easily found: this is true of any English or Scottish
monarch from the late 11th century onward. Follow them back in the
pedigree view on Leo's genealogics site (http://www.genealogics.org) or use the
site's relationship calculator.
I do not believe that there are any descents from Henry II or Geoffrey
of Anjou to this particular Scottish emigrant. The endogamous early
Stewarts had no such descents, and I haven't looked fully into all the
known (apparent) ancestors of Alexander Magruder to find other
Anglo-Scottish marriages that might bring it in. This is something that
can probably be tested in Brice Clagett's forthcoming work which should
give 10 generations of Alexander Magruder's (apparent) known ancestry in
all lines.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:
BA: Well, hello, Cousin Nat Taylor, once again: herein you will find our
common lineage, way back when: is this a Charlemagne or Plantagenet
descent?
From Ninian Magruder and Elizabeth Brewer, my line comes down as follows:
15. John Magruder and Jane Offutt
16. Ninian Offutt Magruder and Mary Harris (she may have a royal descent as
well)
Via what gateway?
17. John Magruder and Sarah Prior
18. Pamelia Magruder and Thomas Jefferson Wright
19. John Thomas Wright and Mary Caroline Eugenia Cliett
20. William Thomas Wright and Frances Louise Overton
[Nat Taylor's from his clickable:
http://www.nltaylor.net/ancestry/royald ... gruder.htm
Well, given the caveat that the case for Maryland planter Alexander
Magruder's identity (and, crucially, maternity) is only circumstantial,
if he is who he been identified as, then certainly, numerous paths to
Charlemagne are easily found: this is true of any English or Scottish
monarch from the late 11th century onward. Follow them back in the
pedigree view on Leo's genealogics site (http://www.genealogics.org) or use the
site's relationship calculator.
I do not believe that there are any descents from Henry II or Geoffrey
of Anjou to this particular Scottish emigrant. The endogamous early
Stewarts had no such descents, and I haven't looked fully into all the
known (apparent) ancestors of Alexander Magruder to find other
Anglo-Scottish marriages that might bring it in. This is something that
can probably be tested in Brice Clagett's forthcoming work which should
give 10 generations of Alexander Magruder's (apparent) known ancestry in
all lines.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Gramma's AT
Oh, yes.
Brandon is decidedly tacky too.
DSH
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9b15acee-aa92-4946-aafc-1d9ed072d839@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
Utter Twaddle.
Hilarious! I'll bet Leslie has MANY people asking him to do genealogical
work for them GRATIS.
He can't afford to be running down documents for every Tom, Dick or Harry
who begs for them.
I'm not surprised he ignored Brandon on this wheedling request.
Brandon is decidedly tacky too.
DSH
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9b15acee-aa92-4946-aafc-1d9ed072d839@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
Yep...
Brandon is Manic-Depressive.
Always either at your throat or your feet.
Spencer, shut up, like you know anything, ... or ever will know
anything.
Utter Twaddle.
Of course, the nice things said to Leslie did start out being sincere,
but over the course of ten years, when it's all nice things from your
end, and refusals to answers questions, or even get me a photocopy I
asked about (when I knew he was going to Salt Lake City), from his
end, one becomes deeply tired of this.
Hilarious! I'll bet Leslie has MANY people asking him to do genealogical
work for them GRATIS.
He can't afford to be running down documents for every Tom, Dick or Harry
who begs for them.
I'm not surprised he ignored Brandon on this wheedling request.
Real mature, Leslie, taunting people about "things I know (that you
don't know.)" Looks like you are perfectly cut out for a FAGSs.
Although I imagine it bothered you that William Fiske was made one
after only 5 or 6 articles, and uneducated little you had to slave
over 25 or 30 ...
So, when you said there was nothing more to be found about the
Whitbread-Spencer thing, you were being sneaky and trying to deflect
attention from the fact that there is more to be found. Once again a
typical obsession with secrecy from a FAGS. Tacky, tacky.
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Descents From Charlemagne
BA: Well, hello, Cousin Nat Taylor, once again: herein you will find our
common lineage, way back when: is this a Charlemagne or Plantagenet
descent?
NT's lineage, in part, from royal descent:
9. Donald Campbell, O. C. (1492-1562), Abbot of Coupar Angus, Lord Privy Seal for Mary, Queen of
Scots
10. (illegitimate:) Nicholas Campbell, dean of Lismore Cathedral ∞ Katherine Drummond
11. Margaret Campbell ∞ Alexander Magruder of Dunblane, Perthshire (1569- )
12. Alexander Magruder of Prince George's County, Maryland (1610-1677) ∞ Sarah ___ [see
comment]
13. Captain Samuel Magruder (ca. 1660-1711) ∞ Sarah ___ ( - 1734)
14. Ninian Magruder (1686-1751) ∞ Elizabeth Brewer (1690-<1751)
15. Samuel Magruder III (1708-1786) ∞ Margaret Jackson (1711-1801)
16. Elizabeth Magruder (1730-1812) ∞ William Offutt III (1729-1786)
17. Margaret Offutt (1760-1820) ∞ Baruch Odell (1755-1789)
BA: From Ninian Magruder and Elizabeth Brewer, my line comes down as follows:
15. John Magruder and Jane Offutt
16. Ninian Offutt Magruder and Mary Harris (she may have a royal descent as
well)
NT: Via what gateway?
BA: Do you mean Mary Harris?
NT: Well, given the caveat that the case for Maryland planter Alexander
Magruder's identity (and, crucially, maternity) is only circumstantial,
if he is who he been identified as, then certainly, numerous paths to
Charlemagne are easily found: this is true of any English or Scottish
monarch from the late 11th century onward. Follow them back in the
pedigree view on Leo's genealogics site (http://www.genealogics.org) or use the
site's relationship calculator.
BA: Cousin Nat, it was my second cousin, a genealogist who did this
lineage, and he has written me: "The lineage is pretty well documented back to
the immigrant, the weakest link being generation 15. No known record identifies
Ninian Offutt Magruder's parents and no known record identifies John Magruder's
children, but he is the only logical candidate for Ninian Offutt Magruder's father.
I don't know about the pre-immigrant generations."
NT: I do not believe that there are any descents from Henry II or Geoffrey
of Anjou to this particular Scottish emigrant. The endogamous early
Stewarts had no such descents, and I haven't looked fully into all the
known (apparent) ancestors of Alexander Magruder to find other
Anglo-Scottish marriages that might bring it in. This is something that
can probably be tested in Brice Clagett's forthcoming work which should
give 10 generations of Alexander Magruder's (apparent) known ancestry in
all lines.
