Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Renia

Re: Ghost of Lady Witham-Jopson-Bolles

Legg inn av Renia » 10 mar 2006 02:55:12

Tony Hoskins wrote:

"the use of the name Penelope in New England?"

Actually, this is a matter of great interest to many concerned with the
web of relationship ranging from New England to Virginia in the 17th
century, amongst the labyrinthine connections of the extended
Pelham-Humphrey-West-Percy genealogical constellation. This is a most
significant genealogical "tag" indeed.


I'm sure it is useful. But it's not medieval!


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

Gjest

Re: Ghost of Lady Witham-Jopson-Bolles

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 mar 2006 17:04:01

In a message dated 3/10/2006 8:00:30 AM Pacific Standard Time,
renia@DELETEotenet.gr writes:


You Merkins have nice stockpiles of gateway ancestors: Mayflower
descendants; Daughters of the Revolution; - in other words, many of your
early names are already familiar to you.

Merkins ?

Paul K Davis

Re: Fw: Valenza & Eudokia - a Komnen-Palaiolog hypothesis

Legg inn av Paul K Davis » 10 mar 2006 17:47:02

Yes, but I've been unable to locate this in any library in the San
Francisco Bay Area where I reside. I wonder if anyone who does have access
to the article might summarize its key arguments and evidence.

Also, I have privately received comments, which I am still studying, which
indicate my hypothesis of Eudokia (Megale) Komnene marrying John VII
Palaiologos is not sensible. On the other hand, those comments also
indicate the name "Valenza" does not occur in contemporary sources, so the
whole debate on the non-Greekness of the name may be beside the point.
(Furthermore, I supposed her to be daughter of a couple of mixed ancestry,
not pure Greek ancestry.)

-- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd-gm@earthlink.net]


[Original Message]
From: Kelsey Williams <zetetes_sofias@yahoo.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Date: 3/10/2006 7:30:44 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Valenza & Eudokia - a Komnen-Palaiolog hypothesis

I think this argument would be most profitably resolved if people were
simply to read the definitive article on the alleged Komnene-Crispo
marriage:

Michel Kursankis, "Une alliance problématique au XVe siècle: le
mariage de Valenza Comnena, fille d'un empereur de Trébizonde, avec
Niccolo Crispo, seigneur de Santorin," _Archeion Pontou_ 30 (1970).

Cheers,
Kelsey

John Brandon

Re: Ghost of Lady Witham-Jopson-Bolles

Legg inn av John Brandon » 10 mar 2006 18:15:46

Merkins ?

A pubic wig or hairpiece ...

Tony Hoskins

Re: Ghost of Lady Witham-Jopson-Bolles

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 10 mar 2006 18:24:02

"I'm sure it is useful. But it's not medieval!"

Not directly, true. But this could be said superficially for much most
of what is discussed here. It's a matter of differentiating the utterly
tangential from the potentially useful, it seems to me. And, I think
"useful" applies to brief mentions of (for instance) 17th century Brits
in America with hitherto unknown or only-beginning-to-be-realized
ancient ancestries - whereby things rapidly and directly become
certifiably "medieval".

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

Tony Hoskins

RE: Mayflower Royal Descents? (Was Re: Ghost of LadyWitham-J

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 10 mar 2006 18:57:02

"So Richard More and his two siblings, all illegitimate, and possibly
Edward Winslow, a printer and the son of a wealthWorcestershire
merchant (owner of a salt boilery), and his brother Gilbert, are the
only
Mayflower passengers with Plantagenet descents. Five out of 102
passengers."

So it seems currently, Brad. I might also mention, though, that there
is ancient, though non-Plantagenet, ancestry for Henry Sampson of the
Mayflower [Robert Leigh Ward, _The American Genealogist_ 52:198-209 and
56:141-143; _The Genealogist_ 6:166-186].

Best regards,

Tony

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

Gjest

Re: American's and their trees (Was Re: Ghost of LadyWitham

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 mar 2006 19:07:02

I think it's a gross mistatement to say that Americans have a plethora of
immigrant and gateway ancestors to hunt with while poor Brits are reduced to
skulking about amid scullery (spelling?) maids and horse groomers.

Out of my 2 to the nth power great-x-parents, only one is *possibly* a
Mayflower voyager and maybe only 1 or 2 percent of them do I have any idea where
they came from more exact than a country like "France", "Germany" which isn't too
helpful.

I only have one recent (post-Medieval) ancestor who seems to have been
something more than the ordinary middle-to-lower-class grubber.

There are not yet, to my knowledge, been anything like the attempt at a
comprehensive study of *all* colonial records with respect to genealogy. Every
study like PA or MCA or even "New England Families" has scads of missing data
simply because, possibly, not all the relevant primary documents have even been
published yet.

I find in many cases I myself am publishing, for apparently the first time,
public records writen close to, if not, two hundred years ago. So I'm quite
sure there are things even older, say three hundred? or four hundred? that have
yet to see a publisher.

Will Johnson

Doug McDonald

Re: Mayflower Royal Descents? (Was Re: Ghost of LadyWitham-J

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 10 mar 2006 19:29:13

Tony Hoskins wrote:
"So Richard More and his two siblings, all illegitimate, and possibly
Edward Winslow, a printer and the son of a wealthWorcestershire
merchant (owner of a salt boilery), and his brother Gilbert, are the
only
Mayflower passengers with Plantagenet descents. Five out of 102
passengers."


What about Jamestown, which of course predates the
Mayflower? I have several early Jamestown ancestors,
none of whom have royal descent. Say include only people who
are in the post-massacre census.

Doug McDonald

Tony Hoskins

Re: American's and their trees (Was Re: Ghost of LadyWitham

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 10 mar 2006 19:34:02

"I think it's a gross misstatement to say that Americans have a plethora
of
immigrant and gateway ancestors to hunt with while poor Brits are
reduced to skulking about amid scullery (spelling?) maids and horse
groomers."

Interesting point (though did I miss someone suggesting this was so?).
I think American connections to ancient genealogy are often aided by the
reality that it is easier to trace from the present straight back to the
17th century *in America* than it is to do so in England. There is I
think a parallel, though, that many of us Americans have large
roadblocks (though less insurmountable than their counterparts in
Britain) in the early 19th century, but fortunately persistence, savvy,
and possibly greater numbers and varieties of evidence here often
provide solutions in America research. But, in Britain I think the
Industrial Revolution was a much more formidable genealogical obstacle;
one that has in many cases pretty successfully seemed to efface
connections back into the 18th and 17th centuries, from whence I think
connections to the medieval era are much more readily discovered.


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

Tony Hoskins

Re: Mayflower Royal Descents? (Was Re: Ghost of LadyWitham-J

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 10 mar 2006 19:41:03

"What about Jamestown, which of course predates the Mayflower?"

Jamestown in entirely another matter. A good starting point for
Jamestownians with ancient ancestry is Dorman's _Adventurers of Purse
and Person_. But it must be realized that nowhere near the amount of
scrutiny has been placed on early Virginians' origins compared to the
Mayflower passengers. Regrettably, because the "gentry-quotient" with
Virginians (particularly during the Interregnum) was so much higher than
in Plymouth.

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

Doug McDonald

Re: Mayflower Royal Descents? (Was Re: Ghost of LadyWitham-J

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 10 mar 2006 21:11:45

Tony Hoskins wrote:
"What about Jamestown, which of course predates the Mayflower?"

Jamestown in entirely another matter. A good starting point for
Jamestownians with ancient ancestry is Dorman's _Adventurers of Purse
and Person_.

I own the first two of three of those books. They give,
essentially, only descendants, not ancestors.



But it must be realized that nowhere near the amount of
scrutiny has been placed on early Virginians' origins compared to the
Mayflower passengers.


Why not? After all, we predate those Johnny-come-lately
Massachusettsers!

Doug Mcdonald

Tony Hoskins

Re: Mayflower Royal Descents? (Was Re: Ghost of LadyWitham-J

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 10 mar 2006 21:34:01

As I mentioned, it is a good starting point.

Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> 03/10/06 12:11PM
Tony Hoskins wrote:
"What about Jamestown, which of course predates the Mayflower?"

Jamestown in entirely another matter. A good starting point for
Jamestownians with ancient ancestry is Dorman's _Adventurers of
Purse
and Person_.

I own the first two of three of those books. They give,
essentially, only descendants, not ancestors.



But it must be realized that nowhere near the amount of
scrutiny has been placed on early Virginians' origins compared to
the
Mayflower passengers.


Why not? After all, we predate those Johnny-come-lately
Massachusettsers!

Doug Mcdonald

RAY Montgomery

Re: Mayflower Royal Descents? (Was Re: Ghost of LadyWitham-J

Legg inn av RAY Montgomery » 10 mar 2006 21:35:02

Doug,
From what I know of early VA many are noble, and can be traced back to such.
I know paul Reed is working on a book or something like that to show the
origins of many early Va immigrants. He used to be on this list, how ever I
have not seen him here since I have been back on.
Ray




From: Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Mayflower Royal Descents? (Was Re: Ghost of
LadyWitham-Jopson-Bolles)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 12:29:13 -0600

Tony Hoskins wrote:
"So Richard More and his two siblings, all illegitimate, and possibly
Edward Winslow, a printer and the son of a wealthWorcestershire merchant
(owner of a salt boilery), and his brother Gilbert, are the
only Mayflower passengers with Plantagenet descents. Five out of 102
passengers."


What about Jamestown, which of course predates the Mayflower? I have
several early Jamestown ancestors,
none of whom have royal descent. Say include only people who are in the
post-massacre census.

Doug McDonald

Renia

Re: Ghost of Lady Witham-Jopson-Bolles

Legg inn av Renia » 10 mar 2006 23:33:02

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 3/10/2006 8:00:30 AM Pacific Standard Time,
renia@DELETEotenet.gr writes:



You Merkins have nice stockpiles of gateway ancestors: Mayflower
descendants; Daughters of the Revolution; - in other words, many of your
early names are already familiar to you.


Merkins ?

Americans. (Sorry, we use this on shm.)

Renia

Re: Ghost of Lady Witham-Jopson-Bolles

Legg inn av Renia » 10 mar 2006 23:34:00

Tony Hoskins wrote:

"I'm sure it is useful. But it's not medieval!"

Not directly, true. But this could be said superficially for much most
of what is discussed here. It's a matter of differentiating the utterly
tangential from the potentially useful, it seems to me. And, I think
"useful" applies to brief mentions of (for instance) 17th century Brits
in America with hitherto unknown or only-beginning-to-be-realized
ancient ancestries - whereby things rapidly and directly become
certifiably "medieval".

Well, in that case, why can't we discuss 17th century Brits in Britain?

Renia

Re: Mayflower Royal Descents? (Was Re: Ghost of LadyWitham-J

Legg inn av Renia » 10 mar 2006 23:37:59

RAY Montgomery wrote:

Doug,
From what I know of early VA many are noble, and can be traced back to
such. I know paul Reed is working on a book or something like that to
show the origins of many early Va immigrants. He used to be on this
list, how ever I have not seen him here since I have been back on.
Ray


Very few of the old people seem to be here nowadays. Where is everybody?

Renia

Re: American's and their trees (Was Re: Ghost of LadyWitham

Legg inn av Renia » 10 mar 2006 23:42:58

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

I think it's a gross mistatement to say that Americans have a plethora of
immigrant and gateway ancestors to hunt with while poor Brits are reduced to
skulking about amid scullery (spelling?) maids and horse groomers.

