Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
John Brandon

Re: Pronunciation Of _Willian_

Legg inn av John Brandon » 18 okt 2005 14:11:22

If you seriously think your are not malicious, to Leo and David Greene and
many others as well as towards me, then you must lack self-awarness as
completely as do Richardson about his hypocrisy and Hines about his vanity.

Peter Stewart

I don't see how it is even possible to be malicious via the Internet
(unless, of course, one is sending out viruses, or running a
money-making scam). I may have said some things they did not like, and
that offended them, but my behavior was not malicious per se.

Gjest

Re: Pronunciation Of _Willian_

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 okt 2005 14:31:45

John Brandon, 18 October 2005:

"I don't see how it is even possible to be malicious via the Internet
(unless, of course, one is sending out viruses, or running a
money-making scam). I may have said some things they did not like, and

that offended them, but my behavior was not malicious per se."

********************************

John Brandon, 28 August 2005 [sub 'Peter Stewart's Book Reviews']:

"I'm really not inclined to engage with you on any very profound level,
and yet it _is_ amusing to post just a little, irritating something
(all that's required for a rather longer response from you)."

*********************************

Pocket Oxford Dictionary:

"Malicious: given to or arising from malice"

"Malice: desire to harm or cause difficulty to others; ill-will"

***********************************

Postings whose confessed design is solely to irritate another poster
certainly seem malicious to me. It would be nice to see an end to them.

John Brandon

Re: Pronunciation Of _Willian_

Legg inn av John Brandon » 18 okt 2005 14:36:07

m...@btinternet.com wrote:
Postings whose confessed design is solely to irritate another poster
certainly seem malicious to me. It would be nice to see an end to them.

It would be nice to see an end to pomposity, resentment, and
exaggeration as well--but we all know _that_ ain't happening any time
soon ...

Gjest

Re: Pronunciation Of _Willian_

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 okt 2005 14:40:26

John Brandon wrote:
m...@btinternet.com wrote:
Postings whose confessed design is solely to irritate another poster
certainly seem malicious to me. It would be nice to see an end to them.

It would be nice to see an end to pomposity, resentment, and
exaggeration as well--but we all know _that_ ain't happening any time
soon ...

Maybe if you try really hard...

John Brandon

Re: Pronunciation Of _Willian_

Legg inn av John Brandon » 18 okt 2005 14:46:15

Maybe if you try really hard...

Or if your mum does ...

John Brandon

Re: Pronunciation Of _Willian_

Legg inn av John Brandon » 18 okt 2005 17:16:34

Or if your mum does ...

Tell Alison (and Gladys) to "check herself before she wrecks herself"
(to quote a beloved character on an American sitcom) ...

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _Willian_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 18 okt 2005 23:05:45

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129641081.883529.75680@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
If you seriously think your are not malicious, to Leo and David Greene
and
many others as well as towards me, then you must lack self-awarness as
completely as do Richardson about his hypocrisy and Hines about his
vanity.

Peter Stewart

I don't see how it is even possible to be malicious via the Internet
(unless, of course, one is sending out viruses, or running a
money-making scam). I may have said some things they did not like, and
that offended them, but my behavior was not malicious per se.

Brandon doesn't see a lot of things that are perfectly obvious to everyone
else - he must be woefully lacking in self-awareness, as I suggested.

"Malice" is spite, ill-will; "malicious" means motivated by malice. Of
course it is possible to be malicious in a Usenet newsgroup: it is even
possible to be malicious in sleep, by having dreams prompted by a bitter &
twisted disposition.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Pronunciation Of _Willian_

Legg inn av John Brandon » 18 okt 2005 23:13:24

"Malice" is spite, ill-will; "malicious" means motivated by malice. Of
course it is possible to be malicious in a Usenet newsgroup: it is even
possible to be malicious in sleep, by having dreams prompted by a bitter &
twisted disposition.

Peter Stewart


Exaggeration, as per usual ...

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _Willian_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 18 okt 2005 23:31:16

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129673604.787143.19350@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"Malice" is spite, ill-will; "malicious" means motivated by malice. Of
course it is possible to be malicious in a Usenet newsgroup: it is even
possible to be malicious in sleep, by having dreams prompted by a bitter
&
twisted disposition.

Peter Stewart


Exaggeration, as per usual ...

Again, no self-awareness: you can't establish a case, or even make a
sensible point, merely by throwing out glib one-liners from your entrenched
ignorance. You invariably fail to rebut whatever you don't like to read,
because you won't (and presumably can't) address the issues.

For instance, you claim that I am "pompous", but that only seems to mean you
don't like reading words like "malicious" that you clearly don't understand.

You claim that I habitually "exaggerate" and that I am somehow "resentful",
but you never provide a demonstration to back up such self-righteous
opinions, just assuming that other people will see it your way. Some do, but
they too never attempt to substantiate these impressions.

If you examine the reasons for you views in the light of OTHER PEOPLE's
interactions with Richardson and his with the newsgroup as a whole, leaving
your fixation with me aside for the time it takes, you might see where the
problem actually lies.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Pronunciation Of _Willian_

Legg inn av John Brandon » 18 okt 2005 23:40:41

Again, no self-awareness: you can't establish a case, or even make a
sensible point, merely by throwing out glib one-liners from your entrenched
ignorance. You invariably fail to rebut whatever you don't like to read,
because you won't (and presumably can't) address the issues.

For instance, you claim that I am "pompous", but that only seems to mean you
don't like reading words like "malicious" that you clearly don't understand.

You claim that I habitually "exaggerate" and that I am somehow "resentful",
but you never provide a demonstration to back up such self-righteous
opinions, just assuming that other people will see it your way. Some do, but
they too never attempt to substantiate these impressions.

If you examine the reasons for you views in the light of OTHER PEOPLE's
interactions with Richardson and his with the newsgroup as a whole, leaving
your fixation with me aside for the time it takes, you might see where the
problem actually lies.

Peter Stewart


As I said yesterday: child, please.

What a mental wreck you must be if you see malice everywhere, even in
the idle postings someone has left on an Internet newsgroup.

Gjest

Re: CO confusion? Re: Update: William Gascoigne d 12 Mar 148

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 okt 2005 23:51:02

In a message dated 10/18/05 2:17:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

<< > Sir Ralph de Neville must have been born 1388/1396 as his elder brother
is
given as b abt 1387
====Here, thanks to you, I found an error of mine. I had Ralph's wife as

daughter of Joan Beaufort by her first husband. BP 1999 gives that this Mary
Ferrers, born circa 1379, was daughter of the 1st Baron, not the 2nd as I
had it. >>

Why do you say you have it wrong?
It is just possible that Robert, 2nd Lord Ferrers and his wife Joan Beaufort,
Baroness Neville could have married 1390/3 and had two daughters before he
died in 1396.

It's a tight chronology, but possible.

Will Johnson

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _Willian_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 okt 2005 00:36:32

Brandon wrote:

As I said yesterday: child, please.

It wasn't witty yesterday either, and today it is also stale. If you
gained some self-awareness you might realise that wit takes a bit of
thought or talent & doesn't fall off the end of your fingers onto the
keyboard.

What a mental wreck you must be if you see malice everywhere, even
in the idle postings someone has left on an Internet newsgroup.

Idle yes, everywhere no, but specifically in your postings; and not
casually "left" on the newsgroup but deliberately and poisonously
directed at people who contribute to the study of medieval genealogy.
The notion that your vicious & unhinged attacks on Paul Reed and David
Greene might have slipped out atypically from a generous, balanced soul
is utterly preposterous.

Peter Stewart

John A Rea

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av John A Rea » 19 okt 2005 01:40:07

Ginny Wagner wrote:
When did it go from Guilliame to William? Why did it change
from G to W? What were the sounds of each in Latin? Was it
just given names that changed? How about surnames? Thanks,
Ginny

This might be an opportunity for one or more of our honorable

disputants to ask the question as to whether the change was
/gw/ to /w/, or from /w/ to /gw/: did some language start
from a forme like 'guise' and go to 'wise', of vice versa.
has anyone dealt with this small phenomenon before? Or is it
better to make assertions first, and then find examples to fit.

(I forbear asking whether the 'oeuf' or the 'huevo' preceded)

John

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 19 okt 2005 01:47:01

Hmmmmmm...

Yes, to many cunniculan-pygan Americans and Brits, the word "pompous"
means:

"Using words, evidence and concepts I don't understand and then refusing
to dumb down your rhetoric, so I can understand, when I accuse you of
being "pompous".

It's a Sham & A Shibai.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:UIe5f.21692$U51.15547@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

| For instance, you claim that I am "pompous", but that only seems to
| mean you don't like reading words like "malicious" that you clearly
| don't understand.

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 okt 2005 04:02:40

Quite so, and well said. Many Australians also fall into this bogus sort of
complaint about language (or style of any kind) that isn't as plain & simple
as can be.

They fail to realise that some of the finest passages in literature are
deliberately & magnificently orotund, like the closing chapter of Browne's
'Urne Burial', for instance, at the summit of the art of English prose
writing.

O well, there no philistine like a nasty, stupid one, wherever the Brandons
of the world may live.

Peter Stewart


"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fPf5f.195$qg1.1490@eagle.america.net...
Hmmmmmm...

Yes, to many cunniculan-pygan Americans and Brits, the word "pompous"
means:

"Using words, evidence and concepts I don't understand and then refusing
to dumb down your rhetoric, so I can understand, when I accuse you of
being "pompous".

It's a Sham & A Shibai.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:UIe5f.21692$U51.15547@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

| For instance, you claim that I am "pompous", but that only seems to
| mean you don't like reading words like "malicious" that you clearly
| don't understand.

Charles Riggs

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Charles Riggs » 19 okt 2005 08:07:20

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 03:02:40 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

Quite so, and well said. Many Australians also fall into this bogus sort of
complaint about language (or style of any kind) that isn't as plain & simple
as can be.

They fail to realise that some of the finest passages in literature are
deliberately & magnificently orotund, like the closing chapter of Browne's
'Urne Burial', for instance, at the summit of the art of English prose
writing.

O well, there no philistine like a nasty, stupid one, wherever the Brandons
of the world may live.

Well said. Which of the six is your home newsgroup, Peter?
--
Charles Riggs

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 okt 2005 08:40:13

"Charles Riggs" <chriggs@éircom.net> wrote in message
news:2orbl1pkomqdo1p58dfqlc11ntifhsbrrs@4ax.com...
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 03:02:40 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

Quite so, and well said. Many Australians also fall into this bogus sort
of
complaint about language (or style of any kind) that isn't as plain &
simple
as can be.

They fail to realise that some of the finest passages in literature are
deliberately & magnificently orotund, like the closing chapter of Browne's
'Urne Burial', for instance, at the summit of the art of English prose
writing.

O well, there no philistine like a nasty, stupid one, wherever the
Brandons
of the world may live.

Well said. Which of the six is your home newsgroup, Peter?

My apologies to all six groups, I didn't notice that the earlier message was
cross-posted.

I participate in soc.genealogy.medieval, and hardly ever post anywhere else
deliberately. I don't read the messages on any other newsgroup.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Pronunciation Of _Willian_

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 okt 2005 11:29:52

John Brandon wrote:
Or if your mum does ...

Tell Alison (and Gladys) to "check herself before she wrecks herself"
(to quote a beloved character on an American sitcom) ...

John, I am sure my mother and late grandmother would be flattered to
know that you have been cyber-stalking them.

Although I can't profess to understand the import of your puerile
comments, they (and your peculiar decision to google for my parentage,
which I find more creepy than relevant) do you no credit whatsoever,
but rather tend to support Mr Stewart's original comments.

MAR

John Brandon

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av John Brandon » 19 okt 2005 11:54:18

They fail to realise that some of the finest passages in literature are
deliberately & magnificently orotund, like the closing chapter of Browne's
'Urne Burial', for instance, at the summit of the art of English prose
writing.

You are very deluded indeed if you think your writing has any
resemblance to Sir Thomas Browne's "Urne Burial."

John Brandon

Re: Pronunciation Of _Willian_

Legg inn av John Brandon » 19 okt 2005 11:58:38

John, I am sure my mother and late grandmother > would be flattered to know that you have been
cyber-stalking them.

I don't see that there's anything particularly creepy about it -- they
are right there on Leo's 'great' website, http://www.genealogics.org .

Gjest

Re: Sir Thomas Browne was Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 okt 2005 12:50:02

If you are interested in Sir Thomas Browne of Norwich all his works have
been put on the web at:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/index.shtml

Quite a remarkable person — yet I can find very little on his genealogy, his
father who died young, seems to have been a mercer from Upton, Cheshire.

Regards,
Adrian


Peter Stewart wrote;

Quite so, and well said. Many Australians also fall into this bogus sort of
complaint about language (or style of any kind) that isn't as plain & simple
as can be.

They fail to realise that some of the finest passages in literature are
deliberately & magnificently orotund, like the closing chapter of Browne's
'Urne Burial', for instance, at the summit of the art of English prose
writing.

O well, there no philistine like a nasty, stupid one, wherever the Brandons
of the world may live.

Peter Stewart

<<<<<

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 okt 2005 12:52:30

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129719258.064230.304070@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
They fail to realise that some of the finest passages in literature are
deliberately & magnificently orotund, like the closing chapter of
Browne's
'Urne Burial', for instance, at the summit of the art of English prose
writing.

You are very deluded indeed if you think your writing has any
resemblance to Sir Thomas Browne's "Urne Burial."

I don't, of course - the very idea that I might think so is a baseless
delusion of your own. My range of appreciation is not bound up in myself.

I said this passage of Browne's stood at the summit of the art, and no-one
else ever wrote quite like him. Certainly I don't: anyone who could write
even a brief sentence of rhythmic prose as perfect as his "The Huntsmen are
up in America, and they are already past their first sleep in Persia" (from
the end of 'The Garden of Cyrus') shouldn't be spending his or her time at
literary criticism or genealogy.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _Willian_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 okt 2005 12:58:41

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129719518.782354.326870@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
John, I am sure my mother and late grandmother > would be flattered to
know that you have been
cyber-stalking them.

I don't see that there's anything particularly creepy about it

That's precisely the trouble, you just don't get it - but creepy is
certainly the right word.

You apparently can't help turning everything to personalities, insofar as
you can snatch at them online, and indulging your bile about anyone who
doesn't agree with your latest mental doodle.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av John Brandon » 19 okt 2005 14:14:17

anyone who could write
even a brief sentence of rhythmic prose as perfect as his "The Huntsmen are
up in America, and they are already past their first sleep in Persia" (from
the end of 'The Garden of Cyrus') shouldn't be spending his or her time at
literary criticism or genealogy.


