Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Renia

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

Legg inn av Renia » 06 apr 2006 10:11:34

Leo van de Pas wrote:
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:

It's not that he necessarily EXPECTS to marry again. It's just a legal
provision in case he does, whereby, the benefits of inheritance (etc)
due to the first wife, will not be the same for any subsequent wives,
unless new provision is made for her or them.



----- 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.



Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Montfichet Arms Intrepretation

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 06 apr 2006 10:16:38

In message of 5 Apr, pajunkin@cox.net ("Patricia Junkin") wrote:

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 would never be certain that any arms were derived from anything
unless you have a statement saying just that. It could merely be that
they liked that design.

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.

In the Dictionary of British Arms, Medieval Ordinary, Vol II, there are
the following Monfichet (various spellings) arms:

p. 515 Three chevrons (no tinctures)
p. 519 Gules three chevrons or
p. 524 Three chevrons and a label (no tincture, no num of points)
p. 525 Or 3 chevrons gules and a label azure (no num of points)

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

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 10:26:03

Leo van de Pas writes:

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


Another interpretation could be that they were together unmarried for a
while before marrying

I'll be shot down for this since I cannot find the reference at present, but
in one of my 17th century wills (Berkshire) "my now wife" was used when
neither had been previously married - maybe the testator couldn't bring
himself to say "my loving wife"?

cheers

Simon

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Montfichet Arms Intrepretation

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 06 apr 2006 11:02:40

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 5 Apr, pajunkin@cox.net ("Patricia Junkin") wrote:

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 would never be certain that any arms were derived from anything
unless you have a statement saying just that. It could merely be that
they liked that design.

I recall seeing somewhere (not very helpful, I know) a citation to a
scholarly study of the "Clare family of arms", being an analysis of a
cluster of similar early shields among families with ties, genealogical
or feudal, to the early Clares. I have not seen the analysis so I don't
know if Monfichet was included, but if so there may be a greater basis
for this conclusion than some of the claims that we see here (e.g. that
any two Jones families with lions on their shields must be related).
I'll dig around a bit and see if I can't turn up the cite.

taf

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 13:07:14

Renia wrote:
Leo van de Pas wrote:
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:

It's not that he necessarily EXPECTS to marry again. It's just a legal
provision in case he does, whereby, the benefits of inheritance (etc)
due to the first wife, will not be the same for any subsequent wives,
unless new provision is made for her or them.

All this makes me wonder: how old is the legal rule that marriage
invalidates any existing wills, unless they are made in specific
contemplation of the marriage?

Michael Andrews-Reading

Renia

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

Legg inn av Renia » 06 apr 2006 13:48:06

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Renia wrote:

Leo van de Pas wrote:

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:

It's not that he necessarily EXPECTS to marry again. It's just a legal
provision in case he does, whereby, the benefits of inheritance (etc)
due to the first wife, will not be the same for any subsequent wives,
unless new provision is made for her or them.


All this makes me wonder: how old is the legal rule that marriage
invalidates any existing wills, unless they are made in specific
contemplation of the marriage?

Michael Andrews-Reading

I don't know enough about Law to answer that, myself. But until the
(19th?) century, a wife was seen as the property of her husband, just
like any other goods and chattels. Whatever she brought to the marriage
(land, property, money, cows) belonged to her husband thereafter.

Hence the marriage contract (or pre-nup, if you like). The contract made
certain provisions for what the wife brought to the marriage, and should
the marriage end either by death or even divorce, what should happen to
her portion depended upon the contract.

Which brings us back to "my now wife". If she brought certain lands (or
cows or money) to the marriage, then those lands are hubby's "by right
of his wife". Depending on the marriage contract, they might revert to
her father's estate, or her brothers as heirs, or her sons. The term "my
now wife" means that whatever she brought to the marriage was not
inheritable by any subsequent wife.

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 13:58:58

Looking for a "number is a wild goose chase. Even if someone looked at
every17th c. Va. probate record the number wouldn't really matter,
because of the inherent weaknesses in such a statistical study.

1. Do the surviving records represent an accurate picture of the
population as a whole given the record loss in Virginia?
2. Would it just be original probate records or rerecordings which
contain errors?
3. Would it be exclusively Virginia or would it include Maryland?
4. What would be the cutoff date? 1699? Why not 1710 or 1720? I don't
think testators in the early part of the 18th c. had drastically
different practices from 17th c. ones.

I don't think anybody on this forum about medieval genealogy is going
to invest the time and effort on a study of 17th c. Va. probate records
to come up with a number that won't prove or disprove your belief. I
don't believe any number would satisfy you. 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%, it
wouldn't matter. There exists an element of doubt and you are possessed
by certainty.

JeffChipman wrote:

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.

JTC


Contemporary English Wills are relevant. You have pointed out the
excellent worth of "Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America,"
by David Hackett Fischer which studies the cultural practices of
Colonial America in relation to to the geographic origins of the
colonists. Fischer makes two comparative statements between the the
Chesapeake and New England which are interesting.

1. "Chesapeake households also tended to include more step-relatives
and wards, fewer children in the primary unit and also many more
servants than New England" p. 276 citing several sources including
Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman, A Place in Time: Middlesex County,
Virginia, 1650-1750 (2 vols., New York, 1984

2. "Among Virginians and New Englanders, ideas of the family were
similar in strength, but different in substance. Virginians gave more
importance to the extended family and less to the nuclear family than
did New Englanders. Clear differences of that sort appeared in
quantitative evidence of naming practices and inheritance patterns. The
language of familial relationships differed too. The word "family"
tended to be a more comprehensive term in Virginia than in
Massachusetts. Virginians addressed relatives of all sort as "coz" or
"cousin", in expressions that were heavy with affective meaning, but
the term "brother" was used more loosely as a salutation for friends,
neighbors, political allies, and even business acquaintances. It is
interesting to observe that an extended kin-term tended to be more
intimate than the language of a nuclear relationship. The reverse
tended to be the case in Massachusetts." pp.274-275

So if I read it correctly, there are known instances of 17th c. English
wills where the term "son-in-law" refers to "husband of my
step-daughter." Fischer in his study of the two 17c. follkways notes
that the Chesapeake families had more step children than in New England
and that the language of relationships was more comprehensive and more
relaxed in Virginia and Maryland than New England. It would then seem
likely that "son-in-law" for "husband of my step-daughter" was a known
English practice of varying frequency that probably occurred more often
in the Tidewater than in the other major English settlement in America,
New England.

Fred Chalfant

"Le doute n'est pas une condition agréable, mais la certitude est
absurde."

Voltaire

"They say 3 percent of the people use 5 to 6 percent of their brain
97 percent use 3 percent and the rest goes down the drain
I'll never know which one I am but I'll bet you my last dime
99 percent think we're 3 percent 100 percent of the time"

Todd Snider
Statistician's Blues

Chris Phillips

Re: Montfichet Arms Intrepretation

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 06 apr 2006 14:00:49

Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
I recall seeing somewhere (not very helpful, I know) a citation to a
scholarly study of the "Clare family of arms", being an analysis of a
cluster of similar early shields among families with ties, genealogical
or feudal, to the early Clares. I have not seen the analysis so I don't
know if Monfichet was included, but if so there may be a greater basis
for this conclusion than some of the claims that we see here (e.g. that
any two Jones families with lions on their shields must be related).
I'll dig around a bit and see if I can't turn up the cite.

I _think_ this was by J. H. Round - possibly in his book on Geoffrey de
Mandeville?

Chris Phillips

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 14:21:17

JeffChipman wrote:
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.

It is an impostion, actually. I have spent considerable time
extracting and posting this material onto the relevant threads (half of
which you started), despite your insults and follery, and now you admit
that - despite having castigated us for not having provided you with
evidence - you are too lazy or too stupid to take notice of the
material that has been provided.

Bring yourself up to speed for once; this is a newsgroup for people
interested in the study of mediaeval genealogy, not a kindergarten for
mentally challenged trolls.

Patricia Junkin

Re: Montfichet Arms Intrepretation

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 06 apr 2006 14:24:12

Tim,
I would be most grateful for a competent source to verify the Clare
derivation since several sources mention the connection of the Montfichets.
through the marriage of Margaret de Clare to William Montficet whose family
seems to have originally been Gernun. I began this particular search in
researching the Domesday Book on Essex and a man named Ordgar who was a
thane of Robert, I believe, de Gernun in the manor of Hinckford.
I very much appreciate your response.
Pat

----------
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Montfichet Arms Intrepretation
Date: Thu, 6, 2006, 6:02 AM


Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 5 Apr, pajunkin@cox.net ("Patricia Junkin") wrote:

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 would never be certain that any arms were derived from anything
unless you have a statement saying just that. It could merely be that
they liked that design.

I recall seeing somewhere (not very helpful, I know) a citation to a
scholarly study of the "Clare family of arms", being an analysis of a
cluster of similar early shields among families with ties, genealogical
or feudal, to the early Clares. I have not seen the analysis so I don't
know if Monfichet was included, but if so there may be a greater basis
for this conclusion than some of the claims that we see here (e.g. that
any two Jones families with lions on their shields must be related).
I'll dig around a bit and see if I can't turn up the cite.

taf

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Montfichet Arms Intrepretation

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 06 apr 2006 14:45:59

In message of 6 Apr, pajunkin@cox.net ("Patricia Junkin") wrote:

Tim,
I would be most grateful for a competent source to verify the Clare
derivation since several sources mention the connection of the
Montfichets through the marriage of Margaret de Clare to William
Montficet whose family seems to have originally been Gernun. I began
this particular search in researching the Domesday Book on Essex and
a man named Ordgar who was a thane of Robert, I believe, de Gernun in
the manor of Hinckford. I very much appreciate your response. Pat

I can't see an Ordgar tenant of anyone in Essex in Keats-Rohan's
Domesday People, though there is an Ordgar tenant of Miles Crispin in
Oxon.

In her Domesday Descendants, p. 295, William de Montfichet acquired the
barony of Robert Gernon some years before 1129 and he m. the dau. of
Gilbert fitz Richard de Clare. Wm. died in 1137, his widow in 1189.
Wm. was possibly the son of another William de Montfichet and Rohais.

Sanders in his English Baronies p. 83, says there is no evidence of a
family link between the houses of Gernon and Mountfichet.

Arms were not invented until 1125 or so though they then spread like
wildfire through much of Europe becoming common among landowners by 1150
or so. There are no records that I have heard of about such early
assumptions of arms so I reckon nothing much more can be said.

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

Nathaniel Taylor

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

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 06 apr 2006 15:03:37

In article <1144325234.548329.156110@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:

Renia wrote:
Leo van de Pas wrote:
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:

It's not that he necessarily EXPECTS to marry again. It's just a legal
provision in case he does, whereby, the benefits of inheritance (etc)
due to the first wife, will not be the same for any subsequent wives,
unless new provision is made for her or them.

All this makes me wonder: how old is the legal rule that marriage
invalidates any existing wills, unless they are made in specific
contemplation of the marriage?

Remarriage invalidating prior wills was not a rule in medieval and early
modern wills, to my knowledge. Is it, indeed, a modern rule, in England
or elsewhere?

I expect that with 'now wife', the provision is used simply to
personalize a bequest, or to disambiguate a reference in any other
context. I imagine that, it 'now wife' is used in the context of a
bequest, and if the testator were married to someone else at the time of
his decease, without making a new will, then the later wife who survived
him would not be entitled to that particular bequest, though of course
she would have other entitlements (usufruct of dower) under common law.

Nat Taylor

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

my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Montfichet Arms Intrepretation

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 06 apr 2006 15:06:27

In message of 6 Apr, "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
wrote:

Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
I recall seeing somewhere (not very helpful, I know) a citation to a
scholarly study of the "Clare family of arms", being an analysis of
a cluster of similar early shields among families with ties,
genealogical or feudal, to the early Clares. I have not seen the
analysis so I don't know if Monfichet was included, but if so there
may be a greater basis for this conclusion than some of the claims
that we see here (e.g. that any two Jones families with lions on
their shields must be related). I'll dig around a bit and see if I
can't turn up the cite.

I _think_ this was by J. H. Round - possibly in his book on Geoffrey
de Mandeville?

Indeed yes, he treats of the matter in Appendix U, pp. 388-396. He
discusses the similarities between the Mandeville and de Vere arms and
concludes that the latter adopted (or copied) the former.

Part of Round's argument is that arms were first used to identify teams
in battle, so it was useful that people who fought together had the
same arms. However the current theories are (Oxford Guide to Heraldry)
are that arms in fact developed for tournaments, similar to football
strips, or that arms developed for seals (Aidan Ailes, "Heraldry in
twelfth-Century England: the evidence", part of "England in the Twelfth
Century: Proceedings of the 1988 Harlaxton Symposium". ed. D. Williams.
Cambridge, Boydell and Brewer, 1990, pp. 1-16.).

Round does not mention in this article the similarities of various arms
to those of Clare.

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

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 15:14:27

Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
Remarriage invalidating prior wills was not a rule in medieval and early
modern wills, to my knowledge. Is it, indeed, a modern rule, in England
or elsewhere?

Indeed, in England and in many other Common Law jurisdictions.

Osborn's Concise Law Dictionary states, sub "will":

"A will is revoked by marriage (Wills Act 1837, s18) but a will made
after 1925 and expressed to be made in contemplation of marriage is not
revoked by the solemnisation of the marriage contemplated (Law of
Property Act 1925, s177)"

So the question is whether this provision stems form the 1837 Act, its
present source of force in England, or whether there were earlier
provisions or common law rules.

MAR

joseph cook

Re: Wells -Tuttle connection

Legg inn av joseph cook » 06 apr 2006 15:23:30

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?

Are you saying you found evidence that Richard Tuttle's father-in-law
was Lyncoln Southcott ?

Renia

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

Legg inn av Renia » 06 apr 2006 16:13:14

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:

Remarriage invalidating prior wills was not a rule in medieval and early
modern wills, to my knowledge. Is it, indeed, a modern rule, in England
or elsewhere?


Indeed, in England and in many other Common Law jurisdictions.

Osborn's Concise Law Dictionary states, sub "will":

"A will is revoked by marriage (Wills Act 1837, s18) but a will made
after 1925 and expressed to be made in contemplation of marriage is not
revoked by the solemnisation of the marriage contemplated (Law of
Property Act 1925, s177)"

So the question is whether this provision stems form the 1837 Act, its
present source of force in England, or whether there were earlier
provisions or common law rules.