I didn't say you necessarily have a plethora of immigrant and gateway
ancestors. But it would appear that some of the early American names are
familiar to some of you here, while being unfamiliar in England. In this
way, some of you seem to share (or at least, be aware of) the same early
ancestors, but, I appreciate, maybe only through one luckly line.

Renia

Re: American's and their trees (Was Re: Ghost of LadyWith

Legg inn av Renia » 10 mar 2006 23:47:01

Tony Hoskins wrote:

"I think it's a gross misstatement to say that Americans have a plethora
of
immigrant and gateway ancestors to hunt with while poor Brits are
reduced to skulking about amid scullery (spelling?) maids and horse
groomers."

Interesting point (though did I miss someone suggesting this was so?).
I think American connections to ancient genealogy are often aided by the
reality that it is easier to trace from the present straight back to the
17th century *in America* than it is to do so in England. There is I
think a parallel, though, that many of us Americans have large
roadblocks (though less insurmountable than their counterparts in
Britain) in the early 19th century, but fortunately persistence, savvy,
and possibly greater numbers and varieties of evidence here often
provide solutions in America research. But, in Britain I think the
Industrial Revolution was a much more formidable genealogical obstacle;
one that has in many cases pretty successfully seemed to efface
connections back into the 18th and 17th centuries, from whence I think
connections to the medieval era are much more readily discovered.

English genealogy has become so much easier thanks to Ancestry.com
putting all the censuses online (1841 to come this year, I believe).

However, the Industrial Revolution found many people leaving their
villages for the towns and cities and for those who died before their
name being recorded for ever on a census, it is very difficult to find
where they came from. Most English genealogies stop at this point, as
Tony suggested. But if you do manage to surmount the Industrial
Revolution of the late 18th century, you have the interregnum of the
17th to do battle with. Many parish registers (but not all) stopped for
20 years or more during the period around the English Civil war.
Sometimes, there is just no answer.

Renia

Re: Fw: Valenza & Eudokia - a Komnen-Palaiolog hypothesis

Legg inn av Renia » 10 mar 2006 23:57:22

Paul K Davis wrote:

Yes, but I've been unable to locate this in any library in the San
Francisco Bay Area where I reside. I wonder if anyone who does have access
to the article might summarize its key arguments and evidence.

Also, I have privately received comments, which I am still studying, which
indicate my hypothesis of Eudokia (Megale) Komnene marrying John VII
Palaiologos is not sensible. On the other hand, those comments also
indicate the name "Valenza" does not occur in contemporary sources, so the
whole debate on the non-Greekness of the name may be beside the point.
(Furthermore, I supposed her to be daughter of a couple of mixed ancestry,
not pure Greek ancestry.)

Are you sure that Eudokia is her name, and not just a description?

Eudokia means:
1. will, choice
1. good will, kindly intent, benevolence
2. delight, pleasure, satisfaction
3. desire
1. for delight in any absent thing easily produces longing for it

Similarly, Megale (or megalo) means large or in the context of a family,
senior, more important.

Tony Hoskins

Re: Mayflower Royal Descents? - and where's the Old Gang?

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 11 mar 2006 00:05:03

"Very few of the old people seem to be here nowadays. Where is
everybody?"

Yeah, all these danged newcomers. Whatever became of old you-know-who,
Mr. "Flux et Merditas"? I for one am enjoying the lovely *civility*!

Tony

Gjest

Re: American's and their trees (Was Re: Ghost of LadyWith

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 mar 2006 00:09:02

In a message dated 3/10/06 3:00:35 PM Pacific Standard Time,
renia@DELETEotenet.gr writes:

<< However, the Industrial Revolution found many people leaving their
villages for the towns and cities and for those who died before their
name being recorded for ever on a census, it is very difficult to find
where they came from. >>

Renia I'm afraid you've hit on something that us "Merkins" fight constantly.
In the states there was a census every 10 years, on the zeros, so 1790, 1800,
1810.... right up to 2000 so far.

On the 1850 and forward, every name of every person in the household was
listed. However before that year, only the head-of-household is listed and then
tally marks for various people of various ages living in the house. No names,
no relationships... the people could be in-laws, grandparents, adopted
children, sisters, who knows!

The opening up of land further and further west in the states (and sometimes
south also) cause people to just up and move, leaving no signposts of where
they came *from*.

Those factors make it difficult in the states also to trace back behind the
1850 census for most people. That's the point we get to, where we start
tracing entire villages or sometimes counties just to get that extra ten years
earlier in the search.

For example if you can show that four out of five neighbors of your "John
Smith" all came from Logan Co, KY, its a good indication that your John Smith did
as well.

Problem is, that there are still thousands of tons of original documents
sitting in moldy stacks in courthouses all over the US never yet published :)

The LDS made a good start and ancestry is accelerating the dissemination of a
few primary, but mostly secondary documentation, but we still have a long way
to go yet even here in the "well-documented ??* US.

Will Johnson

Renia

Re: Mayflower Royal Descents? - and where's the Old Gang?

Legg inn av Renia » 11 mar 2006 00:09:58

Tony Hoskins wrote:

"Very few of the old people seem to be here nowadays. Where is
everybody?"

Yeah, all these danged newcomers. Whatever became of old you-know-who,
Mr. "Flux et Merditas"? I for one am enjoying the lovely *civility*!

Well, he's still, er, entertaining us over on shm, though I think he has
some new pills, because he is quite civil lately and has dumped his
97-line sig. (We wait with bated breath, however!)

Renia

Re: American's and their trees (Was Re: Ghost of LadyWith

Legg inn av Renia » 11 mar 2006 00:14:22

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 3/10/06 3:00:35 PM Pacific Standard Time,
renia@DELETEotenet.gr writes:

However, the Industrial Revolution found many people leaving their
villages for the towns and cities and for those who died before their
name being recorded for ever on a census, it is very difficult to find
where they came from.

Renia I'm afraid you've hit on something that us "Merkins" fight constantly.
In the states there was a census every 10 years, on the zeros, so 1790, 1800,
1810.... right up to 2000 so far.

On the 1850 and forward, every name of every person in the household was
listed. However before that year, only the head-of-household is listed and then
tally marks for various people of various ages living in the house. No names,
no relationships... the people could be in-laws, grandparents, adopted
children, sisters, who knows!

I know the 1890 was destroyed by fire, which is unfortunate. Far as I
know, quite a few people are missing from the 1850, because some of the
outlanders just didn't bother. At least, I have searched for people in
places where I know they were (say in 1840 and in 1860) but they're just
not there. (I'm a dab hand at name variants and going thru whole towns!)



The opening up of land further and further west in the states (and sometimes
south also) cause people to just up and move, leaving no signposts of where
they came *from*.

Those factors make it difficult in the states also to trace back behind the
1850 census for most people. That's the point we get to, where we start
tracing entire villages or sometimes counties just to get that extra ten years
earlier in the search.

For example if you can show that four out of five neighbors of your "John
Smith" all came from Logan Co, KY, its a good indication that your John Smith did
as well.

Problem is, that there are still thousands of tons of original documents
sitting in moldy stacks in courthouses all over the US never yet published :)

The LDS made a good start and ancestry is accelerating the dissemination of a
few primary, but mostly secondary documentation, but we still have a long way
to go yet even here in the "well-documented ??* US.

No, I wasn't trying to say that genealogy in the US is any easier than
in the UK. I was only referring to gateway ancestors, whom you all seem
to know as well as you know your neighbours!

Tony Hoskins

Re: American's and their trees (Was Re: Ghost of LadyWith

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 11 mar 2006 00:15:02

"However, the Industrial Revolution found many people leaving their
villages for the towns and cities and for those who died before their
name being recorded for ever on a census, it is very difficult to find

where they came from."

So true. I think the main reason Americans can have easier tracing over
our troublesome post Revolutionary-early Federal period is simply the
matter of land ownership. Unlike Britain, Americans of modest means
America have from the 1600s owned enough to leave traces. The
frustrating part of British research (for me, too, in one quadrant of my
ancestry - my maternal grandmother left England in 1906) is that even
relatively well-off folks, especially c. 1650-1780, can have left
proportionately little record. Again, to my observation, often strictly
due to the land ownership issue.

Tony

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

steven perkins

Re: Ghost of Lady Witham-Jopson-Bolles

Legg inn av steven perkins » 11 mar 2006 00:37:01

On 3/10/06, Renia <renia@deleteotenet.gr> wrote:
Tony Hoskins wrote:

"I'm sure it is useful. But it's not medieval!"

Not directly, true. But this could be said superficially for much most
of what is discussed here. It's a matter of differentiating the utterly
tangential from the potentially useful, it seems to me. And, I think
"useful" applies to brief mentions of (for instance) 17th century Brits
in America with hitherto unknown or only-beginning-to-be-realized
ancient ancestries - whereby things rapidly and directly become
certifiably "medieval".

Well, in that case, why can't we discuss 17th century Brits in Britain?

The newsgroup charter explicitly allows discussion of 17th century

immigrants to the Americas.

--
Steven C. Perkins SCPerkins@gmail.com
http://stevencperkins.com/
http://intelligent-internet.info/
http://jgg-online.blogspot.com/
http://stevencperkins.com/genealogy.html

Tony Hoskins

Re: Ghost of Lady Witham-Jopson-Bolles

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 11 mar 2006 00:46:02

"The newsgroup charter explicitly allows discussion of 17th century
immigrants to the Americas."

True, but Renia was asking about Brits in Britain - which is OK with
me!

T.

"steven perkins" <scperkins@gmail.com> 03/10/06 03:35PM
On 3/10/06, Renia <renia@deleteotenet.gr> wrote:
Tony Hoskins wrote:

"I'm sure it is useful. But it's not medieval!"

Not directly, true. But this could be said superficially for much
most
of what is discussed here. It's a matter of differentiating the
utterly
tangential from the potentially useful, it seems to me. And, I
think
"useful" applies to brief mentions of (for instance) 17th century
Brits
in America with hitherto unknown or only-beginning-to-be-realized
ancient ancestries - whereby things rapidly and directly become
certifiably "medieval".

Well, in that case, why can't we discuss 17th century Brits in
Britain?

--

Steven C. Perkins SCPerkins@gmail.com
http://stevencperkins.com/
http://intelligent-internet.info/
http://jgg-online.blogspot.com/
http://stevencperkins.com/genealogy.html

Paul K Davis

Re: Fw: Valenza & Eudokia - a Komnen-Palaiolog hypothesis

Legg inn av Paul K Davis » 11 mar 2006 01:02:02

Concerning the "surname", it is an implication from her parentage. The
emperors ruling at Trebizond from shortly after the Fourth Crusade through
the Ottoman conquest were agnatic descendents of Alexios I, and so used the
family name "Komnenos" (or Komnene, Comnenus, Comnena). At some point they
also adopted Megalos Komnenos as something like a title (Grand Comnenus).

As for the given name, I'm not sure of anything, having not had the
opportunity to consult the primary sources, but "Eudokia" (or Eudocia,
Eudoxia, Eudoxie etc.) was a common female given name in this culture at
this time. It's my impression that nearly all common given names in this
culture at this time had obvious meanings, so I don't consider that a mark
against it.

(By the way, I am not proposing that "Valenza" and "Eudokia" were the same
person, but rather that Valenza was the daughter of Eudokia. Recently
recived information leads me to believe that Valenza's given name is
possibly not certain, but I have no reason to doubt Eudokia's. My two
hypotheses continue only to be hypotheses, and are at the moment on rather
shaky ground.)

Thanks for the information about the meaning of the name.

-- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd-gm@earthlink.net]


[Original Message]
From: Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Date: 3/10/2006 3:00:46 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Valenza & Eudokia - a Komnen-Palaiolog hypothesis

Paul K Davis wrote:

Yes, but I've been unable to locate this in any library in the San
Francisco Bay Area where I reside. I wonder if anyone who does have
access
to the article might summarize its key arguments and evidence.

Also, I have privately received comments, which I am still studying,
which
indicate my hypothesis of Eudokia (Megale) Komnene marrying John VII
Palaiologos is not sensible. On the other hand, those comments also
indicate the name "Valenza" does not occur in contemporary sources, so
the
whole debate on the non-Greekness of the name may be beside the point.
(Furthermore, I supposed her to be daughter of a couple of mixed
ancestry,
not pure Greek ancestry.)

Are you sure that Eudokia is her name, and not just a description?

Eudokia means:
1. will, choice
1. good will, kindly intent, benevolence
2. delight, pleasure, satisfaction
3. desire
1. for delight in any absent thing easily produces longing for it

Similarly, Megale (or megalo) means large or in the context of a family,
senior, more important.

Renia

Re: Ghost of Lady Witham-Jopson-Bolles

Legg inn av Renia » 11 mar 2006 01:09:02

steven perkins wrote:

On 3/10/06, Renia <renia@deleteotenet.gr> wrote:

Tony Hoskins wrote:


"I'm sure it is useful. But it's not medieval!"

Not directly, true. But this could be said superficially for much most
of what is discussed here. It's a matter of differentiating the utterly
tangential from the potentially useful, it seems to me. And, I think
"useful" applies to brief mentions of (for instance) 17th century Brits
in America with hitherto unknown or only-beginning-to-be-realized
ancient ancestries - whereby things rapidly and directly become
certifiably "medieval".

Well, in that case, why can't we discuss 17th century Brits in Britain?


The newsgroup charter explicitly allows discussion of 17th century
immigrants to the Americas.

I know.

Tony Hoskins

Re: Cleere, dau. of William Gilbert of Mickleover - close co

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 11 mar 2006 01:56:02

And, speaking of heights (how'd this begin, I wonder)! As a 12 greats
nephew of Clere Gilbert [and an 11 greats grandson of her sister
Temperance (Gilbert) (Alsop) Hopkins] I am glad this discussion has
opened, and thought this an opportunity to mention something perhaps of
interest to some.

I note that Leo on his Great Site now shows the Clere line back the
Boleyns. I find it intriguing that my ancestors (mother and daughter)
Temperance (Gilbert) (Alsop) Hopkins and Elizabeth (Alsop) (Baldwin)
Fowler - emigrants to new England before 1642 - were, through their
descents from Sir William and Lady Margaret (Butler) Boleyn of
Blickling, Norfolk - were 2nd cousins twice and three times removed
(respectively) of Queen Elisabeth I. This strikes me as a remarkably
close royal kinship of English immigrants to America, only about 35-40
years after their cousin the great queen's death. I imagine this is the
closest royal kinship among this generation of American "founders".

Tony Hoskins

(6'3" for what it's worth!)

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

Gjest

Re: Mayflower Royal Descents? (Was Re: Ghost of Lady Witham-

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 mar 2006 02:08:01

Dear Tony and others,
I personally am uncertain of how exactly
the Pilgrims defined social rank beyond the true Pilgrim "Saints" such as
Reverend Robert Cushman, Elder William Brewster ( note much research has been done
on his wife Mary who was thought to have been a Wentworth, which has been
disproven. I think the earliest surname given for her Dr Jeremy Bangs in Mayflower
Quarterly 51: 165-66 puts forth the possibility that She was a Wyrall.),
Governor John Carver, future Governors William Bradford and Edward Winslow and the
Strangers such as Assistant Governor Stephen Hopkins and Richard Warren. to
be sure there were servants such as John Howland and Edward Doten who in course
of time became almost as powerful as their former masters.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

Tony Hoskins

Re: Mayflower Royal Descents? - morphing into the social lev

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 11 mar 2006 02:27:02

Hello James,

It is often observed that the social level of the Plymouth settlers in
1620 was noticeably humbler than that of the Puritans under Winthrop who
founded Massachusetts Bay in 1630. The subtleties of class at the
distance of nearly 400 years can be elusive, but the more you "work"
with these people and times the clearer it all becomes.

General interest, you might enjoy (if you haven't already read it)
Eugene Stratton's, _Plymouth Colony_, also, John Putnam Demos', _A
Little Commonwealth: Family Life in Plymouth Colony_.

Another word on the high social status of the Mayflower's Edward
Winslow. He was apparently so well connected that even Winthrop and
Dudley in Boston used him ambassadorially in London. Winslow was
repeatedly called "cousin" by the Greville cousinage of courtiers, some
of whom were aristocratic friends of Cromwell, too. But, by and large
the "Pilgrims" (a term that should only be used with *some* of the
Plymouth settlers) were of markedly more ordinary origin than the
founders of the Massachuset Bay. I descend form Edward Winslow's brother
John Winslow of Boston, so have devoted quite a lot of time to the
Winslows and their origins.

Best,

Tony


Jwc1870@aol.com> 03/10/06 05:06PM
Dear Tony and others,

I personally am uncertain of how
exactly
the Pilgrims defined social rank beyond the true Pilgrim "Saints" such
as
Reverend Robert Cushman, Elder William Brewster ( note much research
has been done
on his wife Mary who was thought to have been a Wentworth, which has
been
disproven. I think the earliest surname given for her Dr Jeremy Bangs
in Mayflower
Quarterly 51: 165-66 puts forth the possibility that She was a
Wyrall.),
Governor John Carver, future Governors William Bradford and Edward
Winslow and the
Strangers such as Assistant Governor Stephen Hopkins and Richard
Warren. to
be sure there were servants such as John Howland and Edward Doten who
in course
of time became almost as powerful as their former masters.


Sincerely,


James W Cummings


Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Ghost of Lady Witham-Jopson-Bolles

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 mar 2006 02:31:02

Dear Renia, Steven, Tony and others,
I also have no
problem with discussing 17th century Brits in Britain as well as 17th century
immigrants of any race to America. How can We understand those who came unless we
understand what They left behind ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Warren and Paula Jo Merri

Re: Mayflower Royal Descents? (Was Re: Ghost of LadyWitham-J

Legg inn av Warren and Paula Jo Merri » 11 mar 2006 07:39:00

I was wondering if someone with these books would miind telling me if any of
the following people end up in the lines that eventually are part of the
Jamestowne Society. I have these people in my file and because they show up
very early in Virginia I'm suspicious that they somehow are tied in but
currently I don't have the connections.

I've tried to find a copy of these books just to do some looking but so far
haven't had much luck. All I found was a very early edition of Adventurers
of Purse and Person and it didn't help me as much as I had hoped. If I knew
for sure that one of the books documented one of these people into those
lines I'd be happy to buy it but if I'm only on a wild goose chase the books
are a bit pricey.

The following people are direct ancestors of either my wife or myself. Do
any of these lead us to a Jamestowne ancestor?

1) Mary Awbrey b. about 1660 d. before 17 Oct 1721 m. John Meador

2) William Bibby b. about 1602 d. before 25 Sep 1637 m. Mary (I found an
entry that he came over on the Swan in 1620/1621, not one of the original
colonists but close).

3) Thomas Meador b. about 1634 d. 14 Apr 1652 m. Elizabeth White

4) Abraham Weeks b. about 1631 d. 6 Jan 1691/1692 m. Milicent Lidford or
Ledford

5) Sir Francis Weeks (father of Abraham Weeks) b. about 1616 d. about 1689

6) Elizabeth White b. about 1639 m. Thomas Meador father was Richard White
and mother was Addra?


Those appear to be the most promising. I don't want to burden with too many
names but within a few years of these the surnames Bybee, Goodloe, Hudgens,
Meador, Prescott and Weeks show up multiple times. Maybe I just don't know
enough about how to find the right information yet but it seems that
Jamestowne descendants information is hard to come by and sort of seems to
be locked up in just these few books.

Thanks for any time you give to helping on this....




""Tony Hoskins"" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:s41171ea.045@CENTRAL_SVR2...
As I mentioned, it is a good starting point.

Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> 03/10/06 12:11PM
Tony Hoskins wrote:
"What about Jamestown, which of course predates the Mayflower?"

Jamestown in entirely another matter. A good starting point for
Jamestownians with ancient ancestry is Dorman's _Adventurers of
Purse
and Person_.

I own the first two of three of those books. They give,
essentially, only descendants, not ancestors.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

RAY Montgomery

Re: Mayflower Royal Descents? - and where's the Old Gang?

Legg inn av RAY Montgomery » 11 mar 2006 08:00:02

Ah Tony so you dont miss him either!
how enchanting!
What ever did become of him. I wont mention his name so that just perhaps he
wont come back
Ray




From: "Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Mayflower Royal Descents? - and where's the Old Gang?
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 15:02:59 -0800

"Very few of the old people seem to be here nowadays. Where is
everybody?"

Yeah, all these danged newcomers. Whatever became of old you-know-who,
Mr. "Flux et Merditas"? I for one am enjoying the lovely *civility*!

Tony

CED

Re: Mayflower Royal Descents? (Was Re: Ghost of LadyWitham-J

Legg inn av CED » 11 mar 2006 14:17:50

Renia wrote:
RAY Montgomery wrote:


Doug,
From what I know of early VA many are noble, and can be traced back to
such. I know paul Reed is working on a book or something like that to
show the origins of many early Va immigrants. He used to be on this
list, how ever I have not seen him here since I have been back on.
Ray


Very few of the old people seem to be here nowadays. Where is everybody?

Renia:

Richardson has driven many of them away.

CED

Doug McDonald

Re: Mayflower Royal Descents? (Was Re: Ghost of LadyWitham-J

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 11 mar 2006 16:34:32

Warren and Paula Jo Merrill wrote:

The following people are direct ancestors of either my wife or myself. Do
any of these lead us to a Jamestowne ancestor?

1) Mary Awbrey b. about 1660 d. before 17 Oct 1721 m. John Meador

2) William Bibby b. about 1602 d. before 25 Sep 1637 m. Mary (I found an
entry that he came over on the Swan in 1620/1621, not one of the original
colonists but close).


Mr. Bibby is a PRIMARY entry in AP&P. He has a fairly large
descendancy. Get yourself to copies of the first and second
volumes of the current edition (through the letter P), and
a copy of the previous one. The final part of the current
edition won't be out for quite a while ... it's going to be
either late, or split into two and very very late.

It is of course in print at http://www.genealogical.com .

Not cheap.

Doug McDonald

Patricia Junkin

Re: Latin Help, Again Please

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 11 mar 2006 16:56:02

Dear Chris and All,
I sincerely appreciate your assistance in decoding this for me. It confirms
the de la Bysse family at Worth in 1263.
Thank you,
Pat

----------
From: "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Latin Help, Again Please
Date: Fri, 10, 2006, 6:03 PM



pj.evans wrote:
My initial reading is that Osbert de Kaylly sold land in these 6
villages to Walter de Bersted, for the sum of L90, the land having
earlier been held by service of John de la Bysse and his heirs (one
knight, it says later).

The property is 10 pounds and 16 pence of rent in these places, together
with its appurtenances, namely the homage and service of John de la Bysse
and his heirs for the tenements that John held of Osbert (that is, John is a
tenant, and his service is part of the property being conveyed). Walter is
to do the service of one knight.

Chris Phillips


Gjest

Re: Early de Fiennes

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 mar 2006 02:29:02

I think there is information of the early Fiennes family including the
constable of Dover in Hasted's History of Kent. In the 13, (or is it 14) vol 1972
edition, try vol ii pp 62-74

The History and Topographical Survey of the Count of Kent' by Edward Hasted
(reprint 1972). The original 2nd edition was printed 1797-1801.