BA: Of this part, my cousin wrote me: "Magruder lines of descent from
royalty have been published widely since at least the World War I era.
I've never investigated them, but I recall at least some of them tracing
the Magruders through the McGregors. (Magruder was supposed to a a
McGregor sept.) As I understand it, DNA evidence shows the
Magruder-McGregor descent is spurious. There might, however, be some
royal lines through the American immigrant's wife, Margaret Braithwaite,
but I don't know the quality of the research supporting her identification
or the lines further back."
If I read you both right, we possibly have a Charlemagne descent here,
but not a Plantagenet, right?
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
common lineage, way back when: is this a Charlemagne or Plantagenet
descent?
NT's lineage, in part, from royal descent:
9. Donald Campbell, O. C. (1492-1562), Abbot of Coupar Angus, Lord Privy Seal for Mary, Queen of
Scots
10. (illegitimate:) Nicholas Campbell, dean of Lismore Cathedral ∞ Katherine Drummond
11. Margaret Campbell ∞ Alexander Magruder of Dunblane, Perthshire (1569- )
12. Alexander Magruder of Prince George's County, Maryland (1610-1677) ∞ Sarah ___ [see
comment]
13. Captain Samuel Magruder (ca. 1660-1711) ∞ Sarah ___ ( - 1734)
14. Ninian Magruder (1686-1751) ∞ Elizabeth Brewer (1690-<1751)
15. Samuel Magruder III (1708-1786) ∞ Margaret Jackson (1711-1801)
16. Elizabeth Magruder (1730-1812) ∞ William Offutt III (1729-1786)
17. Margaret Offutt (1760-1820) ∞ Baruch Odell (1755-1789)
BA: From Ninian Magruder and Elizabeth Brewer, my line comes down as follows:
15. John Magruder and Jane Offutt
16. Ninian Offutt Magruder and Mary Harris (she may have a royal descent as
well)
NT: Via what gateway?
BA: Do you mean Mary Harris?
NT: Well, given the caveat that the case for Maryland planter Alexander
Magruder's identity (and, crucially, maternity) is only circumstantial,
if he is who he been identified as, then certainly, numerous paths to
Charlemagne are easily found: this is true of any English or Scottish
monarch from the late 11th century onward. Follow them back in the
pedigree view on Leo's genealogics site (http://www.genealogics.org) or use the
site's relationship calculator.
BA: Cousin Nat, it was my second cousin, a genealogist who did this
lineage, and he has written me: "The lineage is pretty well documented back to
the immigrant, the weakest link being generation 15. No known record identifies
Ninian Offutt Magruder's parents and no known record identifies John Magruder's
children, but he is the only logical candidate for Ninian Offutt Magruder's father.
I don't know about the pre-immigrant generations."
NT: I do not believe that there are any descents from Henry II or Geoffrey
of Anjou to this particular Scottish emigrant. The endogamous early
Stewarts had no such descents, and I haven't looked fully into all the
known (apparent) ancestors of Alexander Magruder to find other
Anglo-Scottish marriages that might bring it in. This is something that
can probably be tested in Brice Clagett's forthcoming work which should
give 10 generations of Alexander Magruder's (apparent) known ancestry in
all lines.
BA: Of this part, my cousin wrote me: "Magruder lines of descent from
royalty have been published widely since at least the World War I era.
I've never investigated them, but I recall at least some of them tracing
the Magruders through the McGregors. (Magruder was supposed to a a
McGregor sept.) As I understand it, DNA evidence shows the
Magruder-McGregor descent is spurious. There might, however, be some
royal lines through the American immigrant's wife, Margaret Braithwaite,
but I don't know the quality of the research supporting her identification
or the lines further back."
If I read you both right, we possibly have a Charlemagne descent here,
but not a Plantagenet, right?
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
-
Renia
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE - Peck in Visitation of Su
The NEHGR article mentions the Visitation of Suffolk, 1664-1668, which
includes the pedigree of Peck of North Cove.
Arms: Argent on a chevron engrailed Gules three crosses pattee of the field
The tabular pedigree begins with the second Robert Peck of Beccles,
Suffolk, who married Ellen Babb, dau of Nicholas Babb of Guildford,
Surrey and names names their son, Nicholas, who married Rachell Young,
daughter of Will Young of Yarmouth, Norfolk.
William Peck, son of Nicholas, is the person who signed the pedigree,
and his six sons are named. He was a gent of North Cove in 1664, and
married Dorothy, daughter of Sir Butts Bacon, Baronet, of Blundesdon,
Suffolk. Neither Robert Peck nor Nicholas Peck were described as "gent"
by their descendant, William.
The coat of arms was the same as that of the Pecks of Wakefield, save
for the final word, where the Wakefield Pecks' blazon was 'pattee of the
first' and the North Cave Pecks' blazon was 'pattee of the field'. It
looks like any error or supposed connection to the Pecks of Wakefield
was made by the Pecks of North Cove before 1668. No mention is made of a
descent from the Pecks of Wakefield in this Suffolk pedigree.
This is possibly the origin of the additional pedigree included in the
plates accompanying the NEGHR article. It begs the question, if it
existed at the time of the Suffolk Visitation in the late 17th century,
why it was not included in that visitation?
includes the pedigree of Peck of North Cove.
Arms: Argent on a chevron engrailed Gules three crosses pattee of the field
The tabular pedigree begins with the second Robert Peck of Beccles,
Suffolk, who married Ellen Babb, dau of Nicholas Babb of Guildford,
Surrey and names names their son, Nicholas, who married Rachell Young,
daughter of Will Young of Yarmouth, Norfolk.
William Peck, son of Nicholas, is the person who signed the pedigree,
and his six sons are named. He was a gent of North Cove in 1664, and
married Dorothy, daughter of Sir Butts Bacon, Baronet, of Blundesdon,
Suffolk. Neither Robert Peck nor Nicholas Peck were described as "gent"
by their descendant, William.
The coat of arms was the same as that of the Pecks of Wakefield, save
for the final word, where the Wakefield Pecks' blazon was 'pattee of the
first' and the North Cave Pecks' blazon was 'pattee of the field'. It
looks like any error or supposed connection to the Pecks of Wakefield
was made by the Pecks of North Cove before 1668. No mention is made of a
descent from the Pecks of Wakefield in this Suffolk pedigree.