Which, I suppose, is why _you_ must settle for both.

John Brandon

Re: Pronunciation Of _Willian_

Legg inn av John Brandon » 19 okt 2005 14:19:46

Peter Stewart wrote:
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129719518.782354.326870@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
John, I am sure my mother and late grandmother > would be flattered to
know that you have been
cyber-stalking them.

I don't see that there's anything particularly creepy about it

That's precisely the trouble, you just don't get it - but creepy is
certainly the right word.

Of course, you've deleted the part that showed why it wasn't really so
creepy, but that is about on your habitual level of "deceitful and
silly" --

Gjest

Re: Sir Thomas Browne was Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 okt 2005 21:30:40

ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:
If you are interested in Sir Thomas Browne of Norwich all his works have
been put on the web at:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/index.shtml

Quite a remarkable person - yet I can find very little on his genealogy, his
father who died young, seems to have been a mercer from Upton, Cheshire.

Regards,
Adrian

Yes, all I have for him (mostly from the new DNB) is that he was son of
Thomas Browne (d.1613), liveryman of the Mercer's Company of London, by
Anna, daughter of Paul Garraway; while his wife was Dorothy
(1621-1685), daughter of Edward Mileham of Burlingham St. Peter,
Norfolk, by Dorothy, dau. of John Hobart of Salle. I'd be vicariously
interested if anyone can add to this. He has many descendants- at
least through his daughter Anne (sometimes called Frances, apparently
confused with her daughter), who married Henry Fairfax of Hurst, and
whose daughter and heiress married the 9th earl of Buchan.

Matthew

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _Willian_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 okt 2005 22:44:50

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129727986.735854.213140@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129719518.782354.326870@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
John, I am sure my mother and late grandmother > would be flattered to
know that you have been
cyber-stalking them.

I don't see that there's anything particularly creepy about it

That's precisely the trouble, you just don't get it - but creepy is
certainly the right word.

Of course, you've deleted the part that showed why it wasn't really so
creepy, but that is about on your habitual level of "deceitful and
silly" --

No, all I deleted was your pathetic jibe in placing inverted commas around
the adjective endorsing Leo's website - it doesn't make your search less
creepy in the least that it happened to lead you to Genealogics: the
creepiness is in the impulse to look, anywhere at all, for what you suppose
may be twisted into a sneer at someone.

If you want to make charges such as this above, that I am somehow habitually
"deceitful and silly" in editing copied text, you have all the work to do.
Throwing out arbitrary, vapid and reflexive insults doesn't cut it here.
This is part of the picture that you clearly just don't get. YOU are the
buffoon, and you can't turn this onto others by expressing yet more
buffoonery.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 okt 2005 22:47:16

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129727657.710024.295880@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
anyone who could write
even a brief sentence of rhythmic prose as perfect as his "The Huntsmen
are
up in America, and they are already past their first sleep in Persia"
(from
the end of 'The Garden of Cyrus') shouldn't be spending his or her time
at
literary criticism or genealogy.


Which, I suppose, is why _you_ must settle for both.

You don't need to "suppose" this - it was quite obviously the entire point
of my remark. Do you never tire of showing us how weak your understanding
is?

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Sir Thomas Browne was Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 okt 2005 01:43:02

Thanks Matthew,

Most of my information comes from the _old_ DNB, I must check the new
version. Apart from what has been said, I have nothing further of note on his
ancestors. A little more on him and his descendants:


THOMAS (19 Oct 1605 Cheapside, London-16 Oct 1682 bur St Peter's Mancroft,
Norwich) Sir MD; of Halifax then Norwich, Ed. Winchester College & Broadgate
Hall (now Pembroke College), Oxford; well travelled; theologian and author of
diverse works; friend of JOHN EVELYN (the diarist, whose wife was a Browne
but no obvious connection); knighted 1671; m 1641 Dorothy 4d of EDWARD MILEHAM
of Burlingham St. Peter.
He left:
1. EDWARD (1644 Norwich-28 Aug T 1708 bur Northfleet, Kent) - Sir MD ed.
Norwich grammar & Trinity College, Cambridge; Of Salisbury Court, Fleet N
Street; well travelled; Fellow, treasurer (1694-1704) and President (1704-08) of
College of Physicians; King Charles II's physicians m 1672 Henrietta d of Dr
TERNE (and left A] THOMAS (1672 London bap 21 Jan 1672/3 -1710 fall from horse)
MD; Ed Trinity College, Cambridge m 1698 cousin Alethea d of HENRY FAIRFAX
and B] 3 daughters bur in Northfleet, one m ARTHUR who was also bur in
Northfleet
2. THOMAS (c1644 -c1667) Res. in France then, in 1664 joined Navy
1. Anne m <1669 EDWARD gs of THOMAS FAIRFAX Vt FAIRFAX
2. Elizabeth m <1682 Capt GEORGE LYTTLETON and settled in Guernsey.
3. Frances unm in 1682
plus 5 other issue all died before 1684

Adrian


In a message dated 19/10/2005 21:33:33 GMT Standard Time,
mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk writes:

Yes, all I have for him (mostly from the new DNB) is that he was son of
Thomas Browne (d.1613), liveryman of the Mercer's Company of London, by
Anna, daughter of Paul Garraway; while his wife was Dorothy
(1621-1685), daughter of Edward Mileham of Burlingham St. Peter,
Norfolk, by Dorothy, dau. of John Hobart of Salle. I'd be vicariously
interested if anyone can add to this. He has many descendants- at
least through his daughter Anne (sometimes called Frances, apparently
confused with her daughter), who married Henry Fairfax of Hurst, and
whose daughter and heiress married the 9th earl of Buchan.

Matthew

John Brandon

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 okt 2005 14:13:09

Do you never tire of showing us how weak your understanding is?

Peter Stewart

Do you never tire of asking condescending questions -- implying that
someone ALWAYS fails at humor, NEVER understands the LEAST part of
anything, etc.?

John Brandon

Re: Pronunciation Of _Willian_

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 okt 2005 15:03:11

YOU are THE buffoon, and you can't turn this onto others by expressing yet more
buffoonery.

Peter Stewart

Glad we got that cleared up!

John Brandon

Re: Pronunciation Of _Willian_

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 okt 2005 16:54:52

So now you are fishing for private messages to post in public?

You do seem to have some trouble chosing the right message to quote (or
in realizing that something was not meant for you). Just an
observation.

Perhaps that therapist is on standby. You might want to check.

John Brandon

Re: Pronunciation Of _Willian_

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 okt 2005 17:21:33

Kay Allen wrote:
You are delusional and projecting.

Oooh, therapist talk! Me likee.

John Brandon

Re: Pronunciation Of _Willian_

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 okt 2005 17:24:43

After taking a long walk off a short pier, would you just forget I exist and
leave me alone to do some really productive work.

Speaking of which, when is your promised article on Alice Freeman
coming out??

Gjest

Re: Sir Thomas Browne

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 okt 2005 17:39:01

The original DNB article on Sir Thomas Browne states that his father came
from Upton, Cheshire but this is not repeated in the new DNB, which led me to
believe there is some doubt about his origin. But now I find that the MS on
his tomb seems to confirms his roots were from Upton, can someone translate
"Generosa familia apud Upton In agro Cestriensi oriundus."

thanks,
Adrian



M. S.
Hic situs est THOMAS BROWNE, M. D.
Et miles.
Anno 1605, Londini natus;
Generosa familia apud Upton
In agro Cestriensi oriundus.
Schola primum Wintoniensi, postea
In Coll. Pembr.
Apud Oxonienses bonis literis
Haud leviter imbutus;
In urbe hac Nordovicensi medicinam
Arte egregia, et felici successu professus;
Scriptis quibus tituli, RELIGIO MEDICI
Et PSEUDODOXIA EPIDEMICA, aliisque
Per orbem notissimus.
Vir prudentissimus, integerrimus, doctissimus;
Obijt Octob. 19, 1682.
Pie posuit moestissima conjux
Da. Doroth. Br.

Kay Allen

Re: Pronunciation Of _Willian_

Legg inn av Kay Allen » 20 okt 2005 17:48:01

Mr.Brandon.

Your calling me dearest, even in sarcasm, makes my
skin crawl.

You send me a private message, by indirect means, to
which I respond in private, via another message, as
your original message was not returnable directly to
you.

I have been assured by a licensed mental professional
that my mind is functioning well
and is in better shape than most. But I do
appreciate you solicitous behavior, even though it is
dripping with sarcasm.

As to the private message which you then sent
publicly, This is a pot calling an alleged kettle
black.

There are certainly more people, mostly male, who have
wasted more bandwidth insulting and excoriating each
other than I ever have.

My therapist would say that we are showing
insecurities and testosterone by these exchanges.
I have no testosterone left and am working on the
insecurities. May I suggest that others do the same
and cease building on this pile of bovine fecal
matter.

Kay Allen AG (R)


--- John Brandon <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote:

Dearest Kay,

Once again you are all confused, poor thing (sending
me a copy of the wrong
message). Are you on drugs by any chance?

Cheers,
John



BLOCKQUOTE style='PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT:
5px; BORDER-LEFT: #A0C6E5
2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px'><font

style='FONT-SIZE:11px;FONT-FAMILY:tahoma,sans-serif'><hr
color=#A0C6E5
size=1
From: <i>Kay Allen
<allenk@pacbell.net></i><br>To: <i>John
Brandon
<starbuck95@hotmail.com></i><br>CC:
i>allenk@pacbell.net</i><br>Subject: <i>Re:
Pronunciation Of
_Willian_</i><br>Date: <i>Thu, 20 Oct 2005 07:56:19
-0700
(PDT)</i><br>>John,<br>><br>>No guts to
send me a direct message
!<br>><br>>As for being a swineish lout, you
and many of
the<br>>males om the group have me beat seven
ways from<br>>Sunday. I
guess you like indulging in black pots
vs.<br>>allegedly black
kettles.<br>><br>>K<br>><br>>--- John
Brandon
<starbuck95@hotmail.com
wrote:<br>><br>> > > YOU are THE
buffoon, and you can't turn this onto<br
others by expressing yet
more<br>> > > buffoonery.<br
br>> > > Peter
Stewart<br>> ><br>> > Glad we got that
cleared up!<br
br>> ><br>><br></font></BLOCKQUOTE



Kay Allen

Re: Pronunciation Of _Willian_

Legg inn av Kay Allen » 20 okt 2005 18:11:01

You are delusional and projecting.

After taking a long walk off a short pier, would you
just forget I exist and leave me alone to do some
really productive work.

K

--- John Brandon <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote:

So now you are fishing for private messages to post
in public?

You do seem to have some trouble chosing the right
message to quote (or
in realizing that something was not meant for you).
Just an
observation.

Perhaps that therapist is on standby. You might
want to check.


Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Pronunciation Of _Willian_

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 20 okt 2005 18:20:31

In message of 20 Oct, "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote:

So now you are fishing for private messages to post in public?

You do seem to have some trouble chosing the right message to quote (or
in realizing that something was not meant for you). Just an
observation.

Perhaps that therapist is on standby. You might want to check.

Someone else to kill-file, methinks.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

John Brandon

Re: Pronunciation Of _Willian_

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 okt 2005 18:46:03

Someone else to kill-file, methinks.

I'm surprised you hadn't already.

Gjest

Re: Sir Thomas Browne

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 okt 2005 23:02:18

"Descended from a noble family of Upton in Cheshire"

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 20 okt 2005 23:40:47

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129813989.168964.253610@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Do you never tire of showing us how weak your understanding is?

Peter Stewart

Do you never tire of asking condescending questions -- implying that
someone ALWAYS fails at humor, NEVER understands the LEAST part of
anything, etc.?

Another word for you to look up in a dictionary - "condescending" means
patronising, or apparently stooping to equal terms, whereas my responses to
you are actually "contemptuous", meaning full of disdain.

And to answer your own question, just take a look at my countless polite and
respectful exchanges with sensible people; then take a look at your own
witless, crazy hissing and spitting at a long, long list of others who have
good reason to despise you.

People don't "condescend" to puff adders or snapping turtles: they either
stomp on them, or step around them.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Sir Thomas Browne

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 okt 2005 00:56:01

In a message dated 20/10/2005 23:04:18 GMT Standard Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

"Descended from a noble family of Upton in Cheshire"




Thanks for that, that is what I had hoped. Some details of Browne of Upton,
Cheshire are in the Visitations of Cheshire 1613, and Ormerod has further
details, which I am now working on.

Regards,
Adrian

Gjest

Re: C.P. Addition: Adam de Gaunt, brother of Gilbert de Gaun

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 okt 2005 01:11:01

In a message dated 10/20/05 11:04:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< Adam de Gaunt's father, Gilbert de Gaunt the elder, had
his youngest child, Juliane, by his known marriage about 1258. The
elder Gilbert lived until 1274, allowing him ample time to have a
second marriage and issue by that union. >>

Could it not be, since the first lawsuit was filed in 1298 and the second not
until 1307 that this Adam was a full brother, but died between 1298 and 1307 ?

Will Johnson

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 21 okt 2005 01:18:02

"Condescending" is another word which is a staple favorite of those
pogues and poguettes who accuse people who have just kicked their arses
of being "pompous".

Other favorites of said pogues and poguettes are "intimidating" --
"overbearing" -- "patronizing" and "anti-social".

It's quite hilarious to watch them go through this standard litany of
whining, wimpy-wussy complaints.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:P1V5f.23603$U51.8365@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

| Another word for you to look up in a dictionary - "condescending"
| means patronising, or apparently stooping to equal terms, whereas
| my responses to you are actually "contemptuous", meaning
| full of disdain.

Gjest

Re: C.P. Addition: Adam de Gaunt, brother of Gilbert de Gaun

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 okt 2005 01:39:02

After adding in some details from CP, my program flagged a funnel person at
Juliana de Gant, for the following reasons.

C.P. states that Gilbert de Gant, later Earl of Lincoln was underage at his
father's death in 1191 and that he came of age abt 1201. So I put his birth at
1180/7

This implies that his children and in particular the Juliana de Gant who
married Geoffrey de Armenteres, had to be born after 1197, allowing Gilbert to be
at least 17 at her birth.

But this Juliana was married BEF Jun 1210 which is the date of the marriage
settlement. Surely she was at least five at her own marriage ?