Adrian



In a message dated 11/03/2006 00:45:30 GMT Standard Time, SueBurne@aol.com
writes:
Having discovered only two weeks ago that my Fines family linked back
to the de Fiennes I have been trying to make sense of the earliest
members I can find of this interesting family.
So far I seem to have found two different lineages and I am not sure
which is more accurate or if they are alternative names.
I have seen a number of websites (including Dover Castle's own) which
say that John de Fiennes was a constable of Dover Castle following the
Conquest. Several online trees show the generations following him as
James, John, Alan and then Ingelram who married Sibyl de Tingrie.
Other websites talk of Eustache I followed by Conan then Eustache II
then Ingelram and Sibyl.
I have been hunting through online discussions but I'm still not sure
whether these are different names for the same people (though the
Eustache line is one generation shorter and the dates don't seem to
match).
Please can anyone help me sort out what is well documented and what is
simply legend here? I'm a beginner at medieval genealogy and I am
feeling rather confused.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Early de Fiennes

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 12 mar 2006 09:12:10

In message of 12 Mar, ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:

I think there is information of the early Fiennes family including
the constable of Dover in Hasted's History of Kent. In the 13, (or
is it 14) vol 1972 edition, try vol ii pp 62-74

The History and Topographical Survey of the Count of Kent' by Edward
Hasted (reprint 1972). The original 2nd edition was printed
1797-1801.

And you can get a copy of it from http://www.archivecdbooks.org

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

SomersetSue

Re: Early de Fiennes

Legg inn av SomersetSue » 12 mar 2006 19:32:35

Thank you for your help Adrian and Tim

I'll see if I can find copies of those books and hope they can solve
the puzzle. If John de Fiennes of Dover Castle isn't an ancestor of
Ingelram de Fiennes (who married Sibyl de Tingrie) then a lot of people
out there have got the wrong names on their trees. If he is, then
Eustace I de Fiennes would surely have to be his son or even grandson.
But I've not seen anyone whose tree suggests that yet.

Much appreciated

Sue

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Early de Fiennes

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 12 mar 2006 20:58:03

In message of 12 Mar, "SomersetSue" <SueBurne@aol.com> wrote:

I'll see if I can find copies of those books and hope they can solve
the puzzle. If John de Fiennes of Dover Castle isn't an ancestor of
Ingelram de Fiennes (who married Sibyl de Tingrie) then a lot of people
out there have got the wrong names on their trees. If he is, then
Eustace I de Fiennes would surely have to be his son or even grandson.
But I've not seen anyone whose tree suggests that yet.

Unless you know that the person concerned has done some decent
research, may I suggest you ignore these trees and make a point of
finding some well researched source? My view is that most of these
trees are a complete waste of space.

If you really want to see what is usefully available on the internet,
have a look at Chris Phillips' site:

http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk

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

Akrogiali

Re: Fw: Valenza & Eudokia - a Komnen-Palaiolog hypothesis

Legg inn av Akrogiali » 12 mar 2006 22:42:55

The Komninos of Trapezond adopted the name Megas-Komninos to separate
themselves from the Komninos of Constantinople.
This is a fact not a manipulation of Historians


""Paul K Davis"" <pkd-gm@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:410-220063611010963@earthlink.net...
Concerning the "surname", it is an implication from her parentage. The
emperors ruling at Trebizond from shortly after the Fourth Crusade through
the Ottoman conquest were agnatic descendents of Alexios I, and so used
the
family name "Komnenos" (or Komnene, Comnenus, Comnena). At some point
they
also adopted Megalos Komnenos as something like a title (Grand Comnenus).

As for the given name, I'm not sure of anything, having not had the
opportunity to consult the primary sources, but "Eudokia" (or Eudocia,
Eudoxia, Eudoxie etc.) was a common female given name in this culture at
this time. It's my impression that nearly all common given names in this
culture at this time had obvious meanings, so I don't consider that a mark
against it.

(By the way, I am not proposing that "Valenza" and "Eudokia" were the same
person, but rather that Valenza was the daughter of Eudokia. Recently
recived information leads me to believe that Valenza's given name is
possibly not certain, but I have no reason to doubt Eudokia's. My two
hypotheses continue only to be hypotheses, and are at the moment on rather
shaky ground.)

Thanks for the information about the meaning of the name.

-- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd-gm@earthlink.net]


[Original Message]
From: Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Date: 3/10/2006 3:00:46 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Valenza & Eudokia - a Komnen-Palaiolog hypothesis

Paul K Davis wrote:

Yes, but I've been unable to locate this in any library in the San
Francisco Bay Area where I reside. I wonder if anyone who does have
access
to the article might summarize its key arguments and evidence.

Also, I have privately received comments, which I am still studying,
which
indicate my hypothesis of Eudokia (Megale) Komnene marrying John VII
Palaiologos is not sensible. On the other hand, those comments also
indicate the name "Valenza" does not occur in contemporary sources, so
the
whole debate on the non-Greekness of the name may be beside the point.
(Furthermore, I supposed her to be daughter of a couple of mixed
ancestry,
not pure Greek ancestry.)

Are you sure that Eudokia is her name, and not just a description?

Eudokia means:
1. will, choice
1. good will, kindly intent, benevolence
2. delight, pleasure, satisfaction
3. desire
1. for delight in any absent thing easily produces longing for it

Similarly, Megale (or megalo) means large or in the context of a family,
senior, more important.

SomersetSue

Re: Early de Fiennes

Legg inn av SomersetSue » 12 mar 2006 23:24:40

That's a very good site and is one of the ones I have spent some time
researching over the past few days Tim.

I was never intending to just collect names from someone's online
tree......so far all my researching on the rest of my family has been
done myself in the Somerset Records Office or by close trusted
relations doing similar research in other parts of the country.

While I've not needed to do Medieval genealogy before, I have been
seriously researching my family tree for many years. However until a
little while ago it was all relatively recent history, none before
parish registers.
When my hunting through websites for the de Fiennes began to show me
that somewhere something odd was going on, my immediate thoughts were
that a lot of people were unthinkingly copying and repeating wrong
information. I found the Gen-Medieval archives and I have been through
hundreds of de Fiennes postings hoping to clear up the puzzle.
I know from reading what has been said on this forum that the line that
goes Eustace I then Conan de Fiennes looks very well researched and
seems correct but when the Dover Castle website itself mentions a John
de Fiennes as an early Warden and other websites seem to confidently
list him as the first of an alternative ancestry to Ingelram then it
isn't just name gatherers getting it wrong.

It means either a whole line of "de Fiennes" people just didn't exist
and are the figment of Victorian genealogists' imaginations or, if they
did, then they were living at the same time as Eustace and Conan. If
John de Fiennes didn't exist then who was the Warden of Dover Castle at
that time? And if he did, then how is he really related to the later de
Fiennes of Martock?,
In the great scheme of things it doesn't really matter but I don't like
unsolved puzzles!

I have really enjoyed tracking down many of the other linking families
using the Archives by the way. The many and varied discussions that
have been going on here for the past few years have been most useful.

Best wishes and thank you
Sue

SomersetSue

Re: Early de Fiennes

Legg inn av SomersetSue » 13 mar 2006 01:51:01

I have now seen an extract from the Edward Hasted "The History and
Topographical Survey of the County of Kent".
He believed John de Fiennes to be Warden of Dover Castle and a
favourite of William the Conqueror.

"On the partition of their inheritance this manor was allotted to Roger
de Fiennes, who accordingly took possession of it. He was descended
from that John de Fiennes, who was one of the chief favourites of
William the Conqueror, who made him constable of Dover-castle, and
warden of the cinque ports. Roger de Fienes before mentioned, bore for
his arms, Azure, three lions rampant or. He obtained licence of king
Henry VI. to embattle his mansion at Hurstmonceaux, in Sussex, which he
rebuilt in a most magnificent manor, and greatly enlarged in park
there."

OK so John de Fiennes was Warden of Dover. This site says he was
succeeded in this post by descendants James and John
http://home.freeuk.net/eastkent/dover/g ... tables.htm

It doesn't say they are his son and grandson but this may have been
presumed by someone. If John was a favourite of William the Conqueror
then he should be a contemporary of his. Is he perhaps the father or
brother of Eustache I de Fiennes?

More digging needed I think by someone with better access than I have
to verifiable records.

Best wishes
Sue

Ford Mommaerts-Browne

Re: Fw: Valenza & Eudokia - a Komnen-Palaiolog hypothesis

Legg inn av Ford Mommaerts-Browne » 13 mar 2006 02:17:02

| ""Paul K Davis"" <pkd-gm@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| news:410-220063611010963@earthlink.net...
| > As for the given name, I'm not sure of anything, having not had the
| > opportunity to consult the primary sources, but "Eudokia" (or Eudocia,
| > Eudoxia, Eudoxie etc.) was a common female given name in this culture at
| > this time.

Would not Eudoxia mean 'Happy Thought[s]'? I'm pretty sure that Eudoxie didn't mean a 'Good Hooker', though.


| > It's my impression that nearly all common given names in this
| > culture at this time had obvious meanings, so I don't consider that a mark
| > against it.
| >
| > Thanks for the information about the meaning of the name.
| >
| > -- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd-gm@earthlink.net]

| >> [Original Message]
| >> From: Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr>
| >> To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
| >> Date: 3/10/2006 3:00:46 PM
| >> Subject: Re: Fw: Valenza & Eudokia - a Komnen-Palaiolog hypothesis
| >>
| >> Paul K Davis wrote:
| >>
| >> Are you sure that Eudokia is her name, and not just a description?
| >>
| >> Eudokia means:
| >> 1. will, choice
| >> 1. good will, kindly intent, benevolence
| >> 2. delight, pleasure, satisfaction
| >> 3. desire
| >> 1. for delight in any absent thing easily produces longing for it
| >>

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Early de Fiennes

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 13 mar 2006 12:50:03

In message of 13 Mar, "SomersetSue" <SueBurne@aol.com> wrote:

I have now seen an extract from the Edward Hasted "The History and
Topographical Survey of the County of Kent".
He believed John de Fiennes to be Warden of Dover Castle and a
favourite of William the Conqueror.

Although I have a copy of Hasted, I am not his greatest fan.

"On the partition of their inheritance this manor was allotted to
Roger de Fiennes, who accordingly took possession of it. He was
descended from that John de Fiennes, who was one of the chief
favourites of William the Conqueror, who made him constable of
Dover-castle, and warden of the cinque ports.

If this was William the Conqueror then this appointment as
constable would have happened any time between 1066 and 1087.

Roger de Fienes before mentioned, bore for his arms, Azure, three
lions rampant or. He obtained licence of king Henry VI. to embattle
his mansion at Hurstmonceaux, in Sussex, which he rebuilt in a most
magnificent manor, and greatly enlarged in park there."

Henry VI reigned from 1422 to 1461.

OK so John de Fiennes was Warden of Dover. This site says he was
succeeded in this post by descendants James and John

This gap of over 335 years needs just a tiny bit of evidence to justify
the claimed link. While I can connect up some Fiennes, the earliest
connected person I have found is Guillaume de Fiennes, Seigneur de
Fiennes who may have died around 1240 (CP VI, 465-6 incl notes (d), (a)
and (b) ).

http://home.freeuk.net/eastkent/dover/garrison/constables.htm

It doesn't say they are his son and grandson but this may have been
presumed by someone. If John was a favourite of William the Conqueror
then he should be a contemporary of his. Is he perhaps the father or
brother of Eustache I de Fiennes?

