Blount-Ayala
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Tompkins, M.L.
RE: Who was the Sheriff of Nottingham?
<<Robin Hood was not simply one man but the generic term for someone
outside the law. Practically ever county the length and breadth of
England had their own Robin Hood with the timespan of more than two
centuries.
Cheers Guy>>
Yes, I realise he's not real, but aren't we just trying to determine who
was the real Sheriff of Nottingham in the period when the most famous
and enduring version of his story is set? (I hope so anyway - surely no
one thinks it all really happened).
Incidentally, there's an interesting article by Andrew Ayton called
'Robin Hood and Military Service in the Fourteenth Century' in
Nottingham Medieval Studies vol. 36 (1992) which speculates on the
appearance of an archer called Robyn Hod in the payroll of the Isle of
Wight garrison in 1338, and other similar documentary appearances of the
famous name. It's on-line at
http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/ayton3.pdf
Matt Tompkins
outside the law. Practically ever county the length and breadth of
England had their own Robin Hood with the timespan of more than two
centuries.
Cheers Guy>>
Yes, I realise he's not real, but aren't we just trying to determine who
was the real Sheriff of Nottingham in the period when the most famous
and enduring version of his story is set? (I hope so anyway - surely no
one thinks it all really happened).
Incidentally, there's an interesting article by Andrew Ayton called
'Robin Hood and Military Service in the Fourteenth Century' in
Nottingham Medieval Studies vol. 36 (1992) which speculates on the
appearance of an archer called Robyn Hod in the payroll of the Isle of
Wight garrison in 1338, and other similar documentary appearances of the
famous name. It's on-line at
http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/ayton3.pdf
Matt Tompkins
-
Douglas Richardson
English Counties
Complete Peerage uses "co. Warwick," but GENUKI uses "Warwickshire."
Neither uses "co. Warwicks."
I've been advised by British members of the newsgroup that using "co."
before the name of a county as done by C.P. is considered outdated,
with the possible exception of Derby. The GENUKI list reflects that
trend.
The GENUKI list of English counties can be found on the following
website:
http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/#Counties
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:
Neither uses "co. Warwicks."
I've been advised by British members of the newsgroup that using "co."
before the name of a county as done by C.P. is considered outdated,
with the possible exception of Derby. The GENUKI list reflects that
trend.
The GENUKI list of English counties can be found on the following
website:
http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/#Counties
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 17/01/2006 05:27:40 GMT Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
Third, in one place, you refer to "co. Warwicks." This should either
be "co. Warwick" or "Warwickshire." For a list of the preferred
county designations, e.g., Warwickshire, see the GENUKI list at the
following website:
Warwicks. is a perfectly good and recognised abbreviation, in fact most of
the shire counties can be abbreviated with an "s", although Hampshire becomes
Hants (as with Northampton), Oxfordshire is Oxon.
Adrian
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Most recent common ancestors
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
Well, from Somerled back we basically KNOW that this was likely true,
since the paper trail makes all male ancestor of Somerled Celts.
But from Somerled's descendant Good John 1st Lord of the Isles,
there are many men (8) with excellent paper trails to today,
from three of his sons. This is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that we know Good John's haplotype, and that if indeed some
postman got into teh bedroom of a MacDonald clan chief, he was
of a closely related line. The same cannot yet be said
so strongly of Somerled himself, though because the cooperation
between Scottish DNA researchers is getting really excellent, we may
some day be able to go back that far with paper trails.
All that said, DNA ALONE cannot "prove" somebody is a Good John
descendant with 100% or even 98% probability, just yet. HOWEVER,
I feel it OK to say that the Clan Donald project is in the
process of more than doubling the number of markers each R1a participant
has. This is getting into the mathematical realm where, with just a
few more people with paper trails, say another 4 or 8, we will be able
to say with very high probability that a certain living man
descends from a certain exact ancestor, just from DNA. It is possible
to do this, it just takes lots of data. And when we do say such things,
we will be able to give some sort of reasonable mathematical probabilities.
Come back in three or so years.
Doug McDonald
I'm not quite clear what you are asserting here. Presumably some of
Somerled's male line ancestor's (whoever they might be) also are of
this R1a1 haplogroup? If so, then you might be descended from one of
them and their descendants and not from Somerled?
It might be that your male line descent of this haplogroup is from
another male who happened to have coupled with one of your ancestresses
(no disrespect of course but the evidence of occasional extra-marital
couplings in most families is becoming stronger than many genealogists
would like to believe).
Well, from Somerled back we basically KNOW that this was likely true,
since the paper trail makes all male ancestor of Somerled Celts.
But from Somerled's descendant Good John 1st Lord of the Isles,
there are many men (8) with excellent paper trails to today,
from three of his sons. This is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that we know Good John's haplotype, and that if indeed some
postman got into teh bedroom of a MacDonald clan chief, he was
of a closely related line. The same cannot yet be said
so strongly of Somerled himself, though because the cooperation
between Scottish DNA researchers is getting really excellent, we may
some day be able to go back that far with paper trails.
All that said, DNA ALONE cannot "prove" somebody is a Good John
descendant with 100% or even 98% probability, just yet. HOWEVER,
I feel it OK to say that the Clan Donald project is in the
process of more than doubling the number of markers each R1a participant
has. This is getting into the mathematical realm where, with just a
few more people with paper trails, say another 4 or 8, we will be able
to say with very high probability that a certain living man
descends from a certain exact ancestor, just from DNA. It is possible
to do this, it just takes lots of data. And when we do say such things,
we will be able to give some sort of reasonable mathematical probabilities.
Come back in three or so years.
Doug McDonald
-
CE Wood
Re: English Counties
For abbreviations, which is correct, "Shrops" or "Salop"?
CE Wood
Douglas Richardson wrote:
CE Wood
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Complete Peerage uses "co. Warwick," but GENUKI uses "Warwickshire."
Neither uses "co. Warwicks."
I've been advised by British members of the newsgroup that using "co."
before the name of a county as done by C.P. is considered outdated,
with the possible exception of Derby. The GENUKI list reflects that
trend.
The GENUKI list of English counties can be found on the following
website:
http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/#Counties
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 17/01/2006 05:27:40 GMT Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
Third, in one place, you refer to "co. Warwicks." This should either
be "co. Warwick" or "Warwickshire." For a list of the preferred
county designations, e.g., Warwickshire, see the GENUKI list at the
following website:
Warwicks. is a perfectly good and recognised abbreviation, in fact most of
the shire counties can be abbreviated with an "s", although Hampshire becomes
Hants (as with Northampton), Oxfordshire is Oxon.
Adrian
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Most recent common ancestors
Doug McDonald wrote:
Getting back to genealogy, the "paper trail" regarding Somerled's
ancestry is of highly questionable reliability, and I don't know that
such confidence is warranted.
taf
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
I'm not quite clear what you are asserting here. Presumably some of
Somerled's male line ancestor's (whoever they might be) also are of
this R1a1 haplogroup? If so, then you might be descended from one of
them and their descendants and not from Somerled?
It might be that your male line descent of this haplogroup is from
another male who happened to have coupled with one of your ancestresses
(no disrespect of course but the evidence of occasional extra-marital
couplings in most families is becoming stronger than many genealogists
would like to believe).
Well, from Somerled back we basically KNOW that this was likely true,
since the paper trail makes all male ancestor of Somerled Celts.
Getting back to genealogy, the "paper trail" regarding Somerled's
ancestry is of highly questionable reliability, and I don't know that
such confidence is warranted.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Re:Thomas Stanton's ancestry
bistritz schrieb:
Presumably this should refer to Katherine's *father* Walter Washington
(a) In his previous statement, Mr Bernard Stanton averred that there
were two Thomases, and they were both sons of Thomas & Katherine. He
has now, apparently, retracted this - but not far enough.
(b) What is the evidence for any Thomas Stanton having a birthdate of
1621? Is he alleging that "Thomas born 1621" is the emigrant?
How do either of these sources assist him, in Latin or otherwise? As
detailed in the earlier posts on this topic, they simply show that
Thomas (husband of Katherine Washington) was suceeded at Wolverton by a
son Thomas (c1617-1664), who was in turn succeeded by his son Thomas.
Neither suggests that there were two Thomases, brothers, and neither
indicates a Thomas Stanton with a birthdate of 1621.
Except that it does not; the text has apparently been reproduced twice
in the course of the earlier posts; it states that Thomas Stanton of
Wolverton died in 1664 aged 47 - a birthdate of 1616-17 is thus
inferred. In any case, earlier Mr Bernard Stanton was reported as
mis-conferring a birthdate of 1621 for the Wolverton man on the basis
of the same monument: this is what you posted as being Mr Stanton's
statement of April 1999:
"The reason for our opinion lies on the Stanton memorials found on the
wall of Wolverton's Church, St. Mary the Virgin. Here Thomas Stanton,
Lord of the Manor, was born
in 1621 and died in 1664. His birth was two years after the
visitation."
It appears that this has also been retracted, as Mr Stanton has
admitted that Thomas of Wolverton was born [circa] 1616. Is he now
stating that Thomas the emigrant was born in 1621? How would the 1619
Visitation shed light on him? I think Mr Stanton has made some
movement in the right direction, but still has a bit further to go.
MAR
Michael Andrews-Reading said:
bistritz schrieb:
However, Bernard Stanton the President of The Thomas Stanton
Society (1999) wrote in April 1999 that "the root of the problem lies
with two Stanton brothers having the same name. The reason for our opinion
lies on the Stanton memorials found on the wall of Wolverton's Church,
St. Mary the Virgin. Here Thomas Stanton, Lord of the Manor, was born
in 1621 and died in 1664. His birth was two years after the visitation.
But his MI states he died in 1664 _aged 47_, i.e. born in 1617, not
1621. This 1621 birthdate appears to be a fabrication.
"Oxford records as quoted by Terry, tell of Thomas Stanton Sr.
born in 1595, enrolling in Jan. 1610 at age 15. He was the father of
Thomas Stanton (Staunton) Jr., 1st son of Thomas of Wolverton, enrolled
July 1634 at age 17."
Indeed, thus excluding the emigrant.
"We now have two Thomas Stantons born of Thomas and Katherine
(Washington) Stanton.
Except we don't have any such thing: we have one: born c1617; recorded
in the Visitation of 1619; admitted to Oxford, 1634 aged 17; died 1664
aged 47."
I have asked Mr. Bernard Stanton, President of the Thomas Stanton
Society, to respond. He says "The author of 'Thomas Stanton of
Connecticut" (1890) made a trip to England in 1915 and found that
Katherine Washington Stanton had 3 children: Thomas, Walter, and Alicia
(Alice). Walter named after Katherine's husband Walter Washington.
Presumably this should refer to Katherine's *father* Walter Washington
The Thomas born 1621 was a relative but it is impossible to name his father
with sureity.
(a) In his previous statement, Mr Bernard Stanton averred that there
were two Thomases, and they were both sons of Thomas & Katherine. He
has now, apparently, retracted this - but not far enough.
(b) What is the evidence for any Thomas Stanton having a birthdate of
1621? Is he alleging that "Thomas born 1621" is the emigrant?
However his great grandfather named two of his sons
Thomas while both were alive". For affirmation of "our" Thomas'
birthdate Mr. Stanton suggests reading the "Visitation of Warwickshire"
in Latin, and for reinforcement of his arguments suggests reading
"Alumni Oxonienses" (or Oxford Alumni) 1500-1714 page 1412.
How do either of these sources assist him, in Latin or otherwise? As
detailed in the earlier posts on this topic, they simply show that
Thomas (husband of Katherine Washington) was suceeded at Wolverton by a
son Thomas (c1617-1664), who was in turn succeeded by his son Thomas.
Neither suggests that there were two Thomases, brothers, and neither
indicates a Thomas Stanton with a birthdate of 1621.
He also indicates Thomas Stanton's tombstone says born 1616.
Except that it does not; the text has apparently been reproduced twice
in the course of the earlier posts; it states that Thomas Stanton of
Wolverton died in 1664 aged 47 - a birthdate of 1616-17 is thus
inferred. In any case, earlier Mr Bernard Stanton was reported as
mis-conferring a birthdate of 1621 for the Wolverton man on the basis
of the same monument: this is what you posted as being Mr Stanton's
statement of April 1999:
"The reason for our opinion lies on the Stanton memorials found on the
wall of Wolverton's Church, St. Mary the Virgin. Here Thomas Stanton,
Lord of the Manor, was born
in 1621 and died in 1664. His birth was two years after the
visitation."
It appears that this has also been retracted, as Mr Stanton has
admitted that Thomas of Wolverton was born [circa] 1616. Is he now
stating that Thomas the emigrant was born in 1621? How would the 1619
Visitation shed light on him? I think Mr Stanton has made some
movement in the right direction, but still has a bit further to go.
MAR
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Most recent common ancestors
The list / newsgroup gateway is definitely broken this week, so there
are some interesting discussions taking place on the mail list that
don't make it to sgm, and vice versa.
At 8:24 PM +0100 1/17/06, MLS wrote:
Don Marco and Will Johnson & others have been discussing the concept of
'nobility' and the likelihood that modern common people descend from
medieval aristocrats and monarchs. The conversation has failed to take
into consideration the difference between the modern Continental
European definition of 'nobility' as designating a hereditary class of
individuals, with a particular legal identity and privileges (with
respect to taxation, justice, etc.)--a class regulated, more or less
successfully, by the state (e.g. through the monarch conferring 'patents
of nobility' or recognizing qualifying descent from some 'ancient'
nobles). Where this has been a tradition, it is generally a tradition
dating only from the end of the middle ages forward to the present. It
has nothing to do with the pragmatic medieval origins of a 'noble' class
(the Latin word 'nobilis' was originally an adjective designating
someone prominent, virtuous or famous).
Furthermore, this modern reification of nobility as a legal class has
only been true in SOME parts of Europe--e.g. France--but never in
England. There, there is no legal class of 'nobility'. 'Gentry' have
been more or less recognized in quasi-legal ways at different times
(perhaps Elizabethan sumptuary laws come closest), but the gentry were
never constitutionally reified in the same way as the French 'noblesse'.
In England, the right to use of a coat of arms and to defend it legally
is essentially a property right, rather than a legal status vested in
the individual. The College of Arms (which I think is meant by the
'British Heraldry Office') does not and never has provide 'official
recognition' of 'status of nobility'. It merely grants, and to a lesser
degree monitors the use of, coats of arms as a form of personal
property. In England the *only* group of subjects with a particular
collective legal identity that sets them apart from regular people (in
regards to taxation, justice, etc.--the traditional things that made
'nobles' different in, say, France), is the current holders of a peerage
title--not their wives, children, heirs, widowed mothers, etc. There is
NO SUCH THING as a 'noble class' in England, such as has existed in
France, Italy and elsewhere.
But the original discussion was about the ubiquity of contemporary
plebeian descendants of medieval aristocrats. This phenomenon of social
diffusion of blood (up and down the social ladder) is a statistical
certainty, common to all European states--whether they have had a modern
legal class of 'noblesse' or not. It is understandable that people who
base their views on a simplistic understanding of a single state's
modern concept of a legally-defined, closed nobility, do not recognize
the enormous social mobility that one can see when looking at
populations over a span of hundreds of years.
Again, on the concept of diffusion of 'royal' ancestry (or any specific
contribution to the gene pool), I would recommend a passage in the
introduction to Gary Roberts' _Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants_, as
well as the papers by Rohde and Chang and the on-line discussion by Mark
Humphrys that started this whole thread. On the post-medieval French
institution of 'noblesse' as a closed hereditary class with a privileged
legal identity, I recommend both Alain Texier's _Qu-est-ce que la
noblesse?_ (Paris, 1988), and Philippe du Puy de Clinchamps, _La
noblesse_ (series: Que sais-je?, Paris, 1959), even though both books
repeat certain inaccurate and anachronistic factoids about the medieval
origins of nobility as a class in France. The latter author also wrote
Que sais-je? volumes on 'Le royalisme' (1971) and 'Le snobisme' (!)
(1969).
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm
are some interesting discussions taking place on the mail list that
don't make it to sgm, and vice versa.
At 8:24 PM +0100 1/17/06, MLS wrote:
But, my dear friend, it is absolutely not true what you wrote about
people that loose there STATUS of nobility.
Can ONLY LOOSE TITLES. CANNOT LOOSE THE STATUS OF NOBLE OR ARISTOCRAT!
If someone can DEMONSTRATE (but can REALLY prove, by OFFICIAL
DOCUMENTS, not by books or other way...) is DIRECT descendancy from a
titled or , even better, from a Royals HE IS NOBLE. He is PART of the
ARISTOCRACY!
Maybe he lost the TITLE of nobility - because is not first born, or
because is not male or for some other reasons - but he will NEVER LOOSE
HIS STATUS OF NOBLE.
Maybe not everyone know that (usually, but not in every case) female
cannot transmit titles. Pay attention to this assert, please: female
cannot transmit TITLES, but TRANSMIT THE STATUS OF NOBILITY!
And I'm sure that 99 per cent of the members of this forum that can
trace there genealogies to some noble, are descendants from some noble
female or (better) from some royal female.
Maybe you are not aware that, if someone can DEMONSTRATE (once again
ONLY whit legal documents) his direct line of descent - for example -
from some ancient member of the British Royal family, in theory, can go
to London and ask the British Heraldry Office to get an OFFICIAL
RECOGNITION of his status of noble and even as member of the royal
family!.
Discussion is welcome
Marco
(the 13th duke of San Donato, the marquis don Marco II Lupis Macedonio
Palermo, prince of Santa Margherita)
Don Marco and Will Johnson & others have been discussing the concept of
'nobility' and the likelihood that modern common people descend from
medieval aristocrats and monarchs. The conversation has failed to take
into consideration the difference between the modern Continental
European definition of 'nobility' as designating a hereditary class of
individuals, with a particular legal identity and privileges (with
respect to taxation, justice, etc.)--a class regulated, more or less
successfully, by the state (e.g. through the monarch conferring 'patents
of nobility' or recognizing qualifying descent from some 'ancient'
nobles). Where this has been a tradition, it is generally a tradition
dating only from the end of the middle ages forward to the present. It
has nothing to do with the pragmatic medieval origins of a 'noble' class
(the Latin word 'nobilis' was originally an adjective designating
someone prominent, virtuous or famous).
Furthermore, this modern reification of nobility as a legal class has
only been true in SOME parts of Europe--e.g. France--but never in
England. There, there is no legal class of 'nobility'. 'Gentry' have
been more or less recognized in quasi-legal ways at different times
(perhaps Elizabethan sumptuary laws come closest), but the gentry were
never constitutionally reified in the same way as the French 'noblesse'.
In England, the right to use of a coat of arms and to defend it legally
is essentially a property right, rather than a legal status vested in
the individual. The College of Arms (which I think is meant by the
'British Heraldry Office') does not and never has provide 'official
recognition' of 'status of nobility'. It merely grants, and to a lesser
degree monitors the use of, coats of arms as a form of personal
property. In England the *only* group of subjects with a particular
collective legal identity that sets them apart from regular people (in
regards to taxation, justice, etc.--the traditional things that made
'nobles' different in, say, France), is the current holders of a peerage
title--not their wives, children, heirs, widowed mothers, etc. There is
NO SUCH THING as a 'noble class' in England, such as has existed in
France, Italy and elsewhere.
