Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

Re: what does "son-in-law" mean

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 20:43:02

In a message dated 4/4/2006 10:49:57 AM Pacific Standard Time,
nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net writes:

This argument is irrelevant.
You have two seemingly conflicting pieces of evidence.
The use of a maiden name, and the use of "son-in-law"
They conflict.

No; they DON'T conflict. There is a curious interlocking set of
goalposts here. Diana could have been single in the fall of 1655, and
biological mother to Mary who was alive in the fall of 1658.


I should have said they *might* conflict.
My point being you cannot form an argument and ignore this *potentially
conflicting* evidence. Any argument, must also include this evidence as well,
address the potential conflict in some satisfactory fashion, deal with it in a
way that makes it fit the theory and proceed.
Merely stating one piece of evidence, ignores the other evidence. That
was my point. I didn't make it very precise.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 20:45:02

In a message dated 4/4/2006 11:20:00 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

Looking at this case realistically, I find
that there is no reason to think that "sonne in law" meant anything but
"husband of my biological daughter."


You are not doing that at all.
In the above, "realistically" simply means "in my opinion".
To date, you have consulted exactly zero reference books on the issue. How
is that realistic?

Will Johnson

Tony Hoskins

Re: Edward Dale's wife, Diana Skipwith - maiden name rather

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 04 apr 2006 20:46:02

With all due respect, Doug, I take exception to the premise that Diana
(Skipwith) Dale would have signed herself under her maiden name after
marriage. I not claim it to be impossible, rather that it would be
highly unlikely for her to do so.

I think we Americans are prone (as notable with John Hunt in re: his
perceived gulf between "Mr." and "Yeoman" with the Winslows) to read too
much into certain "evidences" (too often misunderstood or
misinterpreted) of social rank - in this case the possession of a
baronetcy. Bottom line, the 17th century English would have almost
certainly in no way have seen Edward Dale as socially inferior to his
wife Diana Skipwith, for all her family's baronetcy. Instances abound in
my own research in England and Virginia in this period to cases of women
even more highly born than Diana nonetheless using their their husbands'
surnames. I am frankly very doubtful that Diana (Skipwith) Dale would
have signed herself any other way after marriage than "Diana Dale".

All best,

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

JeffChipman

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale ...

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 04 apr 2006 21:00:13

You seem to be under the illusion that I need your help. You haven't
made any contribution to this. I asked you some hard questions, and
now you're saying I'm not "nice." You can tell your mommy on me, but
I'm going to hold your feet to the fire.

I'm not much interested anymore in your opinion. I have asked you
repeatedly to document your assertion concerning the use of the term
"son in law". I would like to know, in terms of 17th cent VA (and
anywhere in the state to take in the broadest population) what the
approximate distribution of the various meanings were. An exact
distribution is obviously impossible. I have asked you why you think a
different meaning would apply in the Skipwith case. I have asked you
how much weight to give this "evidence." If you don't understand the
concept of weighing evidence, then what the hell are you doing posting
anything? In reality you and some others are tacitly asking the reader
to accept your statements based on nothing more than personal
reputation at this point. Right?

You have done a serious thing and damn right you better have a good
reason. Your chart is just a smokescreen; if you need it to help you
understand the family who cares. How much weight do you think the
reader should give your "evidence?" Don't trivialize the situation
with comments like "many posters", etc. "Many posters" are not
considered "evidence" by anybody.

If you can't answer these questions, which are an attempt to pin you
down, then I think you should back down and apologize. I am not going
to accept your unsubstantiated opinion. If you are going to question a
line, then I expect to see why you think your piece of "evidence"
accomplishes that. If you have no reason, then you're deceiving
people. You're a longtime contributor to this newsgroup; you know the
score when it comes to evidence. And you know what dissembling is:
it's trying to bury the weakness of your position in a mound of crap.

What weight should we apply to your "evidence?" and how did you come by
it? What does it consist of? Notes? What? An article you read? And
if you have not exactly "broken" the line (which you haven't) but
raised mortal doubt as to its validity, why is it that you think your
evidence has enough weight to do that? Where the hell did you get the
idea that your so-called evidence rendered a line doubtful? Isn't it
true that at most it's an historical oddity of the period?

Don't you understand? I'm challenging you. You need to answer these
questions. If you can't, then I think you should exit the thread. I
don't appreciate having to respond to this stuff if you have nothing to
back it up. Let's see some hard evidence!
Please--either answer the questions or do something.

JTC

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King William the Conqueror's kinsman, K

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 21:29:43

"Bob Turcott" schrieb:

An interesting Item I have noticed a paper written by E. A. GREENING
LAMBORN, does anyone in this expertise filled forum know if this writer and
is his work credible?

Lambhorn's paper is called "The Arms on the Chaucer Tomb at Ewelme with a
note on the early manorial history of the parish"

However there is a entry in Lambhorns paper he writes:
representing one of the largest and most interesting collections of
mediaeval coats to be found on any tomb in England, the arms on the Chaucer
tomb at Ewelme have never been competently examined.

I am not familiar with Lamborn, whose work is now about 65 years old
(Oxoniensia Vol 5 1940), but the Duchess of Suffolk's tomb at Ewelme
has I am sure been the subject of much scholarly research. I have a
Guide Book which I picked up there some years ago; it goes into a fair
amount of detail. The church is a lovely one, and the monument most
spectacular.

Good luck with your further research.

MA-R

Bob Turcott

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King William the Conqueror's kinsman, K

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 04 apr 2006 21:30:03

To all:

One small Item, thanks in advance for all your help. I really have no
immediate interest in Peverel,
and we may never know the true ancestry of this peverel fellow. I do have
some interest in William the bastard for sure. I can say I do find it
annoying for people to give people false or unproven data,
when someone post something on a website that is not proven then it should
be called a theory with a few reasons or sources as to why one would believe
such a theory. I apologize for wasting
the time of others on such a foolish endeavor.

An interesting Item I have noticed a paper written by E. A. GREENING
LAMBORN, does anyone in this expertise filled forum know if this writer and
is his work credible?

Lambhorn's paper is called "The Arms on the Chaucer Tomb at Ewelme with a
note on the early manorial history of the parish"

However there is a entry in Lambhorns paper he writes:
representing one of the largest and most interesting collections of
mediaeval coats to be found on any tomb in England, the arms on the Chaucer
tomb at Ewelme have never been competently examined.

another entry he writes:
NOTE ON THE EARLY MANORIAL HISTORY OF THE PARISH
Since Napier (Parishes of Swyncombe and Ewelme, 1858), ignores the early
manorial history of Ewelme, its records may be summarized here.
The 20 hides at which Ewelme was assessed in Domesday Book were unequally
divided among three great Norman lords, connexions of the Con¬queror’s, and
one of his ministers or ‘serjeants’:
Gilbert de Gaunt, 8 hides, held by Ulf before the Conquest, held now of
Gilbert by Robert (of Armentiers who held largely under him in Lincolnshire
where most of his lands lay).
Walter Gifard, 52 hides, held by Hugh (Bolebec, his kinsman, who held many
manors under him in Bucks. of which his son became Earl).
Ranulf Pevrel, 22 hides. The relationship of Ranulph to William Peverel and
of both to William the Conqueror has been much discussed but never
elucidated. The bulk of their holdings lay in Notts.
Robert FitzRalf, 43 hides, held by serjeanty, duties not stated.


In closing I thought the paper was interesting, But I need to examine it
further.

regards,

Bob



From: "Bob Turcott" <bobturcott@msn.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: King's Kinsfolk: King William the Conqueror's kinsman, King
Edward the Co...
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 04:15:33 +0000

to all:

I cant prove peverel to the bastard, unless there are some hidden treats
somewhere
that someone has not dug up yet I think I can put aside this pet theory for
the time being.Unless we can find a stran of y dna of the bastard floating
around somewhere.

Below is what really concerns me as I said before the land and quantity:
Langar enters history via the Domesday Book, recorded there as being held
by William Peverel, and as having two mills and a church. William was
Governor of Nottingham Castle and Langar was a small part of the extensive
dominion called the Honour of Peverell, but little else is known of him. He
has always been a mystery to historians, and from Tudor times his vast
possessions (100 lordships in Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire, 14 in
Derbyshire, and another 20 scattered through six other counties) have been
explained by his being a bastard son of the Conqueror (for which there is
no evidence at all), but the huge size of the lands granted to him is in
itself a clue. "or maybe not"?

In summation maybe or maybe not, I have also seen referances to a rampant
lion, we have no proof that the lion on any coat of arms belongs to the
bastard, until I can find something really juicy and I will look into all
the nice sources people have given me on this forum.

Thanks to all
"The Bastard descendant"


From: "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: King's Kinsfolk: King William the Conqueror's kinsman, King
Edward the Co...
Date: 30 Mar 2006 15:03:58 -0800

It would be highly amusing to see the small, select list of persons
*not* in yr. kill-file ...


_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm0 ... direct/01/


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

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Edward Dale's wife, Diana Skipwith - maiden name rather

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 04 apr 2006 21:42:47

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Tony ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

While it it true that English women customarily dropped their maiden
name after marriage in the early modern period, we know for a fact that
there are exceptions. I pointed out Mary Arundel just now as an
example. However, what "most" women did in this time period certainly
doesn't apply to Diana Skipwith. As the daughter and sister of a
baronet, Diana was of higher social rank than most all of her colonial
contemporaries.

Which ignores his point. Would she really have been perceived by her
local contemporaries as being of a higher social rank, or is this modern
perception?

As for Diana Skipwith having signed her name, as I recall, the
reference to her being called Diana Skipwith in Virginia comes from a
court record. She did not sign the record. When she signed her name
to later documents, she appears as Diana Dale.

Yes, quite.

taf

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale ...

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 04 apr 2006 21:54:58

In article <1144180813.068968.196970@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"JeffChipman" <jeffchip9@hotmail.com> wrote:

If you can't answer these questions, which are an attempt to pin you
down, then I think you should back down and apologize. I am not going
to accept your unsubstantiated opinion.
If you are going to question a
line, then I expect to see why you think your piece of "evidence"
accomplishes that.

My 'evidence' for questioning the line is logic:

Since

(1) There is no proof that Diana Skipwith was married to Edward Dale
before 9 June 1660,

and

(2) There is no proof that Elizabeth Dale Rogers was born after 9 June
1660;

therefore,

(3) There is no proof that Elizabeth Dale Rogers is daughter of Diana
Skipwith Dale, although she may well have been.


Let's look at your logic:

Because

(1) Elizabeth Dale Rogers was married later than Mary Dale Harrison;
therefore she must be younger than Mary Dale Harrison.

And because

(2) The POA of 6 Nov 1774 proves that Mary Dale Harrison was Diana
Skipwith Dale's biological daughter, because only one possible
genealogical meaning of 'son in law' can be entertained;

therefore

(3) Elizabeth Dale Rogers must be the daughter of Diana Skipwith Dale.

I happen to think your (1) and (2) are unproveable; both must be proved
for anyone to accept your full argument.

Simply put, because you are the proponent of the line, the burden of
proof is yours. That's the way genealogy works. Good luck.

Nat Taylor

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

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale ...

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 04 apr 2006 22:02:58

JeffChipman wrote:
One of these idiots even went so far as to provide a chart. Another is
tending toward Douglas Richardson's opinion. My question is, how much
weight should we give any of these people's contentions that "son in
law" could have meant anything but "husband of my biological daughter?"
in this specific case. Joan Burdyck was told by Preston Haynie that
it had to be taken on a case by case basis in light of available
evidence. That means that it must be considered in light of the
evidence in a specific instance. What these people are saying is that
the available evidence does not prove the case because it does not
refute an available meaning for the term "son in law." They are saying
that the use of this term could mean something else, and while they do
not know that it's the case here, it is of sufficient weight to cast
real doubt on the validity of the line.

And you, on the other hand, are saying that because there is
insufficient data to reach any other conclusion, yours must be right,
ignoring the fact that there is insufficient data to reach your own
conclusion. You are also wanting to have your cake and eat it too: you
can't both address an issue on a case by case basis _and_ demand
evidence about relative probabilities of word use.


This is the argument when you
cut through all the BS. They would further have you believe that a
woman was having children, say, around age 44 to 46 in 17th century VA.

Creating strawmen is intellectually dishonest.

No doubt they will say that numerous contributors to this group have
such examples.

I have yet to see a single verifiable piece of evidence that shows the
usage of the term in its alternative meaning in 17th VA.

READ THE DAMNED ARTICLE!

How much weight should be given such an undocumented assertion? 10 per
cent? Fifteen? It's subjective, isn't it?

Weight cannot be measured in percentage. It is fallacious to suggest so.

Does every piece of
evidence have the same weight? Who told you that? I am saying that
this piece of evidence (and it is evidence) is not sufficient to
disprove Elizabeth Dale's maternity when the chronology is clear.

No one is saying that it disproves anything, except you in your lame
strawman argument you are projecting on those who question your
conclusions. Those who have questioned this evidence do so because it
fails to distinguish one solution from another. That is not disproof,
but rather a failure of ("ironclad") proof. These are entirely
different concepts.

That being said, if the chronology is so clear (and I grant this just
for the sake of argument) then you don't need the relational statement
to bolster the argument. Either way, the relational statement doesn't help.

There is no independent piece of evidence in this case that supports a
notion of the "step-daughter" meaning; there is in the Katherine Carter
situation.

Absence of evidence for an alternate interpretation is _not_ the same
thing as evidence for yours. It is neutral. There is no legitimate
basis in scholarly genealogy for arbitrarily suggesting a default
position, and insisting that it must be true unless the alternet is
proven. There is no data to support the "daughter" meaning either.

I am saying this--sinmply because you have contributed to this
newsgroup for many years does not give you a pass from the same
standards of evidence as everyone else.

What standards of evidence? You don't seem to know anything about
standards of evidence.

It does not give you the right
to wreck years of research by people like John Frederick Dorman and
others with garbage.

Can you hear the violins? If any single conclusion of his is flawed,
then it should be questioned, and if that ends up 'wrecking' his work,
so be it. And if that ends up wrecking your line, which is really what
this is about, so be it. If he is a genealogist worth respecting, he
will want any errors he has made corrected, rather than resting solely
on his reputation or the desires of descendants to maintain a flawed
line. He would want weaknesses in his arguments highlighted for further
study, not swept under the carpet. The only people this obfuscation
would benefit (and even that is a perceived benefit and not a real one)
are those emotionally invested in the descent, for whom the truth, if it
differs, would be perceived as a loss rather than an improvement. With
your talk of "wrecking years of research", and "stopping dead in their
tracks" indicates that you view genealogy as a linear extension of a
pedigree, and never a reevaluation or correction process - there is a
goal to be reached, and we are interfering with destiny to question the
line. I somehow doubt Mr. Dorman would take that view.

I am being polite in terming your material as
"evidence" when it's just your opinion.

You have been many things in this thread, but polite is not one of them
(and you have reaped in kind): you have called people idiots,
charlatans, poseurs, etc, just for disagreeing with you. _JUST FOR
DISAGREEING WITH YOU_!

I think Nat brushed Joan
Burdyck off with a piece of casuistry and I'm going to demand he
deliver the goods. Anyone who tells you that all genealogical evidence
is of the same value is lying. So, Nat, how much weight do you think
we should give your "evidence?" And why?

READ THE DAMNED ARTICLE!

Tell you what. You have demanded that a reference be provided which
discusses the use of "son-in-law". Here is one:

"Now-Wives and Sons-in-Law" which appeared in "The Chesapeake in the
Seventeenth Century."