This is possibly the origin of the additional pedigree included in the
plates accompanying the NEGHR article. It begs the question, if it
existed at the time of the Suffolk Visitation in the late 17th century,
why it was not included in that visitation?
-
Bo
Re: Wot is a Netkkkop?
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:31:56 -0800 (PST), mrstrellis@softhome.net wrote:
You first of all have to full fill the following conditions:
1) Be an utter and total shit and pompous with it.
2) Be sexually dysfunctional. Any category.
3) Have nothing but bile and hatred between your ears.
4) Be brainless.
5) Have no insight into your condition.
6) You must also be a stout defender of
Newsgroup: uk.local.yorkshire.moderated or become one.
There are further conditions which you must meet.
On the other hand: You could become a Troll a much more
interesting, exciting and rewarding life. Instead of joining those
total arse wipes you could instead become a Troll and take
the piss out of those sad afflicted bastards.
Consider both options carefully.
Bo.
--------------------------
The Internet will become the
Sacred Sanctuary for Nutters and Idiots.
(Michel Nostradamus, December 14, 1503, July 2, 1566).
--------------------------
Meeting Phil Kyle and Wm Way..
Thar's gold in them thar hills- Hide quoted text -
So, wot is a Netkkkop, and how do i get to be one?
Any advice boys?
You first of all have to full fill the following conditions:
1) Be an utter and total shit and pompous with it.
2) Be sexually dysfunctional. Any category.
3) Have nothing but bile and hatred between your ears.
4) Be brainless.
5) Have no insight into your condition.
6) You must also be a stout defender of
Newsgroup: uk.local.yorkshire.moderated or become one.
There are further conditions which you must meet.
On the other hand: You could become a Troll a much more
interesting, exciting and rewarding life. Instead of joining those
total arse wipes you could instead become a Troll and take
the piss out of those sad afflicted bastards.
Consider both options carefully.
Bo.
--------------------------
The Internet will become the
Sacred Sanctuary for Nutters and Idiots.
(Michel Nostradamus, December 14, 1503, July 2, 1566).
--------------------------
-
Renia
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE - Lake and Leake
In the Wakefield pedigree, Kateren Peck, daughter of John Peck and Jane
Fryckley, married John Leake of Normanton. The NEHGR article assures us
the surname should be Lake, not Leake.
John Leeke, of Beccles in Suffolk, made his will in 1529, naming his his
wife Margaret and his daughter Katheryn plus grandson, Robert Peck, of
Beccles.
The problems with linking the Pecks of Beccles and the Pecks of
Wakefield, may have originated in some confusion between the Lake
family of Yorkshire and the Leeke family of Suffolk. This connection
seems to have been made or assumed before about 1668, when the notes
were apparently made up for the pedigree of Pecks of Suffolk, yet that
link was not included in the Visitation of Suffolk.
One point to make, is that Peck surname not uncommon in the general East
Anglia area (Norfolk/Suffolk/Cambridgeshire, etc.) There is a chicken
and egg situation? Did the Pecks of Wakefield settle in East Anglia or
did some Pecks of East Anglia settle in Yorkshire? It is possibly the
case that the Yorkshire Pecks are a junior branch of the East Anglia Pecks.
Fryckley, married John Leake of Normanton. The NEHGR article assures us
the surname should be Lake, not Leake.
John Leeke, of Beccles in Suffolk, made his will in 1529, naming his his
wife Margaret and his daughter Katheryn plus grandson, Robert Peck, of
Beccles.
The problems with linking the Pecks of Beccles and the Pecks of
Wakefield, may have originated in some confusion between the Lake
family of Yorkshire and the Leeke family of Suffolk. This connection
seems to have been made or assumed before about 1668, when the notes
were apparently made up for the pedigree of Pecks of Suffolk, yet that
link was not included in the Visitation of Suffolk.
One point to make, is that Peck surname not uncommon in the general East
Anglia area (Norfolk/Suffolk/Cambridgeshire, etc.) There is a chicken
and egg situation? Did the Pecks of Wakefield settle in East Anglia or
did some Pecks of East Anglia settle in Yorkshire? It is possibly the
case that the Yorkshire Pecks are a junior branch of the East Anglia Pecks.
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Descents From Charlemagne
In article <mailman.146.1196628289.4586.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes, by what immigrant ancestor is Mary Harris alleged to have royal
ancestry?
More recent literature than that known to your cousin has dispensed with
the mistaken idea that 'Magruder' is a form of 'McGregor' and that the
Magruders are related to the old clan of McGregor. The articles by Kurz
& Magruder, here (I cite again) --
Charles G. Kurz & Thomas G. Magruder, Jr., "The Ancestral History of
Margaret Campbell of Keithick," _Yearbook of the American Clan Gregor
Society_, 62 (1978), 55-65;
and
idem, "The McGruder Lineage in Scotland to Magruder Family in America,"
_Yearbook..._ 63 (1979), 53-71.
-- show that the Magruders were a small family who were partisans of the
Perthshire Drummonds in the 16th century. All apparent earlier noble
ancestry comes through the Drummond-Magruder marriage apparently in the
generation above the emigrant Alexander.
By the way, Alexander Magruder, the immigrant, was not married to a
Margaret Braithwaite--this is another long-disproved canard.
Many, many Carolingian descents can be found behind the late medieval
Scottish noble ancestry alleged for Alexander Magruder. I've given you
one line here, chosen because it goes through William the Conqueror and
because it can be followed for several generations in the very best
resource of its kind on the Internet -- Stewart Baldwin's _Henry
Project_, starting here for the page on King Henry I:
http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproj ... nry001.htm
Here is *a* line from Charlemagne to Robert I 'the Bruce', King of Scots:
Charlemagne = Hildegard
Louis 'the Pious' = Judith
Charles II 'the Bald' of West Franks = Ermentrud
Judith of 'France' = Baldwin I 'Iron-arm', count of Flanders
Baldwin II, count of Flanders = Alfthryth of Wessex
Arnulf I, count of Flanders = Adele de Vermandois
Baldwin III, count of Flanders = Mathilde of Saxony
Arnulf II, count of Flanders = Rosala Susanna, dau. Berengar, K. of Italy
Baldwin IV, count of Flanders = Otgiva of Lucembourg
Baldwin V, count of Flanders = Adele, dau. Robert II of France
Matilda of Flanders = William I, king of England
Henry I, king of England
Robert, Earl of Gloucester (illegitimate) = Mabel fitz Hamon
Maud of Gloucester = Ranulf, earl of Chester
Hugh Keveliok, earl of Chester = Bertrada de Montfort
Maud of Chester = David, Earl of Huntingdon
Isabella = Robert de Brus, lord of Annandale
Robert de Brus, lord of Annandale = Isabella de Clare
Robert de Brus, lord of Annandale = Margaret, countess of Carrick
Robert I, king of Scots (etc.)
