Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

Re: Journal of Genetic Genealogy (OT)

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 jul 2005 16:04:48

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:39:20 -0700, "R. Battle" <battle@u.washington.edu> wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

snip
Is it also a *fact* that you have no idea that David in
his matrilineal line is not Hebrew? I'm sure you've heard of the Book
of Ruth. Did you not know that Ruth is not a Hebrew? So that makes
David some sort of usurper I suppose.
snip

Not that this is on topic here, but in point of fact according to the book
of Ruth the titular lady was not David's matrilineal ancestor but rather
the mother of Obed, David's paternal grandfather.

Correct. David's mother is neither named nor described.


That being said, at
least through Bible times the paternal line was the most important, that
determining one's tribe (as well as who could lawfully be priests, etc.).

It still is very important, at least among the Orthodox. Only a Kohain can
deliver a certain benediction at a certain point in the services (and a Levi
must wash the hands of the Kohain beforehand), at another point (reading from
the Torah), it has to be a Kohain, followed by a Levi, followed by men who are
neither Kohain nor Levi. For women, their tribal status (i.e., whether their
father was a Kohain, a Levi, or other) is relevant in only one circumstance, in
the "pidyon ha-ben" ceremony.


I'm not sure when the maternal line became so important in Jewish
tradition, though I would be interested to learn (I'm guessing it
coincided with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the beginnings of
rabbinic rather than priestly leadership).

It's earlier than that. At first I though it was part of the standardization
undertaken by the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah (the "Men of the Great Assembly")
founded by Ezra during the Babylonian Exile, but it turns out to have been much
older (Mishnah tractate Kiddushin 3:12).

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/matrilineal may be useful here.

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Postings Under Aliases

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 20 jul 2005 18:05:20

Dear Spencer ~

I totally agree with you. People who attack others behind an alias
simply can't be trusted.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
I do not trust any post to which someone will not sign his or her Real
Name.

Can I always TELL whether a name is Real?

No, of course not -- but I can always tell if someone starts off with a
jumbled pseudonym -- and I distrust them immediately. They have
something to hide.

If a man or woman doesn't even have the Good Sense to use his or her own
name I certainly can't trust anything else he or she says.

People will say and write all sorts of gibberish, twaddle and libel from
behind the Mask of Anonymity -- nothing they say can be trusted --
because no Real Identified Person is even willing to stand behind it.

Be Advised:

All the people worth reading here use their Real Names.

Douglas Richardson, for example, makes no bones about using his Real
Name.

"Peter Stewart" _au contraire_, very stupidly, refuses to say whether he
uses his Real Name or a pseudonym.

'Nuff Said.

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

CED

Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran

Legg inn av CED » 20 jul 2005 20:01:34

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Hilarious!


DSH

Be careful! You are on the edge.

Your showing all the signs of going over. Look back at your thousands
of postings on the groups as well as others. You'll see the pattern.
First the gibberish, then the random capital letters. Later, a flood of
irrelevant articles. Call your doctor!

You must spend all your time posting. Obviously you don't spend it
reading the posts of others. Not enough hours in a day both to read
and post. That is another indication of imbalance.

CED

Whenever Peter 'Pogue' Stewart gets REALLY flustered -- he just
fustigates and babbles incoherently.

Decidedly Kinky...And Looking For Discipline....

Pogue Stewart = Top Banana.

ALL The Other Australians I've Ever Met Seem Far More SUBSTANTIAL than
Pogue Stewart. I've never encountered such a LIGHTWEIGHT Australian
before. Light in the loafers too, no doubt.

As for myself, I don't have any of those sorts of secrets. I haven't
read ANY of the SIX Harry Potter books, don't intend to, and have only
seen one of the films -- which I did enjoy.

However, I do find the reviews interesting.

The one by Michiko Katutani in The New York Times is particularly good
and finely written.

Mediaeval....

Hmmmmmmm...

I'll bet it's FAR better than any Harry Potter review Pogue Stewart MAY
have written.

But of course he won't reveal his -- for comparison -- he just runs for
the tall grass.

Understandable....

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Gjest

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 jul 2005 20:33:02

In a message dated 7/20/2005 2:02:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,
leesmyth@cox.net writes:
IEJ wrote:
Peter,
you don't get a degree in History using secondary school knowledge. It takes
hard work and a lot of homework, academic papers, essays and thesis which
definitely not are taken out of one book in a bookstore! If you haven't that
yourself, fine but Richardson has done all that and that's the creditentials
that counts in the long run.

Dear Inger E:

One can get a degree with a major in history in most Amercan
institutions of higher education with little knowledge of history and
no knowledge of any foreign language. That is the extent to which
American education standards have fallen. A demonstrated ability to
write a paragraph, let alone a thesis, is unusual as a qualification
for a bachelor's degree.

A masters degree, even in the best of Amersican universities,
demonstrates only that the holder in qualifed to teach the subject in
secondary school. The masters usually requires only thay the candidate
to read a passage in one foreign language.

Please be advised to check out any degree held by an American making
claims to academic honors. Check out which institution confered the
degree and the academic record of the holders of that degree from that
institution. In addition, if the claimant also taught in a college,
that should be checked as well.

A masters in history does nothing to qualify its holder to work in
medieval genealogy. Moreover, some of those who claim to be medieval
genealogists have demonstrated little, and sometimes an appalling lack
of, knowledge of medieval history.

Be advised that Amercan universites are not the same as European
universities.

A careful background check on those claiming to be scholars in this
group can surely be interesting if not astonishing!

If you bought the story about Mr Richardson's academic qualifications,
I hope that got a receipt.

CED

The emphasized text is completely untrue. MA degrees are also professional
degrees. I am a retired archeologist (PhD) who had any number of graduate
students studying under me who wanted to take jobs as practicing archeologists.
There are many other fields which require an MA to become a professional as
well. Moreover, I am tired of hearing about how European schools are better
than US universities. Finally, an MA in history can indeed prepare one to
understand medieval genealogy if that is the material covered in one's degree.
I see a number of historians who write books cited by people in gen-medieval
all the time.

Can we please get back to practicing genealogy, however we learned to do
it?????? I honestly think some people go out of their way to attack Richardson so
they can slow down his research in order to defend himself. Instead of
attacking Richardson, why don't they do research and publish it?? Let us see if
their efforts are better than his???

Charles W. McNett, Jr.

Peter Stewart

Re: postings under aliases

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 20 jul 2005 22:46:13

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121870040.361991.172500@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
So Brandon, who works in a library, does not know about the great
tradition
of anonymous criticism....

Of course I know of it, "Peter," I just happen to find it distasteful

And I find flagrant hypocrisy distasteful.

Calling me "tacky" becauze you don't know if my e-mail address matches my
personal name is more than a bit putrid from someone whose e-mail address is
"starbuck" while his name is Brandon. You previously used "Mr Gifford"
without signing any name to your posts, including critical ones.

Where was your distaste when Richardson was passing himself off as "Uriah N.
Owen"?

Here's something to get your teeth into: you are a poor liar as well as a
complete fool.

Peter Stewart

Robert Forrest

Re: Help with Latin--1241 Cal. Close Rolls entry for John "l

Legg inn av Robert Forrest » 20 jul 2005 22:48:02

Many thanks to John Parsons and Chris Phillips for their help. John Le Jeu's honor is intact--it wasn't he who was in prison for
debt!

As to Chris's comment on John's surname, a 1997 SGM query by Karen Courtenay addressed this same issue.
As she commented, the surname is unlikely to mean 'Jew', for which the French word is 'Juif.' Two follow-on posts on the subject
brought forth the idea that the name may have been based on 'Jeune' (young). An alternate would be derived from an old term for
gambler, player, gamesman from the verb 'Jouer' to play. References up to about 1350 seem to use 'le Jeu' and variants; those
afterward tend to use 'Jewe' instead. The family's lands were originally mainly in the vicinity of Wiveliscombe, Somerset. A note on
http://www.wiveliscombe.com/Walks/maundownwalk.htm comments on Jew's Lane outside Wiveliscombe and offers another possible origin:
"Jew's Lane takes its name from the Jew or Jewe family. They owned land in and around Wiveliscombe in the 15th Century, and probably
earlier, as the name is thought to be a corruption of the Norman D'Ewe. It also occurs in the latter part of the 13th Century as le
Jeu."

Several references to this family can be found in Somerset Feet of Fines, Somerset Medieval Wills, Cal. Close Rolls, Cal. Patent
Rolls, Cal. I.P.M., Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, Feudal Aids, etc. It sometimes is difficult to track them down because of the great
variation in spelling of the surname--in each index, one has to look under the I's (Iewe) and G's (Gyu, Geu) as well as the J's. A
Jewe family, perhaps the same one, was of Cotley, Somerset, very close to the Dorset border, and perhaps is better known. Alice Jewe
of Cotley(Cotleigh), born about 1390, married John Yeo.

Thanks again.
Bob Forrest

John Brandon

Re: postings under aliases

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 jul 2005 22:54:15

And I find flagrant hypocrisy distasteful.

Calling me "tacky" becauze you don't know if my e-mail address matches
my
personal name is more than a bit putrid from someone whose e-mail
address is
"starbuck" while his name is Brandon. You previously used "Mr Gifford"
without signing any name to your posts, including critical ones.

Where was your distaste when Richardson was passing himself off as
"Uriah N.
Owen"?

Here's something to get your teeth into: you are a poor liar as well as
a
complete fool.

Peter Stewart

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


Yeah, yeah, whatever.

Gjest

Re: Postings Under Aliases

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 jul 2005 23:24:13

Peter

Uriah N. Owen wasn't Douglas Richardson and it wasn't me. You ask me
how I know. You can trace a email address no matter how fake it is. You
just have to know how to do it.

Mike Welch

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Postings Under Aliases

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 20 jul 2005 23:34:14

Another wild accusation from Peter Stewart. He's just plain daffy.

I don't believe his Harry Potter reviews are real either.

DR

Peter Stewart wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VYuDe.338$ds5.1895@eagle.america.net...
I do not trust any post to which someone will not sign his or her Real
Name.

Can I always TELL whether a name is Real?

No, of course not -- but I can always tell if someone starts off with a
jumbled pseudonym -- and I distrust them immediately. They have
something to hide.

If a man or woman doesn't even have the Good Sense to use his or her own
name I certainly can't trust anything else he or she says.

People will say and write all sorts of gibberish, twaddle and libel from
behind the Mask of Anonymity -- nothing they say can be trusted --
because no Real Identified Person is even willing to stand behind it.

Be Advised:

All the people worth reading here use their Real Names.

Douglas Richardson, for example, makes no bones about using his Real
Name.

You can only have menat to write "his real names"unless you are as dishonest
as he is (something you are clearly working up to). Is Uriah N. Owen his
real real name or is it Douglas Richardson?

"Peter Stewart" _au contraire_, very stupidly, refuses to say whether he
uses his Real Name or a pseudonym.

Hines demands confirmation of what may or may not be true from the source
that he says can't be trusted. And he calls another person stupid!

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Postings Under Aliases

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 20 jul 2005 23:38:26

<mwelch8442@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121898253.903489.180920@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Peter

Uriah N. Owen wasn't Douglas Richardson and it wasn't me. You ask me
how I know. You can trace a email address no matter how fake it is. You
just have to know how to do it.

You're free and welcome to provide evidence for this statement, of course -
remembering the Richardson rule, that posts without evidence are just so
much blather.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Postings Under Aliases

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 jul 2005 23:57:58

Peter

You threw it out there. First post your evidence. Mind you. You should
never assume. If you can't back up what you said about Doug withdraw it
or post your evidence. No evidence will come from me until you post
your's.

Mike Welch

Gjest

Re: Postings Under Aliases

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jul 2005 00:03:52

Doug

Peter can't show his evidence he doesn't have any. It's just his way of
trying to blackball you.

Mike Welch

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: postings under aliases

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 21 jul 2005 00:59:22

Peter Stewart wrote:
< Where was your distaste when Richardson was passing himself off as
"Uriah N.
< Owen"?
<
< Here's something to get your teeth into: you are a poor liar as well
as a
< complete fool.
<
< Peter Stewart

This is yet another gross misrepresentation. Sigh.

My name is Douglas Richardson - not "Uriah N. Owen."

DR

Leo

Re: Postings Under Aliases

Legg inn av Leo » 21 jul 2005 01:24:01

Dear Mike,

How can you possibly provide proof? Lets say Uriah is a real person with a
computer and an e-mail address, George Bush walks in uses his computer and
produces an e-mail coming from the computer of
Uriah.........................

Dear Mike,

Trying to defend Richardson only gives others the change to expose him
further, the less said the better for Richardson.


----- Original Message -----
From: <mwelch8442@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: Postings Under Aliases


Doug

Peter can't show his evidence he doesn't have any. It's just his way of
trying to blackball you.

Mike Welch


CE Wood

Re: John Throckmorton's Magna Charta ancestors

Legg inn av CE Wood » 21 jul 2005 04:02:56

I believe he made a typo and means a birth date for Edmund of 1328, as
per Moriarity 209, CP I:244 note (b), and AR7 28-34.

CE Wood

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/20/05 6:48:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
bartstam@juno.com writes:

Your additions, corrections, etc., would be appreciated.

Bill Barton bartstam@juno.com

11. Edmund Fitz Alan (134-7A) b. 9 Feb. 1320/1, m. bef. 1349, d. aft. 1377
+ Sibyl de Montagu (134-7A) b. abt. 1330, d. betw. 3 Oct. 1343 & 3 Jan. 1344

12. Richard Fitz Alan (121-6) b. abt. 1313, m. 9 Feb. 1320/1, d. 24 Jan.
1375/6
+ Isabel le Despenser (34-6) b. abt. 1312, d. 1376

The connection between Richard FitzAlan and Edmund FitzAlan is an interesting
one. The father evidently able to produce offspring at the ripe old age of
7. Would you mind posting your source for the birth date of Edmund in 1320/1 ?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Peter Stewart

Re: Postings Under Aliases

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 jul 2005 04:28:53

<mwelch8442@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121900632.841044.269700@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Doug

Peter can't show his evidence he doesn't have any. It's just his way of
trying to blackball you.

I'm not trying to "blackball" Richardson or anyone else - he is perfectly
entitled to stay here and I have never suggested otherwise. Can any of you
at least try to lie your way out of difficulties by inventing positions for
yourself without making up opinions for others?

The interventions of Uriah N. Owen were shown up long ago as a convenient
cover used in support of Robert Todd when Richardson was floundering in the
mess he had created. The name had no other function, and disappeared before
long when this was pointed out. Check the archive.

As to who set up the phoney "UNO" e-mail address, I have no idea - just as
with you in the past, when your spelling & grammar miraculously improved all
of a sudden, Richardson might have sent material off-list with the request
or suggestion that it be posted under another identity because it would look
better for him coming from a third party.

The telling similarities of thought, expression and detail were exposed at
the time.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: John Throckmorton's Magna Charta ancestors

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jul 2005 05:15:59

In a message dated 7/20/05 6:48:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
bartstam@juno.com writes:

<< Your additions, corrections, etc., would be appreciated.

Bill Barton bartstam@juno.com >>

11. Edmund Fitz Alan (134-7A) b. 9 Feb. 1320/1, m. bef. 1349, d. aft. 1377
+ Sibyl de Montagu (134-7A) b. abt. 1330, d. betw. 3 Oct. 1343 & 3 Jan. 1344

12. Richard Fitz Alan (121-6) b. abt. 1313, m. 9 Feb. 1320/1, d. 24 Jan.
1375/6
+ Isabel le Despenser (34-6) b. abt. 1312, d. 1376

The connection between Richard FitzAlan and Edmund FitzAlan is an interesting
one. The father evidently able to produce offspring at the ripe old age of
7. Would you mind posting your source for the birth date of Edmund in 1320/1 ?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Louise Staley

Re: Help with Latin--1241 Cal. Close Rolls entry for John "l

Legg inn av Louise Staley » 21 jul 2005 05:46:28

FWIW as a descendant of John Yeo I have this information about the Jeue
family of, I think, Colly, Devon.

1-John Jeue
+
|-2-Thomas Jeue b. 1353
+Juliana Wife of Richard Wotton b. Bef 1335, m. Bef 1373
|-3-William Jeue Of Colly, Dev, Eng d. , s.p.m.
| +
| |-4-Alice Jeue co-heiress d. After 14 Nov 1426
| | +John Yeo Of Heampton Sachvile Esq. b. Abt 1380, d. After
| | 22 Oct 1431, par. Robert Yeo and Isabel Brightley
| | |-5-William Yeo Of Heampton Sachvile Esq. b. Abt 1425, d.
| | | 24 Jul 1481
| | |-5-Richard Yeo b. 1425
| |-4-Joan Jeue co-heiress
| +Edward St. John d. , s.p.m.
| |-5-Jane St. John heiress d. 5 Jul 1463
|-3-John Jeue d. After 1415

If anyone is actually interested in this line I have sources to support it.

Louise

Robert Forrest wrote:
Many thanks to John Parsons and Chris Phillips for their help. John Le
Jeu's honor is intact--it wasn't he who was in prison for debt!