So we get a very narrow birth range for her, to wit 1197/1205

Will Johnson

Kevin Bradford

Re: Queen Isabella -- Treachery, Adultery & Murder In Mediae

Legg inn av Kevin Bradford » 21 okt 2005 02:58:02

Nah, it's a Republican plot...


-----Original Message-----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com>
Sent: Oct 20, 2005 7:33 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Queen Isabella -- Treachery, Adultery & Murder In Mediaeval England -- By Alison Weir

King Edward II of England was "sexually ambiguous..."

Hilarious!

Political Correctness Runs Rampant At Random House....

"Weak", Aye".

DSH
-------------------------------------------------------------------

"Now the acclaimed author of Eleanor of Aquitaine, Alison Weir,
reexamines the life of Isabella of England, history's other notorious
and charismatic medieval queen."

"Praised for her fair looks, the newly wed Isabella was denied the
attentions of Edward II, a weak, sexually ambiguous monarch with scant
taste for his royal duties."

"As their marriage progressed, Isabella was neglected by her dissolute
husband and slighted by his favored male courtiers. Humiliated and
deprived of her income, her children, and her liberty, Isabella escaped
to France, where she entered into a passionate affair with Edward II's
mortal enemy, Roger Mortimer. "

"Together, Isabella and Mortimer led the only successful invasion of
English soil since the Norman Conquest of 1066, deposing Edward and
ruling in his stead as co-regents for Isabella's young son, Edward III.
Fate, however, was soon to catch up with Isabella and her lover. "

Random House
---------------------------
"Steve Barnhoorn" <sbarnhoorn@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1129838298.670870.222720@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

| http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/disp ... 0345453198

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Tom McDonald

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Tom McDonald » 21 okt 2005 03:03:03

"Small and ugly penis" is another term that applies to DSH.
Perhaps he could hide it, and we could continue to
condescend to him on the basis of his tiny integrity, like a
Christian.

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
"Condescending" is another word which is a staple favorite of those
pogues and poguettes who accuse people who have just kicked their arses
of being "pompous".

Other favorites of said pogues and poguettes are "intimidating" --
"overbearing" -- "patronizing" and "anti-social".

It's quite hilarious to watch them go through this standard litany of
whining, wimpy-wussy complaints.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:P1V5f.23603$U51.8365@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

| Another word for you to look up in a dictionary - "condescending"
| means patronising, or apparently stooping to equal terms, whereas
| my responses to you are actually "contemptuous", meaning
| full of disdain.

Gjest

Re: Not another Gateway Ancestor? This one is Latin American

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 okt 2005 05:16:03

In a message dated 10/19/05 8:12:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

<< Lady Jean Stewart
/
Sir Robert Campbell, of Glenorchy, 3rd Baronet
/
Sir John Campbell, of Glenorchy, 4th Baronet
/
Elspeth (Ann Elisabeth) Campbell (she has 90 lines to Geoffrey V of Anjou)
/
Joseph Archibald Darroch-Campbell
born in 1702 in Craignish, Scotland, >>

I'm going to put a "caution" on this line.
I did not have it and have been working it today. There is a potential
chronological problem.
Not huge, but... possible.

John Stewart, 4th Earl of Atholl had to have been born between 1524 and 1532
His wife Margaret Fleming had to have been born between 1524 and 1534
This couple married on 1 Apr 1557

Their daughter Jean Stewart married Duncan Campbell of Glenorchy, 1st Bnt
on 18 Nov 1573

In four generations we have someone born in 1702 which is 129 years.
Not impossible by any means, but it seems a bit longish. Perhaps someone has
some source quotations to back up this part of the line.

Will Johnson

Leo

Re: Not another Gateway Ancestor? This one is Latin American

Legg inn av Leo » 21 okt 2005 06:42:01

Dear Will,

I think you look at the wrong way. Thanks to your observation I am now
looking into it and find that according to BP 4th Baronet John Campbell has
25 children and according to SP 27.
Now to begin with your beginning :

John Stewart, 4th Earl of Atholl (when born seems to me irrelevant). What
is important is when did he marry. I have 1557, as you do. The next
generation in this line :

Lady Jean marries only sixteen years after her parents's marriage. in 1573.
Still no problem, especially as the next generation :

Sir Robert Campbell, of Glenorchy, 3rd Baronet is born in 1580, he marries
in 1605
and the next generation

Sir John Campbell, of Glenorchy, 4th Barones is born about 1615 and now the
trouble begins.

He married three times and it is the offspring of the second wife we need to
know more about.
Sadly BP and SP are very poor with dates. The Complete Baronetage is no help
either as it skips the second wife. The first wife, Lady Mary Graham, died
28 January 1653 after having given birth to 14 children (according to both
BP and SP).

Now all we have is her dying in 1653 and Sir John 4th Bart dying in June
1686. In these 35 years he marries twice more and fathers another 13
children.

If Elspeth, the daughter from the second marriage was the first child of the
second marriage, then when would she be born? Earliest (very early) in 1655
which makes her 47 in 1702 when Joseph Archibald Darroch-Campbell is born.
But there were four sons from that second marriage and in all likelyhood
this will push Elspeth's year of birth to a much later date.

If anyone can find more detailed information, know that Will and I, are most
eager to hear about it.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: Not another Gateway Ancestor? This one is Latin American.


In a message dated 10/19/05 8:12:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

Lady Jean Stewart
/
Sir Robert Campbell, of Glenorchy, 3rd Baronet
/
Sir John Campbell, of Glenorchy, 4th Baronet
/
Elspeth (Ann Elisabeth) Campbell (she has 90 lines to Geoffrey V of Anjou)
/
Joseph Archibald Darroch-Campbell
born in 1702 in Craignish, Scotland,

I'm going to put a "caution" on this line.
I did not have it and have been working it today. There is a potential
chronological problem.
Not huge, but... possible.

John Stewart, 4th Earl of Atholl had to have been born between 1524 and
1532
His wife Margaret Fleming had to have been born between 1524 and 1534
This couple married on 1 Apr 1557

Their daughter Jean Stewart married Duncan Campbell of Glenorchy, 1st Bnt
on 18 Nov 1573

In four generations we have someone born in 1702 which is 129 years.
Not impossible by any means, but it seems a bit longish. Perhaps someone
has
some source quotations to back up this part of the line.

Will Johnson


John Higgins

Re: Not another Gateway Ancestor? This one is Latin American

Legg inn av John Higgins » 21 okt 2005 07:29:01

Your concerns about chronology will likely be reduced somewhat if you take a
look at the dates for the Campbells of Glenorchy (in Leo's database, for
example, which agrees with SP). On-line Leo does not yet have all the
details of this particular line, but he does have dates for the 3rd and 4th
baronets which should help - and reduce the span of dates to far less than
129 years.

There may be larger problems with this line, however. Elspeth (or Ann
Elizabeth?) Campbell is said to be a daughter of the 4th baronet by his 2nd
marriage, but she does not appear in SP with a husband that would lead to
the son indicated in Leo's note. Specifically she is given two successive
Campbell marriages, neither of which is to a Darroch-Campbell. SP may or
may not be right in this, but it is at least a red flag for the line....

Leo has told me off-line that the Darroch-Campbell husband is actually of
the Darroch family and only Campbell via an earlier maternal descent. I
can't presently confirm this.

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: Not another Gateway Ancestor? This one is Latin American.


In a message dated 10/19/05 8:12:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

Lady Jean Stewart
/
Sir Robert Campbell, of Glenorchy, 3rd Baronet
/
Sir John Campbell, of Glenorchy, 4th Baronet
/
Elspeth (Ann Elisabeth) Campbell (she has 90 lines to Geoffrey V of
Anjou)
/
Joseph Archibald Darroch-Campbell
born in 1702 in Craignish, Scotland,

I'm going to put a "caution" on this line.
I did not have it and have been working it today. There is a potential
chronological problem.
Not huge, but... possible.

John Stewart, 4th Earl of Atholl had to have been born between 1524 and
1532
His wife Margaret Fleming had to have been born between 1524 and 1534
This couple married on 1 Apr 1557

Their daughter Jean Stewart married Duncan Campbell of Glenorchy, 1st Bnt
on 18 Nov 1573

In four generations we have someone born in 1702 which is 129 years.
Not impossible by any means, but it seems a bit longish. Perhaps someone
has
some source quotations to back up this part of the line.

Will Johnson

Leo

Re: Not another Gateway Ancestor? This one is Latin American

Legg inn av Leo » 21 okt 2005 07:42:01

John!!!!

Elspeth is also a concern to me but SP gives her two husbands :-) And you
say none!?

"Elspeth, married first to John, brother of Alexander Campbell of Lochnell;
secondly to Alexander Campbell of Stonefield.

I was given that her first marriage took place on 16 April 1701 and two sons
were born
1.James Darroch-Campbell, with issue in Scotland
2.Joseph Archibald Darroch-Campbell born in 1702 in Craignish, Scotland

her second marriage to Alexander Campbell of Stonefield produced at least
one son,
Archibald and in his descent is one interesting link as Archuke Ferdinand of
Austria born in 1997 is a descendant :-)

The more we can learn the better and if in the end this Gateway Ancestor
falls by the wayside, bad luck, at least we try :-)
Leo



----- Original Message -----
From: "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: Not another Gateway Ancestor? This one is Latin American.


Your concerns about chronology will likely be reduced somewhat if you take
a
look at the dates for the Campbells of Glenorchy (in Leo's database, for
example, which agrees with SP). On-line Leo does not yet have all the
details of this particular line, but he does have dates for the 3rd and
4th
baronets which should help - and reduce the span of dates to far less than
129 years.

There may be larger problems with this line, however. Elspeth (or Ann
Elizabeth?) Campbell is said to be a daughter of the 4th baronet by his
2nd
marriage, but she does not appear in SP with a husband that would lead to
the son indicated in Leo's note. Specifically she is given two successive
Campbell marriages, neither of which is to a Darroch-Campbell. SP may or
may not be right in this, but it is at least a red flag for the line....

Leo has told me off-line that the Darroch-Campbell husband is actually of
the Darroch family and only Campbell via an earlier maternal descent. I
can't presently confirm this.

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: Not another Gateway Ancestor? This one is Latin American.


In a message dated 10/19/05 8:12:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

Lady Jean Stewart
/
Sir Robert Campbell, of Glenorchy, 3rd Baronet
/
Sir John Campbell, of Glenorchy, 4th Baronet
/
Elspeth (Ann Elisabeth) Campbell (she has 90 lines to Geoffrey V of
Anjou)
/
Joseph Archibald Darroch-Campbell
born in 1702 in Craignish, Scotland,

I'm going to put a "caution" on this line.
I did not have it and have been working it today. There is a potential
chronological problem.
Not huge, but... possible.

John Stewart, 4th Earl of Atholl had to have been born between 1524 and
1532
His wife Margaret Fleming had to have been born between 1524 and 1534
This couple married on 1 Apr 1557

Their daughter Jean Stewart married Duncan Campbell of Glenorchy, 1st Bnt
on 18 Nov 1573

In four generations we have someone born in 1702 which is 129 years.
Not impossible by any means, but it seems a bit longish. Perhaps someone
has
some source quotations to back up this part of the line.

Will Johnson



John Higgins

Re: Not another Gateway Ancestor? This one is Latin American

Legg inn av John Higgins » 21 okt 2005 08:01:01

I didn't say that Elspeth had NO husbands - I said that SP gave her two
Campbell husbands but neither was a Darroch-Campbell. Based on the ancestry
you have for the Darroch-Campbell husband, SP may very well be wrong, since
Darroch-Campbell is certainly not associated with the Campbell of Lochnell
family - but it IS a question.

And now you've teased us again!! :-) Can you show us the descent from
Alexander Campbell of Stonefield to Archduke Ferdinand?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo" <leo@home.netspeed.com.au>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: Not another Gateway Ancestor? This one is Latin American.


John!!!!

Elspeth is also a concern to me but SP gives her two husbands :-) And you
say none!?

"Elspeth, married first to John, brother of Alexander Campbell of
Lochnell;
secondly to Alexander Campbell of Stonefield.

I was given that her first marriage took place on 16 April 1701 and two
sons
were born
1.James Darroch-Campbell, with issue in Scotland
2.Joseph Archibald Darroch-Campbell born in 1702 in Craignish, Scotland

her second marriage to Alexander Campbell of Stonefield produced at least
one son,
Archibald and in his descent is one interesting link as Archuke Ferdinand
of
Austria born in 1997 is a descendant :-)

The more we can learn the better and if in the end this Gateway Ancestor
falls by the wayside, bad luck, at least we try :-)
Leo



----- Original Message -----
From: "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: Not another Gateway Ancestor? This one is Latin American.


Your concerns about chronology will likely be reduced somewhat if you
take
a
look at the dates for the Campbells of Glenorchy (in Leo's database, for
example, which agrees with SP). On-line Leo does not yet have all the
details of this particular line, but he does have dates for the 3rd and
4th
baronets which should help - and reduce the span of dates to far less
than
129 years.

There may be larger problems with this line, however. Elspeth (or Ann
Elizabeth?) Campbell is said to be a daughter of the 4th baronet by his
2nd
marriage, but she does not appear in SP with a husband that would lead
to
the son indicated in Leo's note. Specifically she is given two
successive
Campbell marriages, neither of which is to a Darroch-Campbell. SP may
or
may not be right in this, but it is at least a red flag for the line....

Leo has told me off-line that the Darroch-Campbell husband is actually
of
the Darroch family and only Campbell via an earlier maternal descent. I
can't presently confirm this.

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: Not another Gateway Ancestor? This one is Latin American.


In a message dated 10/19/05 8:12:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

Lady Jean Stewart
/
Sir Robert Campbell, of Glenorchy, 3rd Baronet
/
Sir John Campbell, of Glenorchy, 4th Baronet
/
Elspeth (Ann Elisabeth) Campbell (she has 90 lines to Geoffrey V of
Anjou)
/
Joseph Archibald Darroch-Campbell
born in 1702 in Craignish, Scotland,

I'm going to put a "caution" on this line.
I did not have it and have been working it today. There is a potential
chronological problem.
Not huge, but... possible.

John Stewart, 4th Earl of Atholl had to have been born between 1524 and
1532
His wife Margaret Fleming had to have been born between 1524 and 1534
This couple married on 1 Apr 1557

Their daughter Jean Stewart married Duncan Campbell of Glenorchy, 1st
Bnt
on 18 Nov 1573

In four generations we have someone born in 1702 which is 129 years.
Not impossible by any means, but it seems a bit longish. Perhaps
someone
has
some source quotations to back up this part of the line.