This may be someone who I can find some information about. An Eustache
is mentioned in Keats-Rohan's "Domesday Descendants" p. 460; she says he
was the son of Conan fitz Eustache and Gila and came from
Pas-de-Calais. He was the father of Eustache III and of Ingelran who
m. Sibil dau. and heir of Pharamus de Tingry.

I cannot find any other records on any other Fiennes in either this book
or its predecessor Domesday People (you have been warned, sometimes her
naming system is impenetrable and you can't find people who in fact are
listed). I take this to mean that there are no surviving records about
John de Fiennes, Constable of Dover.

More digging needed I think by someone with better access than I have
to verifiable records.

I could not agree with you more, though I cannot read these old
records, even if I could find them and rely instead on good books by
people who worked pretty close to the surviving documents.

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

SomersetSue

Re: Early de Fiennes

Legg inn av SomersetSue » 13 mar 2006 15:36:56

Let's hope someone with a de Fiennes interest takes up the challenge!

All the help in trying to sort this out has been appreciated!


Sue

Bob Turcott

Re: De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway- new

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 13 mar 2006 18:25:03

To all:

In my estimation:

I have noticed that the protestant religoin started between 1505-1522 by a
monk named Martin Luther. In doing research of mideveil protestant familes
of Bayeuax france, There has been difficulty in getting marriage data on
some protestant noble families before 1522, is it likley one reason is
before 1522 the families may have been catholic? If anyone has any input or
clarification, please let me know.

Bob

_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement

Renia

Re: De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway- new

Legg inn av Renia » 13 mar 2006 21:29:13

Bob Turcott wrote:
To all:

In my estimation:

I have noticed that the protestant religoin started between 1505-1522 by
a monk named Martin Luther. In doing research of mideveil protestant
familes of Bayeuax france, There has been difficulty in getting marriage
data on some protestant noble families before 1522, is it likley one
reason is before 1522 the families may have been catholic? If anyone has
any input or clarification, please let me know.


All Christians in Northern Europe until about this time, were Catholics.
Those dissidents who could not tolerate Catholicism but who considered
themselves Christians, were called Protestants, because they were
protesting about the old religion.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm

In England, parish registers did not begin until 1538 and even then,
only spasmodically. Most such early registers have been lost or
destroyed. Most registers begin at the early 17th century, but many
begin later than that. Something similar may have happened in the rest
of Europe.

So your difficulty in locating data has little to do with religion, but
much to do with bureacracy.

Leo van de Pas

Re: De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway- new

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 13 mar 2006 22:47:02

Wasn't 1527 the year that Martin Luther nailed his statements on the church
door at Wittenberg. I think that is the cut-off year. Up until then everyone
belonged to the Church of Rome.
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 7:29 AM
Subject: Re: De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway- new


Bob Turcott wrote:

To all:

In my estimation:

I have noticed that the protestant religoin started between 1505-1522 by
a monk named Martin Luther. In doing research of mideveil protestant
familes of Bayeuax france, There has been difficulty in getting marriage
data on some protestant noble families before 1522, is it likley one
reason is before 1522 the families may have been catholic? If anyone has
any input or clarification, please let me know.


All Christians in Northern Europe until about this time, were Catholics.
Those dissidents who could not tolerate Catholicism but who considered
themselves Christians, were called Protestants, because they were
protesting about the old religion.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm

In England, parish registers did not begin until 1538 and even then, only
spasmodically. Most such early registers have been lost or destroyed. Most
registers begin at the early 17th century, but many begin later than that.
Something similar may have happened in the rest of Europe.

So your difficulty in locating data has little to do with religion, but
much to do with bureacracy.


Renia

Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V06 #214

Legg inn av Renia » 13 mar 2006 22:52:26

Wimmie1@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 3/13/2006 2:39:28 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
GEN-MEDIEVAL-D-request@rootsweb.com writes:

I have noticed that the protestant religoin started between 1505-1522 by a
monk named Martin Luther.


If my information is correct, the Roman Catholic religion did not start
until the 3rd or 4th Century under Constantine. I would like to know for sure.]


You been reading the Da Vinci Code?

Gjest

Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V06 #214

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 mar 2006 23:27:01

In a message dated 3/13/2006 2:39:28 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
GEN-MEDIEVAL-D-request@rootsweb.com writes:

I have noticed that the protestant religoin started between 1505-1522 by a
monk named Martin Luther.


If my information is correct, the Roman Catholic religion did not start
until the 3rd or 4th Century under Constantine. I would like to know for sure.]

WH

Leo van de Pas

Re: Constantine the Great

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 13 mar 2006 23:30:02

By cutting off the message you are replying to, you are muddying the waters.
Reading your message makes even me believe that I STATED-----well I didn't.
I suggested.

The main thing is that it WAS Constantine who in 325 held the Council of
Nicea
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: <AlexStewart17@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 9:13 AM
Subject: Constantine the Great


Did I read that Leo stated that the Emperor Constantine demanded unity in
belief in the year 400? Did he not die in the year AD 337? (See Oxford
DNB)
Alex



Gjest

Re: Fw: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V06 #214

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mar 2006 00:26:02

Dear Leo,
I did a little checking on Emperor Constantine I of Rome.
apparently He was born in about 285 and died in 337. He became Emperor in 306 and
had difficulty with a rival Emperor Maxentius. He was at the outset of his
reign a worshipper of the sun god Sol and soon proved tolerant to the
Christians. In abt 312 before battling Maxentius and his army with his own, Constantine
prayed that whatever Divine power there was grant him a sign by which He
might be victorious and He at least claimed that He saw the first two letters of
Christ`s name in Greek after He had won the battle in question. He set up a
Triumphal arch in abt 315 ascribing his success to help from a divinity without
naming Jesus or Yahweh as the divinity in question. In abt 323 in order to
disrespect the Jews, whom He evidently had come to have little use for, He
declared the day of his favorite Divinty Sol (Sunday) to be the Sabbath.
Licinius, Emperor of the East, fearing Conastantine`s growing popularity among
Christians, exiled a number of them and executed a couple of Bishops. Constantine
invaded , defeated Licinius in 324 and executed him, making himself sole Emperor.
Constantine I never took the formal steps to become a Christian but advised
the various Councils and in 330, though retaining the title of Pontifex
Maximus (Now known as Pope) He ceased joining in the pagan rites. He also built the
City of New Rome (now Istambul)
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmonyt , Maine USA
Source: websites Rome`s Christian Emperors to 410 CE, The Early Church: The
Roman Emperor Constantine

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Early de Fiennes

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 14 mar 2006 00:27:02

Dear Tim, Sue et al
In a post here (unfortunately I didn't date it), Douglas Richardson said "..
..Recently, as I was going through a volume of Monumenta Germaniae Historica,
I located a record which confirms the fact that Agnes, the wife of William
de Fiennes, was the sister of Renaud [de Dammartin], Count of Boulogne. An
abstract of this record is presented below. This record also specifically
names William de Fiennes' father, Enguerrand de Fiennes, who died in the
Holy Land in 1189. Source: Monumenta Germaniae Historica, vol. 24 (1925) ."
Best wishes
Merilyn Pedrick
Aldgate, South Australia


-------Original Message-------

From: Tim Powys-Lybbe
Date: 03/13/06 22:31:19
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Early de Fiennes

In message of 13 Mar, "SomersetSue" <SueBurne@aol.com> wrote:

I have now seen an extract from the Edward Hasted "The History and
Topographical Survey of the County of Kent".
He believed John de Fiennes to be Warden of Dover Castle and a
favourite of William the Conqueror.

Although I have a copy of Hasted, I am not his greatest fan.

"On the partition of their inheritance this manor was allotted to
Roger de Fiennes, who accordingly took possession of it. He was
descended from that John de Fiennes, who was one of the chief
favourites of William the Conqueror, who made him constable of
Dover-castle, and warden of the cinque ports.

If this was William the Conqueror then this appointment as
constable would have happened any time between 1066 and 1087.

Roger de Fienes before mentioned, bore for his arms, Azure, three
lions rampant or. He obtained licence of king Henry VI. to embattle
his mansion at Hurstmonceaux, in Sussex, which he rebuilt in a most
magnificent manor, and greatly enlarged in park there."

Henry VI reigned from 1422 to 1461.

OK so John de Fiennes was Warden of Dover. This site says he was
succeeded in this post by descendants James and John

This gap of over 335 years needs just a tiny bit of evidence to justify
the claimed link. While I can connect up some Fiennes, the earliest
connected person I have found is Guillaume de Fiennes, Seigneur de
Fiennes who may have died around 1240 (CP VI, 465-6 incl notes (d), (a)
and (b) ).

http://home.freeuk.net/eastkent/dover/garrison/constables.htm

It doesn't say they are his son and grandson but this may have been
presumed by someone. If John was a favourite of William the Conqueror
then he should be a contemporary of his. Is he perhaps the father or
brother of Eustache I de Fiennes?

This may be someone who I can find some information about. An Eustache
is mentioned in Keats-Rohan's "Domesday Descendants" p. 460; she says he
was the son of Conan fitz Eustache and Gila and came from
Pas-de-Calais. He was the father of Eustache III and of Ingelran who
m. Sibil dau. and heir of Pharamus de Tingry.

I cannot find any other records on any other Fiennes in either this book
or its predecessor Domesday People (you have been warned, sometimes her
naming system is impenetrable and you can't find people who in fact are
listed). I take this to mean that there are no surviving records about
John de Fiennes, Constable of Dover.

More digging needed I think by someone with better access than I have
to verifiable records.

I could not agree with you more, though I cannot read these old
records, even if I could find them and rely instead on good books by
people who worked pretty close to the surviving documents.

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

Gjest

Re: OT Da Vinci Code Fw: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V06 #214

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mar 2006 00:45:02

In a message dated 3/13/06 2:45:38 PM Pacific Standard Time,
battle@u.washington.edu writes:

<< I am no lawyer, but it seems that the plot and
"facts" of a work of fiction would be more copyrightable than true
historical facts, which should not be copyrightable at all. >>

It is my understanding that historical facts are not copyrightable.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Fw: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V06 #214

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mar 2006 00:51:01

In a message dated 3/13/06 3:12:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, Jwc1870@aol.com
writes:

<< He at least claimed that He saw the first two letters of
Christ`s name in Greek after He had won the battle in question. He set up a
Triumphal arch in abt 315 >>

Exactly what he saw and said is in question.
He himself left us no autobiography.
Will Johnson

SomersetSue

Re: Early de Fiennes

Legg inn av SomersetSue » 14 mar 2006 01:25:19

Thank you Merilyn

I'm carefully saving all these useful snippets and sources.

Best wishes
Sue

Gjest

Re: Have you noticed?

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mar 2006 02:43:01

In a message dated 3/13/06 4:45:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, leesmyth@cox.net
writes:

<< Have you noticed how he alone thanks us for "good post(s)" ? One would
think that it is his job to thank us for posting messages. In fact, he
has used such a greeting more than two hundred times in the past three
or four years. (I must admit that he has not thanked me, not at all!) >>

Thank you for your good post!
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Have you noticed?

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mar 2006 04:47:42

Dear Le,
Method to Douglas` madness. Well, The remaining volumes of the
work that David Faris intially planned were for Baronial Ancestry and for
Carolingian Ancestry. Most of the persons He is talking about and trying to get
us to discuss fall into the latter catagory, which is fine by me. We should
discuss something. There are literally tons of data in just these areas that
will never be used , even if We did discuss them.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

CED

Re: Have you noticed?

