Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Chris Dickinson

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 15 mai 2006 13:11:26

Renia wrote:

1660 is not medieval. Some definitions of the end of the medieval period
give it as about 1485, others about 1550. This newsgroup
(soc.genealogy.medieval) or the list GEN-MEDIEVAL gives it as about 1500,
IIRC.


The beginning of the Early Modern Period is quite often put earlier than
that - to 1453. That's especially relevant for continental Europe. Of
course, the beginnings of 'Early Modern' and the ending of 'Medieval'
can run together for a generation or two.

No historian would put 'Medieval' in the context of Western Europe as later
than 1550 - and that's pushing it!

[And, so far as this thread is concerned ... there should be a separate
mailing list/newsgroup for Americans to discuss their non-medieval gateway
ancestry ... or a separate newsgroup (not list) for seventeenth century
genealogy!]

Chris

Gjest

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mai 2006 13:53:44

Chris Dickinson wrote:
Renia wrote:

1660 is not medieval. Some definitions of the end of the medieval period
give it as about 1485, others about 1550. This newsgroup
(soc.genealogy.medieval) or the list GEN-MEDIEVAL gives it as about 1500,
IIRC.


The beginning of the Early Modern Period is quite often put earlier than
that - to 1453. That's especially relevant for continental Europe. Of
course, the beginnings of 'Early Modern' and the ending of 'Medieval'
can run together for a generation or two.

No historian would put 'Medieval' in the context of Western Europe as later
than 1550 - and that's pushing it!

[And, so far as this thread is concerned ... there should be a separate
mailing list/newsgroup for Americans to discuss their non-medieval gateway
ancestry ... or a separate newsgroup (not list) for seventeenth century
genealogy!]

I can't imagine many historians considering Charles II or Louis XIV to
be mediaeval.

The problem with "gateway" ancestors, and the sometimes tenuous
justification for spending time discussing them here, is simple: where
does one draw the line? Is it on topic on a mediaeval group to discuss
someone from 1680, simply because he had a mediaeval ancestor? (Indeed,
who did not have a mediaeval ancestor?) What about someone from 1780?
Or 1880? Or 1980? The more this line is crossed, the more flimsy
these justifications become - so we see bandwidth spent on ironworks in
late colonial America. The group's "description" refers to an upper
end date of "around 1600", which generally seems sensible to me.
Given, however, the apparent interest in colonial American genealogy
[which I do not share], perhaps the creation of an additional group
devoted to that, as Renia suggests, would be appropriate.

Such a change in focus might also allow for further time to be spent on
non-Anglo mediaeval genealogy, where Leo, taf and others have
previously posted much excellent material, and which others (e.g. Tony
Hoskings) touch upon from time to time.

MA-R

Gjest

Re: King's Sergeant, circa 1445

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mai 2006 13:55:52

Matt Tompkins wrote:
I'm afraid my books don't mention any fifteenth century lawyer called
John Cheyne. The one I had most hopes of, Eric Ives' The Common
Lawyers of Pre-Reformation England, which includes appendices listing
all Sergeants at Law and other senior members of the legal profession
1461-1510, just has one brief mention of John Cheyne of
Falstone-Cheyne, Wilts, who wasn't even a lawyer. Which suggests that
any John Cheynes who were lawyers in the 1440s weren't very active in
the profession and didn't stay in it long.

However I notice that the preceding entry in HoP 1439-1509, relating to
John Cheyne of Eastchurch (MP for Kent in 1449), says that he was a
King's Sergeant-at-Arms by April 1445 - this is curiously similar to
the statement that John Cheyne of Fen Ditton was a King's Sergeant in
1445. Perhaps Wedgewood has erroneously attributed a single office to
both men.

Matt (and Chris)

Many thanks indeed for the further material. The similar reference for
another John Cheyne pretty much clinches it, I think. It's a shame
that Wedgewood's volumes don't provide references.

Regards, Michael

Gjest

Re: Wroth of London: originally de Wrotham?

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mai 2006 14:53:46

Can you connect me up this John Wroth d 1396 to the
John Wrote m Elizabeth Lewknor in 1456 ?

Grandson maybe?
Will

According to the Visitation of Somerset (Weaver p 91-3):

1. Sir John Wrothe
+ (1) Margaret Buckland with issue
+ (2) Matilda, dau. of Thomas Durant
2. William d. 10 H. IV (see also Roskell v. 4 p 910)
3. William, of Durants Newton ob. 28 H. VI.
+ d. J. Mortimer (Arch. Cant. v. 12 p 315
calls her Averia)
4. John, ob. 2 E. IV
+ Elizabeth, d. Sir R. Lewknor (she was
widow of Peckham who dsp)
4. Elizabeth
+ Sir John Jeremy of Milford

Mardi

Matt Tompkins

Re: King's Sergeant, circa 1445

Legg inn av Matt Tompkins » 15 mai 2006 15:05:23

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Matt: any further particulars in relation to the appointments of
Sergeants-at-law would be very welcome in confirming the profile of
appointees.


At the top of the late medieval legal profession were the eight or so
Westminster judges of the courts of king's bench and common pleas.

Immediately below them were some twelve or fifteen sergeants-at-law.
They were really judges-in-waiting, as until about 1600 the judges were
always chosen from among the sergeants, and they often served as assize
justices or in other temporary judicial posts pending permanent
promotion to the bench, which only occurred when a vacancy arose. The
sergeants were also the only lawyers allowed to plead in the court of
common pleas - a lucrative monopoly, given their small number.

The sergeants were created in groups every seven- to- ten years, by a
royal writ calling them to the coif. They were chosen by the privy
council, though the king himself often made the last decision, from
among the apprentices-at-law or senior pleaders in the inns of court
(the equivalents of the modern barristers, though in the fifteenth
century a barrister was just one level within the inns), of whom there
were about 50 in practice at any one time, plus perhaps another 50
working as clerks in the various courts. Occasionally those summoned
would resist the call because they preferred to continue in their
lucrative private practice, which would be impeded by a sergeant's
judicial duties.

Because apprentices were only called to the coif at intervals, when the
numbers of sergeants had fallen too low and replacements were needed,
it is difficult to be prescriptive about the age at which men became
sergeants - it would depend on a number of factors, including their own
competence, and mortality among the judges and sergeants, and some
pleaders never became sergeants. However the need to proceed through
the various lower levels of the inns of court first does make it
possible to work out a minimum age.

Few fifteenth century common lawyers went to university - most began in
an inn of court or chancery, often at an early age; fifteen was not
uncommon. At least three years had to be spent as a student at an inn
of court before one could become a fellow of the inn. There were
various grades of fellows, and their titles, qualifications and duties
varied from inn to inn and over time, but it usually took five or six,
perhaps eight, years to reach the point where one could plead in the
courts and give readings (lectures) in one's inn - say ten years from
first arrival as a teenager. A call to the coif would be unlikely to
follow less than twenty years later, during which the pleader would
occupy various ranks and offices in his inn and build up his reputation
as a capable lawyer in the courts and in general practice.

Thus few sergeants-at-law were aged less than 45 when called - which
makes it pretty much impossible for John Cheyne of Fen Ditton to have
been a king's sergeant-at-law at the age of 22. Wedgewood clearly got
something wrong.

This information mostly comes from:

Eric Ives, The Common Lawyers of Pre-Reformation England: Thomas
Kebell: a Case Study (Cambridge, 1983), especially chs. 3, 4.

Also useful are:

Christopher Brooks, Pettyfoggers and Vipers of the Commonwealth: The
'Lower Branch' of the Legal Profession in Early Modern England
(Cambridge, 1986), especially chs. 2, 3; and

JH Baker, The Legal Profession and the Common Law (London, 1986),
especially ch. 7.

Matt Tompkins

Gjest

Re: OT Sir Anthony Wagner - Frederick Lewis Weis

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mai 2006 15:24:29

"Ford Mommaerts-Browne" wrote:
I know that one person at wikipedia deleted reference to Sir Anthony and others, calling them charlatans.

Sir Anthony Wagner certainly wasn't a charlatan- some of the Heralds
could have been called that (Sir William Betham springs to mind, so
lambasted by Horace Round), but one of Wagner's successors as Garter
described him to me as the greatest genealogist of his generation,
perhaps even of the whole 20th Century. (I wonder now if he meant just
the UK, or the whole world!) He was practically a born genealogist- I
think he was accepted by the College of Arms while still a schoolboy,
and was genuinely wedded to the subject. There is an error in the
Wikipedia entry, his autobiography was called 'A Herald's World'
(rather than '...Way'); in it he writes about- among other things- his
(and his wife's) ancestors, and his blindness.
-Matthew

John Brandon

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av John Brandon » 15 mai 2006 15:27:20

I think it's best that the group continue "as is," with people simply
ignoring the parts that don't interest them. Discussion of gateway
ancestors *is* certainly allowed in this newsgroup as currently
established. I post here because it seems to be read by a large number
of people who publish in the American genealogical mags (hence my ideas
may get a fair amount of exposure).

Gjest

Re: King's Sergeant, circa 1445

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mai 2006 15:35:11

Matt Tompkins wrote:
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Matt: any further particulars in relation to the appointments of
Sergeants-at-law would be very welcome in confirming the profile of
appointees.

At the top of the late medieval legal profession were the eight or so
Westminster judges of the courts of king's bench and common pleas.

Immediately below them were some twelve or fifteen sergeants-at-law.
They were really judges-in-waiting, as until about 1600 the judges were
always chosen from among the sergeants, and they often served as assize
justices or in other temporary judicial posts pending permanent
promotion to the bench, which only occurred when a vacancy arose. The
sergeants were also the only lawyers allowed to plead in the court of
common pleas - a lucrative monopoly, given their small number.

Matt

that's fascinating, many thanksfor taking the time to follow this up.
It seems that the arrangements in relation to 'the Order of the Coif'
didn't change much from the 15th century until its dissolution (1877).

MA-R

Gjest

Re: King's Sergeant, circa 1445

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mai 2006 16:36:02

For what its worth, the following looks to be the same John Cheyne (that is
John Cheyne of Eastchurch) mentioned in Paul Murryay Kendall's _Richard the
Third_

Adrian

"… Thus all four sheriffs who had responsibility for making the returns for
the five parliaments immediately preceding Cade’s rebellion came from Saye’s
charmed, but unpopular, circle. For the ten county seats available in these
parliaments, six persons were elected: both William Isle (1442 and 1449-50)
and William Crowmer (1447 and 1449) were MPs twice, while James Fiennes,
before his elevation to the peerage as Lord Saye, was Kent’s MP on three
occasions (1442, 1445-46 and 1447). Warner was Isle’s colleague in 1442. The
remaining two members, Thomas Browne (1445-46) and Sir John Cheyne (1449), were
connected with the régime at Westminster, for the former was a prominent
exchequer official and the latter a royal serjeant-at-arms; both, therefore, would
have been known to the Saye circle and, one may presume, favoured by it. {fn
....} After the murder of Saye and Crowmer in London, and the firerce attacks
on Isle, Slegge, and the rest, Cheyne’s haste to secure a general pardon on
7 July 1450 can be well understood."
pp 633-4


In a message dated 15/05/2006 11:51:28 GMT Standard Time, mllt1@le.ac.uk
writes:
I'm afraid my books don't mention any fifteenth century lawyer called
John Cheyne. The one I had most hopes of, Eric Ives' The Common
Lawyers of Pre-Reformation England, which includes appendices listing
all Sergeants at Law and other senior members of the legal profession
1461-1510, just has one brief mention of John Cheyne of
Falstone-Cheyne, Wilts, who wasn't even a lawyer. Which suggests that
any John Cheynes who were lawyers in the 1440s weren't very active in
the profession and didn't stay in it long.