As to Chris's comment on John's surname, a 1997 SGM query by Karen
Courtenay addressed this same issue.
As she commented, the surname is unlikely to mean 'Jew', for which the
French word is 'Juif.' Two follow-on posts on the subject brought forth
the idea that the name may have been based on 'Jeune' (young). An
alternate would be derived from an old term for gambler, player,
gamesman from the verb 'Jouer' to play. References up to about 1350 seem
to use 'le Jeu' and variants; those afterward tend to use 'Jewe'
instead. The family's lands were originally mainly in the vicinity of
Wiveliscombe, Somerset. A note on
http://www.wiveliscombe.com/Walks/maundownwalk.htm comments on Jew's
Lane outside Wiveliscombe and offers another possible origin: "Jew's
Lane takes its name from the Jew or Jewe family. They owned land in and
around Wiveliscombe in the 15th Century, and probably earlier, as the
name is thought to be a corruption of the Norman D'Ewe. It also occurs
in the latter part of the 13th Century as le Jeu."

Several references to this family can be found in Somerset Feet of
Fines, Somerset Medieval Wills, Cal. Close Rolls, Cal. Patent Rolls,
Cal. I.P.M., Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, Feudal Aids, etc. It sometimes
is difficult to track them down because of the great variation in
spelling of the surname--in each index, one has to look under the I's
(Iewe) and G's (Gyu, Geu) as well as the J's. A Jewe family, perhaps the
same one, was of Cotley, Somerset, very close to the Dorset border, and
perhaps is better known. Alice Jewe of Cotley(Cotleigh), born about
1390, married John Yeo.

Thanks again.
Bob Forrest

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Postings Under Aliases

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 21 jul 2005 07:31:39

Peter Stewart wrote:
< You're free and welcome to provide evidence for this statement, of
course -
< remembering the Richardson rule, that posts without evidence are just
so
< much blather.
<
< Peter Stewart

I'm glad to see that Peter has learned something from me. Now if he'll
just post some evidence regarding Sueva Orsini or her mother, Giovanna
di Sabrano.

DR

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: John Throckmorton's Magna Charta ancestors

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 21 jul 2005 08:16:10

Dear Bill, Will, Carolyn, etc.

The people cited in Will's post taken from Bill's website employed the
surname, Arundel, not Fitz Alan. For an example of this, please see
the abstract below regarding Edmund de Arundel and his wife, Sibyl de
Montagu, taken from the A2A Catalogue:

Devon Record Office: Seymour of Berry Pomeroy, Reference:
3799M-0/ET/19/1a, Deed of gift dated 18 May 1362 from John de
Grandisson, Bishop of Exeter, to Sir Edmund de Arundell knt., and Sibyl
his wife (the Bishop's "dear niece") messuages, lands and tenements of
Sandrigge in the manor of Paignton to be held by Edmund and Sibyl, and
Sibyl's heirs (abstract of document available online at
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp).

A slightly different copy of this same record can be found in the book,
The Manuscripts of the Duke of Somerset, Marquis of Aylesbury, and the
Rev. Sir T.H.G. Puleston, Bart. (Hist. MSS Comm.43) (1898): 138.

My research indicates that the Fitz Alan family adopted the surname,
Arundel, about 1313. This is discussed at length in my two books,
Plantagenet Ancestry (2004) and Magna Carta Ancestry (2005). I cite
many examples of the name change.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
< In a message dated 7/20/05 6:48:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
< bartstam@juno.com writes:
Your additions, corrections, etc., would be appreciated.

<
< Bill Barton bartstam@juno.com >>
<
< 11. Edmund Fitz Alan (134-7A) b. 9 Feb. 1320/1, m. bef. 1349, d.
aft. 1377
< + Sibyl de Montagu (134-7A) b. abt. 1330, d. betw. 3 Oct. 1343 & 3
Jan. 1344
<
< 12. Richard Fitz Alan (121-6) b. abt. 1313, m. 9 Feb. 1320/1, d. 24
Jan.
< 1375/6
< + Isabel le Despenser (34-6) b. abt. 1312, d. 1376
<
< The connection between Richard FitzAlan and Edmund FitzAlan is an
interesting
< one. The father evidently able to produce offspring at the ripe old
age of
< 7. Would you mind posting your source for the birth date of Edmund
in 1320/1 ?
<
< Thanks
< Will Johnson

Peter Stewart

Re: Postings Under Aliases

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 jul 2005 08:51:06

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121927499.772635.219120@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
You're free and welcome to provide evidence for this statement, of
course -
remembering the Richardson rule, that posts without evidence are just
so
much blather.

Peter Stewart

I'm glad to see that Peter has learned something from me. Now if he'll
just post some evidence regarding Sueva Orsini or her mother, Giovanna
di Sabrano.

I have said nothing about Sueva, and all I have said about Giovanna is that
Litta called her Gorizia. The evidence for this is in Litta: he said what I
told you he said. Look it up for yourself, and then post again to let us
know what you found. Menawhile you are trying to twist something that simply
isn't pliable.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: John Throckmorton's Magna Charta ancestors

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 21 jul 2005 09:13:05

"fairthorne" wrote:
< The footnotes on CP I pages 243/244 add several interesting details
on the
< marriage and divorce - especially if you can read Latin (which I
cannot).
<
< Typical method of censorship - leave parts in Latin so that only
scholars
< can read them - scholars being assumed to be incorruptible (or past
< redemption)
<
< cheers
<
< Simon

I love your sense of humor, Simon.

DR

Chris Phillips

Re: Help with Latin--1241 Cal. Close Rolls entry for John "l

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 21 jul 2005 09:13:36

Robert Forrest wrote:
As to Chris's comment on John's surname, a 1997 SGM query by Karen
Courtenay addressed this same issue.
As she commented, the surname is unlikely to mean 'Jew', for which the
French word is 'Juif.' Two follow-on posts on the subject
brought forth the idea that the name may have been based on 'Jeune'
(young). An alternate would be derived from an old term for
gambler, player, gamesman from the verb 'Jouer' to play. References up to
about 1350 seem to use 'le Jeu' and variants; those
afterward tend to use 'Jewe' instead.


I wasn't so much thinking that "le Jeu" was a French phrase (which it
clearly isn't), as that in Latin documents English words (particularly place
names) are often included preceded by the word "le" (illogical though this
is). A quick search on the PRO catalogue does confirm this usage for
surnames, in (presumably) Latin documents, even where a straightforward
Latin translation is available (e.g. for "le Smith").

But if you are still finding "le Jeu" into the 14th century, after the
expulsion of the Jews, they can hardly be Jews (unless they were converts, I
suppose). And I don't know how Gyu and Gyw would fit in (though I'm not sure
how they would fit into the alternative suggested meanings either).

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: John Throckmorton's Magna Charta ancestors

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 jul 2005 09:59:15

""fairthorne"" <fairthorne@breathe.com> wrote in message
news:008201c58dcc$52632040$0600000a@oemcomputer...
From: "CE Wood" <wood_ce@msn.com

I believe he made a typo and means a birth date for Edmund of 1328, as
per Moriarity 209, CP I:244 note (b), and AR7 28-34.

CE Wood


The footnotes on CP I pages 243/244 add several interesting details on the
marriage and divorce - especially if you can read Latin (which I cannot).

Typical method of censorship - leave parts in Latin so that only scholars
can read them - scholars being assumed to be incorruptible (or past
redemption)

On the contrary, in note (d) on pp 243/2 the Latin text for the nub of the
matter is explicitly repeated in translation from another source immediately
below, right after it says "The same story is told in the Papal Mandate".

The phrase left in Latin is "per metum et verbera", literally "through
duress and flogging", covered in the phrases "by fear of their relations"
and "forced by blows" in the translated text.

No censorship at all. Until a decade or so before the publication of CP I,
the papal mandate would have been left in Latin too, not to hide its meaning
but because the readers would have been expected to know this anyway.

Peter Stewart

fairthorne

Re: John Throckmorton's Magna Charta ancestors

Legg inn av fairthorne » 21 jul 2005 10:08:01

From: "CE Wood" <wood_ce@msn.com>

I believe he made a typo and means a birth date for Edmund of 1328, as
per Moriarity 209, CP I:244 note (b), and AR7 28-34.

CE Wood


The footnotes on CP I pages 243/244 add several interesting details on the
marriage and divorce - especially if you can read Latin (which I cannot).

Typical method of censorship - leave parts in Latin so that only scholars
can read them - scholars being assumed to be incorruptible (or past
redemption)

cheers

Simon

Peter G R Howarth

re: Flagrante dilecto = Red handed

Legg inn av Peter G R Howarth » 21 jul 2005 15:30:02

Dear Mr Richardson ~

This is what you claim Peter Stewart said about 'cognatus'. Please read the
sentence carefully. Study what it actually says and not what you would like
it to say:

"Peter Stewart: "Cognatus" could always mean a blood relative, though
brother-in-law was quite usual and should be considered whenever we don't
know enough to rule it out." END OF QUOTE."

Now read it again -- carefully. Does he say that 'cognatus' can mean a
blood relative? Are you sure?

So why did you then say "I encountered a document where a man referred to
his kinsman "cognatus" who had the same last name."? What point are you
trying to make? Is it a logical one?

And if the document was from around 1250, how do you know it was written by
an Englishman, and not by a foreigner, a Poitevin perhaps?

And how about actually quoting verbatim the document you claim to have
found? Don't forget, you agreed that without evidence you have no case.

Peter G R Howarth

Douglas Richardson [royalancestry@msn.com] wrote Thu 21/07/2005 09:01
Dear Robert ~

Peter Stewart has challenged me to give an example of his dishonesty.
That's real easy.

This is exactly what Peter Stewart said in his post dated October 17,
2004. I think the language is plain enough.

Peter Stewart: "Cognatus" could always mean a blood relative, though
brother-in-law was quite usual and should be considered whenever we
don't know enough to rule it out." END OF QUOTE.

I would not in ANY sense state that brother-in-law was the "quite
usual" meaning of "cognatus" in medieval England (which was the
context in which we were discussing the terminology). In fact, I
know of NO instances of the word cognatus meaning brother-in-law in
medieval England, certainly from 1200 forward. This tell me that
Peter Stewart has little or no working knowledge of medieval English
records. That also makes him a fraud.

I should mention that while doing research for my Magna Carta
Ancestry book, I encountered a document where a man referred to his
kinsman "cognatus" who had the same last name and also to his wife's
brother in the same sentence. The two relatives were different
people. One was a brother-in-law and one was a "cognatus" [kinsman].
As I recall, the document was dated about 1250 in England.

Simply put, Peter Stewart doesn't know what he is talking about.
He's a fraud. I caught Peter "flagrante dilecto." In case Peter has
to look that expression up in his precious Latin dictionary, it means
"RED HANDED."

No wonder Peter says detests me. Do tell, Peter, do tell.

Now, what was his saying about his Harry Potter reviews?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/52 - Release Date: 19/07/2005

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Flagrante dilecto = Red handed

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 21 jul 2005 17:33:27

And, your point is?

DR

"Peter G R Howarth" wrote:
< Dear Mr Richardson ~
<
< This is what you claim Peter Stewart said about 'cognatus'. Please
read the
< sentence carefully. Study what it actually says and not what you
would like
< it to say:
"Peter Stewart: "Cognatus" could always mean a blood relative,

though
< brother-in-law was quite usual and should be considered whenever we
don't
know enough to rule it out." END OF QUOTE."

< Now read it again -- carefully. Does he say that 'cognatus' can mean
a
< blood relative? Are you sure?
<
< So why did you then say "I encountered a document where a man
referred to
< his kinsman "cognatus" who had the same last name."? What point are
you
< trying to make? Is it a logical one?
<
< And if the document was from around 1250, how do you know it was
written by
< an Englishman, and not by a foreigner, a Poitevin perhaps?
<
< And how about actually quoting verbatim the document you claim to
have
< found? Don't forget, you agreed that without evidence you have no
case.
<
< Peter G R Howarth
Douglas Richardson [royalancestry@msn.com] wrote Thu 21/07/2005 09:01
Dear Robert ~

Peter Stewart has challenged me to give an example of his dishonesty.
That's real easy.

This is exactly what Peter Stewart said in his post dated October 17,
2004. I think the language is plain enough.

Peter Stewart: "Cognatus" could always mean a blood relative, though
brother-in-law was quite usual and should be considered whenever we
don't know enough to rule it out." END OF QUOTE.

I would not in ANY sense state that brother-in-law was the "quite
usual" meaning of "cognatus" in medieval England (which was the
context in which we were discussing the terminology). In fact, I
know of NO instances of the word cognatus meaning brother-in-law in
medieval England, certainly from 1200 forward. This tell me that
Peter Stewart has little or no working knowledge of medieval English
records. That also makes him a fraud.

I should mention that while doing research for my Magna Carta
Ancestry book, I encountered a document where a man referred to his
kinsman "cognatus" who had the same last name and also to his wife's
brother in the same sentence. The two relatives were different
people. One was a brother-in-law and one was a "cognatus" [kinsman].
As I recall, the document was dated about 1250 in England.

Simply put, Peter Stewart doesn't know what he is talking about.
He's a fraud. I caught Peter "flagrante dilecto." In case Peter has
to look that expression up in his precious Latin dictionary, it means
"RED HANDED."

No wonder Peter says detests me. Do tell, Peter, do tell.

Now, what was his saying about his Harry Potter reviews?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/52 - Release Date: 19/07/2005

Robert Forrest

Re: Help with Latin--1241 Cal. Close Rolls entry for John "l

Legg inn av Robert Forrest » 21 jul 2005 20:58:02

Thanks, Louise, for your information. Yes, I would like anything else you may have on the Jewes of Cotleigh. (My last posting was in
error: the place name of interest is Cotleigh, Devon, not Cotley, Somerset.) I have been looking without success for a connection
between the Jewes of Cotleigh, Colyton Hundred, Devon and the Jewes of Whitefield and Wiveliscombe, Somerset, and later of
Pillesdon, Dorset. Wiveliscombe is about 20 miles north and west of Cotleigh. The families certainly shared many given names.

You show a John Jeue as No. 1 in the descent you posted. In case you don’t already have it, the father of that John may be a Roger
le Geu, living 1303, dead by 1346:
From Feudal Aids, p. 366, Devon, Colyton Hundred, 1303--
Roger le Geu holds in Cottelegh 1/2 fee of Morton (de Mortonia).
....
p. 428, same hundred, 1346--
Of John le Jew for 1/2 knights fee in Cotteleye, held of the honor of Cardinan, which Roger le Jew formerly held.
....
p. 488, same hundred, 1428--
William Jewe holds 1/2 knight's fee Mortanie in Cotteleye, which John le Jewe formerly held.

Also, the last entry you show is for a "3-John Jeue d. After 1415." Do you have any more on him? "My" John Jewe of Wiveliscombe,
father of Elizabeth who m. Sir John Hody, in his will of 1415 refers to his wife Margery and his children John, William, Thomas,
Elizabeth, and Joan. He gave to his brother William, who was also a coexecutor.
(Medieval Wills 1501-1530, Somerset Rec. Soc., Vol. 19,p. 319)
The parents of this John Jewe were John Jewe (d. aft. 1377) and Alice Pillesdon, well documented in DNB and other sources, and his
paternal grandparents were William le Jeu and wife Agatha ___.
From Somerset Feet of Fines, 1307-1346, Somerset Rec. Soc, p. 190, 11E3 (1337-1338):
"40. York, quinzaine of Easter; between William le Jeu and Agatha his wife, querents; and Thomas de Pillesdon, chaplain, and Henry
de Aldyngton, vicar of church of Brodewyndesore, deforciants; messuage and land and rent in Whytefeld and Fyfhyde. William ackn.
right of Thomas as by his gift. Thomas and Henry grant William and Agatha for life; then to remain to John son of William and Alice
dau. of John de Pillesdon and their issue; and if John and Alice die without issue, then to
revert to the right heirs of William." The same source has several other mentions of the Jewe/Jeu family, including Nicholas le Jeu
and John le Jeu, senior, along with place names of the properties involved.

Finally, back to the Jewes of Cotleigh. I have one clue to the parentage of Juliana ___ who m. (1) Richard Wotton, and (2) Thomas
Jewe: from the Patent Rolls of 1390: "...complaint by John Northcote of Devon that Richard Speccote (sic), being lately seised...in
Northcote, Devon, gr. same to Henry his son, in tail male...Henry died and they desc. to William his son and heir, and from him to
Walter his son and heir, and from Walter to said John, his son and heir, but after the death of Walter, because his said son John
was abroad, one Thomas Jewe and Juliana his wife, claiming in right of the said Juliana as heir of said Walter and suggesting that
he died without heir male, entered the premises and were thereof seised until expelled by Walter Giffard, still living, who granted
the premises to John Cary."

Bob Forrest
===================
FWIW as a descendant of John Yeo I have this information about the Jeue family of, I think, Colly, Devon.

1-John Jeue
+
|-2-Thomas Jeue b. 1353
+Juliana Wife of Richard Wotton b. Bef 1335, m. Bef 1373
|-3-William Jeue Of Colly, Dev, Eng d. , s.p.m.
| +
| |-4-Alice Jeue co-heiress d. After 14 Nov 1426
| | +John Yeo Of Heampton Sachvile Esq. b. Abt 1380, d. After
| | 22 Oct 1431, par. Robert Yeo and Isabel Brightley
| | |-5-William Yeo Of Heampton Sachvile Esq. b. Abt 1425, d.
| | | 24 Jul 1481
| | |-5-Richard Yeo b. 1425
| |-4-Joan Jeue co-heiress
| +Edward St. John d. , s.p.m.
| |-5-Jane St. John heiress d. 5 Jul 1463
|-3-John Jeue d. After 1415

If anyone is actually interested in this line I have sources to support it.