MAR

Mozeley & Whiteley's Law Dictionary (1986):
Husband and Wife. At Common Law they were for the most part treated as
one person. The property of a wife became with few exceptions, that of
the husband. At Common Law a husband could not make a conveyance
directly to his wife. This could be effected, however, through the
medium of a use or trust, or by will. The property distinction between a
married woman and an unmarried woman has been almost entirely removed by
statute. See the Married Women's Property Acts, the Law of Property Act
j1925, and the Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act 1935,
which latter Act also abolished the husban'ds liability for his wife's
torts and ante-nuptial contracts, etc.


The Universal Home Lawyer (twixt 1933-1939):
Revocation and Cancellation of Wills. It is most important to realize
that every will is revoked by a subsequent marriage, even if it is
expressly made in contemplation of a proposed marriage. Therefore any
person upon marriage should make a new will altogether, though it is
possible, if it is not desired to change the provisions of the old will
to execute a codicil signed and witnessed in the ordinary way after
marriage, stating that the provisions of the old will are intended still
to apply.

MLS

Helena de Courtenay

Legg inn av MLS » 06 apr 2006 16:33:35

Dear friends,
I'm trying to check if the Helena or Jelena, wife of King Stefan Uros I
of Serbia (+1280) could be a daughter of King Baldwin of Courtenay,
emperor of Constantinople and Marie of Brienne, as stated on the Euweb
site on this link (http://genealogy.euweb.cz/capet/capet7.html#R1C):

B6. [2m.] Baldwin de Courtenay, Emperor of Constantinople (1237-61)
=Baldwin II, *Constantinople 1218, +Naples 1273, bur Barletta; m.Perugia
1229/1234 Marie de Brienne (+after 5.5.1275)
C1. Philippe I de Courtenay, titular Emperor of Constantinople, *there
1243, +Viterbo 1283; m.Foggia 1273 Beatrix of Naples (*ca 1252 +1275)

C2. [parentage not certain] Helene, +1314; m.ca 1250 King Stefan Uros I
of Serbia (+1280)

In the same site, on link
(http://genealogy.euweb.cz/balkan/balkan5.html) where can find the
genealogy of Nemagna Capone Paleologo di Serbia family, she is stated as
is:

C6. [3m.] Saint King Stepan Uros I "the Great" of Raska (Serbia)
(1243-76) abdicated, +as the monk Simon 1280, bur Sopocani; m.ca 1250
Jelena (+as a nun at Skodra 1314), believed to be related to the Kings
of Naples

Maybe the phrase: "believed to be related to the king of Naples" could
refer to the fact that her (supposed) brother can be
Philippe I de Courtenay, titular Emperor of Constaninople, husband of
Beatrix of Naples, daughter of King of Naples Charles of Anjou...?

I know the work of van Kerrebrouck, "Les Capétiens", where on note at
pag. 468 wrote:

"Certains ont donné à tort comme troisième enfant au couple: Hélène,
épouse d'Etienne Urosch Ier, dit le Grand, roi de Serbie (1243-1276),
comme E. Léard 1954 p. 108 ou Isenburg Stammtafeln Eur. sT. II, 14. Un
lecteur de l'I.C.C., n.382, janvier 983, 73-75, rapelle ce que l'on
connait à ce sujet. Veuve depuis 1277, son mari étant vaincu et détroné
par leur fils Dragoutin, elle se retira au couvent de Saint-Nicholas de
Scutari, où elle mourut le 8-2-1314 et fut inhumée au couvent de Gradacz
à Ipek. Son biographe, l'éveque serbe Daniel (+ 1338), la disait issue
d'une lignée princière française (rhoda Phruska). Son fils cadet, le
futur roi Milutin, ayant vu le jour en 1253, on peut fixer la naissance
de son premier fils aux années 1250-1251. La naissance de celui-ci ayant
été "longuemente attendue", on peut admettre quatre ou cinq années
d'attente, fixant ainsi son mariage aux environs de l'année 1245. Elle
devrait etre nubile, sinon l'impatiente attente n'aurait pas été
justifiée. Elle-meme dut dont naitre vers 1230. Or, à l'établissemente
du contrat de mariage de Baudouin II de Courtenay (Imperatore latino e
padre presunto di Elena) et de Marie de Brienne, le 19-4-1229, celui-ci
n'avait que 12 ans, et Maria, tout au plus 4 ans."


What do you think about this matter?
Does anyone know if there are some more updated studies about the
genealogy of de Courtenay family, and particularly this Elena?

Thanks in advance
Marco




--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Credito: cerca il tuo credito in modo rapido e sicuro!
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?midE88&dd

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 16:37:02

Hi Everyone:
In a message dated 4/5/2006 5:14:36 PM Eastern Standard Time,
ClaudiusI0@aol.com writes:

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.

MichaelAnne is absolutely correct about the term "now wife." The first
thing that everyone thinks that it implies that there was a previous wife.
But again, this has to be taken on a case by case basis. I have found numerous
Northumberland County records that refer to "Now wife," but after very careful
research have found that in many cases, the "now wife" was the only wife.

Joan Burdyck

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Montfichet Arms Intrepretation

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 06 apr 2006 17:25:44

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 6 Apr, "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk
wrote:

Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
I recall seeing somewhere (not very helpful, I know) a citation to a
scholarly study of the "Clare family of arms", being an analysis of
a cluster of similar early shields among families with ties,
genealogical or feudal, to the early Clares.

I _think_ this was by J. H. Round - possibly in his book on Geoffrey
de Mandeville?

Indeed yes, he treats of the matter in Appendix U, pp. 388-396. He
discusses the similarities between the Mandeville and de Vere arms and
concludes that the latter adopted (or copied) the former.

[snip]

Round does not mention in this article the similarities of various arms
to those of Clare.

This isn't the Clare article I was thinking of. I saw the citation as
one of a list of three such studies: 1) Round's Vere/Mandeville one, 2)
the Warenne/Beaufort one in CP, and 3) the Clare one. Now I will have
to dig or out or it will drive me nuts. Speaking of which, has anyone
done a detailed analysis of all of the quarterly arms associated with
Chester families (e.g. Lacy, Despencer [and hence Spencer], etc)?

taf

Gjest

Re: Have you noticed?

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 18:30:47

CED:

And just what does your diatribe contribute to the advancement of
medieval genealogy?

Reading Mr. Richardsons posts are not compulsory!

Andy

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

Dear James W. Cummings:

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


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

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

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


CED



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

Gjest

Re: Have you noticed?

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 18:31:04

CED:

And just what does your diatribe contribute to the advancement of
medieval genealogy?

Reading Mr. Richardsons posts are not compulsory!

Andy

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

Dear James W. Cummings:

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


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

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

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


CED



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

Tony Hoskins

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

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 06 apr 2006 19:00:02

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

Very useful summary of this reams-long thread. I concur. Thanks,
Chris.

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

W David Samuelsen

Re: Renaming of Byzantine Empresses

Legg inn av W David Samuelsen » 06 apr 2006 19:14:02

Ford wrote:
The descendants of Raoul were the Ra(ou)llaina family. I'm not quite
sure of the spelling. My question, lo these many months gone by, is:
Knows anyone of the background of Dagobert, supposedly a count. His sons
were said, by Anna, to hail from the Norman kingdom of Sicily; but could
Dagobert have been a Frank?

In my database, Roger ends with Tancred of Hauteville. As for Dagobert,
the most late one I can find is Dagobert, King (Chieftain?) of the
Franks, died about 639, connected to Mervoginian line. If there are any
later Dagobert, I am not aware of.

David Samuelsen

W David Samuelsen

Re: Wells -Tuttle connection

Legg inn av W David Samuelsen » 06 apr 2006 19:25:03

<http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-04/1144333410>

Not the evidence but the claims. I did observe that there were some
saying "Lyncoln Thomas Southcott"

DR is wigged as ever. There were plenty of Tuttle/Totell/Tootyhill in
Devonshire as well, and very few of them in Northamptonshire.

Don't know about the evidence but you can be assured I will make
inquires among those who have that claim as to the source.

Each claim should be checked out rather than dismissed out of hand willy
nilly like DR did.

David Samuelsen

JeffChipman

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 06 apr 2006 19:43:03

Well, Will I cannot comment on what the standards of lineage societies
were 100 years ago. DAR now has a pamphlet entitled "Is That Lineage
Correct?" I know a number of women who belong to DAR, and they tell me
it is a lot more difficult to get into than it used to be. My point is
that if you want to join DAR, you are going to have to document your
pedigree by their standards. If you can do that, as far as DAR is
concerned, your pedigree is "proven." A person who thinks that the
standards of lineage societies in general are inadequate is not
challenging DAR, they're implying what their own standards are and
saying these lineage societies don't meet them.

To me, your notion that nothing can be proved, and at best we can only
arrive at a probability, sucks the life out of genealogy. You think
that your standards are better than mine because you think yours are
more rigorous (this apparently is the underlying position of others in
this newsgroup). Nat probably thinks his standards are more rigorous
than mine, and therefore better and that his conclusions are therefore
more reliable than mine. At least that's how I understand it. I have
abandoned asking for material from 17th century VA for two reasons:
nobody in the newsgroup wants to provide any, and my present
understanding of their positions doesn't require it.

I can't comment on the worth of "family legends." I can tell you what
my standards are and how I apply them. In the Katherine Carter case, I
accept Ward's conclusion that she was not Diana Skipwith's daughter as
proved "by a preponderance of the evidence." Because Ward used the
Thomas Carter prayer book as the linchpin of his "proof," I want it
pointed out that he made a value judgement when he used some evidence
and neglected to tell the reader that the same source had material
supporting the Carter claim. To me, that keeps him from claiming that
he refuted Katherine's ancestry "beyond a reasonable doubt." I have a
letter from David Greene which addresses my concern. In it, he gives
his opinion about the worth of the Dale epitaph. It makes interesting
reading, and I have scanned the letter and emailed it to "joemary."

We need to clearly delineate the differences between the Carter claim
and the claims of Skipwith descent by Mary Dale Harrison Jones and
Elizabeth Dale Rogers. There are no documents of any kind which refute
Mary and Elizabeth Dale's identifcation as daughters of Diana Skipwith.
Mary Dale had no known descendants. Apparently she was dead by the
time Edward Dale made his will in 1694. I don't know what Ward knew or
didn't know about Elizabeth Dale, but I think the reason he didn't
mention her in his article was because he had had evidence about
Katherine and didn't want to open a pandora's box. He was writing
about Katherine, and he wanted to keep his point on target.

By my standards, the use in that 1674 deed of the term "sonne in law"
is ironclad proof? Why? Because there is absolutely no evidence that
Skipwith's use of that term meant anything else but "husband of my
natural daughter." Simply because a term could have multiple meanings
doesn't mean that it had some other meaning in this case. Nat has a
right to his opinion. He doesn't have the right to present it as if it
were objective fact. I do not regard Nat's point as meeting the burden
of "reasonable doubt." There must be many thousands of VA/MD documents
which use this term and I am not going to toss them into the dustbin
for this reason.

Note that I said "I do not regard." Other people can have their own
standards and use those standards in any way they feel is meaningful to
them. They can tell somebody "I don't agree with your thesis," but
they should add, "because it does not meet my standards," and then give
a thumbnail sketch of what those standards might be so that the reader
can judge for himself whether or not it means anything to them.

This is my point to MichaelAnne. I will weigh evidence. I will use my
standards to do so. If I don't think a challenge is significant I will
say so. As long as I tell you what my standards are and how I use
them--that's all you have a right to expect from me.

JTC

Gjest

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 19:58:02

In a message dated 4/6/2006 10:20:31 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

r women of my mother's generation, genealogical research was largely
conducted as part of the process of joining a lineage society like DAR
or Colonial Dames, etc.


You forgot to mention that the *standards* of proof a hundred years ago,
when many of these societies like DAR were forming or formed, was really quite
inadequate and didn't amount to much above Burke's acceptance of "family
legends" as proof.

That might be a relevant point.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 20:10:08

JeffChipman schrieb:

This is my point to MichaelAnne. I will weigh evidence. I will use my
standards to do so. If I don't think a challenge is significant I will
say so. As long as I tell you what my standards are and how I use
them--that's all you have a right to expect from me.

You do know that MichaelAnne and I are different persons, don't you?

It's perfectly normal that different individuals should have differing
standards of proof; the problem here is that you are not consistent.
What you freely admit is acceptance on the balance of probabilities -
something that hardly anyone here would disagree with you on in the
current case, ironically - is something you have persisted in
simultaneously characterising as "iron-clad proof". The two are
manifestly not the same. When you go on the record as stating a
relationship, determined on the basis of the balance of probabilities,
is arrived at as a consequence of "iron-clad proof", you invite
refutation, because to ignore such claims would be permitting you to
pollute the historical record (as well as encouraging bad research).

Michael Andrews-Reading
(aka Whoever, but not MichaelAnne)

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 06 apr 2006 20:32:22

JeffChipman wrote:
To me, your notion that nothing can be proved, and at best we can only
arrive at a probability, sucks the life out of genealogy.

Tragic. I also think that death being a universal human end stinks.
However, can we really pretend that the world is the way we want it to
be, just because we don't like the consequences of the alternative?

We need to clearly delineate the differences between the Carter claim
and the claims of Skipwith descent by Mary Dale Harrison Jones and
Elizabeth Dale Rogers. There are no documents of any kind which refute
Mary and Elizabeth Dale's identifcation as daughters of Diana Skipwith.

Again, only requiring proof that they are _not_, while giving the notion
that they _are_ a free pass.

By my standards, the use in that 1674 deed of the term "sonne in law"
is ironclad proof? Why? Because there is absolutely no evidence that
Skipwith's use of that term meant anything else but "husband of my
natural daughter."

That is exactly like saying that "uncle" means 'mother's brother' until
someone proves it means something. This is a flawed approach to
evaluation. This is not about standards of proof, it is not about some
people being more permissive, and some more stringent - it is about
applying a rigor of proof to the criticisms of your position which you
are both unwilling and unable to apply to your own.

Simply because a term could have multiple meanings
doesn't mean that it had some other meaning in this case.

No, but because a term could have multiple meanings it _does_ mean that
you cannot simply assume one specific one, no matter how much you want
that to be the answer, let alone call it iron-clad, which is ridiculous.


Nat has a
right to his opinion. He doesn't have the right to present it as if it
were objective fact.