However I notice that the preceding entry in HoP 1439-1509, relating to
John Cheyne of Eastchurch (MP for Kent in 1449), says that he was a
King's Sergeant-at-Arms by April 1445 - this is curiously similar to
the statement that John Cheyne of Fen Ditton was a King's Sergeant in
1445. Perhaps Wedgewood has erroneously attributed a single office to
both men. Or if there were two King's Sergeants in 1445, they may have
both been a King's Sergeant-at-Arms (whatever that was) - which would
remove the problem of the Fen Ditton one becoming a sergeant-at-law
practically before he was out of nappies.

Anyway, my suggestion would be to contact the History of Parliament
staff who are presently working on the volume covering 1422-1509
(Wedgwood's 1439-1509 history, written in the 1930s on an amateur
basis, is not part of the official History). I see from their website
that they have finished the biographies of the Cambridgshire MPs, of
whom John Cheyne of Fen Ditton was one, so they may already have
cleared this problem up. The website is at
http://www.history.ac.uk/hop/ - click on 1422-1504 on the left. I'm
not sure which of the team dealt with Cambridgeshire (except that I
know it wasn't Hannes Kleineke) so it would probably best to start with
the section leader, Linda Clark.

An alternative would be to ask Professor John Baker at St Catherine's
College, Cambridge, who is presently working on a prosopography of the
inns of court and legal profession 1440-1550.

I'll post separately on how sergeants-at-law were appointed.

Matt Tompkins

Renia

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Renia » 15 mai 2006 16:40:10

John Brandon wrote:

I think it's best that the group continue "as is," with people simply
ignoring the parts that don't interest them. Discussion of gateway
ancestors *is* certainly allowed in this newsgroup as currently
established. I post here because it seems to be read by a large number
of people who publish in the American genealogical mags (hence my ideas
may get a fair amount of exposure).

But American gateway genealogy isn't medieval, either in timescale or in
genealogical methodology.

If Americans can use this newsgroup for their gateway ancestors, then
why cannot Brits use this newsgroup for their gateway ancestors: those
who left the countryside during the industrial revolution, for example,
for the mills and factories in the 19th century? Why cannot Australians
use this newsgroup for their First Fleet ancestors, etc, ad infinitum.

It is the wrong forum for American Gateway ancestors. Simple.

Doug McDonald

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 15 mai 2006 16:46:54

The timeframe of this newsgroup, and by necessity the list,
extends to 1600, by definition of the newsgroup creation
vote. This does not, of course, means the discussion of the
ANCESTRY of gateways is even remotely off-topic. Even
gateways themselves are completely on-topic if they were
born before 1600, as many were.

Doug McDonald

Gjest

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mai 2006 16:48:02

In a message dated 5/15/2006 4:50:41 AM Pacific Standard Time,
renia@DELETEotenet.gr writes:

I have no gateway ancestors. Except for Gilbert Metcalfe, who is not an
ancestor, but a grandson of an ancestor.


How is that relevent? I never said, and this board is not necessarily for,
gateway ancestors.

If you think the focus is off, then the way to fix it, is not to complain,
but rather, to post what you think is *on*. That's my opinion.

Will

Gjest

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mai 2006 17:38:01

mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

Chris Dickinson wrote:
Renia wrote:

1660 is not medieval. Some definitions of the end of the medieval period
give it as about 1485, others about 1550. This newsgroup
(soc.genealogy.medieval) or the list GEN-MEDIEVAL gives it as about 1500,
IIRC.

I can't imagine many historians considering Charles II or Louis XIV to
be mediaeval.

The problem with "gateway" ancestors, and the sometimes tenuous
justification for spending time discussing them here, is simple: where
does one draw the line? . . . The group's "description" refers to an upper
end date of "around 1600", which generally seems sensible to me.

I regarded this conference not as restricted to Medieval as defined (if
possible) by historians but as taking over when parish registers were not
available, ie around 1550 in England, so that a different approach is needed

Have a memory of the Anatolian Museum in Ankara where a display described
Europe as still being in the Dark Ages in 1453

cheers

Simon

Gjest

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mai 2006 17:55:02

In a message dated 5/15/2006 8:51:37 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:

The timeframe of this newsgroup, and by necessity the list,
extends to 1600, by definition of the newsgroup creation
vote.


And of course, the group morphs as groups do. What was voted on 9 or 15
years ago, should not necessarily compel us for all time.

Will Johnson

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 15 mai 2006 18:31:16

In message of 15 May, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 5/15/2006 8:51:37 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:

The timeframe of this newsgroup, and by necessity the list,
extends to 1600, by definition of the newsgroup creation
vote.


And of course, the group morphs as groups do. What was voted on 9 or 15
years ago, should not necessarily compel us for all time.

The group FAQ is at: http://users.erols.com/wrei/faqs/medieval.html

The end of this shows that the last revision was in August 2001, which
is not quite 5 years ago.

The question is what medieval means; the answer in the FAQ is
reasonable enough and limits it as the year 1600. I do not think that
anyone would regard post 1600 as medieval and certainly 1660 is far
from being medieval.

I support the views that say that post medieval ganealogy should have
its own group. Certainly the English group soc.genealogy.britain
(which I have occasionally subscribed to) does not cover the pre-census
times well or even much and there is a gap of a suitable group for post
medieval matters. I do not know what its title should be, perhaps
"post-medieval" or "renaissance"?

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

John Brandon

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av John Brandon » 15 mai 2006 18:39:50

If Americans can use this newsgroup for their gateway ancestors, then
why cannot Brits use this newsgroup for their gateway ancestors: those
who left the countryside during the industrial revolution, for example,
for the mills and factories in the 19th century? Why cannot Australians
use this newsgroup for their First Fleet ancestors, etc, ad infinitum.

They can, if they like. No one's stopping them.

Gjest

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mai 2006 19:43:02

In a message dated 5/15/06 10:36:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

<< I do not know what its title should be, perhaps
"post-medieval" or "renaissance"? >>

Post-Medieval stands the good chance of being a catch-all for everything
right up to today. Renaissance also has the problem of overlapping from perhaps
as early as 1450. So although I don't have an alternate suggestion, at this
time, I think we do need something more clear.
Will

Doug McDonald

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 15 mai 2006 20:06:12

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 5/15/2006 8:51:37 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:

The timeframe of this newsgroup, and by necessity the list,
extends to 1600, by definition of the newsgroup creation
vote.


And of course, the group morphs as groups do. What was voted on 9 or 15
years ago, should not necessarily compel us for all time.

It's an unmoderated group. Nothing compels anything.


Except custom and nicety, that is.

Doug

Doug McDonald

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 15 mai 2006 20:06:12

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 5/15/2006 8:51:37 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:

The timeframe of this newsgroup, and by necessity the list,
extends to 1600, by definition of the newsgroup creation
vote.


And of course, the group morphs as groups do. What was voted on 9 or 15
years ago, should not necessarily compel us for all time.

It's an unmoderated group. Nothing compels anything.


Except custom and nicety, that is.

Doug

the_verminator@comcast.ne

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av the_verminator@comcast.ne » 15 mai 2006 20:16:08

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 5/15/06 10:36:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

I do not know what its title should be, perhaps
"post-medieval" or "renaissance"?

Post-Medieval stands the good chance of being a catch-all for everything
right up to today. Renaissance also has the problem of overlapping from perhaps
as early as 1450. So although I don't have an alternate suggestion, at this
time, I think we do need something more clear.
Will

"PostMed-PreMod Genealogy (1600-1815)"
<GRIN>

--
The Verminator

JTC

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av JTC » 15 mai 2006 20:58:29

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 5/13/2006 1:06:03 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

Diana Dale was under
"coverture" and had no legal right to act independently of her husband
unless he granted her power of attorney, or she had made a pre-nuptial
agreement (and in the case of "jointure," she would've still used her
married name)


Why do you keep stating this over and over and over ?
There is no evidence of a pre-nup, that does not mean she didn't have one.
It merely means that saying there may be is an argument from silence.

Really we've been over this a hundred times. Can't we just move on.
Will

Absolutely she did not have a pre-nup or jointure. Such an arrangement
would have been memorialized in Edward Dale's will. Don't you
understand that? Didn't I refer you to an example of this earlier?

JTC

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av JTC » 15 mai 2006 21:01:15

Where is the proof that these deeds were forged? You really think that
it's good genealogical practice to give the Carter descendants hope
based upon a theory that those deeds might have been forged?

Chris Dickinson

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 15 mai 2006 21:14:04

The Verminator grinned:

"PostMed-PreMod Genealogy (1600-1815)"


As there is already a soc.history.early-modern, why not a
soc-genealogy.early-modern?


Chris

Douglas Richardson

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 15 mai 2006 21:19:56

JTC wrote:

Absolutely she did not have a pre-nup or jointure. Such an arrangement
would have been memorialized in Edward Dale's will.

Your idea of "shoulda, coulda" seems more based in Jeff Chipman's ideas
about colonists, rather than the contemporary records created by the
colonists themselves.

DR

JTC

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av JTC » 15 mai 2006 21:44:47

MichaelAnne was starting to lean toward presenting some kind of
argument that maybe Dale was giving property away and that such gifts
were not memorialized. That's baloney. If the gift were something
equal or greater in value than a slave, you're damn right it would've
been written down. If he had any property at death that wasn't devised
in his will or legally conveyed, there would have been appointed an
adminstrator of his "intestate estate." And BTW, I would like to point
out to the romantics here that these planters were notorious for raping
the Indian and black women they enslaved. In some cases, their wives
were so appalled by their husbands that they went to live with
relatives to get away from them.

I'm not trying to steer the thread anywhere but the truth. Deeds were
commonly recorded years after they were made. Skipwith was only a
witness to these deeds, so she had no say as to when they were
recorded, or would have any reason to do so. It proves nothing. If
MichaelAnne has proof that those 1655 deeds were "suspect," she should
cough up the evidence.
And as far as Beverly Fleet is concerned, all 34 volumes of his
abstracts are available on CD-Rom from GPC in Baltimore with a
brand-new index.

The issue is whether or not Katherine Carter was a daughter of Diana
Skipwith. It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Katherine
Carter was not the daughter of Diana Skipwith. If there are those who
choose to believe she was, that's their business. We have freedom of
speech and the press. And they didn't know that widows had "feme sole"
status while married women were "feme covert." If they had, they
wouldn't have posted 3 widows as evidence that women could use their
maiden names after marriage. Look at the vehement post from Douglas
earlier in this thread about Eltonhead and Batt! What are you reading,
Will?

What I find troubling is that Douglas has published two expensive books
on the ancestry of colonial immigrants, many of whom came to VA during
the Protectorate; in both MCA and PA3 he claims that Katherine Carter
was the daughter of Diana Skpwith and moves back the projected
Dale/Skipwith nuptials date to accomodate Katherine Carter having been
born ca. 1652. I think the truth is that Carter and Dale's first wives
weren't as prestigious as Skipwith.

Gary Boyd Roberts is known for being very inclusive in his RD books,
and has had a caveat inserted in them for several years concerning the
maternity of Katherine Carter. I see absolutely no evidence that
Katherine was a daughter of Diana Dale. To persist in this myth is
cruel because it gives Carter descendants false hope. Thomas Carter is
commonly thought to have had a wife previous to Katherine, and that
first wife isn't in the prayer book either. I have read that the use
of arms in colonial America could get pretty "creative." MichaelAnne
first said that Carter's use of the Dale arms was a mistake, and so
on.... well, what's the point?

The problem here is that some people think their excuses are
"evidence." Are the Carter people really happy with this? Instead of
buying one of Douglas's books, they could invest in some basic research
materials about colonial VA.

If I wanted to steer this thread anywhere, it would be to a discussion
of the maternity of Mary (Dale) Harrison Jones. I think a serious
challenge by the Carter people to the "TAG" position was over some time
ago. You will note that "TAG" has never retracted the article, even
though they were aware of Douglas and MIchaelAnne's theories years ago.

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 15 mai 2006 21:49:04

JTC wrote:
Where is the proof that these deeds were forged?