Louise
=====================

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: John Throckmorton's Magna Charta ancestors

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 22 jul 2005 01:19:40

Dear Will ~

You are of course correct. Yes., I made an error. Thank you for
pointing out the mistake.

Margaret (or Margery) de Umfreville's maternal grandmother (not mother)
was Rohese of Boulogne, wife of Sir Richard de Lucy, Chief Justiciar of
England.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/21/05 12:47:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

... William d'Aubeney's wife was Margaret (or Margery) de Umfreville,
daughter of Odinel de Umfreville, of Prudhoe,
Northumberland, by Alice, daughter of Richard de Lucy, Knt., of Chipping
Ongar, Essex, Chief Justiciar of England.

... Margaret's mother, Rohese of Boulogne, wife of Sir Richard de Lucy ....


Doug I'm confused it seems like you are saying that
1) Margaret de Umfreville was daughter of Odinel by Alice de Lucy
2) Alice de Lucy was daughter of Richard de Lucy
3) Margaret's mother was Rohese of Boulogne, wife of Richard de Lucy.

These three statements don't seem to be able to go together.
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: John Throckmorton's Magna Charta ancestors

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 jul 2005 01:20:02

In a message dated 7/21/05 12:17:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< Devon Record Office: Seymour of Berry Pomeroy, Reference:
3799M-0/ET/19/1a, Deed of gift dated 18 May 1362 from John de
Grandisson, Bishop of Exeter, to Sir Edmund de Arundell knt., and Sibyl
his wife (the Bishop's "dear niece") messuages, lands and tenements of
Sandrigge in the manor of Paignton to be held by Edmund and Sibyl, and
Sibyl's heirs (abstract of document available online at
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp). >>

Thank you Doug for this excellent post.
I note on Leo's equally excellent site he states the marriage of Edmund and
Sibyl took place "bef Jul 1349"
However I trust there is a source error there as Sibyl herself to said to
have died "30 Jan 1343/4"
So this record seems to throw doubt on the source of that death date for
Sibyl.
I'm not sure the Bishop would call her "dear niece" 18 years after her death.

Comments are welcome.
Will Johnson

John A Rea

Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [contains some g

Legg inn av John A Rea » 22 jul 2005 01:24:35

Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
In article <1fd.5d6265d.300d7222@aol.com>, Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:


Dear Newsgroup,
As Nat indicates Turton did list sources and his
source for Orsini was P. Litta, a part of a series" Famiglio celebri italiane
"begun in 1819. his list of sources further states that a new series was
begun
in 1899 .

For reasons that are beside the point, I have heretofore remained out of
this silly spat. But sometimes authenticity, or its opposite, can be
surmised by the correctness, or its opposite, of the details in the
argument. The expressio;n "Famiglio celebri italiane" is in its
language what the Germans might call a "Missgeburt". The masculine
signular noun "Famiglio," does not exist: there is a feminine
singular, of course. Further this non-noun is modified by the following
adjective, "celebri" which, being a plural form, just won't work. The
following adjective "italiane" is a a feminine plural, which also could
not pass with a masculine singular head noun. Impossible language like
this surely indicates an ignorant writer. Caveat emptor!

John
to start with, does not exist

Gjest

Re: John Throckmorton's Magna Charta ancestors

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 jul 2005 01:39:02

In a message dated 7/21/05 12:47:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< ... William d'Aubeney's wife was Margaret (or Margery) de Umfreville,
daughter of Odinel de Umfreville, of Prudhoe,
Northumberland, by Alice, daughter of Richard de Lucy, Knt., of Chipping
Ongar, Essex, Chief Justiciar of England.

... Margaret's mother, Rohese of Boulogne, wife of Sir Richard de Lucy ....

Doug I'm confused it seems like you are saying that
1) Margaret de Umfreville was daughter of Odinel by Alice de Lucy
2) Alice de Lucy was daughter of Richard de Lucy
3) Margaret's mother was Rohese of Boulogne, wife of Richard de Lucy.

These three statements don't seem to be able to go together.
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: John Throckmorton's Magna Charta ancestors

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 jul 2005 01:47:53

I have notes about Margery from a discussion way back in 1998. Here is
a copy below. Douglas, can you give us a clue where to look out for
your article? I'm assuming the descent from Charlemange is through Ida
of Lorraine?



Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: PEhlers...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 1998/12/31
Subject: deUMFRAVILLE
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse

I discovered today that I had a deUmfraville line. I went to the
archives for
the past 4 years and attempted to work up an ancestry for Margery
deUmfraville, 1st wife of William III d'Aubigny (ca. 1140-1236); Lord
of
Belvoir. Could anyone extend what I have? Thanks in advance for your
kindness.


Regards
Phyllis in Louisiana


1. William IV d'Aubigny; Lord of Belvoir (?-1247)
2. William III d'Aubigny; Lord of Belvoir (ca. 1146-1236)
3. Margery deUmfraville
4. William II "le Breton" d'Aubigny; Lord Belvoir (ca. 1125-?)
5. Maude FitzRobert (Maud de Liz de Clare) (ca. 1134-?)
6. Odonel (Odinel) de Umfraville; Lord of Prudhoe, Northumberland,
England
(?-1182)
7. NN
8. William de Albini Brito
9. Cecily Bigod
10. Robert FitzClare
11. Maud de St. Liz
12. Robert deUmfraville
13. NN


Please feel free to make corrections, additions, etc.


2. GLAUCUSREX Dec 31 1998, 3:00 am show options

Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: GLAUCUS...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 1998/12/31
Subject: Re: deUMFRAVILLE
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse

In a message dated 12/31/98 1:38:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

PEhlers...@aol.com writes:
I discovered today that I had a deUmfraville line. I went to the archives
for
the past 4 years and attempted to work up an ancestry for Margery
deUmfraville, 1st wife of William III d'Aubigny (ca. 1140-1236); Lord of
Belvoir. Could anyone extend what I have? Thanks in advance for your
kindness.

Regards
Phyllis in Louisiana


1. William IV d'Aubigny; Lord of Belvoir (?-1247)
2. William III d'Aubigny; Lord of Belvoir (ca. 1146-1236)
3. Margery deUmfraville
4. William II "le Breton" d'Aubigny; Lord Belvoir (ca. 1125-?)
5. Maude FitzRobert (Maud de Liz de Clare) (ca. 1134-?)
6. Odonel (Odinel) de Umfraville; Lord of Prudhoe, Northumberland, England
(?-1182)
7. NN
8. William de Albini Brito
9. Cecily Bigod
10. Robert FitzClare
11. Maud de St. Liz
12. Robert deUmfraville
13. NN


Please feel free to make corrections, additions, etc.



Phyllis,

Here are some letters that I have collected from the mailing list over
the
last couple years.


Lloyd King
Dallas, Texas, USA
==============================­===============Subj: Re: Previous post on de Umfreville Family
Date: 98-10-30 20:14:02 EST
From: kathl...@casbs.Stanford.EDU (Kathleen Much)
Sender: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L-requ...@rootsweb.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com



In article <4940cb8.3638c...@aol.com>, <FFF...@aol.com> wrote:

I should have included more information on the de Umfreville's I am
researching.


Richard de Umfreville, Lord of Redesdale b circa 1182, died 1226.



R.L.G. Ritchie, _Normans in Scotland_ (Edinburgh, 1954), p. 144: "the
Liberty of Redesdale, granted by the Conqueror to Robert d'Amfreville
[Umfraville], whose son, or perhaps grandson, Robert was one of
David's [king of Scotland] intimates and afterwards, though still
generally resident in Northumberland, received Scottish lands which
passed to his descendants. [note] Robert d'Umphraville witnesses Earl
David's Foundation Charter of Selkirk (c. 1120) and his Royal charters
from 1128. . . . Robert's two sons, Odinel and Gilbert, also witness
charters, chiefly those given by David's son Henry as Earl of
Northumberland. Odinel witnesses the Annandale Forest charter, 1147 x
1153. The family properties in Scotland in King David's time are not
precisely known, but Gilbert gave to the Abbey of Holyrood a
ploughgate of land in Kinard. A Gilbert d'Umphraville married c. 1240
Matilda, Countess of Angus in her own right. He passed on the title to
his descendants till it lapsed, in 1381. Another Gilbert d'Umphraville
held (and forfeited) Dunipace in the reign of Robert the Bruce. It is
to be supposed that David's friends received from him Dunipace and
Kinard (Stirlingshire)."

I.J. Sanders, _English Baronies_ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960), p.
73: "Prudhoe, Northumberland. The descendants of Robert I de
Umfraville claimed that he was granted Redesdale, Northumberland, by
William the Conqueror. Robert II, son and heir, to whom Henry I
granted Prudhoe, d. circa 1145 leaving Odinel I, the date of whose
death is not known. [note: _Fees_, p. 201; Round, _Peerage and
Pedigree_, i. p. 297; _Hist. of Northumberland_, xii, p. 82. Robert II
witnessed charters to circa 1145 (Lawrie, _Early Scottish Charters_,
passim).] Odinel II d. 1182 leaving Robert III d.s.p. Mich. 1190-Mich.
1194. [note: _Pipe Roll, 28 Hen. II_, p. 37; idem, _2 Rich. I_, p. 19;
idem, _6 Rich. I_, p. 134. No charter was returned to the king in
1166. Scutage in the twelfth century was charged on 2 knights' fees.
The demand made for the first scutage of King John (1199-1200) was
charged on from 2 to 2-1/2 knights' fees and later scutages were paid
on the latter amount (idem, _8 Hen. II_, p. 11; idem, _14 Hen. II_, p.
172; idem, _18 Hen. II_, p. 68; idem, _1John_, pp. 122, 123; idem,
_2John_, p. 5; idem, _13 John_, p. 209; Pipe Roll, E. 372/68, N'humb.;
idem, E. 372/90, N'humb.; idem, E. 372/123, N'humb.; _Fees_, p. 201).
Odinel II m. Alice, da. of the justiciar Richard de Lucy.] Richard,
br. and heir, d. 1226 and was followed by Gilbert I d. 1245. [note:
_Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland_ (PRO) i., nos. 946, 950,
1663-4, 1667; _Excerpta e Rotulis Finium_, ed. C. Roberts, 1835-6, i,
pp. 153, 433; _Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem_ (PRO) i, no. 49.
Gilbert I, who was charged #100 relief, m. Maud suo jure Countess of
Angus.] Gilbert II, son and heir, became, by right of his mother, Earl
of Angus. He d. 1307 leaving Robert IV d. 1325 when Gilbert III, who
came of age in 1331, was heir. [note: Idem, v, no. 47; idem, vi, no.
607; _Calendar of Close Rolls 1330-3_ (PRO), p. 248. Prudhoe was held
for the service of 2-1/2 knights' fees. Gilbert II m. Elizabeth da. of
Alexander Comyn, Earl of Buchan. Robert IV m. Lucy da. of Philip de
Kyme d. 1323."


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

Kathleen Much, Editor |Email: kathl...@casbs.stanford.EDU
CASBS, 75 Alta Rd. |Phone: (650) 321-2052
Stanford, CA 94305 |Fax: (650) 321-1192


----------------------- Headers ------------------------------­--
Return-Path: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L-requ...@rootsweb.com>
Received: from rly-zb05.mx.aol.com (rly-zb05.mail.aol.com
[172.31.41.5]) by
air-zb05.mail.aol.com (v51.9) with SMTP; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 20:14:01
-0500
Received: from bl-30.rootsweb.com (bl-30.rootsweb.com [207.113.245.30])

by rly-zb05.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
with ESMTP id UAA28540;
Fri, 30 Oct 1998 20:13:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from slist@localhost)
by bl-30.rootsweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA28448;
Fri, 30 Oct 1998 17:13:00 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 17:13:00 -0800 (PST)
Old-To: GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com
Date: 31 Oct 1998 01:06:38 GMT
From: kathl...@casbs.Stanford.EDU (Kathleen Much)
Message-ID: <71dnqu$bq...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences
Sender: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L-requ...@rootsweb.com
References: <4940cb8.3638c...@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Previous post on de Umfreville Family
Resent-Message-ID: <"q1MmRC.A.H7G.SQmO2"@bl-30.ro­otsweb.com>
To: GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com
Resent-From: GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com
X-Mailing-List: <GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com> archive/latest/13235
X-Loop: GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L-requ...@rootsweb.com


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

Subj: Re: de Lucy
Date: 98-09-18 06:55:51 EDT
From: r...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au (Richard Borthwick)
Sender: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L-requ...@rootsweb.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com


At 09:28 AM 18/09/98 +0800, you wrote:



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:23:25 -0700 (PDT)
Old-To: GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com
Date: 17 Sep 1998 18:19:03 -0700
From: j...@midas.millcomm.com (Benjamin Hertzel)
Organization: RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative
Sender: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L-requ...@rootsweb.com
Subject: de Lucy
Resent-Message-ID: <"G1HY8B.A.0tE.9XbA2"@bl-30.ro­otsweb.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com
Resent-From: GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com
X-Mailing-List: <GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com> archive/latest/11837
X-Loop: GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com
Resent-Sender: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L-requ...@rootsweb.com

Does anyone have any information on the de Lucy family? I have three Maud
de Lucys, but I do not know how they are related:


Maud de Lucy, daughter of Thomas de Lucy and Mary de Multon. Maud married
Henry Percy (1341 - 1408). Children?


Maud de Lucy, married Gilbert de Umfreville, Earl of Angus (died 1381).
Children?



These two Mauds were one and the same. Her first husband was Gilbert
(and
his second wife) and her second was Henry first earl of Northumberland
(and
was his second wife). Maud dsp.[CP I:150, VIII:254, IX:712]. The Lucy
family
to which she belonged was the Lucy of Egremont (Cumberland). It is
thought
this family was closely related to the Lucy of Diss (Norfolk)but the
nature
of the connection is not known [but see CP VIII:247 note (c)]. The son
of
Gilbert, Robert, was by Gilbert's first wife and Robert dvp and sp. The

Umfreville descent was through earl Gilbert's brother, Thomas [CP
I:150-151].


Maud de Lucy, daughter of Richard de Lucy, married Walter FitzRobert de
Clare (died 1198). They were the parents of Robert and Alice.


Maud de Lucy received Diss. Her brother Geoffrey (I) dvp and his son,
Richard, succeeded his grandfather, Richard the justiciar. Geoffrey (I)
also
had a daughter Rohese and she succeeded her brother Richard. Geoffrey
(II)
was a son of Geoffrey (I) but was either by another marriage or
illegitimate. In any case the Lucy family of Newington descends from
Geoffrey (II) [CP VIII:257-263, see 257 note (c)]. Rohese de Lucy
married
John de Dover (d.about 1194) lord of Chilham, Kent [Sanders, 111].

An interesting sidelight. Alice, another dau. of Richard de Lucy of
Diss
(the justiciar) m. Odinel (II) de Umfreville (d.1182) of Prudhoe,
Northumberland.This pair were the ancestors of Gilbert who m. Maud de
Lucy
(of the Egremont family). [Sanders, 73].

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear Will ~

You are of course correct. Yes., I made an error. Thank you for
pointing out the mistake.

Margaret (or Margery) de Umfreville's maternal grandmother (not mother)
was Rohese of Boulogne, wife of Sir Richard de Lucy, Chief Justiciar of
England.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/21/05 12:47:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

... William d'Aubeney's wife was Margaret (or Margery) de Umfreville,
daughter of Odinel de Umfreville, of Prudhoe,
Northumberland, by Alice, daughter of Richard de Lucy, Knt., of Chipping
Ongar, Essex, Chief Justiciar of England.

... Margaret's mother, Rohese of Boulogne, wife of Sir Richard de Lucy ....


Doug I'm confused it seems like you are saying that
1) Margaret de Umfreville was daughter of Odinel by Alice de Lucy
2) Alice de Lucy was daughter of Richard de Lucy
3) Margaret's mother was Rohese of Boulogne, wife of Richard de Lucy.

These three statements don't seem to be able to go together.
Thanks
Will Johnson

Rick Eaton

Re: John Throckmorton's Magna Charta ancestors

Legg inn av Rick Eaton » 22 jul 2005 01:51:01

Will,

Not to be picky-picky, but wasn't William's name spelled d'Aubigny? Or,
rather, has the spelling with which I am familiar been disproved?

Rick


"Rick Eaton" eaton.noble@sbcglobal.net

In a message dated 7/21/05 12:47:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

... William d'Aubeney's wife was Margaret (or Margery) de Umfreville,
daughter of Odinel de Umfreville, of Prudhoe,


Peter Stewart

Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [contains some g

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 22 jul 2005 02:54:06

It is a good practice to make replies directly to the post that you
wish to comment on. In the case posted below my signature, replying
instead to a previous reply left the impression that the adverse
comment related to something that Nat Taylor had written, whereas he
had only reply-quoted the error in his own message.

What can be surmised about "authenticity" from this remains a mystery
anyway - the writer did not claim to be familiar with the work that was
mistitled, or to have a knowledge of Italian - and as for "Caveat
emptor", he wasn't selling or promoting anything.

Nat is gentlemanly enough not to comment on every passing typo and
spelling mistake, in English or another language.