Now that a reference has been provided, as per your challenge, you no
longer have any justification for your whinging. GO READ THE DAMNED
ARTICLE! and quit insulting everyone here until you have held up your
end of the bargain.

taf

Gjest

Re: Baronet's daughters who married Mr nobodies

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 22:08:18

WJhon...@aol.com schrieb:

I have another 16th century one

Edward Devereux, 1st Baronet d 22 Sep 1622
had at least one daughter Anne d 20 Jan 1620/1
who married Robert Leighton of Wattlesborough d 20 Mar 1625/6
no title that I'm aware of

Richard Molyneux, Baronet d 8 Feb 1622
had at least two daughters
Alice married William Dormer

William Dormer was a knight and son & heir of Lord Dormer.

Anne married John Bryon

Sir John Byron

John Peyton of Iselham, 1st Baronet bur 19 Dec 1616
had at least one daughter
Alice who married John Peyton

Sir John Peyton

Henry Willoughby of Risley, Baronet d 20 Nov 1649
had at least one daughter Margaret
who married Henry Griffith a Knight

I have noted several others; the difficulty is identifying
possibilities, and then determining how they were referred to
contemporaneously. One quick way I have thought of it to locate their
probate record on the National Archives site, but this presumes (a)
they died a widow rather than a wife; (b) they died testate, and (c)
their will was proved at the PCC. So far, none of the possibilities I
have tested meets all criteria, and frankly, I can;t be bothered to put
much more effort in on something related to a most unpleasant and
ignorant poster [and I don't mean you, Will, or Nat...]

MA-R

Gjest

Re: Edward Dale's wife, Diana Skipwith {Revised Post]

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 22:13:27

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

In a message dated 4/4/06 1:05:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

I have racked my brains to come up with an example in line with Nat's
request - i.e. that of a 17th century English baronet's daughter who
married an untitled gentleman - but haven't come up with anything of
value as yet.

That's awfully specific.
How about the 16th century?
Sir Nicholas Bacon, Baronet, of Redgrave, Suffolk d 22 Nov 1624
He had at least one daughter Ann d 1624 who married plain Robert Drury d1615
Although this Robert was the son of a Knight, I'm not aware of any title he
held himself.

Good find, Will.
His PCC probate record calls him "Robert Drury" (PCC 27.11.1615, PROB
11/126)
Her's calls her "Ann Drury, widow of Hargrave, Suffolk" (PCC 10.6.1624
PROB 11/143)

MA-R

Doug McDonald

Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 04 apr 2006 22:16:52

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/4/2006 9:34:50 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

When you cut through the
baloney, not one person has offered a verifiable example of the use of
"son in law" as meaning "husband of my step-daughter" in 17th century
VA, let alone in Tidewater VA. Not one.


This argument is irrelevant.
You have two seemingly conflicting pieces of evidence.
The use of a maiden name, and the use of "son-in-law"
They conflict.
You are picking one, someone else is picking another.
Instead of you seeing this, you are continuing to post over and over and
over to try to hammer your idea as the ultimate truth against which no one can
argue!!

It simply isn't. Two pieces of evidence seemingly conflict.
Your long winded postings don't and won't ever change that fact.


They don't conflict if no one in VA is every known to have
used "son in law" to mean what the "conflict" requires, if I
understand the conflict correctly. If he is correct, there
is no conflict!

Doug McDonald

JeffChipman

Re: what does "son-in-law" mean

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 04 apr 2006 22:28:47

When you cut through the smoke and mirrors, my argument isn't
difficult to follow. I want to know approximately how often the term
"sonne in law" means "husband of my step-daughter" as opposed
to "husband of my biological daughter." Why? Because it is a
crucial aid in weighing the evidence. How else are we to judge the
value of this evidence?

If the approximate usage of the former as opposed to the latter is
something like 10 per cent, then while it's good to know that the
term can have more than one meaning, I'm not going to raise doubts
about a line simply because a family document uses the term. It may be
that the term was used in a variety of ways due to certain
circumstances, or was it arbitrary?

Nobody on this series of threads knows what the distribution of the
meanings is. How can we weigh this evidence? Somebody's reputation
as a longtime contributor to soc.genealogy.medieval doesn't mean they
are qualified to make this kind of determination. We need some kind of
evidence to help us here, and this is precisely what is lacking here.
"Many posters" or "many threads" isn't proof of anything. I
want to see some scholarship, with evidence presented which supports
the conclusion.

Since Nat Taylor and some others are the people who think alternative
definitios of this term are so important, I want them to show why.
This newsgroup is a public forum, not the personal province of any
poster/s, and I expect to see the same requirements for support of a
thesis whether or not the poster has been active for five years or five
minutes. It is precisely the lack of scholarship which aroused my ire
at the treatment of Joan Burdyck five years ago. Nat Taylor's
response to her was cavalier and misleading, and it's not going to
happen again. These people are giving much weight to their
interpretation of this evidence without citing anything.

So how much weight should we give these alternative meanings? Maybe
about as much as naming customs. The fact that nobody so far has cited
an example (which absolutely should apply to VA; the culture was very
different than, say, Plymouth) tells me that this is just a load of hot
air, and that these so-called examples really don't live up to their
billing. There must be a lot of early VA records that use the term;
don't tell me you're going to toss them all into the dustbin for
this reason.

What has happened here is that posters like Nat, without offering any
proof, have deceived people into thinking that these alternative
definitions are more important than they actually are. They've done
it out of intellectual laziness, creating the impression that if your
line uses this term, instead of being helpful, it's actually a
serious problem. In the absence of any documentation, they really
don't have anything but a subjective opinion, do they? Where do they
get off with this kind of crap? It's common even today to call a
brother of one's grandfather a great-uncle; the correct term is
grand-uncle. We're not throwing genealogies which contain that
wording into file 13. I am not going to allow these people to cow
readers of this newsgroup into accepting their undocumented opinions.


It seems to me that these people are ignoring reality. Who says that
this "evidence" is so important? And by "evidence" I mean some
used but lesser meaning of a term. Words can have different meanings.
That's the concept of a thesaurus. Why do these people think that
everybody should dump their own interpretations and accept the
subjective weighing of the term given it by these people? I accept the
fact that this term can have other meanings, I just don't think that
it's as earth-shattering as Nat and others do, and in the absence of
citations it's about as useful as crazy Aunt Mary's assertion that
she signed the Declaration of Independence on her doily.

I think these people are peddling their opinions as fact. I can't
force them to provide documentation, I can just point out that until
they live by the same rules as everybody else and provide some proof of
their statements, their opinions have little value.

JTC

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale ...

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 22:29:02

In a message dated 4/4/06 12:07:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< What these people are saying is that
the available evidence does not prove the case because it does not
refute an available meaning for the term "son in law." They are saying
that the use of this term could mean something else, and while they do
not know that it's the case here, it is of sufficient weight to cast
real doubt on the validity of the line. This is the argument when you
cut through all the BS. >>

Again you fail to see the argument entirely.
I've pointed out the situation a few times and you have yet to respond to it
whatsoever.

Richard Smyth at UNC-CH

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale...

Legg inn av Richard Smyth at UNC-CH » 04 apr 2006 22:31:01

. . . though English common law was the same
in Rhode Island as in Virginia in the 17th century, and I suspect
notarial usage differed very little as well.

English common law differed in different jurisdictions in England. As a
consequence, scholars who are familiar with those differences (which I am
not) are able to draw credible inferences about the home districts of groups
of settlers in America on the basis of the court records they created.

I don't believe this point has any significance for the on-going
argument---of which I am pleased not to be a part. Some of the participants
have not thought hard enough about the difference between fact-based
genealogy and faith-based genealogy. If you do not believe there is such
a thing as faith-based genealogy, I invite you to find an expert in human
nutrition who can convince a devout Catholic that he or she has never
ingested the body and blood of the son of God.

Regards,

Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Edward Dale's wife, Diana Skipwith {Revised Post]

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 04 apr 2006 22:40:06

In message of 4 Apr, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 4/4/06 1:05:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

I have racked my brains to come up with an example in line with Nat's
request - i.e. that of a 17th century English baronet's daughter who
married an untitled gentleman - but haven't come up with anything of
value as yet.

That's awfully specific.
How about the 16th century?
Sir Nicholas Bacon, Baronet, of Redgrave, Suffolk d 22 Nov 1624

Um. Isn't 1624 in the 17th century?

He had at least one daughter Ann d 1624 who married plain Robert Drury d1615
Although this Robert was the son of a Knight, I'm not aware of any title he
held himself.

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

Renia

Re: Edward Dale's wife, Diana Skipwith {Revised Post]

Legg inn av Renia » 04 apr 2006 22:40:11

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 4/4/06 1:05:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

I have racked my brains to come up with an example in line with Nat's
request - i.e. that of a 17th century English baronet's daughter who
married an untitled gentleman - but haven't come up with anything of
value as yet.

That's awfully specific.
How about the 16th century?
Sir Nicholas Bacon, Baronet, of Redgrave, Suffolk d 22 Nov 1624
He had at least one daughter Ann d 1624 who married plain Robert Drury d1615
Although this Robert was the son of a Knight, I'm not aware of any title he
held himself.

Will Johnson

When did Ann (d 1624) marry plain Robert Drury (d 1615)? The baronecy
was created in 1611, so she was likely not a baronet's daughter at the
time she married, for the title did not then exist. Sir Nicholas Bacon
had 5 sons and 3 daughters.

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale ...

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 22:42:02

In a message dated 4/4/06 1:05:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< I have asked you why you think a
different meaning would apply in the Skipwith case. I have asked you
how much weight to give this "evidence." If you don't understand the
concept of weighing evidence, then what the hell are you doing posting
anything? >>

Because she used her maiden name, at a date possibly too late to be the
mother.
That is evidence. Now weigh it. Go weigh it for a while and let us know
your thoughts on that evidence when you return.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Edward Dale's wife, Diana Skipwith {Revised Post]

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 22:52:01

In a message dated 4/4/06 1:05:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< I have racked my brains to come up with an example in line with Nat's
request - i.e. that of a 17th century English baronet's daughter who
married an untitled gentleman - but haven't come up with anything of
value as yet. >>

That's awfully specific.
How about the 16th century?
Sir Nicholas Bacon, Baronet, of Redgrave, Suffolk d 22 Nov 1624
He had at least one daughter Ann d 1624 who married plain Robert Drury d1615
Although this Robert was the son of a Knight, I'm not aware of any title he
held himself.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Baronet's daughters who married Mr nobodies

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 22:59:02

I have another 16th century one

Edward Devereux, 1st Baronet d 22 Sep 1622
had at least one daughter Anne d 20 Jan 1620/1
who married Robert Leighton of Wattlesborough d 20 Mar 1625/6
no title that I'm aware of

Richard Molyneux, Baronet d 8 Feb 1622
had at least two daughters
Alice married William Dormer
Anne married John Bryon

John Peyton of Iselham, 1st Baronet bur 19 Dec 1616
had at least one daughter
Alice who married John Peyton

Henry Willoughby of Risley, Baronet d 20 Nov 1649
had at least one daughter Margaret
who married Henry Griffith a Knight

I'm sorry my database tends to stop about 1660 on these *semi-famous* people.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Edward Dale's wife, Diana Skipwith {Revised Post]

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 23:05:03

Dear all,

I have rejoined the newsgroup to help resolve this issue.

1) Mary Dale can clearly be shown to be the wife of Daniel Harrison in the
records of both Lancaster and Middlesex County, VA. She was married twice and
left a son by her 2nd husband and was probably the mother of Hannah Harrison.
These are facts and Diana Skipwith's use of son-in-law with reference to Daniel
Harrison simply shows he was Mary Dale's husband. This is not a definite
statement on Mary's maternity but in all probability this is very likely.

2) Doug Richardson states that high born women used their maiden names in
17th century documents. I can not comment on this but in very early centuries
[11th -13th] this was quite a common practice. Whether this was still the case
500 years later I leave to others who are more familiar with this era.

3) The actual problem here is the three deeds that were witnessed by Diana
Skipwith. If anyone would care to analyze them they would quickly realize that
one of the deeds is spurious. I am referring to the three part deed of Walter
Bries [it is not Bruce]. This is actually three separate deeds in one
document. The first occurs in 1652 and the others in 1655. This deed gives final
possession of the land of Walter Bries to Thomas Carter, brother of Col. John
Carter. This document was not recorded in the Lancaster County Court until 1658
when it was recorded by Edward Dale. What makes this deed suspect is the fact
that Thomas Carter was dead when this was recorded and his heir was Col. John
Carter and the fact it is the only deed in all of Lancaster County to be
recorded years after its creation. I am not the first to question this deed as
Beverly Fleet also had problems understanding it and why it was recorded when it
was. This also casts doubt on the other two deeds as both involved land being
transferred to Thomas Carter and his brother Col. John Carter. Edward Dale
also recorded another of these deeds and the earliest was recorded by Vincent
Stanford who had close connections to the Dale family. There may well have been
good reason for Edward Dale to attempt to distance himself from these
transactions.

4) It is very unlikely that Katherine, Mary and Elizabeth Dale had different
mothers. They are very close in age and the only onomastic evidence comes from
the line of Katherine Dale. Trying to circumvent the published articles since
2000 by splitting these daughters between mothers won't work in this case.

Best regards,
MichaelAnne

Renia

Re: what does "son-in-law" mean

Legg inn av Renia » 04 apr 2006 23:09:43

JeffChipman wrote:

When you cut through the smoke and mirrors, my argument isn't
difficult to follow. I want to know approximately how often the term
"sonne in law" means "husband of my step-daughter" as opposed
to "husband of my biological daughter." Why? Because it is a
crucial aid in weighing the evidence. How else are we to judge the
value of this evidence?

It may be a crucial aid, but it won't help you to know how often the
term meant one thing or another, because you will never know what it
meant in this particular case, unless you find other evidence to
corroborate it either way.

If you really want statistics, then you should do some scholarly
research yourself and test a theory.


If the approximate usage of the former as opposed to the latter is
something like 10 per cent, then while it's good to know that the
term can have more than one meaning, I'm not going to raise doubts
about a line simply because a family document uses the term. It may be
that the term was used in a variety of ways due to certain
circumstances, or was it arbitrary?

Even if the statistics say 10% this way or that, you will still not have
certainty. Statistics only give probability, not certainty.


Nobody on this series of threads knows what the distribution of the
meanings is. How can we weigh this evidence? Somebody's reputation
as a longtime contributor to soc.genealogy.medieval doesn't mean they
are qualified to make this kind of determination.


No one has made a "determination". All we have said, is that that the
meaning of "son-in-law" varied.


We need some kind of
evidence to help us here, and this is precisely what is lacking here.
"Many posters" or "many threads" isn't proof of anything. I
want to see some scholarship, with evidence presented which supports
the conclusion.

What kind of scholarship?


Since Nat Taylor and some others are the people who think alternative
definitios of this term are so important, I want them to show why.

They are important because they make a difference to a supposed conclusion.

This newsgroup is a public forum, not the personal province of any
poster/s, and I expect to see the same requirements for support of a
thesis whether or not the poster has been active for five years or five
minutes. It is precisely the lack of scholarship which aroused my ire
at the treatment of Joan Burdyck five years ago. Nat Taylor's
response to her was cavalier and misleading, and it's not going to
happen again. These people are giving much weight to their
interpretation of this evidence without citing anything.

Frankly, it doesn't need to be cited, because it's well-known in the
experienced genealogical community.


So how much weight should we give these alternative meanings? Maybe
about as much as naming customs. The fact that nobody so far has cited
an example (which absolutely should apply to VA; the culture was very
different than, say, Plymouth) tells me that this is just a load of hot
air, and that these so-called examples really don't live up to their
billing. There must be a lot of early VA records that use the term;
don't tell me you're going to toss them all into the dustbin for
this reason.