Legg inn av CED » 14 mar 2006 05:24:53

Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:
Dear Le,
Method to Douglas` madness. Well, The remaining volumes of the
work that David Faris intially planned were for Baronial Ancestry and for
Carolingian Ancestry.

Dear James W. Cummings:

Whatever David Faris may have planned, his plans and any connection
with what Richardson is now doing have long been severed by Richardson.
I assume, without checking, that you have been a participant on this
list long enough to know the circumstances to which I refer.
Participants at that sad time (especially those aware of the
circumstances of those left by Faris) would shudder to have Faris'
plans used to defend the actions taken by Richardson since those days.


Long lists of who is related to whom and demonstrating Latin terms for
describing them are hardly the stuff of Faris' plans. These lists are
simply Richrardson's compulsions, a lot of huff-and-puff about nothing.
If Richardson were to be doing something with these German lists which
any of us could not do, and some of us have not been doing for years,
then it might be different.

In the case of the French lists, who is this amateur Richardson (if not
amateur, then fraud) to compete in a universe filled with fine French
genealogists whom some of us have been studying for years? Richardson
should know enough to be embarrassed to have them read his stuff,
almost as though he awakens in the morning announcing to astronomers
that he discovered dawn. Had he known the field, he would be so.

It is tempting to believe that he intends to fill his next volume with
lists such as those recently posted, and pronounce himself an authority
on who is related to whom in medieval Europe. I hope that the volume
would be a fraud, lest he believe it himself and demonstrate something
else.


CED



Most of the persons He is talking about and trying to get
us to discuss fall into the latter catagory, which is fine by me. We should
discuss something. There are literally tons of data in just these areas that
will never be used , even if We did discuss them.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

W David Samuelsen

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa's kinswo

Legg inn av W David Samuelsen » 14 mar 2006 09:31:57

<http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-03/1142319564>

Douglas Richardson,
What's the source? I don't see any source listed to support your
statement herein.

W. David Samuelsen

Ford Mommaerts-Browne

Re: Fw: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V06 #214

Legg inn av Ford Mommaerts-Browne » 14 mar 2006 09:53:12

| In abt 312 before battling Maxentius and his army with his own, Constantine
| prayed that whatever Divine power there was grant him a sign by which He
| might be victorious and He at least claimed that He saw the first two letters of
| Christ`s name in Greek after He had won the battle in question.

I thought that it was supposed to be a cross. And that he ordered a cross painted on the shields of his soldiers. The letters, so I've been taught, were, 'In hoc signo vincis', i.e., 'In this sign conquer', thus giving rise to the Christian IHS insignia/monogram still used by the church of Rome.
F

Gjest

Re: Fw: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V06 #214

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mar 2006 11:25:48

In abt 312 before battling Maxentius and his army with his own, Constantine
prayed that whatever Divine power there was grant him a sign by which He
might be victorious and He at least claimed that He saw the first two letters of
Christ`s name in Greek after He had won the battle in question.


« I thought that it was supposed to be a cross. And that he ordered a
cross painted on the shields of his soldiers. The letters, so I've
been taught, were, 'In hoc signo vincis', i.e., 'In this sign conquer',
thus giving rise to the Christian IHS insignia/monogram still used by
the church of Rome.
F »

It´s difficult if not impossible to know the factual truth. We know
about the crosses in the army shields and the "labarum" a standard with
the letters XP from Christ in Greek. But the vision (or miracle) is a
bit misty. Lactantius, appointed tutor of his son Crispus, and one who
therefore must have been closer to the imperial family, told only about
the sign of the christians, so most probably the cross. The legend was
only added 25 years later by Eusebius in (I think) "Vita Constantinus".
Tipically there are more versions, beeing yours the most common, but
also "Hoc signo victor eris" and in the bishops History of the Church
something like "By this you will win".
Anyhow it is commonly accepted that the sign of the "labarum" was not
used by christians before so it was a vision or a creation.

There was the habit of consult the Gods before a battle and it seems
that the auspice was for a defeat at the Milvian Bridge. So the turn to
the christian's God could have been a last resource or a very clever
move. Christians were a minority but their lives commanded respect an
prestige and offered a good moral basis to motivate an army. Historians
agree that Constantine's superior discipline was the main reason for
his victories over Licinius who's armies always outnumbered
Constantine's.

Regards
Francisco

Gjest

Re: Fw: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V06 #214

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mar 2006 14:03:36

Dear James,

You have not been very lucky with your source.

« Constantine I never took the formal steps to become a Christian
....»

This beeing clearly O.T. I will refrain from long comments. But he was
baptized before he died by his own choice and explaining that he wished
to be baptized in the Jordan but life did not made it possible. In
those days christians were normally baptised only as adults.

« ... but advised the various Councils ...»

He was present, in the ecumenical council in Nicea made the first
speech but was not involved with the doctrine wich he left to the
sinods (with the *possible* exception of the "filiosque" question wich
was the basis of the Arian schism). All can be (I am not saying that it
was) seen as a wise conduct of a careful sovereign.

« ... and in 330, though retaining the title of Pontifex Maximus (Now
known as Pope)»

That one was really misleading!
Rome had its Pagan Gods and its antics. When one God was in the favour
of people, his High Priests adquired enormous power and that could
threat the emperors. To prevent this, they took the title of Pontifex
Maximus, placing themselves above any High Priest of any God.
Much later, in the power struggle between the Popes and the Emperors,
the Pope took the some title as the only detainer of the spiritual
power. Same words for different contexts.

« He also built the City of New Rome (now Istambul).»

Never heard it called New Rome (I can't guarantee it never was).
Constantine rebuilt a Byzantine town to make it the new capital but the
name was Constantinople and so remained for centuries. In modern Greek
its still called Constantinople and I think Istambul only became used
internationally already in the XX century. You may remember a hit of
the sixties "Istambul (not Constantinople)" still played by several
artists and bands.

Regards,
Francisco

Nathaniel Taylor

Far, Far OT (Constantine)

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 14 mar 2006 16:07:09

In article <045b01c6473d$8839bbe0$6b3afc18@om.cox.net>,
FordMommaerts@Cox.net ("Ford Mommaerts-Browne") wrote:

| In abt 312 before battling Maxentius and his army with his own,
| Constantine
| prayed that whatever Divine power there was grant him a sign by which He
| might be victorious and He at least claimed that He saw the first two
| letters of
| Christ`s name in Greek after He had won the battle in question.

I thought that it was supposed to be a cross. And that he ordered a cross
painted on the shields of his soldiers. The letters, so I've been taught,
were, 'In hoc signo vincis', i.e., 'In this sign conquer', thus giving rise
to the Christian IHS insignia/monogram still used by the church of Rome.

"The sign of a cross, superimposed on the sun." The monogram of chi and
rho, made in the form of a cross (NOT Latin IHS), does appear as a
Christian emblem used on some of Constantine's coinage, well after the
310s if I remember right (and not to the exclusion of pagan symbols,
which appear on Constine's coins too).

The customary medieval Latin rendering of the motto is 'in hoc signo
vinces', not 'vincis' (vinco being 3d conjugation). This is what's done
in enamel on the scabbard of my grandfather's Freemason's uniform sword.

The Ur-source for this, Eusebius (Life of Constantine, book 1, chapter
28; PG 20:944), uses a simpler phrase: (sorry, can't post Greek
letters): "touto nika", which the Latin translation in the PG gives as
simply "hac vince": "... crucis tropaeum in coelo ex luce conflatum,
soli superpositum, ipsis oculis se vidisse affirmavit, cum huiusmodi
inscriptione: _Hac vince_ ..." [PG 20:943].

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

Gjest

Re: Far, Far OT (Constantine)

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mar 2006 17:20:38

In a message dated 3/14/2006 7:17:17 AM Pacific Standard Time,
nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net writes:

"The sign of a cross, superimposed on the sun." The monogram of chi and
rho, made in the form of a cross (NOT Latin IHS), does appear as a
Christian emblem used on some of Constantine's coinage, well after the
310s if I remember right (and not to the exclusion of pagan symbols,
which appear on Constine's coins too).


I would not say "Christian emblem" but merely emblem.
It's perhaps anachronistic to say it was Christian until we can be assured
that it appeared in a non-Imperial context of some sort.
Will Johnson

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Far, Far OT (Constantine)

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 14 mar 2006 17:21:28

In article <252.810ba09.31483934@aol.com>, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 3/14/2006 7:17:17 AM Pacific Standard Time,
nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net writes:

"The sign of a cross, superimposed on the sun." The monogram of chi and
rho, made in the form of a cross (NOT Latin IHS), does appear as a
Christian emblem used on some of Constantine's coinage, well after the
310s if I remember right (and not to the exclusion of pagan symbols,
which appear on Constine's coins too).


I would not say "Christian emblem" but merely emblem.
It's perhaps anachronistic to say it was Christian until we can be assured
that it appeared in a non-Imperial context of some sort.

Splitting a split hair? We're good at that, I guess. I was referring
the simple monogram, not the labarum, which appears on some coins in
Constantine's hair. According to the old on-line Catholic Encyclopedia,
the chi-rho monogram was a 'familiar Christian symbol' before its
adoption by Constantine and before the confection of the military
standard, the labarum, based on it. The labarum was an explicitly
imperial and military construct, but even so it was obviously intended
to resonate with Christians, especially those in the army.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

Douglas Richardson

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa's kinswo

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 14 mar 2006 17:47:28

Dear David ~

Thank you for your good post.

This is my source:

Martene & Durand, Veterum scriptorum et monumentorum, 1 (1724):
860-863.

This book is available on the wonderful gallica website at the
following web address:

http://gallica.bnf.fr/

When you have a chance to look at the book, you might tell us what you
think of it. I'll warn you ahead that the book is not in English.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

W David Samuelsen wrote:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-03/1142319564

Douglas Richardson,
What's the source? I don't see any source listed to support your
statement herein.

W. David Samuelsen

Gjest

Re: Far, Far OT (Constantine)

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mar 2006 18:05:41

« According to the old on-line Catholic Encyclopedia,
the chi-rho monogram was a 'familiar Christian symbol' before its
adoption by Constantine and before the confection of the military
standard, the labarum, based on it. »

English not being my strong point, I apologise for a possible
misunderstanding.
But the Catholic Encyclopedia in the article "Constantine the Great"
says:
"A monogram combining the first letters, X and P, of the name of Christ
(CHRISTOS), a form that cannot be proved to have been used by
Christians before, was made one of the tokens of the standard and
placed upon the Labarum (q. v.)."
I could not find any article on the chi-rho monogram and that "...
cannot be proved to have been used by Christians before ..." agrees
with what I remember of the monogram's *paternity*.

But I agree 100% that it was intended to resonate with Christians.

The two chroniclers, Lactantius and Eusebius difer: one says it was a
dream, other it was a vision, opening space to the hipothesis that it
was all a Constantine's creation. On the other hand, some modern
authors believe that he may have actually seen the chi-rho in the sky:
http://www.roman-emperors.org/chart.htm

Regards
Francisco

Bob Turcott

Re: De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway- new

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 14 mar 2006 18:26:14

to all:

Researcher Christiane Huet of France has made some investigations through
her various books and she found complete history about the gisant of Saon.
Unfortunately it is not <<Jacques de Meherenc >>who lies there (how
disappointing !).
According to Christiane , the indications are :

<< Robert d’AVESNE >> ( can also write <<d’AVEINE>>)
Seigneur “du QUESNAY”, “de GRUCHY”, “de CRICQUEVILLE”, et “de Saint
SAUVEUR”, also “Sgr de SAON”
His wife is <<Jeanne d’ASCHE>>
The gisant has been made in 1616.

sometimes you just have to hit a brick wall before the moment of triumph!!!!
It is really puzzeling
to see we have more than one Seigneur du QUESNAY in a very close time
period!!!! My research objective in this area is to find as many Manoirs
that the ancient Meherenc lived and any possible places of interest such as
burial places/gisants etc.