Peter Stewart


Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
In article <1fd.5d6265d.300d7...@aol.com>, Jwc1...@aol.com wrote:

Dear Newsgroup,
As Nat indicates Turton did list sources and his
source for Orsini was P. Litta, a part of a series" Famiglio celebri italiane
"begun in 1819. his list of sources further states that a new series was
begun
in 1899 .



For reasons that are beside the point, I have heretofore remained out
of
this silly spat. But sometimes authenticity, or its opposite, can be
surmised by the correctness, or its opposite, of the details in the
argument. The expressio;n "Famiglio celebri italiane" is in its
language what the Germans might call a "Missgeburt". The masculine
signular noun "Famiglio," does not exist: there is a feminine
singular, of course. Further this non-noun is modified by the
following
adjective, "celebri" which, being a plural form, just won't work. The
following adjective "italiane" is a a feminine plural, which also could

not pass with a masculine singular head noun. Impossible language like

this surely indicates an ignorant writer. Caveat emptor!

John
to start with, does not exist

Leo van de Pas

Re: John Throckmorton's Magna Charta ancestors

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 22 jul 2005 05:48:01

There seem to be at least four lines to Charlemagne for William IV
d'Aubigny, Lord of Belvoir died 1247. In his ancestor list Charlemagne is
numbers 48392, 48512, 194092 and 195456.
Hope this helps.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: <tabeckwith@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: John Throckmorton's Magna Charta ancestors


I have notes about Margery from a discussion way back in 1998. Here is
a copy below. Douglas, can you give us a clue where to look out for
your article? I'm assuming the descent from Charlemange is through Ida
of Lorraine?



Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: PEhlers...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 1998/12/31
Subject: deUMFRAVILLE
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse

I discovered today that I had a deUmfraville line. I went to the
archives for
the past 4 years and attempted to work up an ancestry for Margery
deUmfraville, 1st wife of William III d'Aubigny (ca. 1140-1236); Lord
of
Belvoir. Could anyone extend what I have? Thanks in advance for your
kindness.


Regards
Phyllis in Louisiana


1. William IV d'Aubigny; Lord of Belvoir (?-1247)
2. William III d'Aubigny; Lord of Belvoir (ca. 1146-1236)
3. Margery deUmfraville
4. William II "le Breton" d'Aubigny; Lord Belvoir (ca. 1125-?)
5. Maude FitzRobert (Maud de Liz de Clare) (ca. 1134-?)
6. Odonel (Odinel) de Umfraville; Lord of Prudhoe, Northumberland,
England
(?-1182)
7. NN
8. William de Albini Brito
9. Cecily Bigod
10. Robert FitzClare
11. Maud de St. Liz
12. Robert deUmfraville
13. NN


Please feel free to make corrections, additions, etc.


2. GLAUCUSREX Dec 31 1998, 3:00 am show options

Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: GLAUCUS...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 1998/12/31
Subject: Re: deUMFRAVILLE
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse

In a message dated 12/31/98 1:38:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

PEhlers...@aol.com writes:
I discovered today that I had a deUmfraville line. I went to the
archives
for
the past 4 years and attempted to work up an ancestry for Margery
deUmfraville, 1st wife of William III d'Aubigny (ca. 1140-1236); Lord of
Belvoir. Could anyone extend what I have? Thanks in advance for your
kindness.

Regards
Phyllis in Louisiana


1. William IV d'Aubigny; Lord of Belvoir (?-1247)
2. William III d'Aubigny; Lord of Belvoir (ca. 1146-1236)
3. Margery deUmfraville
4. William II "le Breton" d'Aubigny; Lord Belvoir (ca. 1125-?)
5. Maude FitzRobert (Maud de Liz de Clare) (ca. 1134-?)
6. Odonel (Odinel) de Umfraville; Lord of Prudhoe, Northumberland,
England
(?-1182)
7. NN
8. William de Albini Brito
9. Cecily Bigod
10. Robert FitzClare
11. Maud de St. Liz
12. Robert deUmfraville
13. NN


Please feel free to make corrections, additions, etc.



Phyllis,

Here are some letters that I have collected from the mailing list over
the
last couple years.


Lloyd King
Dallas, Texas, USA
==============================­================
Subj: Re: Previous post on de Umfreville Family
Date: 98-10-30 20:14:02 EST
From: kathl...@casbs.Stanford.EDU (Kathleen Much)
Sender: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L-requ...@rootsweb.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com



In article <4940cb8.3638c...@aol.com>, <FFF...@aol.com> wrote:

I should have included more information on the de Umfreville's I am
researching.


Richard de Umfreville, Lord of Redesdale b circa 1182, died 1226.



R.L.G. Ritchie, _Normans in Scotland_ (Edinburgh, 1954), p. 144: "the
Liberty of Redesdale, granted by the Conqueror to Robert d'Amfreville
[Umfraville], whose son, or perhaps grandson, Robert was one of
David's [king of Scotland] intimates and afterwards, though still
generally resident in Northumberland, received Scottish lands which
passed to his descendants. [note] Robert d'Umphraville witnesses Earl
David's Foundation Charter of Selkirk (c. 1120) and his Royal charters
from 1128. . . . Robert's two sons, Odinel and Gilbert, also witness
charters, chiefly those given by David's son Henry as Earl of
Northumberland. Odinel witnesses the Annandale Forest charter, 1147 x
1153. The family properties in Scotland in King David's time are not
precisely known, but Gilbert gave to the Abbey of Holyrood a
ploughgate of land in Kinard. A Gilbert d'Umphraville married c. 1240
Matilda, Countess of Angus in her own right. He passed on the title to
his descendants till it lapsed, in 1381. Another Gilbert d'Umphraville
held (and forfeited) Dunipace in the reign of Robert the Bruce. It is
to be supposed that David's friends received from him Dunipace and
Kinard (Stirlingshire)."

I.J. Sanders, _English Baronies_ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960), p.
73: "Prudhoe, Northumberland. The descendants of Robert I de
Umfraville claimed that he was granted Redesdale, Northumberland, by
William the Conqueror. Robert II, son and heir, to whom Henry I
granted Prudhoe, d. circa 1145 leaving Odinel I, the date of whose
death is not known. [note: _Fees_, p. 201; Round, _Peerage and
Pedigree_, i. p. 297; _Hist. of Northumberland_, xii, p. 82. Robert II
witnessed charters to circa 1145 (Lawrie, _Early Scottish Charters_,
passim).] Odinel II d. 1182 leaving Robert III d.s.p. Mich. 1190-Mich.
1194. [note: _Pipe Roll, 28 Hen. II_, p. 37; idem, _2 Rich. I_, p. 19;
idem, _6 Rich. I_, p. 134. No charter was returned to the king in
1166. Scutage in the twelfth century was charged on 2 knights' fees.
The demand made for the first scutage of King John (1199-1200) was
charged on from 2 to 2-1/2 knights' fees and later scutages were paid
on the latter amount (idem, _8 Hen. II_, p. 11; idem, _14 Hen. II_, p.
172; idem, _18 Hen. II_, p. 68; idem, _1John_, pp. 122, 123; idem,
_2John_, p. 5; idem, _13 John_, p. 209; Pipe Roll, E. 372/68, N'humb.;
idem, E. 372/90, N'humb.; idem, E. 372/123, N'humb.; _Fees_, p. 201).
Odinel II m. Alice, da. of the justiciar Richard de Lucy.] Richard,
br. and heir, d. 1226 and was followed by Gilbert I d. 1245. [note:
_Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland_ (PRO) i., nos. 946, 950,
1663-4, 1667; _Excerpta e Rotulis Finium_, ed. C. Roberts, 1835-6, i,
pp. 153, 433; _Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem_ (PRO) i, no. 49.
Gilbert I, who was charged #100 relief, m. Maud suo jure Countess of
Angus.] Gilbert II, son and heir, became, by right of his mother, Earl
of Angus. He d. 1307 leaving Robert IV d. 1325 when Gilbert III, who
came of age in 1331, was heir. [note: Idem, v, no. 47; idem, vi, no.
607; _Calendar of Close Rolls 1330-3_ (PRO), p. 248. Prudhoe was held
for the service of 2-1/2 knights' fees. Gilbert II m. Elizabeth da. of
Alexander Comyn, Earl of Buchan. Robert IV m. Lucy da. of Philip de
Kyme d. 1323."


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

Kathleen Much, Editor |Email: kathl...@casbs.stanford.EDU
CASBS, 75 Alta Rd. |Phone: (650) 321-2052
Stanford, CA 94305 |Fax: (650) 321-1192


----------------------- Headers ------------------------------­--
Return-Path: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L-requ...@rootsweb.com
Received: from rly-zb05.mx.aol.com (rly-zb05.mail.aol.com
[172.31.41.5]) by
air-zb05.mail.aol.com (v51.9) with SMTP; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 20:14:01
-0500
Received: from bl-30.rootsweb.com (bl-30.rootsweb.com [207.113.245.30])

by rly-zb05.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
with ESMTP id UAA28540;
Fri, 30 Oct 1998 20:13:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from slist@localhost)
by bl-30.rootsweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA28448;
Fri, 30 Oct 1998 17:13:00 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 17:13:00 -0800 (PST)
Old-To: GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com
Date: 31 Oct 1998 01:06:38 GMT
From: kathl...@casbs.Stanford.EDU (Kathleen Much)
Message-ID: <71dnqu$bq...@nntp.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences
Sender: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L-requ...@rootsweb.com
References: <4940cb8.3638c...@aol.com
Subject: Re: Previous post on de Umfreville Family
Resent-Message-ID: <"q1MmRC.A.H7G.SQmO2"@bl-30.ro­otsweb.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com
Resent-From: GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com
X-Mailing-List: <GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com> archive/latest/13235
X-Loop: GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L-requ...@rootsweb.com


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


Subj: Re: de Lucy
Date: 98-09-18 06:55:51 EDT
From: r...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au (Richard Borthwick)
Sender: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L-requ...@rootsweb.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com


At 09:28 AM 18/09/98 +0800, you wrote:



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:23:25 -0700 (PDT)
Old-To: GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com
Date: 17 Sep 1998 18:19:03 -0700
From: j...@midas.millcomm.com (Benjamin Hertzel)
Organization: RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative
Sender: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L-requ...@rootsweb.com
Subject: de Lucy
Resent-Message-ID: <"G1HY8B.A.0tE.9XbA2"@bl-30.ro­otsweb.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com
Resent-From: GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com
X-Mailing-List: <GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com> archive/latest/11837
X-Loop: GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com
Resent-Sender: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L-requ...@rootsweb.com

Does anyone have any information on the de Lucy family? I have three
Maud
de Lucys, but I do not know how they are related:


Maud de Lucy, daughter of Thomas de Lucy and Mary de Multon. Maud
married
Henry Percy (1341 - 1408). Children?


Maud de Lucy, married Gilbert de Umfreville, Earl of Angus (died 1381).
Children?



These two Mauds were one and the same. Her first husband was Gilbert
(and
his second wife) and her second was Henry first earl of Northumberland
(and
was his second wife). Maud dsp.[CP I:150, VIII:254, IX:712]. The Lucy
family
to which she belonged was the Lucy of Egremont (Cumberland). It is
thought
this family was closely related to the Lucy of Diss (Norfolk)but the
nature
of the connection is not known [but see CP VIII:247 note (c)]. The son
of
Gilbert, Robert, was by Gilbert's first wife and Robert dvp and sp. The

Umfreville descent was through earl Gilbert's brother, Thomas [CP
I:150-151].


Maud de Lucy, daughter of Richard de Lucy, married Walter FitzRobert de
Clare (died 1198). They were the parents of Robert and Alice.


Maud de Lucy received Diss. Her brother Geoffrey (I) dvp and his son,
Richard, succeeded his grandfather, Richard the justiciar. Geoffrey (I)
also
had a daughter Rohese and she succeeded her brother Richard. Geoffrey
(II)
was a son of Geoffrey (I) but was either by another marriage or
illegitimate. In any case the Lucy family of Newington descends from
Geoffrey (II) [CP VIII:257-263, see 257 note (c)]. Rohese de Lucy
married
John de Dover (d.about 1194) lord of Chilham, Kent [Sanders, 111].

An interesting sidelight. Alice, another dau. of Richard de Lucy of
Diss
(the justiciar) m. Odinel (II) de Umfreville (d.1182) of Prudhoe,
Northumberland.This pair were the ancestors of Gilbert who m. Maud de
Lucy
(of the Egremont family). [Sanders, 73].

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear Will ~

You are of course correct. Yes., I made an error. Thank you for
pointing out the mistake.

Margaret (or Margery) de Umfreville's maternal grandmother (not mother)
was Rohese of Boulogne, wife of Sir Richard de Lucy, Chief Justiciar of
England.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/21/05 12:47:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

... William d'Aubeney's wife was Margaret (or Margery) de
Umfreville,
daughter of Odinel de Umfreville, of Prudhoe,
Northumberland, by Alice, daughter of Richard de Lucy, Knt., of
Chipping
Ongar, Essex, Chief Justiciar of England.

... Margaret's mother, Rohese of Boulogne, wife of Sir Richard de
Lucy ....


Doug I'm confused it seems like you are saying that
1) Margaret de Umfreville was daughter of Odinel by Alice de Lucy
2) Alice de Lucy was daughter of Richard de Lucy
3) Margaret's mother was Rohese of Boulogne, wife of Richard de Lucy.

These three statements don't seem to be able to go together.
Thanks
Will Johnson



D. Spencer Hines

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 22 jul 2005 06:41:17

The Really Fortunate thing is that King Edward III of England realized
his father was an ineffective wimp when it came to his duties as King --
whatever his intentions might have been -- and Edward III turned in a
FAR better performance than his father.

Those of us descended from Edward III appreciate that -- and there are
tens of millions of us.

Good Intentions are often simply not enough in a leader -- and that was
the case with Edward II.

He was a weak and ineffective King of England -- unable to focus on his
principal duties -- in large part because he was a homosexual -- "who
did his duty" to father an heir -- the most important thing he ever
did -- but not enough to salvage his reputation or his legacy.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Gjest

Re: John Throckmorton's Magna Charta ancestors

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 jul 2005 08:05:29

Much obliged, Leo. Thanks!

Tom

Gjest

Re: The truth about Mr. Richardson

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 jul 2005 20:28:02

In a message dated 7/22/05 11:15:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< I'm listed in Who's
Who in Genealogy. >>

I've never heard of this. How do you get into this book?
Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: The truth about Mr. Richardson

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 22 jul 2005 20:34:10

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
< In a message dated 7/22/05 11:15:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
< royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<
< << I'm listed in Who's
< Who in Genealogy. >>
<
< I've never heard of this. How do you get into this book?
< Will Johnson

Dear Will ~

I think you have to write and publish a lot. They approached me.
It's strictly honorary.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Gjest

Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V05 #567

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 jul 2005 23:51:02

In a message dated 7/22/2005 2:54:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
GEN-MEDIEVAL-D-request@rootsweb.com writes:

Yes, please, let's have some genealogy. I'm sick of hearing these
grown men whine.



You said "GROWN?"

wh

Peter Stewart

Re: Stewart's & Van De Pas's Unfounded Charges

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 23 jul 2005 02:24:47

More "fried air" - hot, smelly and content-free.

Thanks for the term, Hans, it's perfect for these emptily argumentative
people.

Or as Hines would prefer to belabour his own language, "as good as it gets".

Criticism is not prosecution. Richardson submits his work to scrutiny, not
to trial. He can't be sentenced, even to silence.

His work can and should be assessed, unless we are all to give up on
progress in genealogy. Hines did that when he switched tack after November
2003, when his long-dissembled ignorance of Latin was exposed and he became
desperate for a diversionary line of attack against me.

And we see how he has failed ever since to find one. Kersplat.

Peter Stewart




"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AogEe.105$qq6.679@eagle.america.net...
Stewart & Van de Pas [it sounds like a down-at-the-heels law firm] seem
to have this very silly-buggers idea that Douglas Richardson is in a
Court of Law, on trial, and they are the prosecutors.

Horsefeathers!

1. Douglas Richardson is not on trial.

2. Stewart & Van de Pas are not prosecutors.

3. Douglas Richardson has no obligation to "defend himself" against
them and their off-the-wall charges -- nor does anyone else.

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

CED

Re: Stewart's & Van De Pas's Unfounded Charges

Legg inn av CED » 23 jul 2005 02:38:11

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Stewart & Van de Pas [it sounds like a down-at-the-heels law firm] seem
to have this very silly-buggers idea that Douglas Richardson is in a
Court of Law, on trial, and they are the prosecutors.


DSH

Rather than address Stewart and Van de Pas, who have laid no charges
against Mr. Richardson, you should address me who has, as follows:

(1) Mr. Richardson himself charged that Stewart was dishonest and a
fraud for using a dictionary; and
(2) Mr. Richardson claimed to be an expert on the Latin used in 13th
Century England.

Not even Mr. Richardson stands behind the first charge; for nobody
would reasonably state that the use of a Latin dictionary to translate
a Latin word is dishonest or fraudulent.

On the second, Mr. Richardson's being an expert in Latin, it was
slightly different. Mr. Richardson did make an effort to present
evidence. He said that publishing two books and being listed in the
genealogists Who's Who qualified him for something. But not even the
most naive among us would accept those items as qualification for
expertise in Latin. Thus far Mr. Richardson has presented no
believable evidence to support his claim of expertise.

If you had bothered to read the thread before posting, you would have
known what I have written in the previous paragraphs; but, as we all
have come to know, you do not read; you simply post without regard for
the subject.