His 'opinion' that the term son-in-law had multiple meanings _IS_
objective fact. You keep trying to insinuate that Nat is claiming that
the term _did_ mean something else. I have seen nothing in his posts
that suggest this strawman. What he is stating is that it could mean
something else, and hence can't be assumed to mean any specific meaning.
He is suggesting the use of terms like "probably", "likely",
"possibly", or "one interpretation is", rather than "iron-clad" or
"beyond reasonable doubt".

I do not regard Nat's point as meeting the burden
of "reasonable doubt."

You keep saying this, but the connection of Mary Dale to Diana Skipwith
has yet to meat any standard close to this. It remains speculation,
supported by a document with ambiguous interpretation, and by an
advocate who refuses to apply to the connection itself the same
standards being applied to the critics' arguments.

There must be many thousands of VA/MD documents
which use this term and I am not going to toss them into the dustbin
for this reason.

As much as it makes for scoring cheap debating points to claim so, no
one is suggesting this - only that these documents be taken for what
they are worth, not for what you want them to be or because it would be
a shame for them not to be incontravertable proof of cherished
relationships.

Perhaps it is worth pointing out: all genealogical conclusions - ALL -
are provisional, contingent on the discovery of new data or a
reinterpretation of the existing data. A line that has been accepted in
the past gets no special 'free pass'. It can be questioned at any time
based on new evidence, or based on the fact that the original evidence
was misinterpreted. Such a reevaluation requires no new evidence, no
'burden of disproof', but only to show that a particular connection
itself has failed to meet the burden of proof. It is the line which
must be proven to remain acceptable, not the disproof proven to negate
the line. Finally, such an evaluation can return one of three verdicts,
not two - proven, disproven, or unproven.


Have you read the article yet that specifically addresses the term
son-in-law in the Middle-Atlantic Tidewater? No? I thought not, even
though you are not letting that stand in your way.

taf

Tony Hoskins

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 06 apr 2006 21:04:02

"To me, your notion that nothing can be proved, and at best we can only
arrive at a probability, sucks the life out of genealogy."
----
Because some genealogical connections exit not-fully-proved-but-likely
is just one of those things we have to live with - whether or not we
think genealogical ambiguity "sucks the life out" of the endeavor or
not. Actually, the subtleties inherent in such ongoing cases are one of
their chief charms for me: endlessly fascinating as they rise or fall in
probability, depending on new information, differing interpretations.

Tony Hoskins

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

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 06 apr 2006 21:41:49

In article <s435036b.087@CENTRAL_SVR2>,
hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins") wrote:

Because some genealogical connections exist not-fully-proved-but-likely
is just one of those things we have to live with - whether or not we
think genealogical ambiguity "sucks the life out" of the endeavor or
not. Actually, the subtleties inherent in such ongoing cases are one of
their chief charms for me: endlessly fascinating as they rise or fall in
probability, depending on new information, differing interpretations.

I agree, Tony. That is what drew me to the Dale case in the first place.

Nat Taylor

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

Nathaniel Taylor

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

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 06 apr 2006 21:51:58

In article <1144332867.467276.33590@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:

Nathaniel Taylor wrote:

Remarriage invalidating prior wills was not a rule in medieval and early
modern wills, to my knowledge. Is it, indeed, a modern rule, in England
or elsewhere?

Indeed, in England and in many other Common Law jurisdictions.

Osborn's Concise Law Dictionary states, sub "will":

"A will is revoked by marriage (Wills Act 1837, s18) but a will made
after 1925 and expressed to be made in contemplation of marriage is not
revoked by the solemnisation of the marriage contemplated (Law of
Property Act 1925, s177)"

So the question is whether this provision stems form the 1837 Act, its
present source of force in England, or whether there were earlier
provisions or common law rules.

Thank you; I wasn't aware of this at all. My knowledge of testamentary
procedure is centered on Roman and early medieval traditions, where I do
not believe I have ever heard of this stricture. I would check
Sheehan's book to see whether it the tradition has any pre-modern roots
in England.

Nat Taylor

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

my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm

Douglas Richardson

Re: Wells -Tuttle connection

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 06 apr 2006 21:56:50

I suggest that parties interested in the English origins of the
American Tuttle family consult the authoritative work, Hale, House, &
Related Families (1952), written by the dean of American genealogy,
Donald Lines Jacobus, especially pages 771-775. Mr. Jacobus traces the
ancestry of the Tuttle family back several generations into
Northamptonshire in England.

This book is now available for purchase in paperback as indicated
below:

http://www.genealogical.com/products/Ha ... /2990.html

I hasten to add that the Tuttle family of Northamptonshire and New
England had no connection whatsover with the either the Tuttle or the
Southcott families of Devonshire.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry.net


W David Samuelsen wrote:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-04/1144333410

Not the evidence but the claims. I did observe that there were some
saying "Lyncoln Thomas Southcott"

DR is wigged as ever. There were plenty of Tuttle/Totell/Tootyhill in
Devonshire as well, and very few of them in Northamptonshire.

Don't know about the evidence but you can be assured I will make
inquires among those who have that claim as to the source.

Each claim should be checked out rather than dismissed out of hand willy
nilly like DR did.

David Samuelsen

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 22:02:53

Nathaniel Taylor schrieb:

In article <1144332867.467276.33590@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:

Nathaniel Taylor wrote:

Remarriage invalidating prior wills was not a rule in medieval and early
modern wills, to my knowledge. Is it, indeed, a modern rule, in England
or elsewhere?

Indeed, in England and in many other Common Law jurisdictions.

Osborn's Concise Law Dictionary states, sub "will":

"A will is revoked by marriage (Wills Act 1837, s18) but a will made
after 1925 and expressed to be made in contemplation of marriage is not
revoked by the solemnisation of the marriage contemplated (Law of
Property Act 1925, s177)"

So the question is whether this provision stems form the 1837 Act, its
present source of force in England, or whether there were earlier
provisions or common law rules.

Thank you; I wasn't aware of this at all. My knowledge of testamentary
procedure is centered on Roman and early medieval traditions, where I do
not believe I have ever heard of this stricture. I would check
Sheehan's book to see whether it the tradition has any pre-modern roots
in England.

It's some years now since I studied law, and I have looked this evening
at the couple of probate texts I have here in my study, but they
contain little of help in relation to the history of this English rule
- other than to add that the preceding legislative references from
Osborn's have now been consolidated and superceded by the
Administration of Justice Act 1982, s18 (The Will Draftsman's Handbook,
D Pettitt, Longman, 1985). According to Hutley's Australian Wills
Precedents (Rowland & Tamsitt, Butterworths, 1989) each of the
Australian states and territories also has similar legislative
provisions, the oldest original of which that is still in force being
Tasmania's Wills Act 1840 - no doubt based on the English original. A
glance at Blackstones or similar would indicate how old this rule is -
it may not predate 1837, and therefore may be irrelevant to the time
period that concerns this group.

MA-R

Renia

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Renia » 06 apr 2006 22:03:39

JeffChipman wrote:

I have
abandoned asking for material from 17th century VA for two reasons:
nobody in the newsgroup wants to provide any, and my present
understanding of their positions doesn't require it.


Material such as this has been posted 3 times. It appears you STILL
haven't seen it.

Or choose not to.

Gjest

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 22:24:53

ClaudiusI0@aol.com schrieb:

Dear Michael,

Jeff is referring to an e-mail that I posted to the group yesterday as well
as sent him privately where I made the comment that if someone challenged a
lineage it was up to the person being challenged to defend the ancestry.

Thanks, MichaelAnne. It's really good to see you posting here again,
by the way. Jeff may not be able to benefit from your contribution,
but the rest of us certainly do.

Regards

Michael A-R

Gjest

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 22:37:02

mjcar@btinternet.com writes:


When you go on the record as stating a
relationship, determined on the basis of the balance of probabilities,
is arrived at as a consequence of "iron-clad proof", you invite
refutation,


He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp posts -- for support rather
than illumination. Andrew Lang


:-)

Simon

Bob Turcott

Re: King William the Conqueror vs peverel

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 06 apr 2006 22:39:02

Chris,

give me your valuable observation of the content from this website:

http://genealogy.patp.us/conq/peverel.shtml

Interesting read, remember, I dont believe one way or the other, at this
point, only reasonable suspicion.

best regards

Bob


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.

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




_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/ca ... p?cid=3963

JeffChipman

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 06 apr 2006 22:42:30

Look--Who appointed you people as the arbiters of anything? If these
are your standards, I don't have a problem with that. Just don't push
them on me. I am an adult who is capable of deciding what different
evidence means to me, and how I'm going to use it. Someone emailed me
the other day and said they think all 3 Dale daughters were Diana
Skipwith's. I don't agree with that. I looked at the evidence and
came to a different conclusion. If all genealogy means to you is
probabilities, why should I care about that? Are you saying it doesn't
mean different things to different people. As for the stastistics
crack , we have nothing even approaching a stastistical sample. There
is no 17th century evidence to consider.

Please re-post the Humphrey Jones evidence here if you would. These
threads have become unwieldy. If you have proof that Edward Dale had a
Jones grandson, that's interesting, but it's not an important part of
what I'm saying.

I know it upsets some people that I don't regard the possibility that
something COULD be true as being "reasonable doubt." I want to see
additonal evidence to show me that such possibilities create that
doubt. My position has some suppport in the genealogical community. I
didn't invent it. Todd, blow it out your a$s. You haven't read it
either, so you're just talking through your hat. The blurbs I've read
on it indicate it's a study of Middlesex Co., VA.

I have a letter dated 27 March 2000 which illustrates my point
perfectly. After the Charles Martin Ward article, I wrote Dr. Greene
of "TAG" about the article and said that I thought there was other
evidence in the case that proved Katherine was Skipwith's daughter.
Over the years I have changed my opinion, but here's what Dr. Greene
had to say about the evidence at the time:

"Diana Skipwith did not "chose" to sign her maiden name in 1655. At
that time, a married woman would never chose to sign her maiden name
unless she was consenting to the sale of property that she had
inherited, in which case she had the option (but not the requirement)
of signing both her married and maiden names seperated by the word
"alias," e.g. "Diana Dale alias Skipwith."

"I'm afraid that your interpretation of the death notice of Edward Dale
in the Prayer Book is from a modern viewpoint, no 17th century. There
is nothing in the notice to imply that Diana Skipwith was Dale's only
wife or the mother of Thomas Carter's wife; all that it really tells us
is that Dale was still fairly young when he married Diana Skipwith.
[Carter's] reason for mentioning only his step-mother-in-law is clear
by 17th-century societal mores; he was establishing Dale's high social
rank, something of great importance in colonial Virginia."

I scanned and emailed "joemary" a copy of this. I quoted these two
passages, not to start a discussion of Greene as a genealogist or
whether what he said is true; it is a powerful example of two pieces of
evidence from the same source (the Prayer Book, of which I have copies
of genealogical pages) being given different weight. I happen to give
the Dale epitaph more weight than Greene did. For me, that weight
prevents me from accepting Ward's thesis as "proven beyond reasonable
doubt." But there are people in this newsgroup that find the eptitaph
conclusive proof that Katherine Dale was Skipwith's daughter. At least
with this letter, I know what standards of evidence Greene is using.
He is telling me that Katherine Dale's age at birth puts her too old to
have been Skipwith's daughter, and that the sociology of the period
points to a different assessment of Dale's epitaph, and that the
chronology is the more powerful argument.

I'm sorry (not really) that I have disappointed these people, but since
I'm not here to live up to their standards, I can only welcome their
opinions about the standards of evidence they use, and what their
discoveries mean to them. So? Now we're being told that your
standards are "generally accepted. "By who?" Whose standards do you
think David Greene was using? And cite some specific literature this
time. I have probably asked for some 17th century VA documents a good
20 times, and none of you are brave enough to offer anything. And I'm
going to make sure that the readers of these threads know that. I'm
going to start a new thread entitled "They have no evidence." "Most
genealogists" do a lot of things, like eating, sleeping. etc. One
person says statistics are useless, while another says I haven't read a
book fast enough to suit him. Have a nice day.

JTC

Gjest

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 22:52:02

In a message dated 4/6/2006 2:52:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:
There are no documents of any kind which refute
Mary and Elizabeth Dale's identifcation as daughters of Diana Skipwith.
Mary Dale had no known descendants.
The above is ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT. Mary Dale DEFINITELY had a son Humphrey
Jones by her 2nd husband. Joan Burdyck and I have been in correspondence with
one of his descendants. The fact that Humphrey Jones is Edward Dale's grandson
is shown by the Middlesex County records I posted yesterday.

MichaelAnne

Patricia Junkin

Re: Montfichet Arms Intrepretation

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 06 apr 2006 23:08:01

All,

Thank you for the information you have shared regarding the Montfichet arms.

The reference to Ordgar is taken from a multi volume series Domesday Book.
Ed. John Morris. No. 32. Essex.

The arms of Richard de Montfichet (~1193-1267) are found on Brian Timms site
and earlyblazon.com. Timms shows in Glover's Roll (Part 1)
the arms of Montficet identical to William de Clare, Gules three chevrons
or a label azure. earlyblazon.com shows a slight variation in the number of
points.

While the subject of a marriage between Montficet and Clare is seemingly not
universally accepted,there remains an need for explanation for the
similarities in arms borne in the early thirteenth century. Stirnet
Genealogy: TCP (vol X, appendix J). BE1883 reports that the Margaret who
married Montfichet was Baldwin's daughter but TCP (Pembroke) identifies her
as sister of Gilbert,1st Earl of Pembroke.

I believe there are members of the Clare family not placed. In Pedes Finium
Surrey: John fil Robert de Clare and his wife Joanna vs. James le Bel of
Fermesham in Chertsey (1313) as well as the 1196 Christina fil Baldwin [
supposed de Clare] vs/ Godwin de Chertsey. I have not, as yet, found this
John de Clare.

Thanks again,
Pat
----------
From: Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Montfichet Arms Intrepretation
Date: Thu, 6, 2006, 9:45 AM


In message of 6 Apr, pajunkin@cox.net ("Patricia Junkin") wrote:

Tim,
I would be most grateful for a competent source to verify the Clare
derivation since several sources mention the connection of the
Montfichets through the marriage of Margaret de Clare to William
Montficet whose family seems to have originally been Gernun. I began
this particular search in researching the Domesday Book on Essex and
a man named Ordgar who was a thane of Robert, I believe, de Gernun in
the manor of Hinckford. I very much appreciate your response. Pat

I can't see an Ordgar tenant of anyone in Essex in Keats-Rohan's
Domesday People, though there is an Ordgar tenant of Miles Crispin in
Oxon.