It's not to do with culture: it's to do with law (hence son-in-law).


What has happened here is that posters like Nat, without offering any
proof, have deceived people into thinking that these alternative
definitions are more important than they actually are. They've done
it out of intellectual laziness,

How dare you call Nat intellectually lazy?

creating the impression that if your
line uses this term, instead of being helpful, it's actually a
serious problem. In the absence of any documentation, they really
don't have anything but a subjective opinion, do they? Where do they
get off with this kind of crap? It's common even today to call a
brother of one's grandfather a great-uncle; the correct term is
grand-uncle. We're not throwing genealogies which contain that
wording into file 13. I am not going to allow these people to cow
readers of this newsgroup into accepting their undocumented opinions.


You are not in a position to allow or disallow anything said on a newsgroup.


It seems to me that these people are ignoring reality. Who says that
this "evidence" is so important? And by "evidence" I mean some
used but lesser meaning of a term. Words can have different meanings.
That's the concept of a thesaurus. Why do these people think that
everybody should dump their own interpretations and accept the
subjective weighing of the term given it by these people? I accept the
fact that this term can have other meanings, I just don't think that
it's as earth-shattering as Nat and others do, and in the absence of
citations it's about as useful as crazy Aunt Mary's assertion that
she signed the Declaration of Independence on her doily.


It's like talking to a brick wall.


I think these people are peddling their opinions as fact. I can't
force them to provide documentation, I can just point out that until
they live by the same rules as everybody else and provide some proof of
their statements, their opinions have little value.

JTC

Renia

Re: what does "son-in-law" mean

Legg inn av Renia » 04 apr 2006 23:14:48

The Family Historian's Enquire Within,
by F C Markwell and Pauline Saul,
Federation of Family History Societies,
2nd edition 1986.
ISBN: 0 907099 52 1

Page 63.

QUOTE

IN-LAW
This phrase had a different meaning in the mid 19th century from that
which it has today. In the 1851 census, for example, the term daughter
(or son)-in-law could mean "step-daughter" or "step-son", i.e. children
of the wife of the head of the household by a previous marriage. In
Dicken's "Pickwick Papers", Sam Weller addresses his step-mother as
"mother-in-law".

ENDQUOTE

Doug McDonald

Re: Edward Dale's wife, Diana Skipwith - maiden name rather

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 04 apr 2006 23:51:23

Tony Hoskins wrote:
Though
occurring almost 200 years later, one is reminded of Elizabeth Bennet's
statement to the haughty Lady Catherine de Burgh, with reference to any
supposed incongruity of a link-up between Elizabeth and Lady Catherine's
nephew, "I am a gentleman's daughter, he is a gentleman". There was no
more to be said. (But, when Lady Catharine rebutted, "Well, what about
your *mother*!" - that was entirely another matter.)


So what's the rest of this story? Who was the mother? Is the
genealogy of this tale on Genealogics?

Doug McDonald

Tony Hoskins

Re: Edward Dale's wife, Diana Skipwith {Revised Post]

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 05 apr 2006 00:02:02

I reiterate: it's my opinion that far too much rigidity inheres in this
discussion as regards baronet's daughters in regards to 1) their exalted
rank and marital expectations and 2) any sort of formula, reserving such
young women for knights (no less), etc.

Remember, we're talking about the English, not the Germans!

Tony

WJhonson@aol.com> 04/04/06 01:50PM
In a message dated 4/4/06 1:05:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< I have racked my brains to come up with an example in line with
Nat's
request - i.e. that of a 17th century English baronet's daughter who
married an untitled gentleman - but haven't come up with anything of
value as yet. >>

That's awfully specific.
How about the 16th century?
Sir Nicholas Bacon, Baronet, of Redgrave, Suffolk d 22 Nov 1624
He had at least one daughter Ann d 1624 who married plain Robert Drury
d1615
Although this Robert was the son of a Knight, I'm not aware of any
title he
held himself.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Edward Dale's wife, Diana Skipwith {Revised Post]

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 apr 2006 00:16:02

Dear Jeff and others,
We must remember secondly in any "good enough
to marry my daughter" discussion , Tony`s point of We`re talking about
English , not Germans being the first point to remember. Is that a Baronetcy came
about not because of any great personal achievement beyond having enough money
to purchase One for Oneself and one`s descendants. Any Gentleman who had
sufficient funds to purchase one could do so and many of them did. This Title was
the brainchild of King James I as a method of allocating further funds for
his own use.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Edward Dale's wife, Diana Skipwith - abaronet's son and

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 05 apr 2006 00:27:39

In message of 5 Apr, hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins") wrote:

"Is that correct, that the son was automatically a knight?"

Once he was 21, I beleive.

I have never heard this. If so, it ceased to be practiced rather soon.

It did not last more than 100 years.

I believe the price for the first baronetcies in 1611 was L 10,000.

A truly enormous amount.

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

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Edward Dale's wife, Diana Skipwith - maiden name rather

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 05 apr 2006 00:32:20

In message of 4 Apr, hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins") wrote:

As to any supposed social inequality between Edward Dale and Diana
Skipwith. Permit me to say that I think it absurd to imagine a baronet's
daughter was so much more exalted than a gentleman of good family -
substantial gentry himself, as "hoch und wohlgeboren" as Diana. Though
occurring almost 200 years later, one is reminded of Elizabeth Bennet's
statement to the haughty Lady Catherine de Burgh, with reference to any
supposed incongruity of a link-up between Elizabeth and Lady Catherine's
nephew, "I am a gentleman's daughter, he is a gentleman". There was no
more to be said. (But, when Lady Catharine rebutted, "Well, what about
your *mother*!" - that was entirely another matter.)

A baronet and a knight were merely gentlemen differentiated from others
of their class only by the handle on their name.

Class is one thing and I agree with you that they were all much of a
muchness, but marriage negotiations were an entirely different matter.
In the course of having a look through early 17th century baronets and
their families, I was struck by how much the marriages of daughters was
with fellows of similar title. If they could afford to buy a
baronetcy, they could afford to provide dowries get the lasses married
off well.

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

Richard Smyth at Road Run

Hubbard/Knapp marriage

Legg inn av Richard Smyth at Road Run » 05 apr 2006 00:33:02

Leslie

The main problem is that the Hubbard / Knapp marriage record doesnt survive. . . .

Is it the fact of the marriage which you are uncertain about or is it the identity of the Hubbard who was married?

It would seem to me that the existence of a marriage between a William Hubbard and a Judith Knapp is proved by the Candler document. The praise to which I referred in my first posting came from an article ["The Rogers Genealogy and the Candler Manuscript"] in the NEHGR by Joseph L. Chester; it was reprinted in the second series of "English Origins of New England Families". But a generation later, another article in the NEHGR [86:407] asserts the following: "Matthias and Philip Candler . . . lived in the middle of the sevententh century, were excellent genealogists, and they were sufficiently near the persons of whom they wrote to know the facts." Since the Candler manuscript reports the existence of a marriage between Hubbard and Knapp, I believe one would need to impeach several generations of testimony in the NEHGR about the reliability of the Candlers to raise a doubt about the fact of the marriage that is asserted in the Candler manuscript.

Regards,

Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Edward Dale's wife, Diana Skipwith {Revised Post]

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 05 apr 2006 00:36:25

In message of 4 Apr, hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins") wrote:

I reiterate: it's my opinion that far too much rigidity inheres in this
discussion as regards baronet's daughters in regards to 1) their exalted
rank and marital expectations and 2) any sort of formula, reserving such
young women for knights (no less), etc.

Remember, we're talking about the English, not the Germans!

We are also talking of a time when daughters got dowries and would only
marry chappies who could show a similar wealth. They then drew up a
marriage contract to firm up on the exchange of wealth and the
provision of assets for the young couple.

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

Gjest

Re: Richard Wingfield / Christian FitzWilliam

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 apr 2006 00:39:02

I found the below reference, and I do have a Christian as a wife to a Richard
Wingfield. I'm just not sure this is the right person, although the
chronology is fine.
Does anyone have any other record to indicate that the below reference is to
Christian FitzWilliam ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------
Norfolk Record Office: Stanford Sale Agreement and Pengelly letters
Stanford sale agreement 1546; Pengelly letters 1665, 1674
Catalogue Ref. MC 265
FILE - Agreement - ref. MC 265/1, 684 x 8 - date: 1546
[from Scope and Content] For the purchase by Nicholas Bacon Esq. from Richard
Wingfeld knight of the manor of Stanford with lands in Stanford, Sturston,
'Westorche' (West Tofts), Little Buckenham, 'West Wratton' (West Wretham), Great
Hockham and Langford, mentioning Sir Richard's wife Christian as under age

Tony Hoskins

Re: Edward Dale's wife, Diana Skipwith - maiden name rather

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 05 apr 2006 00:41:02

As to any supposed social inequality between Edward Dale and Diana
Skipwith. Permit me to say that I think it absurd to imagine a baronet's
daughter was so much more exalted than a gentleman of good family -
substantial gentry himself, as "hoch und wohlgeboren" as Diana. Though
occurring almost 200 years later, one is reminded of Elizabeth Bennet's
statement to the haughty Lady Catherine de Burgh, with reference to any
supposed incongruity of a link-up between Elizabeth and Lady Catherine's
nephew, "I am a gentleman's daughter, he is a gentleman". There was no
more to be said. (But, when Lady Catharine rebutted, "Well, what about
your *mother*!" - that was entirely another matter.)

A baronet and a knight were merely gentlemen differentiated from others
of their class only by the handle on their name.

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

Renia

Re: Edward Dale's wife, Diana Skipwith - abaronet's son and

Legg inn av Renia » 05 apr 2006 00:54:47

Tony Hoskins wrote:

"Is that correct, that the son was automatically a knight?"

I have never heard this. If so, it ceased to be practiced rather soon.
I believe the price for the first baronetcies in 1611 was L 10,000.



More like L 1,000, no?

Gjest

Re: Edward Dale's wife, Diana Skipwith {Revised Post]

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 apr 2006 01:01:02

Is that correct, that the son was automatically a knight? The correct form
of address for a Baronet and his wife is Sir and Lady, but he is not a knight.

Adrian


Tim wrote
Of course you are right. But when first created, the baronet paid for
vast tracts of land either in Nova Scotia or Ulster; he may not have
received that land though. Then his eldest son was automatically a
knight and finally the title was inherited, it no longer had to be
earned as knighthood did and still does (even if donations to parties
is the earning method now).

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

ralph

Re: Switzerland claims the Habsburg heritage

Legg inn av ralph » 05 apr 2006 01:04:18

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 00:30:26 +0200, Ralph wrote:

Switzerland is entitled to rule the lands of the Habsburgs, even in the
Americas:
See: http://switzerland10.tripod.com/habsburg.html

link not working, according to tripod. nice nick.

Tony Hoskins

Re: Edward Dale's wife, Diana Skipwith - abaronet's son and

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 05 apr 2006 01:10:02

"Is that correct, that the son was automatically a knight?"

I have never heard this. If so, it ceased to be practiced rather soon.
I believe the price for the first baronetcies in 1611 was L 10,000.

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: Baronet's daughters who married Mr nobodies

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 apr 2006 01:11:01

In a message dated 4/4/06 2:15:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< So far, none of the possibilities I
have tested meets all criteria, and frankly, I can;t be bothered to put
much more effort in on something related to a most unpleasant and
ignorant poster [and I don't mean you, Will, or Nat...] >>

This search did however lead me down a new path, since I did not have
information on the descent of Gillingham and accidently stumbled across it.

It appears roughly that Sir Nicholas Bacon, Bart d 1624
and had a son Nicholas Bacon of Gillingham, Bart d 1642
who had a son Nicholas Bacon, Esq

This last died between 1658 and 1667 and had married Elizabeth Freston, she
left a will of date 1669, and was the daughter of Richard Freston of Mendham by
his wife Susannah somebody.

That's as far as I've gotten with this new line of Bacon's.
Caveat: There is a possibility that the Nicholas who d 1642 is a figment and
is actually the same person who married Elizabeth Freston, the documents I've
seen so far are a bit unclear on this point.

Will Johnson

Tony Hoskins

Re: Edward Dale's wife, Diana Skipwith - maiden name rather

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 05 apr 2006 01:12:02

Sorry. That was a literary reference - though one thoroughly grounded in
the social realities of the late 18th-early 19th centuries. Characters
in Jane Austen's _Pride and Prejudice_.

Tony

Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> 04/04/06 03:51PM
Tony Hoskins wrote:
Though
occurring almost 200 years later, one is reminded of Elizabeth
Bennet's
statement to the haughty Lady Catherine de Burgh, with reference to
any
supposed incongruity of a link-up between Elizabeth and Lady
Catherine's
nephew, "I am a gentleman's daughter, he is a gentleman". There was
no
more to be said. (But, when Lady Catharine rebutted, "Well, what
about
your *mother*!" - that was entirely another matter.)


So what's the rest of this story? Who was the mother? Is the
genealogy of this tale on Genealogics?

Doug McDonald

JeffChipman

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 05 apr 2006 01:22:50

You haven't given me evidence of anything. If you don't know how
somebody else can find it, what good is it? I am very familiar with
the use of census data. I know that until 1880, in the good ol' USA no
relationships are given between members of a household, so what are you
talking about? Genealogical experience isn't proof of anything. I
don't know you, so how am I to judge your "genealogical experience?"
It should give us a compass to help lead us to the right conclusions,
that's it. In this case you are ignorant of a fundamental fact of
genealogical research in this country.

You say you have "instances" in your archives, and refuse to share
them. That creates a suspicion that you're not telling the truth, and
at the very least pretty selfish. This material you say you have might
help to clarify the issue. Don't you care about that?

I don't care what any of you people think of me. I'm not interested in
some unfounded opinion, whether you agree with me or n, so no thanks
Nat and Will. You're just trying to back down through the back door.
I don't care if Renia trawls through her archives. I can't make her
produce evidence, but can make sure that other people know she refused
to do so and offered a completely unsubstantiated statement in return.
If you can't backup your statements people are going to draw their own
conclusions about that, and it's likely it isn't going to be positive.
I would be careful about breaking out the silk-screening gear, it could
create the impression that when pressed for evidence the best they
could do is crack a joke. If you are a professional genealogist that's
not a reputation I would want to acquire. If you don't want to
participate in this thread by presenting your evidence, that's fine,
but you haven't any right to claim any competence here, do you? And
niether do any of these other people that want to be taken seriously
while not wanting to identify any specific cases.

Let's go back to what Nat Taylor told Joan Burdyck of this topic 5
years ago.

"20 son-in-law admits of various uses in this period, and could extend
to step-children and their spouses as well."

Of these various uses, there are only two that apply to this situation.
Nat didn't care enough about the case to say that, but I'll give him
an undeserved break here. Here's where Nat really screwed Joan. Nat
did not produce any evidence as to the statistical frequency of the
usage of one meaning as opposed to the other. He gave no idea of the
relative weight of his statement. Joan was given absolutely nothing to
judge the truthfulness of his statement. Seemingly Nat is going to
toss into the rubbish any pedigree unfortunate enough to find this term
in some record. In this case, without having even a crude idea of how
often the term was used in a certain way, we have no way to weigh its
relevance as evidence in this situation or any other. Of course we
will want to see if other records indicate say, that a "son-in-law" was
really the "husband of a step-daughter," but the frequency of use of
the term in a certain way is going to be a major part of the decision.