Earlier, after being warned, you stepped back from the edge; but now
you can not help yourself. You are fascinated by what you see when
peering over the presipice. Is it real or imaginary? You do not know,
do you?

I hope you know realize the seriousness of your problem. We all
understand that you try to keep it under control; but it's there all
the time. Restraint works for a while; but eventually, invariably it
leaps out.

Please call your doctor.

CED
Horsefeathers!

1. Douglas Richardson is not on trial.

2. Stewart & Van de Pas are not prosecutors.

3. Douglas Richardson has no obligation to "defend himself" against
them and their off-the-wall charges -- nor does anyone else.

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Stewart's & Van De Pas's Unfounded Charges

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 23 jul 2005 02:40:03

Stewart & Van de Pas [it sounds like a down-at-the-heels law firm] seem
to have this very silly-buggers idea that Douglas Richardson is in a
Court of Law, on trial, and they are the prosecutors.

Horsefeathers!

1. Douglas Richardson is not on trial.

2. Stewart & Van de Pas are not prosecutors.

3. Douglas Richardson has no obligation to "defend himself" against
them and their off-the-wall charges -- nor does anyone else.

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Peter Stewart

Re: Stewart's & Van De Pas's Unfounded Charges

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 23 jul 2005 04:00:36

You mischaracterisations of me only get more pathetic and risible, Hines.

And the Brandon ploy of removing everything that places your desperate
blather into context, showing that you have failed to address any point, is
useless in an archived newsgroup.

The weakness of your position and the falsehood of your glib assertions are
obvious to all, and going on with these can only emphasise your stupidity.

And trying out some more Latin can only cast a glaring light on your total
ignorance of the language. We know you have cadged this and got all your
tags by rote.

Peter Stewart




"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1biEe.111$qq6.53@eagle.america.net...
Hilarious!

Peter Stewart is still hiding in the closet -- itching, scratching,
talking to himself, kvetching and whining.

Every now and then he tosses a hand grenade out of the closet -- hoping
to catch Douglas Richardson with it -- but he never does.

His grenades always miss.

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

CED

Re: Stewart's & Van De Pas's Unfounded Charges

Legg inn av CED » 23 jul 2005 04:32:51

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

DSH:

This situation is worse than I first suspected. You can not
distinguish between Peter and me. Your confusion is evidence of an
impending crisis!

Please take care.

CED


Hilarious!

Peter Stewart is still hiding in the closet -- itching, scratching,
talking to himself, kvetching and whining.

Every now and then he tosses a hand grenade out of the closet -- hoping
to catch Douglas Richardson with it -- but he never does.

His grenades always miss.

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Stewart's & Van De Pas's Unfounded Charges

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 23 jul 2005 04:41:48

Hilarious!

Peter Stewart is still hiding in the closet -- itching, scratching,
talking to himself, kvetching and whining.

Every now and then he tosses a hand grenade out of the closet -- hoping
to catch Douglas Richardson with it -- but he never does.

His grenades always miss.

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Gjest

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 jul 2005 04:54:02

Dear Hans, Douglas, Peter and all others,
Forgive me
for being so very obtuse, but I would consider a Janus head a high compliment
indeed on a list like this and Janus had a remarkable ability to see past and
future clearly at one and the same time. Yet of course You only referred to
the fact that He was two faced. Sometimes I wonder why I stay on this list as
the long running arguments are tiresome in extreme and the little snippets of
information from both Douglas Richardson and Peter Stewart among so many
others who post more frequently when full fledged battle is not underway are well
.... informative. I realize that the pre publication rush for Douglas had to
have been like this unbelievable sugar high that He hasn`t quite come down from
yet and that Peter is obviously quite brilliant. You are both among the top ten
reasons to read this list. Your differences of opinion or at any rate the
way you verbally flog each other is certainly among probably # 1 of the reasons
to think of leaving. Yes, All the World is but a stage and No One likes not
getting the final word, myself unfortunately included.
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Peter Stewart

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 23 jul 2005 07:03:27

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FXjEe.117$qq6.242@eagle.america.net...
The Really Fortunate thing is that King Edward III of England realized
his father was an ineffective wimp when it came to his duties as King --
whatever his intentions might have been -- and Edward III turned in a
FAR better performance than his father.

Those of us descended from Edward III appreciate that -- and there are
tens of millions of us.

Good Intentions are often simply not enough in a leader -- and that was
the case with Edward II.

He was a weak and ineffective King of England -- unable to focus on his
principal duties -- in large part because he was a homosexual -- "who
did his duty" to father an heir -- the most important thing he ever
did -- but not enough to salvage his reputation or his legacy.

Back on the subject again already, Hines? Can't you help yourself?

And can't you manage parentheses? If these are balanced, the last sentence
can be contracted by removing these to read:

"He was a weak and ineffective King of England in large part because he was
a homosexual, the most important thing he ever did..."

Is that what you meant, or a Freudian slip?

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 23 jul 2005 07:15:23

Hines is confused, Rodney, and lacks focus. It appears that subconsciously
he knows why and projects this explanation onto others.

The idea that fathering a child might "salvage" someone's reputation or
legacy is as absurd as the rest of his ideas. Any entire male of any species
can father offspring without gaining moral or political credit by this. A
mere straw, but Hines - a father himself - clutches at it...

Now perpaps he can see that he doesn't get to take free shots even in that
direction. Others can play at his vile game, just as he deserves, only he
gives others the ammunition to do it rather more effectively.

Peter Stewart


"Rodney Doyle" <rodneyjdoyle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20050723053601.57110.qmail@web30210.mail.mud.yahoo.com...
I dread this, but I feel I must take issue with this statement;

"(Edward II) was a weak and ineffective King of England -- unable to focus
on his
principal duties -- in large part because he was a homosexual -- "who
did his duty" to father an heir -- the most important thing he ever
did -- but not enough to salvage his reputation or his legacy."

Saying that Edward II was an ineffectual king because he was a homosexual
is, first of all, an oversimplification, and secondly, offensive to me.
Are you saying that if he had been straight, he would have had no problem
being a magnificent king? I think his sexuality was innocuous. If Piers
Gaveston had been a female, and a king had still shown the same amount of
favoritism to the exclusion of his queen and peers, his judgement would
still have been as bad as it in fact was. The only difference would have
been that fewer people would have locked onto who he was in love with to
identify the cause of his poor judgement.

Regardless of what "raised his flag," Edward II was a poor king. Of that
fact, I do not doubt. He lacked tact and good judgement, but to say that
he lacked these qualities because of his sexuality only adds to the
prejudice already present against homosexuals. If I could make my own
oversimplification, I believe that more cause for Edward II's lack of
success can be laid at the door if his being the son of Edward I (insert
your favorite adage about a dominant, overbearing father raising a weak,
ineffectual son here.)

Rodney




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Gjest

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 jul 2005 07:21:01

In a message dated 7/22/05 9:47:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
poguemidden@hotmail.com writes:

<< He was a weak and ineffective King of England -- unable to focus on his
principal duties -- in large part because he was a homosexual >>

I think you'd be hard-put to defend a position that because he was homosexual
that made him unable to focus. I suppose James I was also so unfocused in
your opinion. Or did I mis-read you?
Will Johnson

Rodney Doyle

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av Rodney Doyle » 23 jul 2005 07:38:02

I dread this, but I feel I must take issue with this statement;

"(Edward II) was a weak and ineffective King of England -- unable to focus on his
principal duties -- in large part because he was a homosexual -- "who
did his duty" to father an heir -- the most important thing he ever
did -- but not enough to salvage his reputation or his legacy."

Saying that Edward II was an ineffectual king because he was a homosexual is, first of all, an oversimplification, and secondly, offensive to me. Are you saying that if he had been straight, he would have had no problem being a magnificent king? I think his sexuality was innocuous. If Piers Gaveston had been a female, and a king had still shown the same amount of favoritism to the exclusion of his queen and peers, his judgement would still have been as bad as it in fact was. The only difference would have been that fewer people would have locked onto who he was in love with to identify the cause of his poor judgement.

Regardless of what "raised his flag," Edward II was a poor king. Of that fact, I do not doubt. He lacked tact and good judgement, but to say that he lacked these qualities because of his sexuality only adds to the prejudice already present against homosexuals. If I could make my own oversimplification, I believe that more cause for Edward II's lack of success can be laid at the door if his being the son of Edward I (insert your favorite adage about a dominant, overbearing father raising a weak, ineffectual son here.)

Rodney




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Louise Staley

Le JEUE family of Devon

Legg inn av Louise Staley » 23 jul 2005 08:42:14

This is what I have on this family. It would appear the John I have as
a brother of William is the same as "your" John and I have assigned him
to the wrong family largely on the basis of his will referring to his
brother William. I suspect you probably know more about this family
than I do but I have attached my sources in case there's something you
haven't seen. I am also very interested in the possible ancestry of
Juliana. Please excuse my inability to understand this myself but does
the patent rolls entry suggest Juliana was claiming to be a Northcote
or a Speccot heiress?

Cheers
Louise
Descendants of John Jeue


First Generation

1. John Jeue.

John married (name unknown).

The child from this marriage was:

+ 2 M i. Thomas Jeue was born in 1353.

Second Generation (Children)

2. Thomas Jeue was born in 1353.

Thomas married Juliana Wife of Richard Wotton(2) before 1373(1).

Children from this marriage were:

+ 3 M i. William Jeue Of Colly, Dev, Eng(3) died in s.p.m.
4 M ii. John Jeue died after 1415(4).

Third Generation (Grandchildren)

3. William Jeue Of Colly, Dev, Eng(3) died in s.p.m.

William married (name unknown).

Children from this marriage were:

+ 5 F i. Alice Jeue co-heiress(5) died after 14 Nov 1426(6).
+ 6 F ii. Joan Jeue co-heiress(8).

Fourth Generation (Great Grandchildren)

5. Alice Jeue co-heiress(5) died after 14 Nov 1426(6).

Alice married John Yeo Of Heampton Sachvile Esq.,(10) son of Robert
Yeo and Isabel Brightley(7).

Children from this marriage were:

7 M i. William Yeo Of Heampton Sachvile Esq.(11, 12, 13) was
born about 1425 and died on 24 Jul 1481, about age
56(14).

William married Ellen Grenville,(17) daughter of William
Grenville and Philippa Bonville, before 1455(15, 16).

8 M ii. Richard Yeo was born in 1425.

Richard married (name unknown).

6. Joan Jeue co-heiress(8).

Joan married Edward St. John(18)(9).

The child from this marriage was:

9 F i. Jane St. John heiress died on 5 Jul 1463.

Jane married Nicholas Arundell of Trerice,(20) son of Sir
John Arundell of Trerice and Jane Durant(19).

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources

1. "Soc.genealogy.medieval", (Posts to the USENET newsgroup
soc.genalogy.medieval), Todd Farmerie 5 Aug 1995. The
appropriate line runs:
1.William le PROUZ d.1269 m Alice de WIDWORTHY, daughter of
William de
WIDWORTHY and aunt and eventual coheiress of Emma (de
WIDWORTHY)
de DINHAM.
2.William le PROUZ b.1244 d.1316 m.bef.1275 Alice
______,daughter of one
of the four daughters of John de REIGNY.
2. Alice le PROUZ b.(?bef.)1286 d.1335 m Roger De MOELES d.1323
4. Joan de MOELES b.bef.1305 m1. John de WOTTON d.bef.1335
m2.bef.1343
John de NORTHCOTE d.ca.1374
5. Richard de WOTTON d.bef.1373 m. Julian (who m2.bef.1373
Thomas JEWE).
2. Weis, Frederick, with additions and corrections by Walter Lee
Sheppard, Jr, Assisted by David Faris, Ancestral Roots of
Certain American Colonists Who Came to America Before 1700,
(Baltimore, Genealogical Publishing Co., 1992), 52: 35 "perhaps
a dau of Wm le Prouz of Chagford, his cousin".
3. Great Britain Public Records Office, Court of Chancery: Six Clerks
Office: Early Proceedings Richard II to Philip and Mary (1386 -
1558), (H.M.S.O., http://www.pro.gov.uk C1), C 1/61/436.
William Yeo, son of Alice, daughter of William, son of Thomas,
son of John Jeu and William St John, son of Jane sister of the
said Alice v John Widislade and John Manning, feoffees to the
uses of the will of Robert, son of Robert Kirkham, esq.
4. Will, John Jeue 1415.
5. Great Britain Public Records Office, Court of Chancery: Six Clerks
Office: Early Proceedings Richard II to Philip and Mary (1386 -
1558), (H.M.S.O., http://www.pro.gov.uk C1), C1/61/436.
William Yeo, son of Alice, daughter of William, son of Thomas,
son of John Jeu and William St John, son of Jane sister of the
said Alice v John Widislade and John Manning, feoffees to the
uses of the will of Robert, son of Robert Kirkham, esq.
6. Dunstan, G. R. ed., The Register of Edmund Lacy Bishop of Exeter,
1420-1455, (Torquay, Devon and Cornwall Record Society,
1963-1972), 5v. New Series v. 7, 10, 13, 16,18. John and Alice
were granted a licence for divine service in the presence of
either in any suitable place in their house at Heanton in the
parish of Petrokystowe
Ref. The Register of Edmund Lacy, Bishop of Exeter.
7. Great Britain Public Records Office, Court of Chancery: Six Clerks
Office: Early Proceedings Richard II to Philip and Mary (1386 -
1558), (H.M.S.O., http://www.pro.gov.uk C1), C 1/61/436.
William Yeo, son of Alice, daughter of William, son of Thomas,
son of John Jeu and William St John, son of Jane sister of the
said Alice v John Widislade and John Manning, feoffees to the
uses of the will of Robert, son of Robert Kirkham, esq

C1/15/201
Edward St John and Joan his wife, daughter of William Jewe v
John Yeo and John Radmore, feoffees of the said William ;
Manors of Cotleigh, Cheseweye, Spelecombe, Cullebeare, Cleave,
Holecombe beside Crediton, Poltimore and Northcot

C1/23/5
William Yeo v Thomas Dourysshe, John More and Nicholas Pyne,
feoffees ; Manor and advowson of Cotleigh and tenements in
Spelcombe, enfoeffed by John Jewe.
8. Government of the UK, Public Records Office,
(http://catalogue.pro.gov.uk/), C 1/61/436. William Yeo, son
of Alice, daughter of William, son of Thomas, son of John Jeu
and William St John, son of Jane sister of the said Alice v John
Widislade and John Manning, feoffees to the uses of the will of
Robert, son of Robert Kirkham, esq.
9. Great Britain Public Records Office, Court of Chancery: Six Clerks
Office: Early Proceedings Richard II to Philip and Mary (1386 -
1558), (H.M.S.O., http://www.pro.gov.uk C1), C 1/61/436 & C
1/15/201. William Yeo, son of Alice, daughter of William, son
of Thomas, son of John Jeu and William St John, son of Jane
sister of the said Alice v John Widislade and John Manning,
feoffees to the uses of the will of Robert, son of Robert
Kirkham, esq

Edward St. John and Joan his wife, daughter of William Jewe. v.
John Yeo and John Radmore, feoffees of the said William.: Manors
of Cotleigh, Cheseweye, Spelecomb, Cullebeare, Cleave? (Clive),
Hollowcombe (Holecombe) beside Crediton, Poltimore, and Northc.
10. Will, Nicholas Yeo 1444.
11. Great Britain Public Records Office, Calendar of Inquisitions
Post Mortem and other Analagous Documents (1261-1413) Volumes
1-19, (H.M.S.O.), IPM of John Keynes.
12. Colby, Frederick (ed.), The Visitation of the County of Devon in
the Year 1620, (London, Harleian Society, 1872), Visitation
Series No. 6.
13. Great Britain Public Records Office, Court of Chancery: Six
Clerks Office: Early Proceedings Richard II to Philip and Mary
(1386 - 1558), (H.M.S.O., http://www.pro.gov.uk C1), C1/61/436.
William Yeo, son of Alice, daughter of William, son of Thomas,
son of John Jeu and William St John, son of Jane sister of the
said Alice v John Widislade and John Manning, feoffees to the
uses of the will of Robert, son of Robert Kirkham, esq.
14. Great Britain Public Records Office, Calendar of Inquisitions
Post Mortem and other Analagous Documents (1261-1413) Volumes
1-19, (H.M.S.O.), IPM of William Yeo.
15. Colby, Frederick (ed.), The Visitation of the County of Devon in
the Year 1620, (London, Harleian Society, 1872), Visitation
Series No. 6, Names not dates.
16. Great Britain Public Records Office, Calendar of Inquisitions
Post Mortem and other Analagous Documents (1261-1413) Volumes
1-19, (H.M.S.O.), IPM of William Yeo 1481.
17. Harl.Soc.Vis.Cornwall, P84 shows Ellen as the daughter of Thomas
Grenville and Elizabeth Gorges rather than as Thomas's sister.
18. Great Britain Public Records Office, Court of Chancery: Six
Clerks Office: Early Proceedings Richard II to Philip and Mary
(1386 - 1558), (H.M.S.O., http://www.pro.gov.uk C1), C 1/15/201.
Edward St. John and Joan his wife, daughter of William Jewe. v.
John Yeo and John Radmore, feoffees of the said William.: Manors
of Cotleigh, Cheseweye, Spelecomb, Cullebeare, Cleave? (Clive),
Hollowcombe (Holecombe) beside Crediton, Poltimore, and Northc.
19. Harl.Soc.Vis.Cornwall, Arundell p271.
20. Ibid, Arundell p 271.