In her Domesday Descendants, p. 295, William de Montfichet acquired the
barony of Robert Gernon some years before 1129 and he m. the dau. of
Gilbert fitz Richard de Clare. Wm. died in 1137, his widow in 1189.
Wm. was possibly the son of another William de Montfichet and Rohais.

Sanders in his English Baronies p. 83, says there is no evidence of a
family link between the houses of Gernon and Mountfichet.

Arms were not invented until 1125 or so though they then spread like
wildfire through much of Europe becoming common among landowners by 1150
or so. There are no records that I have heard of about such early
assumptions of arms so I reckon nothing much more can be said.

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

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 23:10:37

Jwc1870@aol.com schrieb:

Dear Michael,
You commented earlier on that Jrff Chipman was the same
person who was insistant that Walter Blount II had more than one wife. I
replied that He was the one who was insistant that there were three Walter
Griffiths rather than two, He held that the first married Joan Neville, whose son, the
second Walter Griffith married Agnes, a daughter of Robert Constable of
Flamborough, and had a third Walter Griffith. In fact however the first two Walter
Griffiths were the same man. Hopefully this puts it into context.

Dear James

Thanks for your reply; sorry to be pedantic but I'm afraid you have it
the wrong way around. I made two comments on Jeff's earlier faux pas
about the Blount line:

(1) On this thread on 5 April 2006 I posted the following:

"[Jeff,] you are the same genius who, after Douglas Richardson
presented the group with the Harleian Manuscript evidence of Sir Walter
Blount II that his father had two wives, replied that it was 'an
error'."

(2) On the thread entitled Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William
Rogers of Lancaster Co., VA, I posted on 4 April 2006:

"On the subject of apologies, perhaps you owe this group an apology for
the tirades you subjected us to recently while you were 'proving' your
three Sir Walters and your 'novel' interpretation of heraldry,
subsequently shown to be wrong."

This illustrates the importance of not commenting without some of the
original context, because in this case you have twice had me saying the
complete opposite of what I said, and then twice correcting me when no
correction was required.

Regards

Michael

Gjest

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 23:11:02

Dear Michael,

Jeff is referring to an e-mail that I posted to the group yesterday as well
as sent him privately where I made the comment that if someone challenged a
lineage it was up to the person being challenged to defend the ancestry. I was
simply trying to make him understand that because Charles Ward wrote the
article in the January 2000 issue of TAG it was up to those of us who contend this
descent is accurate to refute Mr. Ward's data. We now have to definitely prove
the maternity or show why Mr. Ward's evidence or analysis is faulty for it to
be taken seriously. The article cannot be circumvented by dividing the
daughters which is what he is trying to do as we do not have any exact chronology for
Elizabeth and Mary Dale and there is no evidence to support the theory that
these three women were half-sisters. In fact the will of Edward Dale seems to
indicate that at Katherine was a real daughter as she was left to provide for
Diana Dale and Elizabeth Rogers was left only a small sum of money. It doesn't
logically fit that a stepdaughter and her heirs would be left with everything
including care of her stepmother while a biological daughter would be left
very little and no responsibility for her mother's care. This point has always
indicated to me that whatever the status of Katherine Dale she and Elizabeth
were definitely full sisters.

Best Wishes,
MichaelAnne

Chris Phillips

Re: King William the Conqueror vs peverel

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 06 apr 2006 23:11:51

Bob Turcott wrote:
give me your valuable observation of the content from this website:

http://genealogy.patp.us/conq/peverel.shtml

Interesting read, remember, I dont believe one way or the other, at this
point, only reasonable suspicion.

I think Planché is definitely not the most reliable of Victorian
genealogists, and I'd certainly place more trust in the opinions of Eyton
and Freeman.

Planché's article seems to lean heavily on respect for an admittedly
tradition, and on arguments from silence. For example, he sees the fact that
there is no record in which William names his parents as "most singular and
significant", whereas in fact it must be true of a large proportion of
Domesday tenants. I'm afraid I don't find his arguments convincing at all.

Chris Phillips

Chris Phillips

Re: King William the Conqueror vs peverel

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 06 apr 2006 23:14:49

Planché's article seems to lean heavily on respect for an admittedly
tradition, and on arguments from silence.

Sorry, that should have read "an admittedly late tradition".

Chris Phillips

JeffChipman

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 06 apr 2006 23:16:46

Well, it's obvious that my standards are different than the standards
of some other posters. I've tried to show what mine are and why.

I don't like being harassed by partisans of Nat's position when none of
them (to my knowledge) have ever produced a single 17th century VA/MD
document to support their claims. If they have, please re-post it
here. I do not deny that "sonne in law" has some archaic meanings.
That could be true of more than a few words.

All I'm saying is that I don't think this "problem" constitutes
"reasonable doubt" to bounce a pedigree just because the term is used
somewhere in the evidence chain. This is just something to know about
the period you're working with, and if there are indications that the
word is not being used to denote a blood relationship, then you need to
look at additional evidence and come to a decision.

I am not going to tell people who use the thousands of 17th century VA
documents that contain this word that they must confront every
applicable possibility of usage. I think that's an unfair burden.
Nat's standards, while he might see them as rigorous and scholarly, in
this instance to me unrealistic and unecessary. I guess when you get
right down to it, the degree to which I have to prove anything to Nat
is the degree to which care about his opinion.

For me, looking at the matter from the standpoint of standards of
evidence makes it most meaningful to me. Comments like "many
genealogists" or "most genealogists" or "everybody knows" are
anecdotal evidence, and while that really is evidence, it's not
evidence that I find to be of much worth.


JTC

Gjest

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 23:27:02

In a message dated 4/6/06 11:52:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< To me, your notion that nothing can be proved, and at best we can only
arrive at a probability, sucks the life out of genealogy. >>

Falsely characterizing my *notion* isn't going to save you from the pit
you've dug for yourself.

There are many lineage societies in existence who are quite happy to take
your money and post your *research*. Thankfully the DAR at least, rises above
that bar in that they require satisfactory proof. That situation today, has not
always been the case with the DAR.

My point in that is merely to point out, that in your counter-post you had
claimed that your kin had joined many lineage societies and that is how they did
their *research*. That is not a valid counter-point however, since many
lineage societies then and now fail to validate the details they state.

Finally, to return to your counter-argument, I have never held the opinion
that we cannot *prove* anything. Rather the opinion I hold is that the totality
of the argument must be presented and then argued against. If you can
persuade the list that your reconstruction makes sense, then you prevail for the
day. If someone brings up a new argument, that the list thinks has higher merit
or which calls into question earlier research, then so be it. That is the
nature of the type of genealogy that we do.

Unforunately, the nature of the hardcover-publications of the DAR, just like
Burke's means we will have to revisit these same spurious lines over and over
and over and over probably for a hundred years or more. Each person who newly
*finds* their line will claim that its a *proven* line because it's in the
DAR lineage books. However proof is such an elusive creature she sometimes
flits just a step beyond our grasp.

Will Johnson

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 06 apr 2006 23:28:54

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

Unforunately, the nature of the hardcover-publications of the DAR, just like
Burke's means we will have to revisit these same spurious lines over and over
and over and over probably for a hundred years or more. Each person who newly
*finds* their line will claim that its a *proven* line because it's in the
DAR lineage books. However proof is such an elusive creature she sometimes
flits just a step beyond our grasp.

Just an aside for those interested, when the DAR produced their reissue
of their Patriot Index a few years back, they (supposedly) went back
through the 100 years of lineage papers and reevaluated all submitted
evidence for each soldier, striking from the volumes any ancestor who
could not have been traced to using modern standards (resulting in the
purging of two of mine - one which traced to a documented soldier, but
via a line that was missing a generation as was documented in 1915 with
nothing more than a personal testimonial, the other tracing to a
'soldier' who was 4 years old when an individual of his name first
appears on the militia rolls 100 miles away). If a soldier appears in
the Lineage Books, and not in the Patriot Index, then the conclusion is
obvious (although this does not mean that if he does appear in the PI,
that the line in the Lineage Books is valid).

The Mayflower Society has also made significant improvement in recent
decades - they used to allow membership based on documenting only back
to another member or any individual appearing in the lineage papers of
another member (ignoring whether that prior member's lineage was valid
or not) but now require every generation to be documented. (Further,
with the MFFG project, and particularly the latter generations, they
have made a major step toward documenting all known-valid lines down to
the time of the American Revolution.)

Still, the system is not foolproof. I once exchanged email with someone
who had put together a lineage, tracing through a family I had worked
on. He had not one but two cases of picking the wrong person of the
given name. No one other than I had ever dug into the issue to the
degree that the problem became evident - there being, I found, six men
of the same name about at the same time in the same town, all to a
greater or lesser degree conflated into each other. I told him that he
had selected the wrong one (and that the right one did not share the
descent), and documented it fully with probate and land records. He
simply told me that they (the Mayflower Society) wouldn't know any
better, so he was going to give it a try anyhow and hopefully they
wouldn't know the difference. Note that this is not a case of differing
standards. No representative of the Society could possibly have seen
the flaw in his papers without repeating my decades-worth of research.
Just because a lineage is accepted by a society doesn't mean it meets
their own standards - it may just slip through, innocently or fraudulently.

taf

Gjest

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 23:32:02

In a message dated 4/6/06 11:52:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< By my standards, the use in that 1674 deed of the term "sonne in law"
is ironclad proof? Why? Because there is absolutely no evidence that
Skipwith's use of that term meant anything else but "husband of my
natural daughter." >>

And there is no evidence that... it did. To use your phrase "absolutely no
evidence". What we have is an assumption that that is what he meant. That is
hardly ironclad, this iron appears to be lead.

It now seems like you've shifted, in the light of overwhelming evidence
against your position, to the position, that even if "son-in-law" could have more
than one meaning, it didn't in *this* case.

OK that is your opinion. Others have a more open-minded view of what it may
have meant. Building the argument one piece at a time is a logical approach.
Focusing on one particular piece to the exclusion of the entire rest of the
argument, is, in my opinion, illogical.

Summarizing your argument, including this piece, and *other pieces as well*,
would be more conducive to establishing the situation. Harping on one piece
isn't doing the trick.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 23:45:03

In a message dated 4/6/06 1:51:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
battle@u.washington.edu writes:

<< What you are trying to assert is that Diana would call the husband of her
biological daughter a son-in-law (which no one argues with) but that she
would never refer to the husband of her stepdaughter as such. In other
words, you are suggesting that there is a necessary element of
blood-kinship involved in this particular "in-law" relationship, or at
least that the "in-law" relationship in general admits of one and only one
non-biological (or "by law") remove. >>

You know this actually raises an interesting point for me.
Let us hypothecize for a moment, that no one ever called a step-son-in-law by
the name "son-in-law".
Now, is there actual evidence for the use of a term like "Step
Son-in-law" ? I would argue that, in the absence of any evidence for the use of a term
like this, that that would, be exclusion, enforce the idea that this person
would be called simply a "son-in-law".
My argument is, that this person was called *something*, if there is no
evidence for anyone using a term like "step son-in-law" then by default, they
were called a "son-in-law".
Of couse there is always the even more simplified view, that there were
called "kin", "cousin", or "friend".

Will Johnson

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 23:50:03

Dear Michael,
You commented earlier on that Jrff Chipman was the same
person who was insistant that Walter Blount II had more than one wife. I
replied that He was the one who was insistant that there were three Walter
Griffiths rather than two, He held that the first married Joan Neville, whose son, the
second Walter Griffith married Agnes, a daughter of Robert Constable of
Flamborough, and had a third Walter Griffith. In fact however the first two Walter
Griffiths were the same man. Hopefully this puts it into context.
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine

Renia

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Renia » 06 apr 2006 23:50:39

JeffChipman wrote:

I have probably asked for some 17th century VA documents a good
20 times, and none of you are brave enough to offer anything. And I'm
going to make sure that the readers of these threads know that. I'm
going to start a new thread entitled "They have no evidence."

So, you still haven't seen it? It's been posted 3 times already and I've
told you about it even more times than that.

JeffChipman

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 07 apr 2006 00:19:01

I want it posted to this thread so I can find it without wading through
a hundred posts. Got it?

I am asking that nobody email my inbox. I received a post from Clark
which says that relevant material has been posted at least four times.
I want to see it here assembled in one place. That shouldn't be too
difficult. I do not want to see English wills or wills made in other
colonies. I want to see 17th century VA documents. In the future, if
you email me privately without being asked to, I will block your email
address and not respond, and depending on what it says, notify the
relevant authorities. I am not going to put up with some jerk emailing
me and abusing me.

I'll try to look and find the stuff, but if it's what I think it is,
it's unacceptable.

I think Nat and his friends are conveneintly leaving out a fact: there
has been tremendous losses of records in VA for various reasons. I
would venture to say that in many cases the records do not exist to do
what Nat wants. And as long as I've heard from some UK denizens,
they've had significant losses of parish registers and other materials,
too.

JTC

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 07 apr 2006 00:21:31

JeffChipman wrote:
As for the stastistics
crack , we have nothing even approaching a stastistical sample. There
is no 17th century evidence to consider.

And yet you have drawn an iron-clad conclusion that son-in-law always
means X, unless we can prove it means Y - without anything "even
approaching a statistical sample", with "no 17th century evidece to
consider". To call this a difference of standards of evidence is like
suggesting that starvation is just a difference of opinion over how
overweight someone is.

Todd, blow it out your a$s. You haven't read it
either, so you're just talking through your hat.

The critical point, which you keep distracting people from, is that you
are using your misperception of the usage of the term "son-in-law" as
the only basis for drawing your conclusion of what it 'must' mean. I am
not. You are drawing conclusions without evidence when the evidence is
right there to be seen, but you won't look. You are demanding
references from everyone else, but you can't be bothered to track down a
reference you already have. The article is not fundamental to my
argument, which is that you are drawing a conclusion based on your own
ignorance of the usage - your failure to read the article directly
supports my position, while whether I have read it or not is of no
relevance to my conclusion that you are not showing due diligence.

The blurbs I've read
on it indicate it's a study of Middlesex Co., VA.

Your point being . . . . ? I smell goalposts narrowing as we speak.


I have probably asked for some 17th century VA documents a good
20 times, and none of you are brave enough to offer anything. And I'm
going to make sure that the readers of these threads know that.