You can follow the line down to Magruder on my page you noted earlier.
This is one of many, many lines you can find. Using Leo's site --
http://www.genealogics.org
-- and starting with Robert the Bruce, here --
http://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php ... 3&tree=LEO
-- or even Alexander Magruder, the immigrant, himself, here --
http://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php ... 4&tree=LEO
-- you can find many, many more interesting things.
Earlier I misspoke: the Scottish kings with an obvious Carolingian
ancestry begin only in 1153.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:
BA: From Ninian Magruder and Elizabeth Brewer, my line comes down as follows:
15. John Magruder and Jane Offutt
16. Ninian Offutt Magruder and Mary Harris (she may have a royal descent as
well)
NT: Via what gateway?
BA: Do you mean Mary Harris?
Yes, by what immigrant ancestor is Mary Harris alleged to have royal
ancestry?
NT: I do not believe that there are any descents from Henry II or Geoffrey
of Anjou to this particular Scottish emigrant. The endogamous early
Stewarts had no such descents, and I haven't looked fully into all the
known (apparent) ancestors of Alexander Magruder to find other
Anglo-Scottish marriages that might bring it in. This is something that
can probably be tested in Brice Clagett's forthcoming work which should
give 10 generations of Alexander Magruder's (apparent) known ancestry in
all lines.
BA: Of this part, my cousin wrote me: "Magruder lines of descent from
royalty have been published widely since at least the World War I era.
I've never investigated them, but I recall at least some of them tracing
the Magruders through the McGregors. (Magruder was supposed to a a
McGregor sept.) As I understand it, DNA evidence shows the
Magruder-McGregor descent is spurious. There might, however, be some
royal lines through the American immigrant's wife, Margaret Braithwaite,
but I don't know the quality of the research supporting her identification
or the lines further back."
More recent literature than that known to your cousin has dispensed with
the mistaken idea that 'Magruder' is a form of 'McGregor' and that the
Magruders are related to the old clan of McGregor. The articles by Kurz
& Magruder, here (I cite again) --
Charles G. Kurz & Thomas G. Magruder, Jr., "The Ancestral History of
Margaret Campbell of Keithick," _Yearbook of the American Clan Gregor
Society_, 62 (1978), 55-65;
and
idem, "The McGruder Lineage in Scotland to Magruder Family in America,"
_Yearbook..._ 63 (1979), 53-71.
-- show that the Magruders were a small family who were partisans of the
Perthshire Drummonds in the 16th century. All apparent earlier noble
ancestry comes through the Drummond-Magruder marriage apparently in the
generation above the emigrant Alexander.
By the way, Alexander Magruder, the immigrant, was not married to a
Margaret Braithwaite--this is another long-disproved canard.
If I read you both right, we possibly have a Charlemagne descent here,
but not a Plantagenet, right?
Many, many Carolingian descents can be found behind the late medieval
Scottish noble ancestry alleged for Alexander Magruder. I've given you
one line here, chosen because it goes through William the Conqueror and
because it can be followed for several generations in the very best
resource of its kind on the Internet -- Stewart Baldwin's _Henry
Project_, starting here for the page on King Henry I:
http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproj ... nry001.htm
Here is *a* line from Charlemagne to Robert I 'the Bruce', King of Scots:
Charlemagne = Hildegard
Louis 'the Pious' = Judith
Charles II 'the Bald' of West Franks = Ermentrud
Judith of 'France' = Baldwin I 'Iron-arm', count of Flanders
Baldwin II, count of Flanders = Alfthryth of Wessex
Arnulf I, count of Flanders = Adele de Vermandois
Baldwin III, count of Flanders = Mathilde of Saxony
Arnulf II, count of Flanders = Rosala Susanna, dau. Berengar, K. of Italy
Baldwin IV, count of Flanders = Otgiva of Lucembourg
Baldwin V, count of Flanders = Adele, dau. Robert II of France
Matilda of Flanders = William I, king of England
Henry I, king of England
Robert, Earl of Gloucester (illegitimate) = Mabel fitz Hamon
Maud of Gloucester = Ranulf, earl of Chester
Hugh Keveliok, earl of Chester = Bertrada de Montfort
Maud of Chester = David, Earl of Huntingdon
Isabella = Robert de Brus, lord of Annandale
Robert de Brus, lord of Annandale = Isabella de Clare
Robert de Brus, lord of Annandale = Margaret, countess of Carrick
Robert I, king of Scots (etc.)
You can follow the line down to Magruder on my page you noted earlier.
This is one of many, many lines you can find. Using Leo's site --
http://www.genealogics.org
-- and starting with Robert the Bruce, here --
http://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php ... 3&tree=LEO
-- or even Alexander Magruder, the immigrant, himself, here --
http://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php ... 4&tree=LEO
-- you can find many, many more interesting things.
Earlier I misspoke: the Scottish kings with an obvious Carolingian
ancestry begin only in 1153.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
Gjest
Re: Descents From Charlemagne
Dear Fellow Newsgroup posters,
I`ve checked two of my
royal lines, the most thoroughly documented one I have (thru Deighton- Williams-
Bird- Clapp and Ward to Cummings is a total 41 generations between Charlemagne
and myself) and the presumed "best" royal descent (Plantagenet - St Leger -
Manners - Constable- Stapleton - Nelson - Colburn - French - Prescott -
Cummings ) which is 40 generations unless it comes undone between Lucy (Nelson)
Colburn and her persumed son Jeremiah Colburn.
Henry I , King of England is 12 generations
from Charlemagne , Henry II , King of England is 14 and so is Willam I , King
of Scots and Henry I, Duke of Brabant.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA
PS James IV, King of Scots is 25 th in descent from Charlemagne
through King Edward III of England
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
I`ve checked two of my
royal lines, the most thoroughly documented one I have (thru Deighton- Williams-
Bird- Clapp and Ward to Cummings is a total 41 generations between Charlemagne
and myself) and the presumed "best" royal descent (Plantagenet - St Leger -
Manners - Constable- Stapleton - Nelson - Colburn - French - Prescott -
Cummings ) which is 40 generations unless it comes undone between Lucy (Nelson)
Colburn and her persumed son Jeremiah Colburn.