Innocent until proven guilty is not necessarily the best standard to use
in this case.

You really think that
it's good genealogical practice to give the Carter descendants hope
based upon a theory that those deeds might have been forged?

It is good genealogical practice to fully evaluate the deed, including
the possibility of forgery. What hope the Carter descendants might
(probably wrongly) derive from such an analysis is neither here nor there.

taf

Douglas Richardson

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 15 mai 2006 21:59:11

JTC wrote:
< I think the truth is that Carter and Dale's first wives weren't as
prestigious as Skipwith.

We'll try one more time. Please supply a deed, a will, a court record,
a marriage record, anything which proves that Major Edward Dale had
more than one wife.

DR

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 15 mai 2006 22:45:35

Creating a new group of limited distribution with a confusing name is
not likely to get people to post somewhere else (and even if it did,
would not suddenly engender more medieval discussion).

Likewise, as was discussed at length when the soc.gen.* groups were
formed, some ballance must be achieved between splitting and lumping
together. I think the perfect groups would be
soc.genealogy.only-what-interests-me, but there would be only one
participant. Groups with too narrow an interest (both in terms of topic
and in terms of willing posters) will not 'take', and there are any
number of dead groups to prove it.

For several reasons, this group has come more and more to be dominated
by discussions of a few rather limited aspects of its original charter
scope. There used to be several Iberian posters, discussions of Viking
origins, posters with significant knowledge of Polish and Russian
material, etc., but this is no longer the case. The problem is not so
much the presence of the 'fringe' topics, but the loss of these central
ones. However, creating another group for everyone posting about things
I am less interested in will not purify the group, nor will the vacuum
theoretically so created by banishing the unwanted discussion bring
these lost topics and posters back. If you want more medieval
discussion in this group, then post more medieval material. Part of the
burden of making the group what you want it to be falls on you. You
really can't make other people discuss what you want, all you can do is
entice them with your own postings.

In other groups where an analogous compilation is underway, such an
announcement as Stewart Baldwin's release of new Henry Project pages
might be followed by various members picking over the new pages, making
comments and corrections, suggesting additional sources or alternative
interpretations worthy of commentary, etc. Here all we get are "Thanks"
posts (here we are a week later, and no one, present company included
until now, has even commented that there is someone represented as the
wrong gender on one of the new pages). Yes, thanks are due, but if you
want to discuss medieval genealogy, here is a perfect opportunity
staring you in the face, and . . . . nothing.

taf

Gjest

Re: Looking for information on the Eden family

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mai 2006 22:52:02

Stirnet here http://www.stirnet.com/html/genie/briti ... veson1.htm
is showing that Richard Leveson of Willenhall married twice. By the first
marriage they show the Mary Leveson who married Sir George Curzon of Croxall.

By the second married they show, among others, James Leveson b 1502, the
father of the Elizabeth Leveson who married (before 8 Apr 1545) Sir Walter Aston
of Tixall. Thus we can at least conclude that Mary Leveson, a child by the
first marriage, must have been born before 1502 when her half-brother was born.

Leo at his great web site
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 9&tree=LEO
is showing that Mary Curzon, a child of George Curzon of Croxall and Mary
Leveson, was baptised 11 Dec 1586 at Trentham.

Unless there were two marriages of a George Curzon of Croxall to a Mary
Leveson, something is amiss here. The mother Mary Leveson, per stirnet, would be
at least 84 years old at this point.

Can someone fix this?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mai 2006 22:54:02

In a message dated 5/15/06 1:05:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< Where is the proof that these deeds were forged? You really think that
it's good genealogical practice to give the Carter descendants hope
based upon a theory that those deeds might have been forged? >>

There is no proof, it is speculation, the same as yours.
Your speculation requires no proof, and the speculation that the documents
were forged, requires no proof.

The arguments are all thrown against the wall to see which ones will stick.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Mary Leveson / George Curzon

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mai 2006 22:55:02

In a message dated 5/15/06 1:51:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time, WJhonson@aol.com
writes:

<< Stirnet here
http://www.stirnet.com/html/genie/briti ... veson1.htm
is showing that Richard Leveson of Willenhall married twice. By the first
marriage they show the Mary Leveson who married Sir George Curzon of Croxall.

By the second married they show, among others, James Leveson b 1502, the
father of the Elizabeth Leveson who married (before 8 Apr 1545) Sir Walter
Aston
of Tixall. Thus we can at least conclude that Mary Leveson, a child by the
first marriage, must have been born before 1502 when her half-brother was
born.

Leo at his great web site
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 9&tree=LEO
is showing that Mary Curzon, a child of George Curzon of Croxall and Mary
Leveson, was baptised 11 Dec 1586 at Trentham.

Unless there were two marriages of a George Curzon of Croxall to a Mary
Leveson, something is amiss here. The mother Mary Leveson, per stirnet,
would be
at least 84 years old at this point.

Can someone fix this?
Thanks
Will Johnson >>

Gjest

Re: C.P. Correction: Birthdate of Margaret Butler, wife of W

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mai 2006 22:56:02

In a message dated 5/15/06 1:51:19 PM Central Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

I'd very be very grateful if someone posted particulars on Margaret
(Butler) Boleyn, her children, and grandchildren which may be mentioned
in the article entitled "Some Notes on the Boleyn Family," by W.L.E.
Parsons, in Norfolk Archaeology, 25 (1935): 386-407.

Thanks!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah




Descendants of Margaret Butler

1 Margaret Butler b: Abt. 1465 d: Abt. 20 March 1539/40
... +William Boleyn d: 1505 Burial: Norwich Cathedral
2 Margaret Boleyn
..... +John Sackville b: Bef. 17 March 1483/84 m: Bef. 1507 d: 27 September
1557 Burial: 05 October 1557 Withyham, SSX, ENG
.... 3 Mary Sackville Burial: 30 June 1571 East Hoathly, SSX, ENG
........ +John Lunsford, Esq. b: Abt. 1510 d: in Clerkenwell, MDX, ENG
Burial: 29 January 1581/82 East Hoathly, SSX, ENG
....... 4 John Lunsford, Sir b: Abt. 1551 Burial: 05 May 1618 East
Hoathly, SSX, ENG
........... +Barbara Lewknor m: Abt. 1572 d: Bef. September 1577
....... *2nd Wife of John Lunsford, Sir:
........... +Anne Apsley b: Bef. 02 March 1556/57 in Horsham, SSX, ENG m: 02
September 1577 in Horsham Burial: 10 September 1612 East Hoathly, SSX, ENG
....... 4 James Lunsford
....... 4 Anne Lunsford
....... 4 Isabel Lunsford
........... +John Randolph
....... 4 Mary Lunsford
.... 3 Christopher Sackville
.... 3 John Sackville
.... 3 Richard Sackville
.... 3 Anne Sackville
........ +Nicholas Pelham, Sir
.... 3 Isabel Sackville
........ +John Ashburnham
2 Anne Boleyn
..... +John Shelton, Sir
.... 3 Mary Shelton
........ +Anthony Heveningham, Sir
....... 4 Dorothy Heveningham
........... +Henry Vernon b: in of Hilton, STS, ENG
2 Thomas Boleyn, Sir b: Abt. 1477 d: 12 March 1538/39 in Hever, KEN, ENG
Burial: Hever, KEN, ENG
..... +Elizabeth Howard m: Abt. 1500 d: 03 April 1538 in Abbot of Reading's
place besides Baynard's Castle Burial: 07 April 1538 Howard aisle in Lambeth
Church
.... 3 George Boleyn, Sir d: 17 May 1536 in Tower Hill, London, ENG
Burial: Chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula
........ +Jane Parker m: Abt. 1526 d: 13 February 1541/42 in Tower Green,
London, ENG Burial: Chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula
.... 3 Mary Boleyn b: Abt. 1502 d: 19 July 1543
........ +William Carey b: Abt. 1495 in Chilton Foliot, WIL, ENG m: 31
January 1520/21 d: 22 June 1528 in Bristol, SOM, ENG
....... 4 Katherine Carey b: Abt. 1524 d: 15 January 1568/69 in Hampton
Court Palace Burial: St. Edmund's Chapel, Westminster Abbey
........... +Francis Knollys, Sir b: Abt. 1514 m: Abt. April 1540 d: 19 July
1596
....... 4 Henry Carey b: 04 March 1525/26 d: 23 July 1596 in Somerset
House, Strand Burial: Westminster Abbey
........... +Anne Morgan m: 21 May 1545 d: 19 January 1606/07 Burial:
Westminster Abbey
.... *2nd Husband of Mary Boleyn:
........ +William Stafford, Sir b: Abt. 1512 m: Bef. 1540 d: 05 May 1556 in
Geneva, SUI
.... 3 Anne Boleyn b: Abt. 1501 in Blickling Hall, NFK, ENG d: 19 May 1536
in Tower of London, London, ENG Burial: Chapel of St. Peter in the Tower,
London, ENG
........ +Henry VIII King of England b: 28 June 1491 in Greenwich Palace m:
25 January 1532/33 in Westminster, London, ENG d: 28 January 1546/47 in
Whitehall Burial: St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle
....... 4 Elizabeth I Queen of England b: 07 September 1533 in Greenwich,
London, ENG d: 24 March 1602/03 in Richmond upon Thames, SRY, ENG Burial:
Westminster Abbey, London, ENG
....... 4 Henry Tudor b: November 1534 d: November 1534
2 Alice Boleyn d: 01 November 1538 Burial: St. Margaret's, Ormesby, YKS,
ENG
..... +Robert Clere, Sir b: Abt. 1453 d: 10 August 1529 Burial: St.
Margaret's, Ormesby, YKS, ENG
.... 3 John Clere b: Abt. 1511 d: Bef. 29 October 1560
........ +Anne Tyrell m: Bef. 19 August 1529 Burial: 14 May 1576 Cotton,
SFK, ENG
....... 4 Robert Clere
....... 4 Thomas Clere
....... 4 Edward Clere b: 15 June 1536 d: 08 June 1606 in London, ENG
Burial: 21 June 1606 Blickling, NFK, ENG
........... +Frances Fulmerston m: Abt. 16 December 1554 Burial: 20 March
1579/80 Blickling, NFK, ENG
....... *2nd Wife of Edward Clere:
........... +Agnes Crane m: 07 September 1580 in Blickling, NFK, ENG d:
Aft. 07 April 1614
....... 4 Margaret Clere
........... +Walter Haddon, Esq.
....... 4 Elizabeth Clere
........... +Walter Herendene
....... *2nd Husband of Elizabeth Clere:
........... +Francis Trevor
.... 3 Richard Clere
.... 3 Thomas Clere
2 William Boleyn
2 James Boleyn, Sir
2 Edward Boleyn, Sir
2 John Boleyn
2 Anthony Boleyn
2 Jane Boleyn
..... +Philip Calthorpe, Sir&


Always optimistic--Dave

Gjest

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mai 2006 22:57:02

In a message dated 5/15/06 1:50:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< Deeds were
commonly recorded years after they were made. >>

No this was not common simply on your say-so.
If you can do an examination and then tell us how often it occurred then we
might agree with you that it was common. But right now, it's just your opinion.
Will

Gjest

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mai 2006 23:01:02

In a message dated 5/15/06 1:50:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< And they didn't know that widows had "feme sole"
status while married women were "feme covert." If they had, they
wouldn't have posted 3 widows as evidence that women could use their
maiden names after marriage. >>

You are stretching your argument. Every person on this list, most likely,
understands the nature of what a wife could and could not do. This is not new.
This is the second time I've mentioned that, by the way, and the last.

However you're now arguing that because a husband could gift or sell the
wife's property, that someone that precluded the wife from using what name she
wanted. I don't think you've given evidence of that however.

You certainly can't raise, in my opinion, an issue of "how a person can
identify themselves" based on an issue of what property rights they do or don't
have. I don't see that at all.