The research goes on...

Bob


From: "Bob Turcott" <bobturcott@msn.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway- new
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 02:54:58 +0000




To all

Jacques de Meherenc, sgr du Quesnay
m. 1527 Marie Gousseaume is an ancestral unlcle! I have been in contact
with the
lords of Manoir du Quesnay. Perhaps this could be at least one of the
Meherenc
estates, further confirmation is needed, below is an except of my
communication.
I ask everyone in this forum to let me know if they believe my judgement on
this matter
is on the right track..



Hello,

Only proof we have available about the Manoir du Quesnay first owner, at
the
XVth century, is that "Le Seigneur du Quesnay" is buried with is lady in a
small chapel next to our place. His stone coffin ("gisant") is sculptured,
then you can see him lying in his armour and it is written in the stone "Le
seigneur du Quesnay" .
I cannot trace "les londes" at Trévières . Far to my knowledge their is no
château or manoir named les londes and still existing.
Hope this will be of any help in your research about your ancestor.

Seen your website, thank you, the manoir de Montmireil looks beautiful.


Kind regards,

Jacques Fourcade
Manoir du Quesnay

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/o ... direct/01/


_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm ... direct/01/

Douglas Richardson

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa's kinswo

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 14 mar 2006 18:35:24

Dear David ~

Thank you for your good post.

This is my source:

Martene & Durand, Veterum scriptorum et monumentorum, 1 (1724):
860-863.

This book is available on the wonderful gallica website at the
following web address:

http://gallica.bnf.fr/

When you have a chance to look at the book, you might tell us what you
think of it. I'll warn you ahead that the book is not in English.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

W David Samuelsen wrote:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-03/1142319564

Douglas Richardson,
What's the source? I don't see any source listed to support your
statement herein.

W. David Samuelsen

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Far, Far OT (Constantine)

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 14 mar 2006 18:59:40

In article <1142355941.228273.165390@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
francisco.tavaresdealmeida@gmail.com wrote:

« According to the old on-line Catholic Encyclopedia,
the chi-rho monogram was a 'familiar Christian symbol' before its
adoption by Constantine and before the confection of the military
standard, the labarum, based on it. »

English not being my strong point, I apologise for a possible
misunderstanding.
But the Catholic Encyclopedia in the article "Constantine the Great"
says:
"A monogram combining the first letters, X and P, of the name of Christ
(CHRISTOS), a form that cannot be proved to have been used by
Christians before, was made one of the tokens of the standard and
placed upon the Labarum (q. v.)."
I could not find any article on the chi-rho monogram and that "...
cannot be proved to have been used by Christians before ..." agrees
with what I remember of the monogram's *paternity*.

You have not misunderstood at all: there is a contradiction on the
origin of the chi-rho in two entries in the Catholic Encyclopedia. It
may well be, if you have read elsewhere, that the chi-rho itself (and
not just its use on the labarum) was an innovation under Constantine: I
haven't studied pre-Constantinian Christian iconography in good sources.
In entry "Labarum" the Catholic Encyclopedia says "These two letters
formed what is known as the monogram of Constantine, so called -- not
because it was the invention of this emperor, for it had been a familiar
Christian symbol prior to his conversion -- but because of the great
popularity it enjoyed from the date of its appearance on the imperial
standards." But in entry "Constantine the Great" this is contradicted,
as you quote above. Hopefully, one or the other of these mutually
exclusive assertions is right. :-)

But I agree 100% that it was intended to resonate with Christians.

The two chroniclers, Lactantius and Eusebius difer: one says it was a
dream, other it was a vision, opening space to the hipothesis that it
was all a Constantine's creation. On the other hand, some modern
authors believe that he may have actually seen the chi-rho in the sky:
http://www.roman-emperors.org/chart.htm

Well, we've flogged that OT enough! But it's better than dwelling on
the psychological issues of other posters.

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

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: King's Kinsfolk [Germany]...

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 14 mar 2006 19:32:29

People interested in pondering the various people related to the
Ottonian and Salian houses may be interested in a nice medieval diagram
with sundry acknowledged cousins, at:

http://home.earthlink.net/~temporary214/SPant1.jpg

This is from a thirteenth-century copy of the Chronica Sancti
Pantaleonis. The earliest redaction of this particular diagram dates
from about 1099, but I don't have as clear a photograph as this later
one (with obvious extensions down into the 13th century). On this
family of charts generally, see Nora Gadeke, _Zeugnisse bildlicher
Darstellung der Nachkommenschaft Heinrichs I_ (Arbeiten zur
Fruhmittelalterforschung, 22, Berlin, 1992).

The outside caption translates roughly:

If you would like to learn the nobility of all Saxony, Italy, Germany,
Gaul, Normandy, Bavaria, Swabia, Hungary, Russia and Poland, pay close
attention to this chart and commit it to memory. When you have done
this, consider [King] Henry, from whom this seed has come.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

CED

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa's kinswo

Legg inn av CED » 14 mar 2006 19:53:08

W David Samuelsen wrote:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-03/1142319564

Douglas Richardson,
What's the source? I don't see any source listed to support your
statement herein.

W. David Samuelsen
Mr. Samuelsen:


You will note the end of Richardson's response to your query about his
sources:
"When you have a chance to look at the book, you might tell us what you

think of it. I'll warn you ahead that the book is not in English."

There is no call for that kind of condescencion. You have done nothing
to merit such a response.

Whatever the language, Latin, French, Spanish, German, Greek,or Italian
(all of which he seems to claim), his is not likely to be much, if any,
better than yours. Search the Archives.

Regardless of what I may post about Richardson, it is not unmerited
condescencion - it is more a correction, reprimand, or censure.

By the way, his stated source does not give the descents he lists.
What is his source for the descendants of the woman whom he calls
"Agnes von Waiblingen" ? If he has no primary sources for that list of
descendants, then the whole post is useless.

I understand that he is posting the lists of "who is related to whom"
in preparation for another of his books, probably descendants of
Charlemagne. This is, of course, not in any sense a scholarly attempt,
nor could such a book be scholarly unless he uses primary sources. I
suspect that wants to publish such a book in order to sell it in the
"snob" market, the elitist crowd of yester-year and their effete
descendants hoping to gain something for feats of the ancestors
Richardson finds for them (if not real, by hook or crook). There are
many such books around, few with good sources. It is doubtful that
there is sufficient market to support another, especially when
Richardson's reputation for lack of scholarship is known.

Anybody who searches the archives here will find evidence of that
reputation.

CED

alden@mindspring.com

Re: Early de Fiennes

Legg inn av alden@mindspring.com » 14 mar 2006 20:43:21

From the Guillaume II I mentioned above:

Guillaume II
John
John
William I
William II
Sir Roger d. bef 18 nov 1449 in the time of Henry VI

Doug Smith

Gjest

Re: Fw: King's Kinsfolk: Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa's ki

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mar 2006 21:21:00

In a message dated 3/14/06 10:46:06 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< As best I understand it, family members of the royal Castile family
were known in England and in France as "de Hispania" or "de Ispania,"
not as "of Castile." >>

"De" means "of"
And wasn't everybody called "de" this or "de" that, in this time period?
Personally I have no problem understanding that "de London" and "of London"
mean the same thing. It's a lot of fuss over nothing.
I do however see the point that one should attempt to be consistent in
order to reduce the number of misunderstandings. So Maria Theresa de Castilia
should not be marrying Fred "the Bold" of Navarre ....
And Heinrich "Uberslassen" von Klempt should not be marrying Mary "the
White" of Bavaria :)
These are EXAMPLES and bear no relationship to any persons living, dead,
or undead.
Will Johnson

SomersetSue

Re: Early de Fiennes

Legg inn av SomersetSue » 14 mar 2006 21:33:25

Thank you for the references Doug

I'm going to go with the Eustache, Conan line as that does seem the
more likely and well referenced for the ancestors of the Clinton
Fiennes but I'm still hunting down anything I can find about Dover,
wondering who John de Fiennes was and if his supposed descendants had
anything to do with the Martock lot! Someone has offered to take a look
in Dover library later this week........maybe something will turn up on
their shelves.

I live fairly near Martock so I tried a search in the church there in
the hope there just might be some very old memorials to de Fiennes but
it's too modern being 15th century!

Sue

W David Samuelsen

Re: Richardson's heavy use of English (Anglicanized) and cor

Legg inn av W David Samuelsen » 14 mar 2006 21:36:20

<http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-03/1142364149>
Will,

The MFU was re-established about 2 years ago and is located on B-2 in
the Family History Library. The supervisor is Debbie Latimer and she was
formerly assistant to Bob Gunderson who retired.

The quality control is much more tighter than before. And she has at
least 8 assistants, all full time senior missionaries, adding the
sources to the records previously entered while in former MFU.

BTW, when I say FHL I mean the BIG ONE in Salt Lake City. If I says FHC,
it is always in plurality - which is FHCs, the satellites throughout the
world.

W. David Samuelsen

Gjest

Re: Count Albrecht II von Everstein

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mar 2006 21:51:02

In a message dated 3/14/06 12:18:15 PM Pacific Standard Time,
dsam@sampubco.com writes:

<< Please stick to exact what the record say when it comes to their names.
Don't anglicanize them. >>

But David you can't.
Some records are in Latin, some French, some English.
For the *same* person !
So how do you resolve that then?

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Richardson's heavy use of English (Anglicanized) and cor

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mar 2006 21:51:24

W David Samuelsen wrote:
All translations I tried say Markgrafinnen rather than Markgrafen. Oh
well. Can't win all, but the reference is not often used.
'Markgraefin' is the female form of Markgraf. You had the plural of

that.

Gjest

Re: Richardson's heavy use of English (Anglicanized) and cor

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mar 2006 22:05:27

In a message dated 3/14/06 11:36:44 AM Pacific Standard Time,
dsam@sampubco.com writes:

<< The quality control is much more tighter than before. And she has at
least 8 assistants, all full time senior missionaries, adding the
sources to the records previously entered while in former MFU. >>

What is the difference between a senior missionary and a junior missionary?
Is there something higher than a senior missionary?
Will Johnson

W David Samuelsen

Re: Count Albrecht II von Everstein

Legg inn av W David Samuelsen » 14 mar 2006 22:17:39

<http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-03/1142363525>

Douglas,

Obvious you can't tell the difference in local language! Albert is
English/French while Albrecht is German/Dutch and I am sticking to what
the record actually says, not santized to English form, thank you.

Please stick to exact what the record say when it comes to their names.
Don't anglicanize them.

W. David Samuelsen

W David Samuelsen

Re: Count Albrecht II von Everstein

Legg inn av W David Samuelsen » 14 mar 2006 22:43:56

<http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-03/1142368415>

Put in notes. That is what I do, when they are referring to same persons.

David

W David Samuelsen

Re: Richardson's heavy use of English (Anglicanized) and cor

Legg inn av W David Samuelsen » 14 mar 2006 22:46:20

<http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-03/1142365795>

my mistake, didn't catch that mis-spelling fast enough. Should be
Oesterreich.

All translations I tried say Markgrafinnen rather than Markgrafen. Oh
well. Can't win all, but the reference is not often used.