This is important here, because when pressed nobody wants to cough up
any evidence so that others can see how they arrived at their
conclusions. That's convenient, isn't it? In the abscence of such
evidence it is reasonable to inquire if they have any. I think it's
pretty obvious why no evidence has been produced. Nat stores little
snippets of information in his head. He knew that "son-in-law" could
mean "husband of my step-daughter," and that's all he knew. How do I
knbow that? Because that's all he said! When Joan raised her
question, instead of trying to help her, or referring to any research
or study, whether his own or someone else's, he trotted out this piece
of knowledge like Cliff Claven and blessed the world with it.

He didn't say how often this would occur. He didn't steer Joan to any
kind of record. He didn't jusify his statement at all. He left the
dishonest impression that this was a big deal that could invalidate a
pedigree. Five years later, when confronted with this, he couldn't even
produce one relevant example to support his statement. He cannot say
why this is a serious problem for a pedigree, or that it should be
regarded as anything more than an historical curiousity. And neither
can Renia, who needs to take a refresher course on the contents of the
US census.

The point is, people, that no journal is going to print your crap. You
will have to provide evidence, and decent evidence. And if a journal
won't take it, why do you think I should? You think it's funny that
someone had the nerve to ask you to abide by some, even sloppy, rules
of evidence, cite sources, and explain why a given theory should be
given "X" weight? I think that most of the time the reason people
don't want to produce evidence is because they know it's not as
compelling as it should be, and they've been dissembling. At least I
can present a chronological argument for Elizabeth Dale's maternity
working from some facts. Nat and his buddies don't need no stinkin'
facts.

Here's what Eugene Stratton had to say about genealogists like Nat and
Renia:

"...we must ask--how did the person saying it know?"

That's nothing more than asking: how can I repeat your research and
see if I come to the same conclusion? And this is nothing more than
citing evidence, telling us where we can find it so we can make some
kind of judgement as to its veracity. Renia seems to think my request
for sources is an imposition. It's actually a minimum requirement for
any genealogical statement. I find it amusing that some have suggested
I'm not a serious researcher because I didn't accept one of Will's
undocumented assertions at face value.

At this juncture, isn't it a fact that nobody has actually cited a real
case of using "sonne in law" as "husband of my step-daughter" in 17th
century VA? Where do you people get off criticizing me? Why should I
print this stuff out and use it for anything but the liner of a bird
cage?

I got to say it--at this point it looks like you people are full of
s#@t.

Until somebody produces some hard evidence, I think I'll just let these
people blather on and come to any conclusion they want.

JTC

Gjest

Re: Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 apr 2006 01:33:02

In a message dated 4/4/06 2:39:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Joemaryjoa@aol.com writes:

<< Something that is interesting, is why would
Katherine Dale Carter name a child, Henry Skipwith Carter if there was no
relationship
between them. If she wasn't the child of Diana Skipwith, then she would
never have seen Henry Skipwith, so why would she name a child for Henry?
That is
just one factor, among many that needs to be taken into consideration. >>

What do you mean by "never have seen HenrySkipwith" ?
If Diana was the step-mother who reared her, then she certainly could known
of Henry Skipwith if that's what you mean.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Baronet's daughters who married Mr nobodies

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 apr 2006 01:39:02

In a message dated 4/4/06 3:19:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
hdavey@comcast.net writes:

<< According to The Peytons of Virginia II (2004), Volume One, p. 70., Alice
Peyton, dau. of Sir John Peyton (d. 1616) m. John Peyton, Esq., son and heir
of Sir John Peyton, Kt. of Doddington. 14 generations of Sir John (d. 1616)
back to Reginald de Peyton (-1136) are listed in the book.

Harold Davey >>

Thank you for this note.
Could you specify the birthyear, deathyear and parentage that your book gives
to Sir John Peyton, Knt of Doddington?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Tony Hoskins

Re: Edward Dale's wife, Diana Skipwith - what price a barone

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 05 apr 2006 02:18:01

No, I believe I remember (will try to ferret this out) the figure was
L 10,000. James I's boys were high maintenance!

Tony

Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> 04/04/06 04:54PM
Tony Hoskins wrote:


"Is that correct, that the son was automatically a knight?"

I have never heard this. If so, it ceased to be practiced rather
soon.
I believe the price for the first baronetcies in 1611 was L 10,000.



More like L 1,000, no?

Tony Hoskins

Re: Edward Dale's wife, Diana Skipwith - cost of baronetcies

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 05 apr 2006 02:36:02

"More like L 1,000, no?"

It seems the price you mentioned is closer to the mark than my own;
although, it sounds rather as if there were constant market fluctuations
in the price of a baronetcy! Thanks for calling this to my attention,
Renia.

From the Irish Student Law Review
http://www.islr.ie/Reviews/1999/republicans.php :

"The new hereditary dignity of baronet was created in 1611, aspirants
be-ing asked to pay the cost of three soldiers in Ireland for the
plantation of Ulster, although all that was in practice asked was to pay
£1,095 into the Exchequer. At the time of the creation of the first
ninety odd baronets, corruption had begun to start, the seventy-second
having paid £1,500 down. By 1618, probably due to the persuasion of his
favourite, George Villiers, later Duke of Buckingham, James treated
baronetcies in the same way that he had been treating knighthoods. Their
making was granted to courtiers to be sold to the highest bidder, James
himself selling directly on occa-sions, the sale price falling to a mere
£220 by 1622, due to flooding of the market."

Tony Hoskins

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 05 apr 2006 02:40:02

This "discussion" will not profit from this kind of over-emotionalism.
Good points exist on both sides of the matter and can only be
satisfactorily pursued calmly and with consideration. Otherwise, Silence
is Best.

Tony

"JeffChipman" <jeffchip9@hotmail.com> 04/04/06 05:22PM
You haven't given me evidence of anything. If you don't know how

somebody else can find it, what good is it? I am very familiar with
the use of census data. I know that until 1880, in the good ol' USA
no
relationships are given between members of a household, so what are
you
talking about? Genealogical experience isn't proof of anything. I
don't know you, so how am I to judge your "genealogical experience?"
It should give us a compass to help lead us to the right conclusions,
that's it. In this case you are ignorant of a fundamental fact of
genealogical research in this country.

You say you have "instances" in your archives, and refuse to share
them. That creates a suspicion that you're not telling the truth, and
at the very least pretty selfish. This material you say you have
might
help to clarify the issue. Don't you care about that?

I don't care what any of you people think of me. I'm not interested
in
some unfounded opinion, whether you agree with me or n, so no thanks
Nat and Will. You're just trying to back down through the back door.
I don't care if Renia trawls through her archives. I can't make her
produce evidence, but can make sure that other people know she
refused
to do so and offered a completely unsubstantiated statement in return.
If you can't backup your statements people are going to draw their own
conclusions about that, and it's likely it isn't going to be positive.
I would be careful about breaking out the silk-screening gear, it
could
create the impression that when pressed for evidence the best they
could do is crack a joke. If you are a professional genealogist
that's
not a reputation I would want to acquire. If you don't want to
participate in this thread by presenting your evidence, that's fine,
but you haven't any right to claim any competence here, do you? And
niether do any of these other people that want to be taken seriously
while not wanting to identify any specific cases.

Let's go back to what Nat Taylor told Joan Burdyck of this topic 5
years ago.

"20 son-in-law admits of various uses in this period, and could extend
to step-children and their spouses as well."

Of these various uses, there are only two that apply to this
situation.
Nat didn't care enough about the case to say that, but I'll give him
an undeserved break here. Here's where Nat really screwed Joan. Nat
did not produce any evidence as to the statistical frequency of the
usage of one meaning as opposed to the other. He gave no idea of the
relative weight of his statement. Joan was given absolutely nothing
to
judge the truthfulness of his statement. Seemingly Nat is going to
toss into the rubbish any pedigree unfortunate enough to find this
term
in some record. In this case, without having even a crude idea of how
often the term was used in a certain way, we have no way to weigh its
relevance as evidence in this situation or any other. Of course we
will want to see if other records indicate say, that a "son-in-law"
was
really the "husband of a step-daughter," but the frequency of use of
the term in a certain way is going to be a major part of the decision.

This is important here, because when pressed nobody wants to cough up
any evidence so that others can see how they arrived at their
conclusions. That's convenient, isn't it? In the abscence of such
evidence it is reasonable to inquire if they have any. I think it's
pretty obvious why no evidence has been produced. Nat stores little
snippets of information in his head. He knew that "son-in-law" could
mean "husband of my step-daughter," and that's all he knew. How do I
knbow that? Because that's all he said! When Joan raised her
question, instead of trying to help her, or referring to any research
or study, whether his own or someone else's, he trotted out this piece
of knowledge like Cliff Claven and blessed the world with it.

He didn't say how often this would occur. He didn't steer Joan to any
kind of record. He didn't jusify his statement at all. He left the
dishonest impression that this was a big deal that could invalidate a
pedigree. Five years later, when confronted with this, he couldn't
even
produce one relevant example to support his statement. He cannot say
why this is a serious problem for a pedigree, or that it should be
regarded as anything more than an historical curiousity. And neither
can Renia, who needs to take a refresher course on the contents of the
US census.

The point is, people, that no journal is going to print your crap.
You
will have to provide evidence, and decent evidence. And if a journal
won't take it, why do you think I should? You think it's funny that
someone had the nerve to ask you to abide by some, even sloppy, rules
of evidence, cite sources, and explain why a given theory should be
given "X" weight? I think that most of the time the reason people
don't want to produce evidence is because they know it's not as
compelling as it should be, and they've been dissembling. At least I
can present a chronological argument for Elizabeth Dale's maternity
working from some facts. Nat and his buddies don't need no stinkin'
facts.

Here's what Eugene Stratton had to say about genealogists like Nat and
Renia:

"...we must ask--how did the person saying it know?"

That's nothing more than asking: how can I repeat your research and
see if I come to the same conclusion? And this is nothing more than
citing evidence, telling us where we can find it so we can make some
kind of judgement as to its veracity. Renia seems to think my request
for sources is an imposition. It's actually a minimum requirement for
any genealogical statement. I find it amusing that some have
suggested
I'm not a serious researcher because I didn't accept one of Will's
undocumented assertions at face value.

At this juncture, isn't it a fact that nobody has actually cited a
real
case of using "sonne in law" as "husband of my step-daughter" in 17th
century VA? Where do you people get off criticizing me? Why should I
print this stuff out and use it for anything but the liner of a bird
cage?

I got to say it--at this point it looks like you people are full of
s#@t.

Until somebody produces some hard evidence, I think I'll just let
these
people blather on and come to any conclusion they want.

JTC

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 apr 2006 02:48:01

In a message dated 4/4/06 5:35:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< Nat
did not produce any evidence as to the statistical frequency of the
usage of one meaning as opposed to the other. He gave no idea of the
relative weight of his statement. >>

This argument is completely irrelevant.
Statistical frequency only says what happens in most or fewer cases.
It says nothing about *one* case at all.
Nothing. No.. .thing.
Anyone who tries to use statistics to *prove* a single case, needs to go back
to Intro to Statistics and start over.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Diana Skipwith and the spurious deed

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 apr 2006 05:16:02

In a message dated 4/4/06 7:15:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
ClaudiusI0@aol.com writes:

<< Part I: Henry Rye of Lancaster County, Planter sells to Ebby Bonnison 560
acres in Lancaster County on the south side Hadaways Creek. Dated Nov. 30,
1658. Witnesses: Hugh Brent and Love Johnson. Recorded Jan. 26, 1658/9 by
Edward Dale.

Part II: Ebby Bonnison makes Hugh Brent his attorney to assign and
acknowledge the sale of 350 acres of this patent to Ever Peterson. Dated Jan. 25,
1658/9. Witnesses Henry Rye and Domingno Cras. Recorded Jan. 26, 1658/9 by
Edward Dale

Part III: Walter Bries[Brice] and Ever Peterson sell [? no description or
amount of land given] to Ebby Bonnison . They also authorize Col. John
Carter to acknowledge this in court. Dated 17 November 1655. Witnesses: Thomas
Carter and Diana Skipwith. Recorded Jan. 26, 1658/9 by Edward Dale.

Part IV: Ebby Bonnison assigns over his right in this [the above Part III]
bill of Sale to Ever Peterson. Jan. 25, 1658/9. Witnesses Henry Rye and
Domingno Cras. Recorded Jan. 26, 1658/9 by Edward Dale. >>

I don't see the land going back and forth as you said.
If we put these in chronological order, Part III comes first
Walter Brice and Ever Peterson sell some land to Ebby Bonnison
Next
Henry Rye sells some land to Ebby Bonnison a few years later
Then two months after that it appears probably that Ebby has left the area as
He assigns his right in the land of part 3 back to Ever Peterson who he, in
part, bought it from
and at the same time makes Hugh Brent his attorney to affect that, presumably
because he can't himself do it.

Couldn't the first deed have some sort of provision that it would revert back
if something wasn't done, such as timely payment or something? Then if he
left the area, maybe he just assigned it back, instead of having a judge do it.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Baronet's daughters who married Mr nobodies

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 apr 2006 05:29:45

My 9th great-grandmother was the daughter of Sir William Graham, 1st
Bt. of Gartmore, 1640-1684 & his wife, Elizabeth Graham of Menteith.
She, Christian Graham, married Mr. Nobody (John Drummond) about 1700 in
Eastermye or Easterbye. The marriage is recorded in the Register of
Deeds, Edinburgh. Best, Bronwen


WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I have another 16th century one

Edward Devereux, 1st Baronet d 22 Sep 1622
had at least one daughter Anne d 20 Jan 1620/1
who married Robert Leighton of Wattlesborough d 20 Mar 1625/6
no title that I'm aware of

Richard Molyneux, Baronet d 8 Feb 1622
had at least two daughters
Alice married William Dormer
Anne married John Bryon

John Peyton of Iselham, 1st Baronet bur 19 Dec 1616
had at least one daughter
Alice who married John Peyton

Henry Willoughby of Risley, Baronet d 20 Nov 1649
had at least one daughter Margaret
who married Henry Griffith a Knight

I'm sorry my database tends to stop about 1660 on these *semi-famous* people.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Edward Dale's wife, Diana Skipwith - abaronet's son and

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 apr 2006 05:57:49

Tim Powys-Lybbe schrieb:

In message of 5 Apr, hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins") wrote:

"Is that correct, that the son was automatically a knight?"

Once he was 21, I beleive.


I have never heard this. If so, it ceased to be practiced rather soon.

It did not last more than 100 years.

The eldest son of a baronet had the right to petition the Crown for a
knighthood at 21 - i.e. he still had to be knighted; he didn't just
assume the accolade.

This custom lasted longer than you might think: it was last exercised
by George IV (reigned 1820-1830).

MA-R

Renia

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Renia » 05 apr 2006 06:58:17

Do what you will. It's your problem. We are not producing "evidence" but
telling you something which is well-known in the genealogical community,
that "son-in-law" had multiple meanings. It's no big deal, so I don't
understand why you are so hysterical about it.

Renia


JeffChipman wrote:
You haven't given me evidence of anything. If you don't know how
somebody else can find it, what good is it? I am very familiar with
the use of census data. I know that until 1880, in the good ol' USA no
relationships are given between members of a household, so what are you
talking about? Genealogical experience isn't proof of anything. I
don't know you, so how am I to judge your "genealogical experience?"
It should give us a compass to help lead us to the right conclusions,
that's it. In this case you are ignorant of a fundamental fact of
genealogical research in this country.

You say you have "instances" in your archives, and refuse to share
them. That creates a suspicion that you're not telling the truth, and
at the very least pretty selfish. This material you say you have might
help to clarify the issue. Don't you care about that?