<SNIP>
Finally, back to the Jewes of Cotleigh. I have one clue to the parentage of Juliana ___ who m. (1) Richard Wotton, and (2) Thomas
Jewe: from the Patent Rolls of 1390: "...complaint by John Northcote of Devon that Richard Speccote (sic), being lately seised...in
Northcote, Devon, gr. same to Henry his son, in tail male...Henry died and they desc. to William his son and heir, and from him to
Walter his son and heir, and from Walter to said John, his son and heir, but after the death of Walter, because his said son John
was abroad, one Thomas Jewe and Juliana his wife, claiming in right of the said Juliana as heir of said Walter and suggesting that
he died without heir male, entered the premises and were thereof seised until expelled by Walter Giffard, still living, who granted
the premises to John Cary."

Bob Forrest

Peter Stewart

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 23 jul 2005 14:10:13

There was a thread last year about the story of Edward II's murder - a
search of the archive for "superficialiter" should find this. (I'm afraid a
great deal of twaddle will come with it.) The likelihood seems strong to me
that he was killed in the way people came to believe, and the idea for this
was probably due at least in part to a reputation for homosexual behaviour -
but of course that doesn't mean this this was necessarily true, or
discreditable if it was. No early source makes an explicit report of it, and
we also know that Edward had at least one illegitimate child, a son named
Adam.

Peter Stewart


<Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message news:15b.556b43df.3013947b@aol.com...
Dear Spencer, Peter and others,
It is interesting that
while King Edward II has gone down in history (as far as recent
historians are
concerned anyway ) as a homosexual, whislt little has been said of his
"lovers"
sexuality. the dislike of Piers de Gaveston and latterly Hugh le
Despencer,
Earl of Gloucester had more to do with inordinant political influence. But
Edward had other friends, including Donald II, Earl of Mar who had spent
part of
his formative years at the English court. According to Ronald McNair
Scott`s
biography Robert the Bruce , King of Scots p 216 following Edward II`s
forced
abdication and imprisonment in Kenilworth Castle, then He was sent to
Berkeley Castle and escaped. Donald had been living in England until
Edward II was
bullied into abdicating and made posthaste for Scotland where his uncle
restored
him to his Earldom and encouraged his plot to raise a Welsh force to free
the
former King of England. He had been removed to Berkeley Castle for a time
and
Donald`s plan freed him from the custody of his enemies. He was soon
recaptured and at that time Roger Mortimer and his lover Edward II`s
Queen, Isabel of
France (aka The Bitch of France) determined and seem to have carried
through
Edward II`s murder.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 jul 2005 14:40:01

Dear Spencer, Peter and others,
It is interesting that
while King Edward II has gone down in history (as far as recent historians are
concerned anyway ) as a homosexual, whislt little has been said of his "lovers"
sexuality. the dislike of Piers de Gaveston and latterly Hugh le Despencer,
Earl of Gloucester had more to do with inordinant political influence. But
Edward had other friends, including Donald II, Earl of Mar who had spent part of
his formative years at the English court. According to Ronald McNair Scott`s
biography Robert the Bruce , King of Scots p 216 following Edward II`s forced
abdication and imprisonment in Kenilworth Castle, then He was sent to
Berkeley Castle and escaped. Donald had been living in England until Edward II was
bullied into abdicating and made posthaste for Scotland where his uncle restored
him to his Earldom and encouraged his plot to raise a Welsh force to free the
former King of England. He had been removed to Berkeley Castle for a time and
Donald`s plan freed him from the custody of his enemies. He was soon
recaptured and at that time Roger Mortimer and his lover Edward II`s Queen, Isabel of
France (aka The Bitch of France) determined and seem to have carried through
Edward II`s murder.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: England's / Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 jul 2005 16:02:02

Dear Peter, Leo and Others,
I don`t doubt Edward II was indeed
murdered by or at the order of Roger Mortimer who Edward (I believe III)
was coerced into creating Earl of March. whatever the case, Edward III
definitely despised him and had him executed without any semblence of a real trial, if
Thomas B Costain in " The Three Edwards" had it right. Edward III with the
help of his good friend William Montacute, Lord Montacute escaped from his
mother and Mortimer`s custody, raised a force and arrested Mortimer. He was
brought in in chains, the charges, including that of murdering King Edward II were
read and without being allowed to speak in his defense, He was sentenced to be
executed and the sentence was carried out with little delay. Edward II of
England and Isabel of France in fact presumedly had four children; Edward III
born 1312, John born abt 1316, Eleanor b 1318 and Joan b 1321 See David
Williamson Kings and Queens of Britain p 76. It is interesting that She seems to have
met and first lusted after the very married Mortimer in the tower of London in
say 1323 while he was there under sentence of death. In 1323 She got her weak
willed husband to commute sentence to life imprisonment. Merciful Kings such
as Stephen, Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI generally speaking are
considered bad rulers.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

William Black

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av William Black » 23 jul 2005 17:30:11

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FXjEe.117$qq6.242@eagle.america.net...
The Really Fortunate thing is that King Edward III of England realized
his father was an ineffective wimp when it came to his duties as King --
whatever his intentions might have been

That was a bloody good trick.

His father was deposed when he was a 14 years old child.

However he locked his dear mother in a nunnery after he came to power, so
he'd worked out how to deal with her...

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea

norenxaq

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av norenxaq » 23 jul 2005 18:32:01

No early source makes an explicit report of it, and
we also know that Edward had at least one illegitimate child, a son named
Adam.

Peter Stewart

having a child does not automatically preclude one from being gay

Hugh Watkins

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av Hugh Watkins » 23 jul 2005 19:19:47

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kmvEe.138$qq6.964@eagle.america.net...
As anyone who has studied British History is well aware, one of the most
important duties for a traditional Monarch is ensuring the Royal
Succession by fathering a healthy male heir.

Henry VIII had notable difficulties on those grounds -- and the Kingdom
of England and his subjects suffered because of it for many decades.

Edward II, although a homosexual, did "do his duty" and fathered a
healthy heir, Edward III who lived to be 64 years old, having reigned,
in one form or another, for 50 years. So, although Edward II was a
terrible failure as King -- he did leave a strong successor.

Edward III's problem was then in having too MANY sons, not too few.

Edward III had FIVE surviving sons -- they, and their heirs, quarreled
and fought after the death of the eldest, the heir apparent, Edward The
Black Prince, and that later led to the Wars of the Roses and a period
of great instability in England.

Prince Charles, today, although certainly no homosexual, has also
ensured the succession by fathering both "an heir and a spare".

Fatherhood is not just a choice for a successful Monarch -- it's a
Necessity.


may I remind you David that the concept of homosexuality is an anachronism


Homosexuality is a recent Western concept (Foucault, 1980) unique among
the conceptualization of male-male sexual bonds of other cultures in
several ways.
Where the western concept of homosexuality assumes a life-long

predisposition, other cultures have typically construed male-male sexual
bonds as temporary phases, as in the initiation rites of tribes in New
Guinea or ancient Crete, or age-based relationships ? such as in ancient
Greece. An even more profound uniqueness of the Western concept of
homosexuality is revealed when it is contrasted with how male-male sexual
and romantic bonds were treated in Imperial China where several male
emperors were known to have had male harems and favorite male concubines,
and also where male prostitution (for male clients) was prevalent up to the
end of the Qing Dynasty.

The reason why there was no word for homosexuality in Chinese was because
it was never seen as a defining or integral part of a person$B!G(Bs
identity.

Male-male sexual and romantic bonds were construed as relationships between
two people as opposed to a psychological essence that defined either person.
Moreover, these same-sex bonds were seen as a perfectly acceptable and
natural way of life in Imperial China (Hinsch, 1992).<<

http://www.nickyee.com/ponder/social_construction.html

for exampl
(get googling or talk with some well read / educated queers)

Hugh W

on a quiet evening in Copenhagen
with a Boccherini minuet on the radio

D. Spencer Hines

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 23 jul 2005 19:41:18

As anyone who has studied British History is well aware, one of the most
important duties for a traditional Monarch is ensuring the Royal
Succession by fathering a healthy male heir.

Henry VIII had notable difficulties on those grounds -- and the Kingdom
of England and his subjects suffered because of it for many decades.

Edward II, although a homosexual, did "do his duty" and fathered a
healthy heir, Edward III who lived to be 64 years old, having reigned,
in one form or another, for 50 years. So, although Edward II was a
terrible failure as King -- he did leave a strong successor.

Edward III's problem was then in having too MANY sons, not too few.

Edward III had FIVE surviving sons -- they, and their heirs, quarreled
and fought after the death of the eldest, the heir apparent, Edward The
Black Prince, and that later led to the Wars of the Roses and a period
of great instability in England.

Prince Charles, today, although certainly no homosexual, has also
ensured the succession by fathering both "an heir and a spare".

Fatherhood is not just a choice for a successful Monarch -- it's a
Necessity.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Dora Smith

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av Dora Smith » 23 jul 2005 20:14:02

I agree; being homosexual has nothing to do with bad judgement.

Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, Texas
villandra@austin.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 12:19 AM
Subject: Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings


In a message dated 7/22/05 9:47:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
poguemidden@hotmail.com writes:

He was a weak and ineffective King of England -- unable to focus on his
principal duties -- in large part because he was a homosexual

I think you'd be hard-put to defend a position that because he was
homosexual
that made him unable to focus. I suppose James I was also so unfocused in
your opinion. Or did I mis-read you?
Will Johnson

Dora Smith

Re: England's / Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av Dora Smith » 23 jul 2005 20:20:03

I was wondering how long it was going to take for people on this list to
tell us that we do not know that Edward II was homosexual! LOL!

As to the large numbers of people descended from Edward III - I guess we
know he was heterosexual! Grin!

Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, Texas
villandra@austin.rr.com

Gordon Banks

Re: England's / Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av Gordon Banks » 23 jul 2005 21:38:01

I guess it was the environment they were placed in. If you are
merciful, you will soon lose your crown to someone ruthless.

Granted, some homosexuals trend toward the softer side. But all don't.
What about Alexander the Great? He seemed to be pretty effective.

On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 10:00 -0400, Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:
Merciful Kings such
as Stephen, Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI generally speaking are
considered bad rulers.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
--

Gordon Banks <geb@gordonbanks.com>

Gordon Banks

Re: England's / Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av Gordon Banks » 23 jul 2005 21:46:01

On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 13:19 -0500, Dora Smith wrote:
I was wondering how long it was going to take for people on this list to
tell us that we do not know that Edward II was homosexual! LOL!

As to the large numbers of people descended from Edward III - I guess we
know he was heterosexual! Grin!

Well, Edward II has at least one more descendant than Edward III.

Dora Smith

Re: England's / Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av Dora Smith » 23 jul 2005 21:46:02

And some of them tend toward the gutsy side.

Gordon, all of the most cowardly men I ever met were heterosexual.

Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, Texas
villandra+AEA-austin.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: +ACI-Gordon Banks+ACI- +ADw-geb+AEA-gordonbanks.com+AD4-
To: +ADw-GEN-MEDIEVAL-L+AEA-rootsweb.com+AD4-
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: England's / Britain's Homosexual Kings


+AD4-
+AD4- Granted, some homosexuals trend toward the softer side. But all don't.
+AD4- What about Alexander the Great? He seemed to be pretty effective.
+AD4-

Hans Vogels

Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!

Legg inn av Hans Vogels » 23 jul 2005 23:00:32

James,

It's ok with me. It gives me the oportunity to slide back to a reading
and an occasionly answer position.

If one would respect an answer to someone to be answered by that
someone it is ok with me.

Anyone else budding in feels like a kind of rape, specialy if that
someone choose to ignore a proper answer on a direct reaction to his
own answer in the first place.

A Janus-head in my dictionary has a darker implication. It gave him
certainly a moment to ponder about.

With regards,
Hans Vogels

Jwc1870@aol.com wrote in message news:<9f.63756c69.30130b18@aol.com>...
Dear Hans, Douglas, Peter and all others,
Forgive me
for being so very obtuse, but I would consider a Janus head a high compliment
indeed on a list like this and Janus had a remarkable ability to see past and
future clearly at one and the same time. Yet of course You only referred to
the fact that He was two faced. Sometimes I wonder why I stay on this list as
the long running arguments are tiresome in extreme and the little snippets of
information from both Douglas Richardson and Peter Stewart among so many
others who post more frequently when full fledged battle is not underway are well
... informative. I realize that the pre publication rush for Douglas had to
have been like this unbelievable sugar high that He hasn`t quite come down from
yet and that Peter is obviously quite brilliant. You are both among the top ten
reasons to read this list. Your differences of opinion or at any rate the
way you verbally flog each other is certainly among probably # 1 of the reasons
to think of leaving. Yes, All the World is but a stage and No One likes not
getting the final word, myself unfortunately included.
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Scooter

Re: MCA addition?: Hampden of Baddesley [or Great Hampden?]

Legg inn av Scooter » 23 jul 2005 23:58:26

On , , Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:35:42 +0100, Re: MCA addition?:
Hampden of Baddesley [or Great Hampden?], Tim Powys-Lybbe
<tim@powys.org> wrote:

In message of 10 Jul, Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:

Dear Tim,
Esquires or Squires were chosen by knights to aid them in
taking care of them and their weapons from the nobility /gentry just
as the knights were. They probably had been pages attached to other
gentle houses and were basically in " knight school".

I wish it was that easy. While this is reported to be a meaning of
"esquire", it is not a unique meaning. There were, particularly later
on, all sorts of people who were called esquires. I am not sure we know
exactly what was meant when people were called esquire. I have never
heard of any records of people becoming esquires. Is is a legitimate
term that we can give anyone, knowing fairly accurately what we mean by
it? Or is it, as it later became, some mumbo-jumbo that was given to
anyone, as it once was to my gt-gt-grandfather who looked after the
horses in a wayside inn.

If the Opportunity arose and They were courageous enough in a great
enough battle or just connected to powerful enough persons. They
would be knighted.

Some knights were made such rather before that, viz Edward V who was
made a knight in 1475 at the tender age of five.

That is what he said:

connected to powerful enough persons.

--
"Considering the events of recent years,the world
has a long way to go to regain its credibility and
reputation with the US."
Unknown.

Peter Stewart

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 24 jul 2005 00:09:36

"norenxaq" <norenxaq@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:42E270D0.4FF9A748@san.rr.com...


No early source makes an explicit report of it, and
we also know that Edward had at least one illegitimate child, a son named
Adam.

Peter Stewart

having a child does not automatically preclude one from being gay

I certainly wasn't suggesting that it does, or did in the case of Edward II.
The procreation by Louis XIV's brother Philippe would be enough to smash any
such idea, and of course others like Oscar Wilde are far too well known.

In another thread this subject has been brought somewhat closer to home - or
rather to Homolulu.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 24 jul 2005 00:24:56

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kmvEe.138$qq6.964@eagle.america.net...

<snip>

Fatherhood is not just a choice for a successful Monarch -- it's a
Necessity.

Poor Elizabeth I, poor William III - neither of them a father, doomed to
failure in the Hines version of history.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: England's / Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 jul 2005 00:25:02

Dear Gordon and others,
Of the four Kings of England I listed
viz Stephen, Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI to the best of my knowledge
allegations of homosexual conduct have only been indicated for King Edward II.
King Stephen who embroiled England in civil war againest Empress Maud has no
such reputation. Stephen`s weakness is chiefly demonstrated by his refusal to
kill hostages, most memorably William Marshal, the future Earl of Pembroke.
Richard II married twice, 1st to Anne of Bohemia whom He adored to distraction
and 2ndly (Her age being seven ) Isabel of France. Richard II`s behavior
bothered his nobles quite a bit, especially his so- called effemincy in ordering
handkerchiefs to be made for the first time so He need not wipe his nose and
mouth on the sleeves of his silk robes and as for Henry VI, the fellow was so
devout that if the merest shadow of an inclination toward pleasurable sex of any
sort would likely have had him begging the monks to whip him until the
inclination passed.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Judith (Everard) Appleton descent from Rohese de Boulog

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 jul 2005 01:43:02

Dear Douglas,
Thank You. There was another RD for Judith (Everard)
Appleton in NEHGR some years ago which ran from the old Saxon Kings of Wessex
to Dreux, Count of Vexin, his son Ralph the Timid aka de Sudeley thence down
to Elizabeth, daughter of John, Lord Sudeley b 1257- d 1336 {not given in the
article} supposedly married to a John Hide of Hide Hall whose daughter Maud de
Hide is shown as having married abt 1248 before her grandfather was born
Thomas Jocelyn of Easton, Hertfordshire who d in 1277. It then proceeded down to
Agnes Jocelyn, wife of Sir John Wiseman whose daughter Margaret married
Thomas Everard of Mashbury, Essex. obviously if the chronology given isn`t correct
for the Sudeley alliance, but rather the dates or the whole lineage is
incorrect I do not know.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Peter Stewart

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 24 jul 2005 04:14:22

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nFDEe.171$qq6.1210@eagle.america.net...
King Richard I certainly was NOT a homosexual.

We've covered all that errant rubbish about him several times in these
venues. Check the Archives.

This hasn't been mentioned in a post to SGM that I have seen - is Hines
hallucinating?

<blather snipped>

You pogues really should learn some British History and Genealogy --
particularly the Brits and the Aussie, crouched -- hiding in the
closet -- fondling his "hand grenades."