But the original discussion was about the ubiquity of contemporary
plebeian descendants of medieval aristocrats. This phenomenon of social
diffusion of blood (up and down the social ladder) is a statistical
certainty, common to all European states--whether they have had a modern
legal class of 'noblesse' or not. It is understandable that people who
base their views on a simplistic understanding of a single state's
modern concept of a legally-defined, closed nobility, do not recognize
the enormous social mobility that one can see when looking at
populations over a span of hundreds of years.
Again, on the concept of diffusion of 'royal' ancestry (or any specific
contribution to the gene pool), I would recommend a passage in the
introduction to Gary Roberts' _Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants_, as
well as the papers by Rohde and Chang and the on-line discussion by Mark
Humphrys that started this whole thread. On the post-medieval French
institution of 'noblesse' as a closed hereditary class with a privileged
legal identity, I recommend both Alain Texier's _Qu-est-ce que la
noblesse?_ (Paris, 1988), and Philippe du Puy de Clinchamps, _La
noblesse_ (series: Que sais-je?, Paris, 1959), even though both books
repeat certain inaccurate and anachronistic factoids about the medieval
origins of nobility as a class in France. The latter author also wrote
Que sais-je? volumes on 'Le royalisme' (1971) and 'Le snobisme' (!)
(1969).
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: English Counties
In message of 17 Jan, "CE Wood" <wood_ce@msn.com> wrote:
I suspect "correct" is not the right word here. Language is a moving
target (inless you are French where, it seems, the Academie Français [do
I have this right?] wishes French to stay in some glorious Garden of
Eden of the past). Lanugage customs definitely change. In the 18th
century it was common for the English to spell the word as 'color'; by
the twentieth century this had totally changed to 'colour'. My
suspicion is that 'Salop' is getting out of date and that 'Shrops' may
be more acceptable: find a modern Shropshire site and see what the
webmaster did.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
For abbreviations, which is correct, "Shrops" or "Salop"?
I suspect "correct" is not the right word here. Language is a moving
target (inless you are French where, it seems, the Academie Français [do
I have this right?] wishes French to stay in some glorious Garden of
Eden of the past). Lanugage customs definitely change. In the 18th
century it was common for the English to spell the word as 'color'; by
the twentieth century this had totally changed to 'colour'. My
suspicion is that 'Salop' is getting out of date and that 'Shrops' may
be more acceptable: find a modern Shropshire site and see what the
webmaster did.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Chris Phillips
Re: English Counties
Tim Powys-Lybbe:
The website of the county council has a section on this:
http://www.shropshire.gov.uk/archives.n ... 1500380C1B
At any rate the official name of the county is now Shropshire, though it was
"Salop" until 1974.
Chris Phillips
My
suspicion is that 'Salop' is getting out of date and that 'Shrops' may
be more acceptable: find a modern Shropshire site and see what the
webmaster did.
The website of the county council has a section on this:
http://www.shropshire.gov.uk/archives.n ... 1500380C1B
At any rate the official name of the county is now Shropshire, though it was
"Salop" until 1974.
Chris Phillips
-
Gjest
Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?
In a message dated 1/17/2006 9:47:20 AM Pacific Standard Time,
bobturcott@msn.com writes:
However it does not change the the fact that all humans carry
dna from all there ancestors, we just can pin point it yet for the inside
branches.
I've never disagreed with the idea that we carry DNA from *some* of our
ancestors. But as has been pointed out on this list, for ancestors 30
generations ago, it's likely that you have exactly *zero* DNA from at least one of
them. I.E. the other crowed out at least one *runt*. Of course with the caveat
that no ancestor, (as far as we know), can crowd out the Y-chromosone or the
mtDNA.
But it's just possible that at least one of your 27th grandmother's or
grandfather's is contributing nothing to your genetic makeup.
On another note, I'm not really clear on whether scientists have *proven*
that you get exactly 50% of your nuclear DNA from your mother and 50% from your
father. I know that it's the belief, but I'm not sure if it's proven.
Will Johnson
bobturcott@msn.com writes:
However it does not change the the fact that all humans carry
dna from all there ancestors, we just can pin point it yet for the inside
branches.
I've never disagreed with the idea that we carry DNA from *some* of our
ancestors. But as has been pointed out on this list, for ancestors 30
generations ago, it's likely that you have exactly *zero* DNA from at least one of
them. I.E. the other crowed out at least one *runt*. Of course with the caveat
that no ancestor, (as far as we know), can crowd out the Y-chromosone or the
mtDNA.
But it's just possible that at least one of your 27th grandmother's or
grandfather's is contributing nothing to your genetic makeup.
On another note, I'm not really clear on whether scientists have *proven*
that you get exactly 50% of your nuclear DNA from your mother and 50% from your
father. I know that it's the belief, but I'm not sure if it's proven.
Will Johnson
-
MLS
RE: Most recent common ancestors
This I also a reply to the last message posted by my friend Will
Johnson.
I'm sorry but, Whit all my respect, , I'm afraid that some members of
this list, even if reputed scholars and/or genealogists, have some
confuse idea about the (close, but different) concept of "noblesse" or
"nobility" or "aristocracy", as you prefer
Must be distinguish, first of all, from the "STATUS' of noble or
aristocrat and the conditions to be considered member of the nobility or
aristocracy.
The Status of noble is closely related to the positive possession of
some title (earl, baron, duke etc.) usually given to an individual from
a sovereign, monarch or ruler. It is not necessary that this sovereign
is a King or Queen. It also can be Duke or Grand-duke (i.e. the presents
sovereign Grand dukes of Luxemburg) , Prince (the present sovereign
Princes of Monaco), or even baron etc. The most important is that this
Sovereign must be ... A Sovereign! It MUST rule or have ruled a State.
(of course, everyone can give titles ... If someone other is so stupid
to believe that those title can have any sort of validity or can just be
treated seriously...).
But ONLY ruling sovereign can give REAL titles. This is why FORMER
MONARCH cannot give titles IF THEY NEVER RULED ANY STATE.
This is a concept quite difficult to explain (also because of my bad
English...)I tried whit an example:
The last king of Italy, Umberto II di Savoia, was forced to go into
exile after the second world War. Must pay attention that he NEVER
ABDICATED to the throne. For this reason he maintained his status of
'FONS HONORUM". During his exile in Portugal, king Umberto II of Italy
gave many titles, and those titles are formally perfect and valid.
On the contrary, his heir, the prince Vitorio Emanule IV di Savoia,
living in Geneva, even if be considered the present pretending of the
Italian throne, for the reason that he's NEVER reigned, CANNOT give any
title.
OK, I hope everything is clear until this point. This is to try to
understand the concept of TITLED nobility.
But, my dear friend, it is absolutely not true what you wrote about
people that loose there STATUS of nobility.
Can ONLY LOOSE TITLES. CANNOT LOOSE THE STATUS OF NOBLE OR ARISTOCRAT!
If someone can DEMONSTRATE (but can REALLY prove, by OFFICIAL
DOCUMENTS, not by books or other way...) is DIRECT descendancy from a
titled or , even better, from a Royals HE IS NOBLE. He is PART of the
ARISTOCRACY!
Maybe he lost the TITLE of nobility - because is not first born, or
because is not male or for some other reasons - but he will NEVER LOOSE
HIS STATUS OF NOBLE.
Maybe not everyone know that (usually, but not in every case) female
cannot transmit titles. Pay attention to this assert, please: female
cannot transmit TITLES, but TRANSMIT THE STATUS OF NOBILITY!
And I'm sure that 99 per cent of the members of this forum that can
trace there genealogies to some noble, are descendants from some noble
female or (better) from some royal female.
Maybe you are not aware that, if someone can DEMONSTRATE (once again
ONLY whit legal documents) his direct line of descent - for example -
from some ancient member of the British Royal family, in theory, can go
to London and ask the British Heraldry Office to get an OFFICIAL
RECOGNITION of his status of noble and even as member of the royal
family!.
Discussion is welcome
Marco
(the 13th duke of San Donato, the marquis don Marco II Lupis Macedonio
Palermo, prince of Santa Margherita)
-----Original Message-----
From: norenxaq [mailto:norenxaq@san.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 6:57 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
MLS wrote:
this is too broad of a definition. an aristocrat should also maintain
his title, or perhaps be within one or two generations of an ancestor
that had a title. after which, he loses his status
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor:
Proteggi al tua casa:con FULL CASA di RAS bastano anche solo 50 Cent. al
* giorno. Fai subito il tuo preventivo online!
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=4026&d=17-1
Johnson.
I'm sorry but, Whit all my respect, , I'm afraid that some members of
this list, even if reputed scholars and/or genealogists, have some
confuse idea about the (close, but different) concept of "noblesse" or
"nobility" or "aristocracy", as you prefer
Must be distinguish, first of all, from the "STATUS' of noble or
aristocrat and the conditions to be considered member of the nobility or
aristocracy.
The Status of noble is closely related to the positive possession of
some title (earl, baron, duke etc.) usually given to an individual from
a sovereign, monarch or ruler. It is not necessary that this sovereign
is a King or Queen. It also can be Duke or Grand-duke (i.e. the presents
sovereign Grand dukes of Luxemburg) , Prince (the present sovereign
Princes of Monaco), or even baron etc. The most important is that this
Sovereign must be ... A Sovereign! It MUST rule or have ruled a State.
(of course, everyone can give titles ... If someone other is so stupid
to believe that those title can have any sort of validity or can just be
treated seriously...).
But ONLY ruling sovereign can give REAL titles. This is why FORMER
MONARCH cannot give titles IF THEY NEVER RULED ANY STATE.
This is a concept quite difficult to explain (also because of my bad
English...)I tried whit an example:
The last king of Italy, Umberto II di Savoia, was forced to go into
exile after the second world War. Must pay attention that he NEVER
ABDICATED to the throne. For this reason he maintained his status of
'FONS HONORUM". During his exile in Portugal, king Umberto II of Italy
gave many titles, and those titles are formally perfect and valid.
On the contrary, his heir, the prince Vitorio Emanule IV di Savoia,
living in Geneva, even if be considered the present pretending of the
Italian throne, for the reason that he's NEVER reigned, CANNOT give any
title.
OK, I hope everything is clear until this point. This is to try to
understand the concept of TITLED nobility.
But, my dear friend, it is absolutely not true what you wrote about
people that loose there STATUS of nobility.
Can ONLY LOOSE TITLES. CANNOT LOOSE THE STATUS OF NOBLE OR ARISTOCRAT!
If someone can DEMONSTRATE (but can REALLY prove, by OFFICIAL
DOCUMENTS, not by books or other way...) is DIRECT descendancy from a
titled or , even better, from a Royals HE IS NOBLE. He is PART of the
ARISTOCRACY!
Maybe he lost the TITLE of nobility - because is not first born, or
because is not male or for some other reasons - but he will NEVER LOOSE
HIS STATUS OF NOBLE.
Maybe not everyone know that (usually, but not in every case) female
cannot transmit titles. Pay attention to this assert, please: female
cannot transmit TITLES, but TRANSMIT THE STATUS OF NOBILITY!
And I'm sure that 99 per cent of the members of this forum that can
trace there genealogies to some noble, are descendants from some noble
female or (better) from some royal female.
Maybe you are not aware that, if someone can DEMONSTRATE (once again
ONLY whit legal documents) his direct line of descent - for example -
from some ancient member of the British Royal family, in theory, can go
to London and ask the British Heraldry Office to get an OFFICIAL
RECOGNITION of his status of noble and even as member of the royal
family!.
Discussion is welcome
Marco
(the 13th duke of San Donato, the marquis don Marco II Lupis Macedonio
Palermo, prince of Santa Margherita)
-----Original Message-----
From: norenxaq [mailto:norenxaq@san.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 6:57 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
MLS wrote:
Dear Will,
I have no idea if you can be considered "aristocracy". Maybe a single
line of ascent (if proved by documents... It's evident) could not be
considered "enough". But aristocracy is a group where members can
trace there genealogy back to titled or royal individual. I don't
think this definition can be disputed.
Marco
this is too broad of a definition. an aristocrat should also maintain
his title, or perhaps be within one or two generations of an ancestor
that had a title. after which, he loses his status
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor:
Proteggi al tua casa:con FULL CASA di RAS bastano anche solo 50 Cent. al
* giorno. Fai subito il tuo preventivo online!
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=4026&d=17-1
-
MLS
RE: Most recent common ancestors
Dear Will,
I have no idea if you can be considered "aristocracy". Maybe a single
line of ascent (if proved by documents... It's evident) could not be
considered "enough". But aristocracy is a group where members can trace
there genealogy back to titled or royal individual. I don't think this
definition can be disputed.
Marco
-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 5:26 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
In a message dated 1/17/2006 8:24:55 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:
Of course, this "clan" exist, and it's named "nobility" or, if you
prefere: "aristocracy"
Ridiculous. So I am aristocracy because I have an ascent to Edward I ?
You're spinning wildly off into outer space now. Will Johnson
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor:
Sei in cerca dell’amore? Non perdere tempo, iscriviti gratis a Meetic! Potrai chattare con migliaia di single in linea.
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=4052&d=17-1
I have no idea if you can be considered "aristocracy". Maybe a single
line of ascent (if proved by documents... It's evident) could not be
considered "enough". But aristocracy is a group where members can trace
there genealogy back to titled or royal individual. I don't think this
definition can be disputed.
Marco
-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 5:26 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
In a message dated 1/17/2006 8:24:55 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:
Of course, this "clan" exist, and it's named "nobility" or, if you
prefere: "aristocracy"
Ridiculous. So I am aristocracy because I have an ascent to Edward I ?
You're spinning wildly off into outer space now. Will Johnson
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor:
Sei in cerca dell’amore? Non perdere tempo, iscriviti gratis a Meetic! Potrai chattare con migliaia di single in linea.
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=4052&d=17-1
-
norenxaq
Re: Most recent common ancestors
MLS wrote:
this is too broad of a definition. an aristocrat should also maintain his title, or perhaps be within one or two
generations of an ancestor that had a title. after which, he loses his status
Dear Will,
I have no idea if you can be considered "aristocracy". Maybe a single
line of ascent (if proved by documents... It's evident) could not be
considered "enough". But aristocracy is a group where members can trace
there genealogy back to titled or royal individual. I don't think this
definition can be disputed.
Marco
this is too broad of a definition. an aristocrat should also maintain his title, or perhaps be within one or two
generations of an ancestor that had a title. after which, he loses his status
-
Terry
Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
So were the Saxons just Vikings with an accent?
Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
http://www.mairsphotography.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
http://www.mairsphotography.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
In a message dated 1/16/2006 9:42:38 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Of couse, the Irish genealogies show all of the rulers of all of the
dynasties to be descended from the same male line . . . .
taf
Maybe they were.
dr
Yes and we know all the Saxons are descendents of Odin and Thor.
So that settles it.
Will Johnson
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Most recent common ancestors
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
What the DNA says with great confidence is that the "questionable"
paper trail is wrong. R1a is not Celtic. Somerled's (ancestral)
questionable paper trail says he was Celtic. The DNA thus says his paper
trail is very likely false. There is a ringer somewhere in that trail!
Doug McDonald
It might be that your male line descent of this haplogroup is from
another male who happened to have coupled with one of your ancestresses
(no disrespect of course but the evidence of occasional extra-marital
couplings in most families is becoming stronger than many genealogists
would like to believe).
Well, from Somerled back we basically KNOW that this was likely true,
since the paper trail makes all male ancestor of Somerled Celts.
Getting back to genealogy, the "paper trail" regarding Somerled's
ancestry is of highly questionable reliability, and I don't know that
such confidence is warranted.
What the DNA says with great confidence is that the "questionable"
paper trail is wrong. R1a is not Celtic. Somerled's (ancestral)
questionable paper trail says he was Celtic. The DNA thus says his paper
trail is very likely false. There is a ringer somewhere in that trail!
Doug McDonald
-
Gjest
Re: Robert de Boutun, heir of Thomas de Blun[de]ville, Bisho
In a message dated 1/17/06 12:12:52 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<< The following lawsuit appears to involve the estate of Thomas de
Blunville (or Blundeville), Bishop of Norwich (died 1236), who is a
known kinsman of Sir Hubert de Burgh (died 1243), Earl of Kent. The
land involved includes various acreage and a mill in Glemham, Suffolk. >>
In this context it is interesting to recount that, prior to becoming Bishop
of Ely in 1225, Geoffrey de Burgh, brother to Hubert above-mentioned was
himself "Archdeacon of Nowich" from 1200 to 1225 (which dates put a useful
constraint on his possible birth range). While his other brother Thomas de Burgh was
Castellan of Norwich 1215-6.
It appears this family is very closely tied to Norwich.
Source : "From Domesday Book to Magna Carta", A.L.Poole [Austin Lane Poole],
Oxford University Press, 1958
Will Johnson
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<< The following lawsuit appears to involve the estate of Thomas de
Blunville (or Blundeville), Bishop of Norwich (died 1236), who is a
known kinsman of Sir Hubert de Burgh (died 1243), Earl of Kent. The
land involved includes various acreage and a mill in Glemham, Suffolk. >>
In this context it is interesting to recount that, prior to becoming Bishop
of Ely in 1225, Geoffrey de Burgh, brother to Hubert above-mentioned was
himself "Archdeacon of Nowich" from 1200 to 1225 (which dates put a useful
constraint on his possible birth range). While his other brother Thomas de Burgh was
Castellan of Norwich 1215-6.
It appears this family is very closely tied to Norwich.
Source : "From Domesday Book to Magna Carta", A.L.Poole [Austin Lane Poole],
Oxford University Press, 1958
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Most recent common ancestors
In a message dated 1/17/06 11:25:09 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:
<< from some ancient member of the British Royal family, in theory, can go
to London and ask the British Heraldry Office to get an OFFICIAL
RECOGNITION of his status of noble and even as member of the royal
family!. >>
And is this theory the same as actuality ?
I have never heard of the possiblity that a person can get some sort of
official "aristocrat" recognition in this manner from the Heraldry office.
Will Johnson
cannalonga@email.it writes:
<< from some ancient member of the British Royal family, in theory, can go
to London and ask the British Heraldry Office to get an OFFICIAL
RECOGNITION of his status of noble and even as member of the royal
family!. >>
And is this theory the same as actuality ?
I have never heard of the possiblity that a person can get some sort of
official "aristocrat" recognition in this manner from the Heraldry office.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Turn again Dick Whittington
In your various posts you stated that when William Whittington inherited
Pauntley, in right of his wife, in 1311, he was aged 24 or more.
And then in another post you stated that his son, also William Whittington,
was an MP in 1327.
How do we know this MP is not the elder William instead?
The reason I ask is that this set of facts is giving me a very exact
birthrange for the younger William.
Will Johnson
Pauntley, in right of his wife, in 1311, he was aged 24 or more.