I don't care what any of you people think of me. I'm not interested in
some unfounded opinion, whether you agree with me or n, so no thanks
Nat and Will. You're just trying to back down through the back door.
I don't care if Renia trawls through her archives. I can't make her
produce evidence, but can make sure that other people know she refused
to do so and offered a completely unsubstantiated statement in return.
If you can't backup your statements people are going to draw their own
conclusions about that, and it's likely it isn't going to be positive.
I would be careful about breaking out the silk-screening gear, it could
create the impression that when pressed for evidence the best they
could do is crack a joke. If you are a professional genealogist that's
not a reputation I would want to acquire. If you don't want to
participate in this thread by presenting your evidence, that's fine,
but you haven't any right to claim any competence here, do you? And
niether do any of these other people that want to be taken seriously
while not wanting to identify any specific cases.

Let's go back to what Nat Taylor told Joan Burdyck of this topic 5
years ago.

"20 son-in-law admits of various uses in this period, and could extend
to step-children and their spouses as well."

Of these various uses, there are only two that apply to this situation.
Nat didn't care enough about the case to say that, but I'll give him
an undeserved break here. Here's where Nat really screwed Joan. Nat
did not produce any evidence as to the statistical frequency of the
usage of one meaning as opposed to the other. He gave no idea of the
relative weight of his statement. Joan was given absolutely nothing to
judge the truthfulness of his statement. Seemingly Nat is going to
toss into the rubbish any pedigree unfortunate enough to find this term
in some record. In this case, without having even a crude idea of how
often the term was used in a certain way, we have no way to weigh its
relevance as evidence in this situation or any other. Of course we
will want to see if other records indicate say, that a "son-in-law" was
really the "husband of a step-daughter," but the frequency of use of
the term in a certain way is going to be a major part of the decision.

This is important here, because when pressed nobody wants to cough up
any evidence so that others can see how they arrived at their
conclusions. That's convenient, isn't it? In the abscence of such
evidence it is reasonable to inquire if they have any. I think it's
pretty obvious why no evidence has been produced. Nat stores little
snippets of information in his head. He knew that "son-in-law" could
mean "husband of my step-daughter," and that's all he knew. How do I
knbow that? Because that's all he said! When Joan raised her
question, instead of trying to help her, or referring to any research
or study, whether his own or someone else's, he trotted out this piece
of knowledge like Cliff Claven and blessed the world with it.

He didn't say how often this would occur. He didn't steer Joan to any
kind of record. He didn't jusify his statement at all. He left the
dishonest impression that this was a big deal that could invalidate a
pedigree. Five years later, when confronted with this, he couldn't even
produce one relevant example to support his statement. He cannot say
why this is a serious problem for a pedigree, or that it should be
regarded as anything more than an historical curiousity. And neither
can Renia, who needs to take a refresher course on the contents of the
US census.

The point is, people, that no journal is going to print your crap. You
will have to provide evidence, and decent evidence. And if a journal
won't take it, why do you think I should? You think it's funny that
someone had the nerve to ask you to abide by some, even sloppy, rules
of evidence, cite sources, and explain why a given theory should be
given "X" weight? I think that most of the time the reason people
don't want to produce evidence is because they know it's not as
compelling as it should be, and they've been dissembling. At least I
can present a chronological argument for Elizabeth Dale's maternity
working from some facts. Nat and his buddies don't need no stinkin'
facts.

Here's what Eugene Stratton had to say about genealogists like Nat and
Renia:

"...we must ask--how did the person saying it know?"

That's nothing more than asking: how can I repeat your research and
see if I come to the same conclusion? And this is nothing more than
citing evidence, telling us where we can find it so we can make some
kind of judgement as to its veracity. Renia seems to think my request
for sources is an imposition. It's actually a minimum requirement for
any genealogical statement. I find it amusing that some have suggested
I'm not a serious researcher because I didn't accept one of Will's
undocumented assertions at face value.

At this juncture, isn't it a fact that nobody has actually cited a real
case of using "sonne in law" as "husband of my step-daughter" in 17th
century VA? Where do you people get off criticizing me? Why should I
print this stuff out and use it for anything but the liner of a bird
cage?

I got to say it--at this point it looks like you people are full of
s#@t.

Until somebody produces some hard evidence, I think I'll just let these
people blather on and come to any conclusion they want.

JTC

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 apr 2006 10:19:49

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
JeffChipman schrieb:


Here's the situation, and it's easy to understand:

(snip of usual rambling)

In absolutely every case, this was done without
verifiable citations to anything, except in the case of one late
medieval will of no particular relevance to this situation (by
verifiable, I mean pg number, book, where it can be found, etc.).

Here's another one: the Revd Benjamin Horner refers in his will dated 5
January 1698/9 to his "daughter-in-law Elizabeth Roberts"; this is his
step-daughter, issue of his second wife Anne's first marriage. Full
citation: Prerogative Court of Canterbury will, proved 1700, PROB
11/457 q 131.

MA-R

Gjest

Re: Edward Dale's wife, Diana Skipwith - abaronet's son and

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 apr 2006 11:33:02

Tim,

You are quite right, Burke's Glossary (106 ed.) states that in 1616 James I
bestowed the privilege of the eldest son being knighted on attaning 21 years
of age, and was a right all the way up to 1827, and even after that date there
are cases of the eldest son being knighted in the right of his fathers Bt.

Adrian


In a message dated 05/04/2006 00:50:07 GMT Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:
In message of 5 Apr, hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins") wrote:

"Is that correct, that the son was automatically a knight?"

Once he was 21, I beleive.

I have never heard this. If so, it ceased to be practiced rather soon.

It did not last more than 100 years.

I believe the price for the first baronetcies in 1611 was L 10,000.

A truly enormous amount.

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

Renia

Re: what does "son-in-law" mean

Legg inn av Renia » 05 apr 2006 11:49:02

Here's one I found today from the 1851 census through Ancestry.com (from
scan of original document):

View Record Diannah Clapson abt 1793 High Halden, Kent, England Mother
Woodchurch Kent
View Record Esther Lindridge abt 1821 Warehorne, Kent, England Wife
Woodchurch Kent
View Record Esther Lindridge abt 1861 Woodchurch, Kent, England
Daughter Woodchurch Kent
View Record Joseph Lindridge abt 1822 Woodchurch, Kent, England Head
Woodchurch Kent
View Record Richard Lindridge abt 1859 Woodchurch, Kent, England Son
Woodchurch Kent
View Record Esther Sindeidge abt 1821 Warehorne, Kent, England Wife
Woodchurch Kent
View Record Esther Sindeidge abt 1861 Woodchurch, Kent, England
Daughter Woodchurch Kent
View Record Joseph Sindeidge abt 1822 Woodchurch, Kent, England Head
Woodchurch Kent
View Record Richard Sindeidge abt 1859 Woodchurch, Kent, England Son
Woodchurch Kent

Diannah Clapson is the mother of Esther "Sindeidge", not the mother of
the Head, Joseph "Sindeidge".

(I can never understand some of these transcriptions. These are all on
the same page, and the same family. If they have correctly transcribed
Lindridge for some of them, then why not all?)

Renia

Re: what does "son-in-law" mean

Legg inn av Renia » 05 apr 2006 11:50:10

Apologies:

It's from the 1871 census.

Renia wrote:

Here's one I found today from the 1851 census through Ancestry.com (from
scan of original document):

View Record Diannah Clapson abt 1793 High Halden, Kent, England Mother
Woodchurch Kent
View Record Esther Lindridge abt 1821 Warehorne, Kent, England Wife
Woodchurch Kent
View Record Esther Lindridge abt 1861 Woodchurch, Kent, England
Daughter Woodchurch Kent
View Record Joseph Lindridge abt 1822 Woodchurch, Kent, England Head
Woodchurch Kent
View Record Richard Lindridge abt 1859 Woodchurch, Kent, England Son
Woodchurch Kent
View Record Esther Sindeidge abt 1821 Warehorne, Kent, England Wife
Woodchurch Kent
View Record Esther Sindeidge abt 1861 Woodchurch, Kent, England
Daughter Woodchurch Kent
View Record Joseph Sindeidge abt 1822 Woodchurch, Kent, England Head
Woodchurch Kent
View Record Richard Sindeidge abt 1859 Woodchurch, Kent, England Son
Woodchurch Kent

Diannah Clapson is the mother of Esther "Sindeidge", not the mother of
the Head, Joseph "Sindeidge".

(I can never understand some of these transcriptions. These are all on
the same page, and the same family. If they have correctly transcribed
Lindridge for some of them, then why not all?)

Renia

Re: Iohannis albon¹

Legg inn av Renia » 05 apr 2006 13:22:15

An abbrevation of the genitave form:

Iohann' = Iohannis (of Iohannis, John's)


Patricia Junkin wrote:
Thank you Renia. On the face, it is probably Albon but it is written
albon' suggesting an abbreviation of the name, not the end of a quote.
Pat

----------

From: Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Iohannis albon¹
Date: Tue, 4, 2006, 7:57 PM



Patricia Junkin wrote:


Might anyone suggest the name of the following, found in records relating to
Carshalton, Surrey? Is it conceivably an abbreviation for D'abernon?

"terris et tenementis quondam Iohannis albon¹"

Thanks in advance,
Pat


Land and tenements belonging to John Albon.



Patricia Junkin

Re: Iohannis albon¹

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 05 apr 2006 13:39:02

Thank you Renia. On the face, it is probably Albon but it is written
albon' suggesting an abbreviation of the name, not the end of a quote.
Pat

----------
From: Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Iohannis albon¹
Date: Tue, 4, 2006, 7:57 PM


Patricia Junkin wrote:

Might anyone suggest the name of the following, found in records relating to
Carshalton, Surrey? Is it conceivably an abbreviation for D'abernon?

"terris et tenementis quondam Iohannis albon¹"

Thanks in advance,
Pat


Land and tenements belonging to John Albon.

JeffChipman

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 05 apr 2006 14:20:44

I don't want to hear what's well known in the genealogical community.
I want you to produce some evidence that will help me weigh the
significance of Nat's observation. Is that a problem? Are you telling
me that I do not have the right to evaluate Nat's statement? Why not?
He led Joan Burdyck to believe that it was a big deal which could
invalidate her line. Isn't it appropriate to question why? Preston
Haynie said the use of the term had to be taken on a case by case
basis. What was it about Joan's case that supported Nat's statement?

I think at this point, I can draw at least one conclusion, and that is
that you either have NO evidence to back up Nat's assertion, or that
the evidence you have is NOT as strong as you've led me to believe.
Somehow at every turn these people manage to get around the fact that
they have produced nothing. If you think your characterization of me
as "hysterical" is going to cut it, you're dead wrong.

JTC

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 apr 2006 14:25:48

JeffChipman wrote:
I don't want to hear what's well known in the genealogical community.
I want you to produce some evidence that will help me weigh the
significance of Nat's observation. Is that a problem? Are you telling
me that I do not have the right to evaluate Nat's statement? Why not?
He led Joan Burdyck to believe that it was a big deal which could
invalidate her line. Isn't it appropriate to question why? Preston
Haynie said the use of the term had to be taken on a case by case
basis. What was it about Joan's case that supported Nat's statement?

I think at this point, I can draw at least one conclusion, and that is
that you either have NO evidence to back up Nat's assertion, or that
the evidence you have is NOT as strong as you've led me to believe.
Somehow at every turn these people manage to get around the fact that
they have produced nothing.

"Nothing"? I have now posted two detailed citations for you. Can you
not read?

If you think your characterization of me
as "hysterical" is going to cut it, you're dead wrong.

You sure come across as hysterical, and a host of other things, such as
illogical and possibly illiterate.

Bob Turcott

King William the Conqueror vs peverel

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 05 apr 2006 14:40:02

From: Jwc1870@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: King's Kinsfolk: King William the Conqueror's kinsman, King
Edward the Co...
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:32:11 EST

Dear Bob,
While not convinced either way as to the veracity of
William
Peverell being a bastard of Guillaume Ie Batard , Duc de Normandie, it is
certain that Peverell was not his surname. As an acknowledged bastard of
Robert
I, Duke of Normandy, if He actually had a surname it was most likely de
Normandie or Fitzrobert and before He was acknowledged perhaps whatever the
contemporary French form for tanner was. That would be assuming They
actually used
such things, which according to Todd, They did not.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

James,


I am not convinced either way either!!!!!!! However, Peverel would not be
the William the conquerers surname because, the theory which needs further
research is:

Ranulf Peverel married an (aleged/unproven) mistress of william the
conquerer named maud & Robert is believed to be the son of Ranulf Peverel &
maud thus if this theory was true, then Robert would be half brother of
William Peverel (thought to be the illegitimate son or bastard son of
william the conquerer & maud). This should not be taken as fact but fiction
until proven otherwise with reliable sources.

Bob

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

Patricia Junkin

Re: Iohannis albon¹

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 05 apr 2006 14:49:02

Thank you very much, Renia.
Pat

----------
From: Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Iohannis albon¹
Date: Wed, 5, 2006, 8:22 AM


An abbrevation of the genitave form:

Iohann' = Iohannis (of Iohannis, John's)


Patricia Junkin wrote:
Thank you Renia. On the face, it is probably Albon but it is written
albon' suggesting an abbreviation of the name, not the end of a quote.
Pat

----------

From: Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Iohannis albon¹
Date: Tue, 4, 2006, 7:57 PM



Patricia Junkin wrote:


Might anyone suggest the name of the following, found in records relating to
Carshalton, Surrey? Is it conceivably an abbreviation for D'abernon?

"terris et tenementis quondam Iohannis albon¹"

Thanks in advance,
Pat


Land and tenements belonging to John Albon.




Renia

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Renia » 05 apr 2006 18:07:34

JeffChipman wrote:

I don't want to hear what's well known in the genealogical community.
I want you to produce some evidence that will help me weigh the
significance of Nat's observation. Is that a problem? Are you telling
me that I do not have the right to evaluate Nat's statement? Why not?
He led Joan Burdyck to believe that it was a big deal which could
invalidate her line. Isn't it appropriate to question why? Preston
Haynie said the use of the term had to be taken on a case by case
basis. What was it about Joan's case that supported Nat's statement?

I think at this point, I can draw at least one conclusion, and that is
that you either have NO evidence to back up Nat's assertion, or that
the evidence you have is NOT as strong as you've led me to believe.
Somehow at every turn these people manage to get around the fact that
they have produced nothing. If you think your characterization of me
as "hysterical" is going to cut it, you're dead wrong.

JTC

I have sent you two pieces of evidence today.

W David Samuelsen

Re: Wells -Tuttle connection

Legg inn av W David Samuelsen » 05 apr 2006 18:29:02

<http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-04/1144239344>

Don't think it is Lyncoln. it's Southcutt/Southcott

Found few clear entries naming Richard Toothill/Tuttle's wife
Elizabeth's father as Lyncoln Southcutt/Southcott. Maybe that is where
the misunderstanding came in to be Elizabeth Lincoln instead of
Elizabeth Southcott?

Will check all alleged ones, including Barnhouse, Hanford, Kirkham as
well as Southcutt

If anyone else on list are aware of origins of those families, please
let the list know.
David Samuelsen

Chris Phillips

Re: King William the Conqueror vs peverel

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 05 apr 2006 19:05:29

Bob Turcott wrote:
I am not convinced either way either!!!!!!! However, Peverel would not be
the William the conquerers surname because, the theory which needs further
research is:

Ranulf Peverel married an (aleged/unproven) mistress of william the
conquerer named maud & Robert is believed to be the son of Ranulf Peverel
&
maud thus if this theory was true, then Robert would be half brother of
William Peverel (thought to be the illegitimate son or bastard son of
william the conquerer & maud). This should not be taken as fact but
fiction
until proven otherwise with reliable sources.

Sorry, but I do think it's slightly odd to describe the question as "needing
further research".