Will

Gjest

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mai 2006 23:07:14

Todd A. Farmerie schrieb:

In other groups where an analogous compilation is underway, such an
announcement as Stewart Baldwin's release of new Henry Project pages
might be followed by various members picking over the new pages, making
comments and corrections, suggesting additional sources or alternative
interpretations worthy of commentary, etc. Here all we get are "Thanks"
posts (here we are a week later, and no one, present company included
until now, has even commented that there is someone represented as the
wrong gender on one of the new pages). Yes, thanks are due, but if you
want to discuss medieval genealogy, here is a perfect opportunity
staring you in the face, and . . . . nothing.

I suspect part of the problem is that, as you say, much of the original
expertise available has been lost through the departures of various
posters for various reasons - which is everyone's loss. I am grateful
to Stewart et al for the work of the Henry Project [and was rather
ashamed that no-one had even bothered to acknowledge his generous post]
but the time period, places etc covered by the project, while of great
interest to me, are beyond my expertise. Of course, the lack of such
expertise manifested on the group makes it harder for others to acquire
it.

I don't resent others' interest in colonial American GARDS, but I
regret the concentration on it. Certainly my approach as a poster is
to present as much on-topic material from my own fields of research
that I can; unfortunately, this means I can only attempt to
counterbalance with my limited areas of particular interest, which adds
a further strand perhaps but not that much breadth to the group as a
whole.

MA-R

Gjest

Re: C.P. Correction: Birthdate of Margaret Butler, wife of W

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mai 2006 23:25:02

In a message dated 5/15/06 1:55:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time, UTZ@aol.com
writes:

<< 2 Margaret Boleyn
.... +John Sackville b: Bef. 17 March 1483/84 m: Bef. 1507 d: 27 September
1557 Burial: 05 October 1557 Withyham, SSX, ENG >>

Does this mean that this John is no longer the son of Richard Sackville of
Buckhurst ? Or does it mean that this John's grandparents (by that connection)
Humphrey Sackville of Buckhurst and Catherine Browne did not marry in 1471 ?

Or thirdly, that Catherine Browne was not his grandmother at all?

Will

Gjest

Re: C.P. Correction: Birthdate of Margaret Butler, wife of W

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mai 2006 23:33:02

In a message dated 5/15/06 1:55:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time, UTZ@aol.com
writes:

<< ... 3 Richard Sackville >>

Strange that they give poor Richard no descendents.
Was he not the husband of Winifred Bruges, and they the parents of Thomas
Sackville Baron Buckhurst, 1st Earl of Dorset (cr 1604)
and also Anne Sackville wife of Gregory Fiennes, 4th Baron Dacre ?

Will

Renia

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Renia » 15 mai 2006 23:35:15

fairthorne@breathe.com wrote:

mjcar@btinternet.com writes:


Chris Dickinson wrote:

Renia wrote:
1660 is not medieval. Some definitions of the end of the medieval
period
give it as about 1485, others about 1550. This newsgroup
(soc.genealogy.medieval) or the list GEN-MEDIEVAL gives it as about
1500,
IIRC.


I can't imagine many historians considering Charles II or Louis XIV to
be mediaeval.
The problem with "gateway" ancestors, and the sometimes tenuous
justification for spending time discussing them here, is simple: where
does one draw the line? . . . The group's "description" refers to an
upper
end date of "around 1600", which generally seems sensible to me.


I regarded this conference not as restricted to Medieval as defined (if
possible) by historians but as taking over when parish registers were
not available, ie around 1550 in England, so that a different approach
is needed
Have a memory of the Anatolian Museum in Ankara where a display
described Europe as still being in the Dark Ages in 1453


The so-called Dark Ages ended with the Norman Conquest, more or less.

Renia

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Renia » 15 mai 2006 23:41:11

John Brandon wrote:

If Americans can use this newsgroup for their gateway ancestors, then
why cannot Brits use this newsgroup for their gateway ancestors: those
who left the countryside during the industrial revolution, for example,
for the mills and factories in the 19th century? Why cannot Australians
use this newsgroup for their First Fleet ancestors, etc, ad infinitum.


They can, if they like. No one's stopping them.

Ooh, I think Tod and Don would have a few words to say.

Renia

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Renia » 15 mai 2006 23:42:13

Chris Dickinson wrote:

The Verminator grinned:


"PostMed-PreMod Genealogy (1600-1815)"



As there is already a soc.history.early-modern, why not a
soc-genealogy.early-modern?

Just what I've posted. So, it has been proposed and seconded. How could
such a newsgroup be set up?

Renia

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Renia » 15 mai 2006 23:47:56

Todd A. Farmerie wrote:

Creating a new group of limited distribution with a confusing name is
not likely to get people to post somewhere else (and even if it did,
would not suddenly engender more medieval discussion).

Likewise, as was discussed at length when the soc.gen.* groups were
formed, some ballance must be achieved between splitting and lumping
together. I think the perfect groups would be
soc.genealogy.only-what-interests-me, but there would be only one
participant. Groups with too narrow an interest (both in terms of topic
and in terms of willing posters) will not 'take', and there are any
number of dead groups to prove it.

For several reasons, this group has come more and more to be dominated
by discussions of a few rather limited aspects of its original charter
scope. There used to be several Iberian posters, discussions of Viking
origins, posters with significant knowledge of Polish and Russian
material, etc., but this is no longer the case. The problem is not so
much the presence of the 'fringe' topics, but the loss of these central
ones.


I disagree. I think it is the domination of American Gateway ancestors
which has pushed many non-Americans off the newsgroup. From this side of
the pond, it is just too American. No way is American immigration in the
17th century a medieval subject. It is early modern.



However, creating another group for everyone posting about things
I am less interested in will not purify the group, nor will the vacuum
theoretically so created by banishing the unwanted discussion bring
these lost topics and posters back. If you want more medieval
discussion in this group, then post more medieval material.


There are not enough people here interested in medieval material any
more, as you imply, below, regarding Stewart Baldwin's Henry Project pages.


Part of the
burden of making the group what you want it to be falls on you. You
really can't make other people discuss what you want, all you can do is
entice them with your own postings.

In other groups where an analogous compilation is underway, such an
announcement as Stewart Baldwin's release of new Henry Project pages
might be followed by various members picking over the new pages, making
comments and corrections, suggesting additional sources or alternative
interpretations worthy of commentary, etc. Here all we get are "Thanks"
posts (here we are a week later, and no one, present company included
until now, has even commented that there is someone represented as the
wrong gender on one of the new pages). Yes, thanks are due, but if you
want to discuss medieval genealogy, here is a perfect opportunity
staring you in the face, and . . . . nothing.

taf

John Brandon

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av John Brandon » 15 mai 2006 23:51:24

Tempest in a teacup ...

Renia

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Renia » 15 mai 2006 23:57:46

John Brandon wrote:

Tempest in a teacup ...

No, this is what is called "a discussion". And a healthy one it is, too.

John Brandon

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av John Brandon » 16 mai 2006 00:01:35

There will be precisely zero result from it, of that I'm certain.

John Brandon

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av John Brandon » 16 mai 2006 00:06:59

By starting another group, you fragment and even more knowledge will be
lost. Todd made a few suggestions and perhaps we should start to

introduce
more continental subjects and move away from concentrating on gateway
ancestries.

People, get real. Americans have always been the most frequent posters
on this group, so gateway ancestors are gunna continue, however much
anyone dislikes/ regrets it.

But, as the taf said, you are welcome to post along the lines of your
own interests. Just make it exciting (so someone will actually
respond) --

Vickie Elam White

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Vickie Elam White » 16 mai 2006 00:10:07

Tim,

The FAQ also says "This period would extend roughly from AD 500 to AD 1600,
but these limits are not intended to exclude related topics of discussion
lying outside of these boundaries, e.g., royal or noble genealogy in earlier
time periods. A related mailing list is the GEN-ROYAL list, and questions
relating solely to royal genealogy after about AD 1600 should be raised
there."

The recent discussions of the DALE family, for example, involve the proof or
disproof of a royal line. And sometimes it is necessary to come forward a
generation or so in order to determine relationships that can lead backwards
to the proper timeframe.

Vickie Elam White

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:146b82274e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 15 May, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:


In a message dated 5/15/2006 8:51:37 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:

The timeframe of this newsgroup, and by necessity the list,
extends to 1600, by definition of the newsgroup creation
vote.


And of course, the group morphs as groups do. What was voted on 9 or
15
years ago, should not necessarily compel us for all time.

The group FAQ is at: http://users.erols.com/wrei/faqs/medieval.html

The end of this shows that the last revision was in August 2001, which
is not quite 5 years ago.

The question is what medieval means; the answer in the FAQ is
reasonable enough and limits it as the year 1600. I do not think that
anyone would regard post 1600 as medieval and certainly 1660 is far
from being medieval.

I support the views that say that post medieval ganealogy should have
its own group. Certainly the English group soc.genealogy.britain
(which I have occasionally subscribed to) does not cover the pre-census
times well or even much and there is a gap of a suitable group for post
medieval matters. I do not know what its title should be, perhaps
"post-medieval" or "renaissance"?

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

Gjest

Re: Benedicta Foljambe and Tristram Revel

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 mai 2006 00:12:02

In a message dated 5/15/06 2:05:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< FILE [no title] - ref. DD/FJ/4/7/6 - date: 21 June 1513
[from Scope and Content] Will of Godfrey Fulgeham, esq.,
"intending to go over the see with the kynges grace". Mentions wife
Katheryne, sons Jas. and Godfrey, ds. Bennette and Katheryne wife of
Thos. Nevyll, mother Bennet F., and brother Roger F. >>


Katherine Leake
Benedicta Vernon

Will Johnson

Leo van de Pas

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 16 mai 2006 00:18:02

What I would like this list to be is a group of people with _almost_ the
same interests.
The reasons people have interests vary, and that, I think, makes this list
of greater value
as so often when some people lack knowledge, there are others who can
assist.

Every now and then, and I am guilty of this, questions arise outside the
guidelines but, often obvious, the answer can be found on gen-med. And, as
some people proclaim the reason for this list is to make "friends", this
should on the odd occassion be permissable.

As has been remarked, the focus of this list has become too insular and this
has driven many people, especially people from Europe, away. Over the years
I have tried to start conversations about European subjects, there are still
some trying to involve Byzantium onto this list, but as many of the
knowledgeable people in this area have been driven away, our list has become
the poorer for it.

If gen-med wants to appeal to a wider group of people, wider subjects are
needed which, with people on this list with vested interests, can become
difficult.

Personally, I find ancestors of gateway ancestors of great interest but the
attention seems given only to English ancestors. Gateway ancestors also
have, most of the time, continental ancestors and those seem to be ignored.
If members of gen-men behave too insular, the list as a result will also be
too insular and we continue to miss out on many European experts.

Well, this is my five cents worth.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

John Brandon

Re: new early modern genealogy group announcement

Legg inn av John Brandon » 16 mai 2006 00:34:26

Good luck with that!

norenxaq wrote:
Hello:

I have started a new group whose address is:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/early_modern_genealogy

which is intended to cover anything from 1500-1800.

anyone interested is invited to join

thank-you

JTC

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av JTC » 16 mai 2006 00:56:01

I don't know what you understood. This stuff isn't just for the
benefit of the participants, it's also for people who "lurk." If you
now want to claim you had a clear understanding of the legal system in
17th Cent VA before this thread started, be my guest. You certainly
tried to gloss over the fact that Douglas was using two widows to prove
his point. Go back and read the posts.

In 17th century VA, a married woman did not have an identity apart from
her husband. In the four books I have read on this subject, while
there is discussion of marital discord, there is not one reference of a
woman using her maiden name DURING marriage, even though there are
in-depth discussions of the various legal arrangements women could
enter into.