Will Johnson




Leo

Re: Not another Gateway Ancestor? This one is Latin American

Legg inn av Leo » 21 okt 2005 09:14:02

I am starting to feel that Elspeth may have been married to two Campbells
but the first may not have been the Darroch-Campbell I was told.

1.Elspeth Campbell
married (2) Alexander Campbell of Stonefield
Sources : The Heraldry of the Campbells, G. Harvey Johnstone,
and Burke's Peerage, 1938 page 380
parents of:
2.Archibald Campbell, of Stonefield, Sheriff Depute of Argyll, died in 1753,
married Jane Friend
Sources : The Heraldry of the Campbells, G. Harvey Johnstone,
and "Elizabeth Macquarie her life and times", by Lysbeth Cohen
parents of
3.Jane Campbell married 9 July 1764 John Campbell of Airds, son of Donald
Campbell of Airds, and Margaret Maclaine. I have five children recorded at
the moment.
Source : Ancestors of Franciska Thyssen-Bornemisza, by William Addams
Reitwiesner and Jose Verheecke, and Burke's Landed Gentry, 1952 page 367
their son
4.Sir John Campbell, of Ardnamurchan, 7th Baronet, Lieutenant-Colonel, born
15 March 1767, died 7 Novemb er 1834, married 27 July 1803 Margaret Maxwell
Campbell, born circa 1776, died 19 August 1865 Woolwich, daughter of John
Campbell, of Lochend
Sources : Ancestors of Franciska Thyssen-Bornemisza, by WAR and Jose
Verheecke and Landed Gentry
their son
5.Sir John Campbell, of Ardnamurchan, Lieutenant-Governor of St. Vincent,
born 27 November 1807, died 18 January 1853 Kingstown, St. Vincent, married
21 November 1833 Hannah Elizabeth Macleod, born about 1813, died 4 November
1873 Twickenham, daughter of Lt.-Col. James Macleod, 10th of Raasay, and
Flora Maclean
Source Ancestors of Franciscka Thyssen-Bornemisza by WAR and Jose Verheecke
their son
6. Lt.Col. Frederick Campbell, born 15 June 1843, died 13 September 1926
Airds, Sydenham Hill, Surrey, married 28 January 1869 Christ Church
Paddington, Emilie Guillamine Maclaine, born about 1847, died 21 July 1928
Airds, Sydenham Hills, Surrey, daughter of Donald Maclaine, 20th of
Lochbuie, and Emilie Guillamine Vincent
Sources Ancestors of Franciska Thyssen-Bornemisza, by WAR and Jose
Verheecke, as well as Sam Dotson
parents of :
7.Sir Edward Taswell Campbell, of Airds, 1st Baronet, born 9 April 1879,
died 17 July 1945 Bromley, Kent, married 28 January 1904 Edith Jane Warren,
born 7 December 1880 Soerabaya, Dutch East Indies, died 26 October 1951
Stonycrest, Hindhead, Surrey, daughter of Arthur John Warren and Sophia Jane
Wilson,
Sources William Addams Reitwiesner, Jose Verheecke and Samuel Dotson
parents of
8.Frances Henriette Campbell born 30 November 1904 Semarang, Dutch East
Indies, married 16 December 1930 Keith McNeill Campbell-Walter, Rear
Admiral, born 31 August 1904 Hazaribag, India, died 24 April 1876
parents of
9.Fiona Campbell-Walter, born 25 June 1932 Takapuna, Auckland, New Zealand,
married 17 September 1956 Castagnola, Div. 1965 Baron Hans Heinrich
Thyssen-Bornemisza de Kaszon, born 2 April 1921 The Hague, The Netherlands,
died 26 April 2002 Sant Feliu de Guixols, Spain
parents of
10. Baroness Francisca Thyssen-Bornemisza de Kaszon, born 7 June 1958
Lausanne, Switzerland, married 31 January 1993 Mariazell Archduke Karl of
Austria
parents of
11. Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, born 21 June 1997 Salzburg


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: Not another Gateway Ancestor? This one is Latin American.


I didn't say that Elspeth had NO husbands - I said that SP gave her two
Campbell husbands but neither was a Darroch-Campbell. Based on the
ancestry
you have for the Darroch-Campbell husband, SP may very well be wrong,
since
Darroch-Campbell is certainly not associated with the Campbell of Lochnell
family - but it IS a question.

And now you've teased us again!! :-) Can you show us the descent from
Alexander Campbell of Stonefield to Archduke Ferdinand?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo" <leo@home.netspeed.com.au
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: Not another Gateway Ancestor? This one is Latin American.


John!!!!

Elspeth is also a concern to me but SP gives her two husbands :-) And you
say none!?

"Elspeth, married first to John, brother of Alexander Campbell of
Lochnell;
secondly to Alexander Campbell of Stonefield.

I was given that her first marriage took place on 16 April 1701 and two
sons
were born
1.James Darroch-Campbell, with issue in Scotland
2.Joseph Archibald Darroch-Campbell born in 1702 in Craignish, Scotland

her second marriage to Alexander Campbell of Stonefield produced at least
one son,
Archibald and in his descent is one interesting link as Archuke Ferdinand
of
Austria born in 1997 is a descendant :-)

The more we can learn the better and if in the end this Gateway Ancestor
falls by the wayside, bad luck, at least we try :-)
Leo



----- Original Message -----
From: "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: Not another Gateway Ancestor? This one is Latin American.


Your concerns about chronology will likely be reduced somewhat if you
take
a
look at the dates for the Campbells of Glenorchy (in Leo's database,
for
example, which agrees with SP). On-line Leo does not yet have all the
details of this particular line, but he does have dates for the 3rd and
4th
baronets which should help - and reduce the span of dates to far less
than
129 years.

There may be larger problems with this line, however. Elspeth (or Ann
Elizabeth?) Campbell is said to be a daughter of the 4th baronet by his
2nd
marriage, but she does not appear in SP with a husband that would lead
to
the son indicated in Leo's note. Specifically she is given two
successive
Campbell marriages, neither of which is to a Darroch-Campbell. SP may
or
may not be right in this, but it is at least a red flag for the
line....

Leo has told me off-line that the Darroch-Campbell husband is actually
of
the Darroch family and only Campbell via an earlier maternal descent.
I
can't presently confirm this.

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: Not another Gateway Ancestor? This one is Latin American.


In a message dated 10/19/05 8:12:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

Lady Jean Stewart
/
Sir Robert Campbell, of Glenorchy, 3rd Baronet
/
Sir John Campbell, of Glenorchy, 4th Baronet
/
Elspeth (Ann Elisabeth) Campbell (she has 90 lines to Geoffrey V of
Anjou)
/
Joseph Archibald Darroch-Campbell
born in 1702 in Craignish, Scotland,

I'm going to put a "caution" on this line.
I did not have it and have been working it today. There is a
potential
chronological problem.
Not huge, but... possible.

John Stewart, 4th Earl of Atholl had to have been born between 1524
and
1532
His wife Margaret Fleming had to have been born between 1524 and 1534
This couple married on 1 Apr 1557

Their daughter Jean Stewart married Duncan Campbell of Glenorchy, 1st
Bnt
on 18 Nov 1573

In four generations we have someone born in 1702 which is 129 years.
Not impossible by any means, but it seems a bit longish. Perhaps
someone
has
some source quotations to back up this part of the line.

Will Johnson






John Brandon

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av John Brandon » 21 okt 2005 14:21:25

whereas my responses to you are actually "contemptuous", meaning full of
disdain.

I really doubt this -- true contempt would have ceased to respond long
ago. Instead, I think, you addicted to these exchanges, whether with
me, DSH, DR, or particular victim-of-the-moment, as a sickly or
invalided person becomes addicted to vicarious ways of expressing
himself (venting).

Gjest

Re: Was Katherine (Dale) Carter the child of Diana (Skipwith

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 okt 2005 15:53:01

Although no longer subscribed to the Gen-Medieval List, I was informed of a
recent posting by Jeff Chipman which alluded to my January, 2000 TAG article
regarding Katherine (Dale) Carter, wife of Thomas Carter, of Lancaster County,
Virginia. I felt a few comments were in order.

Mr. Chipman is in agreement with my article regarding the maternity of
Katherine (Dale) Carter. However, we differ in our conclusions regarding the other
two Dale daughters.

Mr. Chipman wrote:

"We know from a 1674 Lancaster Co. deed that Elizabeth Dale was Diana

Skipwith's daughter because Diana referred to Mary Dale's husband
(Mary being the middle daughter of Edward Dale and Elizabeth the
youngest) Daniel Harrison as her "Sonne-in-law," proving that Mary
Dale was her daughter."
<<<<<<<<

Based on the previous assumptions made about this family and the mother
identified for Edward Dale's children, I would suggest caution. I do not believe
the 1674 deed reference, by itself, can be cited as sufficient proof to claim t
hat Edward Dale's daughters Mary and Elizabeth, were the children of Diana
Skipwith.

My article in the January, 2000 edition of TAG cites deed records which are
the earliest records I have found which list Diana Skipwith as Edward Dale's
wife. If one could obtain an accurate estimation of either Mary or Elizabeth
Dale's birth dates, this might help to confirm the theory they were the children
of Dale by Diana Skipwith.

As Dale's eldest daughter, Katherine, was the child of Dale by a lady other
than Diana Skipwith and as the birth years of Dale's children, Mary and
Elizabeth, have not been accurately ascertained, and as they likely fall somewhere
close to that period around the time Diana Skipwith married Edward Dale, it
would be premature to definitively state that Mary and Elizabeth were Diana
Skipwith's children.

Mr. Chipman and I have discussed the term "sonne-in-law" in the past. The
term can be somewhat ambiguous during this period and it doesn't necessarily
have the 21st century meaning. I believe it would be necessary to clearly
illustrate the birth year of Mary and Elizabeth Dale before one could confidently
place either as daughters of Edward Dale by Diana Skipwith.

Taking into consideration the dispute regarding any children Edward Dale may
have had by Diana Skipwith, if any, to simply point to the "sonne-in-law"
reference is insufficient.

Charles Ward

Douglas Richardson

Re: Was Katherine (Dale) Carter the child of Diana (Skipwith

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 21 okt 2005 17:21:18

Dear Newsgroup ~

Back in 2001, I posted ten reasons why I felt Charles Ward's position
regarding Diana Skipwith was in in error (see copy of earlier post
below). Based on a review of the evidence, I concluded that Diana
Skipwith was the mother of all three of Edward Dale's children. At the
time, Mr. Ward was unable to rebut any of the ten objections I raised.
Unless Mr. Ward has additional evidence to add to the discussion, I
stand by my earlier conclusion.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + +
COPY OF EARLIER POST

From: douglasrichard...@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Subject: Re: Diana SKIPWITH, wife of Edward Dale
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 05:23:04 GMT

Dear Charles:

Thank you for post below regarding the colonial immigrant, Diana
Skipwith, wife of Major Edward Dale, of Lancaster Co., Virginia. I'd
be glad to share my comments on this matter.

As your recent article in TAG pointed out, Diana Skipwith is known to
have appeared under her maiden name in records dated 1655, whereas her
husband, Edward Dale's eldest daughter, Katherine (Dale) Carter, was
evidently born about 1652. Under normal circumstances, one would
conclude that if Diana witnessed under her maiden name after
Katherine's birth, that Diana couldn't possibly by Katherine's mother.
This would presumably be an open and shut case.

However, there was a rare custom among high born Englishwomen of this
period to use their maiden names after marriage. As the daughter of a
knight and a English baronet, Diana Skipwith was one of the highest
born English women ever to come to the New World. Due to her high
station then, we should not be surprised to see her using her maiden
name after marriage. As such, one must seek other evidence to prove or
disprove whether or not Diana was Katherine's mother. In this case,
there are no less than ten pieces of evidences which suggest that Diana
was Katherine's mother.

First, research indicates that Diana Skipwith was born in 1621, in
England. If she was still single in 1655, as claimed, she would have
contracted her marriage to Edward Dale after she had attained her 34th
year. This is highly unlikely. The vast majority of Englishwomen in
this period were married before their 30th birthday.

Second, statements in print suggest that Diana Skipwith's husband,
Edward Dale, and her brother, Sir Gray Skipwith, may have immigrated at
the same time to Virginia following the death of King Charles I in
1649. If so, it is entirely possible that Diana and Edward were
married in England, prior to their appearance in Virginia.

Third, Katherine (Dale) Carter had a large family which is well
documented in a Carter family prayer book. Among her children, we find
a child named Edward for her father, Diana for her mother, and Henry
Skipwith for her mother's father. Unless Katherine (Dale) Carter was
Diana Skipwith's daughter, it would be difficult to explain the
appearance of the name Henry Skipwith Carter among her children.

Fourth, the names of the godparents of Katherine (Dale) Carter's
children are recorded in the Carter family prayer book. In colonial
times, relatives were often employed to serve as godparents. In this
case, we find that Diana Skipwith herself served as a godmother as did
Diana's brother, Sir Gray Skipwith's widow, Anne Skipwith, of Middlesex
Co., Virginia. It would be odd to find Dame Skipwith as a sponsor for
Katherine (Dale) Carter's child, unless she had some connection to
Katherine (Dale) Carter herself. If Diana Skipwith was Katherine
(Dale) Carter's mother, then Dame Skipwith would have been Katherine
(Dale) Carter's aunt by marriage.

Fifth, there was an long epitaph of Edward Dale's life recorded in the
Carter family prayer book. The epitaph states clearly that Edward Dale
married Diana Skipwith "early in life" and presents her as his only
wife. Presumably the term "early in life" is prior to his 30th
birthday. If so, we must assume that Diana was also no more than 30
years old herself when she married Edward Dale. This suggests a
marriage in or before 1651.

Sixth, the death records of Edward Dale and his widow, Diana, are also
recorded in the same prayer book. No mention is made of any wife for
Edward Dale except Diana Skipwith.

Seventh, Edward Dale's will bequeathed his wife, Diana, a life interest
in certain property and named his daughter, Katherine, and two Carter
grandchildren as his executors. Had Diana been Katherine's step-
mother, the usual protocol would be for Diana to hold the executorship
to safeguard her interests against her step-children's rights. Since
Diana was not named executrix, one must presume that either Diana was
too ill to serve as executrix, or else that Diana was Katherine's own
mother and that Diana did not need to have her interests safeguarded.