What we know is that there was a late tradition to the effect that William
Peverel was an illegitimate son of William I - from 400 years or more after
the event - and that no one, including the best modern scholars, has found
any earlier evidence whatsoever in support of the tradition.

I'd prefer to see it as a typical Tudor genealogical fantasy, unworthy of
further research unless some shred of evidence emerges in favour of it. The
Tudors produced hundreds of fantastical faked genealogies, and I really
don't think it's helpful to classify them as "needing further research".

Chris Phillips

Gjest

Re: Son-in-law

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 apr 2006 21:47:02

In a message dated 4/5/2006 10:51:06 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

Joan--
I took Preston Haynie's comment to mean that we must examine all the
evidence in a specific case before deciding what "sonne in law" meant
in that instance. Charles Martin Ward did, in my view, manage to
disprove the claim of royal ancestry for Katherine Dale. That is not a
unanimously held opinion. Ward did not mention Elizabeth Dale in his
article, but did mention Mary Dale as an undiscovered daughter of
Edward Dale; he made no comment indicating whether or not he thought
Mary Dale was the daughter of Diana Skipwith. He was right that Mary
Dale was our Edward Dale's daughter.



Dear Jeff:

As you state above the term "sonne-in-law" must be defined in each specific
case. This is true of any definition of relationship whether it be in a
Latin charter or a 17th century deed.

The other evidence we have simply proves that Mary Dale was married to
Daniel Harrison as her first husband and secondly to Humphrey Jones of Middlesex
County. Mary did have a son by her second marriage also named Humphrey Jones.
There is a question as to the maternity of the three known children of
Daniel Harrison. Eleanor Harrison married John Pinckard and on March 11, 1690/1
her husband sued Major Edward Dale for his wife's portion of her father's estate
which was in Edward Dale's possession. Joseph Harrison married Frances
Hazelwood on November 11, 1692 in Middlesex County, Virginia. He was named as
guardian to his step-brother [or half-brother] Humphrey Jones on 3 September
1693 when Humphrey Jones paternal half-sister Mary Jones Seagar died. Joseph
Harrison wrote his will on 23 December 1699 and it was probated 8 May 1700 in
Lancaster County, Virginia. He named his wife Frances and his son Daniel and
daughter Mary. Hannah Harrison was probably the youngest child of Daniel
Harrison. She married Richard Stephens who was one of the witnesses to Capt.
Thomas Carter's will in 1700. They had one son Daniel Stephens who was the
executor of his mother's will probated 10 April 1741.

We also know that Mary Dale held land on Brice Creek that had originally
belonged to Col. Thomas Bries as the land boundaries were in dispute between
Mary Dale and Richard Merryman in 1679/80. There is no existing deed which
explains how this property came into Mary Dale's possession. It is known that
Edward Dale oversaw the will of Col. Thomas Bries whose executor was his wife
Martha Bries. Martha Bries remarried Rev. William White as his 2nd wife. He
died in Lancaster County, Virginia and Martha died in York County, Virginia. The
Guardianship of all of Rev. White's younger children who were in Virginia was
given to Col. John Carter. The children were from his first wife as there
was no issue with Martha Bries. It is not known if all the land of Col. Thomas
Bries remained in Edward Dale's possession, but his daughter did hold a
portion of it as the above court records prove.

Other than this we know nothing else of Mary Dale or her relationship to
Diana Skipwith. The term "sonne-in-law" in this case cannot rule out the
possibility that she was her step-daughter. We need to add other factual evidence
to make this definitive. This certainly seems to have a high probability of
being correct but it is not an infallible statement. At present we have no
definitive proof and as others have mentioned previously once a lineage is
challenged it is up those interested to prove the lineage.

I also want to mention that you should not have tried to pit Nat Taylor and
Joan Burdyck against each other. The postings you dredged up were made six
years ago. Joan is a gracious and kind woman who is very thorough in her
research. She went to Lancaster County, Virginia to obtain the text of the 1674 and
1677 deeds of gift to Catherine and Elizabeth Dale and their husbands
respectively and transcribed them from the Clerk of the Court's records. She is a
pleasure to work with. Nat Taylor is one of the best genealogists around, an
accomplished historian, author and one of the few individuals with no bias or
emotional attachment to this line which makes him an invaluable asset to this
discussion. This was not kind to any of the parties involved in these
discussions.

As for Mr. Ward's article it did not present all the available evidence.
You cannot circumvent this work by using the 1674 deed. As I pointed out
before most of the circumstantial evidence involving the Skipwith descent is
linked to the line of Katherine Carter not her sisters.

Best regards,
MichaelAnne

John Brandon

Re: Possible royal line for Lionel Chute of Ipswich, Mass.

Legg inn av John Brandon » 05 apr 2006 22:31:45

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8& ... wte&pgis=1

"Frossenden" is probably actually "Frostenden," quite close to Wrentham
....

http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi? ... 000&addr1=

Chris Phillips

Re: King William the Conqueror vs peverel

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 05 apr 2006 22:34:04

Bob Turcott wrote:
However in your summation, its
a closed
case for good, in my mind, "not nearly so".

What I'm saying is that unless someone can come up with some evidence
earlier than Tudor times, we're entitled to assume this is a very late
fabrication.

Can you explain 400 years, I dont believe I understand the exact datum
point
you are
pointing out, could you clarify further? Whats 400 years after what event?

I'm saying that as far as Watson knew, the first claim that WP was William
I's son was in Tudor times, which makes it 400-500 years later than the
reign of William I.

I agree with some respects of this observation although we must be open
minded
and keep open ears & minds to further discovery, otherwise we would be
like
a bunch of horses
on the race track with the side blinding eye mounts"like tunnel vision".

Of course, if some evidence emerged it would be a different matter. In the
absence of any evidence within 400 years of the event, I hardly think it's
being blinkered to assume the claim is a fabrication.

Chris Phillips

JeffChipman

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 05 apr 2006 23:25:46

First of all, don't think by resorting to abuse you're going to get me
to back down. I'm not pitting anybody against anybody. I think Nat
just wants this to go away. As for the two pieces of evidence; if
they're that great, kindly post them in this thread rather than to my
inbox, so that everybody can see what they are; I did not receive them.
I don't monitor this newsgroup every waking moment, so if I don't
immediately respond to something it doesn't mean I'm ignoring the
comments. How I feel about my family is my business. Nat Taylor is
letting his friends bail him out, and in some cases they are abusive.
That makes me think that perhaps Nat has no evidence, or it isn't as
compelling as he would like people to believe.

MichaelAnne emailed me privately and this was among the things she
said:

"At present we have no definitive proof and as others have mentioned
previously once a lineage is challenged it is up to those interested to
prove the lineage."

That's an interesting remark. I think we have a double standard here:
I need to prove my lineage based on nothing more than Nat's remark, but
when I challenge Nat to tell me why I should accept his statements, he
doesn't have to! I know Nat has published some articles and
participated in some genealogical conferences, etc., but he is not a
towering intellectual figure on the American scene and I can think of
no reason why he should be exempt from providing evidence to support
his statements. Even Jacobus made mistakes and nobody was a bigger
champion of documentation than he.

Somebody emails me with a late 17th cent English will and calls that an
example. Fine. At this point I'll take anything. Evidently the
people who have the evidence of actual 17th VA records aren't going to
provide them. I will give this evidence exactly what it deserves: "I
take you at your word about the circumstances of the will and you have
provided one example. It's not in VA, but I'll accept it as if it
was."

I never said that the term "sonne in law" never meant "husband of my
step-daughter." I said that I didn't think that this usage of the term
was much more important than age discrepancies in a series of census
enumerations. It's something to be aware of, but in and of itself it's
not going to sink a pedigree. Do these people understand how
far-ranging this issue is? There must be thousands upon thousands of
17th VA records which use the term "son-in-law" or "daughter-in-law."
Are these people saying that they have analyzed enough of these records
to provide some objective evidence? Has Nat? Has Renia? In fact,
somebody told me that if the term was used in a certain way even once
it invalidates any evidence using the term. Is this person serious?

According to MichaelAnne, I am not permitted to weigh how relevant the
challenge is, and no matter what the reason, I must satisfy any jerk
who qustions my pedigree.

How nice people are is, in any event, subjective. The fact that a
person is nice is not genealogical evidence. I don't know how nice Nat
is when his friends become abusive and he says nothing.

Here's my position: I think this term "sonne in law" generally meant
then what it means today. In 17th century VA it also had some archaic
meanings. Based upon records I've seen (and I don't claim to have seen
enough anywhere near enough to form a statistical sample) I think this
term is not used in that sense often enough to make me not accept the
word in its normative meaning. In other words, I can't give these
other meanings a whole lot of points in the scheme of things. As long
as we're discussing people not being able to read, Eugene Stratton
wrote about precisely these sorts of issues and talked about the fact
that not all evidence is of equal weight. He said we must weigh
evidence, and gave some pretty flimsy cases to illustrate his point.
If I think somebody's challenge lacks substantive merit or is a
nuisance case, I'm not going to worry about it. Maybe in the view of
some people who read this newsgroup, that makes me a bad genealogist,
then so be it.

I am angry with Nat because (and Joan's relationship with Nat is her
business and has no bearing on this discussion) he gave a flip answer
in 2001 and had nothing to back it up. He still hasn't. One late
medieval will, a late 17th c english will from PCC, and a 1900 census
return doesn't add up to much, does it? I'll take the PCC will because
it's 17th century.

In college many years ago, I took courses in statistics and sociology
and anthropology. I read studies which deal with social artifacts.
These studies employed the scientific method as much as they could,
while acknowleging that sociology is not quantum mechanics. The
authors laid out their facts so that the reader could evaluate what
they said. I realize that this is more difficult here. We are dealing
with people of a long time ago. We cannot observe the birth of their
children, see a wife die, watch a man write his will, etc. I possess
copies of old documents (and by the way, it's true that these things
are clerks' copies; the participants copies are probably mainly lost)
and even deciphering the handwriting is sometimes very diffiuclt. We
cannot talk to these people.

I am asking Nat to provide something of some scale that will guide me
in weighing this evidence. I'm not asking him to do anything that he
wouldn't expect of any poster. I am saying as clearly as I possibly
can that "one swallow does not a summer make." If there are people on
this board who won't accept "sonne in law" as meaning "husband of my
bilogical daughter" because it means something else in one instance,
that's their perogative. I don't have to see it the same way. Just
because I'm not going to jump through hoops anytime somebody questions
me doesn't mean that I have no standards, and it doesn't mean I have to
jump.

To sum up: given that many thousands of 17th cent VA documents must
use these terms (and maybe in Maryland as well, as Fischer says), it
has not been demonstrated to me (in terms of somebody's method--any
method, just so I know what it is and can follow your argument and
understand your results) that this is a statistically important
situation. If there are no contraindications, then I'm going to accept
it at face value. The 3 reasons Nat gave Joan as to why her evidence
had no value are nothing more than an undocumented opnion. He is
entitled to that opinion. He is not entitled to my acceptance of it if
he has nothing to back it up. If others will accept his dictum based
solely on his reputation, that's fine, but be honest enough to say
that's why you do. Don't hint at private collections of documents
which will blow the whole thing open, but since that claim has been
made, let's see 'em.

JTC

Gjest

Re: Son-in-law

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 apr 2006 23:26:02

In a message dated 4/5/06 7:51:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< I took Preston Haynie's comment to mean that we must examine all the
evidence in a specific case before deciding what "sonne in law" meant
in that instance. >>

So are we *finally* going to get your views on the use of Diana Dale's maiden
name ? Or are you going to continue to ignore that evidence?
Will

Gjest

Re: Son-in-law

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 apr 2006 23:28:02

In a message dated 4/5/06 9:35:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< Jeff that
"son-in-law" at least had more than one meaning at the time; to date he
has ignorned this. >>

The larger point is that "in-law" meant "in.... law"
That is, in the view of the law, or under the terms of the law.
Our modern meaning is actually more of an odd morphing of the original intent
of the term.
This is my opinion, I have no citation to give on it.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 apr 2006 23:39:05

JeffChipman schrieb:

First of all, don't think by resorting to abuse you're going to get me
to back down. I'm not pitting anybody against anybody. I think Nat
just wants this to go away. As for the two pieces of evidence; if
they're that great, kindly post them in this thread rather than to my
inbox, so that everybody can see what they are; I did not receive them.

Jeff

I have posted evidence from three separate English wills, one in which
"father-in-law" is used to refer to a stepfather-in-law (more relevant
to your point), one in which "son-in-law" is used to refer to a
stepson, and the other in which "daughter-in-law" is used to refer to a
stepdaughter. I did not email any of these to you; I posted all three
onto the relevant thread on this group. Everybody can indeed see them
for what they are.

Michael Andrews-Reading

Gjest

Re: Sir Richard Molyneus, Baronrt

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 apr 2006 23:40:03

In a message dated 4/5/06 8:12:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
scperkins@gmail.com writes:

<< (f) Alice Molyneux
m. (21.02.1609/10) Sir William Dormer (dvp bur 22.10.1616)
(g) Anne Molyneux
m. Sir John Byron of Newstead Abbey (d 28.09.1625) >>

Just to give the women equal time in the "what we know about them" department
Alice had to be born between 1590 and 1597 since Robert Dormer, 1st Earl of
Caernarvon was born abt 1610 (genealogics)

Anne is even more tightly bound. She had to be born between 1590 and 1592
since Richard, 2nd Lord Byron was born abt 1605.

So it's possible the daughters go Anne, then Alice, then Frances

Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson

Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 05 apr 2006 23:45:56

When a man referred to his "now wife" in the colonial period, it didn't
mean, imply, or suggest that he was previously married. As the
expression was used by those living at the time, it simply refers to
the wife to whom a man was currently married, as opposed to a wife he
might might marry at some date in the future.

Edward Dale's reference to Diana Skipwith as his "now wife" means that
they were currently married. That is all.

DR

ClaudiusI0@aol.com wrote:
People have overlooked the fact that Diana Skipwith knew Thomas Carter
before her marriage to Dale. This makes it even more curious that she
never called Carter her "son in law" or anything else. The only time,
in the data we have, that she stated any relationship to anybody was
when she called Daniel Harrison her "sonne in law." Dale himself
described Diana as his "now wife." This usually, but not always, meant
that a man had a previous wife.
Mr. Chipman:
The Thomas Carter who was a witness with Diana Skipwith was the brother of
Col. John Carter NOT Capt. Thomas Carter. As for the term 'now wife' it usually
meant there may have been a preceding wife but again this needs to be
addressed on a case by case basis.
MichaelAnne Guido

Douglas Richardson

Re: Wells -Tuttle connection

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 05 apr 2006 23:59:42

Southcott is a well known Devonshire surname. It has no connection
whatsoever with the family of the colonial immigrant, William Tuttle,
originally of Ringstead, Northamptonshire. or to his mother, Isabel
(Wells) Tuttle.

DR

W David Samuelsen wrote:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-04/1144239344

Don't think it is Lyncoln. it's Southcutt/Southcott

Found few clear entries naming Richard Toothill/Tuttle's wife
Elizabeth's father as Lyncoln Southcutt/Southcott. Maybe that is where
the misunderstanding came in to be Elizabeth Lincoln instead of
Elizabeth Southcott?