And then in another post you stated that his son, also William Whittington,
was an MP in 1327.
How do we know this MP is not the elder William instead?
The reason I ask is that this set of facts is giving me a very exact
birthrange for the younger William.
Will Johnson
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Most recent common ancestors
Doug McDonald wrote:
< What the DNA says with great confidence is that the "questionable"
< paper trail is wrong. R1a is not Celtic. Somerled's (ancestral)
< questionable paper trail says he was Celtic. The DNA thus says his
paper
< trail is very likely false. There is a ringer somewhere in that
trail!
<
< Doug McDonald
Question is: Who is the ringer? Whoever he is, he must be a "dead
ringer" by now (pardon the pun).
Douglas Richardson
< What the DNA says with great confidence is that the "questionable"
< paper trail is wrong. R1a is not Celtic. Somerled's (ancestral)
< questionable paper trail says he was Celtic. The DNA thus says his
paper
< trail is very likely false. There is a ringer somewhere in that
trail!
<
< Doug McDonald
Question is: Who is the ringer? Whoever he is, he must be a "dead
ringer" by now (pardon the pun).
Douglas Richardson
-
MLS
RE: Most recent common ancestors
Dear Nat,
I agreed 99.99 % whit your fine analysis about the nobility in Europe.
I'm aware that, in England, The College of Arms basically recognise the
use of coat of Arms. Maybe I mis-cited this example. But I'll be pleased
to know if, in your opinion, you agreed whit me that (documented!)
descent from noble, or better royal, people give the right to the
STATUS of member of the ARISTOCRACY.
And also, about the concept of diffusion of 'royal' ancestry. I still
can't understand why "almost everyone in Europe" must be descendent from
the Prophet Muhammad and not from some miner or simple workers...? (of
course, NOT CONSIDERING the possible natural sons etc.).
Why not admit the more logical concept that direct descendants of Royals
people can only be the many documented royals family plus some noble
family that can trace his descent from them PLUS Some (but not so much)
OTHERS commoners descendants originated by some inter-class marriages
between royal females and commoners males?
To be honest, I tend to disbelieve all those lines of descents that
connect SO MANY Americans whit the MOST ANCIENT and ILLUSTRIOUS European
royalty... Just to state an example...
In my view look like some kind of "fabricated" things to hide the lack
of a very ancient roots that characterize the "new world"...
Maybe the fact that, between all those American descendents of king and
queen can we also fins President Bush can be a good reason......(?!)
Like to know your opinion and every other group-members opinions, about
those concept
Marco
PS I read Alain Texier's book .... Not so bad!
-----Original Message-----
From: Nathaniel Taylor [mailto:ntaylor@post.harvard.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 9:35 PM
To: mlupis@netvigator.com
Cc: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors
At 8:24 PM +0100 1/17/06, MLS wrote:
Don Marco and Will Johnson & others have been discussing the concept
of 'nobility' and the likelihood that modern common people descend
from medieval aristocrats and monarchs. The conversation has failed
to take into consideration the difference between the modern
Continental European definition of 'nobility' as designating a
hereditary class of individuals, with a particular legal identity and
privileges (with respect to taxation, justice, etc.)--a class
regulated, more or less successfully, by the state (e.g. through the
monarch conferring 'patents of nobility' or recognizing qualifying
descent from some 'ancient' nobles). Where this has been a
tradition, it is generally a tradition dating only from the end of
the middle ages forward to the present. It has nothing to do with
the pragmatic medieval origins of a 'noble' class (the Latin word
'nobilis' was originally an adjective designating someone prominent,
virtuous or famous).
Furthermore, this modern reification of nobility as a legal class has
only been true in SOME parts of Europe--e.g. France--but never in
England. There, there is no legal class of 'nobility'. 'Gentry' have
been more or less recognized in quasi-legal ways at different times
(perhaps Elizabethan sumptuary laws come closest), but the gentry
were never constitutionally reified in the same way as the French
'noblesse'. In England, the right to use of a coat of arms and to
defend it legally is essentially a property right, rather than a
legal status vested in the individual. The College of Arms (which I
think is meant by the 'British Heraldry Office') does not and never
has provide 'official recognition' of 'status of nobility'. It
merely grants, and to a lesser degree monitors the use of, coats of
arms as a form of personal property. In England the *only* group of
subjects with a particular collective legal identity that sets them
apart from regular people (in regards to taxation, justice, etc.--the
traditional things that made 'nobles' different in, say, France), is
the current holders of a peerage title--not their wives, children,
heirs, widowed mothers, etc. There is NO SUCH THING as a 'noble
class' in England, such as has existed in France, Italy and elsewhere.
But the original discussion was about the ubiquity of contemporary
plebeian descendants of medieval aristocrats. This phenomenon of
social diffusion of blood (up and down the social ladder) is a
statistical certainty, common to all European states--whether they
have had a modern legal class of 'noblesse' or not. It is
understandable that people who base their views on a simplistic
understanding of a single state's modern concept of a
legally-defined, closed nobility, do not recognize the enormous
social mobility that one can see when looking at populations over a
span of hundreds of years.
Again, on the concept of diffusion of 'royal' ancestry (or any
specific contribution to the gene pool), I would recommend a passage
in the introduction to Gary Roberts' _Royal Descents of 500
Immigrants_, as well as the papers by Rohde and Chang and the on-line
discussion by Mark Humphrys that started this whole thread. On the
post-medieval French institution of 'noblesse' as a closed hereditary
class with a privileged legal identity, I recommend both Alain
Texier's _Qu-est-ce que la noblesse_ (Paris, 1988), and Philippe du
Puy de Clinchamps, _La Noblesse_ (series: Que sais-je, Paris, 1959),
even though both books repeat certain inaccurate and anachronistic
factoids about the medieval origins of nobility as a class in France.
The latter author also wrote Que sais-je volumes on 'le royalisme'
(1971) and 'le snobisme' (!) (1969).
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor:
Hai trovato casa? Qui puoi trovare chi soddisfa le tue esigenze per il mutuo!
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=4195&d=17-1
I agreed 99.99 % whit your fine analysis about the nobility in Europe.
I'm aware that, in England, The College of Arms basically recognise the
use of coat of Arms. Maybe I mis-cited this example. But I'll be pleased
to know if, in your opinion, you agreed whit me that (documented!)
descent from noble, or better royal, people give the right to the
STATUS of member of the ARISTOCRACY.
And also, about the concept of diffusion of 'royal' ancestry. I still
can't understand why "almost everyone in Europe" must be descendent from
the Prophet Muhammad and not from some miner or simple workers...? (of
course, NOT CONSIDERING the possible natural sons etc.).
Why not admit the more logical concept that direct descendants of Royals
people can only be the many documented royals family plus some noble
family that can trace his descent from them PLUS Some (but not so much)
OTHERS commoners descendants originated by some inter-class marriages
between royal females and commoners males?
To be honest, I tend to disbelieve all those lines of descents that
connect SO MANY Americans whit the MOST ANCIENT and ILLUSTRIOUS European
royalty... Just to state an example...
In my view look like some kind of "fabricated" things to hide the lack
of a very ancient roots that characterize the "new world"...
Maybe the fact that, between all those American descendents of king and
queen can we also fins President Bush can be a good reason......(?!)
Like to know your opinion and every other group-members opinions, about
those concept
Marco
PS I read Alain Texier's book .... Not so bad!
-----Original Message-----
From: Nathaniel Taylor [mailto:ntaylor@post.harvard.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 9:35 PM
To: mlupis@netvigator.com
Cc: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors
At 8:24 PM +0100 1/17/06, MLS wrote:
But, my dear friend, it is absolutely not true what you wrote about
people that loose there STATUS of nobility. Can ONLY LOOSE TITLES.
CANNOT LOOSE THE STATUS OF NOBLE OR ARISTOCRAT! If someone can
DEMONSTRATE (but can REALLY prove, by OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS, not by books
or other way...) is DIRECT descendancy from a titled or , even
better, from a Royals HE IS NOBLE. He is PART of the ARISTOCRACY!
Maybe he lost the TITLE of nobility - because is not first born, or
because is not male or for some other reasons - but he will NEVER LOOSE
HIS STATUS OF NOBLE.
Maybe not everyone know that (usually, but not in every case) female
cannot transmit titles. Pay attention to this assert, please: female
cannot transmit TITLES, but TRANSMIT THE STATUS OF NOBILITY!
And I'm sure that 99 per cent of the members of this forum that can
trace there genealogies to some noble, are descendants from some noble
female or (better) from some royal female.
Maybe you are not aware that, if someone can DEMONSTRATE (once again
ONLY whit legal documents) his direct line of descent - for example -
from some ancient member of the British Royal family, in theory, can
go
to London and ask the British Heraldry Office to get an OFFICIAL
RECOGNITION of his status of noble and even as member of the royal
family!.
Discussion is welcome
Marco
(the 13th duke of San Donato, the marquis don Marco II Lupis Macedonio
Palermo, prince of Santa Margherita)
Don Marco and Will Johnson & others have been discussing the concept
of 'nobility' and the likelihood that modern common people descend
from medieval aristocrats and monarchs. The conversation has failed
to take into consideration the difference between the modern
Continental European definition of 'nobility' as designating a
hereditary class of individuals, with a particular legal identity and
privileges (with respect to taxation, justice, etc.)--a class
regulated, more or less successfully, by the state (e.g. through the
monarch conferring 'patents of nobility' or recognizing qualifying
descent from some 'ancient' nobles). Where this has been a
tradition, it is generally a tradition dating only from the end of
the middle ages forward to the present. It has nothing to do with
the pragmatic medieval origins of a 'noble' class (the Latin word
'nobilis' was originally an adjective designating someone prominent,
virtuous or famous).
Furthermore, this modern reification of nobility as a legal class has
only been true in SOME parts of Europe--e.g. France--but never in
England. There, there is no legal class of 'nobility'. 'Gentry' have
been more or less recognized in quasi-legal ways at different times
(perhaps Elizabethan sumptuary laws come closest), but the gentry
were never constitutionally reified in the same way as the French
'noblesse'. In England, the right to use of a coat of arms and to
defend it legally is essentially a property right, rather than a
legal status vested in the individual. The College of Arms (which I
think is meant by the 'British Heraldry Office') does not and never
has provide 'official recognition' of 'status of nobility'. It
merely grants, and to a lesser degree monitors the use of, coats of
arms as a form of personal property. In England the *only* group of
subjects with a particular collective legal identity that sets them
apart from regular people (in regards to taxation, justice, etc.--the
traditional things that made 'nobles' different in, say, France), is
the current holders of a peerage title--not their wives, children,
heirs, widowed mothers, etc. There is NO SUCH THING as a 'noble
class' in England, such as has existed in France, Italy and elsewhere.
But the original discussion was about the ubiquity of contemporary
plebeian descendants of medieval aristocrats. This phenomenon of
social diffusion of blood (up and down the social ladder) is a
statistical certainty, common to all European states--whether they
have had a modern legal class of 'noblesse' or not. It is
understandable that people who base their views on a simplistic
understanding of a single state's modern concept of a
legally-defined, closed nobility, do not recognize the enormous
social mobility that one can see when looking at populations over a
span of hundreds of years.
Again, on the concept of diffusion of 'royal' ancestry (or any
specific contribution to the gene pool), I would recommend a passage
in the introduction to Gary Roberts' _Royal Descents of 500
Immigrants_, as well as the papers by Rohde and Chang and the on-line
discussion by Mark Humphrys that started this whole thread. On the
post-medieval French institution of 'noblesse' as a closed hereditary
class with a privileged legal identity, I recommend both Alain
Texier's _Qu-est-ce que la noblesse_ (Paris, 1988), and Philippe du
Puy de Clinchamps, _La Noblesse_ (series: Que sais-je, Paris, 1959),
even though both books repeat certain inaccurate and anachronistic
factoids about the medieval origins of nobility as a class in France.
The latter author also wrote Que sais-je volumes on 'le royalisme'
(1971) and 'le snobisme' (!) (1969).
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor:
Hai trovato casa? Qui puoi trovare chi soddisfa le tue esigenze per il mutuo!
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=4195&d=17-1
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
RE: Most recent common ancestors
In message of 17 Jan, cannalonga@email.it ("MLS") wrote:
Well I'm going to dispute it. It is rubbish. You must include that
the current aristos are still part of the governing class of the
country. In other words:
Aristocrats are members of the governing body of a country who have
inherited their position.
In England there are virtually none of these, bearing in mind that the
Sovereign no longer governs and all government ministers are either
elected or appointed by those who are elected.
On the other hand Monaco definitely has oe or two aristocrats left.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
I have no idea if you can be considered "aristocracy". Maybe a single
line of ascent (if proved by documents... It's evident) could not be
considered "enough". But aristocracy is a group where members can trace
there genealogy back to titled or royal individual. I don't think this
definition can be disputed.
Well I'm going to dispute it. It is rubbish. You must include that
the current aristos are still part of the governing class of the
country. In other words:
Aristocrats are members of the governing body of a country who have
inherited their position.
In England there are virtually none of these, bearing in mind that the
Sovereign no longer governs and all government ministers are either
elected or appointed by those who are elected.
On the other hand Monaco definitely has oe or two aristocrats left.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Most recent common ancestors
In message of 17 Jan, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
There is a truth here. Around 1800 the English government decided that
English natives could no longer use titles given them by foreign
countries.
Subsequently a few then quite a few found that they could get special
leave from the Sovereign to use specific foreign titles. This was
formally done through a Royal Licence, which is a document signed and
sealed by the Sovereign and, in such cases, prepared by officers of the
College of Arms.
Nevertheless this is no recognition of aristocracy as that is not a
formal state in England. Nobility, of course, is a formal state and
belongs precisely to the peers of the realm and noone else, not even
their wives or children.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
In a message dated 1/17/06 11:25:09 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:
from some ancient member of the British Royal family, in theory, can
go to London and ask the British Heraldry Office to get an OFFICIAL
RECOGNITION of his status of noble and even as member of the royal
family!.
And is this theory the same as actuality ?
I have never heard of the possiblity that a person can get some sort
of official "aristocrat" recognition in this manner from the
Heraldry office.
There is a truth here. Around 1800 the English government decided that
English natives could no longer use titles given them by foreign
countries.
Subsequently a few then quite a few found that they could get special
leave from the Sovereign to use specific foreign titles. This was
formally done through a Royal Licence, which is a document signed and
sealed by the Sovereign and, in such cases, prepared by officers of the
College of Arms.
Nevertheless this is no recognition of aristocracy as that is not a
formal state in England. Nobility, of course, is a formal state and
belongs precisely to the peers of the realm and noone else, not even
their wives or children.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
12-stringer
Re: English Counties
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in
message
news:1137519442.517582.265720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
County Durham; don't know anything about County Derby,
but it's County Durham.
message
news:1137519442.517582.265720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Complete Peerage uses "co. Warwick," but GENUKI uses
"Warwickshire."
Neither uses "co. Warwicks."
I've been advised by British members of the newsgroup
that using "co."
before the name of a county as done by C.P. is
considered outdated,
with the possible exception of Derby. The GENUKI
list reflects that
trend.
County Durham; don't know anything about County Derby,
but it's County Durham.
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: English Counties
12-stringer wrote:
Dear 12-stringer ~
Yes, yes, you're correct. It's Durham, not Derby.
DR
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in
message
news:1137519442.517582.265720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Complete Peerage uses "co. Warwick," but GENUKI uses
"Warwickshire."
Neither uses "co. Warwicks."
I've been advised by British members of the newsgroup
that using "co."
before the name of a county as done by C.P. is
considered outdated,
with the possible exception of Derby. The GENUKI
list reflects that
trend.
County Durham; don't know anything about County Derby,
but it's County Durham.
Dear 12-stringer ~
Yes, yes, you're correct. It's Durham, not Derby.
DR
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: English Counties (Revised Post)
Complete Peerage uses "co. Warwick," but GENUKI uses "Warwickshire."
Neither uses "co. Warwicks."
I've been advised by British members of the newsgroup that using "co."
before the name of a county as done by C.P. is considered outdated,
with the possible exception of Durham. The GENUKI list reflects that
trend.
The GENUKI list of English counties can be found on the following
website:
http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/#Counties
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
ADRIANCHANN...@aol.com wrote:
Neither uses "co. Warwicks."
I've been advised by British members of the newsgroup that using "co."
before the name of a county as done by C.P. is considered outdated,
with the possible exception of Durham. The GENUKI list reflects that
trend.
The GENUKI list of English counties can be found on the following
website:
http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/#Counties
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
ADRIANCHANN...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 17/01/2006 05:27:40 GMT Standard Time,
royalances...@msn.com writes:
Third, in one place, you refer to "co. Warwicks." This should either
be "co. Warwick" or "Warwickshire." For a list of the preferred
county designations, e.g., Warwickshire, see the GENUKI list at the
following website:
Warwicks. is a perfectly good and recognised abbreviation, in fact most of
the shire counties can be abbreviated with an "s", although Hampshire becomes
Hants (as with Northampton), Oxfordshire is Oxon.
Adrian
-
Gjest
Re: Most recent common ancestors
In a message dated 1/17/06 1:28:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:
<< In my view look like some kind of "fabricated" things to hide the lack
of a very ancient roots that characterize the "new world"...
Maybe the fact that, between all those American descendents of king and
queen can we also fins President Bush can be a good reason >>
But my dear Sir, we have actual letters writen from people in America back to
Europe to "my dear sister" and "my favorite cousin" or "dear father", etc.
Or do you think these primary documents are modern fabrications?
In addition to which, names and relations of Americans appear within British
(English) records of the colonial time period.
Will Johnson
cannalonga@email.it writes:
<< In my view look like some kind of "fabricated" things to hide the lack
of a very ancient roots that characterize the "new world"...
Maybe the fact that, between all those American descendents of king and
queen can we also fins President Bush can be a good reason >>
But my dear Sir, we have actual letters writen from people in America back to
Europe to "my dear sister" and "my favorite cousin" or "dear father", etc.
Or do you think these primary documents are modern fabrications?
In addition to which, names and relations of Americans appear within British
(English) records of the colonial time period.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Robert de Boutun, heir of Thomas de Blun[de]ville, Bisho
In a message dated 1/17/06 12:33:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,
WJhonson@aol.com writes:
<< In this context it is interesting to recount that, prior to becoming
Bishop
of Ely in 1225, Geoffrey de Burgh, brother to Hubert above-mentioned was
himself "Archdeacon of Nowich" from 1200 to 1225 (which dates put a useful
constraint on his possible birth range). While his other brother Thomas de
Burgh was
Castellan of Norwich 1215-6. >>
Just to add a trifling thing to this discussion.
In "The Conquering Family: A History of the Plantagenets", Costain, Thomas;
Doubleday & Co, 1962
he repeats the legend that: (page 234): "[After the excommunication of John,
King of England] John had been in a smoldering state ever since the laying of
the interdict. His own excommunication drove him into an explosive fury.