Eighth, we find that Diana Skipwith joined her husband, Edward Dale, in
conveyances to two of their married daughters, Katherine and
Elizabeth. This shows that Diana had a strong interest in Katherine
and Elizabeth's future, which one would expect if Diana was their blood
mother.

Ninth, in one of these conveyances, Diana Skipwith names her son-in-
law, Daniel Harrison, who was evidently married to her daughter, Mary
Dale. This reference would suggest that Diana had at least one child
by Edward Dale. If so, under normal circumstances, we would normally
suppose that she married Edward Dale before her 30th birthday which
event took place in 1651. Inasmuch as Katherine Dale was born about
1652, Katherine's birth would appear to fall after Diana was likely to
have been married to Edward Dale.

Tenth, the theory is presented in Mr. Ward's article that Edward Dale
may have had an earlier wife before he married Diana Skipwith by whom
he had his daughters, Katherine and Mary. It is further suggested that
the unknown first wife may have been a relative of Vincent Stanford.
This theory is based on the fact that Vincent Stanford left a sizeable
bequest to Mary Dale in his will. However, it is doubtful that Vincent
Stanford had any blood tie to Mary Dale at all, as in his will, he
carefully referred to another legatee as his niece, whereas he made no
claim to kinship to Mary Dale. Had Mary Dale been related to the
testator, one would presume he would have stated that fact just as he
did for the other legatee who he identified as his niece. Since
Vincent Stanford did not refer to Mary Dale as his kinswoman, it is
inappropriate to conclude that Mary Dale's father might have had
earlier unknown first wife, or that the Dale and Stanford families were
related by blood or marriage.

Regarding the matter of women using their maiden names after marriage,
I've located two contemporary examples of women who used their maiden
names after marriage. One is widow Mary Kemp, of Gloucester Co.,
Virginia who signed two powers of attorney about 1700, one as Mary Kemp
and one as Mary Curtis. The editor of Virginia Magazine of History and
Biography who reported these powers of attorney stated that Curtis
was "doubtless" Mary's maiden name, suggesting that he was aware of the
custom for women to use their maiden name's after marriage. The second
example I've found is a Chancery suit dated about 1610 in England in
which Anne Clere, widow, was sued by the executor of her late husband,
William Gilbert's estate. Research shows that Clere was Anne's maiden
name. A second chancery suit states she remained a widow for three
years and then married (2nd) Okeover Crompton. Like Diana Skipwith,
Anne Clere was the daughter of a knight and came from a family with
high born relations. Anne (Clere) Gilbert is the maternal grandmother
of the colonial immigrant, Elizabeth (Alsop) Baldwin, of Milford,
Connecticut.

In closing, I wish to state that should anyone know of any other
examples of English women using their maiden names after marriage, I
would appreciate it greatly if they would forward those examples to me
for inclusion in an article I'm preparing on Diana Skipwith. Also, I
wish to thank MichaelAnne Guido for her invaluable contribution to the
history of the Skipwith and Dale families. When Ms. Guido learned of
my interest in Diana (Skipwith) Dale, she generously shared her
extensive research files with me. Her files clarified several points
discussed above. I'm most grateful for her assistance. I also wish to
thank Gary Boyd Roberts and Jerome Anderson, both of the New England
Historic Genealogical Society in Boston, and my co-author, Dr. David
Faris, with whom I consulted at length about the Diana Skipwith
problem.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: royalances...@msn.com

In article <20010103114758.20164.00001...@ng-cj1.aol.com>,
cmw12...@aol.com (CMW12635) wrote:

Diana Skipwith married Edward DALE, of Lancaster Co., VA. An
article I
composed which was published in the January, 2000 issue of TAG
pointed out
contemporary records which called into question whether Katherine
Dale, Edward
Dale's daughter, could have been a daughter born of his marriage to
Diana
Skipwith.

I'm advised that Mr. Douglas Richardson has researched this topic and
I would
certainly be interested in his comments, etc.

Charles Ward
CMW12...@aol.com

CMW12635@aol.com wrote:
Although no longer subscribed to the Gen-Medieval List, I was informed of a
recent posting by Jeff Chipman which alluded to my January, 2000 TAG article
regarding Katherine (Dale) Carter, wife of Thomas Carter, of Lancaster County,
Virginia. I felt a few comments were in order.

Mr. Chipman is in agreement with my article regarding the maternity of
Katherine (Dale) Carter. However, we differ in our conclusions regarding the other
two Dale daughters.

Mr. Chipman wrote:


"We know from a 1674 Lancaster Co. deed that Elizabeth Dale was Diana
Skipwith's daughter because Diana referred to Mary Dale's husband
(Mary being the middle daughter of Edward Dale and Elizabeth the
youngest) Daniel Harrison as her "Sonne-in-law," proving that Mary
Dale was her daughter."


Based on the previous assumptions made about this family and the mother
identified for Edward Dale's children, I would suggest caution. I do not believe
the 1674 deed reference, by itself, can be cited as sufficient proof to claim t
hat Edward Dale's daughters Mary and Elizabeth, were the children of Diana
Skipwith.

My article in the January, 2000 edition of TAG cites deed records which are
the earliest records I have found which list Diana Skipwith as Edward Dale's
wife. If one could obtain an accurate estimation of either Mary or Elizabeth
Dale's birth dates, this might help to confirm the theory they were the children
of Dale by Diana Skipwith.

As Dale's eldest daughter, Katherine, was the child of Dale by a lady other
than Diana Skipwith and as the birth years of Dale's children, Mary and
Elizabeth, have not been accurately ascertained, and as they likely fall somewhere
close to that period around the time Diana Skipwith married Edward Dale, it
would be premature to definitively state that Mary and Elizabeth were Diana
Skipwith's children.

Mr. Chipman and I have discussed the term "sonne-in-law" in the past. The
term can be somewhat ambiguous during this period and it doesn't necessarily
have the 21st century meaning. I believe it would be necessary to clearly
illustrate the birth year of Mary and Elizabeth Dale before one could confidently
place either as daughters of Edward Dale by Diana Skipwith.

Taking into consideration the dispute regarding any children Edward Dale may
have had by Diana Skipwith, if any, to simply point to the "sonne-in-law"
reference is insufficient.

Charles Ward

Gjest

Re: Problem with the Earls of Orkney

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 okt 2005 18:55:02

As Leo's recent postings made me do more work on some Scottish lines, I'm
always on the lookout for problem areas, and I've found one possibly.

The received wisdom per Leo's site.
William Sinclair b abt 1404, 3rd Earl of Orkney 1420-70
son of
Henry Sinclair b abt 1375 d 1420/1, 2nd Earl of Orkney
son of
Henry Sinclair b abt 1345 d abt 1400, Earl of Orkney
son of
Isabella of Strathern who married William Sinclair, Lord of Rosslyn
daughter of
Malise, 8th Earl of Strathern b abt 1290 m abt 1334 Marjory of Ross dau of
Hugh, 4th Earl Ross / Maud de Brus
son of
Malise, 7th Earl of Strathern b 1275/1280
son of
Malise, 6th Earl of Strathern b abt 1257

I first notice that the distance from Malise 6 to Malise 8 is too short. We
have to alllow two successions of 17 year old father's in a row which I find
not credible.

However a larger problem is going from Malise 8 to Henry Sinclair, 1st Earl
of Orkney
IF he married Marjory of Ross abt 1334 then how could a daughter of that
union be herself having a child by 1345 11 years later ? She gave birth at age 10
?

There are a few ways to correct this, but perhaps someone has a satisfactory
amendation with a source :)

Thanks
Will Johnson

Doug McDonald

Re: Problem with the Earls of Orkney

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 21 okt 2005 18:56:49

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

The received wisdom per Leo's site.
William Sinclair b abt 1404, 3rd Earl of Orkney 1420-70
son of
Henry Sinclair b abt 1375 d 1420/1, 2nd Earl of Orkney
son of
Henry Sinclair b abt 1345 d abt 1400, Earl of Orkney
son of
Isabella of Strathern who married William Sinclair, Lord of Rosslyn
daughter of
Malise, 8th Earl of Strathern b abt 1290 m abt 1334 Marjory of Ross dau of
Hugh, 4th Earl Ross / Maud de Brus
son of
Malise, 7th Earl of Strathern b 1275/1280
son of
Malise, 6th Earl of Strathern b abt 1257

I first notice that the distance from Malise 6 to Malise 8 is too short. We
have to alllow two successions of 17 year old father's in a row which I find
not credible.

However a larger problem is going from Malise 8 to Henry Sinclair, 1st Earl
of Orkney
IF he married Marjory of Ross abt 1334 then how could a daughter of that
union be herself having a child by 1345 11 years later ? She gave birth at age 10
?

There are a few ways to correct this, but perhaps someone has a satisfactory
amendation with a source :)


OK, I make a stab: Source, SP

Malise 6: d 1313, became Earl before 1281, perhaps as early as 1271
b. perhaps 1257

Malise 7: fl 1310 d bef 1329 m. 2nd wife, maybe 1323

Malise 8: succ father 1323-1329 m bef. 1329, pwehaps 1325
d bef 1357
sent Isabella to her Uncle (Ross) in 1344 for her care,
names her as heir

Isabella sent to Ross 1344

Henry 1 b abt 1345

Henry 2 b abt 1375

We can add guessed dates:

Malise 6: if b 1257, became earl say 1280, probably had Malise 7
perhaps 1275-85

Malise 7: he must have been 21 by 1310, which is no problem
given above possible birth range ... in fact,
he might have been 21 by say 1300

Malise 8: perhaps born 1300-1310 IF he had Isabella in 1325,
there is no real problem ... he could have been born
say 1303-1305

Isabella: try born 1325, sent to Ross at age 19, married
very soon thereafter

Henry 1: born nominally 1345 .... but there is no reason
it could not have been 1347 or even later, thus pushing
Isabella a couple of years later

Henry II: no problem


I just don't see any serious problems there with dates. CP
gives no seriously conflicting dates.

Doug McDonald

Gjest

Re: Marriage dates fail sometimes was Not another Gateway An

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 okt 2005 19:02:02

In a message dated 10/20/05 9:40:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leo@home.netspeed.com.au writes:

<< John Stewart, 4th Earl of Atholl (when born seems to me irrelevant). What
is important is when did he marry. I have 1557, as you do. The next
generation in this line : >>

Just a point on births Leo. The reason why the date of birth is relevant is
in order to thwart anyone who is trying to give children to a person who
themselves is too young or too old to have children. We know (or suspect) that at
least a few girls had given birth by or near age 13, but as far as I know,
there is no credible evidence that any girl had given birth at say age 9.

Similarly with men, although we have or suspect that a few boys had child
when they themselves were say age 20, 19, even 17 perhaps? I have seen nothing
credible that gives children to a boy of say age 15 or 14.

We do know however that childhood marriages took place, although the spouses
were probably not allowed to actually sleep together. So just the marriage
date is not always enough to determine the likelihood of a line.

Will Johnson

Doug McDonald

Re: Problem with the Earls of Orkney

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 21 okt 2005 19:36:55

Leo wrote:

Wisdom, as Mae West would say, has nothing to do with it :-) but the
sources do. I double checked and they come from CP three different
volumes (reliable) Burke's Extince Peerage 1866 (much less so, but a
good 'guide') Gerald Paget (a 'good guide')

I am glad you are interested in Scottish genealogy, as I feel the
English is getting too much attention.


Yes indeed. And the SP is a great pleasure to work with,
compared to the CP, since children are listed, and it
is not anywhere as near as loathe to include persons
who are not actual Peers in the "lines". As to accuracy,
you'd expect that CP, being later than SP and having acces
to it, would be more accurate, but in fact, SP is pretty
good. You can always cross check.

My main royal line is Scottish. It is true that developing
new Scottish lines that pass through the period 1550-1750
in less than the very highest gentry often have problems
due to loss of records, especially ones taken by Catholic
churches.

Doug McDonald

Gjest

Re: Marriage dates fail sometimes was Not another Gateway An

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 okt 2005 20:04:02

In a message dated 10/21/2005 1:02:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,
WJhonson@aol.com writes:
Similarly with men, although we have or suspect that a few boys had child
when they themselves were say age 20, 19, even 17 perhaps? I have seen
nothing
credible that gives children to a boy of say age 15 or 14.

I believe the middle school boy who fathered two children before his school
teacher was caught and sent to jail for 7 years was about 22 when she got out
and they married. That would make him 13 or less when the first child was
fathered. Check with high school boys to see how many need an abortionist.
There are many.

We need to recognize, however, that because of diet and other factors,
puberty is more recent today than it was in the medieval period. Today some girls
reach puberty at 10, boys by 12 at least.

Regards, Charlie McNett

Gjest

Re: Marriage dates fail sometimes was Not another Gateway An

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 okt 2005 20:04:02

In a message dated 10/21/2005 1:22:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
WJhonson@aol.com writes:
You have raised a hypothetical point. I'm saying that I know of no credible
evidence (that is sourced, and quoted) that shows this occurring in the
Medieval period

Indeed, you are saying that the age of first children for a man is determined
by social, not physical, norms. It would be nice if someone could determine
when men (and women) in the medieval period typically had chldren and, as you
say, the earliest known.

Regards, Charlie McNett

Gjest

Re: Marriage dates fail sometimes was Not another Gateway An

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 okt 2005 20:05:02

In a message dated 10/21/05 10:17:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
CMcNett@aol.com writes:

<< We need to recognize, however, that because of diet and other factors,
puberty is more recent today than it was in the medieval period. Today
some girls
reach puberty at 10, boys by 12 at least. >>

You have raised a hypothetical point. I'm saying that I know of no credible
evidence (that is sourced, and quoted) that shows this occurring in the
Medieval period.

Leo

Re: Marriage dates fail sometimes was Not another Gateway An

Legg inn av Leo » 21 okt 2005 20:17:02

Will,
You seem to miss why I said his date of birth (in this case) is irrelevant.
We are looking at the offspring of the marriage and therefor it is the
marriage date that counts, as this gives an indication to the possible
birthdate of the child and that is important as it establishes the
generation span you found troublesome. In this case too old does not apply
and as his paternity in this case is not questioned, too young does not come
into it either. Especially as the child is from a second wife and the first
wife already produced two children, therefor the age of the father plays no
role in establishing the viability of the time span.
Leo


----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 3:01 AM
Subject: Re: Marriage dates fail sometimes was Not another Gateway Ancestor


In a message dated 10/20/05 9:40:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leo@home.netspeed.com.au writes:

John Stewart, 4th Earl of Atholl (when born seems to me irrelevant).
What
is important is when did he marry. I have 1557, as you do. The next
generation in this line :

Just a point on births Leo. The reason why the date of birth is relevant
is
in order to thwart anyone who is trying to give children to a person who
themselves is too young or too old to have children. We know (or suspect)
that at
least a few girls had given birth by or near age 13, but as far as I know,
there is no credible evidence that any girl had given birth at say age 9.