Here's an example of a jointure, or pre-nuptial agreement I've cited
before: On 1 July 1740, Joseph Heale of Lancaster Co., VA made his
will, and it contains an example of "jointure." I suggest you track
down the Jay Berry Price book and have a look at it. You seem to be
under the illusion that these arrangements between men and women were
informal and verbal--nothing could be further from the truth, and that
notion tells me that you don't have the slightest idea of what your
talking about. In fact, isn't it true that you and others on this
board have yet to produce even one example of a married woman using her
maiden name during marriage in 17th century VA? Why do you think that
is?

I have ordered the Fleet books on CD-Rom so I can check out Guido's
claim that Fleet thought these 1655 deeds were bogus: I have seen the
Fleet book, and I remember looking at those deeds, and I don't recall
Fleet intimating that these deeds were fraudulent. I do remember a
comment about the handwriting. Guido is saying that Dale created these
fraudulent deeds by having or changing his wife's name from "Dale" to
"Skipwith" so he could avoid having his wife as a witness to the deeds,
which she days was illegal. I don't know what to say about that. If
the Carter people think that kind of reasoning is going to stand them
in good stead, god bless 'em. It ranks up there with "scribal error."
How would MichaelAnne prove such a charge? I do remember reading a
post in which MichaelAnne was going to do something with those deeds in
connection with a treatment of Thomas Carter that never appeared.

Leo van de Pas

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 16 mai 2006 01:03:01

By starting another group, you fragment and even more knowledge will be
lost. Todd made a few suggestions and perhaps we should start to introduce
more continental subjects and move away from concentrating on gateway
ancestries.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas


----- Original Message -----
From: "Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: What this list is


Todd A. Farmerie wrote:


Creating a new group of limited distribution with a confusing name is not
likely to get people to post somewhere else (and even if it did, would
not suddenly engender more medieval discussion).

Likewise, as was discussed at length when the soc.gen.* groups were
formed, some ballance must be achieved between splitting and lumping
together. I think the perfect groups would be
soc.genealogy.only-what-interests-me, but there would be only one
participant. Groups with too narrow an interest (both in terms of topic
and in terms of willing posters) will not 'take', and there are any
number of dead groups to prove it.

For several reasons, this group has come more and more to be dominated by
discussions of a few rather limited aspects of its original charter
scope. There used to be several Iberian posters, discussions of Viking
origins, posters with significant knowledge of Polish and Russian
material, etc., but this is no longer the case. The problem is not so
much the presence of the 'fringe' topics, but the loss of these central
ones.


I disagree. I think it is the domination of American Gateway ancestors
which has pushed many non-Americans off the newsgroup. From this side of
the pond, it is just too American. No way is American immigration in the
17th century a medieval subject. It is early modern.



However, creating another group for everyone posting about things
I am less interested in will not purify the group, nor will the vacuum
theoretically so created by banishing the unwanted discussion bring these
lost topics and posters back. If you want more medieval discussion in
this group, then post more medieval material.


There are not enough people here interested in medieval material any more,
as you imply, below, regarding Stewart Baldwin's Henry Project pages.


Part of the
burden of making the group what you want it to be falls on you. You
really can't make other people discuss what you want, all you can do is
entice them with your own postings.

In other groups where an analogous compilation is underway, such an
announcement as Stewart Baldwin's release of new Henry Project pages
might be followed by various members picking over the new pages, making
comments and corrections, suggesting additional sources or alternative
interpretations worthy of commentary, etc. Here all we get are "Thanks"
posts (here we are a week later, and no one, present company included
until now, has even commented that there is someone represented as the
wrong gender on one of the new pages). Yes, thanks are due, but if you
want to discuss medieval genealogy, here is a perfect opportunity staring
you in the face, and . . . . nothing.

taf

norenxaq

new early modern genealogy group announcement

Legg inn av norenxaq » 16 mai 2006 01:14:01

Hello:

I have started a new group whose address is:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/early_modern_genealogy

which is intended to cover anything from 1500-1800.

anyone interested is invited to join

thank-you

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 16 mai 2006 01:23:53

Renia wrote:
Chris Dickinson wrote:

As there is already a soc.history.early-modern, why not a
soc-genealogy.early-modern?

Just what I've posted. So, it has been proposed and seconded. How could
such a newsgroup be set up?


And there's the rub. For all practical purposes, it can't. You would
have to draft a charter, post a proposal, discuss it for several months,
probably redraft and rediscuss the proposal, taking into account
changes, and then have a formal voting period, where you must get a
super-majority in favor. There has not been a new genealogical group
created in almost a decade, and given that virtually all of the more
recent ones created then failed to maintain a minimal level of
discussion, I imagine it being a difficult challenge (particularly given
the impetus - not a group of people interested in a topic that want a
place to discuss it, but a group of people who want the discussion out
of their group). A Google group could be created, but it will not be
mirrored on USENET. Likewise a Yahoo group (as has just been done). A
RootsWeb mailing list could be made, but again, no USENET, and no
web-based gateway.


s.h.e-m really is a good case-study, as it came about through similar
impulses. Too many people were discussing material that fell after 1492
or 1500 or 1452 or whenever, and it was distracting from the "Real"
medieval content. What happened? the people who were posing in
soc.hist.med kept right on posting to soc.hist.med, in some cases
cross-posting to the new group as well but never just transfering the
discussion to the new group. The new group now averages one post every
three days, which is moribund by USENET standards.

Any way you go at it, you can't force "them" to post go elsewhere, even
if the offense is blatant, as we have all experienced in the past.

taf

Gjest

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 mai 2006 01:36:02

In a message dated 5/15/06 3:50:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
renia@DELETEotenet.gr writes:

<< I disagree. I think it is the domination of American Gateway ancestors
which has pushed many non-Americans off the newsgroup. From this side of
the pond, it is just too American. No way is American immigration in the
17th century a medieval subject. It is early modern. >>

What domination ?
Speaking personally, of the last hundred posts I've made that had
genealogical content (as opposed to useless sniping and argument :))), I have to believe
90% of them were completely (as far as I know) unrelated to American
immigrants.

Will Johnson

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 16 mai 2006 01:41:55

Renia wrote:
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:


Creating a new group of limited distribution with a confusing name is
not likely to get people to post somewhere else (and even if it did,
would not suddenly engender more medieval discussion).

Likewise, as was discussed at length when the soc.gen.* groups were
formed, some ballance must be achieved between splitting and lumping
together. I think the perfect groups would be
soc.genealogy.only-what-interests-me, but there would be only one
participant. Groups with too narrow an interest (both in terms of
topic and in terms of willing posters) will not 'take', and there are
any number of dead groups to prove it.

For several reasons, this group has come more and more to be dominated
by discussions of a few rather limited aspects of its original charter
scope. There used to be several Iberian posters, discussions of
Viking origins, posters with significant knowledge of Polish and
Russian material, etc., but this is no longer the case. The problem
is not so much the presence of the 'fringe' topics, but the loss of
these central ones.



I disagree. I think it is the domination of American Gateway ancestors
which has pushed many non-Americans off the newsgroup.

Were they pushed or did the jump? I would maintain that it is much more
likely people would leave for lack of interesting topics than for an
overabundance of uninteresting ones (admittedly, to a degree a half-full
/ half-empty distinction).

The discussion of American gateways has always been here. It was
explicitly included in the charter because, like it or not, for
Americans gateways are the sine qua non of medieval genealogy. Rare is
the American for whom these topics aren't inextricably linked. (Such a
broad umbrella is not limited to Americans either. Most of the heraldic
Visitations likewise fall outside the classical definition of Medieval
yet they too are oft-discussed, for analogous reasons).

However, creating another group for everyone posting about things

I am less interested in will not purify the group, nor will the vacuum
theoretically so created by banishing the unwanted discussion bring
these lost topics and posters back. If you want more medieval
discussion in this group, then post more medieval material.

There are not enough people here interested in medieval material any
more, as you imply, below, regarding Stewart Baldwin's Henry Project pages.


That being said, think about the implications of a new group. Either
the early-modern s.g.m posters would refuse to migrate, and there would
be no benefit, or they would migrate, and by your own characterization,
there would be no one left here with an interest in medieval topics.
What then would be accomplished?

taf

JTC

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av JTC » 16 mai 2006 01:49:49

The proof that Diana Skipwith wasn't Katherine's mother is the fact
that Diana used her maiden name on those two deeds in 1655. Therefore
Dale has an earlier wife. You're the one saying that evidence is
unacceptable, so you're the one who needs to provide the evidence.
Married women couldn't make wills. That's the fact of life in 17th
century VA.. [If this woman was just some ordinary pioneer wife, those
two deeds would have been accepted as complete proof that Katherine
wasn't Skipwith's daughter, and you know it.] It doesn't bother you
that from 1655 to 1695 Diana Dale never used her maiden name again? If
your "evidence" is as conclusive as you seem to think it is, why
hasn't Dr. Greene accepted it and retracted the Ward article?

If you stake your reputation on tripe like this, you're going to find
that your books are treated like tripe, too. The people that read this
group are going to make an educated decision as to whether or not they
want to spend 100 bucks on them. I expect more from the author of such
weighty tomes than a demand that his readers prove him wrong. Since
when am I supposed to be proving you wrong? You're supposed to be
proving you're right! You don't have a single piece of evidence that
Diana Dale was the mother of Katherine, do you?

Renia

Re: new early modern genealogy group announcement

Legg inn av Renia » 16 mai 2006 02:01:39

norenxaq wrote:

Hello:

I have started a new group whose address is:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/early_modern_genealogy

which is intended to cover anything from 1500-1800.

anyone interested is invited to join

thank-you

Ooh, I say!

Renia

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Renia » 16 mai 2006 02:04:31

John Brandon wrote:

By starting another group, you fragment and even more knowledge will be

lost. Todd made a few suggestions and perhaps we should start to
introduce
more continental subjects and move away from concentrating on gateway
ancestries.

People, get real. Americans have always been the most frequent posters
on this group, so gateway ancestors are gunna continue, however much
anyone dislikes/ regrets it.


The internet is still relatively new in Europe and there are many people
who have still never heard of newsgroups.

But, as the taf said, you are welcome to post along the lines of your
own interests. Just make it exciting (so someone will actually
respond) --

Renia

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Renia » 16 mai 2006 02:05:35

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 5/15/06 3:50:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
renia@DELETEotenet.gr writes:

I disagree. I think it is the domination of American Gateway ancestors
which has pushed many non-Americans off the newsgroup. From this side of
the pond, it is just too American. No way is American immigration in the
17th century a medieval subject. It is early modern.

What domination ?
Speaking personally, of the last hundred posts I've made that had
genealogical content (as opposed to useless sniping and argument :))), I have to believe
90% of them were completely (as far as I know) unrelated to American
immigrants.

That may be true for your latest posts, but I'm talking of the overall
feel of the newsgroup during the last six years or so.

Renia

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Renia » 16 mai 2006 02:10:15

Todd A. Farmerie wrote:

Renia wrote:

Todd A. Farmerie wrote:


Creating a new group of limited distribution with a confusing name is
not likely to get people to post somewhere else (and even if it did,
would not suddenly engender more medieval discussion).

Likewise, as was discussed at length when the soc.gen.* groups were
formed, some ballance must be achieved between splitting and lumping
together. I think the perfect groups would be
soc.genealogy.only-what-interests-me, but there would be only one
participant. Groups with too narrow an interest (both in terms of
topic and in terms of willing posters) will not 'take', and there are
any number of dead groups to prove it.

For several reasons, this group has come more and more to be
dominated by discussions of a few rather limited aspects of its
original charter scope. There used to be several Iberian posters,
discussions of Viking origins, posters with significant knowledge of
Polish and Russian material, etc., but this is no longer the case.
The problem is not so much the presence of the 'fringe' topics, but
the loss of these central ones.




I disagree. I think it is the domination of American Gateway ancestors
which has pushed many non-Americans off the newsgroup.