When Geoffrey, the Archdeacon of Norwich, withdrew from the Court of Exchequer
with the explanation that it was forbidden to serve a ruler on whom the ban of
the Church had been laid, the King struck out viciously. Geoffrey, a man of
advanced years, was thrown into prison and a cope of lead was soldered on his
shoulders. This form of torture, which slowly broke the bones by the weight of
the cope, proved so effective that the archdeacon died within a few days."
However in "From Domesday Book to Magna Carta", Austin Lane Poole (op cit) on
page 427 he states: "His [John's] treatment of the wife and son of William
Braose who were starved to death in a dungeon at Windsor castle, through perhaps
the best known, is only one of the many examples of his wanton cruelty (fn1)"
And then *in* footnote 1 he says: "This feature, however, has been
particularly exaggerated by Wendover and later writers. Little credence, for instance,
need be given to the story of the exchequer clerk, Geoffrey of Norwich, who,
according to Wendover (iii,229), was thrust into prison, where, starved and
weighed down by a leaden cloak, he died. Taxater, in his continuation of the
chronicle of Florence of Worcester (ed. Thorpe, ii, 170), improved on the story:
the clerk is summoned to Nottingham where "loaded with, or more truly clothed
in iron, he died". The fact that Wendover calls Geoffrey 'archdeacon' of
Norwich illustrates the unreliability of the whole story. Geoffrey de Burgo was
archdeacon of Norwich from 1200 to 1225 when he became Bishop of Ely. He died
comfortably in 1228. See I Landon, Proc. of the Suffolk [illegible] of
Archaeology, xx (1948), 33-4. S Painter suggests on good grounds that the victim
was a certain Geoffrey of Norwich who was a justice of the Jews (Speculum [?]
xxviii (1953), 808-13)"
For what it's worth.
Will Johnson
WJhonson@aol.com writes:
<< In this context it is interesting to recount that, prior to becoming
Bishop
of Ely in 1225, Geoffrey de Burgh, brother to Hubert above-mentioned was
himself "Archdeacon of Nowich" from 1200 to 1225 (which dates put a useful
constraint on his possible birth range). While his other brother Thomas de
Burgh was
Castellan of Norwich 1215-6. >>
Just to add a trifling thing to this discussion.
In "The Conquering Family: A History of the Plantagenets", Costain, Thomas;
Doubleday & Co, 1962
he repeats the legend that: (page 234): "[After the excommunication of John,
King of England] John had been in a smoldering state ever since the laying of
the interdict. His own excommunication drove him into an explosive fury.
When Geoffrey, the Archdeacon of Norwich, withdrew from the Court of Exchequer
with the explanation that it was forbidden to serve a ruler on whom the ban of
the Church had been laid, the King struck out viciously. Geoffrey, a man of
advanced years, was thrown into prison and a cope of lead was soldered on his
shoulders. This form of torture, which slowly broke the bones by the weight of
the cope, proved so effective that the archdeacon died within a few days."
However in "From Domesday Book to Magna Carta", Austin Lane Poole (op cit) on
page 427 he states: "His [John's] treatment of the wife and son of William
Braose who were starved to death in a dungeon at Windsor castle, through perhaps
the best known, is only one of the many examples of his wanton cruelty (fn1)"
And then *in* footnote 1 he says: "This feature, however, has been
particularly exaggerated by Wendover and later writers. Little credence, for instance,
need be given to the story of the exchequer clerk, Geoffrey of Norwich, who,
according to Wendover (iii,229), was thrust into prison, where, starved and
weighed down by a leaden cloak, he died. Taxater, in his continuation of the
chronicle of Florence of Worcester (ed. Thorpe, ii, 170), improved on the story:
the clerk is summoned to Nottingham where "loaded with, or more truly clothed
in iron, he died". The fact that Wendover calls Geoffrey 'archdeacon' of
Norwich illustrates the unreliability of the whole story. Geoffrey de Burgo was
archdeacon of Norwich from 1200 to 1225 when he became Bishop of Ely. He died
comfortably in 1228. See I Landon, Proc. of the Suffolk [illegible] of
Archaeology, xx (1948), 33-4. S Painter suggests on good grounds that the victim
was a certain Geoffrey of Norwich who was a justice of the Jews (Speculum [?]
xxviii (1953), 808-13)"
For what it's worth.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Most recent common ancestors
In a message dated 1/17/06 1:58:26 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:
<< True, some Siberians are Q3,
but they are clearly back-migraters. >>
Whenever someone uses the word "clearly" without any source, it always makes
me suspicious.
Will Johnson
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:
<< True, some Siberians are Q3,
but they are clearly back-migraters. >>
Whenever someone uses the word "clearly" without any source, it always makes
me suspicious.
Will Johnson
-
Guy Etchells
Re: English Counties
Either the Chapman code Sal. or Shrops. or Salop all equally valid.
Cheers
Guy
CE Wood wrote:
--
Wakefield, West Yorkshire, England.
http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.etchells The site that gives you facts
not promises!
http://anguline.co.uk/ An organisation dedicated to bring rare books on CD, at an affordable price, to the local history researcher and to the family history researcher.
Cheers
Guy
CE Wood wrote:
For abbreviations, which is correct, "Shrops" or "Salop"?
CE Wood
--
Wakefield, West Yorkshire, England.
http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.etchells The site that gives you facts
not promises!
http://anguline.co.uk/ An organisation dedicated to bring rare books on CD, at an affordable price, to the local history researcher and to the family history researcher.
-
Gjest
Re: Most recent common ancestors
In a message dated 1/17/06 2:08:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:
<< This is getting into the mathematical realm where, with just a
few more people with paper trails, say another 4 or 8, we will be able
to say with very high probability that a certain living man
descends from a certain exact ancestor, just from DNA >>
You can *never say this.
Any particular man shares (most of the time) his Y-chromosone with his
brothers, paternal uncles, etc. So the most you could say, is that a person
descends from a particular person OR his paternal-kin-group.
This has been stated over and over. I think by now everyone is tired of it
Will Johnson
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:
<< This is getting into the mathematical realm where, with just a
few more people with paper trails, say another 4 or 8, we will be able
to say with very high probability that a certain living man
descends from a certain exact ancestor, just from DNA >>
You can *never say this.
Any particular man shares (most of the time) his Y-chromosone with his
brothers, paternal uncles, etc. So the most you could say, is that a person
descends from a particular person OR his paternal-kin-group.
This has been stated over and over. I think by now everyone is tired of it
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?
In a message dated 1/17/06 2:15:54 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:
<< There is a 50% chance the WAS one >>
I do not believe that there is 50% chance that *each* generation had a
Y-chromosone mutation. If you think there is, provide a scientific journal article
which states that.
Thanks
Will Johnson
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:
<< There is a 50% chance the WAS one >>
I do not believe that there is 50% chance that *each* generation had a
Y-chromosone mutation. If you think there is, provide a scientific journal article
which states that.
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Master of Requests
In a message dated 1/17/06 1:58:36 PM Pacific Standard Time,
geraldrm@earthlink.net writes:
<< Does anyone know of a source of information about the post of "Master
of Requests"? >>
It appears that someone has stated an article at wikipedia. Of course it's
just a tidbit, not really the whole salami.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Requests
geraldrm@earthlink.net writes:
<< Does anyone know of a source of information about the post of "Master
of Requests"? >>
It appears that someone has stated an article at wikipedia. Of course it's
just a tidbit, not really the whole salami.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Requests
-
Gjest
Re: Babthorpe of Osgodby/Sothill of Stockerston
In a message dated 1/17/06 1:58:46 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< As for Christina Sothill's mother, chronology seems very tight for her
to have been the daughter of Elizabeth Plumpton (c.1461-1506), as
Christina was a mother herself in 1489/90. >>
What is your source for Elizabeth's birthyear?
Thanks
Will Johnson
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< As for Christina Sothill's mother, chronology seems very tight for her
to have been the daughter of Elizabeth Plumpton (c.1461-1506), as
Christina was a mother herself in 1489/90. >>
What is your source for Elizabeth's birthyear?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Babthorpe of Osgodby/Sothill of Stockerston
In a message dated 1/17/06 1:58:46 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< We
don't know how old John was at the time, but if he was old enough to
have fathered a child previous, >>
He certainly has more *room* than his wife, to be older.
His father, Henry Sothill was born by 1411 since *his* father Gerard died in
1410
So John could be born as early as 1428
Whereas his wife Elizabeth Plumpton's father William was born in 1436 and
died in 1461
Greatly limiting her own possible birthrange.
Will Johnson
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< We
don't know how old John was at the time, but if he was old enough to
have fathered a child previous, >>
He certainly has more *room* than his wife, to be older.
His father, Henry Sothill was born by 1411 since *his* father Gerard died in
1410
So John could be born as early as 1428
Whereas his wife Elizabeth Plumpton's father William was born in 1436 and
died in 1461
Greatly limiting her own possible birthrange.
Will Johnson
-
Merilyn Pedrick
RE: Most recent common ancestors
In that case just about everyone with European ancestors should be
considered aristocrats. According to Leo's home-page everyone with European
ancestors is everyone else's at least 30th cousin.
My own ancestors don't become aristocrats until the 1300s.
Merilyn Pedrick
Aldgate, South Australia
-------Original Message-------
From: MLS
Date: 01/18/06 04:04:06
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors
Dear Will,
I have no idea if you can be considered "aristocracy". Maybe a single
line of ascent (if proved by documents... It's evident) could not be
considered "enough". But aristocracy is a group where members can trace
there genealogy back to titled or royal individual. I don't think this
definition can be disputed.
Marco
-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com">mailto:WJhonson@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
In a message dated 1/17/2006 8:24:55 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:
Of course, this "clan" exist, and it's named "nobility" or, if you
prefere: "aristocracy"
Ridiculous. So I am aristocracy because I have an ascent to Edward I ?
You're spinning wildly off into outer space now. Will Johnson
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor:
Sei in cerca dell’amore? Non perdere tempo, iscriviti gratis a Meetic!
Potrai chattare con migliaia di single in linea.
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=4052&d=17-1
considered aristocrats. According to Leo's home-page everyone with European
ancestors is everyone else's at least 30th cousin.
My own ancestors don't become aristocrats until the 1300s.
Merilyn Pedrick
Aldgate, South Australia
-------Original Message-------
From: MLS
Date: 01/18/06 04:04:06
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors
Dear Will,
I have no idea if you can be considered "aristocracy". Maybe a single
line of ascent (if proved by documents... It's evident) could not be
considered "enough". But aristocracy is a group where members can trace
there genealogy back to titled or royal individual. I don't think this
definition can be disputed.
Marco
-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com">mailto:WJhonson@aol.com
WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 5:26 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
In a message dated 1/17/2006 8:24:55 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:
Of course, this "clan" exist, and it's named "nobility" or, if you
prefere: "aristocracy"
Ridiculous. So I am aristocracy because I have an ascent to Edward I ?
You're spinning wildly off into outer space now. Will Johnson
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor:
Sei in cerca dell’amore? Non perdere tempo, iscriviti gratis a Meetic!
Potrai chattare con migliaia di single in linea.
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=4052&d=17-1
-
MLS
RE: Most recent common ancestors
Dear Merilyn,
not exactly EVERYONE in Europe was an aristocrat.... !
-----Original Message-----
From: Merilyn Pedrick [mailto:pedricks@ozemail.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 11:45 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com; mlupis@netvigator.com
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors
In that case just about everyone with European ancestors should be
considered aristocrats. According to Leo's home-page everyone with
European ancestors is everyone else's at least 30th cousin.
My own ancestors don't become aristocrats until the 1300s.
Merilyn Pedrick
Aldgate, South Australia
-------Original Message-------
From: MLS <mailto:cannalonga@email.it>
Date: 01/18/06 04:04:06
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors
Dear Will,
I have no idea if you can be considered "aristocracy". Maybe a single
line of ascent (if proved by documents... It's evident) could not be
considered "enough". But aristocracy is a group where members can trace
there genealogy back to titled or royal individual. I don't think this
definition can be disputed.
Marco
-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com <mailto:WJhonson@aol.com?>
[mailto:WJhonson@aol.com">mailto:WJhonson@aol.com">WJhonson@aol.com
[mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 5:26 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
In a message dated 1/17/2006 8:24:55 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:
Of course, this "clan" exist, and it's named "nobility" or, if you
prefere: "aristocracy"
Ridiculous. So I am aristocracy because I have an ascent to Edward I ?
You're spinning wildly off into outer space now. Will Johnson
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te:
http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor:
Sei in cerca dell'amore? Non perdere tempo, iscriviti gratis a Meetic!
Potrai chattare con migliaia di single in linea.
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=4052
<http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=4052&d=17-1> &d=17-1
<http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=96767> Add FUN to your email -
CLICK HERE!
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor:
Problemi di Liquidità? Con Logos Finanziaria 30.000 € in 24 ore a dipendenti e lavoratori autonomi con rimborsi fino a 120 mesi, clicca qui
*
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2911&d=17-1
not exactly EVERYONE in Europe was an aristocrat.... !
-----Original Message-----
From: Merilyn Pedrick [mailto:pedricks@ozemail.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 11:45 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com; mlupis@netvigator.com
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors
In that case just about everyone with European ancestors should be
considered aristocrats. According to Leo's home-page everyone with
European ancestors is everyone else's at least 30th cousin.
My own ancestors don't become aristocrats until the 1300s.
Merilyn Pedrick
Aldgate, South Australia
-------Original Message-------
From: MLS <mailto:cannalonga@email.it>
Date: 01/18/06 04:04:06
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors
Dear Will,
I have no idea if you can be considered "aristocracy". Maybe a single
line of ascent (if proved by documents... It's evident) could not be
considered "enough". But aristocracy is a group where members can trace
there genealogy back to titled or royal individual. I don't think this
definition can be disputed.
Marco
-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com <mailto:WJhonson@aol.com?>
[mailto:WJhonson@aol.com">mailto:WJhonson@aol.com">WJhonson@aol.com
[mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 5:26 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
In a message dated 1/17/2006 8:24:55 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:
Of course, this "clan" exist, and it's named "nobility" or, if you
prefere: "aristocracy"
Ridiculous. So I am aristocracy because I have an ascent to Edward I ?
You're spinning wildly off into outer space now. Will Johnson
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te:
http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor:
Sei in cerca dell'amore? Non perdere tempo, iscriviti gratis a Meetic!
Potrai chattare con migliaia di single in linea.
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=4052
<http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=4052&d=17-1> &d=17-1
<http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=96767> Add FUN to your email -
CLICK HERE!
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor:
Problemi di Liquidità? Con Logos Finanziaria 30.000 € in 24 ore a dipendenti e lavoratori autonomi con rimborsi fino a 120 mesi, clicca qui
*
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2911&d=17-1
-
Gjest
Re: Hubert de Burgh's brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh - Part II
In a message dated 1/17/06 1:59:16 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<< Had Thomas and Hubert really been William de
Burgh's younger brothers, then Thomas' manor at Upper Arleigh should
have gone to William de Burgh's son and heir, Richard de Burgh, not to
Hubert de Burgh. >>
This is the sticky part of your argument for me.
Are you saying that in this time period, when a man dies s.p., all his
possessions automatically go to the descendents of his eldest brother ?
If so, this is something I did not know.
Thanks
Will Johnson
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<< Had Thomas and Hubert really been William de
Burgh's younger brothers, then Thomas' manor at Upper Arleigh should
have gone to William de Burgh's son and heir, Richard de Burgh, not to
Hubert de Burgh. >>
This is the sticky part of your argument for me.
Are you saying that in this time period, when a man dies s.p., all his
possessions automatically go to the descendents of his eldest brother ?
If so, this is something I did not know.
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Most recent common ancestors
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
to my maps at http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald. The diversity
of Q3 haplotypes is higher in some places in America than
in Siberia. In some cases there are historical
records of back migration.
Doug McDonald
In a message dated 1/17/06 1:58:26 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:
True, some Siberians are Q3,
but they are clearly back-migraters.
Whenever someone uses the word "clearly" without any source, it always makes
me suspicious.
Will Johnson
There are plenty of sources. Look at the references
to my maps at http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald. The diversity
of Q3 haplotypes is higher in some places in America than
in Siberia. In some cases there are historical
records of back migration.
Doug McDonald
-
Terry
Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
It seams like I read that some where 
Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
http://www.mairsphotography.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
http://www.mairsphotography.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
In a message dated 1/17/2006 9:46:30 AM Pacific Standard Time,
terry@mairsphotography.com writes:
So were the Saxons just Vikings with an accent?
And the Vikings were one of the lost ten tribes of Israel.
Just a little more pissed off.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Geoffrey de Burgh, Bishop of Ely
An interesting tidbit
Geoffrey de Burgh, Archdeacon of Norwich
was actually elected to the see of Ely before
but this election was quashed by Honorius III in 1220
He was re-elected to the see on the death of John Pherd [?]
consecrated 29 Jun 1225
and died 8 dec 1228
http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8& ... X09nC-McC&
pg=RA1-PA195&lpg=RA1-PA195&dq=%22Archdeacon+of+Norwich%22&prev=http://books.go
ogle.com/books%3Fq%3D%2522Archdeacon%2Bof%2BNorwich%2522%26lr%3D%26start%3D10&
sig=0KP0M_b7I1CuwTftB-QdwMuGYoc
Geoffrey de Burgh, Archdeacon of Norwich
was actually elected to the see of Ely before
but this election was quashed by Honorius III in 1220
He was re-elected to the see on the death of John Pherd [?]
consecrated 29 Jun 1225
and died 8 dec 1228
http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8& ... X09nC-McC&
pg=RA1-PA195&lpg=RA1-PA195&dq=%22Archdeacon+of+Norwich%22&prev=http://books.go
ogle.com/books%3Fq%3D%2522Archdeacon%2Bof%2BNorwich%2522%26lr%3D%26start%3D10&
sig=0KP0M_b7I1CuwTftB-QdwMuGYoc
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Hubert de Burgh's brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh - Part II
Dear Will ~
In this case, Sir Thomas de Burgh held Upper Arleigh, Staffordshire by
grant of the king, not by inheritance or by grant from his father or
older brother. The grant was presumably made to Thomas de Burgh and
his issue. When Thomas de Burgh died without issue in 1225/7, the
lands would have returned to the king. That Hubert de Burgh (or anyone
else) obtained these lands is only incidental. Obviously Hubert de
Burgh requested the king regrant the lands to him, which was done.
However, if Richard de Burgh in Ireland was the senior heir to Thomas
de Burgh, he could have made the same request. All we know is that
Hubert de Burgh was re-granted the lands, which creates the impression
that Hubert was Thomas' heir. That maybe a false impression. All the
same, for what it is worth, the implication is there.
DR
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In this case, Sir Thomas de Burgh held Upper Arleigh, Staffordshire by
grant of the king, not by inheritance or by grant from his father or
older brother. The grant was presumably made to Thomas de Burgh and
his issue. When Thomas de Burgh died without issue in 1225/7, the
lands would have returned to the king. That Hubert de Burgh (or anyone
else) obtained these lands is only incidental. Obviously Hubert de
Burgh requested the king regrant the lands to him, which was done.