Will check all alleged ones, including Barnhouse, Hanford, Kirkham as
well as Southcutt

If anyone else on list are aware of origins of those families, please
let the list know.
David Samuelsen

Bob Turcott

Re: King William the Conqueror vs peverel

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 06 apr 2006 00:03:01

From: "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: King William the Conqueror vs peverel
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 19:05:29 +0100

Bob Turcott wrote:
I am not convinced either way either!!!!!!! However, Peverel would not
be
the William the conquerers surname because, the theory which needs
further
research is:

Ranulf Peverel married an (aleged/unproven) mistress of william the
conquerer named maud & Robert is believed to be the son of Ranulf
Peverel
&
maud thus if this theory was true, then Robert would be half brother of
William Peverel (thought to be the illegitimate son or bastard son of
william the conquerer & maud). This should not be taken as fact but
fiction
until proven otherwise with reliable sources.

Sorry, but I do think it's slightly odd to describe the question as
"needing
further research".

Thats fine, its your right to believe that. As to it being odd, I dont

believe its unusual
unless to believe further research is needed, However in your summation, its
a closed
case for good, in my mind, "not nearly so". Its the same thing as someone
thinking the glass
is half full vs. being half empty. This would be only a differance of
opinion and nothing more.
We always cant agree with everyone and as soon as everyone understands there
will be
differances of opinion the less fights will occur on this forum.
What we know is that there was a late tradition to the effect that William
Peverel was an illegitimate son of William I - from 400 years or more after
the event - and that no one, including the best modern scholars, has found
any earlier evidence whatsoever in support of the tradition.

Can you explain 400 years, I dont believe I understand the exact datum point

you are
pointing out, could you clarify further? Whats 400 years after what event?
The doomsday book is 100% clear on timelines here and william the bastard
did not grant william peverel substancial amount of property 400 years after
the fact.
I'd prefer to see it as a typical Tudor genealogical fantasy, unworthy of
further research unless some shred of evidence emerges in favour of it. The
Tudors produced hundreds of fantastical faked genealogies, and I really
don't think it's helpful to classify them as "needing further research".

I agree with some respects of this observation although we must be open

minded
and keep open ears & minds to further discovery, otherwise we would be like
a bunch of horses
on the race track with the side blinding eye mounts"like tunnel vision".
I certainly dont fake anything, in my summation its ficticious until proven
and nothing more.
Or if you prefer I will call this case closed until further notice, is this
the compromise you want to hear?
Chris Phillips





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

Gjest

Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 00:10:06

Douglas Richardson schrieb:

When a man referred to his "now wife" in the colonial period, it didn't
mean, imply, or suggest that he was previously married. As the
expression was used by those living at the time, it simply refers to
the wife to whom a man was currently married, as opposed to a wife he
might might marry at some date in the future.

Edward Dale's reference to Diana Skipwith as his "now wife" means that
they were currently married. That is all.

Dear Douglas

You raise an interesting point. I had always understood the phrase "my
now wife" to refer to the deponent's present, as opposed to former,
wife. Most of the cases in which I have encountered it involve
testators who have been married more than once. However, I am prepared
to concede that your interpretation is worth considering.

To take one instance, Thomas Goddard of Chieveley, Berks, made a will
on 26 November 1661, and was buried on 9 January 1661/2; he refers to
"Joan my now wife", whom he had married in 1618. So far as is known,
this was his only marriage. It was, however, Joan's second marriage
(the will also refers to the testators "sons-in-law Richard and
Lawrence Pocock", who were in fact his stepsons). What is the benefit
of referring to Joan as his "now wife"? He was "weak in body", and
aged about 73; he died within a few weeks of making his will [most
wills were made in immediate anticipation of death]: was he really
meaning to contrast his present wife with any future wife he expected
to marry? Perhaps, as Joan in the event predeceased him, being buried
at Chieveley on 17 December 1661. I don't feel we can rule out an
earlier marriage and a desire to contrast his present and a former
wife, though. [References: will Berks RO MF522/DA1/74/37; marriage and
burials from the Chieveley Parish Registers, now deposited with the
Berks RO].

It's just gone midnight, so I can't spend much time searching through
my papers at present, but so far as I can remember, the above is the
only instance of "my now wife" that I have seen, other than where the
deponent has had a previous wife. Are you by any chance aware of other
examples where this is known not to have been the case?

Regards

Michael Andrews-Reading

John Higgins

Re: Sir Richard Molyneus, Baronrt

Legg inn av John Higgins » 06 apr 2006 00:11:02

FWIW, your ordering of the daughters agrees with what is shown in
Baines/Croston, which lists all the daughters in sequence as Anne, Alice,
Frances, Bridget, Elizabeth, Margaret, Juliana. The sequence of the sons is
listed as Sir Richard, William, Thomas, Sir Vivian, Gilbert, Adam.

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: Sir Richard Molyneus, Baronrt


In a message dated 4/5/06 8:12:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
scperkins@gmail.com writes:

(f) Alice Molyneux
m. (21.02.1609/10) Sir William Dormer (dvp bur 22.10.1616)
(g) Anne Molyneux
m. Sir John Byron of Newstead Abbey (d 28.09.1625)

Just to give the women equal time in the "what we know about them"
department
Alice had to be born between 1590 and 1597 since Robert Dormer, 1st Earl
of
Caernarvon was born abt 1610 (genealogics)

Anne is even more tightly bound. She had to be born between 1590 and 1592
since Richard, 2nd Lord Byron was born abt 1605.

So it's possible the daughters go Anne, then Alice, then Frances

Will Johnson


Gjest

Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 00:14:20

People have overlooked the fact that Diana Skipwith knew Thomas Carter
before her marriage to Dale. This makes it even more curious that she
never called Carter her "son in law" or anything else. The only time,
in the data we have, that she stated any relationship to anybody was
when she called Daniel Harrison her "sonne in law." Dale himself
described Diana as his "now wife." This usually, but not always, meant
that a man had a previous wife.
Mr. Chipman:
The Thomas Carter who was a witness with Diana Skipwith was the brother of
Col. John Carter NOT Capt. Thomas Carter. As for the term 'now wife' it usually
meant there may have been a preceding wife but again this needs to be
addressed on a case by case basis.
MichaelAnne Guido

Gjest

Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 00:16:02

The reader cannot rate the probability of situation "a" or "b", because
nobody has offered anything to guide him. Apparently no one on this
board can say what they think it normally meant, or in what situation.
I say the most common usage is "a", which means that Mary Harrison was
probably Skipwith's daughter. Unfortunately Mary had no children that
survived to 1695 when Dale made his will, and she was deceased as well
as there is no mention of her in the will either. Her husband had died
in 1677.
Mary Dale DID have surviving issue:
3 Feb. 1684/5 Middlesex, Virginia deed Book 2, page 177:
To ye Worshipfull his Majts: Justices ffor ye County of Middlesex. Sheweth
the humble petition of Ed: Dale sheweth that Mr. Humphrey Jones of this county
lately deced did intermarry with youre petitioners daughter desed by whom he
had only one sone ye proetection of kine and ye ffurthes ffrom enjoymente of
ye sd estate ffor whiche ye petitioner praye the order of this court which
order a competente alowance for the keeping and education of ye said child till
he shall come to full age according to the law and your petitioner shall
pray that this petition may be recorded and cert. granted that the same was
presented to this County Court ffebury 3d 1684 which is corted by ye courte.
Middlesex County, Virginia order Book 2 page 248:
5 April 1686 Maj. Edward Dale sues for the tuition of Humphrey Jones,
grandson of the petitioner. Guardianship granted to Mrs. Mary Seagar.
MichaelAnne Guido

Douglas Richardson

Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 06 apr 2006 00:23:10

Thanks, Will. Your post is much appreciated.

DR

WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/5/06 4:15:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

Most of the cases in which I have encountered it involve
testators who have been married more than once. However, I am prepared
to concede that your interpretation is worth considering.

If you click the link to Jacobus that I posted, you will see he concurs with
DR's opinion, that "now wife" does not necessarily mean the testator was
previously married.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 00:25:02

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

In a message dated 4/5/06 4:15:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

Most of the cases in which I have encountered it involve
testators who have been married more than once. However, I am prepared
to concede that your interpretation is worth considering.

If you click the link to Jacobus that I posted, you will see he concurs with
DR's opinion, that "now wife" does not necessarily mean the testator was
previously married.
Will Johnson

Thanks Will; that is also interesting (I hadn't read down further than
"in laws"). You and Douglas have given me food for thought on this
one, and I am grateful to you both. I will do some further digging.

Regards

Michael Andrews-Reading

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 06 apr 2006 00:37:29

JeffChipman wrote:
First of all, don't think by resorting to abuse you're going to get me
to back down.

In the past few days, Mr. Chipman has said in reference to the posts of
others:

"you are full of crap"
"I think you're trying to mislead the public"
"When you cut through the baloney"
"you are just blowing smoke"
"None of these people have the slightest idea"
"the rest of the tripe these people are trotting out"
"I am accusing you of being a charlatan"
"You are deceiving the readers of these threads into thinking your
unsubtantiated opinion is worth anything"
"Your chart is just a smokescreen; if you need it to help you understand
the family who cares."
"And you know what dissembling is: it's trying to bury the weakness of
your position in a mound of crap."
"Where the hell did you get the idea that your so-called evidence
rendered a line doubtful?"
"It seems to me that these people are ignoring reality."
"it's about as useful as crazy Aunt Mary's assertion that she signed the
Declaration of Independence on her doily."
"it could create the impression that when pressed for evidence the best
they could do is crack a joke."
"Nat and his buddies don't need no stinkin' facts."
"I got to say it--at this point it looks like you people are full of s#@t.
"you're peddling the baloney"

and on, and on, and on.


In light of this behavior, I can see why you would be shocked . . . .
SHOCKED! that those corresponding with you might reach the conclusion
that abuse is acceptable. "Mommmmmmy, he kicked me _back_."


Here's my position: I think this term "sonne in law" generally meant
then what it means today.

Yet earlier you said:

"I do not possess enough records to make any comments about how
frequently a term like "sonne in law" meant some less common, but still
used, meaning in colonial VA."


It must have been a busy few hours for you, between the time you said
you didn't have enough data to draw a make comments and when you drew
the conclusion above. You must have read a whole lot of additional
documents - well, that or you reached your conclusion without the
benefit of data. Given that there is an article which directly
addresses the question, but which you haven't bothered to read before
drawing conclusions, I guess we can all reach our own conclusions as to
which scenario is the more likely.

To, as you say, "cut through the baloney", this thread is real simple.
You, who admit you don't know enough to comment, have been arguing in
favor of a specific conclusion. You, who admit you don't know enough to
comment, have been brushing aside the comments of those who do, and who
have been willing to share their expertise with you. You, who admit you
don't know enough to comment, have been insulting them, challenging
them, accusing them, and belittling them. (And you, who can't be
bothered to look up and read your own reference on the use of "sonne in
law", have been whining about others being intellectually lazy.) And
now, you, who admit you don't know enough to comment, say you won't be
budged from this entrenched uninformed position by abuse. Surprise,
surprise, surprise.

taf

JeffChipman

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 06 apr 2006 00:47:47

Well, we have so many threads that I don't know where you've posted it.
Bring me up to speed. What are the dates of these wills, and why do
you think they have value in 17th cent VA? Since I do not know the
families involved, it would be nice to have some additional information
if that isn't an imposition.

To be fair, I have asked for 17th cent VA material. So far, nobody has
produced any. Why?

I think I'm getting the drift. The argument is: "Because this term was
at times used in different ways, and it is not known how many times out
of a given number of examples that would be, it has no value as
genealogical evidence."

I am concerned that there is no evidence from 17th cent VA. I am being
asked to accept evidence from the UK from someone who resides there and
in all fairness hasn't said how many times out of the evidence he has
seen the terms were used as he described. I'm concerned that to this
point we do not have one VA document illustrating this principle.

I'm saying that it makes a lot of difference how often the term would
be used in those ways say, out of 100 examples in 17th cent VA. I
prefer to narrow the question in this matter so that I don't have to be
drawn into a debate as to the similarity or differences in colonial and
UK legal document customs. It is also framing the question in a way
that addresses Nat's opinion. He made no remarks about English probate
customs, so I'm not going to inject that here.

Let's use "100" not because it is a magic number but because it just
makes a good talking point. I would like to know, in 17th cent VA, how
many times out of 100 a given definition of "sonne in law" would be
used? Let's say 5 per cent of the time the term would be used to mean
a step-son, even though that's not the meaning here. Is that enough
times to reject the term meaning "husband of my biological daughter,"
even though there are no contraindications and "husband of my
biological daughter is by far the most common definition? It seems
that the answer I'm getting is, Yes. Right?

I'm saying that in that circumstance I can't give that relatively
uncommon usage enough weight to toss someone's research in the dustbin.
I cannot call into question the genealogical value of a large number
of documents in 17th cent VA for that reason. Maybe this scandalizes
some people, but at least you know where I stands on the issue.

I have asked repeatedly for evidence from 17th cent VA precisely so we
can eliminate any possible regional or differences or national usages
from the equation. Anybody knows that there were cultural variations
in the settlement of the colonies, so I think that's a fair thing to do
to avoid uncessarily complicating the topic. I have accepted the fact
that I'm not going to get any 17th cent VA evidence. Nobody here can
say how often these multiple definitions were used or exactly why in a
given situation because we do not have a given situation to work with.
I am not going to beat my head against the wall and demand something
that either does not exist, or that anybody is willing to post.

To sum this matter up, since we're not going to have anything
approaching a "scientifc" discussion here, all I can say is that how
much weight you give this matter is subjective. Some people will say
that they're not going to fret over it, others will say if it's used in
a different way at all it calls into question the value of the
evidence. I don't know how to bridge that gap. I don't want to see
any more English wills or Maine census returns, because I don't want to
get into a side topic of the relevance of that material to this
situation. I think that's fair. Unless Nat or someone else is willing
to share their information and discuss their method, I don't see how I
can give Nat's statement any weight at all. If this horrifies people,
so be it, but at least you know where I stand and why.

JTC

Patricia Junkin

Re: Montfichet Arms Intrepretation

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 06 apr 2006 01:07:35

I clicked on what I thought would have taken you to the early Montfichet
arms and regret it did not convey as I had hoped. The site is
"earlyblazon.com" and does source Brian Timms' site. However, I have found
that I must go to the Names site and then click Montfichet to view the arms
of Richard de Montfichet(1193-1267) which carried a label of five points,
rather than the three Timms site shows. It also indicates the arms were
derived from the Clare arms through the marriage of Rose or Margaret de
Clare, daughter of Gilbert Fitz Gilbert de Clare to to William Montfichet.
I was not certain what the term "alibi" means. However, the cause of my
inquiry was that the arms borne by Roger Bysshe Esq. of Fenn Place,
grandfather of Sir Bysshe Shelley are the identical arms with five points
shown by the 'earlyblazon' site of the Montfichet arms. As described by The
Rev. H. L. Elliot, Society of Genealogists Essex Shelves, from whom I quoted
'alibi' and other sources (alibi Or), three gules....etc. was his
description of the Bysshe arms.
Thank you very much for responding and I hope I did not cause much
inconvenience.
Pat


----------
From: mjcar@btinternet.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Montfichet Arms Intrepretation
Date: Wed, 5, 2006, 10:11 AM



"Patricia Junkin" wrote:
I am an admitted novice at heraldry and am hoping some one can
confirm/correct my assumptions.
On this webpage, I find the Montfichet arms.
http://perso.modulonet.fr/~earlyblazo/index.htm
Am I correct in identifying them as:
"alibi. Or, three chevrons gu. A label of five points sa. "
Thank you in advance,
Pat

Sorry Patricia, but when I click on the link provided, it doesn't show
any representation of arms.

I can visualise your description above, except I don't know why you
have commenced with the word "alibi": what is that intended to connote?