Yes, make sure that the readers know that YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE FOR YOUR
CONCLUSION. That is what you are saying, right? No one has given you
any, and you can't be troubled to read the article THAT YOU ALREADY KNOW
ABOUT that specifically addresses the question. You don't let that stop
you, though - you are more than willing to draw a conclusion in spite of
this admitted ignorance, and then pretend that it is everyone else's
responsibility. Make sure you point that out repeatedly, in case they
miss your admission to having no basis for your conclusion other than
21st century American usage.

I'm
going to start a new thread entitled "They have no evidence."

Of course you are - after all, you have been complaining how fragmented
all of the new threads you already have started have made the
discussion, so why not - that way you could pretend not to have seen
even more evidence.


One
person says statistics are useless, while another says I haven't read a
book fast enough to suit him. Have a nice day.

Actually it was the same person: me, only, as usual, you have
dishonestly recast the comments to suit your ends. Statistics are
useless proving a specific relationship. They are - they show patterns,
trends. They show likelihoods, probabilities. They do not indicate
what is happening in a specific instance. They cannot prove anything.
That characterization is just a little deceptive, compared to the other.
As to reading a book fast enough - speed is not the issue. It is not
that you haven't read it that is your failing. Your failing is that you
demand references of others when you can't be troubled to read the ones
you already have. Your failing is that you are willing to draw
conclusions based on nothing but your own ignorance when the means for
your enlightenment is in your own hands. Ignorance is an unfortunate
but correctable condition. Willful ignorance, though, is a different
animal all together. It is your refusal to take ready advantage of the
opportunity to educate yourself _before_ insulting others for their
experienced opinions (with which you happen to disagree) that is your
biggest failing here and my complaint.

taf

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 07 apr 2006 00:30:16

JeffChipman wrote:
I want it posted to this thread so I can find it without wading through
a hundred posts. Got it?

Given that you were the one that started the threads, don't you think it
is a little unreasonable to now require everyone else to repost their
responses in this latest new thread because you can't be troubled to
read the others? due diligence rears its ugly head again (or is the
goal to stay one step ahead of the tax-collector, so to speak).

taf

Gjest

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 00:34:02

In a message dated 4/6/06 2:50:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< There
is nothing in the notice to imply that Diana Skipwith was Dale's only
wife or the mother of Thomas Carter's wife; all that it really tells us
is that Dale was still fairly young when he married Diana Skipwith. >>


Actually it doesn't even tell us that. The epitaph doesn't say "in HIS early
years" but only "in early years". This phrase could mean something like
"some time ago" or "in the founding years of our town" or anything of that sort.

It doesn't necessarily mean the he was still fairly young when he married her.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 00:35:03

In a message dated 4/6/06 2:50:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< He is telling me that Katherine Dale's age at birth puts her too old to
have been Skipwith's daughter, and that the sociology of the period
points to a different assessment of Dale's epitaph, and that the
chronology is the more powerful argument. >>

Hopefully her age at birth was zero. What are you trying to say?
Will Johnson

JeffChipman

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 07 apr 2006 00:39:54

I don't think we're getting anywhere here. I searched the newsgroup
for relevant documents that I've been told were posted in relation to
this topic and I came up with 2 English wills and one from Rhode
Island. Richard Smyth says that you can't lump all English wills
together. I am not going to argue with Todd--he is telling me and the
newsgroup that his experience is the sole authority for his statements.
Those are his standards of evidence. If you want Todd to accept your
pedigree, then I guess that's what you'll have to do with Todd.

Nat says good genealogical standards demand that if a term could have a
possible meaning, then you have to produce evidence that the term had a
certain meaning. It is a fact that a great many VA records were lost
in the Civil War, through natural disaster and courthouse fires. Many
UK records were lost during the blitz. Many times the records needed
to perform that kind of analysis do not exist. I am not going to put
somebody through an exercise I regard as not sufficient to establish
reasonable doubt. I want to see evidence from 17th century VA. I made
that clear in another thread. Why? Because that's where my ancestor
lived.

I am not going to put up with threatening email to my private inbox.
If I receive anymore it will be reported to the appropriate law
enforcement agency. Then you'll gain some firsthand experience with
the American legal system. Understood?

JTC

Renia

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Renia » 07 apr 2006 00:40:31

JeffChipman wrote:
I want it posted to this thread so I can find it without wading through
a hundred posts. Got it?

I posted it on YOUR other designated thread. Got it?

Leo van de Pas

Re: Have you noticed?

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 07 apr 2006 00:41:02

I tried to send a private message to Andrew McClenahan and, as his e-mail
does not request a "spam remove", my message should have reached him.
However, it immediately was returned as undeliverable. Whoever (not Uriah
again?) sent the below message, does not have the courage of his
convictions, he just throws mud and then runs away.

----- Original Message -----
From: <Andrew_McClenahan@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 3:30 AM
Subject: Re: Have you noticed?


CED:

And just what does your diatribe contribute to the advancement of
medieval genealogy?

Reading Mr. Richardsons posts are not compulsory!

Andy

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

Dear James W. Cummings:

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


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

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

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


CED



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

Gjest

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 00:42:02

In a message dated 4/6/06 3:20:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< If they have, please re-post it here. I do not deny that "sonne in law"
has some archaic meanings. That could be true of more than a few words. All
I'm saying is that I don't think this "problem" constitutes "reasonable
doubt" to bounce a pedigree just because the term is used somewhere in the
evidence chain. >>


The use of the term "archaic" is anachronistic. The use of "son-in-law" to
mean other things was not archaic in 17th century Virginia, it was spot-on.

Second, this is not what is being used to "bounce a pedigree". Again you
fail to address the main points of the argument. Until you expand your view to
encompass the entire argument, you will continue to fail to see the point.

"Son-in-law" is not what "bounced the pedigree" in your terms. Rather it
was, the deed that called into question exactly when they married. The question
of the maternity of the girls then becomes a consequence of that.

Since the relationship of the mother or step-mother, to the son-in-law or
step-son-in-law is then called into question, then the next logical step is to
point out that "son-in-law" is ambiguous in this context.

Do you now see the entire chain of the argument? Maybe you could actually
address the underlying *cause* which is the deed in question. If you can
resolve that, then your argument is stronger. If you continue to ignore it, then
you are picking the evidence to support your argument, you are not "weighing all
the evidence" as you continue to ask others to do.

Will Johnson

Renia

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Renia » 07 apr 2006 00:45:28

JeffChipman wrote:
I want it posted to this thread so I can find it without wading through
a hundred posts. Got it?

HERE IT IS (AGAIN):

Renia wrote:

JeffChipman wrote:

The Maternity of Eliazabeth Dale, Pt. 2


I am constructing this thread because this discussion has spilled over
into many threads; people are telling me they have posted material
I'm having difficulty locating, etc.


As you have specified this thread, I hope others don't mind me placing
this here. It is a post from Clark from the "son-in-law" thread:


Storm wrote:

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.*

Renia

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Renia » 07 apr 2006 00:47:24

JeffChipman wrote:

I want it posted to this thread so I can find it without wading through
a hundred posts. Got it?


And here is this, again:

JeffChipman wrote:

The Maternity of Eliazabeth Dale, Pt. 2


I am constructing this thread because this discussion has spilled over
into many threads; people are telling me they have posted material
I'm having difficulty locating, etc.


Again, as you have specified this thread, I will re-post something I
posted in the "son-in-law" thread:

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

You may say "oh, but this is Victorian England" not 17th century
Virginia". It is only in modern times that "son-in-law" means the
"husband of my daughter". It's an example of the dynamic English
language. For centuries before that, it had the various meanings we have
been discussing.

17th century Virginia was an English colony, so it mainly followed
English law. Anything pertaining to England, pertained to the English
colonies in America. And anything which pertained to one colony (or
state), pertained to the others. That is not to allow for cultural and
religious differences which emerged between states.

The term "son in law", was a legal term, meaning "son", regardless of
how the fellow came to be a "son": biologically; through adoption,
marriage, whatever.

Douglas Richardson

Re: Wells -Tuttle connection

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 07 apr 2006 01:23:53

I'm glad to know the book I recommended to you has been so helpful.

I will repeat my earlier statement: The Tuttle family of Ringstead,
Northamptonshire and New England has nothing whatsoever to do with the
Tuttle or Southcott families of Devonshire.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry. net

CED

Re: Wells -Tuttle connection

Legg inn av CED » 07 apr 2006 01:26:03

"W David Samuelsen" wrote:
DR,

This demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt your appalling ignorance. You
still haven't figured out that I am in the FHL daily.

Why should I buy that book when I can retrieve it without buying?

Dear David Samuelsen:

Have you considered the possibilty that Richardson is not so much
interested in your buying the book as he is in currying favor at the
publisher in order to get his next book published by GPC? Your
interest in Tuthills gave him an opportunity to plug a book and curry
favor - two birds, etc.

This is not the first time Richardson has indulged in around-the-corner
pluggery since he was called up on blatant pluggery as being contrary
woth proper netiquette.

The real question begging for an answer is: why would Richardson seek
to curry favor with a publisher, the publisher that has already
published two works on which Riochardson's name appears?

Methinks there is much to learn in odd places around SLC.

CED

David Samuelsen

I suggest that parties interested in the English origins of the
American Tuttle family consult the authoritative work, Hale, House, &
Related Families (1952), written by the dean of American genealogy,
Donald Lines Jacobus, especially pages 771-775. Mr. Jacobus traces the
ancestry of the Tuttle family back several generations into
Northamptonshire in England.

This book is now available for purchase in paperback as indicated
below:

http://www.genealogical.com/products/Ha ... /2990.html

I hasten to add that the Tuttle family of Northamptonshire and New
England had no connection whatsover with the either the Tuttle or the
Southcott families of Devonshire.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry.net


W David Samuelsen wrote:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1144333410

Not the evidence but the claims. I did observe that there were some
saying "Lyncoln Thomas Southcott"

DR is wigged as ever. There were plenty of Tuttle/Totell/Tootyhill in
Devonshire as well, and very few of them in Northamptonshire.

Don't know about the evidence but you can be assured I will make
inquires among those who have that claim as to the source.

Each claim should be checked out rather than dismissed out of hand willy
nilly like DR did.

David Samuelsen

______________________________

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 07 apr 2006 01:29:30

JeffChipman wrote:
I am not going to argue with Todd--he is telling me and the
newsgroup that his experience is the sole authority for his statements.
Those are his standards of evidence.

I see you have abandonned all effort at truthfulness. I guess it does
make it a lot easier to attack people if you have no moral qualms about
failing to maintain the slightest association with reality in such attacks.

Or is the problem with reading comprehension?


I mentioned experience once, and once only, in my post:

"It is your refusal to take ready advantage of the opportunity to
educate yourself _before_ insulting others for their experienced
opinions (with which you happen to disagree) that is your biggest
failing here and my complaint."

Let me spell it out for you - I will try to use really short words,
where possible: that comment about the respect due experience says is
not about standards of evidence at all, but rather it is about standards
of _behavior_.

I don't even say you can't insult experienced people - just that you
have no grounds to do so _before_ you made the most basic effort to
address your situational ignorance (i.e. when you don't have a *&#^&$%&
clue.) Read the paper - if it supports your argument and shows them
wrong, that is the time, when you have some scholarly basis for your
opinion, to confront them.

taf

Gjest

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 01:37:02

In a message dated 4/6/06 4:20:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< I am not going to put up with some jerk emailing
me and abusing me. >>

Jeff perhaps you did not realize that, some email programs automatically send
a copy to your private email address as well as the list, and the soc.med etc.

This is like the fourth time you've complained about this as if people were
deliberately harrassing you. This is a function of some email program's

In fact, when I use AOL 5.0 for Windows NT it does it. When I use AOL 8.0
for Windows 98 it doesn't. Go figure!

So there is no need to publicly lambast people who do this, it is an error
you might say or a feature perhaps who knows.

Will Johnson

JeffChipman

Re: WHAT EVIDENCE DO THEY HAVE?

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 07 apr 2006 01:38:35

I found the six examples in the "Maternity of Elizabeth Dale revisited"
thread. One is from Plymouth, MA, and one is from 1733 VA, but that's
OK with me. A source was cited which I'm familiar with, and I
appreciate that. In every one of these examples, the term "sonne in
law" DID NOT mean "husband of my step-daughter." Why did you think
that this evidence was relevant to what we're discussing? Daniel
Harrison was not Diana Dale's step-son.

I will say for the 100th time, I am not disputing that this term could
mean different things. However, from the evidence I have seen thus
far, it appears that my contention that the use of the term "sonne in
law" was not very common is holding up.

I was familiar with the term meaning "step-son," so I really didn't
have to be shown anything to support that, but at least here is some
concrete evidence of something.

I go by the "proved beyond a reasonable doubt" philosophy. If you
don't like that, use any standard you want. Diana Skipwith, even
though Edward Dale gave Katherine Carter eveything and Elizabeth Rogers
a shilling, never called Katherine's husband Thomas Carter anything.
To me, that seals it. That, coupled with the chronology, proves to me
by my standards, that Elizabeth Dale was the daughter of Diana
Skipwith, and that Mary Dale was as well, although I wonder that Dale
didn't mention this Jones grandson in his will, and there are no
records of any gifts made to him.

If there are any examples like those above, which actually use the term
to mean "husband of my step-daughter," I'd like to see them.

JTC

CED

Re: Wells -Tuttle connection

Legg inn av CED » 07 apr 2006 01:40:55

Douglas Richardson wrote:
I'm glad to know the book I recommended to you has been so helpful.

I will repeat my earlier statement: The Tuttle family of Ringstead,
Northamptonshire and New England has nothing whatsoever to do with the
Tuttle or Southcott families of Devonshire.


To the Newsgroup:

I have no opinion as to whether these Tuthills are connection (though
there is reason as matter of personal interest); however, Richardson is
not justified in his statement which, in effect, says there is no
connection because he is the absolute authority on the matter.

If he could explain his reasoning and cite some authority (more than
just giving pages in a book which he notes is for sale), it would be
more appropriate. He is the one who contends that this newsgroup is
for "making friends." Richardson's attitude toward Samuelsen in
previous posts has been (to say the least) condescending. These later
posts could be interpreted as unfriendly.

CED


Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry. net

Storm

RE: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Storm » 07 apr 2006 01:41:02

(This message was mistakenly sent to Jeff privately, but feel free to block
my e-mail address Mr Chipman.)