However, if Richard de Burgh in Ireland was the senior heir to Thomas
de Burgh, he could have made the same request. All we know is that
Hubert de Burgh was re-granted the lands, which creates the impression
that Hubert was Thomas' heir. That maybe a false impression. All the
same, for what it is worth, the implication is there.
DR
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/17/06 1:59:16 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
Had Thomas and Hubert really been William de
Burgh's younger brothers, then Thomas' manor at Upper Arleigh should
have gone to William de Burgh's son and heir, Richard de Burgh, not to
Hubert de Burgh.
This is the sticky part of your argument for me.
Are you saying that in this time period, when a man dies s.p., all his
possessions automatically go to the descendents of his eldest brother ?
If so, this is something I did not know.
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Most recent common ancestors
Doug McDonald wrote:
Dear Doug ~
Thank you for sharing this information. Much appreciated. You have
shed a spotlight on a subject which is difficult for many to
comprehend.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
This has been explained over and over and over again by me,
and is correct. People may get tired of it, but it is necessary to
correct misstatements.
We in the Clan Donald have started the long process, which may take
years, of finding such markers. The rate of progress will depend
mostly on the rate of fall of prices.
Doug McDonald
Dear Doug ~
Thank you for sharing this information. Much appreciated. You have
shed a spotlight on a subject which is difficult for many to
comprehend.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Leo
Re: Most recent common ancestors
I believe being an "aristocrat" could be regarded as a frame of mind. It
would require breeding, education as well as an approach to life. A title
could help but would not be necessary. There is a fun story about Thomas
William Coke who throughout his life was given the opportunity to obtain a
title but his approach was "I had rather remain the first of the ducks than
the last of the geese". As "Mr. Coke of Norfolk" he was regarded as "the
first Commoner of England". Apparently his main reason was that most of his
life he did not have a son by his first wife to inherit the title. However,
on 12 August 1837 aged 83, he accepted the title of Earl of Leicester, which
may have been to satisfy his much younger second wife----he was 49 years
older than his second wife and still had several children by her.
By his first wife he had three daughters, the eldest being Jane Elizabeth
who became the mother of the "infamous famous" Lady Ellenborough, as well as
being an ancestor of the equally "famously infamous" Pamela Digby.
Hope this is of some interest
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Merilyn Pedrick" <pedricks@ozemail.com.au>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 9:44 AM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors
would require breeding, education as well as an approach to life. A title
could help but would not be necessary. There is a fun story about Thomas
William Coke who throughout his life was given the opportunity to obtain a
title but his approach was "I had rather remain the first of the ducks than
the last of the geese". As "Mr. Coke of Norfolk" he was regarded as "the
first Commoner of England". Apparently his main reason was that most of his
life he did not have a son by his first wife to inherit the title. However,
on 12 August 1837 aged 83, he accepted the title of Earl of Leicester, which
may have been to satisfy his much younger second wife----he was 49 years
older than his second wife and still had several children by her.
By his first wife he had three daughters, the eldest being Jane Elizabeth
who became the mother of the "infamous famous" Lady Ellenborough, as well as
being an ancestor of the equally "famously infamous" Pamela Digby.
Hope this is of some interest
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Merilyn Pedrick" <pedricks@ozemail.com.au>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 9:44 AM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors
In that case just about everyone with European ancestors should be
considered aristocrats. According to Leo's home-page everyone with
European
ancestors is everyone else's at least 30th cousin.
My own ancestors don't become aristocrats until the 1300s.
Merilyn Pedrick
Aldgate, South Australia
-------Original Message-------
From: MLS
Date: 01/18/06 04:04:06
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors
Dear Will,
I have no idea if you can be considered "aristocracy". Maybe a single
line of ascent (if proved by documents... It's evident) could not be
considered "enough". But aristocracy is a group where members can trace
there genealogy back to titled or royal individual. I don't think this
definition can be disputed.
Marco
-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com">mailto:WJhonson@aol.com
WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 5:26 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
In a message dated 1/17/2006 8:24:55 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:
Of course, this "clan" exist, and it's named "nobility" or, if you
prefere: "aristocracy"
Ridiculous. So I am aristocracy because I have an ascent to Edward I ?
You're spinning wildly off into outer space now. Will Johnson
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor:
Sei in cerca dell'amore? Non perdere tempo, iscriviti gratis a Meetic!
Potrai chattare con migliaia di single in linea.
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=4052&d=17-1
-
Doug McDonald
Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
for a review of mutation rates see
http://www.kerchner.com/dnamutationrates.htm
Kerchner, though an amateur, really is the expert on this number.
For a good textbook with a discussion of this, see Jobling, Hurles and
Tyler - Smith's book, "Human Evolutionary Genetics". I can't quote the
actual number from this book since my copy is at home.
The SNP mutation rate of chromosomal DNA is, on average, about
2e-8 per base pair per generation. There are about 4e7 bases on the
Y chromosome, so by these numbers the probability of an SNP
per generation is 0.8. This estimate is on the high side, since
some of those mutations will be fatal. Others will be useless,
as they will occur in unsequenceable heterochromatin. Thus
the round number 0.5 probability of a useful SNP per live birth.
The mutation rate is somewhat controversial. It probably is actually
somewhat higher than the number I quote.
One should add that currently for people in haplogroup R1b, currently
one family in 50 being tested for new SNPs has one ACTUALLY FOUND that
is probably unique to that family. (Source: David Faux, whose
company is doing the testing.) And this is testing only a teensy
fraction of the Y chromosome. Note that this is not for a mutation
in this single generation ... it's some unknowable distance back
in the line, basically back to the last great radiation of R1b
some few thousand years ago.
Doug McDonald
In a message dated 1/17/06 2:15:54 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:
There is a 50% chance the WAS one
I do not believe that there is 50% chance that *each* generation had a
Y-chromosone mutation. If you think there is, provide a scientific journal article
which states that.
Thanks
Will Johnson
for a review of mutation rates see
http://www.kerchner.com/dnamutationrates.htm
Kerchner, though an amateur, really is the expert on this number.
For a good textbook with a discussion of this, see Jobling, Hurles and
Tyler - Smith's book, "Human Evolutionary Genetics". I can't quote the
actual number from this book since my copy is at home.
The SNP mutation rate of chromosomal DNA is, on average, about
2e-8 per base pair per generation. There are about 4e7 bases on the
Y chromosome, so by these numbers the probability of an SNP
per generation is 0.8. This estimate is on the high side, since
some of those mutations will be fatal. Others will be useless,
as they will occur in unsequenceable heterochromatin. Thus
the round number 0.5 probability of a useful SNP per live birth.
The mutation rate is somewhat controversial. It probably is actually
somewhat higher than the number I quote.
One should add that currently for people in haplogroup R1b, currently
one family in 50 being tested for new SNPs has one ACTUALLY FOUND that
is probably unique to that family. (Source: David Faux, whose
company is doing the testing.) And this is testing only a teensy
fraction of the Y chromosome. Note that this is not for a mutation
in this single generation ... it's some unknowable distance back
in the line, basically back to the last great radiation of R1b
some few thousand years ago.
Doug McDonald
-
Gjest
Re: Most recent common ancestors
In a message dated 1/17/06 3:25:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:
<< > Any particular man shares (most of the time) his Y-chromosone with his
He shares the VAST MAJORITY of it, yes. >>
Only a mutation can change the Y-chromosone.
You haven't provided any information to suggest that every generation mutates.
Can you please provide the sources that document that EVERY generation
mutates the Y-chromosone?
Thanks
Will Johnson
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:
<< > Any particular man shares (most of the time) his Y-chromosone with his
brothers, paternal uncles, etc. So the most you could say, is that a
person
descends from a particular person OR his paternal-kin-group.
He shares the VAST MAJORITY of it, yes. >>
Only a mutation can change the Y-chromosone.
You haven't provided any information to suggest that every generation mutates.
Can you please provide the sources that document that EVERY generation
mutates the Y-chromosone?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Most recent common ancestors
In a message dated 1/17/06 3:25:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:
<< But it IS possible to pinpoint exact people by DNA. You just have
to pinpoint a mutation with multiple brothers. >>
And what if no such mutation occurred?
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:
<< But it IS possible to pinpoint exact people by DNA. You just have
to pinpoint a mutation with multiple brothers. >>
And what if no such mutation occurred?
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Of the autosomal chromosomes (not X, Y or mt) it is absolutely certain.
A sperm comes from the father, and has exactly one copy of each. An
egg comes from the mother and has exactly one copy of each. You mix the
two together and you have, well, . . . you, with exactly one of your
two copies of each of the autosomal chromosomes coming from each parent.
The only exceptions are Trisomies and Monosomies, where a sperm or egg
did not form correctly, and has either two or zero copies of (at least a
part of) one of the chromosomes. This results in a fetus with one or
three copies, and is almost always fatal at a very early stage (only
trisomy 21/Downs, or a Trisomy X results in live births, although it is
sometimes seen with the partial trisomy, where an extra part of a
chromosome gets attaches to the end of a different chromosome, and the
child gets that piece plus two full copies). These represent less than
1/1000 live births.
taf
On another note, I'm not really clear on whether scientists have *proven*
that you get exactly 50% of your nuclear DNA from your mother and 50% from your
father. I know that it's the belief, but I'm not sure if it's proven.
Of the autosomal chromosomes (not X, Y or mt) it is absolutely certain.
A sperm comes from the father, and has exactly one copy of each. An
egg comes from the mother and has exactly one copy of each. You mix the
two together and you have, well, . . . you, with exactly one of your
two copies of each of the autosomal chromosomes coming from each parent.
The only exceptions are Trisomies and Monosomies, where a sperm or egg
did not form correctly, and has either two or zero copies of (at least a
part of) one of the chromosomes. This results in a fetus with one or
three copies, and is almost always fatal at a very early stage (only
trisomy 21/Downs, or a Trisomy X results in live births, although it is
sometimes seen with the partial trisomy, where an extra part of a
chromosome gets attaches to the end of a different chromosome, and the
child gets that piece plus two full copies). These represent less than
1/1000 live births.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Most recent common ancestors
Dear Scaly Lizard,
In defense of Prince Madog of the Welsh the so
called Native American tribe known as Mandan were visited and studied in about
the 1830s by painter George Catlin. He made notes on the various tribes which
were published. The Mandan lanuage had a good deal in common with spoken
welsh and in one of the volumes (which I own but can`t lay my hands on at the
moment) has an appendix giving a side by side comparison of Mandan and the Welsh
language and how the words are pronounced with interesting results)
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
In defense of Prince Madog of the Welsh the so
called Native American tribe known as Mandan were visited and studied in about
the 1830s by painter George Catlin. He made notes on the various tribes which
were published. The Mandan lanuage had a good deal in common with spoken
welsh and in one of the volumes (which I own but can`t lay my hands on at the
moment) has an appendix giving a side by side comparison of Mandan and the Welsh
language and how the words are pronounced with interesting results)
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Gjest
Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
In a message dated 1/17/06 4:15:24 PM Pacific Standard Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:
<< Actually, Bjorn means 'bear'. I was being facetious, but in fact the
theory is that he was Berasson, son of Bera, a woman's name. >>
Is this Bera a different name? This is obviously a man.
"Berà was count of Barcelona from 801 until 820.
He was the son of William I, count of Toulouse "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bera
Will Johnson
farmerie@interfold.com writes:
<< Actually, Bjorn means 'bear'. I was being facetious, but in fact the
theory is that he was Berasson, son of Bera, a woman's name. >>
Is this Bera a different name? This is obviously a man.
"Berà was count of Barcelona from 801 until 820.
He was the son of William I, count of Toulouse "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bera
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Thomas Stanton's ancestry
In a message dated 1/17/06 1:58:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
<< (b) What is the evidence for any Thomas Stanton having a birthdate of
1621? Is he alleging that "Thomas born 1621" is the emigrant? >>
Certainly not as a "magistrate in Boston in 1636" I hope.
Will Johnson
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
<< (b) What is the evidence for any Thomas Stanton having a birthdate of
1621? Is he alleging that "Thomas born 1621" is the emigrant? >>
Certainly not as a "magistrate in Boston in 1636" I hope.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Thomas Stanton's ancestry
In a message dated 1/17/06 1:58:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
<< It appears that this has also been retracted, as Mr Stanton has
admitted that Thomas of Wolverton was born [circa] 1616. Is he now
stating that Thomas the emigrant was born in 1621? How would the 1619
Visitation shed light on him? I think Mr Stanton has made some
movement in the right direction, but still has a bit further to go.
I would go much further than that.
The Thomas Stanton "who sailed on the Bonaventura" in 1635
The Thomas Stanton magistrate in Boston in 1636
The Thomas Stanton "interpreter during the Pequot War"
"a MAN of trust and intelligence" [emphasis mine]
By 1637 "a MAN LONG-useful to colonial authorities" [empasis mine]
These do not describe a boy of 14 or 15 to me.
Nor to anyone else hopefully
Will Johnson
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
<< It appears that this has also been retracted, as Mr Stanton has
admitted that Thomas of Wolverton was born [circa] 1616. Is he now
stating that Thomas the emigrant was born in 1621? How would the 1619
Visitation shed light on him? I think Mr Stanton has made some
movement in the right direction, but still has a bit further to go.
I would go much further than that.
The Thomas Stanton "who sailed on the Bonaventura" in 1635
The Thomas Stanton magistrate in Boston in 1636
The Thomas Stanton "interpreter during the Pequot War"
"a MAN of trust and intelligence" [emphasis mine]
By 1637 "a MAN LONG-useful to colonial authorities" [empasis mine]
These do not describe a boy of 14 or 15 to me.
Nor to anyone else hopefully
Will Johnson
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: English Counties (Revised Post)
ADRIANCHANN...@aol.com wrote:
Dear Adrian ~
Please come down off your high horse. It gets lonely up there.
I believe the Genuki list is common and current usage, that is why I
recommended it to John Ravilious. But it appears you are saying the
Genuki list is wrong? If so, tell us why. We'd very much like to hear
your side of it.
By the way, no snearing is allowed on the newsgroup on Tuesdays. If
you wish to snear at a fellow poster, you'll have to wait to post on
Wednesday.
Your friend, Douglas (Salt Lake City, UT)
For someone who does not seem to know the difference between Britain (which
includes the 6 _Co's_ of NI) and England, why should anyone take your word for
it? The convention I give is in common and current usage. You are quite
welcome to restrict all your abbreviations to those listed in GENUKI, but
don't tell other people they are wrong.
Adrian (Surrey, UK)
Dear Adrian ~
Please come down off your high horse. It gets lonely up there.
I believe the Genuki list is common and current usage, that is why I
recommended it to John Ravilious. But it appears you are saying the
Genuki list is wrong? If so, tell us why. We'd very much like to hear
your side of it.
By the way, no snearing is allowed on the newsgroup on Tuesdays. If
you wish to snear at a fellow poster, you'll have to wait to post on
Wednesday.
Your friend, Douglas (Salt Lake City, UT)
In a message dated 17/01/2006 21:58:40 GMT Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
Complete Peerage uses "co. Warwick," but GENUKI uses "Warwickshire."
Neither uses "co. Warwicks."
I've been advised by British members of the newsgroup that using "co."
before the name of a county as done by C.P. is considered outdated,
with the possible exception of Durham. The GENUKI list reflects that
trend.
The GENUKI list of English counties can be found on the following
website:
http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/#Counties
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
ADRIANCHANN...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 17/01/2006 05:27:40 GMT Standard Time,
royalances...@msn.com writes:
Third, in one place, you refer to "co. Warwicks." This should either
be "co. Warwick" or "Warwickshire." For a list of the preferred
county designations, e.g., Warwickshire, see the GENUKI list at the
following website:
Warwicks. is a perfectly good and recognised abbreviation, in fact most of
the shire counties can be abbreviated with an "s", although Hampshire
becomes
Hants (as with Northampton), Oxfordshire is Oxon.
Adrian
-
Gjest
Re: English Counties (Revised Post)
For someone who does not seem to know the difference between Britain (which
includes the 6 _Co's_ of NI) and England, why should anyone take your word for
it? The convention I give is in common and current usage. You are quite
welcome to restrict all your abbreviations to those listed in GENUKI, but
don't tell other people they are wrong.
Adrian (Surrey, UK)
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
Complete Peerage uses "co. Warwick," but GENUKI uses "Warwickshire."
Neither uses "co. Warwicks."
I've been advised by British members of the newsgroup that using "co."
before the name of a county as done by C.P. is considered outdated,
with the possible exception of Durham. The GENUKI list reflects that
trend.
The GENUKI list of English counties can be found on the following
website:
http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/#Counties
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City
<<<<
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
ADRIANCHANN...@aol.com wrote:
includes the 6 _Co's_ of NI) and England, why should anyone take your word for
it? The convention I give is in common and current usage. You are quite
welcome to restrict all your abbreviations to those listed in GENUKI, but
don't tell other people they are wrong.
Adrian (Surrey, UK)
In a message dated 17/01/2006 21:58:40 GMT Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
Complete Peerage uses "co. Warwick," but GENUKI uses "Warwickshire."
Neither uses "co. Warwicks."
I've been advised by British members of the newsgroup that using "co."
before the name of a county as done by C.P. is considered outdated,
with the possible exception of Durham. The GENUKI list reflects that
trend.
The GENUKI list of English counties can be found on the following
website:
http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/#Counties
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City
<<<<
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
ADRIANCHANN...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 17/01/2006 05:27:40 GMT Standard Time,
royalances...@msn.com writes:
Third, in one place, you refer to "co. Warwicks." This should either
be "co. Warwick" or "Warwickshire." For a list of the preferred
county designations, e.g., Warwickshire, see the GENUKI list at the
following website:
Warwicks. is a perfectly good and recognised abbreviation, in fact most of
the shire counties can be abbreviated with an "s", although Hampshire
becomes
Hants (as with Northampton), Oxfordshire is Oxon.
Adrian
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: English Counties (Revised Post)
ADRIANCHANN...@aol.com wrote:
Dear Adrian ~
Please come down off your high horse. It gets lonely up there.
I believe the Genuki list is common and current usage, that is why I
recommended it to John Ravilious. But it appears you are saying the
Genuki list is wrong? If so, tell us why. We'd very much like to hear
your side of it.
By the way, no sneering is allowed on the newsgroup on Tuesdays. If
you wish to sneer at a fellow poster, you'll have to wait to post on
Wednesday.
Your friend, Douglas (Salt Lake City, UT)
For someone who does not seem to know the difference between Britain (which
includes the 6 _Co's_ of NI) and England, why should anyone take your word for
it? The convention I give is in common and current usage. You are quite
welcome to restrict all your abbreviations to those listed in GENUKI, but
don't tell other people they are wrong.
Adrian (Surrey, UK)
Dear Adrian ~
Please come down off your high horse. It gets lonely up there.
I believe the Genuki list is common and current usage, that is why I
recommended it to John Ravilious. But it appears you are saying the
Genuki list is wrong? If so, tell us why. We'd very much like to hear
your side of it.