Learn The British History & Genealogy BEFORE Posting -- Not After.

Um, wasn't it Hines who posted earlier forgetting that Elizabeth I and
William III were successful monarchs but not fathers?

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 jul 2005 05:06:54

King Richard I certainly was NOT a homosexual.

We've covered all that errant rubbish about him several times in these
venues. Check the Archives.
---------------------------------------------------

James I was a thoroughly bad and incompetent King -- because of his
homosexuality and where it led him.

James I was the King who gave his homosexual lover, George Villiers,
great preference and honors, making him Duke of Buckingham and then left
him to Charles I to screw up HIS Kingship -- and Great Britain -- as
well.

Had James I not had the homosexual hots for Villiers/Buckingham, Britain
would not have been launched onto the Path to Disaster she suffered
under Charles I and in the English Civil War.

Consider a favorite lover for a hypothetical HETEROSEXUAL James I who
was a WOMAN, one of those whores, demimondaines, strumpets and toys for
Royals, of the type who are perched so prominently throughout Peter
'Pogue' Stewart's Family Tree.

Said WOMAN would not have been leading military expeditions to
disaster -- as Buckingham did both at Cadiz and La Rochelle.

Nor would she have been corruptly dispensing patronage and infuriating
the Spanish on a marriage negotiation expedition to Madrid with Prince
Charles.

Buckingham was also materially responsible for Graf von Mansfeld's
defeat in the Palatinate in 1625, because Buckingham failed to ensure
adequate supply.

John Felton, a naval officer, had the good sense to kill Buckingham at
Portsmouth after Buckingham's fiasco at La Rochelle -- but sadly it was
too late.

British Homosexual Kings have ALL been abject failures -- sans
exception -- including James I.

You pogues really should learn some British History and Genealogy --
particularly the Brits and the Aussie, crouched -- hiding in the
closet -- fondling his "hand grenades."

Learn The British History & Genealogy BEFORE Posting -- Not After.

Deus Vult.

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

D. Spencer Hines

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 jul 2005 05:45:15

King Richard I certainly was NOT a homosexual.

We've covered all that errant rubbish about him several times in these
venues. It's been discussed _ad nauseam_. Check the Archives.
---------------------------------------------------

James I was a thoroughly bad and incompetent King -- because of his
homosexuality and where it led him.

James I was the King who gave his homosexual lover, George Villiers,
great preference and honors, making him Duke of Buckingham and then left
him to Charles I to screw up HIS Kingship -- and Great Britain -- as
well.

Had James I not had the homosexual hots for Villiers/Buckingham, Britain
would not have been launched onto the Path to Disaster she suffered
under Charles I and in the English Civil War.

Consider a favorite lover for a hypothetical HETEROSEXUAL James I who
was a WOMAN, one of those whores, demimondaines, strumpets and toys for
Royals, of the type who are perched so prominently throughout Peter
'Pogue' Stewart's Family Tree.

Said WOMAN would not have been leading military expeditions to
disaster -- as Buckingham did both at Cadiz and La Rochelle.

Nor would she have been corruptly dispensing patronage and infuriating
the Spanish on a marriage negotiation expedition to Madrid with Prince
Charles.

Buckingham was also materially responsible for Graf von Mansfeld's
defeat in the Palatinate in 1625, because Buckingham failed to ensure
adequate supply.

John Felton, a naval officer, had the good sense to kill Buckingham at
Portsmouth after Buckingham's fiasco at La Rochelle -- but sadly it was
too late.

British Homosexual Kings have ALL been abject failures -- sans
exception -- including James I.

You pogues really should learn some British History and Genealogy --
particularly the Brits and the Aussie, crouched -- hiding in the
closet -- fondling his "hand grenades" -- which always seem to explode
in his face -- or his lap.

Learn The British History & Genealogy BEFORE Posting -- Not After.

Avoid, Or At Least Attenuate, Egregious Pratfall....

Deus Vult.

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

James Toupin

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av James Toupin » 24 jul 2005 08:36:41

God knows I would never want to put an end to a popular and inflammatory
thread, but really folks; how can we be sure of the sexuality of ANY
historical figure? After all, as far as I know, none of us were there to be
a personal witness and as we know written history is not always entirely
reliable. Heck! In spite of the overwhelming historical evidence to support
the fact, there are still those people who deny that Alexander the Great or
Michelangelo were gay.

In any case, there are certainly a very large number of very successful
homo/bisexual people in many different fields including Leadership and war.


"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FXjEe.117$qq6.242@eagle.america.net...
The Really Fortunate thing is that King Edward III of England realized
his father was an ineffective wimp when it came to his duties as King --
whatever his intentions might have been -- and Edward III turned in a
FAR better performance than his father.

Those of us descended from Edward III appreciate that -- and there are
tens of millions of us.

Good Intentions are often simply not enough in a leader -- and that was
the case with Edward II.

He was a weak and ineffective King of England -- unable to focus on his
principal duties -- in large part because he was a homosexual -- "who
did his duty" to father an heir -- the most important thing he ever
did -- but not enough to salvage his reputation or his legacy.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

William Black

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av William Black » 24 jul 2005 17:16:03

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kmvEe.138$qq6.964@eagle.america.net...
As anyone who has studied British History is well aware, one of the most
important duties for a traditional Monarch is ensuring the Royal
Succession by fathering a healthy male heir.

So Elizabeth was a failure?


Edward II, although a homosexual, did "do his duty" and fathered a
healthy heir,

Was little Eddie his?

I thought modern research showed conclusively that he couldn't have fathered
the child because he wasn't in the same place as the queen at the required
times.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea

William Black

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av William Black » 24 jul 2005 17:21:46

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:odEEe.175$qq6.1234@eagle.america.net...


Had James I not had the homosexual hots for Villiers/Buckingham, Britain
would not have been launched onto the Path to Disaster she suffered
under Charles I and in the English Civil War.

Absolute bollocks.

James had been dead for almost twenty years before the Civil War broke out.

It's tantamount to saying that Thatcher sinking the Belgrano led directly to
last week's suicide bombings in London.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea

Vaughan Sanders

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av Vaughan Sanders » 24 jul 2005 18:52:04

"William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dc0f3d$el5$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:odEEe.175$qq6.1234@eagle.america.net...


Had James I not had the homosexual hots for Villiers/Buckingham,
Britain
would not have been launched onto the Path to Disaster she suffered
under Charles I and in the English Civil War.

Absolute bollocks.

James had been dead for almost twenty years before the Civil War broke
out.

It's tantamount to saying that Thatcher sinking the Belgrano led
directly to
last week's suicide bombings in London.

--
William Black


Nope, Blair and Nu-Lab are responsible, and those who support them like
you William.
Nu-Lab PC idiots turned our capital into Londonistan, the Tories and the
Daily Mail have been warning for years that giving a safe haven to every
Muslim terrorist (at tax payers expense) was a bad idea.

Btw, the RN sank the Belgrano not Maggie.

Jamie

D. Spencer Hines

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 jul 2005 19:10:46

Pogues posting obviously do not know their British History.

Parliament wanted to impeach Buckingham for the failure of the Cadiz
expedition in 1625.

Charles I, in order to save Buckingham, dissolved Parliament before they
could put him on trial.

Thus begin the arm-wrestling between King and Parliament which
eventually led to the English Civil War.

It all began in 1614 with James I's homosexual lust and passion for his
favorite -- the beautiful George Villiers.

Bad Show....

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Deus Vult.

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

D. Spencer Hines

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 jul 2005 20:18:42

Bingo!

The Chickens Have Come Home To Roost.

Silly-Buggers "Multi-Culturalism" Run Amuck Has Come A Cropper.

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.

DSH

"Vaughan Sanders" <jamie@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
message news:dc0kjr$he1$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...

| Nope, Blair and Nu-Lab are responsible, and those who support them
| like you William.

| Nu-Lab PC idiots turned our capital into Londonistan, the Tories and
| the Daily Mail have been warning for years that giving a safe haven
| to every Muslim terrorist (at tax payers expense) was a bad idea.
|
| Btw, the RN sank the Belgrano not Maggie.
|
| Jamie

Gjest

Re: Susanna & Sarah, Interchangeable?Some Thoughts

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 jul 2005 22:29:01

Dear Emmet,
Everthing I`ve read points to Margot, Margaret,
Margery and Marguerite being versions of the same name, whilst Maud is the same as
Matilda.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA

D. Spencer Hines

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 jul 2005 22:33:51

Nope.

King Richard I was not homosexual -- everything you've heard about that
is a scam.

_The Lion In Winter_ has misled tens of millions of rather gullible and
ignorant people into thinking he was.

Edward VIII reportedly had an extremely small penis -- so small as to be
quite dysfunctional for normal intercourse. There are no indications he
was homosexual either -- but he had to search out women who had "special
talents".

DSH

"Peter H. Granzeau" <pgranzo@cox.net> wrote in message
news:lzSEe.57024$iU.13462@lakeread05...

| On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 23:00:46 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
| <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote:
|
| >Kings William Rufus [William II], Edward II, possibly Richard II and
| >James VI/I were reportedly homosexuals.
|
| So was Richard I. His only saving grace as a king was that his
| brother was so much worse, so he looked good by comparison.
|
| >Edward VIII had a major sexual dysfunction.
|
| What dysfunction? "The woman I love" was actually a female, not a
| transvestite (although I agree it was very difficult to tell just by
| looking).

D. Spencer Hines

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 jul 2005 23:38:00

Pogues posting ponderous and pernicious prattle obviously do not know
their British History.

Parliament wanted to impeach George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, for
the failure of the Cadiz expedition in 1625.

Charles I, in order to save Buckingham, dissolved Parliament before they
could put him on trial.

Thus begin the arm-wrestling between King and Parliament which
eventually led to the English Civil War.

It all began in 1614 with James I's homosexual lust and passion for his
favorite -- the beautiful George Villiers.

Bad Show....

All this is well-known and can be pursued in exhaustive detail by anyone
who is willing to get off his arse and do the research.

I don't have any animus in the least against homosexuals. I have
friends who are homosexuals. What they do in their PRIVATE lives is
their business -- not mine. For myself, I am contentedly heterosexual.

But I do have a passion for Truth and telling it like it is.

Further, I don't subscribe to Homosexual Propaganda or to the Homosexual
Agenda -- such as that displayed in _The Lion In Winter_, which is an
excellent, entertaining romp, a marvelous vehicle for a cast of fine
actors and actresses -- as both play and film -- particularly for
Katherine Hepburn.

However, I don't confuse Entertaining Fiction with History.

_The Lion In Winter_ was written by a very talented, skillful writer --
who was a homosexual with a Big Agenda -- James Goldman, who died in
1998.

Goldman wanted us to believe Richard I 'The Lionhearted' [Anthony
Hopkins in the film] was homosexual and had had a passionate affair with
Philippe II, King of France.

There is no convincing evidence for that myth at all.

Yes, he was William Goldman's brother -- the William Goldman who wrote
_Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid_ and _Marathon Man_, among others.

If folks here think homosexuals make Great Kings, Emperors, Presidents,
Prime Ministers and Commanders-in-Chief why don't they just put up
someone to run for President in 2008 -- and for leader of the British
Labour Party -- and we shall see how they run -- we can hash out all
these historical and genealogical issues at Great Length in public
colloquy.

Tally Ho!

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

'Nuff Said.

Deus Vult.

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Leo

Re: Robert de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Leicester aka "Le Bossu"

Legg inn av Leo » 25 jul 2005 00:18:01

Dear Marilyn,

CP does not make it easier Volume VII page 527 calls him Le Bossu or Le
Goczen but without an explanation.
Best wishes.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: "Symonds" <sysite@swbell.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 7:43 AM
Subject: Robert de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Leicester aka "Le Bossu"


Is it likely that the name of "Le Bossu" meant that he was a hunchback? I
see it translated in various places as Robert "the uneven", not as above.
I am wondering about the source for "Le Bossu". It is not mentioned in the
Concise Dictionary of National Biography.

Marilyn

Gjest

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 jul 2005 00:41:01

In a message dated 7/24/2005 3:15:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
poguemidden@hotmail.com writes:


If folks here think homosexuals make Great Kings, Emperors, Presidents,
Prime Ministers and Commanders-in-Chief why don't they just put up
someone to run for President in 2008 -- and for leader of the British
Labour Party -- and we shall see how they run -- we can hash out all
these historical and genealogical issues at Great Length in public
colloquy.

You're changing the direction of your argument.
No one said that being homosexual made you a great leader.
However you said that being homosexual makes you a lousy leader.

There is a wide gap between those two statements.
The middle ground is that your sexuality says nothing about your ability to
lead.

Will Johnson

James Toupin

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av James Toupin » 25 jul 2005 06:16:37

God knows I would never want to put an end to a popular and inflammatory
thread, but really folks; how can we be sure of the sexuality of ANY
historical figure? After all, as far as I know, none of us were there to be
a personal witness and as we know written history is not always entirely
reliable. Heck! In spite of the overwhelming historical evidence to support
the fact, there are still those people who deny that Alexander the Great or
Michelangelo were gay.

In any case, there are certainly a very large number of very successful
homo/bisexual people in many different fields including Leadership and war.

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8WTEe.203$qq6.1311@eagle.america.net...
Pogues posting ponderous and pernicious prattle obviously do not know
their British History.

Parliament wanted to impeach George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, for
the failure of the Cadiz expedition in 1625.

Charles I, in order to save Buckingham, dissolved Parliament before they
could put him on trial.

Thus begin the arm-wrestling between King and Parliament which
eventually led to the English Civil War.

It all began in 1614 with James I's homosexual lust and passion for his
favorite -- the beautiful George Villiers.

Bad Show....

All this is well-known and can be pursued in exhaustive detail by anyone
who is willing to get off his arse and do the research.

I don't have any animus in the least against homosexuals. I have
friends who are homosexuals. What they do in their PRIVATE lives is
their business -- not mine. For myself, I am contentedly heterosexual.

But I do have a passion for Truth and telling it like it is.

Further, I don't subscribe to Homosexual Propaganda or to the Homosexual
Agenda -- such as that displayed in _The Lion In Winter_, which is an
excellent, entertaining romp, a marvelous vehicle for a cast of fine
actors and actresses -- as both play and film -- particularly for
Katherine Hepburn.

However, I don't confuse Entertaining Fiction with History.

_The Lion In Winter_ was written by a very talented, skillful writer --
who was a homosexual with a Big Agenda -- James Goldman, who died in
1998.

Goldman wanted us to believe Richard I 'The Lionhearted' [Anthony
Hopkins in the film] was homosexual and had had a passionate affair with
Philippe II, King of France.

There is no convincing evidence for that myth at all.

Yes, he was William Goldman's brother -- the William Goldman who wrote
_Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid_ and _Marathon Man_, among others.

If folks here think homosexuals make Great Kings, Emperors, Presidents,
Prime Ministers and Commanders-in-Chief why don't they just put up
someone to run for President in 2008 -- and for leader of the British
Labour Party -- and we shall see how they run -- we can hash out all
these historical and genealogical issues at Great Length in public
colloquy.

Tally Ho!

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

'Nuff Said.

Deus Vult.

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

William Black

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av William Black » 25 jul 2005 08:13:18

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zlQEe.191$qq6.1259@eagle.america.net...

Parliament wanted to impeach Buckingham for the failure of the Cadiz
expedition in 1625.

Charles I, in order to save Buckingham, dissolved Parliament before they
could put him on trial.

Thus begin the arm-wrestling between King and Parliament which
eventually led to the English Civil War.

Nope.

There was no parliament between 1625 and 1642.

There was resistance to the king's taxation, but it doesn't seem to have
been organised on any level beyond the trivial.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea

John Steele Gordon

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av John Steele Gordon » 25 jul 2005 13:38:52

"William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dc23b1$ume$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
There was no parliament between 1625 and 1642.

There was resistance to the king's taxation, but it doesn't seem to have
been organised on any level beyond the trivial.

There were, in fact, four Parliaments between 1625 and 1642.

1) Assembled June 18, 1625, adjourned to Oxford July 11, dissolved August
12.

2) Assembled February 6, 1626, dissolved June 15.

3) Assembled March 17 1628, Prorogued June 26, reassembled January 1629,
dissolved March 10, 1629.

4) Assembled November 3, 1640. The Long Parliament, it wasn't
constitutionally dissolved until March 16, 1660, although Cromwell threw out
what was left of it (the Rump Parliament) on April 20, 1653.

JSG

Sheila J

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av Sheila J » 25 jul 2005 18:32:23

James Toupin wrote:

God knows I would never want to put an end to a popular and inflammatory
thread, but really folks; how can we be sure of the sexuality of ANY
historical figure? After all, as far as I know, none of us were there to be
a personal witness and as we know written history is not always entirely
reliable. Heck! In spite of the overwhelming historical evidence to support
the fact, there are still those people who deny that Alexander the Great or
Michelangelo were gay.

In any case, there are certainly a very large number of very successful
homo/bisexual people in many different fields including Leadership and war.


More importantly, what does being gay have to do with anyone's ability?
that is the part I am not understanding here.


"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8WTEe.203$qq6.1311@eagle.america.net...

Pogues posting ponderous and pernicious prattle obviously do not know
their British History.

Parliament wanted to impeach George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, for
the failure of the Cadiz expedition in 1625.

Charles I, in order to save Buckingham, dissolved Parliament before they
could put him on trial.