Henry I , King of England is 12 generations
from Charlemagne , Henry II , King of England is 14 and so is Willam I , King
of Scots and Henry I, Duke of Brabant.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA
PS James IV, King of Scots is 25 th in descent from Charlemagne
through King Edward III of England
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
-
Renia
Re: PECK DESCENT FROM CHARLEMAGNE: John Peck - Robert Peck
The NEHGR article by S Alleyn Peck concluded that Robert Peck, senior
(will 1556), of Beccles, was probably the grandson of John Leeke (will
1529), also of Beccles. Peck also argued Robert Peck was a man of
"mature years" when his grandfather made his will and was probably born
"about 1500" but certainly before about 1609.
Robert Peck, senior, was not mentioned in the Lay Subsidy for Beccles of
1524, but he had resided there for 12 years according to a deposition he
made in 1537. [NEHGR article] Possibly, this was around the time he married.
Peck also said that by his second wife, Johan Waters (dau of John
Waters, the elder, of Beccles, and his wife Margaret) this Robert Peck
the elder, had six (possibly seven) children, viz. sons John, Robert and
Thomas, Margaret, Olive and Anne, all named in their father's will.
Margaret Waters made her will on 3 Aug 1556, naming her daughter who was
dead by the time Robert Peck made his will two months later.
John Peck, eldest son of this Robert Peck, was aged under 21 years in
1547, when his maternal grandfather, John Waters, the elder, wrote his
will. John Waters also named John Peck's siblings, Robert and Margaret
Peck, also aged under 21 years. Allowing that Robert and Margaret were
not twins, John Peck was born after 1527. By 1556, there were more
siblings, named by their grandmother, Margaret Waters, Olive and Ann.
Their brother, Thomas Peck died leaving a will in 1574 which implies his
siblings John and Margaret were dead, leaving no issue. Olive was now
married to Richard Nott, Anne was still unmarried, and brother Robert
had a son called Richard, his executor.
That Robert Peck the elder was still producing children after 1547,
suggests that his son, John Peck, was born within a decade before that date.
The pedigree, thus far, reads as follows:
JOHN LEEKE, of Beccles, Suffolk, will dated 1529, married Margaret left
issue:
A. a daughter(died between Aug-Oct 1556), had issue:
Robert Peck, born about 1500, of Beccles, Suffolk, who left issue by his
second wife, Johan, dau of John Waters (by his wife Margaret whose will
dd 3 Aug 1556) of Beccles:
B. 1. John, born after 1538, dsp before 1574
B. 2. Robert, who had a son, Richard born before 1574
B. 2. Thomas
B. 2. Olive, born after 1538, married Richard Nott before 1574
B. 2. Margaret, died about 1556
B. 2. Anne
By 1530, John Peck and Jane Anne had six sons and three married
daughters with three other daughters being married that year. The heir
of John Peck is given as Richard Peck. No visitation mentions a Robert
as son of this John, which Robert the NEHGR article computes to have
been born about 1500-9. Such a son would have been named in the
visitation of 1530 unless he had died young and without issue.
This John Peck does name a Robert Peck in his will of 1558, but makes no
mention of any relationship. IF this Robert was his son, he would have
been born after 1530 and would have been to young to have been the same
Robert Peck of Beccles. In all, this John Peck is said to have had nine
sons and nine daughters. Those other 3 sons not named in his will, would
have died young.
Richard Peck, the father of John Peck (who married Jane Anne) wrote his
will in 1516, and named his uncle, Robert Peck, who was still alive at
that time. This uncle does not appear in the visitation. The Inquisition
Post Mortem gave John, Richard's son's age as 26 in 1516, and that he
married Jane Anne in 1507. John's own will of 1558 names his three sons,
John, Thomas and Nicholas. There is no mention of a son called Robert.
The Public Record Office in London has this reference:
C 1/627/25 Thomas Drawer and Katherine, his wife, daughter and heir of
John Leeke. v. Robert Pekk of Beccles: Detention of deeds relating to a
messuage and land in Toft sometime of William Davy, who mortgaged the
same to the said John.: Norfolk. 1529-1532
[The text of this is reprinted in the NEHGR article.]
(will 1556), of Beccles, was probably the grandson of John Leeke (will
1529), also of Beccles. Peck also argued Robert Peck was a man of
"mature years" when his grandfather made his will and was probably born
"about 1500" but certainly before about 1609.
Robert Peck, senior, was not mentioned in the Lay Subsidy for Beccles of
1524, but he had resided there for 12 years according to a deposition he
made in 1537. [NEHGR article] Possibly, this was around the time he married.
Peck also said that by his second wife, Johan Waters (dau of John
Waters, the elder, of Beccles, and his wife Margaret) this Robert Peck
the elder, had six (possibly seven) children, viz. sons John, Robert and
Thomas, Margaret, Olive and Anne, all named in their father's will.
Margaret Waters made her will on 3 Aug 1556, naming her daughter who was
dead by the time Robert Peck made his will two months later.
John Peck, eldest son of this Robert Peck, was aged under 21 years in
1547, when his maternal grandfather, John Waters, the elder, wrote his
will. John Waters also named John Peck's siblings, Robert and Margaret
Peck, also aged under 21 years. Allowing that Robert and Margaret were
not twins, John Peck was born after 1527. By 1556, there were more
siblings, named by their grandmother, Margaret Waters, Olive and Ann.
Their brother, Thomas Peck died leaving a will in 1574 which implies his
siblings John and Margaret were dead, leaving no issue. Olive was now
married to Richard Nott, Anne was still unmarried, and brother Robert
had a son called Richard, his executor.
That Robert Peck the elder was still producing children after 1547,
suggests that his son, John Peck, was born within a decade before that date.