Jeff has written:

I have probably asked for some 17th century VA documents a good
20 times, and none of you are brave enough to offer anything. And I'm
going to make sure that the readers of these threads know that. I'm
going to start a new thread entitled "They have no evidence." "Most
genealogists" do a lot of things, like eating, sleeping. etc. One
person says statistics are useless, while another says I haven't read a
book fast enough to suit him. Have a nice day.

Jeff,

You continue to make a fool of yourself, please read a message or two
before spouting off any further. 17th Century VA documents have been posted
at least four times. Virtually anything from the same period in England or
in an English colony is of the same value. Read a post for a change, before
saying how brave no one is to offer anything. Obviously, you are not brave
enough to read read any other postings or not brave enough to acknowledge
that you have read them.

For the sake of sanity, let's all ignore him. Possibly, he'll go away? The
archive
can speak for itself for anyone in the future that has questions about this
Dale family.

Regards,

Clark

This is the fourth time the following has been posted:

Storm wrote:

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.*


-----Original Message-----
From: JeffChipman [mailto:jeffchip9@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 6:19 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Standards of Evidence


I want it posted to this thread so I can find it without wading through
a hundred posts. Got it?

I am asking that nobody email my inbox. I received a post from Clark
which says that relevant material has been posted at least four times.
I want to see it here assembled in one place. That shouldn't be too
difficult. I do not want to see English wills or wills made in other
colonies. I want to see 17th century VA documents. In the future, if
you email me privately without being asked to, I will block your email
address and not respond, and depending on what it says, notify the
relevant authorities. I am not going to put up with some jerk emailing
me and abusing me.

I'll try to look and find the stuff, but if it's what I think it is,
it's unacceptable.

I think Nat and his friends are conveneintly leaving out a fact: there
has been tremendous losses of records in VA for various reasons. I
would venture to say that in many cases the records do not exist to do
what Nat wants. And as long as I've heard from some UK denizens,
they've had significant losses of parish registers and other materials,
too.

JTC

--
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

--
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

Gjest

Re: WHAT EVIDENCE DO THEY HAVE?

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 01:48:06

Then write this up as an article and submit it to a refereed journal
and see what they say. If TAG, The Genealogist, or the Virginia
Genealogist publishes the article, you're vindicated. If not, then
perhaps your level of standards is not up to a level that others have.
I've always maintained that anyone can put anything on their
genealogical charts in private. However, if you post something on the
Internet, which is a form of publishing, you need to be prepared to
back it up. If you privately think you've proven this line, then keep
it private. If you make it public, then you need to acknowledge that
there is a standard for genealogical proof. You may still have to
assign a "probable" or "possible" with your assertations.

Martin

JeffChipman wrote:
I go by the "proved beyond a reasonable doubt" philosophy. If you
don't like that, use any standard you want. Diana Skipwith, even
though Edward Dale gave Katherine Carter eveything and Elizabeth Rogers
a shilling, never called Katherine's husband Thomas Carter anything.
To me, that seals it. That, coupled with the chronology, proves to me
by my standards, that Elizabeth Dale was the daughter of Diana
Skipwith, and that Mary Dale was as well, although I wonder that Dale
didn't mention this Jones grandson in his will, and there are no
records of any gifts made to him.

If there are any examples like those above, which actually use the term
to mean "husband of my step-daughter," I'd like to see them.

JTC

CED

Re: Have you noticed?

Legg inn av CED » 07 apr 2006 01:51:17

Andrew_McClenahan@yahoo.com wrote:
CED:

And just what does your diatribe contribute to the advancement of
medieval genealogy?

Reading Mr. Richardsons posts are not compulsory!

To the Newsgroup:

If Mr. McClenahan were to read both Richardson's posts and my posts
beginning with 18 July 2005, he would not be so badly informed as to
why I am committed to keeping Richardson honest. Some participants in
this newsgroup do not care to challenge Richardson, even when they know
that he is wrong; others do not challenge because they do not know how;
I have challenged and have made a difference. If you want to know the
differences, I can detail them in a mutipart post.

If McClenahan were to go back even further than 18 July 2005, he would
discover the reason for trying to keep Richardson honest.

CED
Andy

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

Dear James W. Cummings:

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


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

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

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


CED



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

Gjest

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 02:02:02

In a message dated 4/6/06 4:51:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< Nat says good genealogical standards demand that if a term could have a
possible meaning, then you have to produce evidence that the term had a
certain meaning. >>


No, he, like others, is stating rather that if a term *could* have a certain
meaning than you cannot ignore *that* it could. Your *iron-clad proof* is not
iron-clad proof, its an iron-clad assumption.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 02:04:02

In a message dated 4/6/2006 5:50:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

"Diana Skipwith did not "chose" to sign her maiden name in 1655. At
that time, a married woman would never chose to sign her maiden name
unless she was consenting to the sale of property that she had
inherited, in which case she had the option (but not the requirement)
of signing both her married and maiden names seperated by the word
"alias," e.g. "Diana Dale alias Skipwith."



The above is an interesting comment but he is overlooking something he
mentioned in a discussion on SGM at the time. If Edward Dale had a vested interest
in the property this would not be the case. Many times this was done in
legal matters where the wife would witness a transaction her husband had an
interest in but as Edward Dale was Clerk of The Court I can't believe he would be
able to get around this. Also if the deeds were fraudulent or involved
something illegal she would not have used her married name. I am not fully
competent to speak on 17th century Virginia real estate law and perhaps someone would
like to take this point further.

In regards to Mary Dale's son Humphrey Jones:

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.

Middlesex County, Virginia Order Book 2 page 701:

3 Sep 1693 Joseph Harrison guardian of Humphrey Jones, the son of Humphrey
Jones Deced.

Middlesex County, Virginia deed Book 2 page 710:
Joseph Harrison, Gawin Corbin and Thomas Lane, Gent. bound unto Sir William
Skipwith, Matthew Kemp, Wm. Churchill, Wilm. Daniel, Robt. Duddley & Jno.
Smith gent. Justices of the Peace, £500 sterling. The condition of this
obligation is such that whereas the said justices of the peace hath granted unto
Joseph Harrison guardianship of all the estate belonging to Humphry Jones Orphant
(son of Humphry Jones late of this County deced) by order of the Court dated
3d day of September 1694.

A will did not always name all the descendant's as heirs. As Mary Dale was
deceased before Oct. 16, 1684.She was still alive on March 11, 1682/3 when
Humphrey Jones was born. Humphrey Jones was under the guardianship of Joseph
Harrison who did not die until after Dec. 23, 1699, and Edward Dale may have
provided for him outside his will. Edward Dale does not name his Rogers
grandchildren in his will either.

Best regards,
MichaelAnne

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: WHAT EVIDENCE DO THEY HAVE?

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 07 apr 2006 02:04:10

JeffChipman wrote:
I found the six examples in the "Maternity of Elizabeth Dale revisited"
thread. One is from Plymouth, MA, and one is from 1733 VA, but that's
OK with me. A source was cited which I'm familiar with, and I
appreciate that. In every one of these examples, the term "sonne in
law" DID NOT mean "husband of my step-daughter." Why did you think
that this evidence was relevant to what we're discussing? Daniel
Harrison was not Diana Dale's step-son.

I will say for the 100th time, I am not disputing that this term could
mean different things. However, from the evidence I have seen thus
far, it appears that my contention that the use of the term "sonne in
law" was not very common is holding up.

Based on what? Six examples, that show the term had numerous meanings?
That would sure prove to me that it only means what I want it to is a
particular case.

You are now entering 'have your cake and eat it too' territory. You
have already argued that the lack of vital records means that precise
relationships cannot be determined without such relational statements.
Now you are demanding that others prove that these relational statements
mean something that would require just such an independent
reconstruction as you claim is impossible due to the lack of records. By
this weird double standard, the lack of records mean you can read
whatever you want into them, and whatever you conclude must be right
because the same lack of records elimiates any possibility of disproof.
Nifty system.

I was familiar with the term meaning "step-son," so I really didn't
have to be shown anything to support that, but at least here is some
concrete evidence of something.

I go by the "proved beyond a reasonable doubt" philosophy.

No, from your own description, you go by the "until others prove it
false beyond a reasonable doubt" philosophy, which is an entirely
different standard.

taf

Gjest

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 02:06:02

In a message dated 4/6/06 4:51:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< I am not going to put up with threatening email to my private inbox. If I
receive anymore it will be reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency.
Then you'll gain some firsthand experience with the American legal system.
Understood? >>

Your blustering has reached a point at which it's entirely possible your head
just might explode. I for one, would consider that a shame.
What sort of *threats* have you been receiving? Remembering that US
courts use a standard of "reasonableness".

Will Johnson

CED

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

Legg inn av CED » 07 apr 2006 02:09:09

Douglas Richardson wrote:
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.

To the Newsgroup:

Richardson could possibly be correct; but we have no way of knowing
whether what he says is so. He has given no evidence to support his
statement. Richardson is not a recognized authority in any scholarly
field; and almost certainly he is not an authority on English usage in
the colonial period.

If there is a study of English usage which deals with the use of "now
wife," that study should be brought to the attention of the Newsgroup.
Even a few examples could be helpful, even though they would be only
anecdotal evidence.

In any event, Richardson has no authority to make a statement and make
it fact because he says so.

CED


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

Gjest

Re: WHAT EVIDENCE DO THEY HAVE?

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 02:10:02

In a message dated 4/6/06 5:05:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< I have been able to
locate 3 items: one from Rhode Island, and two from the UK, plus a 1900
Maine census return. Is there or is there not evidence from 17th
century Virginia >>

Just to close this new thread quickly. I have emailed Jeff privately (yes
privately!!!) the examples of *Virginia* documents that had been posted
previously.

Since he evidently is having trouble seeing them in the threads.

Will Johnson

W David Samuelsen

Re: Wells -Tuttle connection

Legg inn av W David Samuelsen » 07 apr 2006 02:12:02

DR,

This demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt your appalling ignorance. You
still haven't figured out that I am in the FHL daily.

Why should I buy that book when I can retrieve it without buying?

David Samuelsen

I suggest that parties interested in the English origins of the
American Tuttle family consult the authoritative work, Hale, House, &
Related Families (1952), written by the dean of American genealogy,
Donald Lines Jacobus, especially pages 771-775. Mr. Jacobus traces the
ancestry of the Tuttle family back several generations into
Northamptonshire in England.

This book is now available for purchase in paperback as indicated
below:

http://www.genealogical.com/products/Ha ... /2990.html

I hasten to add that the Tuttle family of Northamptonshire and New
England had no connection whatsover with the either the Tuttle or the
Southcott families of Devonshire.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry.net


W David Samuelsen wrote:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1144333410

Not the evidence but the claims. I did observe that there were some
saying "Lyncoln Thomas Southcott"

DR is wigged as ever. There were plenty of Tuttle/Totell/Tootyhill in
Devonshire as well, and very few of them in Northamptonshire.

Don't know about the evidence but you can be assured I will make
inquires among those who have that claim as to the source.

Each claim should be checked out rather than dismissed out of hand willy
nilly like DR did.

David Samuelsen

______________________________

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 02:30:02

Dear Michael,
I apologize to you and the group for misconstruing
the meaning of your post both times and any others.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

MLS

RE: Helena de Courtenay and Capone-Nemagna-Paleologo genealo

Legg inn av MLS » 07 apr 2006 02:34:02

Thanking a lot any friends for his help about the possibly
identification Elena queen of Serbia;s parents, I’d like to post a link
where can find the genealogy I compiled about the descendants living in
exile in Italy from the XVI century of the King of "Old Serbia:, the
family Capone-Nemagna-Paleologo.
Link is http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/i ... Capone.JPG
Any thoughts and help will be welcomed
Thanks in advance
Marco


Sorry, the genealogy is in italian only..!

-----Original Message-----
From: MLS [mailto:cannalonga@email.it]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 3:33 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Helena de Courtenay


Dear friends,
I'm trying to check if the Helena or Jelena, wife of King Stefan Uros I
of Serbia (+1280) could be a daughter of King Baldwin of Courtenay,
emperor of Constantinople and Marie of Brienne, as stated on the Euweb
site on this link (http://genealogy.euweb.cz/capet/capet7.html#R1C):

B6. [2m.] Baldwin de Courtenay, Emperor of Constantinople (1237-61)
=Baldwin II, *Constantinople 1218, +Naples 1273, bur Barletta; m.Perugia
1229/1234 Marie de Brienne (+after 5.5.1275)
C1. Philippe I de Courtenay, titular Emperor of Constantinople, *there
1243, +Viterbo 1283; m.Foggia 1273 Beatrix of Naples (*ca 1252 +1275)

C2. [parentage not certain] Helene, +1314; m.ca 1250 King Stefan Uros I
of Serbia (+1280)

In the same site, on link
(http://genealogy.euweb.cz/balkan/balkan5.html) where can find the
genealogy of Nemagna Capone Paleologo di Serbia family, she is stated as
is:

C6. [3m.] Saint King Stepan Uros I "the Great" of Raska (Serbia)
(1243-76) abdicated, +as the monk Simon 1280, bur Sopocani; m.ca 1250
Jelena (+as a nun at Skodra 1314), believed to be related to the Kings
of Naples

Maybe the phrase: "believed to be related to the king of Naples" could
refer to the fact that her (supposed) brother can be
Philippe I de Courtenay, titular Emperor of Constaninople, husband of
Beatrix of Naples, daughter of King of Naples Charles of Anjou...?

I know the work of van Kerrebrouck, "Les Capétiens", where on note at
pag. 468 wrote:

"Certains ont donné à tort comme troisième enfant au couple: Hélène,
épouse d'Etienne Urosch Ier, dit le Grand, roi de Serbie (1243-1276),
comme E. Léard 1954 p. 108 ou Isenburg Stammtafeln Eur. sT. II, 14. Un
lecteur de l'I.C.C., n.382, janvier 983, 73-75, rapelle ce que l'on
connait à ce sujet. Veuve depuis 1277, son mari étant vaincu et détroné
par leur fils Dragoutin, elle se retira au couvent de Saint-Nicholas de
Scutari, où elle mourut le 8-2-1314 et fut inhumée au couvent de Gradacz
à Ipek. Son biographe, l'éveque serbe Daniel (+ 1338), la disait issue
d'une lignée princière française (rhoda Phruska). Son fils cadet, le
futur roi Milutin, ayant vu le jour en 1253, on peut fixer la naissance
de son premier fils aux années 1250-1251. La naissance de celui-ci ayant
été "longuemente attendue", on peut admettre quatre ou cinq années
d'attente, fixant ainsi son mariage aux environs de l'année 1245. Elle
devrait etre nubile, sinon l'impatiente attente n'aurait pas été
justifiée. Elle-meme dut dont naitre vers 1230. Or, à l'établissemente
du contrat de mariage de Baudouin II de Courtenay (Imperatore latino e
padre presunto di Elena) et de Marie de Brienne, le 19-4-1229, celui-ci
n'avait que 12 ans, et Maria, tout au plus 4 ans."