By the way, no sneering is allowed on the newsgroup on Tuesdays. If
you wish to sneer at a fellow poster, you'll have to wait to post on
Wednesday.
Your friend, Douglas (Salt Lake City, UT)
In a message dated 17/01/2006 21:58:40 GMT Standard Time,
royalances...@msn.com writes:
Complete Peerage uses "co. Warwick," but GENUKI uses "Warwickshire."
Neither uses "co. Warwicks."
I've been advised by British members of the newsgroup that using "co."
before the name of a county as done by C.P. is considered outdated,
with the possible exception of Durham. The GENUKI list reflects that
trend.
The GENUKI list of English counties can be found on the following
website:
http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/#Counties
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
ADRIANCHANN...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 17/01/2006 05:27:40 GMT Standard Time,
royalances...@msn.com writes:
Third, in one place, you refer to "co. Warwicks." This should either
be "co. Warwick" or "Warwickshire." For a list of the preferred
county designations, e.g., Warwickshire, see the GENUKI list at the
following website:
Warwicks. is a perfectly good and recognised abbreviation, in fact most of
the shire counties can be abbreviated with an "s", although Hampshire
becomes
Hants (as with Northampton), Oxfordshire is Oxon.
Adrian
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?
Bob Turcott wrote:
[we have talked about this in email, but I guess now since it has been
raised in the group, I will have to give it another try]
Why ignore them? Why not use the actual numbers? For a 9th great
grandmother, that would be 11 generations back, or (0.5)^11, in other
words, just under 0.05%, or 1/2048. For your 30th great grandparent,
that would be 32 generations, (0.5^32), 0.0000000233%, or
1/(4,294,967,296) [<---- remember this number - it is the number of
hypothetical ancestors in this generation].
Now here is the important thing. You have just about 3,000,000,000 base
pairs in your genome. That is the smallest divisible unit. This is not
like a ruler where you can divide an inch into ever-so-smaller fractions
of an inch, or a meter into centimeters, millimeters, microns,
nanometers, Angstroms, etc. It is like little beads on a string or
letters in a book, and the bead, the letter, the nucleotide, is an
indivisible unit. You have 3,000,000,000 of these indivisible units,
but you hypothetically are getting just 1 in 4,294,967,296 from each
ancestor. If we ignore the statistical distributions (and pedigree
collapse) and conclude that each of your 3,000,000,000 nucleotides came
from a different ancestor in this generation, then you still have
1,294,967,296 ancestors for whom you could _not possibly_ have gotten a
single nucleotide, having 3 billion nucleotides and 4.3 billion ancectors.
This is really not what most scientists waste time doing, or journals
waste space publishing - it is simple math.
Since I know you like ball analogies so much, put 8 balls in a bag and
remove half, representing one generation. You have 4. Remove half
again (generation 2), you have 2. Remove half again (generation 3), you
have 1. Now, what happens for generation 4? You either end up with 1
again, or zero. That is what we are talking about - once the two-fold
division for each generation gets you down to the resolution of the
indivisible unit, it is an all-or-nothing phenomenon, and each
generation thereafter stands a chance of getting nothing.
As I expressed in our email exchange, the dynamics are completely
different when pedigree collapse is taken into account. It then has to
do with statistics, T tests, bell curves, and the like, but the result
is the same - with time and the generations that go with it, you
eventually reach a point where you lose all representation of certain
lineages. This has been studied by evolutionary biologists studying
multiple alleles in an isolated population, and by social scientists
looking at the extinction of surnames in isolated communities, but the
principle is the same, writ large, when talking about an entire
ancestor's genome - it just takes a little longer.
taf
you raise an interesting point, I wonder if some scientist somewhere
has a paper written
that says maybe some 30th great grandparents you dont have any dna and
some you do?
and working down to say 9th or 10th generations you do...
[we have talked about this in email, but I guess now since it has been
raised in the group, I will have to give it another try]
I think lets say for sake of argument you carry 1% dna of a 9th great
grandmother off some distant branch somewhere, whose to say you dont
carry 0.0000000001% dna for a 30th great grandparent, but its so dam
small its hard to identify or detect. ignore the actual numbers
and view this only as an illustration.
Why ignore them? Why not use the actual numbers? For a 9th great
grandmother, that would be 11 generations back, or (0.5)^11, in other
words, just under 0.05%, or 1/2048. For your 30th great grandparent,
that would be 32 generations, (0.5^32), 0.0000000233%, or
1/(4,294,967,296) [<---- remember this number - it is the number of
hypothetical ancestors in this generation].
Now here is the important thing. You have just about 3,000,000,000 base
pairs in your genome. That is the smallest divisible unit. This is not
like a ruler where you can divide an inch into ever-so-smaller fractions
of an inch, or a meter into centimeters, millimeters, microns,
nanometers, Angstroms, etc. It is like little beads on a string or
letters in a book, and the bead, the letter, the nucleotide, is an
indivisible unit. You have 3,000,000,000 of these indivisible units,
but you hypothetically are getting just 1 in 4,294,967,296 from each
ancestor. If we ignore the statistical distributions (and pedigree
collapse) and conclude that each of your 3,000,000,000 nucleotides came
from a different ancestor in this generation, then you still have
1,294,967,296 ancestors for whom you could _not possibly_ have gotten a
single nucleotide, having 3 billion nucleotides and 4.3 billion ancectors.
I would really be interested in seeing a scientific paper that says we
dont carry dna from all our ancestors I am a skeptic at this point, i
think the dna may be diluted, but not present is something that needs
further investigation...
This is really not what most scientists waste time doing, or journals
waste space publishing - it is simple math.
Since I know you like ball analogies so much, put 8 balls in a bag and
remove half, representing one generation. You have 4. Remove half
again (generation 2), you have 2. Remove half again (generation 3), you
have 1. Now, what happens for generation 4? You either end up with 1
again, or zero. That is what we are talking about - once the two-fold
division for each generation gets you down to the resolution of the
indivisible unit, it is an all-or-nothing phenomenon, and each
generation thereafter stands a chance of getting nothing.
As I expressed in our email exchange, the dynamics are completely
different when pedigree collapse is taken into account. It then has to
do with statistics, T tests, bell curves, and the like, but the result
is the same - with time and the generations that go with it, you
eventually reach a point where you lose all representation of certain
lineages. This has been studied by evolutionary biologists studying
multiple alleles in an isolated population, and by social scientists
looking at the extinction of surnames in isolated communities, but the
principle is the same, writ large, when talking about an entire
ancestor's genome - it just takes a little longer.
taf
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?
Bob Turcott wrote:
You keep stating this mantra and demanding sources of others. What is
_your_ source? (and "someone told me" is not good enough)
Ok,
fair enough, where did you get this information it source?
However it does not change the the fact that all humans carry
dna from all there ancestors, we just can pin point it yet for the
inside branches.
You keep stating this mantra and demanding sources of others. What is
_your_ source? (and "someone told me" is not good enough)
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Most recent common ancestors
Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:
Unfortunately, this research was flawed. In fact, much of the early
anthropological research, done by actual anthropologists (as opposed to
painters) is flawed in that it set out with the goal of finding
connections and similarities, and rarely were the researchers
disappointed. There are coincidental similarities among most languages
- you can always point out a word here or there that sounds similar and
means something vaguely similar. These led linguists astray even in
relatively recent times (like the 1970s) and frequently catch up
non-linguists trying to do this kind of research.
There are now better criteria that can help distinguish coincidental
from relational similarities, but there are no speakers of pre-contact
Mandan to evaluate.
taf
Dear Scaly Lizard,
In defense of Prince Madog of the Welsh the so
called Native American tribe known as Mandan were visited and studied in about
the 1830s by painter George Catlin. He made notes on the various tribes which
were published. The Mandan lanuage had a good deal in common with spoken
welsh and in one of the volumes (which I own but can`t lay my hands on at the
moment) has an appendix giving a side by side comparison of Mandan and the Welsh
language and how the words are pronounced with interesting results)
Unfortunately, this research was flawed. In fact, much of the early
anthropological research, done by actual anthropologists (as opposed to
painters) is flawed in that it set out with the goal of finding
connections and similarities, and rarely were the researchers
disappointed. There are coincidental similarities among most languages
- you can always point out a word here or there that sounds similar and
means something vaguely similar. These led linguists astray even in
relatively recent times (like the 1970s) and frequently catch up
non-linguists trying to do this kind of research.
There are now better criteria that can help distinguish coincidental
from relational similarities, but there are no speakers of pre-contact
Mandan to evaluate.
taf
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Two problems here.
First, different context. The scandinavian Bera was a female name.
Second, this 'Bera, count of Barcelona' was no son of William, Count of
Toulouse, except in the forged pedigrees that tried to trace through
William of Gellone to the Merovingians, and then on back to Jesus Christ
(not to be confused with the ones that tried to trace him to King
David). William did have a historical son, Bernard, and perhaps the
similarity of sound gave rise to the mythical pedigree connection. I
don't recall whether Bera is historical as count of Barcelona or not.
Nat . . . ?
taf
In a message dated 1/17/06 4:15:24 PM Pacific Standard Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:
Actually, Bjorn means 'bear'. I was being facetious, but in fact the
theory is that he was Berasson, son of Bera, a woman's name.
Is this Bera a different name? This is obviously a man.
"Berà was count of Barcelona from 801 until 820.
He was the son of William I, count of Toulouse "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bera
Two problems here.
First, different context. The scandinavian Bera was a female name.
Second, this 'Bera, count of Barcelona' was no son of William, Count of
Toulouse, except in the forged pedigrees that tried to trace through
William of Gellone to the Merovingians, and then on back to Jesus Christ
(not to be confused with the ones that tried to trace him to King
David). William did have a historical son, Bernard, and perhaps the
similarity of sound gave rise to the mythical pedigree connection. I
don't recall whether Bera is historical as count of Barcelona or not.
Nat . . . ?
taf
-
Merilyn Pedrick
Re: English Counties (Revised Post)
Well, if you're not allowed to snear on Tuesdays, can you snear on other
days and only sneer on Tuesdays?
Merilyn
-------Original Message-------
From: Douglas Richardson
Date: 01/18/06 11:30:09
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: English Counties (Revised Post)
ADRIANCHANN...@aol.com wrote:
Dear Adrian ~
Please come down off your high horse. It gets lonely up there.
I believe the Genuki list is common and current usage, that is why I
recommended it to John Ravilious. But it appears you are saying the
Genuki list is wrong? If so, tell us why. We'd very much like to hear
your side of it.
By the way, no snearing is allowed on the newsgroup on Tuesdays. If
you wish to snear at a fellow poster, you'll have to wait to post on
Wednesday.
Your friend, Douglas (Salt Lake City, UT)
days and only sneer on Tuesdays?
Merilyn
-------Original Message-------
From: Douglas Richardson
Date: 01/18/06 11:30:09
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: English Counties (Revised Post)
ADRIANCHANN...@aol.com wrote:
For someone who does not seem to know the difference between Britain
(which
includes the 6 _Co's_ of NI) and England, why should anyone take your word
for
it? The convention I give is in common and current usage. You are
quite
welcome to restrict all your abbreviations to those listed in GENUKI, but
don't tell other people they are wrong.
Adrian (Surrey, UK)
Dear Adrian ~
Please come down off your high horse. It gets lonely up there.
I believe the Genuki list is common and current usage, that is why I
recommended it to John Ravilious. But it appears you are saying the
Genuki list is wrong? If so, tell us why. We'd very much like to hear
your side of it.
By the way, no snearing is allowed on the newsgroup on Tuesdays. If
you wish to snear at a fellow poster, you'll have to wait to post on
Wednesday.
Your friend, Douglas (Salt Lake City, UT)
In a message dated 17/01/2006 21:58:40 GMT Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
Complete Peerage uses "co. Warwick," but GENUKI uses "Warwickshire."
Neither uses "co. Warwicks."
I've been advised by British members of the newsgroup that using "co."
before the name of a county as done by C.P. is considered outdated,
with the possible exception of Durham. The GENUKI list reflects that
trend.
The GENUKI list of English counties can be found on the following
website:
http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/#Counties
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
ADRIANCHANN...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 17/01/2006 05:27:40 GMT Standard Time,
royalances...@msn.com writes:
Third, in one place, you refer to "co. Warwicks." This should either
be "co. Warwick" or "Warwickshire." For a list of the preferred
county designations, e.g., Warwickshire, see the GENUKI list at the
following website:
Warwicks. is a perfectly good and recognised abbreviation, in fact most
of
the shire counties can be abbreviated with an "s", although Hampshire
becomes
Hants (as with Northampton), Oxfordshire is Oxon.
Adrian
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: English Counties (Revised Post)
Douglas Richardson wrote:
.. . . he says with a snear.
By the way, no snearing is allowed on the newsgroup on Tuesdays. If
you wish to snear at a fellow poster, you'll have to wait to post on
Wednesday.
.. . . he says with a snear.
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Avoidence of the issues Re: One manor per knight? A knig
On the phrase: "knightly class". From:
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/orders/knights.htm
"Knighthood and Nobility
Thus, knights were not necessarily nobles, nor were nobles necessarily
knights. The noble class and the ***knightly class*** slowly came to
merge from the late 12th century onward. Nobles become knights with
increasing frequency. The French prince (future king Louis VI) was
knighted without the knowledge of his father who remains distrustful of
a rather heterogeneous professional class, but thereafter every French
king is knighted (Favier 1993). Conversely, heredity enters the knightly
class in the 13th century. The son of a knight is automatically a
squire, thus making him eligible for knighthood on the basis of his
ancestry; at the same time, knighthood is more and more restricted to
descendants of knights by various legal restrictions imposed over the
course of the 13th century. In the late 13th century, a decision of the
Parliament in Paris forbade the count of Artois from making unfree men
into knights without the king's consent; interesting to note, the two
men who had been so knighted were allowed to remain knights subject to
the payment of a fine. This marked both the closure of the knightly
class as well as the beginnings of a new form of access, by purchase.
In England, the evolution was different: those who held land in
knight's fee but did not wish to take up the profession could pay a tax.
Knighthood did not become a hereditary class in England, and instead the
knightly class (those eligible to be knights) became the nucleus of the
gentry."
---
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
If you don't believe it, then I suggest you take the scissors to your
copy of Burke and cut out large hunks of it.
DR
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/orders/knights.htm
"Knighthood and Nobility
Thus, knights were not necessarily nobles, nor were nobles necessarily
knights. The noble class and the ***knightly class*** slowly came to
merge from the late 12th century onward. Nobles become knights with
increasing frequency. The French prince (future king Louis VI) was
knighted without the knowledge of his father who remains distrustful of
a rather heterogeneous professional class, but thereafter every French
king is knighted (Favier 1993). Conversely, heredity enters the knightly
class in the 13th century. The son of a knight is automatically a
squire, thus making him eligible for knighthood on the basis of his
ancestry; at the same time, knighthood is more and more restricted to
descendants of knights by various legal restrictions imposed over the
course of the 13th century. In the late 13th century, a decision of the
Parliament in Paris forbade the count of Artois from making unfree men
into knights without the king's consent; interesting to note, the two
men who had been so knighted were allowed to remain knights subject to
the payment of a fine. This marked both the closure of the knightly
class as well as the beginnings of a new form of access, by purchase.
In England, the evolution was different: those who held land in
knight's fee but did not wish to take up the profession could pay a tax.
Knighthood did not become a hereditary class in England, and instead the
knightly class (those eligible to be knights) became the nucleus of the
gentry."
---
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> 01/17/06 04:52PM
Yes, Pas, there was a knightly class in medieval England.
If you don't believe it, then I suggest you take the scissors to your
copy of Burke and cut out large hunks of it.
DR
-
Brad Verity
Re: Babthorpe of Osgodby/Sothill of Stockerston
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Douglas Richardson's PA3.
Cheers, ------Brad
What is your source for Elizabeth's birthyear?
Douglas Richardson's PA3.
Cheers, ------Brad
-
Gjest
Re: English Counties (Revised Post)
In a message dated 18/01/2006 00:55:56 GMT Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
Dear Adrian ~
Please come down off your high horse. It gets lonely up there.
I believe the Genuki list is common and current usage, that is why I
recommended it to John Ravilious. But it appears you are saying the
Genuki list is wrong? If so, tell us why. We'd very much like to hear
your side of it.
By the way, no sneering is allowed on the newsgroup on Tuesdays. If
you wish to sneer at a fellow poster, you'll have to wait to post on
Wednesday.
Your friend, Douglas (Salt Lake City, UT)
If I'm on a high horse, then you would need to parachute to get down from
your horse.
I am not saying Genuki is wrong, but there are alternatives.
It is already Wednesday here and my message was posted on Wednesday don't
you know what 00:55:56 GMT means, so who is posting on the wrong day?
Adrian (Surrey, UK)
-
Don Stone
Re: Most recent common ancestors
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
The gateway has now been repaired, and there have recently been bursts of
backlogged messages going in both directions across the gateway.
If in a day or so, anyone knows of a message that didn't get gated, please
let me know. Thanks.
-- Don Stone
The list / newsgroup gateway is definitely broken this week, so there
are some interesting discussions taking place on the mail list that
don't make it to sgm, and vice versa.
The gateway has now been repaired, and there have recently been bursts of
backlogged messages going in both directions across the gateway.
If in a day or so, anyone knows of a message that didn't get gated, please
let me know. Thanks.
-- Don Stone
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: English Counties (Revised Post)
Belittling others and websites because they disagree with him---what is new?
He is waffling on about Tuesdays and as it is Wednesday (already one in the
afternoon) in Australia we are allowed to snear at him?
No, let him come to the point. I would like to hear about the proofs needed
to own three to five manors before someone _can_ become a knight. If it is a
requirement, surely there is a paper trail. And also, sons of Kings and
Dukes and Earls, do they belong to the "knightly class" because they have
been knighted?
And those monks---do they come from a monkly class?
Has he worked out as yet from which book my description came from?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Australia, Wednesday at 13.04
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: English Counties (Revised Post)
He is waffling on about Tuesdays and as it is Wednesday (already one in the
afternoon) in Australia we are allowed to snear at him?
No, let him come to the point. I would like to hear about the proofs needed
to own three to five manors before someone _can_ become a knight. If it is a
requirement, surely there is a paper trail. And also, sons of Kings and
Dukes and Earls, do they belong to the "knightly class" because they have
been knighted?
And those monks---do they come from a monkly class?
Has he worked out as yet from which book my description came from?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Australia, Wednesday at 13.04
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: English Counties (Revised Post)
Douglas Richardson wrote:
By the way, no snearing is allowed on the newsgroup on Tuesdays. If
you wish to snear at a fellow poster, you'll have to wait to post on
Wednesday.
. . . he says with a snear.
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Avoidence of the issues Re: One manor per knight? Aknigh
At the bottom of this message we have it from a website that in England
there was _NO_ knightly class.
The interesting part is that it appears to be different in different
countries, something to be expected. I still believe that to become a knight
in England was an honour bestowed on a person from whatever background he
was, and if that person needed land to pay for his expenses, these lands
(not specifically three to five manors) were made available.