According to Brian Timm's' excellent site, the Montfichet arms are
slightly different, in that the main tinctures (colours) are reversed
and the label may be slightly different two (not unusual when dealing
with early arms, where varying blazons may exist and different members
of the family may have adopted differences in order to distinguish them
from one another):

Gules, three chevrons or, a label azure

http://www.briantimms.com/rolls/gloversB1.htm

(search for "Montfichet"; NB these are illustrated, and appear
identical with the arms of William de Clare)

MA-R

Gjest

Re: Son-in-law

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 01:31:02

In a message dated 4/5/06 4:05:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< I am rejecting Nat's notion that the occasional use of this term in a
broader and archaic sense is enough to render Joan's document of no
value. >>

Are you rejecting Jacobus' notion of the exact same fact of language ?

Leo van de Pas

Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 06 apr 2006 01:37:02

But does this imply he intended to marry again? I read in "now wife",
simply the wife I am married to at this moment, which leaves room for a
previous wife but not an anticipation of a next one.
Leo


----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean


In a message dated 4/5/06 4:15:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

Most of the cases in which I have encountered it involve
testators who have been married more than once. However, I am prepared
to concede that your interpretation is worth considering.

If you click the link to Jacobus that I posted, you will see he concurs
with
DR's opinion, that "now wife" does not necessarily mean the testator was
previously married.
Will Johnson


Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 01:46:11

In a message dated 4/5/06 3:35:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< I never said that the term "sonne in law" never meant "husband of my
step-daughter." I said that I didn't think that this usage of the term
was much more important than age discrepancies in a series of census
enumerations. It's something to be aware of, but in and of itself it's
not going to sink a pedigree. Do these people understand how
far-ranging this issue is? >>

But you're wrong. Age discrepancies are related to errors by the census
taker or the person questioned, the use of son-in-law to mean something other than
husband of my female child is not an error or misstatement.

It's a definition which existed at one time, and which we no longer use. The
language has changed.
Here is Jacobus, who you surely recognize as an authority
http://www.genealogyforum.com/gfaol/beginners/terms.htm

Read what he says about "In-laws". The point being that the meaning of
"in-law" was, at one time, flexible.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 02:09:01

Dear Doug, Will, Michael, etal:

Thank you for this interesting and informative post. The question of Edward
Dale's language and intentions in his will have long been debated.

I appreciate all your help.

Best regards,
MichaelAnne

Gjest

Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 02:18:03

In a message dated 4/5/06 4:15:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< Most of the cases in which I have encountered it involve
testators who have been married more than once. However, I am prepared
to concede that your interpretation is worth considering. >>

If you click the link to Jacobus that I posted, you will see he concurs with
DR's opinion, that "now wife" does not necessarily mean the testator was
previously married.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 02:58:01

In a message dated 4/5/06 4:50:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< I think I'm getting the drift. The argument is: "Because this term was
at times used in different ways, and it is not known how many times out
of a given number of examples that would be, it has no value as
genealogical evidence." >>

Replace *no value* with *suspect value* and you'd have it approximately
correct.
If "in-law" at times meant "step", then you simply cannot use it as
"iron-clad" proof of the relationship. You can say it is suggestive of the
relationship, you just can't be certain using *only* that evidence.

Now if you want to actually present the totality of the evidence as bullet
points and then conclude, from that totality (not one piece) that such a
relationship was the case, that would be a far more effective method of
argumentation, imho.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 03:11:12

Dear Michael,
I think you mean the Walter Griffith business, where
Jeff had three Walter Griffiths rather than two, the elder and father of the
younger was married to Joan Neville and Agnes Constable and was a Great
grandson of that Sir Walter Blount who married Sancha de Ayala.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Bob Turcott

Re: King William the Conqueror vs peverel

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 06 apr 2006 04:38:35

From: "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: King William the Conqueror vs peverel
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 22:34:04 +0100

Bob Turcott wrote:
However in your summation, its
a closed
case for good, in my mind, "not nearly so".

What I'm saying is that unless someone can come up with some evidence
earlier than Tudor times, we're entitled to assume this is a very late
fabrication.

interesting pointer

Can you explain 400 years, I dont believe I understand the exact datum
point
you are
pointing out, could you clarify further? Whats 400 years after what
event?

I'm saying that as far as Watson knew, the first claim that WP was William
I's son was in Tudor times, which makes it 400-500 years later than the
reign of William I.

iteresting point, I will look into watsons observations at some point.

it still seems within reach, people may have not been able to identify the
osmatics or chronology
in between the 400 years before or during the event, remember bastards are
not always favored, especially mistresses that could be called liars.
I agree with some respects of this observation although we must be open
minded
and keep open ears & minds to further discovery, otherwise we would be
like
a bunch of horses
on the race track with the side blinding eye mounts"like tunnel vision".

Of course, if some evidence emerged it would be a different matter. In the
absence of any evidence within 400 years of the event, I hardly think it's
being blinkered to assume the claim is a fabrication.

yes an assumption,

it seems reasonable, but not definative what would really help if someone
tested the dna
of the conquerer remains and compared it to the already exhisting peverel
dna, this would be
put to rest quickly, but we dont have the luxury of having the power to have
the last remaining
bone of william dug up..
in closing, I have no immediate interest to a resolve to this alleged

parable as I am interested
in other areas at this time, if any new information becomes avialble I will
certainly present it
to this forum for review. Thanks again.
Chris Phillips




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

Gjest

Re: Son-in-law

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 05:12:01

In a message dated 4/5/06 6:35:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:

<< > In her will dated 25 January 1657/8, Mercy Docwra of Cambridge,

Is that Cambridge, Virginia? If not, then you are not
addressing Chipman's question ... which was Virginia. >>


Wait. Couldn't we first do a study to determine whether or not the English
used in Virginia was the same kind of English used in Connecticut or South
Carolina or Maryland first? I'm just wondering because we could beat this horse a
little more don't you think? I'm not quite sure it's fully dead just yet!!!!

Will Johnson

Storm

RE: Son-in-law

Legg inn av Storm » 06 apr 2006 06:14:29

Jeff and others,

I have lurked on this list for many years and the current flare up is the
funniest of them all, which is saying something if you remember the
entertaining exchanges between Mr. Hines and anyone who would respond.
Hopefully, those interested in the Dale discussion will find the following
information helpful. Each reference was found within twenty minutes of
searching google. I heartily recommend the search engine to Mr. Chipman and
suggest that he do his own research in the future, instead of demanding that
it be provided from a group concerned with Medieval genealogy. By the way,
if you did not know, 17th century Virginia is somewhat later than the
Medieval period.

I have no idea how accurate any of these are, but I would suggest they are a
good starting point for *your* further research.

Regards,

Clark

Elizabeth _____ who survived him [John Clay] to marry (2) John Wall and (3)
John Tate. … In the Virginia Records is a "Deed of Gift", dated 3 October
1660, whereby John Wall conveyed 2 ewes to his "sonne in Law" (step-son)
CHARLES CLAY; and at Westover Court, 1663, "Elizabeth Clay Wall", widow and
Joseph Wall, son of John Wall, Dec’d., were authorized by Court to choose
three or four persons from Martin’s Brandon to settle the estate of John
Wall, according tot he provisions of his will. (Ref: Virginia County
Records, Vol. II, pp 78 and 245, Congressional Library, Washington, D. C.).

On October 3, 1660 a deed of gift for 2 ewes was made by John Wall "unto his
son-in-law CHARLES CLAY" in Charles City County (Fleet, Virginia Colonial
Abstracts, Vol. 11, Charles City County Court Orders, 1658-61, page 78)

---------

There was also a ninth, perhaps posthumous, child named Aliffe, apparently
named after Thomas Ivey’s mother. His widow, Alice Ivey, remarried to
William Cornick, whose father Simon Cornick had received a patent in Norfolk
County in 1653 for importation of 13 persons, among them his son William
Cornick. On 9 January 1691/2, William Cornick made deeds of gift to his wife
Alice’s children Lemuel Ivy and Aliffe Ivy and his sons-in-law (meaning
stepsons) Ludford Ivy and Anthony Ivy. (Princess Anne Deed Book 1, p15.
(Also see William and Mary Quarterly, Series I, Vol. 24, p 284.)

----------

Thomas Southworth, brother of Constant Southworth, was probably born at
Leiden ca 1616-1620. He came to Plymouth sometime after 1627, most likely
living with his mother, Alice, and her husband, Gov. William Bradford. He
married 1 September 1641 Elizabeth Reyner, daughter of Rev. John Reyner, and
they had one child, Elizabeth, who married Joseph Howland. On 28 October
1641 William Bradford gave a house and land "unto my sone-in-law [stepson]
Thomas Southworth". He died 8 December 1669. His will dated 18 November
1669, proved 1 March 1669/70, named his wife and his daughter Elizabeth
Howland, and her husband Joseph, and left gifts to Thomas Southworth.
(Plymouth Colony Wills, vol. III, p. 1.) *Not in Virigina*

----------

According to Alvahn Holmes' "The Farrar's Island Family," Cecily (Reynolds?)
Baley (Bailey) Jordan Farrar, after the death in 1637 of her third husband,
William Farrar (age 43), may have married (according to some researchers)
Peter Montague, whose wife Cecily was executrix of his will in 1659. If so,
Cecily would have been his second wife. Lancaster Co., VA records show
executors were "Cecily Montague, widow of Mr. Peter Montague, dec'd, and
Peter Montague her sonne-in-law" (stepson or son-by-law).

-----------

Note on Morris Fitzgerald: One of the daughters was apparently the wife of a
Fitzgerald, and the mother of the grandchild Morris Fitzgerald mentioned in
Alice Ivey’s 1708 will. A Morris “Fegarrell" had patented 200 acres in Lower
Norfolk on 26 April 1670 in right of his wife Katherine the relict of Roger
Howard. The will of "Morris Fitsgarrall" was proved 16 January 1678/9,
leaving his property to his wife Katherine. "Katheren Fitsgarrall" on the
same date left her plantation and dwelling to her "sonne in law Henry
Fitsgarrall" apparently meaning her stepson, Morris Fitzgerald’s son by a
prior wife. (Norfolk County Will Book 4, p. 42.)

----------

John Austin, the step-father of John Smoot, died in St. Mary's County, his
will being proved on July 16, 1733. He bequeathed his "godson" Austin
Sanford Smoot the dwelling-plantation, but in the event of his death during
minority then to his "sons-in-law" John Smoot and William Harrison. His wife
Eleanor, however, was to enjoy the use of the dwelling until his godson
attained majority. The two sons-in-law were devised 1,000 acres of land on
Aquia Creek in Stafford County, Virginia. His widow and John Smoot
administered on the estate. (Newman, Harry Wright. The Smoots of Maryland
and Virginia, p. 136) *a bit late for the ironclad period under discussion.*

--------

--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.1/250 - Release Date: 2/3/2006

Renia

Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean

Legg inn av Renia » 06 apr 2006 06:21:46

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 4/5/06 4:15:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

Most of the cases in which I have encountered it involve
testators who have been married more than once. However, I am prepared
to concede that your interpretation is worth considering.

If you click the link to Jacobus that I posted, you will see he concurs with
DR's opinion, that "now wife" does not necessarily mean the testator was
previously married.
Will Johnson

Yes, I have come across instances of "my now wife" referring to men who
married only once. It's a sort of clause to allow the possibility of the
man marrying again in the future.

Renia

Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean

Legg inn av Renia » 06 apr 2006 06:22:29

Leo van de Pas wrote:

But does this imply he intended to marry again? I read in "now wife",
simply the wife I am married to at this moment, which leaves room for a
previous wife but not an anticipation of a next one.
Leo

I think it allows for both.

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 06 apr 2006 07:06:01

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/5/06 9:35:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

It took me awhile to
understand that Nat does not believe in the concept of weighing
evidence, and he's not alone. I am, and some of my family are, a
member of a lineage society.

Jeff stop this constant slamming of Nat. You are not on any high horse to be
using this kind of language against him. Fresh slant? More bad-mouthing of
people for pointing out the errors in your method?
Maybe you could post an email that doesn't include any fresh, personal
attacks on others? How about it?

The irony is that it is Nat who _is_ weighing evidence, suggesting that
a 'son-in-law' in a 17th century Tidewater document does not constitute
incontrovertible proof, while it one could only make a black-and-white
pronouncement like "iron-clad" if they _didn't_ weigh it.

(And what, prey tell, does membership in a lineage society have to do
with it? I have known members of such societies who couldn't connect a
child to his parents if you spotted them the birth certificate.)

taf

Gjest

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 07:42:23

In a message dated 4/5/06 9:35:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< It took me awhile to
understand that Nat does not believe in the concept of weighing
evidence, and he's not alone. I am, and some of my family are, a
member of a lineage society. >>

Jeff stop this constant slamming of Nat. You are not on any high horse to be
using this kind of language against him. Fresh slant? More bad-mouthing of
people for pointing out the errors in your method?
Maybe you could post an email that doesn't include any fresh, personal
attacks on others? How about it?
Will Johnson

W David Samuelsen

Re: Wells -Tuttle connection

Legg inn av W David Samuelsen » 06 apr 2006 07:51:43

DR

It's a wonder I don't care for your statements!

You made a broadside declaration without anything to back it up, not
even lifting a finger to check each source. I know you did NOT because I
was checking the Northampton and Peterborough records yesterday and today.

Tuttle/Tothill/Tootehill is not common to Ringstead. Also in Woodford
next Tharpston as well.

More interesting is HIL treated the Tuttle family of Ringstead more
special apart from the Welles/Wells, Mortimers, Mortons, Linseys,
Miles', Marshalls, Whitfields, Lussards, Ekins/Elkins, etc, recording
all the Tuttle's on one separate page.

David

Chris Phillips

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 06 apr 2006 08:52:50

JeffChipman wrote:
To be fair, I have asked for 17th cent VA material. So far, nobody has
produced any. Why?

I've been following this discussion with some bemusement.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the essential issue is whether a relationship
(son in law, which would usually mean "husband of my daughter") could have
been stated without specifying that it was a step relationship (husband of
my _step_daughter). It's not really to do with the various uses of the
phrase "in law" at all.

In English records of the period, it's very well known that it's often not
stated explicitly when people are step relations rather than blood
relations. Stepsons are called simply "sons" all the time.

Granted that the bulk of the population of Virginia came from England and
that many of them had presumably been born there, why do you believe that
language that was used imprecisely in England should suddenly have become
precise in Virginia? It defies common sense.

From your statement about an objection not being enough to "sink a
pedigree", it sounds to me as though you've got into the mindset of
demanding _disproof_ of an accepted pedigree, rather than making an
objective assessment of the evidence. In that context, the demand that
evidence has to come from a particular American state sounds like a
defensive manoeuvre.

If the "step" was widely omitted in England at the time, then surely that
raises significant doubt about this evidence from an English colony.

Chris Phillips

Leo van de Pas

Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 06 apr 2006 09:20:22

If you say "now wife", it may and may not imply a previous wife. If you want
to maintain he is inferring a future wife, I call that crystal ball gazing,
and if it is in his will, is he expecting that he recovers and his "now
wife" is going to die and he will marry again? :-)
Leo:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean


Leo van de Pas wrote:

But does this imply he intended to marry again? I read in "now wife",
simply the wife I am married to at this moment, which leaves room for a
previous wife but not an anticipation of a next one.
Leo

I think it allows for both.


Gjest

Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 09:44:18

Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:
Dear Michael,
I think you mean the Walter Griffith business, where
Jeff had three Walter Griffiths rather than two, the elder and father of the
younger was married to Joan Neville and Agnes Constable and was a Great
grandson of that Sir Walter Blount who married Sancha de Ayala.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

James, because you have not included any context for your reply
(again!) even I am not sure to what you are referring - given the
multitude of posts on this tedious subject - but I did explicitly state
this elsewhere.

Regards

Michael

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»