The pedigree, thus far, reads as follows:
JOHN LEEKE, of Beccles, Suffolk, will dated 1529, married Margaret left
issue:
A. a daughter(died between Aug-Oct 1556), had issue:
Robert Peck, born about 1500, of Beccles, Suffolk, who left issue by his
second wife, Johan, dau of John Waters (by his wife Margaret whose will
dd 3 Aug 1556) of Beccles:
B. 1. John, born after 1538, dsp before 1574
B. 2. Robert, who had a son, Richard born before 1574
B. 2. Thomas
B. 2. Olive, born after 1538, married Richard Nott before 1574
B. 2. Margaret, died about 1556
B. 2. Anne
By 1530, John Peck and Jane Anne had six sons and three married
daughters with three other daughters being married that year. The heir
of John Peck is given as Richard Peck. No visitation mentions a Robert
as son of this John, which Robert the NEHGR article computes to have
been born about 1500-9. Such a son would have been named in the
visitation of 1530 unless he had died young and without issue.
This John Peck does name a Robert Peck in his will of 1558, but makes no
mention of any relationship. IF this Robert was his son, he would have
been born after 1530 and would have been to young to have been the same
Robert Peck of Beccles. In all, this John Peck is said to have had nine
sons and nine daughters. Those other 3 sons not named in his will, would
have died young.
Richard Peck, the father of John Peck (who married Jane Anne) wrote his
will in 1516, and named his uncle, Robert Peck, who was still alive at
that time. This uncle does not appear in the visitation. The Inquisition
Post Mortem gave John, Richard's son's age as 26 in 1516, and that he
married Jane Anne in 1507. John's own will of 1558 names his three sons,
John, Thomas and Nicholas. There is no mention of a son called Robert.
The Public Record Office in London has this reference:
C 1/627/25 Thomas Drawer and Katherine, his wife, daughter and heir of
John Leeke. v. Robert Pekk of Beccles: Detention of deeds relating to a
messuage and land in Toft sometime of William Davy, who mortgaged the
same to the said John.: Norfolk. 1529-1532
[The text of this is reprinted in the NEHGR article.]
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Descents From Charlemagne
Cousin Nat.
I will query my cousin about Mary Harris,
and report back.
Cousin Bill
PS Thanks for the full response, and you are a
gentleman and scholar.
*****
--- Nathaniel Taylor <nltaylor@nltaylor.net> wrote:
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
I will query my cousin about Mary Harris,
and report back.
Cousin Bill
PS Thanks for the full response, and you are a
gentleman and scholar.
*****
--- Nathaniel Taylor <nltaylor@nltaylor.net> wrote:
In article <mailman.146.1196628289.4586.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:
BA: From Ninian Magruder and Elizabeth Brewer, my line comes down as follows:
15. John Magruder and Jane Offutt
16. Ninian Offutt Magruder and Mary Harris (she may have a royal descent as
well)
NT: Via what gateway?
BA: Do you mean Mary Harris?
Yes, by what immigrant ancestor is Mary Harris alleged to have royal
ancestry?
NT: I do not believe that there are any descents from Henry II or Geoffrey
of Anjou to this particular Scottish emigrant. The endogamous early
Stewarts had no such descents, and I haven't looked fully into all the
known (apparent) ancestors of Alexander Magruder to find other
Anglo-Scottish marriages that might bring it in. This is something that
can probably be tested in Brice Clagett's forthcoming work which should
give 10 generations of Alexander Magruder's (apparent) known ancestry in
all lines.
BA: Of this part, my cousin wrote me: "Magruder lines of descent from
royalty have been published widely since at least the World War I era.
I've never investigated them, but I recall at least some of them tracing
the Magruders through the McGregors. (Magruder was supposed to a a
McGregor sept.) As I understand it, DNA evidence shows the
Magruder-McGregor descent is spurious. There might, however, be some
royal lines through the American immigrant's wife, Margaret Braithwaite,
but I don't know the quality of the research supporting her identification
or the lines further back."
More recent literature than that known to your cousin has dispensed with
the mistaken idea that 'Magruder' is a form of 'McGregor' and that the
Magruders are related to the old clan of McGregor. The articles by Kurz
& Magruder, here (I cite again) --
Charles G. Kurz & Thomas G. Magruder, Jr., "The Ancestral History of
Margaret Campbell of Keithick," _Yearbook of the American Clan Gregor
Society_, 62 (1978), 55-65;
and
idem, "The McGruder Lineage in Scotland to Magruder Family in America,"
_Yearbook..._ 63 (1979), 53-71.
-- show that the Magruders were a small family who were partisans of the
Perthshire Drummonds in the 16th century. All apparent earlier noble
ancestry comes through the Drummond-Magruder marriage apparently in the
generation above the emigrant Alexander.
By the way, Alexander Magruder, the immigrant, was not married to a
Margaret Braithwaite--this is another long-disproved canard.
If I read you both right, we possibly have a Charlemagne descent here,
but not a Plantagenet, right?
Many, many Carolingian descents can be found behind the late medieval
Scottish noble ancestry alleged for Alexander Magruder. I've given you
one line here, chosen because it goes through William the Conqueror and
because it can be followed for several generations in the very best
resource of its kind on the Internet -- Stewart Baldwin's _Henry
Project_, starting here for the page on King Henry I:
http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproj ... nry001.htm
Here is *a* line from Charlemagne to Robert I 'the Bruce', King of Scots:
Charlemagne = Hildegard
Louis 'the Pious' = Judith
Charles II 'the Bald' of West Franks = Ermentrud
Judith of 'France' = Baldwin I 'Iron-arm', count of Flanders
Baldwin II, count of Flanders = Alfthryth of Wessex
Arnulf I, count of Flanders = Adele de Vermandois
Baldwin III, count of Flanders = Mathilde of Saxony
Arnulf II, count of Flanders = Rosala Susanna, dau. Berengar, K. of Italy
Baldwin IV, count of Flanders = Otgiva of Lucembourg
Baldwin V, count of Flanders = Adele, dau. Robert II of France
Matilda of Flanders = William I, king of England
Henry I, king of England
Robert, Earl of Gloucester (illegitimate) = Mabel fitz Hamon
Maud of Gloucester = Ranulf, earl of Chester
Hugh Keveliok, earl of Chester = Bertrada de Montfort
Maud of Chester = David, Earl of Huntingdon
Isabella = Robert de Brus, lord of Annandale
Robert de Brus, lord of Annandale = Isabella de Clare
Robert de Brus, lord of Annandale = Margaret, countess of Carrick
Robert I, king of Scots (etc.)
You can follow the line down to Magruder on my page you noted earlier.