IF it was a requirement, to belong to the "knightly class" and "own
beforehand three to five manors", there must be a paper trail. Establishing
the elegibility (or not) of a person and a record of how many manors he
owned _before_ being made a knight.
As Richardson is so good at trailing the Internet and with his impeccable
knowledge of medieval Latin and French, he should have no trouble quoting
some of this kind of records.
With best wishes
Lero van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: Avoidence of the issues Re: One manor per knight? Aknightly
class?
there was _NO_ knightly class.
The interesting part is that it appears to be different in different
countries, something to be expected. I still believe that to become a knight
in England was an honour bestowed on a person from whatever background he
was, and if that person needed land to pay for his expenses, these lands
(not specifically three to five manors) were made available.
IF it was a requirement, to belong to the "knightly class" and "own
beforehand three to five manors", there must be a paper trail. Establishing
the elegibility (or not) of a person and a record of how many manors he
owned _before_ being made a knight.
As Richardson is so good at trailing the Internet and with his impeccable
knowledge of medieval Latin and French, he should have no trouble quoting
some of this kind of records.
With best wishes
Lero van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: Avoidence of the issues Re: One manor per knight? Aknightly
class?
On the phrase: "knightly class". From:
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/orders/knights.htm
"Knighthood and Nobility
Thus, knights were not necessarily nobles, nor were nobles necessarily
knights. The noble class and the ***knightly class*** slowly came to
merge from the late 12th century onward. Nobles become knights with
increasing frequency. The French prince (future king Louis VI) was
knighted without the knowledge of his father who remains distrustful of
a rather heterogeneous professional class, but thereafter every French
king is knighted (Favier 1993). Conversely, heredity enters the knightly
class in the 13th century. The son of a knight is automatically a
squire, thus making him eligible for knighthood on the basis of his
ancestry; at the same time, knighthood is more and more restricted to
descendants of knights by various legal restrictions imposed over the
course of the 13th century. In the late 13th century, a decision of the
Parliament in Paris forbade the count of Artois from making unfree men
into knights without the king's consent; interesting to note, the two
men who had been so knighted were allowed to remain knights subject to
the payment of a fine. This marked both the closure of the knightly
class as well as the beginnings of a new form of access, by purchase.
In England, the evolution was different: those who held land in
knight's fee but did not wish to take up the profession could pay a tax.
Knighthood did not become a hereditary class in England, and instead the
knightly class (those eligible to be knights) became the nucleus of the
gentry."
---
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> 01/17/06 04:52PM
Yes, Pas, there was a knightly class in medieval England.
If you don't believe it, then I suggest you take the scissors to your
copy of Burke and cut out large hunks of it.
DR
-
Gjest
Re: Most recent common ancestors
In a message dated 1/17/06 6:26:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
madbadrob@robburns.wanadoo.co.uk writes:
<< Do not Inuit's come from Iceland? Is Iceland not a part of Europe? >>
Do Eskimos look particularly Icelandic to you?
If anything I'd say they bare a strong resemblence to Mongolians. Or possibly
Koreans or Chinese or something of that sort.
So if they reached Iceland (which point I'm not sure of), its likely to be a
West to East migration instead of the reverse as you're hypothecizing.
Will Johnson
madbadrob@robburns.wanadoo.co.uk writes:
<< Do not Inuit's come from Iceland? Is Iceland not a part of Europe? >>
Do Eskimos look particularly Icelandic to you?
If anything I'd say they bare a strong resemblence to Mongolians. Or possibly
Koreans or Chinese or something of that sort.
So if they reached Iceland (which point I'm not sure of), its likely to be a
West to East migration instead of the reverse as you're hypothecizing.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Babthorpe of Osgodby/Sothill of Stockerston
In a message dated 1/17/06 5:41:02 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< > What is your source for Elizabeth's birthyear?
Douglas Richardson's PA3. >>
In that case I would suggest a birthrange for Elizabeth Plumpton of 1453/62
This allows her father to be at least 17 at one end, and just barely dead at
the other
Then her two children Christiana born by 1477 and
Henry born by 1488
can fit nicely.
Will Johnson
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< > What is your source for Elizabeth's birthyear?
Douglas Richardson's PA3. >>
In that case I would suggest a birthrange for Elizabeth Plumpton of 1453/62
This allows her father to be at least 17 at one end, and just barely dead at
the other
Then her two children Christiana born by 1477 and
Henry born by 1488
can fit nicely.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Ancestry of John, 2nd Lord Segrave (was Re: Ancestry of
In a message dated 1/16/06 6:44:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, Therav3 writes:
<< 1.1.1a.1 John de Segrave
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 28 Nov 1230, d.v.p.[1],[9]
Spouse: Emma de Cauz[1]
Father: Roger de Cauz, of Water Eaton, co. Bucks and Eaton Grey, co. Wilts
Mother: Nichole de Leigh
Marr: bef Mar 1227[5] >>
Is this the same Emma de Cauz who married John de Grey and thereby had
Reginald, 1st Lord Grey of Wilton d 1308 ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
<< 1.1.1a.1 John de Segrave
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 28 Nov 1230, d.v.p.[1],[9]
Spouse: Emma de Cauz[1]
Father: Roger de Cauz, of Water Eaton, co. Bucks and Eaton Grey, co. Wilts
Mother: Nichole de Leigh
Marr: bef Mar 1227[5] >>
Is this the same Emma de Cauz who married John de Grey and thereby had
Reginald, 1st Lord Grey of Wilton d 1308 ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: English Counties (Revised Post)
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:
Dear Adrian ~
I'm glad to know GENUKI is correct. That was my point.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
I am not saying Genuki is wrong, but there are alternatives.
Adrian (Surrey, UK)
Dear Adrian ~
I'm glad to know GENUKI is correct. That was my point.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Douglas Richardson
A knightly class
Dear Tony ~
Thank you for your good post on the knightly class. It was very
"classy" (pardon the pun).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
"Tony Hoskins" wrote:
Thank you for your good post on the knightly class. It was very
"classy" (pardon the pun).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
"Tony Hoskins" wrote:
On the phrase: "knightly class". From:
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/orders/knights.htm
"Knighthood and Nobility
Thus, knights were not necessarily nobles, nor were nobles necessarily
knights. The noble class and the ***knightly class*** slowly came to
merge from the late 12th century onward. Nobles become knights with
increasing frequency. The French prince (future king Louis VI) was
knighted without the knowledge of his father who remains distrustful of
a rather heterogeneous professional class, but thereafter every French
king is knighted (Favier 1993). Conversely, heredity enters the knightly
class in the 13th century. The son of a knight is automatically a
squire, thus making him eligible for knighthood on the basis of his
ancestry; at the same time, knighthood is more and more restricted to
descendants of knights by various legal restrictions imposed over the
course of the 13th century. In the late 13th century, a decision of the
Parliament in Paris forbade the count of Artois from making unfree men
into knights without the king's consent; interesting to note, the two
men who had been so knighted were allowed to remain knights subject to
the payment of a fine. This marked both the closure of the knightly
class as well as the beginnings of a new form of access, by purchase.
In England, the evolution was different: those who held land in
knight's fee but did not wish to take up the profession could pay a tax.
Knighthood did not become a hereditary class in England, and instead the
knightly class (those eligible to be knights) became the nucleus of the
gentry."
---
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> 01/17/06 04:52PM
Yes, Pas, there was a knightly class in medieval England.
If you don't believe it, then I suggest you take the scissors to your
copy of Burke and cut out large hunks of it.
DR
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Babthorpe of Osgodby/Sothill of Stockerston
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Dear Will ~
Elizabeth Plumpton's birthdate (c. 1461) is derived from her father's
IPM taken in 1464, which showed she was then aged 3. As such, the
birth range you have suggested for Elizabeth Plumpton, 1453/62, is
somewhat unrealistic. Also, I believe the stated date for Elizabeth
Plumpton's marriage contract, 1463/4, is correct. This was obviously a
contract made when she was a small child, and the consumation of the
marriage would have taken place some years afterwards. For starters, I
recommend you consult the numerous sources which I have cited for the
Sothill and Plumpton families in either of my books.
Douglas Richardson
In that case I would suggest a birthrange for Elizabeth Plumpton of 1453/62
This allows her father to be at least 17 at one end, and just barely dead at
the other
Then her two children Christiana born by 1477 and
Henry born by 1488
can fit nicely.
Will Johnson
Dear Will ~
Elizabeth Plumpton's birthdate (c. 1461) is derived from her father's
IPM taken in 1464, which showed she was then aged 3. As such, the
birth range you have suggested for Elizabeth Plumpton, 1453/62, is
somewhat unrealistic. Also, I believe the stated date for Elizabeth
Plumpton's marriage contract, 1463/4, is correct. This was obviously a
contract made when she was a small child, and the consumation of the
marriage would have taken place some years afterwards. For starters, I
recommend you consult the numerous sources which I have cited for the
Sothill and Plumpton families in either of my books.
Douglas Richardson
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Ancestry of John, 2nd Lord Segrave (was Re: Ancestry of
In message of 18 Jan, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Plain "Wilts" will do though the correct abbreviation always used to be
"com.".
CP certainly shows that that Emma de Cauz was a widow of a John de
Segrave who dsp. 1230 (VI, 171 referring to Cal. Patent Rolls,
1225-32, p. 412).
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
In a message dated 1/16/06 6:44:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, Therav3
writes:
1.1.1a.1 John de Segrave
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 28 Nov 1230, d.v.p.[1],[9]
Spouse: Emma de Cauz[1]
Father: Roger de Cauz, of Water Eaton, co. Bucks and Eaton Grey,
co. Wilts
Plain "Wilts" will do though the correct abbreviation always used to be
"com.".
Mother: Nichole de Leigh
Marr: bef Mar 1227[5]
Is this the same Emma de Cauz who married John de Grey and thereby had
Reginald, 1st Lord Grey of Wilton d 1308 ?
CP certainly shows that that Emma de Cauz was a widow of a John de
Segrave who dsp. 1230 (VI, 171 referring to Cal. Patent Rolls,
1225-32, p. 412).
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Gjest
Re: Most recent common ancestors
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
They never reached Iceland.
In a message dated 1/17/06 6:26:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
madbadrob@robburns.wanadoo.co.uk writes:
Do not Inuit's come from Iceland? Is Iceland not a part of Europe?
Do Eskimos look particularly Icelandic to you?
If anything I'd say they bare a strong resemblence to Mongolians. Or possibly
Koreans or Chinese or something of that sort.
So if they reached Iceland (which point I'm not sure of), its likely to be a
West to East migration instead of the reverse as you're hypothecizing.
They never reached Iceland.
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Avoidence of the issues Re: One manor per knight? A knig
In message of 18 Jan, hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins") wrote:
I don't believe there was a knightly class as knighthood had, and still
has, to be earned (if only by high level of donations to governments).
Further knights were not the nucleus of the gentry, the agricultural
landowners were the nucleus.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
On the phrase: "knightly class". From:
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/orders/knights.htm
"Knighthood and Nobility
Thus, knights were not necessarily nobles, nor were nobles necessarily
knights. The noble class and the ***knightly class*** slowly came to
merge from the late 12th century onward. Nobles become knights with
increasing frequency. The French prince (future king Louis VI) was
knighted without the knowledge of his father who remains distrustful of
a rather heterogeneous professional class, but thereafter every French
king is knighted (Favier 1993). Conversely, heredity enters the knightly
class in the 13th century. The son of a knight is automatically a
squire, thus making him eligible for knighthood on the basis of his
ancestry; at the same time, knighthood is more and more restricted to
descendants of knights by various legal restrictions imposed over the
course of the 13th century. In the late 13th century, a decision of the
Parliament in Paris forbade the count of Artois from making unfree men
into knights without the king's consent; interesting to note, the two
men who had been so knighted were allowed to remain knights subject to
the payment of a fine. This marked both the closure of the knightly
class as well as the beginnings of a new form of access, by purchase.
In England, the evolution was different: those who held land in
knight's fee but did not wish to take up the profession could pay a tax.
Knighthood did not become a hereditary class in England, and instead the
knightly class (those eligible to be knights) became the nucleus of the
gentry."
I don't believe there was a knightly class as knighthood had, and still
has, to be earned (if only by high level of donations to governments).
Further knights were not the nucleus of the gentry, the agricultural
landowners were the nucleus.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: English Counties (Revised Post)
In message of 18 Jan, ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:
Of course that GENUKI list gives acceptable practice, save that
"Durham" is normally written "County Durham". But there are other
practices that are just as legitimate, for instance:
"Gloucs" for Gloucestereshire,
"Mx" for Middlesex
Some counties have the same name as the county town. Derbyshire and
Derby are an example. So "Derbys" unambiguously means the county.
Further of course many counties have vanished for all administrative
purposes. I know that Middlesex and Berkshire no longer exist and am
sure there are a few others; for a few years there was a Cleveland but
then it, too, vanished into the dust of history.
And, to bore the pants off everyone, the "co." has never been used in
England except, above, for "Co. Durham". Further the "co." bit used to
be "com." and it looks as if it was a usage only for genealogy books by
Burke, who was an Irishman and "co." is used in Ireland, and the usage
was subsequently followed (regrettably though they seem to have
lessened the practice towards the end) by CP.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
In a message dated 18/01/2006 00:55:56 GMT Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
I believe the Genuki list is common and current usage, that is why I
recommended it to John Ravilious. But it appears you are saying
the Genuki list is wrong? If so, tell us why. We'd very much
like to hear your side of it.
Of course that GENUKI list gives acceptable practice, save that
"Durham" is normally written "County Durham". But there are other
practices that are just as legitimate, for instance:
"Gloucs" for Gloucestereshire,
"Mx" for Middlesex
Some counties have the same name as the county town. Derbyshire and
Derby are an example. So "Derbys" unambiguously means the county.
Further of course many counties have vanished for all administrative
purposes. I know that Middlesex and Berkshire no longer exist and am
sure there are a few others; for a few years there was a Cleveland but
then it, too, vanished into the dust of history.
And, to bore the pants off everyone, the "co." has never been used in
England except, above, for "Co. Durham". Further the "co." bit used to
be "com." and it looks as if it was a usage only for genealogy books by
Burke, who was an Irishman and "co." is used in Ireland, and the usage
was subsequently followed (regrettably though they seem to have
lessened the practice towards the end) by CP.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: English Counties (Revised Post)
Pas is getting steamed up again .... and it's all much ado about
nothing.
DR
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
nothing.
DR
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Belittling others and websites because they disagree with him---what is new?
He is waffling on about Tuesdays and as it is Wednesday (already one in the
afternoon) in Australia we are allowed to snear at him?
No, let him come to the point. I would like to hear about the proofs needed
to own three to five manors before someone _can_ become a knight. If it is a
requirement, surely there is a paper trail. And also, sons of Kings and
Dukes and Earls, do they belong to the "knightly class" because they have
been knighted?
And those monks---do they come from a monkly class?
Has he worked out as yet from which book my description came from?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Australia, Wednesday at 13.04
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: English Counties (Revised Post)
Douglas Richardson wrote:
By the way, no snearing is allowed on the newsgroup on Tuesdays. If
you wish to snear at a fellow poster, you'll have to wait to post on
Wednesday.
. . . he says with a snear.
-
Gjest
Re: English Counties
was born in the county of Warwickshire and in those days it was 'postally'
referred to as Warws. PS It was not that long ago, either.
Rose
Epsom Downs/UK
referred to as Warws. PS It was not that long ago, either.
Rose
Epsom Downs/UK
-
Gjest
Re: English Counties
Sorry,
My last post should have read "I was born in . . . " I missed off the
I. Apologies.
Rose
Epsom Downs/UK
My last post should have read "I was born in . . . " I missed off the
I. Apologies.
Rose
Epsom Downs/UK
-
Gjest
Re: English Counties (Revised Post)
In a message dated 18/01/2006 05:55:59 GMT Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:
Dear Adrian ~
I'm glad to know GENUKI is correct. That was my point.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: _www.royalancestry.net_ (http://www.royalancestry.net)
Here is yet another example of Doug twisting his argument. You inferred
that "Warwicks." was wrong not that GENUKI was correct.
Adrian
_royalancestry@msn.com_ (mailto:royalancestry@msn.com) writes:
Third, in one place, you refer to "co. Warwicks." This should either
be "co. Warwick" or "Warwickshire." For a list of the preferred
county designations, e.g., Warwickshire, see the GENUKI list at the
following website:
<<<
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:
I am not saying Genuki is wrong, but there are alternatives.
Adrian (Surrey, UK)
Dear Adrian ~
I'm glad to know GENUKI is correct. That was my point.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: _www.royalancestry.net_ (http://www.royalancestry.net)
Here is yet another example of Doug twisting his argument. You inferred
that "Warwicks." was wrong not that GENUKI was correct.
Adrian
In a message dated 17/01/2006 05:27:40 GMT Standard Time,
_royalancestry@msn.com_ (mailto:royalancestry@msn.com) writes:
Third, in one place, you refer to "co. Warwicks." This should either
be "co. Warwick" or "Warwickshire." For a list of the preferred
county designations, e.g., Warwickshire, see the GENUKI list at the
following website:
<<<
-
Gjest
Re: English Counties
Maytree4@aol.com wrote:
international databases!
was born in the county of Warwickshire and in those days it was 'postally'
referred to as Warws. PS It was not that long ago, either.
Rose
Epsom Downs/UK
And 'Warks' is another one. But this may all be a bit too confusing for
international databases!
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: English Counties (Revised Post)
Steamed up? Not at all, just trying to keep reminding you that you have to
be honest and stand by and defend your point of you. Snide remarks are not
defending let alone explaining your point of view---is it now "Rich"?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: English Counties (Revised Post)
be honest and stand by and defend your point of you. Snide remarks are not
defending let alone explaining your point of view---is it now "Rich"?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: English Counties (Revised Post)
Pas is getting steamed up again .... and it's all much ado about
nothing.
DR
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Belittling others and websites because they disagree with him---what is
new?
He is waffling on about Tuesdays and as it is Wednesday (already one in
the
afternoon) in Australia we are allowed to snear at him?
No, let him come to the point. I would like to hear about the proofs
needed
to own three to five manors before someone _can_ become a knight. If it
is a
requirement, surely there is a paper trail. And also, sons of Kings and
Dukes and Earls, do they belong to the "knightly class" because they have
been knighted?
And those monks---do they come from a monkly class?
Has he worked out as yet from which book my description came from?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Australia, Wednesday at 13.04
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: English Counties (Revised Post)
Douglas Richardson wrote:
By the way, no snearing is allowed on the newsgroup on Tuesdays. If
you wish to snear at a fellow poster, you'll have to wait to post on
Wednesday.
. . . he says with a snear.
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Most recent common ancestors
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
The data does not indicate that EVERY generation mutates the Y
chromosome. Just ALMOST every generation. It's probabilistic. I
showed that current rates indicate that there is an SNP (single
nucleotide polymorphism) about every other generation. This
generally is taken to include small, single base, insertions and
deletions.