Similarly with men, although we have or suspect that a few boys had child
when they themselves were say age 20, 19, even 17 perhaps? I have seen
nothing
credible that gives children to a boy of say age 15 or 14.

We do know however that childhood marriages took place, although the
spouses
were probably not allowed to actually sleep together. So just the
marriage
date is not always enough to determine the likelihood of a line.

Will Johnson


Leo

Re: Problem with the Earls of Orkney

Legg inn av Leo » 21 okt 2005 20:28:02

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 2:54 AM
Subject: Re: Problem with the Earls of Orkney


As Leo's recent postings made me do more work on some Scottish lines, I'm
always on the lookout for problem areas, and I've found one possibly.

The received wisdom per Leo's site.
====Dear Will,

Wisdom, as Mae West would say, has nothing to do with it :-) but the sources
do. I double checked and they come from CP three different volumes
(reliable) Burke's Extince Peerage 1866 (much less so, but a good 'guide')
Gerald Paget (a 'good guide')

I am glad you are interested in Scottish genealogy, as I feel the English is
getting too much attention.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas


William Sinclair b abt 1404, 3rd Earl of Orkney 1420-70
son of
Henry Sinclair b abt 1375 d 1420/1, 2nd Earl of Orkney
son of
Henry Sinclair b abt 1345 d abt 1400, Earl of Orkney
son of
Isabella of Strathern who married William Sinclair, Lord of Rosslyn
daughter of
Malise, 8th Earl of Strathern b abt 1290 m abt 1334 Marjory of Ross dau of
Hugh, 4th Earl Ross / Maud de Brus
son of
Malise, 7th Earl of Strathern b 1275/1280
son of
Malise, 6th Earl of Strathern b abt 1257

I first notice that the distance from Malise 6 to Malise 8 is too short.
We
have to alllow two successions of 17 year old father's in a row which I
find
not credible.

However a larger problem is going from Malise 8 to Henry Sinclair, 1st
Earl
of Orkney
IF he married Marjory of Ross abt 1334 then how could a daughter of that
union be herself having a child by 1345 11 years later ? She gave birth
at age 10
?

There are a few ways to correct this, but perhaps someone has a
satisfactory
amendation with a source :)

Thanks
Will Johnson


Gjest

Re: Problem with the Earls of Orkney

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 okt 2005 20:43:01

In a message dated 10/21/05 11:15:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:

<< Isabella: try born 1325, sent to Ross at age 19, married
very soon thereafter >>

The one date we have to work with is that Isabella was sent to her uncle in
1344.
Per your quote we do not know how old she was at that time.
However, again per your quote of SP, her son was b abt 1345

Marjory of Ross could not have been born earlier than 1308 when her parents
married
Therefore Isabella of Strathearn her daughter, could not have been born
earlier than 1321

Since her own son Henry Sinclair was born abt 1345
then Isabella's own birth range would be 1321/1332

Therefore it appears the problem can be solved by the following changes
1) Isabella was born 1321/32
2) Her parents were not married "abt 1334" but rather anywhere between 1308
and 1328

If we can nail down more precisely when Hugh, 4th Earl of Ross was born and
when he married Matilda de Brus, that could narrow further the possible birth
range for Marjory of Ross.

It appears, from your SP quote, that the possible birth range of the
Strathearn Earls is up-in-the-air. Nothing substantial to help it pin down.

Will Johnson

Diane Sheppard

Re: Problem with the Earls of Orkney

Legg inn av Diane Sheppard » 21 okt 2005 21:03:41

Dear Will, Doug, Leo,

SP, 7. p. 236 (Ross)states that Hugh Ross and Maud/Matilda Bruce were
married in 1308. SP 2, p. 435 (Bruce earls of Carrick) also states
that they were married in "about 1308."

CP, 12A, p. 386 (Strathearn) states that Malise & Marjory (Mary)Ross
married "perhaps circa 1325-1328." All other volumes of CP and SP
which refer to this marriage state that they were married "before
1334".

CP, 12A, p. 386, footnote c (Strathearn) states that Malise granted the
marriage of his daughter Isabel to his brother in law, William earl of
Ross, on May 28, 1344 (text states 1444).

SP 6, p. 567 - (Sinclair)does not provide a date for Henry's birth, nor
one for his parents' message (Isabella of Strathern and William
Sinclair).

I do not see any problems with the chronology when you use the dates as
provided in the sources and understand that the 1345 birthdate for
Henry Sinclair is merely a guess, based on the grant of his mother's
marriage.

Hope this helps,

Diane Sheppard

Dolly Ziegler

Re: Was Katherine (Dale) Carter the child of Diana (Skipwith

Legg inn av Dolly Ziegler » 21 okt 2005 21:55:02

Hello to the list. I hoped to make a couple of small additions to the
interesting Skipwith discussion. If this is known already, just delete.

At http://www.familysearch.org, the IGI has _extracted_ christening entries
for Diana Skipwith, chr. June 1621, Prestwold, Leics; and for Gray
Skipwith, chr. 1 Feb. 1622 at Prestwold. Father of both is Henrici
Skipwith. Microfilm source is given. (No day for Diana, only the month.)

The _extracted_ IGI entries are regarded as reliable. (As distinguished
from patron submissions, which are only as accurate as the submitter's
information.)

However, two christenings of siblings seven or eight months apart,
depending on when the June 1621 christening was -- did give pause. Aha!
The new year began in March -- that works.

Hope this is useful. Cheers, Dolly in Maryland

Peter Stewart

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 22 okt 2005 00:37:52

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129900885.335861.57580@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
whereas my responses to you are actually "contemptuous", meaning full of
disdain.

I really doubt this -- true contempt would have ceased to respond long
ago. Instead, I think, you addicted to these exchanges, whether with
me, DSH, DR, or particular victim-of-the-moment, as a sickly or
invalided person becomes addicted to vicarious ways of expressing
himself (venting).

Then you should think again - an 'addict' would look for any & every
opportunity to engage in such exchanges, while I quite obviously ignore your
posts dealing straighforwardly with genealogical matters (indeed I don't
even read most of them). The same applies equally to Richardson and Hines,
and as to a 'particular victim-of-the-moment', that is your own vice
projected, not a compulsive behaviour of mine. I don't go fossicking on the
Internet for images of namesakes, or for literary figures with the same
given name as other newsgroup participants.

Look at the archive if you need to inform yourself of the truth about my
participation here over years. My preference is to discuss medieval
genealogy, and to do so rationally, and this is why I shall leave SGM as
soon as a viable moderated alternative is available.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Who was Robin Hood ?

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 okt 2005 00:50:02

May I add a few jottings to this.
Havoise de Dinan was a grand-daughter of Geoffroy I de Dinan whose lands were
divided between his sons in 1122/3. Her father, Josce or Josselin, possibly
the youngest son, received lands in England that Geoffroy had been granted by
Henry I. Michael Jones found Josce in 1156 holding Lambourn in Berkshire, other
lands in Wiltshire and Hampshire, and having an interest in the Dinan manors
in Devon and Somerset. Josce died abt. 1166 leaving two daughters : Sibylle
(who married Hugh de Plugenet) and Hawise who inherited Stanton (Fitzwarren) and
married Foulke Fitzwarin. None of the places named would appear to be Robin
Hood country. The Fitzwarin connection with Whittington, Shropshire, takes us a
bit nearer.
Foulke II, Hawise's son, was outlawed in 1200 but obtained a pardon in 1203.
Born abt 1170, he died in 1258.
He may well have been one of the "original" Robin Hoods, in the same way that
Alexander Selkirk and Dampier and Lewis Penrose were all Robinson Crusoe.
I would suggest that the "robbin' hood[lum]" explanation may be looking
through the wrong end of the social telescope. To the ordinary folk who told the
tales, sang the ballads and no doubt bought the tee-shirt, Robin was a popular
hero. The thieving varmint, to their eyes, was the tax-collecting sheriff.
Hope this helps,
Peter Meazey (Dinan, Brittany)
Source : Michael Jones, The family of Dinan in England in the Middle Ages,
Dinan 1987

Gjest

Re: Problem with the Earls of Orkney

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 okt 2005 01:05:02

In a message dated 10/21/05 1:19:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
bluecolumbine@comcast.net writes:

<< CP, 12A, p. 386 (Strathearn) states that Malise & Marjory (Mary)Ross
married "perhaps circa 1325-1328." All other volumes of CP and SP
which refer to this marriage state that they were married "before
1334". >>

On the information that they were married perhaps circa 1325-8 do they
provide any source for this statement ?
This would allow us to narrow Isabella's birth range to 1326/32
And her mother Marjory of Ross then gets narrowed to 1308/15

That's getting pretty specific now.

Is it known that Joanna Menteith was Malise 7's later wife ? That is, 1) not
the mother of Malise 8, and also 2) married subsequently to Malise 8's birth?

hThanks
Will Johnson

Diane Sheppard

Re: Problem with the Earls of Orkney

Legg inn av Diane Sheppard » 22 okt 2005 01:21:41

Dear Will, see below
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
bluecolumbine@comcast.net writes:

CP, 12A, p. 386 (Strathearn) states that Malise & Marjory (Mary)Ross
married "perhaps circa 1325-1328." All other volumes of CP and SP
which refer to this marriage state that they were married "before
1334".

On the information that they were married perhaps circa 1325-8 do they
provide any source for this statement ?

CP's source: Reg. Mag. Sig. 1306-1424, p. 541 and Sutherland Book, loc.
cit.

This would allow us to narrow Isabella's birth range to 1326/32
And her mother Marjory of Ross then gets narrowed to 1308/15
snip


Is it known that Joanna Menteith was Malise 7's later wife ? That is, 1) not
the mother of Malise 8, and also 2) married subsequently to Malise 8's birth?

According to CP, 12A, p. 385 Malise, the 7th earl, married Joanna
Menteith "circa 1323" (Robert I (Bruce) confirmed Malise's grant of
land in Cortachy to Joanna. Sources Reg. Mag. Sig., 1306-1424, p. 539
"with notes of approximate dates" and the Red Book of Menteith, vol.
II, pp. 231-232.)

CP also states that the name of his first wife (and the mother of
Malise, 8th earl), is not known. CP states that Malise (7th earl) was
born 1275 - 1280 and notes in the footnote tied to the birthdate that
his next brother, Gilbert, was old enough in 1297 to be fitted for a
horse as a squire of Edward's household for his campaign in Flanders.
CP does not estimate a date for the birth of Malise (8th earl).

Here's a link to the Dave Utzinger's transcription of CP for Malise,
7th earl,
http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bi ... id=I039453

Hope this helps,
Diane Sheppard

Gjest

Re: Problem with the Earls of Orkney

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 okt 2005 03:00:40

Marjory of Ross *could not* have been born before the marriage of her
parents? Why not?

Todd A. Farmerie

Dinan (was Re: Who was Robin Hood ?)

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 22 okt 2005 16:36:06

PMeazey@aol.com wrote:

Source : Michael Jones, The family of Dinan in England in the Middle Ages,
Dinan 1987

I have not had a chance to take a look at this source yet. Does Jones
address at all the origins of the family?

taf

John Brandon

Re: Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av John Brandon » 22 okt 2005 18:06:17

participation here over years. My preference is to discuss medieval
genealogy, and to do so rationally, and this is why I shall leave SGM as
soon as a viable moderated alternative is available.

Peter Stewart

This is wonderful news. Glad to hear it.

Gjest

Re: Sir Thomas Browne was Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 okt 2005 18:46:22

ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:
Thanks Matthew,

Most of my information comes from the _old_ DNB, I must check the new
version. Apart from what has been said, I have nothing further of note on his
ancestors. A little more on him and his descendants:


THOMAS (19 Oct 1605 Cheapside, London-16 Oct 1682 bur St Peter's Mancroft,
Norwich) Sir MD; of Halifax then Norwich, Ed. Winchester College & Broadgate
Hall (now Pembroke College), Oxford; well travelled; theologian and author of
diverse works; friend of JOHN EVELYN (the diarist, whose wife was a Browne
but no obvious connection); knighted 1671; m 1641 Dorothy 4d of EDWARD MILEHAM
of Burlingham St. Peter.
He left:
1. EDWARD (1644 Norwich-28 Aug T 1708 bur Northfleet, Kent) - Sir MD ed.
Norwich grammar & Trinity College, Cambridge; Of Salisbury Court, Fleet N
Street; well travelled; Fellow, treasurer (1694-1704) and President (1704-08) of
College of Physicians; King Charles II's physicians m 1672 Henrietta d of Dr
TERNE (and left A] THOMAS (1672 London bap 21 Jan 1672/3 -1710 fall from horse)
MD; Ed Trinity College, Cambridge m 1698 cousin Alethea d of HENRY FAIRFAX
and B] 3 daughters bur in Northfleet, one m ARTHUR who was also bur in
Northfleet
2. THOMAS (c1644 -c1667) Res. in France then, in 1664 joined Navy
1. Anne m <1669 EDWARD gs of THOMAS FAIRFAX Vt FAIRFAX
2. Elizabeth m <1682 Capt GEORGE LYTTLETON and settled in Guernsey.
3. Frances unm in 1682
plus 5 other issue all died before 1684

Adrian

Dear Adrian,

Thanks very much for this summary- I hope you'll keep us posted if you
can extend his ancestry. A lot of younger sons of country families did
a Dick Whittington and went to London, so it seems the elder Thomas was
perhaps another one of these.

Matthew

In a message dated 19/10/2005 21:33:33 GMT Standard Time,
mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk writes:

Yes, all I have for him (mostly from the new DNB) is that he was son of
Thomas Browne (d.1613), liveryman of the Mercer's Company of London, by
Anna, daughter of Paul Garraway; while his wife was Dorothy
(1621-1685), daughter of Edward Mileham of Burlingham St. Peter,
Norfolk, by Dorothy, dau. of John Hobart of Salle. I'd be vicariously
interested if anyone can add to this. He has many descendants- at
least through his daughter Anne (sometimes called Frances, apparently
confused with her daughter), who married Henry Fairfax of Hurst, and
whose daughter and heiress married the 9th earl of Buchan.