Were they pushed or did the jump? I would maintain that it is much more
likely people would leave for lack of interesting topics than for an
overabundance of uninteresting ones (admittedly, to a degree a half-full
/ half-empty distinction).

The discussion of American gateways has always been here. It was
explicitly included in the charter because, like it or not, for
Americans gateways are the sine qua non of medieval genealogy. Rare is
the American for whom these topics aren't inextricably linked. (Such a
broad umbrella is not limited to Americans either. Most of the heraldic
Visitations likewise fall outside the classical definition of Medieval
yet they too are oft-discussed, for analogous reasons).

However, creating another group for everyone posting about things


I am less interested in will not purify the group, nor will the
vacuum theoretically so created by banishing the unwanted discussion
bring these lost topics and posters back. If you want more medieval
discussion in this group, then post more medieval material.


There are not enough people here interested in medieval material any
more, as you imply, below, regarding Stewart Baldwin's Henry Project
pages.



That being said, think about the implications of a new group. Either
the early-modern s.g.m posters would refuse to migrate, and there would
be no benefit, or they would migrate, and by your own characterization,
there would be no one left here with an interest in medieval topics.
What then would be accomplished?

taf

Fair enough. But what if THIS newsgroup was expanded to encompass the
early-modern period, on BOTH sides of the pond. And by early-modern, I
mean pre-UK/Australian Census, for example (pre-1828).

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 16 mai 2006 02:26:47

Renia wrote:

Fair enough. But what if THIS newsgroup was expanded to encompass the
early-modern period, on BOTH sides of the pond. And by early-modern, I
mean pre-UK/Australian Census, for example (pre-1828).

I don't know about 1828, but it already could be viewed as encompassing
some 1660 material on both (all) sides.


The fact is, any way you slice it, 1) it will be arbitrary; 2) it will
leave out some areas relevant to the general topic; 3) it will include
some areas not really relevant to the general topic; and 4) people will
post where they want anyhow.

taf

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 16 mai 2006 02:35:15

norenxaq wrote:
That being said, think about the implications of a new group. Either
the early-modern s.g.m posters would refuse to migrate, and there
would be no benefit, or they would migrate, and by your own
characterization, there would be no one left here with an interest in
medieval topics. What then would be accomplished?

this is not an either/or decision as some here are characterising this
as. people who subscribe to one are not excluded from joining and/or
participating in any others

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was refering to what the posters would do
with their posts, not some physical relocation of the people themselves.
Either the posters will take those posts elsewhere or they won't.
(The third alternative is that they crosspost the same material to both
groups, which doesn't solve the problem either.)

If no one is posting core medieval stuff now, what makes anyone think
they will if only all of the early-modern posts are removed?

taf

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 16 mai 2006 02:49:50

ClaudiusI0@aol.com wrote:

Can we please make Edward Dale off topic?

It's all right with me, but I am just a lone poster. (What did you
want? a fatwa?)

I think Renia is correct and we need to get back to real medieval genealogy.

Again, no complaints here. Perhaps everyone who feels this way could
encourage the behavior by posting something ('really') medieval.

taf

norenxaq

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av norenxaq » 16 mai 2006 03:08:02


That being said, think about the implications of a new group. Either
the early-modern s.g.m posters would refuse to migrate, and there
would be no benefit, or they would migrate, and by your own
characterization, there would be no one left here with an interest in
medieval topics. What then would be accomplished?

taf

this is not an either/or decision as some here are characterising this

as. people who subscribe to one are not excluded from joining and/or
participating in any others

Gjest

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 mai 2006 03:22:02

In a message dated 5/15/2006 8:06:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

I have ordered the Fleet books on CD-Rom so I can check out Guido's
claim that Fleet thought these 1655 deeds were bogus: I have seen the
Fleet book, and I remember looking at those deeds, and I don't recall
Fleet intimating that these deeds were fraudulent. I do remember a
comment about the handwriting. Guido is saying that Dale created these
fraudulent deeds by having or changing his wife's name from "Dale" to
"Skipwith" so he could avoid having his wife as a witness to the deeds,
which she days was illegal. I don't know what to say about that. If
the Carter people think that kind of reasoning is going to stand them
in good stead, god bless 'em. It ranks up there with "scribal error."
How would MichaelAnne prove such a charge? I do remember reading a
post in which MichaelAnne was going to do something with those deeds in
connection with a treatment of Thomas Carter that never appeared.





Beverly Fleet questioned the deed recorded in 1658. He made a comment that
he didn't understand what was going on but hopefully "the elegant Skipwith and
Col. John Carter did".

This is the only deed I have come across in the Lancaster County records
that was recorded three years after the fact. It is the only deed where everyone
but one witness, one man who had power of attorney and the two principal
land recipients were dead. It also appears that Edward Dale owned some of the
land involved as his daughter Mary Harrison Dale ended up with land in this
area in 1679 which is attested to in the Lancaster County records. A man's wife
could not witness a deed that he held an interest in. This was Virginia law.
This one deed appears to be a problem and therefore it shouldn't be used as
evidence of anything. This is all I have been stating.

I think it is futile and a complete waste of time to continue this thread.
This is not a case of whether Katherine Dale is Diana Skipwith's daughter but
whether this deed is valid or not. You want to use the law to prove your
case about married women having no rights in this period but you ridicule the
law when it mandates something you don't want to believe.

MichaelAnne

Gjest

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 mai 2006 03:23:02

In a message dated 5/15/06 6:15:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
renia@DELETEotenet.gr writes:

<< Fair enough. But what if THIS newsgroup was expanded to encompass the
early-modern period, on BOTH sides of the pond. And by early-modern, I
mean pre-UK/Australian Census, for example (pre-1828). >>

Why so late ? I think you're just trying to sneak your own people in under
the line :)
Will

Gjest

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 mai 2006 03:35:02

Dear Todd,

Can we please make Edward Dale off topic? It doesn't matter if Katherine
Dale is Diana Skipwith's daughter or Charlemagne's at this point.

I think Renia is correct and we need to get back to real medieval genealogy.
This discussion is not adding to anyone's knowledge on the list and no one
is willing to deal fairly or politely with each other.

This has to be boring for others not interested in this lineage.

Thanks.

MichaelAnne

Gjest

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 mai 2006 03:40:02

Dear Todd, Will, Douglas and others,
Even if a new group
(as Todd has pointed out) should be created for the post Medieval period, OT
items would be likely to continue to be posted, plus several people might not
even bother to subscribe to the new list which could not be created in any
short period of time. So, it appears We have few viable choices, the only nearly
pleasant one being putting up with the posters We have.
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

JTC

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av JTC » 16 mai 2006 03:57:12

Well MichaelAnne you kind of did a 180 on the "fraudulent" deed. Now
you're saying Fleet just commented he didn't understand it. You're
speculating that the reason he said that was because it was a fraud.

I agree. No minds are going to be changed. It's pointless to continue
the thread. At least there is a counterpoint to Douglas's books, and
under the circumstances that's about it.

John P. Ravilious

Re: Curious

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 16 mai 2006 04:07:47

Dear Leo,

Pierre Riche, in his The Carolingians (trans. Michael I.
Allen), provided some fleshing-out of Berengar II's career.
I can't find my copy at present ("Not on Shelf" as they say at
the LOC), but the 5 generation pedigree below provides what
details I have at present re: Berengar II's paternal ancestry
(to his grandfather Anscar anyway), and his grandchildren.

There is a bit more detail provided re: Berengar's
paternal family by Barbara H. Rosenwein, in her article
"Friends and Family, Politics and Privilege in the Kingship
of Berengar I". This is found in Samuel K. Cohn, Jr. and
Steven A. Epstein, eds., Portraits of Medieval and Renaissance
Living: Essays in Memory of David Herlihy [Ann Arbor: Univ.
of Michigan Press, 1996), pp. 91-106. You can view this
online at

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0 ... Lre_DJXU-M

By the bye, through his grandchildren, Otto-William, Count
of Mâcon and Nevers (d. 1026), and Baldwin IV, Count of
Flanders (d. 1035), Berengar II's descendants are legion
indeed. You can throw William Farrar and a few others (I
think William Asfordby and prob. William Skepper as well)
into the mix re: emigrant descendants..... and a few
non-emigrant descendants as well.

Cheers,

John *



1 Anscar of Oscheret
----------------------------------------
Death: ca 0898[1]
Occ: Margrave of Ivrea

count of Oscheret[1]

created markgraf of Ivrea

Children: Adalbert (-ca0925)


1.1a Adalbert of Ivrea*
----------------------------------------
Death: ca 0925[1]
Occ: Margrave of Ivrea

Margrave of Ivrea
rebelled against Emperor Berengar (his father-in-law) with
support of Rudolf II of Upper Burgundy, before 924[2]

he m. 1stly Gisela of Friuli,
2ndly Ermengarde of Tuscany[1]

Spouse: Gisela of Friuli
Death: 13 Jun 0910[1]
Father: Berengar I, "Emperor of Italy" (-0924)
Mother: Bertila of Spoleto

Children: Berengar II (-0966)

Other Spouses Ermengarde of Tuscany


1.1a.1 Berengar II of Italy
----------------------------------------
Death: 6 Jul 0966[1]
Occ: King of Italy

King of Italy

drove Hugh of Arles out of Italy, 945
crowned King of Italy at Pavia, 950; displaced by Otto I,
951[2]

Chronicon Salernitanum, ca. 950-1:
' Hoc tempestate Italie rex preerat Verengarius una cum filio
suo, Adeveltrus nomine. Sed cum multa sevicia erga populum
sibi subiectum ipse iam fatus rex nimirum adnecteret, atque
variis casibus [casibus] eos cruciaret, clam legacionem
Longobardi Romanique Octoni regi miserunt, quatenus veniret
et regnum Italie sub sua diccione optineret; erat siquidem
illo in tempore Saxonum Allemannorumque rex. Ut talia rex
Octo audisset, valde gavisus est, atque ut id fieret omnimodis
gratulabatur, et sine mora cum valido exercitu Italiam
properavit. At vero rex Langobardorum Adevertus [veni] cum
magno apparatu populusque nimis valde clusas venit, quatenus
cum Octone certamen iniret; feruntque plurimi, ut sexaginta
milia pugnatorum cum rege Adeveltro fuissent. Sed dum una die
unaque nox ibidem morarent, et Octoni exercitum ibidem non
apropiarent, non pauci comitibus Adeveltri regi
promserunt: " Volueramus, domne rex, ut Papiam cum paucis
pergas, et tuo genitori dicito, quatenus Bardorum regnum sub
vestra dicione commictant, quia nos minime sub illius
potestate iam amplius perduramus. Si vobis commictit regnum,
nos totis viribus pugnamus, sin autem, Italie regnum exteri
regi commictimus, quid seviciam illius sueque coniugi
omnimodis sustinere nequimus. " Sed dum talia (patri) matrique
que dictum ei fuerat intimasset, pater vero dictis eius
optemperavit, mator namque dictis eius nullo modo assensum
dedit. Quapropter ad clusas reversus est, et suis comitibus
omnia propalavit; at illi omnes exinde irati sunt, protinusque
illum reliquerunt, et unusquisque in suis urbibus reniearunt.
Octo rex namque sine impedimento Italiam introivit atque
Italie regnum optinuit, ipseque Verengarius in oppido, in quo
cum sua uxore fugierat, qui vocatur sancti Leoni, per vim
comprehendit, Galliamque vinctos illos direxit. Adelbertus
cum suis germanis paucisque suisque fidelibus fugam iniit,
atque in insulam Corsecam venit. '
[Chron. Salernitanum, 169[3]]

by agreement became viceroy of Italy (for Otto I), excluding
Aquileia and Verona[2]

Spouse: Willa of Arles
Death: aft 0963[1]
Father: Boso of Arles
Mother: Willa 'II' of Burgundy

Children: Adalbert (-0971)
Wido
Conrad (Kuno)
Gisela
Gerberga
Rosala (Susanna) (-1003)