David Samuelsen

Gjest

Re: Count Albrecht II von Everstein

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mar 2006 22:47:43

In a message dated 3/14/06 12:44:08 PM Pacific Standard Time,
dsam@sampubco.com writes:

<< Put in notes. That is what I do, when they are referring to same persons.

But how do you chose which one, of the three different forms of the name, to
use as your *principal* form ?

W David Samuelsen

Re: FHL's senior missionaries

Legg inn av W David Samuelsen » 14 mar 2006 22:49:11

<http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-03/1142366684>

Only fair to post this since I got his personal quite some time before
this showed up in gen-medieval. So here's the reply

Senior missionaries are the senior citizens who are retired. They go
where they are asked to go to. Be it to work in FHL, in Africa
coordinating the clean water projects, in Asia to coordinate health
programs, in China to teach English or denistry or whatever it be in
China's universities.

In case of FHL, we have anywhere from 50 year old to 90 year old.
Usually widows, widowers, singles and couples. Their assignments are
varied according to their ability. Usually for 12 or 18 months but many
of them I know opted to extend beyond 18 months to as much as 10 years.

There are young missionaries who might be assigned to the FHL for their
technical skills or because of health issues. They usually serve 18 months.

There is no higher than senior missionary.

David

W David Samuelsen

Re: Count Albrecht II von Everstein

Legg inn av W David Samuelsen » 15 mar 2006 00:37:18

In a message dated 3/14/06 12:44:08 PM Pacific Standard Time,
dsam@sampubco.com writes:

Put in notes. That is what I do, when they are referring to same
persons.


But how do you chose which one, of the three different forms of the name,
to
use as your *principal* form ?


Careful review of the records. Normally it's NOT Latin which go into the
notes instead of being principal form. French person - French, German -
German, Polish - Polish, should be first consideration.

David Samuelsen

Douglas Richardson

Re: Count Albrecht II von Everstein

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 15 mar 2006 00:56:22

W David Samuelsen wrote:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-03/1142363525

Douglas,

Obvious you can't tell the difference in local language! Albert is
English/French while Albrecht is German/Dutch and I am sticking to what
the record actually says, not santized to English form, thank you.


W. David Samuelsen

David,

I didn't cite or quote a record naming Count Albert. Perhaps you have
me confused with someone else.

DR

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Ispania ...

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 15 mar 2006 02:39:03

In article <25c.89c7cd5.3148bdc8@aol.com>, Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:

Dear Douglas and others who may know,
If the official
designation for a Castillian royal prior to the union was de Hispania, what
was the official designation for a Aragonese royal or a Navarrese royal in
the same period ?

ps Apologies in advance for any freakishly wrong words to describe the royals
of Aragon and Navarre.

Actually, Todd was saying that the style using some variant of
'imperator hispaniae' (or, sometimes, hispaniarum) was used by SOME
Castilian kings, but by no means all. A study of what they called
themselves, in 'official' documents, would be pretty lengthy.

But the whole point about all such threads--over the past ten years, in
this newsgroup--is that there is essentially no such thing as a single
'official designation' that a whole dynasty of medieval monarchs would
have used themselves, or that we should somehow use. There are many
'freakishly wrong' ones that genealogists now use for them (just troll
the internet to see that).

But, really, barring outright spelling mistakes and obvious
anachronisms, there's no shame in calling a medieval person by some
modern name & title of convenience--or even an inconsistent variety of
such names--unless one is self-righteously forcing his own 'freakishly
wrong' style on others.

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

Gjest

Re: Ispania in English records

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mar 2006 02:46:21

Dear Douglas and others who may know,
If the official
designation for a Castillian royal prior to the union was de Hispania, what
was the official designation for a Aragonese royal or a Navarrese royal in
the same period ?
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA
ps Apologies in advance for any freakishly wrong words to describe the royals
of Aragon and Navarre.

Gjest

Re: Ispania in English records

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mar 2006 03:35:28

Why do you keep saying where's the source when he gives complete
footnoted sources? Are you just not reading the posts or not
understanding them? You can see the sources can't you?

(1) Cal. of Close Rolls, 1279-1288 (1902): 342 (Alfonsus de Ispannia
styled "kinsman of Queen Eleanor, the King's consort").

(2) Rymer, Fœdera 2(1) (1818): 549 (Philippo Infanti, "nato Regis
Ispaniæ," and Domino Johanni, filio Infantis Johannis de Ispania,
domino Biscaye," both styled "kinsman" of Edward II, King of Edward
["nepoti Regis Angliæ"]; Domino Johanni Manuel, filio domino Infantis
Manuel de Ispania styled "kinsman"and Dominæ Mariæ, quæ fuit
uxor Infantis domini Johannis de Ispania, dominæ de Biscaye, styled
"kinswoman").

(3) Owen, Cat. of Mss. Rel. Wales 3 (Cymmrodorion Recs. 4) (1908):
522-524. C.C.R. 1302-1307 (1908): 83 (Sir Henry de Ispania styled
"cousin" of Edward the king's son [future King Edward II]).

W David Samuelsen

Re: Ispania in English records

Legg inn av W David Samuelsen » 15 mar 2006 04:09:36

<http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-03/1142381860>

Douglas,
I'm going to keep needling you until you learn to make it a habit to
list the source.

What's the source for these statements?

David Samuelsen

Gjest

Re: Ispania ...

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mar 2006 04:12:24

Dear Nate,
Thank You.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Ispania in English records

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 15 mar 2006 05:30:25

In article <44178B86.8020001@sampubco.com>,
dsam@sampubco.com (W David Samuelsen) wrote:

Why do you keep saying where's the source when he gives complete
footnoted sources? Are you just not reading the posts or not
understanding them? You can see the sources can't you?

Owen, Cat. of Mss. Rel. Wales 3 (Cymmrodorion Recs. 4) (1908):
522-524. C.C.R. 1302-1307 (1908)

This does not tell me or others where this is located. Is Douglas the
only privy to the location of these sources that *no one else* can see?
Why can't Douglas tell us where this source is located in?

Suggest you get "Evidence!" by Elizabeth Shown Mills to understand the
importance of listing of repositories where such records are located.

W. David Samuelsen
That is rubbing a lot of us wrong way.

This is interesting. While this complaint is that these citations are
too arcane, some of critics of Mr. Richardson know perfectly well how to
get hold of the sources he cites; they allege inadequate attachment of
sources to specific genealogical claims, or imperfect understanding of
sources leading to genealogical conclusions which are erroneous or whose
degree of certainty is misstated. There have also sometimes been
accusations that Mr. Richardson may be citing sources he himself has not
seen or used, and has only used by its reference in another text. In
the case above, for example, perhaps the first citation is used as it
appears in, say, a footnote in the Complete Peerage. In the Complete
Peerage one would probably turn to a list of abbreviations somewhere
giving the full publication details of the thing elsewhere abbreviated
for brevity's sake. But in this post the abbreviations have not been
spelled out, though it is fruitless to speculate why: everyone cuts
corners in Usenet postings.

In the case above there are two printed sources, available in most large
research libraries (so it is not necessary to indicate what repositories
they are held in: one need only give an unambiguous citation, which
anyone can then follow up in a big library catalogue like the FHL or
WorldCat). One, the 'Cat of MSS rel. Wales', uses common abbreviations
for words in an uncommon title (this is certainly a reasonably obscure
item). The second is a much more widely-used source, but cited with
only the barest abbreviation: "C.C.R." is the 'Calendar of Close Rolls',
the many volume set of royal private letters for the later middle ages,
which is one of the first places to go trolling for references to
prominent individuals in whom one is interested.

Full citations would be:

1. _A Catalogue of the Manuscripts relating to Wales in the British
Museum_, ed. Edward Owen, 4 vols. [or 1 vol. in 4 parts] (Cymmrodorion
record series, no. 4: London: Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion,
1900-22), part 3 (1908), pp. 522-24.

2. _Calendar of the Close Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office:
Edward I, 1272-1307_, 5 vols. (London: Her [/His] Majesty's Stationery
Office, 1900-1908), vol. 5 (1302-1307)... [the quoted passage leaves out
a precise page or document reference for this latter item, but this
volume is cited here]

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

W David Samuelsen

re: Ispania in English records

Legg inn av W David Samuelsen » 15 mar 2006 05:35:37

Why do you keep saying where's the source when he gives complete
footnoted sources? Are you just not reading the posts or not
understanding them? You can see the sources can't you?

"Owen, Cat. of Mss. Rel. Wales 3 (Cymmrodorion Recs. 4) (1908):
"522-524. C.C.R. 1302-1307 (1908)"

This does not tell me or others where this is located. Is Douglas the
only privy to the location of these sources that *no one else* can see?
Why can't Douglas tell us where this source is located in?

Suggest you get "Evidence!" by Elizabeth Shown Mills to understand the
importance of listing of repositories where such records are located.

W. David Samuelsen
That is rubbing a lot of us wrong way.

Gjest

Re: Ispania in English records

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mar 2006 11:05:20

W David Samuelsen wrote:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-03/1142381860

Douglas,
I'm going to keep needling you until you learn to make it a habit to
list the source.

What's the source for these statements?

David Samuelsen

The source is clearly stated for each reference. Why do you need to
know which copy of any particular reference work has been used by the
poster? If I use a copy of a book in a library in London, or in my
study in Sydney, does that make its validity any greater or conversely
weaken it somehow? Are you unable to locate cited works of reference
yourself? If so, how do you expect to be taken seriously in this
forum?

Michael Andrews-Reading

Gjest

Re: Richardson's heavy use of English (Anglicanized) and cor

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mar 2006 11:10:33

W David Samuelsen wrote:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-03/1142365795

my mistake, didn't catch that mis-spelling fast enough. Should be
Oesterreich.

Well, you did repeat it for good measure.

All translations I tried say Markgrafinnen rather than Markgrafen. Oh
well. Can't win all, but the reference is not often used.

Not much of an an excuse for getting it wrong when the subject of your
post is lecturing others about accuracy. Please cite one reference
which shows that Markgrafinnen [recte Markgraefinnen] is the plural of
Markgraf - full sources, like you demand from others, please.

Michael Andrews-Reading

Gjest

Re: Count Albrecht II von Everstein

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mar 2006 11:13:50

Douglas Richardson wrote:
W David Samuelsen wrote:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1142363525

Douglas,

Obvious you can't tell the difference in local language! Albert is
English/French while Albrecht is German/Dutch and I am sticking to what
the record actually says, not santized to English form, thank you.


W. David Samuelsen

David,

I didn't cite or quote a record naming Count Albert. Perhaps you have
me confused with someone else.

DR


Douglas Richardson posted 12 March 2006:

"Dear David ~

The correct name of Richsza of Poland's third husband is Graf Albrecht
II von Everstein, or, if you please, Count Albert II of Everstein.
Evenstein was a purely typo on my part.

DR"

Chris Phillips

Re: Ispania in English records

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 15 mar 2006 12:06:28

Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
In
the case above, for example, perhaps the first citation is used as it
appears in, say, a footnote in the Complete Peerage. In the Complete
Peerage one would probably turn to a list of abbreviations somewhere
giving the full publication details of the thing elsewhere abbreviated
for brevity's sake.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is such a list in CP, which occasionally
does give rise to problems.

A few years ago I came across a reference to "L.F.C. Charters" in the CP
article on FitzBernard, which appeared to be totally unexplained. I've just
had another scan for it using Google, and I see it's something at the
British Library, which is cited in a lot of the VCH (Victoria County
History) volumes on religious houses. But wonderful as the online texts at
British History Online are, they don't seem to include the lists of
abbreviations, so one still has to go to the library to track down the
sources.

Chris Phillips

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»