Matthew

Gjest

Re: Dinan

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 okt 2005 13:04:01

Apart from stating "It is usually conceded that this family descend from
Hamon and his wife Roiantelina..." in a short intro, no. You get what it says on
the packet - the family in England, starting with Geoffroy and an act dated
1122.
There are two slightly different versions, both published by a local
association. One, in French, in Dinan au Moyen Age, collective, 350 pages, 1986. The
other, 1987, gives the original English version and the translation.
Contact me off-list - there is more recent work but I wouldn't want to be
accused of advertising.
Peter Meazey (Dinan, Brittany)

Gjest

Re: Sir Thomas Browne was Pronunciation Of _William_

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 okt 2005 13:55:02

In a message dated 22/10/2005 18:49:29 GMT Standard Time,
mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk writes:

Matthew wrote:


Dear Adrian,

Thanks very much for this summary- I hope you'll keep us posted if you
can extend his ancestry. A lot of younger sons of country families did
a Dick Whittington and went to London, so it seems the elder Thomas was
perhaps another one of these.




Here we go then (still need further evidence that Sir Thomas' father fits in
as I have him)

BROWN, of UPTON, near Chester (Harl. MS. 1535, fo. 54b); ARMs – Argent, 2
bendlets Sable between as many pellets.; CREST – On a mount Vert a lion
couchant Argent, charged with 3 gouttes de sang on the neck [C. 6, fo. 75]


THOMAS BROWNE of Upton Cheshire m Alice, ?Whitley of Shotton
]
RICHARD BROWNE of Upton, Cheshire m Constance Harvey
]
THOMAS BROWNE of Upton m Elizabeth d of HENRY BERKENHED of Huxley Clerk of
the Green Cloth to Queen Elizabeth
]
A] RICHARD BROWNE of Upton (-1624) m1 Frances (- 1668) d of Sir GEORGE
BEUERLEY Knt. of Huntington, Cheshire; m2 Mary d of. Sir THOMAS ASTON Knt
of Aston, co. Chester, (She m2 JACQUES ARNODIO). Left issue, see below
B] THOMAS BROWNE who is perhaps same as THOMAS (-1613) liveryman of
Mercer’s Company; Of Upton, Cheshire, m Anna d&ch of PAUL GARRAWAY of Lewes
(She m2 Sir THOMAS DUTTON) Left issue, see below
C] HUGH BROWNE D] FARDINANDO BROWNE
E] EDWARD BROWNE In 1616 he sent his nephew to Winchester College
F] WILLIAM BROWNE
G] Jane (-1627) m RICHARD HARTLEY of Chester

Issue of A] Richard Browne by his m2 Mary Aston
a) THOMAS BROWNE of Upton, Cheshire (c1610-1643 Ir) m 1631 Ireland, Grissell
Dobb (-1641, bur St Mary's, Upton). Left issue, see below
b) RICHARD BROWNE, of London, and in 1646 of Upton; Silk-man; Lieut to
Sir RICHARD. GROSVENOR; In 1646 his estates were sequestered as a
Royalist; m Susan Cole of New St Albans. Left issue, see below

Issue of a)Thomas Browne by Grissell Dobb
i) FRANCIS BROWNE (1638-1638)
ii) THOMAS BROWNE (1639- bur 1702 St Mary's, Upton) m Cicely (-1661
childbirth) d of WILLIAM GLEGG, of Gayton who left Cicely Browne, (1661-1702 bur St
Mary's, Upton
iii) ROBERT BROWNE (1640-1664. bur St Mary's, Upton)
iii) Mary Browne (1632-) m THOMAS CRITCHLEY of Chester
iv) Judith Browne (1634-) m THOMAS KELSALL of Trafford.
v) Grissell Browne (1635-) m1 JOHN LEATHER of Bowden, m2 OWEN SANDERSON,
gent.
vi) Dorothy Browne (1636-) m THOMAS SHEPHERD of London

Issue of b) RICHARD BROWNE
THOMAS BROWNE als DUNCOMBE (-1717x1720) of Westminster and London; Receiver
gen of Excise; Changed his name to Duncombe; m Ursula d of ALEXANDER DUNCOME
(1619–1746) of Drayton. (Note that Thomas Browne had a nephew John Browne
(-<1717) who in 1717 had minor issue and a niece Matha Ely (wdw in 1717) who, at
that date had six minor issue, but I don't know the parents of this nephew
and niece])

who left
THOMAS BROWNE (–1746) changed name to DUNCOMBE m Mary d of Sir THOMAS
SLINGSBY, Bart (» 3s+2d see Burkes Peerage)
(Issue henceforth surnamed Duncombe)

and
Mary, Browne alias Duncombe (1681-1716/7 sp after long illness bur Westm
Abbey) m (seperated) 30 Dec. 1701, JOHN CAMPBELL Duke of Argyll He m2 1717
Jane Warburton

Issue of B] THOMAS BROWNE (assuming he is correctly identified)
I]. Sir THOMAS BROWNE (19 Oct 1605 Cheapside, London-16 Oct 1682 bur St
Peter's Mancroft, Norwich); Knt (1671); MD; Settled in Norwich, Ed Winchester
College & Broadgate Hall (now Pembroke College) Oxford; well traveled;
theologian and author of diverse works; m 1641 Dorothy (1621-1685) 4d of EDWARD
MILEHAM of Burlingham St. Peter. Left issue, see below
II] Jane Browne m THOMAS PRICE (1599-1685) later abp of Cashel
III] Dau
IV] Dau
V] Ellen or Eliner Browne

Issue of I]. Sir THOMAS BROWNE
1) Sir EDWARD BROWNE (1644 Norwich-28 Aug 1708 bur Northfleet, Kent) Sir MD;
ed. Norwich grammer & Triniry College, Cambridge; of Salisbury Court, Fleet
Street; well traveled; Fellow, treasurer (1694-1704) and President (1704-08)
of College of Physicans; King Charles II's physicians; m 1672 Henrietta
Susan (-1712) d of Dr CHRISTOPHER TERNE

and left

THOMAS (1672 London bap 21 Jan 1672/3 - 1710 fall from horse) Only surviving
son; MD; Ed Trinity College, Cambridge m 1698 cousin Alethea d of HENRY
FAIRFAX

and

3 daughters bur in Northfleet, one Susanna (-1694) m ARTHUR MOORE

and

+7 issue died young
===================================================

The above is a brief summary from my sources, most of which are:

DNB and ODNB (For both Sir Thomas and Sir Edward Browne) Also The Life of
Browne By Samuel Johnson; edited by Jack Lynch which includs Sir Thomas’s M.I.,
Reproduced on Web http://penelope.uchicago.edu/index.shtml

Visitation of Chester 1613 p 47 (Brownes of Upton)

The History of th County Palatine and City of Chester by George Ormerod, vol
i p 336.

From: http://www.antonymaitland.com/brown001.htm#EJB (this unsourced site
gives mostly the information as in Ormerod, but adds some dates)

PRO; A2A; Manchester University, John Rylands Library_ Rylands Charters
[RYCH_1943 - RYCH_3277]
HESWALL Reference: RYCH/2055
Lease to Thomas Aston of Aston, esq., and Henry Birkenhead of Backford,
gentleman, to the use of Thomas Browne, H.M.'s [ac: ?= His Majesties] Ward (son
and heir of Richard Browne, deceased), of the moiety of the manor of
Hasselwall alias Hasewall with appurtenances, of messuages and lands there, and of the
moiety of the rectory of the church of Hasselwall, being a parcel of the
lands of the said Thomas Browne, to hold during his minority; Creation dates:
May 22, 1626; Physical characteristics: Seal of Court of Wards and Liveries,
fragment.

Shaw’s knights Vol II p 165

Burke’s 1938 p 1002 Duncombe, Earl of Feversham

Burke’s Extinct Peerage p 194 (Fairfax)

CP Vol I pp 206-7 – Duke of Argyll

CP Vol II page 382 – Earl of Buchan

PRO; A2A; North Yorkshire County Record Office_ Kiplin Hall Archive Re the
Browne’s alias Duncombe

PRO; A2A; Norfolk Record Office_ Parish Records of St Peter Mancroft,
Norwich.

Alumni Oxonienses – The Members of the University of Oxford, 1500-1714 by
Joseph Foster, CD Copy; pages 193 & 197.

Joseph Foster’s London marriages Licences.1521-1869 p 197

A few Extracts from N&Q

John Evelyn. Diary and Correspondence. (ed. William Bray) Vol II. London.
George Bell & Sons,. 1886.; p 71-2

St. Botolph's Church, Northfleet. A Short Guide and History

Kent MI’s from part copy of D’Elboux Manuscripts posted to Web by B J White
(Northfleet Church) [I found part of this work on the Web many years ago, a
comprehensive list of Kent MI’s, very useful]


"Who knows whether the best of men be known, or whether there be not more
remarkable persons forgot, than any that stand remembered in the known account
of time?" Hydrotaphia, 1658, Sir Thomas Browne.
(reproduced in Preface of _The Tyrells of England._ by OF Brown)


Adrian

Gjest

Re: Sir Thomas Browne addendum

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 okt 2005 14:24:02

Add to my last message
Issue of I]. Sir THOMAS BROWNE

2) THOMAS BROWNE (c1644 -c1667) Resided in France then, in 1664 joined
Navy
3)Anne m ?1669, HENRY FAIRFAX of Hurst, Berks and nephew of Sir THOMAS 1Vt
FAIRFAX (Frances their d&h m DAVID ERSKINE Er of BUCHAN, but CP names her
mother as Frances)
4)Elizabeth m <1682 Capt GEORGE LYTTLETON and settled in Guernsey.
5)Frances unm (-1682 unm)
6)Mary Browne (-1676)
+4 or 5 other issue all -<1684

Dolly Ziegler

Book recommendations (was: Queen Isabella -- Treachery, Adul

Legg inn av Dolly Ziegler » 24 okt 2005 00:05:02

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, Kevin Bradford wrote:

Ms. Weir's books are on the required reading lists of a number of
undergraduate courses in Western Civilization. Countless education
professionals view her as having something worthwhile to contribute.

While Ms. Weir's methods should not be confused for genealogical or
historical research, her literary style helps open access to the
medieval world for generalists. Those who want to learn more come to
venues such as this to seek help; I suspect many are surprised by what
they find.

Hello to the list. My favorite academic says he would never include
Alison Weir's books on Western Civ reading lists. He did say he would
recommend the biographies by Lady Antonia Fraser, and the works of Barbara
Tuchman. FWIW, cheers, Dolly in Maryland

Gjest

Re: the destruction of the royal of Elizabeth Whitgift b Mar

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 okt 2005 21:06:03

In a message dated 10/25/05 11:35:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mhollick@mac.com writes:

<< Even in "The Ancestry of Thomas Bradbury (1611-1695) and His Wife Mary
(Perkins) Bradbury (1615-1700) of Salisbury, Massachusetts" by John
Brooks Threfall (1988), the parents of William Whitgift are given as
Henry Whitgift and Anne Dynewell and not Margaret Barley. So that line
is incorrect anyway. Kirk's article gives a royal line for Anne
Dynewell via the Fulnetbys, Dymokes to Lionel de Welles thence back to
Edward I. >>

Thank you for your excellent post.
The problem with the royal connection does not go through William Whitgift.
It goes through his wife Margaret Bell who is said to have been the daughter
of Margaret Barley.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: the destruction of the royal of Elizabeth Whitgift b Mar

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 okt 2005 21:12:28

According to Threfall, Margaret Bell's ancestry is not certain. He
says that she is probably the widow of Edward Bell of Writtle, Essex.
If true, she was the daughter of John Barley and Philippa Bradbury of
Stapleford Abbots, Essex. However, if so, Threlfall states, she must
have been a second wife and not the mother of Elizabeth (Whitgift)
Bradbury and thus not ancestral to Thomas Bradbury. However, the
visitations say she is the daughter of [blank] Bell of County Norfolk.
The Edward Bell identification at first seems promising since he is
linked via marriage to Sir Fernando Gorges, for whom Thomas Bradbury
worked. However, no positive proof has come to light to confirm this
and there a Bell Family in Norfolk that should be researched.

Gjest

Re: the destruction of the royal of Elizabeth Whitgift b Mar

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 okt 2005 22:02:32

Sorry, misspelled the named. John Brooks Threlfall.

Gjest

Re: the destruction of the royal of Elizabeth Whitgift b Mar

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 okt 2005 22:06:39

Probable daughter of William and Alice (--) Bendysshe and granddaughter
of Edmund Bendysshe. She was the widow of Robert Fitzwilliam.

It is probable that William Bradbury's parents were Robert Bradbury and
Jane/Joan (Fitzwilliam) Bendysshe.

Steve Barnhoorn

Re: the destruction of the royal of Elizabeth Whitgift b Mar

Legg inn av Steve Barnhoorn » 25 okt 2005 22:10:02

In a message dated 10/25/05 11:35:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mhollick@mac.com writes:

<< Kirk's article gives a royal line for Anne Dynewell via the
Fulnetbys, Dymokes to Lionel de Welles thence back to Edward I. >>


What article? Who is Kirk? Details, please.

Gjest

Re: the destruction of the royal of Elizabeth Whitgift b Mar

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 okt 2005 22:55:02

In a message dated 10/25/05 1:15:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mhollick@mac.com writes:

<< According to Threfall, >>

Can you tell me what this souce is you are quoting? I'm not familiar with it
and I can't find it just by entereing "threfall" into google.
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: the destruction of the royal of Elizabeth Whitgift b Mar

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 okt 2005 23:02:02

In a message dated 10/25/05 1:36:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mhollick@mac.com writes:

<< Her mother, according to Threlfall, was Philippa Bradbury who was born
1505-1510. She (Philippa) was married four times: (i) John Bowler;
(ii) Michael Wilbore; (iii) John Barley; and (iv) William Rutter.
Michael Wilbore died tesate in 1551, so if this identification is
correct, Margaret was born say 1552 or so.

The father of Philippa Bradbury was William Bradbury born about 1480
and aged 30 years or more in 1510 at the IPM of his uncle. So his
Fitzwilliam/Bendysshe bride was born say 1485 or so. She died on 13
august 1536. And her name was Elizabeth or Isabella. >>

This would then imply that the wife of William Bradbury is *not* the daughter
of John FitzWilliam, Lord of Emley and his wife Elizabeth Greene. This John
d 1417 (at Wakefield) and there is too much time to allow Phillipa to be born
AFT 1497 as she must be.