This is one of many, many lines you can find. Using Leo's site --
http://www.genealogics.org
-- and starting with Robert the Bruce, here --
http://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php ... 3&tree=LEO
-- or even Alexander Magruder, the immigrant, himself, here --
http://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php ... 4&tree=LEO
-- you can find many, many more interesting things.
Earlier I misspoke: the Scottish kings with an obvious Carolingian
ancestry begin only in 1153.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Gramma's AT
Yes, it's not only offensive -- but childish as well....
Tacky.
DSH
<mhollick@mac.com> wrote in message
news:db73d543-f69e-47df-ae0b-1b18adac3919@d61g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Tacky.
DSH
<mhollick@mac.com> wrote in message
news:db73d543-f69e-47df-ae0b-1b18adac3919@d61g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
So, when you said there was nothing more to be found about the
Whitbread-Spencer thing, you were being sneaky and trying to deflect
attention from the fact that there is more to be found. Once again a
typical obsession with secrecy from a FAGS. Tacky, tacky.
I understand that you may have a grievance with the Fellows, either
individually or collectively, but please refer to them by their
correct acronym, FASG (Fellows of the American Society of
Genealogists). When you invert the last two letters it is offensive
to me and perhaps to others.
-
Michael Swift
Wot is a Netkkkop?
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:31:56 -0800 (PST), mrstrellis@softhome.net wrote:
Try asking in uk.local.yorkshire.moderated or Tykesground
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Tykesground/
You can email the group owner (The Big Man) at
tykesground-owner@yahoogroups.com for access.
Or just ask Mike Clayton who posts here and is a member of both
uk.local.yorkshire.moderated and Tykesground.
Hope this helps.
Meeting Phil Kyle and Wm Way..
Thar's gold in them thar hills- Hide quoted text -
So, wot is a Netkkkop, and how do i get to be one?
Any advice boys?
Try asking in uk.local.yorkshire.moderated or Tykesground
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Tykesground/
You can email the group owner (The Big Man) at
tykesground-owner@yahoogroups.com for access.
Or just ask Mike Clayton who posts here and is a member of both
uk.local.yorkshire.moderated and Tykesground.
Hope this helps.
-
Gjest
Re: Gramma's AT
In a message dated 12/2/2007 11:55:21 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
panther@excelsior.com writes:
Oh, yes.
Brandon is decidedly tacky too.>>
-------------------
He collects black velvet paintings of dogs playing poker?
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
panther@excelsior.com writes:
Oh, yes.
Brandon is decidedly tacky too.>>
-------------------
He collects black velvet paintings of dogs playing poker?
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
-
Gjest
Re: Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis h..
Quite. A simple perusal through the Heraldry of the Royal Families shows
that many sons and daughters too for that matter, created wholely new arms,
unrelated to what their fathers held.
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
that many sons and daughters too for that matter, created wholely new arms,
unrelated to what their fathers held.
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Gramma's AT
Hmmmmmm...
Actually, more raunchy than that...
But you got the black velvet right.
He has iron flamingos on his front lawn too.
DSH
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.164.1196660013.4586.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Actually, more raunchy than that...
But you got the black velvet right.
He has iron flamingos on his front lawn too.
DSH
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.164.1196660013.4586.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 12/2/2007 11:55:21 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
panther@excelsior.com writes:
Oh, yes.
Brandon is decidedly tacky too.
-------------------
He collects black velvet paintings of dogs playing poker?
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Descents From Charlemagne
In article <mailman.146.1196628289.4586.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
***********************
--- Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:
BA: Hi, again, Cousin Nat Taylor,
Here is a response from our cousin, my second cousin, all of us Magruders,
and I will post his full response so that you understand he is not being coy
but as a full-time college professor and due to retire he is wrapping up course
work of the semester, so that if it is not a full response as you would like,
let me know and I will try to wheedle more from him, as he is a good cousin
of ours.
Cousin Bill
******
[our Magruder cousin's response:]
Hi, Bill --- I should know better than to speak without checking my facts, but the gateway
ancestor of Mary Harris may be Henry Ridgely, who settled in Maryland. I didn't mean to imply that
the online information you referred me to was "not firm," just that I don't know whether it is
firm or not. I just don't accept genealogical information as accurate without reviewing the
compiler's documentation or verifying it with my own research. The time constraints I have right
now prohibit both activities, especially considering that medieval and royal lines, and English
genealogy in general, are not areas where I have much experience or expertise.
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:
BA: From Ninian Magruder and Elizabeth Brewer, my line comes down as follows:
15. John Magruder and Jane Offutt
16. Ninian Offutt Magruder and Mary Harris (she may have a royal descent as
well)
NT: Via what gateway?
BA: Do you mean Mary Harris?
Yes, by what immigrant ancestor is Mary Harris alleged to have royal
ancestry?
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
***********************
--- Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:
Cousin Nat.
I will query my cousin about Mary Harris,
and report back.
Cousin Bill
PS Thanks for the full response, and you are a
gentleman and scholar.
*****
BA: Hi, again, Cousin Nat Taylor,
Here is a response from our cousin, my second cousin, all of us Magruders,
and I will post his full response so that you understand he is not being coy
but as a full-time college professor and due to retire he is wrapping up course
work of the semester, so that if it is not a full response as you would like,
let me know and I will try to wheedle more from him, as he is a good cousin
of ours.
Cousin Bill
******
[our Magruder cousin's response:]
Hi, Bill --- I should know better than to speak without checking my facts, but the gateway
ancestor of Mary Harris may be Henry Ridgely, who settled in Maryland. I didn't mean to imply that
the online information you referred me to was "not firm," just that I don't know whether it is
firm or not. I just don't accept genealogical information as accurate without reviewing the
compiler's documentation or verifying it with my own research. The time constraints I have right
now prohibit both activities, especially considering that medieval and royal lines, and English
genealogy in general, are not areas where I have much experience or expertise.
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
-
Bill Arnold
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bishop of C
On Dec 2, 10:00 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
BA: Excuse me? If you are going to *parrot* me, do it correctly. Order of
titles in America are as important as in England. That IS:
Gentleman and scholar Douglas Richardson.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch ... y=shopping
On Dec 2, 5:50 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
Did Paris really call him this? What exactly does he say in the
section referred to by Carpenter? Did you bother to look? Don't you
think this is important information, worth more than a mention in
passing?
Take a walk around the block, taf.