What do you think about this matter?
Does anyone know if there are some more updated studies about the
genealogy of de Courtenay family, and particularly this Elena?

Thanks in advance
Marco




--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Credito: cerca il tuo credito in modo rapido e sicuro!
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?midE88&dd



--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Gioca e vinci con Wilkinson, in palio romantici week end per 2!
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?midI97&dt

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 07 apr 2006 03:10:48

In article <326.15536df.3166dd6c@aol.com>, ClaudiusI0@aol.com wrote:

Dear Michael,

Jeff is referring to an e-mail that I posted to the group yesterday as well
as sent him privately where I made the comment that if someone challenged a
lineage it was up to the person being challenged to defend the ancestry. I
was
simply trying to make him understand that because Charles Ward wrote the
article in the January 2000 issue of TAG it was up to those of us who contend
this
descent is accurate to refute Mr. Ward's data. We now have to definitely
prove
the maternity or show why Mr. Ward's evidence or analysis is faulty for it to
be taken seriously.

The simplest flaw in Ward's piece is his insistence that the use of the
maiden name has only one possible interpretation. This kind of
dogmatism, applied to a different document, is precisely what has
spawned this entire thread of threads.

The article cannot be circumvented by dividing the
daughters which is what he is trying to do as we do not have any exact
chronology for
Elizabeth and Mary Dale and there is no evidence to support the theory that
these three women were half-sisters. In fact the will of Edward Dale seems to
indicate that at Katherine was a real daughter as she was left to provide for
Diana Dale and Elizabeth Rogers was left only a small sum of money. It
doesn't
logically fit that a stepdaughter and her heirs would be left with everything
including care of her stepmother while a biological daughter would be left
very little and no responsibility for her mother's care. This point has
always
indicated to me that whatever the status of Katherine Dale she and Elizabeth
were definitely full sisters.

This seems like a good point to me. I think Ward deliberately focused
only on a single issue--the use of the maiden name, and the implication
for the parentage of the only daughter known to have been born before
that date--essentially as a rhetorical device. As I've said already, I
think the majority of these other points, taken together, do seem to
line up against Ward's dogmatic interpretation of the use of the maiden
name.

Nat Taylor

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

my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm

Leo van de Pas

Re: Have you noticed?

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 07 apr 2006 03:22:01

But McClenahan himself (if he exists) is not honest, accusing people from a
useless e-mail address making it impossible to contact him.


----- Original Message -----
From: "CED" <leesmyth@cox.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Have you noticed?


Andrew_McClenahan@yahoo.com wrote:
CED:

And just what does your diatribe contribute to the advancement of
medieval genealogy?

Reading Mr. Richardsons posts are not compulsory!

To the Newsgroup:

If Mr. McClenahan were to read both Richardson's posts and my posts
beginning with 18 July 2005, he would not be so badly informed as to
why I am committed to keeping Richardson honest. Some participants in
this newsgroup do not care to challenge Richardson, even when they know
that he is wrong; others do not challenge because they do not know how;
I have challenged and have made a difference. If you want to know the
differences, I can detail them in a mutipart post.

If McClenahan were to go back even further than 18 July 2005, he would
discover the reason for trying to keep Richardson honest.

CED

Andy

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

Dear James W. Cummings:

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


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

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

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


CED



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


Gjest

Re: Have you noticed?

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 03:29:02

Dear CED, Andrew and others,
I agree with Andrew that
reading any of Douglas Richardson`s posts (or anyone else`s for that matter) isn`t
compulsory. For many of Us, acknowledgement of our work (paid or unpaid) is
of crucial importance and I am fond of the idea myself, yet I think that
improving the quality of information is crucial if this study of our ancestries
is to deserve being taken seriously. Many consider Richardson a waste of time,
a charlatan, a fraud. Yet He is getting crucial attention for medieval
genealogy. This would mean a lot more if It came from an acknowleged expert in the
field, which anyone who has eyes knows I am not, but I believe the better our
combined works are, the better the whole shall be considered. But That is only
my personal view and I do not intend to spend a hundred odd posts beating the
idea to death. I like the idea of Will`s " rival" site to Richardson and hope
Douglas learns a lot from the posts on it as well as Everyone else. debate
can be healthy as long as it is friendly.
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale revisited

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 03:51:02

In a message dated 4/6/2006 4:15:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:

Dear Brad,

As no one has responded to this I will attempt to answer what I can of your
request for information.

Marriage Date of Diana Skipwith and Edward Dale: unknown

Birthdate of Katherine Dale: 1652 or 1653 ; stated to have died in her 51st
year on May 10, 1703 in the Carter Family Prayer Book.

Birthdate of Capt. Thomas Carter: unknown

Marriage Date of Katherine Dale and Thomas Carter: May 4, 1670

Birthdate of Mary Dale: before March 20, 1658/9 as she was named in Vincent
Stanford's will written on date above.

Birthdate of Daniel Harrison: before 1640 as he acted as attorney for
Susannah Merryman in 1661.

Marriage Date of Mary Dale and Daniel Harrison: probably before Sept. 14,
1670 when he was appointed Commissioner of the court. Edward Dale had his son
in law Thomas Carter made Deputy Clerk of the Court on March 8, 1670 before he
married Katherine Dale.

Birthdate of Humphrey Jones: the husband of Mary Dale is of unknown
Birthdate. Her son Humphrey Jones was born March 11, 1682/3 in Middlesex County,
Virginia

Marriage Date of Mary Dale and Humphrey Jones: between 1680 and March 11,
1682/3.

Birthdate of Elizabeth Dale: unknown

Birthdate of William Rogers: unknown

Marriage Date of Elizabeth Dale and William Rogers: unknown

Death Date of Diana Skipwith Dale: July 31, 1695

Death Date of Edward Dale: 20 February 1696, Lancaster County, Virginia

Date Sir Grey Skipwith Inherited the Baronetcy: after 1655, which is
when father Sir Henry Skipwith, 1st Baronet, died. But he was
succeeded by Grey's elder brother, another Sir Henry Skipwith, as 2nd
Baronet, so when did the younger Sir Henry die?
The 1st Baronet Henry Skipwith was buried Nov. 21, 1655 in Stapleford, Co.
Leicester. the 2nd Baronet Henry Skipwith died in 1657/8 on the Wynter
Plantation in Masulipatum, India. Please see Adrian Channing's wonderful posts about
this in the archives.



Betham's "Baronetage of England", Vol. 1 (1801), p. 273, mentions Diana
Skipwith and her sister Elizabeth, but does not name a husband for
either.
Nichols Antiquities of Leicestershire Part 3 part I, sub Prestwould page 356
contains transcriptions of the earliest registers of Prestwould.

Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Henry Skipwith, knt. born Oct. 6, baptized Oct.
24, 1617.
Diana, daughter of Sir Henry Skipwith, knt. born May 27, baptized June 13,
1621



Related questions:

Did sister Elizabeth Skipwith marry and/or also emigrate to Virginia? unknown

Who took possession of Prestwold, the family's Leicestershire seat,
since, per Betham, the 2nd Baronet died unmarried and Sir Grey remained
in Virginia? Were there lawsuits and/or correspondence between whoever
took possession of the English estates and the Skipwith family in
Virginia? If so, perhaps the children and descendants of the Skipwith
sisters (including Diana Dale) are mentioned and/or traced?
This estate passed to Sir Christopher Packe and remained in his family.
Contrary to older postings there was a tax due of £1114 on this estate in 1653
but Prestwould had been mortgaged to the hilt by Sir Henry Skipwith to aid in
the support of his 2nd wife [ Blandina Penwin Acton] and his stepchildren:

From A2A
Reference: DE1431/83
Assignment of lease
Creation dates: 4 March 1650/1
Scope and Content
(i) Sir Henry Skipwith of Cotes, baronet, Sir John Pate of Sysonby, baronet

(ii) Christopher Packe of London, citizen & alderman

Impropriate rectory of Prestwold, with all appurtenances, formerly let by
Sir Henry to Sir John in 1642.

Term: remainder of term of 60 years.

Rent: peppercorn.

Consideration: a certain sum of money.

Signature and seal of (ii)

Nichols _ History and Antiquities of Leicestershire_ Vol. 3, Part I, page
354:

"March 2, 1649-50. Whereas the portions of Anne, Martha and Edward, the
children or orphans of John Acton, deceased, amounting to the sum of £3750 18s. 1
and 1/2d. were secured to this court by Sir Henry Skipwith, knt. and baronet
who married with Blandina the wife of the said John Acton, deceased by a
lease of the manor of Prestwould in the county of Leicester, for the term of
Fourscore and nineteen years [99 years], and upon a statute of £5000; which
statute is by order of this court extended, and divers lands are thereupon seised
and delivered to Isaac Pennington and Sir John Woolaston, knt. alderman of
London, and Thomas Adams, esq. the surviving trustees to whom the said lease
and statute were taken; And whereas, for the obtaining the said portions, by
order of this court, the said trustees have assigned the said lease unto
Christopher Packe, sheriff and one of the aldermen of this city; It is thought fit,
and so ordered by this court, that the said trustees shall assign the said
extent and lands, extended and seised as aforesaid upon the said statute, to
Thomas Cutler, citizen and cloth-worker of London, and his assigns, as a
person nominated and appointed, and put in trust by the said Christopher Packe;
and that the Chamberlain of London do deliver unto the said Christopher Packe
the aforesaid lease for 99 years, and all other writings in the Chamber of
London touching the same lease and statute.

After a variety of fines and sequestrations, the estate of Sir Henry
Skipwith appears to have been considerably impaired; and, on his second marriage, he
had secured to the lord mayor and citizens of London, as guardians for the
children of his wife by a former husband, a long lease of his property at
Prestwould, as appears, from the above authentic document.

I hope this helps a little.

Best wishes,
MichaelAnne

Leo van de Pas

Re: Have you noticed?

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 07 apr 2006 03:59:01

Dear James,

Some posters deserve (?) more attention than others. If we compare
contributors with newspapers, some are sensationalist papers, some are
politically inspired and then there are some to be compared with solid
papers like The Times.

Richardson has been posing himself as The Times, all knowing, having all
genealogical tools at his fingertips, always correct, always collegial,
always friendly, always beyond reproach.
If you put yourself on such a pedestal, you are scrutinised and, I fear,
Richardson does not stand the test.

If all people would say, you don't have to read his messages; those who do
and do not know better will accept whatever he says as correct. And as a
result both wrong information and wrong methodology are being spread around
into other people's information. How long has the fraudulent story about
Anneke Jans and the descent from Mohammed been around? A long time and they
keep on being re-hashed. Isn't it better to nip errors in the butt?
Prevention is so much better than cure.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia



----- Original Message -----
From: <Jwc1870@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: Have you noticed?


Dear CED, Andrew and others,
I agree with Andrew that
reading any of Douglas Richardson`s posts (or anyone else`s for that
matter) isn`t
compulsory. For many of Us, acknowledgement of our work (paid or unpaid)
is
of crucial importance and I am fond of the idea myself, yet I think that
improving the quality of information is crucial if this study of our
ancestries
is to deserve being taken seriously. Many consider Richardson a waste of
time,
a charlatan, a fraud. Yet He is getting crucial attention for medieval
genealogy. This would mean a lot more if It came from an acknowleged
expert in the
field, which anyone who has eyes knows I am not, but I believe the better
our
combined works are, the better the whole shall be considered. But That is
only
my personal view and I do not intend to spend a hundred odd posts beating
the
idea to death. I like the idea of Will`s " rival" site to Richardson and
hope
Douglas learns a lot from the posts on it as well as Everyone else. debate
can be healthy as long as it is friendly.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



Bob Turcott

: King William the Conqueror's arms

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 07 apr 2006 05:15:03

From: mjcar@btinternet.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: King's Kinsfolk: King William the Conqueror's kinsman, King
Edward the Confessor
Date: 30 Mar 2006 12:05:22 -0800


mjcar@btinternet.com schrieb:

"Bob Turcott" wrote:

Give me a source as to why you would think anything found on william
the
conquer coats of arms would be unreliable on this royal subject.
can you back this up?

Try any basic text on the history of heraldry - e.g. Fox-Davis.

Eek: or "Fox-Davies", even.

Better still, Woodcock [now Norroy & Ulster King of Arms] and Robinson
have this to say in "The Oxford Guide to Heraldry", Oxford University
Press, 1990 edition, p 198, under the heading "The Royal Arms of Great
Britain":

"The arms of the kingdom of England, gules three lions passant guardant
or, are the most ancient [of the arms of the three Kingdoms that make
up Great Britain], and date back to the reign of King Richard I in the
late twelfth century... He was the first English king to use the three
lions, though from the time of Matthew Paris in the thirteenth century
these arms were 'backdated' and sometimes attributed to all the English
Kings from William the Conqueror onwards. It seems likely that the use
of arms by the Kings of England goes back to further than Henry II, the
father of Richard I."

Michael Andrews-Reading

how about this one MJ

There are several sources that have identified inheritable symbols being
used as far back as the 9th century. It is now fairly well acknowledged that
heraldry as we know it was an advent that stemmed from the latter days of
the reign of Charlemagne and had its roots in Flanders. There is evidence of
it in the Bayeux Tapestry in the gonfannons, standards and pennons that
identify specific individuals. Eustace, Count of Bologne was represented by
his eldest son (Eustace II) who bore the device of the Counts of Bologne (Or
three Torteaux) and the Papal Banner borne by one of William's ensigns shows
Argent a Jerusalem Cross - the original arms of the later Kings of
Jerusalem, the first two of whom (Godfrey and Baldwin)were the sons of
Eustace Ii of Bologne.
The acknowledgement of heraldry earlier than 1066 is made mention in The
Oxford Guide to Heraldry (Woodcock & Robinson 1988) based on the hypothesis
published by Beryl Platts in her 1980 book 'Origins of Heraldry'.