Does your source state who Elizabeth (Isabella) parents were?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

re: the destruction of the royal line of Gov Thomas Lloyd 16

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 okt 2005 01:21:01

Living Descendents of Blood Royal, Vol 2, "Wade", pg 790-792
Count d'Angerville; World Nobility, London. 1962
Gives in part this line
Governor Thomas Lloyd b 1640 d 1694
son of
Charles Lloyd of Dolobran Hall 1613-57 mar Elizabeth Stanley
son of
Katherine Lloyd m her cousin John Lloyd of Dolobran Hall
dau of
Humphrey Wynne aka Lloyd of Duffryn
son of
Margaret Kynaston m John Wynne b 1575 of Duffryn, Wales
dau of
Elizabeth Grey m Sir Roger Kynaston, Knt of Tankerville
dau of
Sir Henry Grey d 1449 Earl of Tankerfille m Antigone nat.dau. of Humphrey,
Duke of Gloucester, himself son of King Henry IV.

Let us examine the chronology

Antigone, Countess of Tankerville d 1447 [www.tudorplace.com]
Henry Grey, 2nd Earl of Tankerville died 13 Jan 1449/50
They married aft 3 Jan 1435 [www.genealogics.org]

Elizabeth Grey their daughter had to have been born between 1435 and 1447
mar 1465 [www.genealogics.org]
Sir Roger Kynaston, Knt who d 1517
Their daughter Margaret had to have been born between 1448 and 1495

Obvoiusly she could not have married a man born in 1575

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: the destruction of the royal line of Gov Thomas Lloyd 16

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 okt 2005 03:11:31

I have the Blood Royal series to be poorly researched and dated. I
would not use it as a source. http://www.tudorplace.com is alright for a
jumping off point, but again, it is not sourced and has errors. I
think combining these sources is probably not a good strategy.

I know many people decry Doug Richardson's Plantagenet Ancestry and I
can't remember into which group you fall. However, he does at least
try to date everyone properly to make sure that the sort of things you
are posting do not happen (i.e. stretched and impossible timelines).
So, the Lloyd descent is in PA at pp. 454-6 and much different than the
Blood Royal descent you've outlined. The timeline works well according
to Richardson and the sources he cites.

1. Antigone of Gloucester died after 1451 when she married secondly
Jean D'Amancier.
2. Elizabeth Grey b.c. 1440, d. aft 1501 m. Sir Roger Kynaston b.c.
1430, d. 1495/6
3. Humphrey Kynaston, eldest son b.c. 1468-70, d. bef Jan. 1535
4. Margaret Kynaston born say 1510 (from the second marriage of
Humphrey)
5. Humphrey Wynne, born say 1540
6. Katherine Wynne, born say 1580, married about 1612, John Lloyd
7. Charles Lloyd born 1613, d. 1657
8. Thomas Lloyd, born 1640/1.

Gjest

re: Margaret de Audley 1308/9 --> John Brienne, Butler of Fr

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 okt 2005 04:06:02

I have identified an extremely tight chronology that stretches from Margaret
de Audley who mar Ralph, 2nd Baron and 1st Earl Stafford (d 1372) all the way
back to John Brienne, Butler of France.

Margaret de Audley aged "18 years before Edward III" puts her b 1308/9
dau of Margaret de Clare who m 1307 Piers Gaveston and had Amy in 1312

Margaret de Clare's parents were Gilbert, 3rd Earl Gloucester who d 7 Dec
1295 and Joan of Acre. They were married abt 30 Apr 1290.

However their son Gilbert was born 10 May 1291, and their daughter Alianor
was born Oct 1292 thus precluding any other children in that time period.

Now their daughter Elizabeth was b 12 Sep 1295.

The only times in which Margaret de Clare could have been born in this tight
family is June 1293 to Dec 1294 or after Apr/Sep 1296 as a posthumous child.
I favor the former date range.

Margaret de Audley's birthrange forces her father Hugh, 8th Earl Gloucester
to have been born before 1293
However this Hugh's grandfather Edmund, 7th Baron Mortimer was born *in* 1261.
That is quite tight.

Hugh's mother Isolde has to be born aft 1277 and yet Hugh has to be born bef
1293.
The only solutions are that Isolde was born 1278/80 with Hugh b 1291/92

Accepting those dates for Isolde, we move to her mother Margaret de Fiennes
who thus has to be born bef 1268
However her parents were married *in* 1269.

Thus she is either a very quick child and we have something in here allowing
mothers under age 13 or fathers under age 17, OR Blache of Brienne is not her
mother.

Comments appreciated
Will Johnson

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Margaret de Audley 1308/9 --> John Brienne, Butler of Fr

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 26 okt 2005 06:31:35

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

Margaret de Audley's birthrange forces her father Hugh, 8th Earl Gloucester
to have been born before 1293

Evans places it about 1289.

However this Hugh's grandfather Edmund, 7th Baron Mortimer was born *in* 1261.
That is quite tight.

Indeed, for starters because it appears to be off by a decade. An ipm
makes him 40 and more in 1301 (iirc), presumably the origin of the 1261
date, but these decade ages can be well off (they basically mean "in
his 40s" or even less precisely "middle aged" - I have seen someone
described as 30 and more and 40 and more in ipms taken in the same
year). A different ipm makes him either 28 or 30 and more in 1282,
putting his birth in or before 1254 (fitting as second son to a couple
married 1246).

Hugh's mother Isolde has to be born aft 1277 and yet Hugh has to be born bef
1293.
The only solutions are that Isolde was born 1278/80 with Hugh b 1291/92

Accepting those dates for Isolde, we move to her mother Margaret de Fiennes
who thus has to be born bef 1268
However her parents were married *in* 1269.

Thus she is either a very quick child and we have something in here allowing
mothers under age 13 or fathers under age 17, OR Blache of Brienne is not her
mother.

This chronological anomaly was noticed long ago, Charles Evans
publishing a note on it in 1962 (see NEHGR 116: 13-17). The crux of the
matter is that Isolde, married first Walter de Balun in 1285, then Hugh
de Audeley between 1286/7 and 1293, and hence could not possibly be
daughter of Edmund by Margaret de Fiennes, who he only married about
1285 after the death of his brother caused him to be withdrawn from the
clergy. Thus, Isolde was either illegitimate daughter of the clergyman
Edmund (and the chronology is quite tight even for this) or else she was
his sister instead (no one has been able to relocate the document cited
by earlier luminaries to prove she was daughter of Edmund). A search of
the archives for "Isolde Edmund" turns up a bit of discussion on the
issue - note in particular a thread entitled "The identity of Iseult,
wife of Walter de Balun and Hugh de Audley".


taf

Chris Phillips

Re: Margaret de Audley 1308/9 --> John Brienne, Butler of Fr

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 26 okt 2005 07:15:57

Will Johnson wrote:
Margaret de Audley aged "18 years before Edward III" puts her b 1308/9
dau of Margaret de Clare who m 1307 Piers Gaveston and had Amy in 1312


On Amy, see extensive discussions in the past.

Whoever "Amy the daughter of Peter de Gavaston", she wasn't a legitimate
daughter of Piers and Margaret.

Chris Phillips

Douglas Richardson

Re: the destruction of the royal line of Gov Thomas Lloyd 16

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 26 okt 2005 16:02:10

Dear Will ~

The link you provided, http://www.tudorplace.com, is for a bed and breakfast
in Arkansas.

I believe the correct link is http://www.tudorplace.com.ar

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Brad Verity

Re: Margaret de Audley 1308/9 --> John Brienne, Butler of Fr

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 26 okt 2005 17:46:29

Dear Will,

Comments interspersed.

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

I have identified an extremely tight chronology that stretches from Margaret
de Audley who mar Ralph, 2nd Baron and 1st Earl Stafford (d 1372) all the way
back to John Brienne, Butler of France.

Margaret de Audley aged "18 years before Edward III" puts her b 1308/9

Where did you get "18 years before Edward III"? Hugh de Audley and
Margaret de Clare were married at Windsor Castle on 28 April 1317.
Their only child, daughter Margaret, was born in the range 1318-1322.
Her father was taken prisoner at the battle of Boroughbridge in Mar.
1322, and her mother confined to Sempringham Priory. They were
physically separated until 1326. Margaret could not have been born
afterwards, as she was abducted in Jan. 1336, and a mother within a
year. She was likely born about 1320.

dau of Margaret de Clare who m 1307 Piers Gaveston and had Amy in 1312

Margaret had Joan Gaveston in Jan. 1312. Amie de Gaveston was an
illegitimate daughter of Piers.

Margaret de Clare's parents were Gilbert, 3rd Earl Gloucester who d 7 Dec
1295 and Joan of Acre. They were married abt 30 Apr 1290.

Yes.

However their son Gilbert was born 10 May 1291, and their daughter Alianor
was born Oct 1292 thus precluding any other children in that time period.

Yes.

Now their daughter Elizabeth was b 12 Sep 1295.

Yes - we know that date per a pedigree, apparently.

The only times in which Margaret de Clare could have been born in this tight
family is June 1293 to Dec 1294 or after Apr/Sep 1296 as a posthumous child.
I favor the former date range.

She was not posthumous - she was older than Elizabeth. Actually, after
medieval women gave birth, they were confined for about a month (it
varied from 40 to 30 days) in order to "cleanse" themselves. They were
completely off-limits sexually during that period. So, the soonest
Margaret could have been conceived by her parents is December 1292,
making her birth range between Aug. 1293 and Dec. 1294.

Margaret de Audley's birthrange forces her father Hugh, 8th Earl Gloucester
to have been born before 1293

Not anymore - she was not born until at least 1318, so he could have
been born as late as 1300, going by that. But I think CP has him born
about 1289, so they used another method to arrive at that - perhaps
working back from when he was knighted or something.

However this Hugh's grandfather Edmund, 7th Baron Mortimer was born *in* 1261.
That is quite tight.

Hugh's mother Isolde has to be born aft 1277 and yet Hugh has to be born bef
1293.
The only solutions are that Isolde was born 1278/80 with Hugh b 1291/92

Accepting those dates for Isolde, we move to her mother Margaret de Fiennes
who thus has to be born bef 1268
However her parents were married *in* 1269.

Isolde was not the daughter of Margaret de Fiennes. I believe the most
recent suggestion is that she was the sister of Edmund de Mortimer.

Comments appreciated

Hope this helps.

Cheers, ------Brad

Chris Phillips

Re: Margaret de Audley 1308/9 --> John Brienne, Butler of Fr

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 26 okt 2005 22:23:18

Will Johnson wrote:
There was discussion on this group about whether it might not have been
Amy
who was the child born in 1312, and further discussion about why Amy need
not
have been illegitimate. I'm not sure that was resolved either way.

I don't think it can seriously be argued that Amy was a legitimate daughter
of Margaret . The evidence against that is very clear.

Chris Phillips

Chris Phillips

Re: Margaret de Audley 1308/9 --> John Brienne, Butler of Fr

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 26 okt 2005 22:33:01

Will Johnson wrote:
Living Descendents of Blood Royal, Vol 2, "Cocke", pg 224-230, Count
d'Angerville; World Nobility, London. 1962
states as follows
"Margaret de Audley, aged 18 years before Edward III, only dau and heiress
d
7 Sep 1349; m bef 6 Jul 1336 Sir Ralph de Stafford, KG, d 31 Aug 1372,
Earl of
Stafford, fought at Crecy, MP 1337-49"
citing as source CP XII, 174-175

perhaps someone with access to volume 12 can verify this age "18 years
before
Edward III" and maybe even provide the source underlying that.


I can't see anything resembling "aged 18 years before Edward III" in CP
xii/1 176, 177.

I think this has got garbled somehow, and the age 18 must have come from one
of the inquisitions taken after the death of her mother Margaret in 1342 (CP
v 719 note h says her age then was given as "18 (or 20)".

Chris Phillips

Chris Phillips

Re: Margaret de Audley 1308/9 --> John Brienne, Butler of Fr

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 26 okt 2005 22:38:14

Will Johnson wrote:
Living Descendents of Blood Royal, Vol 2, "Beard", pg 66-70, Count
d'Angerville; World Nobility, London. 1962
also, citing CP volume 1
states that Isolde, when she married Hugh d'Audley was the widow of Ralph
de
Greystoke.

Can someone comment on whether this is still a supported view?


Someone seems to have confused mother and daughter here. According to CP vi
190 Ralph de Greystoke (d. 1323) married Alice, daughter of Hugh Audley and
Iseude.

Chris Phillips

Gjest

Re: Margaret de Audley 1308/9 --> John Brienne, Butler of Fr

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 okt 2005 22:46:02

In a message dated 10/25/05 10:38:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

<< The crux of the
matter is that Isolde, married first Walter de Balun in 1285, then Hugh
de Audeley between 1286/7 and 1293, and hence could not possibly be
daughter of Edmund by Margaret de Fiennes, who he only married about
1285 >>

Living Descendents of Blood Royal, Vol 2, "Beard", pg 66-70, Count
d'Angerville; World Nobility, London. 1962
also, citing CP volume 1
states that Isolde, when she married Hugh d'Audley was the widow of Ralph de
Greystoke.

Can someone comment on whether this is still a supported view?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Margaret de Audley 1308/9 --> John Brienne, Butler of Fr

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 okt 2005 22:53:01

In a message dated 10/26/05 12:51:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
batruth@hotmail.com writes:

<< > Margaret de Audley aged "18 years before Edward III" puts her b 1308/9

Where did you get "18 years before Edward III"? >>

Living Descendents of Blood Royal, Vol 2, "Cocke", pg 224-230, Count
d'Angerville; World Nobility, London. 1962
states as follows
"Margaret de Audley, aged 18 years before Edward III, only dau and heiress d
7 Sep 1349; m bef 6 Jul 1336 Sir Ralph de Stafford, KG, d 31 Aug 1372, Earl of
Stafford, fought at Crecy, MP 1337-49"
citing as source CP XII, 174-175

perhaps someone with access to volume 12 can verify this age "18 years before
Edward III" and maybe even provide the source underlying that.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Margaret de Audley 1308/9 --> John Brienne, Butler of Fr

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 okt 2005 22:56:02

In a message dated 10/26/05 12:51:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
batruth@hotmail.com writes:

<< Margaret had Joan Gaveston in Jan. 1312. Amie de Gaveston was an
illegitimate daughter of Piers. >>

There was discussion on this group about whether it might not have been Amy
who was the child born in 1312, and further discussion about why Amy need not
have been illegitimate. I'm not sure that was resolved either way.
Will

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»