1.1a.1.1 Adalbert of Italy
----------------------------------------
Death: 30 Apr 0971
Occ: King of Italy 950-962

count of Aosta

Spouse: Gerberga of Mâcon
Death: aft 0985[1]
Father: Lambert of Chalons
Mother: Adelais

Children: Otto-William (-1026)


1.1a.1.1.1 Otto-William of the Franche-Comte
----------------------------------------
Death: 21 Oct 1026[1]
Occ: Count of the Franche-Comte 1002-1016

Count of Mâcon and Nevers
acquired lands and title in Burgundy from stepfather[1],[4]

claimed the duchy of Burgundy on death of Duke Henry (his
father in law) 15 Oct 1002; supported by son in law Landre,
count of Mâcon, 1002/1003

reconciled with King Robert of France[4]
noted benefactor of Cluny [Riley-Smith p. 95[5]]

also called Otto, king of Lombardy

Spouse: Ermentrude de Roucy
Birth: 0958
Death: 5 Mar 1003[6]
Father: Raynald de Roucy (-~0972)
Mother: Alberada of Lorraine (-0973)
Marr: ca 0980[4]

Children: Agnes (ca0995-1068)
Mathilda (-1005)
Guy (-ca1004)
Raynald (-ca1057)


1.1a.1.2a Rosala (Susanna) of Ivrea*[1]
----------------------------------------
Death: 1003[7]

she m. 1stly Baldwin of Flanders,
2ndly Robert of France (later King Robert II)[8]

Spouse: Arnulf II of Flanders
Birth: ca 0961[9]
Death: 0988[9],[10]
Father: Baldwin III of Flanders (ca0940-0962)
Mother: Matilda 'Billung' of Saxony (-1008)
Marr: 0976[9]

Children: Baldwin IV (0977-1035)
Matilda (-ca0995)

Other Spouses Robert II of France


1.1a.1.2a.1a Baldwin IV of Flanders*
----------------------------------------
Birth: 0977[9]
Death: 30 May 1035[11],[7]
Occ: Count of Flanders 987-1035

Count of Flanders 987-1035
b. ca. 977; succeeded at ca. age 11[9]

cf. ES I Band I.2 Tafel 203 (Luxemburg)[11]

Spouse: Ogiva of Luxembourg
Death: 21 Feb 1036[7],[11]
Father: Frederick of Luxembourg (-1019)
Mother: Gerberga of Kinziggau (->0985)
Marr: ca 1012[11],[7]

Children: Baldwin V 'of Lille' (ca1013-1067)

Other Spouses Elena of Normandy


1.1a.1.2a.1b Baldwin IV of Flanders* (See above)
----------------------------------------

Spouse: Elena of Normandy
Father: Richard II of Normandy (0978-1026)
Mother: Judith of Rennes (-1017)

Children: Judith (-1094), m. (2) Welf IV of Bavaria


1.1a.1.2b Rosala (Susanna) of Ivrea* (See above)
----------------------------------------

Spouse: Robert II of France
Birth: 27 Mar 0972
Death: 20 Jul 1031
Father: Hugh 'Capet' of France (ca0941-0996)
Mother: Adela of Aquitaine (ca0950-1004)


1.1b Adalbert of Ivrea* (See above)
----------------------------------------

Spouse: Ermengarde of Tuscany
Death: aft 29 Feb 0932[1]

Children: Anscar (-<0942)

Other Spouses Gisela of Friuli



1. Paul Theroff, "House of Burgundy-Ivrea," Paul Theroff's
Dynastic Genealogy Files, Brigitte Gastel Lloyd,
worldroots.clicktron.com/brigitte/theroff/.
2. Pierre Riche (trans. by Michael I. Allen), "The
Carolingians," Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press,
1993.
3. Luigi Andrea Berto, "Reti Medievali: Antologia di cronache
italiane altomedievali," provides texts from the Chronicon
Salernitanum, URL
http://www.storia.unive.it/_RM/didattic ... salern.htm
4. W. Scott Jessee, "Robert the Burgundian and the Counts of
Anjou, ca. 1025-1098," Washington, D.C.: Catholic
University of America Press, 2000.
5. Jonathan Riley-Smith, "The First Crusaders, 1095-1131,"
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997 [3rd ed. 2002].
6. Christian Settipani, "Trente-Deux Quartiers Ahnenreihe for
Eleanor of Aquitaine," 6 Sept 1998,
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com, rootsweb.com (rsponse to
D.Spencer Hines, same subject, 2 Sept 1998.
7. Paul Theroff, "The Counts of Flanders and Hainault," Paul
Theroff's Dynastic Genealogy Files,
worldroots.clicktron.com/brigitte/theroff/
8. Constance Brittain Bouchard, "Eleanor's Divorce from Louis
VII: The Uses of Consanguinity," Bonnie Wheeler and John
Carmi Parsons, eds., "Eleanor of Aquitaine: Lord and Lady,"
New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, Chapter 10 (pp. 223 et
seq.).
9. David Nicholas, "Medieval Flanders," London: Longman Group,
1992.
10. Stewart Baldwin, "The Henry Project (Ancestors of Henry
II)," http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/
11. Detlev Schewennicke, "Europäische Stammtafeln: Neue Folge,"
Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1999 [4th series],
Band I.2 - Premysliden, Askanier, Herzoge von Lothringen,
die Hauser Hessen, Wurttemberg und Zahringen, First series
by Wilhelm Karl, Prinz zu Isenburg, continued second series
by Frank, Baron Freytag von Loringhoven.


* John P. Ravilious


"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Dear James,
As I indicated, I am aware of his line to Charlemagne, but you could help me
with biographical details. Lately I have been working very hard on adding
biographical details. With the next update of my website I expect quite a
number of biographies to be added, many for medieval people. I think it is
great (I don't have them) to have genealogical details about ancestors in
the medieval times, but they become more interesting if biographical details
can be added. Especially as Berenger seems to have been rebellious or
ambitious, he should be an interesting ancestor to have.
Many thanks for your responce.
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: <Jwc1870@aol.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: Curious


Dear Leo,
Berenger II, King of Ivrea (ancestor in the male line of
the
Counts of Burgundy and Kings of Castile and Leon from Alfonso VII to
Enrique
IV) was the son of Adalbert, Margrave of Ivrea by his wife Gisela of
Friuli,
daughter of Emperor Berenger I by his wife Bertila of Spoleto, Emperor
Berenger
I was the son of Eberhard , Margrave of Friuli and Gisela of the Empire,
daughter of Louis I, Holy Roman emperor by his 2nd wife Judith of Altdorf,
Louis I
was a son of Charlemagne by his 3rd wife Hildegarde of Swabia.
(Source:The Peerage.com)
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA


Gjest

Re: Curious

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 mai 2006 04:20:03

Dear Leo,
Berenger II, King of Ivrea (ancestor in the male line of the
Counts of Burgundy and Kings of Castile and Leon from Alfonso VII to Enrique
IV) was the son of Adalbert, Margrave of Ivrea by his wife Gisela of Friuli,
daughter of Emperor Berenger I by his wife Bertila of Spoleto, Emperor Berenger
I was the son of Eberhard , Margrave of Friuli and Gisela of the Empire,
daughter of Louis I, Holy Roman emperor by his 2nd wife Judith of Altdorf, Louis I
was a son of Charlemagne by his 3rd wife Hildegarde of Swabia.
(Source:The Peerage.com)
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 mai 2006 04:29:02

The bottom line so aptly put by TAF, and I pray the final word on this
fruitless thread is, "people will post where they want anyhow."

Brom Nichol

Leo van de Pas

Re: Curious

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 16 mai 2006 04:31:02

Dear James,
As I indicated, I am aware of his line to Charlemagne, but you could help me
with biographical details. Lately I have been working very hard on adding
biographical details. With the next update of my website I expect quite a
number of biographies to be added, many for medieval people. I think it is
great (I don't have them) to have genealogical details about ancestors in
the medieval times, but they become more interesting if biographical details
can be added. Especially as Berenger seems to have been rebellious or
ambitious, he should be an interesting ancestor to have.
Many thanks for your responce.
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: <Jwc1870@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: Curious


Dear Leo,
Berenger II, King of Ivrea (ancestor in the male line of
the
Counts of Burgundy and Kings of Castile and Leon from Alfonso VII to
Enrique
IV) was the son of Adalbert, Margrave of Ivrea by his wife Gisela of
Friuli,
daughter of Emperor Berenger I by his wife Bertila of Spoleto, Emperor
Berenger
I was the son of Eberhard , Margrave of Friuli and Gisela of the Empire,
daughter of Louis I, Holy Roman emperor by his 2nd wife Judith of Altdorf,
Louis I
was a son of Charlemagne by his 3rd wife Hildegarde of Swabia.
(Source:The Peerage.com)
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA


Gjest

Re: Curious

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 mai 2006 05:24:02

Dear Leo,
Very little additional information from wikipedia. In 945,
Hugh of Arles, King of Italy in opposition to Rudolph II, King of Burgundy and
Italy agreed to leave his son Lothair II of Arles, whom He had married to
Rudolph II`s daughter Adelaide of Burgundy in Italy with Berenger II of Ivrea as
regent. In 950 Lothair died probably with assistance from Berenger, who
proclaimed himself and his son Adalbert co-kings in that year and attempted to marry
Adelaide off to Adalbert. She objected and apparently got a message off to
German King Otto I, who invaded Italy and subsequently married her, having agreed
to allow Berenger II and Adalbert to continue to rule as his vassals. However
in 960 Berenger II attacked Pope John XII, who appealled to Otto, who then
re-entered Italy in 962 and was crowned emperor. No sooner had Otto returned to
Germany then John XII began negociating with Berenger. Otto returned to Italy
once more and took Berenger II and his wife Willa into captivity in Germany.
Berenger II died in 966.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

Ford Mommaerts-Browne

Re: OT Sir Anthony Wagner - Frederick Lewis Weis

Legg inn av Ford Mommaerts-Browne » 16 mai 2006 05:35:02

----- Original Message -----
From: <mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: OT Sir Anthony Wagner - Frederick Lewis Weis


| "Ford Mommaerts-Browne" wrote:
| > I know that one person at wikipedia deleted reference to Sir Anthony and others, calling them charlatans.
|
| Sir Anthony Wagner certainly wasn't a charlatan- some of the Heralds
| could have been called that (Sir William Betham springs to mind, so
| lambasted by Horace Round), but one of Wagner's successors as Garter
| described him to me as the greatest genealogist of his generation,
| perhaps even of the whole 20th Century. (I wonder now if he meant just
| the UK, or the whole world!)


The whole world would not have been inaccurate, IMHO. He has also been described as the greatest mind of the College of Arms since Camden.


| He was practically a born genealogist- I
| think he was accepted by the College of Arms while still a schoolboy,
| and was genuinely wedded to the subject. There is an error in the
| Wikipedia entry, his autobiography was called 'A Herald's World'
| (rather than '...Way'); in it he writes about- among other things- his
| (and his wife's) ancestors, and his blindness.
| -Matthew

I found him to be a gentle and generous gentleman. Very kind and gracious. As was Lady Wagner. It was a true treat to see the two of them together. Despite the disparity of their ages, they were truly devoted to each other, and she helped him with his work after his blindness.
His devotion to genealogy was infectious. If there's a genealogy heaven, he's sure to be there, surrounded by lost scrolls, IPMs, wills and charters.

James Dempster

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av James Dempster » 16 mai 2006 06:48:26

On Tue, 16 May 2006 04:04:31 +0300, Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr>
wrote:

John Brandon wrote:

People, get real. Americans have always been the most frequent posters
on this group, so gateway ancestors are gunna continue, however much
anyone dislikes/ regrets it.


The internet is still relatively new in Europe and there are many people
who have still never heard of newsgroups.