Ah, now *that's* the 'scholar and gentleman' we have come to know.
taf
BA: Excuse me? If you are going to *parrot* me, do it correctly. Order of
titles in America are as important as in England. That IS:
Gentleman and scholar Douglas Richardson.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch ... y=shopping
-
John Brandon
Re: Gramma's AT
Actually, more raunchy than that...
But you got the black velvet right.
Yeah, but at least *my* black velvet paintings (and I do own more than
one) are not of nude, underage Asian girls ...
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Maryland gateways (was re: descents from Charlemagne)
In article <mailman.170.1196685651.4586.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:
I am also a descendant of Col. Henry Ridgely (d. 1710, Anne Arundel
County, MD). He was wealthy & had reasonably high status, but according
to current published work his ancestry is unknown (see e.g. Sharon J.
Doliante, _Maryland and Virginia Colonials_ [Baltimore: Genealogical
Publishing, 1991]). I have never even seen any specific allegations of
parentage, let alone noble ancestry for him.
But the father of one of Ridely's wives, Matthew Howard, is the subject
of at least two distinct claims of noble parentage, the most absurd
being couched in a historical novel by James E. Moss: _Providence: the
Lost Towne at Severn in Mary Land_ (Washington: James Moss / Maryland
Historical Society, 1976). Neither Moss's theory nor the older, equally
groundless one by Henry Wright Newman, in _Ann Arundel County Gentry_
(Baltimore, 1933), can be accepted.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes, by what immigrant ancestor is Mary Harris alleged to have royal
ancestry?
Here is a response from our cousin, my second cousin, all of us Magruders,
and I will post his full response so that you understand he is not being coy
but as a full-time college professor and due to retire he is wrapping up
course
work of the semester, so that if it is not a full response as you would like,
let me know and I will try to wheedle more from him, as he is a good cousin
of ours.
I am also a descendant of Col. Henry Ridgely (d. 1710, Anne Arundel
County, MD). He was wealthy & had reasonably high status, but according
to current published work his ancestry is unknown (see e.g. Sharon J.
Doliante, _Maryland and Virginia Colonials_ [Baltimore: Genealogical
Publishing, 1991]). I have never even seen any specific allegations of
parentage, let alone noble ancestry for him.
But the father of one of Ridely's wives, Matthew Howard, is the subject
of at least two distinct claims of noble parentage, the most absurd
being couched in a historical novel by James E. Moss: _Providence: the
Lost Towne at Severn in Mary Land_ (Washington: James Moss / Maryland
Historical Society, 1976). Neither Moss's theory nor the older, equally
groundless one by Henry Wright Newman, in _Ann Arundel County Gentry_
(Baltimore, 1933), can be accepted.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
Gjest
Re: Descents From Charlemagne
On Dec 3, 7:39 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Is Mary Harris a descendant of Col. Henry Ridgely? If your Mary Harris
is the Mary Harris daughter of Thomas Harris and Sarah Offutt then she
is not a descendant of Henry Ridgely. Henry Ridgely is not a gateway
ancestor. His parents are unknown. There has been a false line
attributed to his first wife, Elizabeth Howard, through her father
Matthew Howard, but his origins are unknown. Also Henry Ridgely did
not marry a Sarah Warner as is incorrectly put forth by some.
For a good overview of the connected families see:
Maryland and Virginia Colonials : genealogies of some Colonial
families : families of Bacon, Beall, Beasley, Cheney, Duckett, Dunbar,
Ellyson, Elmore, Graves, Heydon, Howard, Jacob, Morris, Nuthall,
Odell, Peerce, Reeder, Ridgley, Prather, Sprigg, Wesson, Williams, and
collateral kin by Sharon J. Doliante; Baltimore, MD : Genealogical
Pub. Co., 1991.
Fred Chalfant
In article <mailman.146.1196628289.4586.gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>,
******
[our Magruder cousin's response:]
Hi, Bill --- I should know better than to speak without checking my facts, but the gateway
ancestor of Mary Harris may be Henry Ridgely, who settled in Maryland. I didn't mean to imply that
the online information you referred me to was "not firm," just that I don't know whether it is
firm or not. I just don't accept genealogical information as accurate without reviewing the
compiler's documentation or verifying it with my own research. The time constraints I have right
now prohibit both activities, especially considering that medieval and royal lines, and English
genealogy in general, are not areas where I have much experience or expertise.
*****
Is Mary Harris a descendant of Col. Henry Ridgely? If your Mary Harris
is the Mary Harris daughter of Thomas Harris and Sarah Offutt then she
is not a descendant of Henry Ridgely. Henry Ridgely is not a gateway
ancestor. His parents are unknown. There has been a false line
attributed to his first wife, Elizabeth Howard, through her father
Matthew Howard, but his origins are unknown. Also Henry Ridgely did
not marry a Sarah Warner as is incorrectly put forth by some.
For a good overview of the connected families see:
Maryland and Virginia Colonials : genealogies of some Colonial
families : families of Bacon, Beall, Beasley, Cheney, Duckett, Dunbar,
Ellyson, Elmore, Graves, Heydon, Howard, Jacob, Morris, Nuthall,
Odell, Peerce, Reeder, Ridgley, Prather, Sprigg, Wesson, Williams, and
collateral kin by Sharon J. Doliante; Baltimore, MD : Genealogical
Pub. Co., 1991.
Fred Chalfant
-
John Brandon
Re: Maryland gateways (was re: descents from Charlemagne)
But the father of one of Ridely's wives, Matthew Howard, is the subject
of at least two distinct claims of noble parentage, the most absurd
being couched in a historical novel by James E. Moss: _Providence: the
Lost Towne at Severn in Mary Land_ (Washington: James Moss / Maryland
Historical Society, 1976). Neither Moss's theory nor the older, equally
groundless one by Henry Wright Newman, in _Ann Arundel County Gentry_
(Baltimore, 1933), can be accepted.
Don't get him started on this, Nat -- he'll soon be believing Moss and
Newman's every word and subjecting us to an endless rigamarole _a la
Peck_.
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
On Dec 3, 5:50 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
< BA: Excuse me? If you are going to *parrot* me, do it correctly.
Order of
< titles in America are as important as in England. That IS:
<
< Gentleman and scholar Douglas Richardson.
<
< Bill
Thanks, Bill.
DR
< BA: Excuse me? If you are going to *parrot* me, do it correctly.
Order of
< titles in America are as important as in England. That IS:
<
< Gentleman and scholar Douglas Richardson.
<
< Bill
Thanks, Bill.
DR