Thus begin the arm-wrestling between King and Parliament which
eventually led to the English Civil War.

It all began in 1614 with James I's homosexual lust and passion for his
favorite -- the beautiful George Villiers.

Bad Show....

All this is well-known and can be pursued in exhaustive detail by anyone
who is willing to get off his arse and do the research.

I don't have any animus in the least against homosexuals. I have
friends who are homosexuals. What they do in their PRIVATE lives is
their business -- not mine. For myself, I am contentedly heterosexual.

But I do have a passion for Truth and telling it like it is.

Further, I don't subscribe to Homosexual Propaganda or to the Homosexual
Agenda -- such as that displayed in _The Lion In Winter_, which is an
excellent, entertaining romp, a marvelous vehicle for a cast of fine
actors and actresses -- as both play and film -- particularly for
Katherine Hepburn.

However, I don't confuse Entertaining Fiction with History.

_The Lion In Winter_ was written by a very talented, skillful writer --
who was a homosexual with a Big Agenda -- James Goldman, who died in
1998.

Goldman wanted us to believe Richard I 'The Lionhearted' [Anthony
Hopkins in the film] was homosexual and had had a passionate affair with
Philippe II, King of France.

There is no convincing evidence for that myth at all.

Yes, he was William Goldman's brother -- the William Goldman who wrote
_Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid_ and _Marathon Man_, among others.

If folks here think homosexuals make Great Kings, Emperors, Presidents,
Prime Ministers and Commanders-in-Chief why don't they just put up
someone to run for President in 2008 -- and for leader of the British
Labour Party -- and we shall see how they run -- we can hash out all
these historical and genealogical issues at Great Length in public
colloquy.

Tally Ho!

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

'Nuff Said.

Deus Vult.

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor




James Toupin

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av James Toupin » 25 jul 2005 21:14:52

"Sheila J" <mydoggie@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Hm9Fe.41709$s54.35227@pd7tw2no...
James Toupin wrote:

God knows I would never want to put an end to a popular and inflammatory
thread, but really folks; how can we be sure of the sexuality of ANY
historical figure? After all, as far as I know, none of us were there to
be
a personal witness and as we know written history is not always entirely
reliable. Heck! In spite of the overwhelming historical evidence to
support
the fact, there are still those people who deny that Alexander the Great
or
Michelangelo were gay.

In any case, there are certainly a very large number of very successful
homo/bisexual people in many different fields including Leadership and
war.


More importantly, what does being gay have to do with anyone's ability?
that is the part I am not understanding here.


Exactly!


"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8WTEe.203$qq6.1311@eagle.america.net...

Pogues posting ponderous and pernicious prattle obviously do not know
their British History.

Parliament wanted to impeach George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, for
the failure of the Cadiz expedition in 1625.

Charles I, in order to save Buckingham, dissolved Parliament before they
could put him on trial.

Thus begin the arm-wrestling between King and Parliament which
eventually led to the English Civil War.

It all began in 1614 with James I's homosexual lust and passion for his
favorite -- the beautiful George Villiers.

Bad Show....

All this is well-known and can be pursued in exhaustive detail by anyone
who is willing to get off his arse and do the research.

I don't have any animus in the least against homosexuals. I have
friends who are homosexuals. What they do in their PRIVATE lives is
their business -- not mine. For myself, I am contentedly heterosexual.

But I do have a passion for Truth and telling it like it is.

Further, I don't subscribe to Homosexual Propaganda or to the Homosexual
Agenda -- such as that displayed in _The Lion In Winter_, which is an
excellent, entertaining romp, a marvelous vehicle for a cast of fine
actors and actresses -- as both play and film -- particularly for
Katherine Hepburn.

However, I don't confuse Entertaining Fiction with History.

_The Lion In Winter_ was written by a very talented, skillful writer --
who was a homosexual with a Big Agenda -- James Goldman, who died in
1998.

Goldman wanted us to believe Richard I 'The Lionhearted' [Anthony
Hopkins in the film] was homosexual and had had a passionate affair with
Philippe II, King of France.

There is no convincing evidence for that myth at all.

Yes, he was William Goldman's brother -- the William Goldman who wrote
_Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid_ and _Marathon Man_, among others.

If folks here think homosexuals make Great Kings, Emperors, Presidents,
Prime Ministers and Commanders-in-Chief why don't they just put up
someone to run for President in 2008 -- and for leader of the British
Labour Party -- and we shall see how they run -- we can hash out all
these historical and genealogical issues at Great Length in public
colloquy.

Tally Ho!

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

'Nuff Said.

Deus Vult.

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor



William Black

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av William Black » 25 jul 2005 21:41:43

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f5cFe.251$qq6.1385@eagle.america.net...
I'm looking forward to watching the first homosexual Canadian and
British Generals assume their commands.

What makes you think it'll actually make the news.

It's not as if gay officers' personal lives are currently an issue in the
newspapers here.

As a general rule if it doesn't affect their jobs people's private lives are
not seen as an issue.

Now if a gay general was to issue a statement about the poor performance of
heterosexual soldiers and recommend a return to ancient Greek practices it
could well become an issue, but until then I imagine it won't become news.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea

Sheila J

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av Sheila J » 25 jul 2005 21:43:43

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

I'm looking forward to watching the first homosexual Canadian and
British Generals assume their commands.

This is going to be Great Fun to watch from the United States.

Bring It On!



What makes you think there hasn't been an American homosexual General to
date? And I'm sure it didn't do one thing to make/break them as a leader.



DSH

"James Toupin" <jtoupin@telus.net> wrote in message
news:0LbFe.157903$tt5.41659@edtnps90...

| "Sheila J" <mydoggie@shaw.ca> wrote in message
| news:Hm9Fe.41709$s54.35227@pd7tw2no...

| >> In any case, there are certainly a very large number of very
| >> successful homo/bisexual people in many different fields
| >> including Leadership and war.
|
|
| > More importantly, what does being gay have to do with anyone's
| > ability? that is the part I am not understanding here.
|
|
| Exactly!

D. Spencer Hines

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 25 jul 2005 22:35:02

I'm looking forward to watching the first homosexual Canadian and
British Generals assume their commands.

This is going to be Great Fun to watch from the United States.

Bring It On!

DSH

"James Toupin" <jtoupin@telus.net> wrote in message
news:0LbFe.157903$tt5.41659@edtnps90...

| "Sheila J" <mydoggie@shaw.ca> wrote in message
| news:Hm9Fe.41709$s54.35227@pd7tw2no...

| >> In any case, there are certainly a very large number of very
| >> successful homo/bisexual people in many different fields
| >> including Leadership and war.
| >
| >
| > More importantly, what does being gay have to do with anyone's
| > ability? that is the part I am not understanding here.
| >
|
| Exactly!

D. Spencer Hines

Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 25 jul 2005 22:57:02

"John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:w35Fe.7989$El3.2005@fe10.lga...

| "William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:dc23b1$ume$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

| > There was no parliament between 1625 and 1642.
| >
| > There was resistance to the king's taxation, but it doesn't seem to
| > have been organised on any level beyond the trivial.
|
| There were, in fact, four Parliaments between 1625 and 1642.
|
| 1) Assembled June 18, 1625, adjourned to Oxford July 11, dissolved
| August 12.
|
| 2) Assembled February 6, 1626, dissolved June 15.
|
| 3) Assembled March 17 1628, Prorogued June 26, reassembled January
| 1629, dissolved March 10, 1629.
|
| 4) Assembled November 3, 1640. The Long Parliament, it wasn't
| constitutionally dissolved until March 16, 1660, although Cromwell
| threw out what was left of it (the Rump Parliament) on April 20, 1653.
|
| JSG
-----------------------------

Black's colossal ignorance of his own British History is indeed
amazing -- and depressing -- particularly of something as important as
the run-up to the English Civil War.

Yet he has this sort of Death Wish to post anyway and flaunt his
ignorance before a larger audience.

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor
--------------------

Pogues posting ponderous and pernicious prattle obviously do not know
their British History.

Parliament wanted to impeach George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, for
the failure of the Cadiz expedition in 1625.

Charles I, in order to save Buckingham, dissolved Parliament before they
could put him on trial.

Thus begin the arm-wrestling between King and Parliament which
eventually led to the English Civil War.

It all began in 1614 with James I's homosexual lust and passion for his
favorite -- the beautiful George Villiers.

Bad Show....

All this is well-known and can be pursued in exhaustive detail by anyone
who is willing to get off his arse and do the research.

I don't have any animus in the least against homosexuals. I have
friends who are homosexuals. What they do in their PRIVATE lives is
their business -- not mine. For myself, I am contentedly heterosexual.

But I do have a passion for Truth and telling it like it is.

Further, I don't subscribe to Homosexual Propaganda or to the Homosexual
Agenda -- such as that displayed in _The Lion In Winter_, which is an
excellent, entertaining romp, a marvelous vehicle for a cast of fine
actors and actresses -- as both play and film -- particularly for
Katherine Hepburn.

However, I don't confuse Entertaining Fiction with History.

_The Lion In Winter_ was written by a very talented, skillful writer --
who was a homosexual with a Big Agenda -- James Goldman, who died in
1998.

Goldman wanted us to believe Richard I 'The Lionhearted' [Anthony
Hopkins in the film] was homosexual and had had a passionate affair with
Philippe II, King of France.

There is no convincing evidence for that myth at all.

Yes, he was William Goldman's brother -- the William Goldman who wrote
_Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid_ and _Marathon Man_, among others.

If folks here think homosexuals make Great Kings, Emperors, Presidents,
Prime Ministers and Commanders-in-Chief why don't they just put up
someone to run for President in 2008 -- and for leader of the British
Labour Party -- and we shall see how they run -- we can hash out all
these historical and genealogical issues at Great Length in public
colloquy.

Tally Ho!

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

'Nuff Said.

Deus Vult.

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Royal Veto

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 26 jul 2005 00:00:02

Of course -- because the British People, the "subjects", certainly
couldn't be entrusted with it.

Such a semi-faux "Election" is simply far too important an event for
them to get DIRECTLY involved.

DSH

"William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dc3mmc$hg5$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

| The point, of course, is that the 'English Kingship' is partially
| elective.
|
| That's what all that 'Vivat vivat' stuff at the coronation is....

| By the way, if you haven't guessed yet, the election is by
| parliament... [sic]
|
| --
| William Black

Cristopher Nash

Re: Shoyswell/Echyngham

Legg inn av Cristopher Nash » 26 jul 2005 00:48:02

Dear Charlotte — good monitoring — I think you're right to question
it, & straightening it out can help a great deal!

Cris


On 25 Jul 2005, at 22:00, charlotte Smith wrote:

Stuart Hall in his book "Echyngham of Echyngham" 1850 states that
Agnes Shoyswell married Thomas Echyngham. There is no proof given
and no where can I find anything relating to this. I did find
Berrys Sussex Genealogy that has a Marie Shoyswell marrying Wm
Echyngham, and it notes that someone penciled in Agnes Shoyswell
daughter of Wm Shoyswell besides the name of Lady Croil who married
Wm. Echyngham son of the above. I strongly question the marriage
of Thomas Echyngham ab 1401-1444 to Agnes Shoyswell as picked up
from Hall. Can anyone give proof for this. It is just out there and
without proof keeps going on the records and from my research I
don't think it is correct. Any good thoughts about this.This
really needs correction. Weis, Faris all have this with only the
proof of Hall and Gen XXi which quotes Hall. No one has stopped to
really find out what is correct. It is a major hurdle or flaw in
this genealogy.



Charlotsmith@prodigy.net


John Higgins

Re: Precocious Scotsman?

Legg inn av John Higgins » 26 jul 2005 01:24:02

This version of the children of John "the Gentle" Grant, 4th of Freuchie, is
also in the 1999 edition of BP (sub Strathspey), but it is in conflict with
SP and other sources on the family, and I suspect BP is wrong in giving any
children to the 2nd wife.

SP explicitly says that all seven daughters of John Grant were by the 1st
wife Margaret Stewart, but is not specific as to the maternity of the two
sons. But a well-documented family history by Archibald Kennedy, Earl of
Cassillis, published im 1911 and titled "The Rulers of Strathspey: A
History of the Lairds of Grant and Earls of Seafield" follows SP with
respect to the daughters and also says that the two sons were by the 1st
wife also. In the case of the elder son Duncan, it cites a memorial stone
at his burial place which apparently states that he is the son of Margaret
Stewart. From the narrative in this source, Duncan seems clearly to have
been an adult by at least 1565 (3-4 years before his marriage) at which
point his father transferred some of his territories to him to manage.

So I guess Duncan wasn't quite so precocious a Scotsman... :-)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 1:50 PM
Subject: Precocious Scotsman?


According to Burke's Peerage 1938 page 2346

John Grant, 4th of Freuchie, 2nd of Rothiemurchus, died in 1585
he married (1) before February 1539 Lady Margaret Stewart of Atholl, she
died in 1555
they had one daughter Grizel
he married (2) before March 1558 Janet Leslie, widow of David Crichton
they had Duncan, Patrick, Barbara and six more daughters (I don't know
anything about these)

The question is about son Duncan

Duncan Grant, younger of Freuchie married 20 February 1569 Margaret
Mackintosh.

As he appears to be the eldest son by the second wife and we can only
guess when he was born, but 1560 does not seem a bad guess. That would make

him about eight or nine years old when he married. So far so good.
Margaret Mackintosh's father William Mackintosh, 15th chief, died in
August 1550. Which means Margaret was born around 1550, making her roughly

ten years older than Duncan.
Would they marry an 8 or 9 year old boy with a girl ten years older?

Is it possible that Duncan is by the first wife? Which would make him at
least five, but likely more years older and closer in age to his wife. Does

anyone know?
Many thanks
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

Leo van de Pas

Affecting Gateway ancestors was Re: Precocious Scotsman?

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 26 jul 2005 02:01:01

Dear John,

This brings some interesting changes in several bloodlines.

Margaret Stewart, the first wife, is a descendant of (amongst many others)
John Stewart, 1st Earl of Atholl, Archibald Campbell, 2nd Earl of Argyll,
William Sinclair, 3rd Earl of Orkney, Edward III King of England and Robert
II King of Scots.

These bloodlines now also (maybe they did already) go to Gateway Ancestors

Donald Macgregor otherwise Dtummond
Rev. Robert Rose
Alexander Grant
Alexander Macdonell
John MacDonald

and even of Ann Matheson who went to New Zealand.

Lady Margaret Stewart is also an ancestor of Lady Diana Spencer, Sarah
Ferguson, Sophie Rhys-Jones and Camilla Shand.

As far as genealogist is concerned Doug McDonald is a descendant and so is
Sir Iain Moncreiffe of That Ilk.

Dear John many thanks for this, the sources are very much appreciated.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: Precocious Scotsman?


This version of the children of John "the Gentle" Grant, 4th of Freuchie,
is
also in the 1999 edition of BP (sub Strathspey), but it is in conflict
with
SP and other sources on the family, and I suspect BP is wrong in giving
any
children to the 2nd wife.

SP explicitly says that all seven daughters of John Grant were by the 1st
wife Margaret Stewart, but is not specific as to the maternity of the two
sons. But a well-documented family history by Archibald Kennedy, Earl of
Cassillis, published im 1911 and titled "The Rulers of Strathspey: A
History of the Lairds of Grant and Earls of Seafield" follows SP with
respect to the daughters and also says that the two sons were by the 1st
wife also. In the case of the elder son Duncan, it cites a memorial stone
at his burial place which apparently states that he is the son of Margaret
Stewart. From the narrative in this source, Duncan seems clearly to have
been an adult by at least 1565 (3-4 years before his marriage) at which
point his father transferred some of his territories to him to manage.

So I guess Duncan wasn't quite so precocious a Scotsman... :-)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 1:50 PM
Subject: Precocious Scotsman?


According to Burke's Peerage 1938 page 2346

John Grant, 4th of Freuchie, 2nd of Rothiemurchus, died in 1585
he married (1) before February 1539 Lady Margaret Stewart of Atholl, she
died in 1555
they had one daughter Grizel
he married (2) before March 1558 Janet Leslie, widow of David Crichton
they had Duncan, Patrick, Barbara and six more daughters (I don't know
anything about these)

The question is about son Duncan

Duncan Grant, younger of Freuchie married 20 February 1569 Margaret
Mackintosh.

As he appears to be the eldest son by the second wife and we can only
guess when he was born, but 1560 does not seem a bad guess. That would
make
him about eight or nine years old when he married. So far so good.

Margaret Mackintosh's father William Mackintosh, 15th chief, died in
August 1550. Which means Margaret was born around 1550, making her roughly
ten years older than Duncan.

Would they marry an 8 or 9 year old boy with a girl ten years older?

Is it possible that Duncan is by the first wife? Which would make him at
least five, but likely more years older and closer in age to his wife.
Does
anyone know?
Many thanks
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia



Barbara P. Smith

Doug's Magna Charta

Legg inn av Barbara P. Smith » 26 jul 2005 06:23:02

Has anyone heard yet when Doug is shipping his new book to those of us
who ordered in advance of the book's publication?

Thanks!

Barbara

norenxaq

Re: Doug's Magna Charta

Legg inn av norenxaq » 26 jul 2005 06:35:01

"Barbara P. Smith" wrote:

Has anyone heard yet when Doug is shipping his new book to those of us
who ordered in advance of the book's publication?

Thanks!

Barbara

people are already receiving it

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»