STRs, aka microsatellites, of which there are about 200 that have a
reasonable mutation rate, mutate at a rate of about 0.002 per
generation. That 200*.002 = .1 per generation. The number of
STRs is documented at Am. J. Human Genetics 74, 1183 (2004). The
mutation rate is documented well enough at http://www.yhrd.org, or
http://www.kerchner.com, or in a paper by Gusmao et. al., "Mutation
Rates at Y Chromosome Specific Microsatellites", Human Mutation, online
publication 2005. The absolute best calculation is done by me, and
gives a rate of 0.002 per marker per generation for the average of the
"FTDNA 12".
And then there is the minisatellite, of which the Y chromosome has only
one. It's rate is about .05 per generation. See Human Molecular
Genetics, 8, 2117 (1999).
Adding all these rates up gives a rate a bit less than 1 mutation
per generation for the well-studied part of the Y chromosome,
which means that a goodly part of the heterochromatin is not included.
The biggest error possibility is in the average SNP rate.
All this is discussed in that textbook whose reference I already gave.
But better than that is the discussion on the Rootsweb mailing
list genealogy-dna.
Doug McDonald
Only a mutation can change the Y-chromosone.
You haven't provided any information to suggest that every generation mutates.
Can you please provide the sources that document that EVERY generation
mutates the Y-chromosone?
The data does not indicate that EVERY generation mutates the Y
chromosome. Just ALMOST every generation. It's probabilistic. I
showed that current rates indicate that there is an SNP (single
nucleotide polymorphism) about every other generation. This
generally is taken to include small, single base, insertions and
deletions.
STRs, aka microsatellites, of which there are about 200 that have a
reasonable mutation rate, mutate at a rate of about 0.002 per
generation. That 200*.002 = .1 per generation. The number of
STRs is documented at Am. J. Human Genetics 74, 1183 (2004). The
mutation rate is documented well enough at http://www.yhrd.org, or
http://www.kerchner.com, or in a paper by Gusmao et. al., "Mutation
Rates at Y Chromosome Specific Microsatellites", Human Mutation, online
publication 2005. The absolute best calculation is done by me, and
gives a rate of 0.002 per marker per generation for the average of the
"FTDNA 12".
And then there is the minisatellite, of which the Y chromosome has only
one. It's rate is about .05 per generation. See Human Molecular
Genetics, 8, 2117 (1999).
Adding all these rates up gives a rate a bit less than 1 mutation
per generation for the well-studied part of the Y chromosome,
which means that a goodly part of the heterochromatin is not included.
The biggest error possibility is in the average SNP rate.
All this is discussed in that textbook whose reference I already gave.
But better than that is the discussion on the Rootsweb mailing
list genealogy-dna.
Doug McDonald
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Most recent common ancestors
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Your stuck for that person of course, and have to try using a father
or grandfather.
Doug McDonald
In a message dated 1/17/06 3:25:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:
But it IS possible to pinpoint exact people by DNA. You just have
to pinpoint a mutation with multiple brothers.
And what if no such mutation occurred?
Your stuck for that person of course, and have to try using a father
or grandfather.
Doug McDonald
-
Doug McDonald
Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
actually, ALMOST 50%. It's exactly 50% barring insertions or deletions.
Doug McDonald
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
On another note, I'm not really clear on whether scientists have
*proven* that you get exactly 50% of your nuclear DNA from your
mother and 50% from your father. I know that it's the belief, but
I'm not sure if it's proven.
Of the autosomal chromosomes (not X, Y or mt) it is absolutely certain.
actually, ALMOST 50%. It's exactly 50% barring insertions or deletions.
Doug McDonald
-
Lynda Chenault
Re: English Counties (Revised Post)
Did not Mr. Richardson infer that the phrase "co. Warwicks." was incorrect,
rather than the abbreviation "Warwicks." This is the way that I read:
In a message dated 17/01/2006 05:27:40 GMT Standard Time,
What I understand from this message is that there are two ways to refer to
this geographical area. One is "Warwicks. and the other is "co. Warwick."
(i.e., loose the "s" when you use "co." as county and shire are redundant.)
Given, his point would have stated more clearly if, in the second line of
his message above, he had used the abbreviation "Warwicks." rather
"Warwickshire."
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: <ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: English Counties (Revised Post)
rather than the abbreviation "Warwicks." This is the way that I read:
In a message dated 17/01/2006 05:27:40 GMT Standard Time,
_royalancestry@msn.com_ (mailto:royalancestry@msn.com) writes:
Third, in one place, you refer to "co. Warwicks." This should either
be "co. Warwick" or "Warwickshire." For a list of the preferred
county designations, e.g., Warwickshire, see the GENUKI list at the
following website:
What I understand from this message is that there are two ways to refer to
this geographical area. One is "Warwicks. and the other is "co. Warwick."
(i.e., loose the "s" when you use "co." as county and shire are redundant.)
Given, his point would have stated more clearly if, in the second line of
his message above, he had used the abbreviation "Warwicks." rather
"Warwickshire."
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: <ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: English Counties (Revised Post)
In a message dated 18/01/2006 05:55:59 GMT Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:
I am not saying Genuki is wrong, but there are alternatives.
Adrian (Surrey, UK)
Dear Adrian ~
I'm glad to know GENUKI is correct. That was my point.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: _www.royalancestry.net_ (http://www.royalancestry.net)
Here is yet another example of Doug twisting his argument. You inferred
that "Warwicks." was wrong not that GENUKI was correct.
Adrian
In a message dated 17/01/2006 05:27:40 GMT Standard Time,
_royalancestry@msn.com_ (mailto:royalancestry@msn.com) writes:
Third, in one place, you refer to "co. Warwicks." This should either
be "co. Warwick" or "Warwickshire." For a list of the preferred
county designations, e.g., Warwickshire, see the GENUKI list at the
following website:
-
Chris Phillips
Re: English Counties (Revised Post)
Lynda Chenault wrote:
Yes, I think that is the point that was being made. The idea is that as
"shire" was a kind of synonym for "county", one can refer either to "the
county of Warwick" or to "Warwickshire", but not to "the county of
Warwickshire". This is the usage followed (almost always) by works such as
Complete Peerage and the Victoria County History.
Chris Phillips
Did not Mr. Richardson infer that the phrase "co. Warwicks." was
incorrect,
rather than the abbreviation "Warwicks." This is the way that I read:
....
What I understand from this message is that there are two ways to refer to
this geographical area. One is "Warwicks. and the other is "co. Warwick."
(i.e., loose the "s" when you use "co." as county and shire are
redundant.)
Yes, I think that is the point that was being made. The idea is that as
"shire" was a kind of synonym for "county", one can refer either to "the
county of Warwick" or to "Warwickshire", but not to "the county of
Warwickshire". This is the usage followed (almost always) by works such as
Complete Peerage and the Victoria County History.
Chris Phillips
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: English Counties (Revised Post)
Dear Newsgroup ~
This is what I said to John Ravilious in my original post - my EXACT
words:
"In a message dated 17/01/2006 05:27:40 GMT Standard Time,
royalances...@msn.com writes:
"Third, in one place, you refer to "co. Warwicks." This should
either
be "co. Warwick" or "Warwickshire." For a list of the preferred
county designations, e.g., Warwickshire, see the GENUKI list at the
following website:" END OF QUOTE
Now Mr. Channing has dropped the "co." and says "Warwicks." is fine.
I never said "Warwicks." was wrong. I said "co. Warwicks." was wrong.
He also says I have no right to tell anyone anything and that I don't
know what Britain is. Hmmm .....
Is Mr. Channing deliberately trying to twist my words into a noodle?
If so, heaven help us.
Just so Mr. Channing gets it, I'll repeat it again for him .... slowly.
The GENUKI list contains the preferred county designations. There -
that was easy.
Now that we're all agreed on that, I can get back to finding Britain.
Isn't she a rock star, or something?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry,net
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:
This is what I said to John Ravilious in my original post - my EXACT
words:
"In a message dated 17/01/2006 05:27:40 GMT Standard Time,
royalances...@msn.com writes:
"Third, in one place, you refer to "co. Warwicks." This should
either
be "co. Warwick" or "Warwickshire." For a list of the preferred
county designations, e.g., Warwickshire, see the GENUKI list at the
following website:" END OF QUOTE
Now Mr. Channing has dropped the "co." and says "Warwicks." is fine.
I never said "Warwicks." was wrong. I said "co. Warwicks." was wrong.
He also says I have no right to tell anyone anything and that I don't
know what Britain is. Hmmm .....
Is Mr. Channing deliberately trying to twist my words into a noodle?
If so, heaven help us.
Just so Mr. Channing gets it, I'll repeat it again for him .... slowly.
The GENUKI list contains the preferred county designations. There -
that was easy.
Now that we're all agreed on that, I can get back to finding Britain.
Isn't she a rock star, or something?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry,net
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 18/01/2006 05:55:59 GMT Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:
I am not saying Genuki is wrong, but there are alternatives.
Adrian (Surrey, UK)
Dear Adrian ~
I'm glad to know GENUKI is correct. That was my point.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: _www.royalancestry.net_ (http://www.royalancestry.net)
Here is yet another example of Doug twisting his argument. You inferred
that "Warwicks." was wrong not that GENUKI was correct.
Adrian
In a message dated 17/01/2006 05:27:40 GMT Standard Time,
_royalancestry@msn.com_ (mailto:royalancestry@msn.com) writes:
Third, in one place, you refer to "co. Warwicks." This should either
be "co. Warwick" or "Warwickshire." For a list of the preferred
county designations, e.g., Warwickshire, see the GENUKI list at the
following website:
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: English Counties (Revised Post)
Chris Phillips wrote:
Yep, that's exactly what I meant.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City. Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Lynda Chenault wrote:
Did not Mr. Richardson infer that the phrase "co. Warwicks." was
incorrect,
rather than the abbreviation "Warwicks." This is the way that I read:
...
What I understand from this message is that there are two ways to refer to
this geographical area. One is "Warwicks. and the other is "co. Warwick."
(i.e., loose the "s" when you use "co." as county and shire are
redundant.)
Yes, I think that is the point that was being made. The idea is that as
"shire" was a kind of synonym for "county", one can refer either to "the
county of Warwick" or to "Warwickshire", but not to "the county of
Warwickshire". This is the usage followed (almost always) by works such as
Complete Peerage and the Victoria County History.
Chris Phillips
Yep, that's exactly what I meant.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City. Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: English Counties (Revised Post)
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
It must be a slow day in Australia.
DR
Steamed up? Not at all, just trying to keep reminding you that you have to
be honest and stand by and defend your point of you. Snide remarks are not
defending let alone explaining your point of view---is it now "Rich"?
It must be a slow day in Australia.
DR
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?
Doug McDonald wrote:
Come on. Has this really gotten to the point of unzipping and comparing
obscure caveats? Even an indel of a kilobase represents 0.00003%, which
is insignificant with the level of precision given - 50%, not 50.00000%.
Are we now to talk about telomere length? transposons? viral load?
leucocyte DNA rearrangements? gene conversion? Barr-bodies? epigenetic
phenomena? A little beyond the scope, don't you think?
taf
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
On another note, I'm not really clear on whether scientists have
*proven* that you get exactly 50% of your nuclear DNA from your
mother and 50% from your father. I know that it's the belief, but
I'm not sure if it's proven.
Of the autosomal chromosomes (not X, Y or mt) it is absolutely certain.
actually, ALMOST 50%. It's exactly 50% barring insertions or deletions.
Come on. Has this really gotten to the point of unzipping and comparing
obscure caveats? Even an indel of a kilobase represents 0.00003%, which
is insignificant with the level of precision given - 50%, not 50.00000%.
Are we now to talk about telomere length? transposons? viral load?
leucocyte DNA rearrangements? gene conversion? Barr-bodies? epigenetic
phenomena? A little beyond the scope, don't you think?
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Most recent common ancestors
In a message dated 1/18/2006 12:41:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
lostcooper@yahoo.com writes:
When the Greenland and Canadian Inuit people
united with the Alaskan Eskimos to celebrate the dissolution of the Ice
Curtain,
But Greenland, Canada, and Alaska were never seperated from each other by
the "Ice Curtain". Surely you mean the Asian Eskimos united with the North
American Eskimos...
lostcooper@yahoo.com writes:
When the Greenland and Canadian Inuit people
united with the Alaskan Eskimos to celebrate the dissolution of the Ice
Curtain,
But Greenland, Canada, and Alaska were never seperated from each other by
the "Ice Curtain". Surely you mean the Asian Eskimos united with the North
American Eskimos...
-
Gjest
Re: Most recent common ancestors
In a message dated 1/18/2006 12:41:16 AM Pacific Standard Time,
lostcooper@yahoo.com writes:
Such intermarriages
between Greenland Inuit and (mainly) Danish people have been occurring
for a very long time. - Bronwen
Could you explain for us how the Danes managed to go back and forth to
Greenland so much? I believe most history books would have you believe that
Iceland and Greenland were seperated from the Danes for many many centuries.
Which explains their genealogical isolation.
Will Johnson
lostcooper@yahoo.com writes:
Such intermarriages
between Greenland Inuit and (mainly) Danish people have been occurring
for a very long time. - Bronwen
Could you explain for us how the Danes managed to go back and forth to
Greenland so much? I believe most history books would have you believe that
Iceland and Greenland were seperated from the Danes for many many centuries.
Which explains their genealogical isolation.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Most recent common ancestors
In a message dated 1/18/2006 7:11:00 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:
Your stuck for that person of course, and have to try using a father
or grandfather.
Doug McDonald
But Doug, the rate of mutation for 12 markers is only 2 percent per the
website you linked to, which I don't necessary believe. However, let's take it
at what it says.
Then are you advocating we change to 100 makers or 300 markers in order
to isolate a person from their father? Surely you can see if 12 markers is
say 100 bucks that switching to a very complex 300 marker set is going to be
cost-prohibitive.
Will Johnson
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:
And what if no such mutation occurred?
Your stuck for that person of course, and have to try using a father
or grandfather.
Doug McDonald
But Doug, the rate of mutation for 12 markers is only 2 percent per the
website you linked to, which I don't necessary believe. However, let's take it
at what it says.
Then are you advocating we change to 100 makers or 300 markers in order
to isolate a person from their father? Surely you can see if 12 markers is
say 100 bucks that switching to a very complex 300 marker set is going to be
cost-prohibitive.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?
In a message dated 1/18/2006 7:15:34 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:
actually, ALMOST 50%. It's exactly 50% barring insertions or deletions.
Doug McDonald
You mean, in the process of forming the new DNA, some bits of the father's
DNA (for example) might insert themselves upon the mother's *prior* to the
conjoining of the two?
Or if not, then what do you mean?
Will Johnson
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:
actually, ALMOST 50%. It's exactly 50% barring insertions or deletions.
Doug McDonald
You mean, in the process of forming the new DNA, some bits of the father's
DNA (for example) might insert themselves upon the mother's *prior* to the
conjoining of the two?
Or if not, then what do you mean?
Will Johnson
-
Bob Turcott
Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?
Todd,
come on!!!`no need to get worked up here, we are supposed to help each
other out without getting so dam defensive here!!!! My only gripe with you
as I said before is referances/sources and it seems like you are on a
mission to pick us apart here...Now it seems you are getting rude and dont
belong to this forum if you continue take constructive critisim the wrong
way how can one grow here?????
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/o ... direct/01/
come on!!!`no need to get worked up here, we are supposed to help each
other out without getting so dam defensive here!!!! My only gripe with you
as I said before is referances/sources and it seems like you are on a
mission to pick us apart here...Now it seems you are getting rude and dont
belong to this forum if you continue take constructive critisim the wrong
way how can one grow here?????
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 10:05:47 -0700
Doug McDonald wrote:
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
On another note, I'm not really clear on whether scientists have
*proven* that you get exactly 50% of your nuclear DNA from your mother
and 50% from your father. I know that it's the belief, but I'm not
sure if it's proven.
Of the autosomal chromosomes (not X, Y or mt) it is absolutely certain.
actually, ALMOST 50%. It's exactly 50% barring insertions or deletions.
Come on. Has this really gotten to the point of unzipping and comparing
obscure caveats? Even an indel of a kilobase represents 0.00003%, which is
insignificant with the level of precision given - 50%, not 50.00000%. Are
we now to talk about telomere length? transposons? viral load? leucocyte
DNA rearrangements? gene conversion? Barr-bodies? epigenetic phenomena? A
little beyond the scope, don't you think?
taf
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/o ... direct/01/
-
Gjest
Re: Babthorpe of Osgodby/Sothill of Stockerston
In a message dated 1/17/2006 11:41:00 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
Elizabeth Plumpton's birthdate (c. 1461) is derived from her father's
IPM taken in 1464, which showed she was then aged 3. As such, the
birth range you have suggested for Elizabeth Plumpton, 1453/62, is
somewhat unrealistic.
I think 1461 *is* between 1453 and 1462.
So the birthrange seems to be spot-on
If you've been following this thread, you should see where the problem
originated.
Now it's been corrected.
Will Johnson
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
Elizabeth Plumpton's birthdate (c. 1461) is derived from her father's
IPM taken in 1464, which showed she was then aged 3. As such, the
birth range you have suggested for Elizabeth Plumpton, 1453/62, is
somewhat unrealistic.
I think 1461 *is* between 1453 and 1462.
So the birthrange seems to be spot-on
If you've been following this thread, you should see where the problem
originated.
Now it's been corrected.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Babthorpe of Osgodby/Sothill of Stockerston
Hmmm actually I retract what I last said.
If Douglas is correct that Elizabeth Plumpton's age is given in her father's
IPM (in 1464) as 3 years old, then I can accept that evidence for her approx
birthyear.
But she was still old enough to have a child by 1477. So the attribution of
her daughter as hers and not a step-daughter, still works.
Will Johnson
If Douglas is correct that Elizabeth Plumpton's age is given in her father's
IPM (in 1464) as 3 years old, then I can accept that evidence for her approx
birthyear.
But she was still old enough to have a child by 1477. So the attribution of
her daughter as hers and not a step-daughter, still works.
Will Johnson
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Most recent common ancestors
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
This depends on the meaning of the words "is" and the phrase
"going to be".
12 markers "is" $100, true. But $60 or 70 of that is
the isolation of the DNA.
But you can today get, on the mitochondria, 16600 bases
("markers") for $1000.
The price is collapsing. The predictions are in a couple
or four years the whole of the euchromatic Y chromosome would
be $10,000, and three years after that, $1000. That's
30 million bases.
What I am actually saying is, of course, "wait".
Doug McDonald
Then are you advocating we change to 100 makers or 300 markers in order
to isolate a person from their father? Surely you can see if 12 markers is
say 100 bucks that switching to a very complex 300 marker set is going to be
cost-prohibitive.
This depends on the meaning of the words "is" and the phrase
"going to be".
12 markers "is" $100, true. But $60 or 70 of that is
the isolation of the DNA.
But you can today get, on the mitochondria, 16600 bases
("markers") for $1000.
The price is collapsing. The predictions are in a couple
or four years the whole of the euchromatic Y chromosome would
be $10,000, and three years after that, $1000. That's
30 million bases.
What I am actually saying is, of course, "wait".
Doug McDonald