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

Gjest

Re: Have you noticed?

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 05:16:02

Dear Leo,
Agreed, which is precisely why You should never put
Richardson in your kill-file. We can never hope to un-make him, so the best recourse is
to make him better, unpalatable though that may be. Then again, one can lead
a horse, et cetera to water but You can`t make them drink.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale revisited

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 05:17:02

In a message dated 4/6/06 1:15:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:

<< For those interested in this family, exactly how Lady
Jane refers to Diana in her will may prove illuminating. If she refers
to her as "my step-granddaughter", I will personally reimburse the cost
of obtaining a copy of the will. >>


The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography published the will (page 433)
It only says "... to Diana Skipwith L10, etc. ...." within a list of other
bequests.


http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8& ... dXATlaBwC&
q=%22grey+skipwith%22&dq=%22grey+skipwith%22&pgis=1

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE? -not a bit

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 05:25:02

In a message dated 4/6/06 8:15:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< There have been significant losses in VA records. >>

You keep saying this over and over. What has this to do with anything?
Are you suggesting that the losses were disproportionately those wills that
might justify your position? I would expect the losses were spread across both
sons-in-law and step-sons-in-law equally.

And you haven't presented any evidence that "son-in-law" did mean husband of
my biological daughter. You are merely relying on the modern definition to
assume it meant the same thing 300 years ago.

It has been pointed out to you many times, s.a. Jacobus, who states that in
fact, it did mean something more than than it does now. You keep ignoring that.

Will Johnson

Chris Phillips

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 07 apr 2006 08:42:16

JeffChipman wrote:
I don't like being harassed by partisans of Nat's position when none of
them (to my knowledge) have ever produced a single 17th century VA/MD
document to support their claims.

Do you really believe people in 17th-century Virginia spoke a different
language from people in England? Surely, even late in the century, a large
proportion of Virginians would have been _born_ in England, or would be the
children of English parents.

Surely from what's been posted you can see that, in 17th-century English,
the distinction often wasn't made between step relations and blood relations
in general.

The general case is what produces significant doubt here. If you admit it's
true the "step" was often omitted in general, why should you doubt that it
would also be omitted when speaking of a son in law? If you admit the "step"
was often omitted in England, why should you doubt that it would also be
omitted among the English colonists in Virginia?

Chris Phillips

Brad Verity

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale revisited

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 07 apr 2006 10:12:48

Dear MichaelAnne,

Thank you very much.

ClaudiusI0@aol.com wrote:

Marriage Date of Diana Skipwith and Edward Dale: unknown

Which seems to be the root of the problem.

Birthdate of Katherine Dale: 1652 or 1653 ; stated to have died in her 51st
year on May 10, 1703 in the Carter Family Prayer Book.

Thank you. So if Diana Skipwith did not come to Virginia until her
brother Grey did (after January 1649), this leaves a short window for
her of arrival, marriage to Dale, then birth of first child.

Is Edward Dale found in Virginia records prior to 1650?

Birthdate of Capt. Thomas Carter: unknown

Marriage Date of Katherine Dale and Thomas Carter: May 4, 1670

So Katherine was age 17 or 18 at marriage. Much younger than Diana
Skipwith was at her marriage, if it took place in Virginia. Diana
turned age 28 in 1649.

Birthdate of Mary Dale: before March 20, 1658/9 as she was named in Vincent
Stanford's will written on date above.

Very good. So, biologically possible for Diana to have had both of
these daughters, as she was only age 37 in 1658.

Birthdate of Daniel Harrison: before 1640 as he acted as attorney for
Susannah Merryman in 1661.

So at least 10 years older than Mary Dale, if Mary was born after
sister Katherine.

Marriage Date of Mary Dale and Daniel Harrison: probably before Sept. 14,
1670 when he was appointed Commissioner of the court. Edward Dale had his son
in law Thomas Carter made Deputy Clerk of the Court on March 8, 1670 before he
married Katherine Dale.

Interesting that both daughters were married in the same year. Mary,
if born after Katherine, could only have been, at the most, age 16 or
17 in 1670. Any evidence of other women in Virginia at the time
marrying at that age?

Birthdate of Humphrey Jones: the husband of Mary Dale is of unknown
Birthdate. Her son Humphrey Jones was born March 11, 1682/3 in Middlesex County,
Virginia

So Mary's only known surviving child was born when she was at least age
25, and possibly as old as age 30, if she was born after sister
Katherine. Nothing amiss here, biologically or chronologically.

Marriage Date of Mary Dale and Humphrey Jones: between 1680 and March 11,
1682/3.

Birthdate of Elizabeth Dale: unknown

Birthdate of William Rogers: unknown

Marriage Date of Elizabeth Dale and William Rogers: unknown

Is there any reason to suppose Elizabeth was the youngest daughter?

Death Date of Diana Skipwith Dale: July 31, 1695

Thank you - this is an addition to PA3.

Death Date of Edward Dale: 20 February 1696, Lancaster County, Virginia

Date Sir Grey Skipwith Inherited the Baronetcy: after 1655, which is
when father Sir Henry Skipwith, 1st Baronet, died. But he was
succeeded by Grey's elder brother, another Sir Henry Skipwith, as 2nd
Baronet, so when did the younger Sir Henry die?
The 1st Baronet Henry Skipwith was buried Nov. 21, 1655 in Stapleford, Co.
Leicester. the 2nd Baronet Henry Skipwith died in 1657/8 on the Wynter
Plantation in Masulipatum, India. Please see Adrian Channing's wonderful posts about
this in the archives.

I will do so. India and Virginia? These Skipwiths seem a fascinating
family!

Nichols Antiquities of Leicestershire Part 3 part I, sub Prestwould page 356
contains transcriptions of the earliest registers of Prestwould.

Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Henry Skipwith, knt. born Oct. 6, baptized Oct.
24, 1617.
Diana, daughter of Sir Henry Skipwith, knt. born May 27, baptized June 13,
1621

Again, thank you - Diana's dates above are a correction to PA3, which
says she was baptized (not born) on 27 May 1621.

Did sister Elizabeth Skipwith marry and/or also emigrate to Virginia? unknown

Maybe she died young.

Who took possession of Prestwold, the family's Leicestershire seat,
since, per Betham, the 2nd Baronet died unmarried and Sir Grey remained
in Virginia? Were there lawsuits and/or correspondence between whoever
took possession of the English estates and the Skipwith family in
Virginia? If so, perhaps the children and descendants of the Skipwith
sisters (including Diana Dale) are mentioned and/or traced?
This estate passed to Sir Christopher Packe and remained in his family.
Contrary to older postings there was a tax due of £1114 on this estate in 1653
but Prestwould had been mortgaged to the hilt by Sir Henry Skipwith to aid in
the support of his 2nd wife [ Blandina Penwin Acton] and his stepchildren:

[snip of A2A Catalogue entry]

So all of the talk of a baronet's daughter marrying a Virginia official
makes much more sense on a social level, when the financial mess the
Skipwith inheritance was in is factored in.

After a variety of fines and sequestrations, the estate of Sir Henry
Skipwith appears to have been considerably impaired; and, on his second marriage, he
had secured to the lord mayor and citizens of London, as guardians for the
children of his wife by a former husband, a long lease of his property at
Prestwould, as appears, from the above authentic document.

Very strange he did this to the detriment of the children of his first
marriage, who were only in their twenties at the time. Sounds like the
Skipwiths would make a great study, from both a genealogy and a
sociology perspective.

I hope this helps a little.

It helps a lot! Kudos for all the research done on this family. I
look forward to hearing more about them as your research continues!

Cheers, ----------Brad

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography published the will (page 433)
It only says "... to Diana Skipwith L10, etc. ...." within a list of other
bequests.

Thanks for this, Will!

Cheers, ----------Brad

Patricia Junkin

Re: dar proofs

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 07 apr 2006 14:20:02

In vetting DAR lineage, current registrars make every effort to secure
primary evidence such as marriage certificates, tax lists, etc. and are
certainly more careful than in the past, however,they do rely on secondary
sources. I know that one of the lines submitted for my eighteenth ancestor
in the 1930's is incorrect. Using secondary sources such as Dr. Stubbs on
the Cooke family, while a prodigious effort is full of inaccuracies. That
said, the DAR is eager to make corrections when found. Please let them know
when found to be incorrect
Pat

----------
From: "pj.evans" <pj.evans.gen@usa.net
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: dar proofs
Date: Thu, 6, 2006, 11:39 PM


I've heard that some of the early DAR lineages are pretty close to
hearsay. I know that my mother's stepmother did a lot of work in order
to join in the late 70s or early 80s - I haven't seen her papers so I
don't know what kind of proof she had. (I do know it's difficult to
prove conclusively that some relationships exist. I have several people
in my files with a mother listed as 'Mrs Whosis' where Mr Whosis had
more than one wife, and I don't know which one was mother of which
child.)

charlotte smith wrote:
noticed you were quoting DAR sources and proofs. I am a long time
registrar for DAR and believe me we have to have proofs and copies of them
for each generation that is sent to them. If someone joined DAR say before
1970- then be prepared to be able to prove all generations as they were not
as strict. some records that were accepted have been pulled and no one can
go in on that line until it is cleared by proofs and sources. I have found
that census records, now available online, and obituaries, which are
available a good time back are great proofs. I did get one person in on
"preponderance of Evidence" which I took 2 pages to list and which was
accepted and this was for just one generation. I am glad DAR is strict as
it makes the genealogies more valuable.

charlotte c smith

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale revisited

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 16:15:03

Dear Will,

Sorry about that. That was my intention to state "after" and didn't. Thanks
for the correction and clarification.

MichaelAnne

JeffChipman

Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 07 apr 2006 17:02:02

Well, since we know that Daniel Harrison was not Skipwith's
step-son....

JTC

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale revisited

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 17:45:02

Hi Everyone:
In a message dated 4/6/2006 9:50:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,
ClaudiusI0@aol.com writes:

Birth date of William Rogers: unknown

It is commonly believed that William Rogers was born approximately 1655,
as he was not named in a gift deed in which his father, Captain John Rogers
of Cherry Point, Northumberland County, Virginia, gave a gift of a calf to each
of his children.

Deed dated, July 20, 1654, Written and recorded the same day. "Katherine-a
calf, Elizabeth-a calf, John-a calf. Thos. Wilsford, clerk of the court.
Northumberland County Record Book 1652-1658, page 47.

It appears that the children were named in the order of their born.
Also, usually if a wife was pregnant at the time that a will or deed was written,
and the husband wanted to provide something for the unborn child, the term to
describe the unborn child was "the child that my wife goes with" or "the
child that my wife is walking behind." Strange terms but they are both used
repeatedly in Northumberland County records.

So, from the above it appears that William was born in 1655 or later.
In this time period, a young man's first marriage was usually to a woman
several years younger that he was. The marriage of Elizabeth Dale and William
Rogers might have been a marriage that was arranged by their parents. Captain John
Rogers was one of the leaders in the Northumberland County government. They
lived at Cherry Point, which is on the north side of Northumberland County
near the Potomac River and the Dale family lived on the south side of Lancaster
County, near the Rappahannock River. An automobile drive between the two
places would be an approximately 35 minute drive, (I know this for an absolute
fact, driven it many times). So, it wasn't like Elizabeth and William would have
had daily contact with each other. My estimate is that William was
approximately 22-23 years old when he married and Elizabeth approximately 16 years old.

Joan Burdyck

Gjest

Re: WHAT EVIDENCE DO THEY HAVE?

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 17:47:02

In a message dated 4/7/2006 8:05:48 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

OK. Nat Taylor made the assertion that this line was "broken" because
the term "sonne in law" could mean "husband of my step-daughter." When
I asked him for proof that the term could mean that, he was unable to
do so. If fact, nobody was able to so so.



"In Law" did not mean then, what it means today.
That is the main point you seem to not be grasping.
You want something awfully specific, you should look for it.
I haven't seen you post any examples where son-in-law did mean husband of my
biological daughter either. So you are in a rather small row boat to be
shouting at those in the yacht.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale revisited

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 17:49:01

In a message dated 4/7/2006 8:43:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Joemaryjoa@aol.com writes:

Deed dated, July 20, 1654, Written and recorded the same day. "Katherine-a
calf, Elizabeth-a calf, John-a calf. Thos. Wilsford, clerk of the court.
Northumberland County Record Book 1652-1658, page 47.


Other than this one piece of primary documentation. Do you have anything
else with which to estimate the age of either William or Elizabeth?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 17:51:02

In a message dated 4/7/2006 8:37:45 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

I have a 1789
Delaware will which uses the term "father-in-law" to mean
"step-father." I never questioned that usage.



Ahhhhhh so now you see that "in law" was used in place of "step", in this
time period.
I think that just about wraps it up!
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 18:16:02

In a message dated 4/7/2006 9:06:04 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

"We have demontrated through the use of colonial VA documents that the
phrase 'sonne in law' sometimes meant 'step-son.' Because 'sonne in
law' can have two meanings, it could also have more meanings. One of
those additional meanings could be 'husband of my step-daughter.' This
is sufficient to challnge the validity of the Skipwith line."


I have posted before that I'm questioning-to-skeptical that the word or
phrase "step-son-in-law" existed at this time. If it did not exist, and yet this
type of relationship obviously existed, then what were these men called? My
hypothesis is that they were called "son-in-law". That is, that "step" was
simply not-used in this time period, whatsoever.

Does anyone have a document using step anything from before 1800 ? Any
colony or Britian?
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 18:18:01

In a message dated 4/7/2006 12:06:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:
Let's see the argument of Nat and his friends for what it really is:

"We have demontrated through the use of colonial VA documents that the
phrase 'sonne in law' sometimes meant 'step-son.' Because 'sonne in
law' can have two meanings, it could also have more meanings. One of
those additional meanings could be 'husband of my step-daughter.' This
is sufficient to challnge the validity of the Skipwith line."

JTC
Dear Mr. Chipman,

This has gone far enough. Nat Taylor is actually open to the idea that the
Skipwith descent DOES HAVE a preponderance of evidence on its' side and sees the
myopic vision of the Ward article. Did you by any chance read his post to
this effect yesterday? Why are you arguing with someone who is actually trying
to help you? Just because he didn't agree with your interpretation of one
document does not mean that he comes to the same conclusion based on the totality
of the evidence. If we were living in 1860 you would be a Fire-Eater and they
destroyed the south!

MichaelAnne

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»