Some of us Europeans have been on usenet since 1995 and know others

who were on usenet before that so I don't think that the idea that the
internet is somehow new territory for Europeans really works anymore.

However, the lack of knowledge of usenet is a serious difficulty for
the continuance of this group and all groups. Many ISPs no longer have
news servers - this has happened with me and I now subscribe to a paid
for news server - so people never know that usenet exists. When I
first got access to the internet my ISP even provided access to
gopherspace, these days it's often world wide web and email only.

As for the dominance of gateway ancestors, I put up with it because I
recognise that it simply reflects the interests of the majority of
posters and lurkers. I sometimes find it frustrating that there is so
little discussed here on my own areas of interest - mainly very
obscure north-eastern Scottish families who don't link into the royals
of Europe or have any gateway descendants, but there are some
persistent and helpful posters on the subject of Scottish genealogy
and I contribute where I can - though I mainly lurk.

If anyone has information on, or information on sources on or wants to
discuss in any way any of the following I'd be interested in
broadening out the scope of the group :-)

The identity of Katherine, wife of Sir Walter Lindsay of Kinneff (k
1424)
The Frasers of Durris (up to 1600)
The Abernethies of Netherdale
The Murrays of Glaswell
The Cheynes of Arnage

James
James Dempster

You know you've had a good night
when you wake up
and someone's outlining you in chalk.

Renia

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Renia » 16 mai 2006 07:21:12

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 5/15/06 6:15:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
renia@DELETEotenet.gr writes:

Fair enough. But what if THIS newsgroup was expanded to encompass the
early-modern period, on BOTH sides of the pond. And by early-modern, I
mean pre-UK/Australian Census, for example (pre-1828).

Why so late ? I think you're just trying to sneak your own people in under
the line :)
Will

Nope. Father Polish gentry, mother Anglo-Irish gentry. GB census
material doesn't apply.

Renia

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Renia » 16 mai 2006 07:23:33

James Dempster wrote:


If anyone has information on, or information on sources on or wants to
discuss in any way any of the following I'd be interested in
broadening out the scope of the group :-)

The identity of Katherine, wife of Sir Walter Lindsay of Kinneff (k
1424)

Hmm, Lindsay. My gateway ancestor (to Ireland in the 17thC) was Robert
Lindsay. (Can't look him up at the mo, got to go out.) Ring any bells?

Gjest

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 mai 2006 07:54:52

James Dempster schrieb:

As for the dominance of gateway ancestors, I put up with it because I
recognise that it simply reflects the interests of the majority of
posters and lurkers. I sometimes find it frustrating that there is so
little discussed here on my own areas of interest - mainly very
obscure north-eastern Scottish families who don't link into the royals
of Europe or have any gateway descendants, but there are some
persistent and helpful posters on the subject of Scottish genealogy
and I contribute where I can - though I mainly lurk.

If anyone has information on, or information on sources on or wants to
discuss in any way any of the following I'd be interested in
broadening out the scope of the group :-)

The identity of Katherine, wife of Sir Walter Lindsay of Kinneff (k
1424)
The Frasers of Durris (up to 1600)
The Abernethies of Netherdale
The Murrays of Glaswell
The Cheynes of Arnage

James

These look like excellent topics - take the plunge, and post what you
have, and what you want to know.

I figure there are three things I can do with the mediaeval
genealogical data I collect:

(1) hoard it (but this benefits no-one else)
(2) publish it (but I am an amateur, and a fairly rank one at times)
(3) post it.

I go for option (3), not just because I hope for a response that may
validate or expand my knowledge, but because it means that the
information is recorded and disseminated. And, thanks to the archives
and the increasing use of the internet as a research repository, it's
always available. I guess more than half my posts go unresponded to,
but that's fine, because it's still getting the information out, and
hopefully it's appreciated by other posters/lurkers some time or
another. Additionally, while questions may go unanswered, replies that
probe the logic behind one's assessments are also very useful, and
likewise research tips.

Regards, Michael

Matt Tompkins

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Matt Tompkins » 16 mai 2006 08:34:28

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
And how did a Scottish nobleman get to be a lord of a French town?


(Assuming we're talking about a medieval-period nobleman) possibly
because he was one of the Scotsmen who fought for France during the
Hundred Years War - some of them acquired French fiefs.

Matt Tompkins

Gjest

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 mai 2006 09:07:02

In a message dated 5/15/2006 10:51:03 PM Pacific Standard Time,
talksinsentences@gmail.com writes:

The identity of Katherine, wife of Sir Walter Lindsay of Kinneff (k
1424)
The Frasers of Durris (up to 1600)
The Abernethies of Netherdale
The Murrays of Glaswell
The Cheynes of Arnage


That's pretty darn specific!
How about the house of Menteith and Karse (or Carse?). I still have very
very little in the way of exactly where Karse came from or how it descended.
Googling on it is pretty much a pointless task, or I get a hundred pages that
give the exact same limited information.

And how did a Scottish nobleman get to be a lord of a French town?

The thing that makes me stick to English landed folk is the A2A site. If
that didn't exist, I'd be only able to spout useful things out of the old DNB.

Will

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: new early modern genealogy group announcement

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 16 mai 2006 09:19:55

In message of 16 May, norenxaq@san.rr.com (norenxaq) wrote:

Hello:

I have started a new group whose address is:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/early_modern_genealogy

which is intended to cover anything from 1500-1800.

Regrettably of course this is not a newsgroup and I find using web-based
dialogues to be slow and cumbersome.

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

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 16 mai 2006 09:28:31

In message of 16 May, "Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com> wrote:

The FAQ also says "This period would extend roughly from AD 500 to AD
1600, but these limits are not intended to exclude related topics of
discussion lying outside of these boundaries, e.g., royal or noble
genealogy in earlier time periods. A related mailing list is the
GEN-ROYAL list, and questions relating solely to royal genealogy
after about AD 1600 should be raised there."

The recent discussions of the DALE family, for example, involve the
proof or disproof of a royal line.

So what! There is nothing special about a royal line, they are just
human beings, like any other. So you are asking to extend the group to
anyone in any period who might have a connection to anyone in medieval
times?

And sometimes it is necessary to come forward a generation or so in
order to determine relationships that can lead backwards to the proper
timeframe.

Every special case is a necessity to the proponent!

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

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 16 mai 2006 09:33:32

In message of 16 May, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 5/15/06 6:15:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
renia@DELETEotenet.gr writes:

Fair enough. But what if THIS newsgroup was expanded to encompass
the early-modern period, on BOTH sides of the pond. And by
early-modern, I mean pre-UK/Australian Census, for example
(pre-1828).

Why so late ? I think you're just trying to sneak your own people in
under the line :)

LOL.

And isn't that what everyone does at some time or other?

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

Renia

Re: new early modern genealogy group announcement

Legg inn av Renia » 16 mai 2006 10:40:19

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 16 May, norenxaq@san.rr.com (norenxaq) wrote:


Hello:

I have started a new group whose address is:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/early_modern_genealogy

which is intended to cover anything from 1500-1800.


Regrettably of course this is not a newsgroup and I find using web-based
dialogues to be slow and cumbersome.

Yes, I've just worked that out. Just adds to the email intake. With sgm,
stuff just disappears after a month or so, without me having to think
about it.

Gjest

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 mai 2006 10:59:16

In a message dated 5/16/2006 12:35:58 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mllt1@le.ac.uk writes:

Assuming we're talking about a medieval-period nobleman) possibly
because he was one of the Scotsmen who fought for France during the
Hundred Years War - some of them acquired French fiefs.



Yes sorry, it was more-or-less around the time that Henry IV triumphantly
marched into Paris (or was that Henry VI?). That upstart :)

Will

Vickie Elam White

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Vickie Elam White » 16 mai 2006 14:52:02

Tim,

No, I'm saying that the line is a royal line and thus allowed per the FAQ.

Vickie Elam White

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:8a90d4274e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 16 May, "Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com> wrote:

The FAQ also says "This period would extend roughly from AD 500 to AD
1600, but these limits are not intended to exclude related topics of
discussion lying outside of these boundaries, e.g., royal or noble
genealogy in earlier time periods. A related mailing list is the
GEN-ROYAL list, and questions relating solely to royal genealogy
after about AD 1600 should be raised there."

The recent discussions of the DALE family, for example, involve the
proof or disproof of a royal line.

So what! There is nothing special about a royal line, they are just
human beings, like any other. So you are asking to extend the group to
anyone in any period who might have a connection to anyone in medieval
times?

And sometimes it is necessary to come forward a generation or so in
order to determine relationships that can lead backwards to the proper
timeframe.

Every special case is a necessity to the proponent!

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

Vickie Elam White

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Vickie Elam White » 16 mai 2006 14:55:49

Todd,

I agree completely!

Vickie Elam White

"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:44691fd3@news.ColoState.EDU...

snip

The discussion of American gateways has always been here. It was
explicitly included in the charter because, like it or not, for
Americans gateways are the sine qua non of medieval genealogy. Rare is
the American for whom these topics aren't inextricably linked. (Such a
broad umbrella is not limited to Americans either. Most of the heraldic
Visitations likewise fall outside the classical definition of Medieval
yet they too are oft-discussed, for analogous reasons).

However, creating another group for everyone posting about things

I am less interested in will not purify the group, nor will the vacuum
theoretically so created by banishing the unwanted discussion bring
these lost topics and posters back. If you want more medieval
discussion in this group, then post more medieval material.

There are not enough people here interested in medieval material any
more, as you imply, below, regarding Stewart Baldwin's Henry Project
pages.


That being said, think about the implications of a new group. Either
the early-modern s.g.m posters would refuse to migrate, and there would
be no benefit, or they would migrate, and by your own characterization,
there would be no one left here with an interest in medieval topics.
What then would be accomplished?

taf

Vickie Elam White

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Vickie Elam White » 16 mai 2006 15:19:46

MichaelAnne,

Can you fill in these blanks for me? :-)

"A note of indebtedness, Thomas Carter to [brother] John Carter. Witness:
Diana Skipwith." Dated 18 Sep 1655. Recorded _______ by ______. Lancaster
Co. VA Deed & Will Book 1:228.

Source: Virginia County Court Records: Deed and Will Abstracts of Lancaster
County, Virginia 1652-1657 (McLean, VA: 1991), ed. Ruth and Sam Sparacio,
pp. 89-90.

And doesn't this make *two* instances where her name was signed "Skipwith"
in 1655? Do you know what this was about?

Vickie Elam White


<ClaudiusI0@aol.com> wrote in message news:3dc.2cf44ca.319a82fc@aol.com...
In a message dated 5/15/2006 8:06:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

I have ordered the Fleet books on CD-Rom so I can check out Guido's
claim that Fleet thought these 1655 deeds were bogus: I have seen the
Fleet book, and I remember looking at those deeds, and I don't recall
Fleet intimating that these deeds were fraudulent. I do remember a
comment about the handwriting. Guido is saying that Dale created these
fraudulent deeds by having or changing his wife's name from "Dale" to
"Skipwith" so he could avoid having his wife as a witness to the deeds,
which she days was illegal. I don't know what to say about that. If
the Carter people think that kind of reasoning is going to stand them
in good stead, god bless 'em. It ranks up there with "scribal error."
How would MichaelAnne prove such a charge? I do remember reading a
post in which MichaelAnne was going to do something with those deeds in
connection with a treatment of Thomas Carter that never appeared.





Beverly Fleet questioned the deed recorded in 1658. He made a comment that
he didn't understand what was going on but hopefully "the elegant Skipwith
and
Col. John Carter did".

This is the only deed I have come across in the Lancaster County records
that was recorded three years after the fact. It is the only deed where
everyone
but one witness, one man who had power of attorney and the two principal
land recipients were dead. It also appears that Edward Dale owned some
of the
land involved as his daughter Mary Harrison Dale ended up with land in
this
area in 1679 which is attested to in the Lancaster County records. A
man's wife
could not witness a deed that he held an interest in. This was Virginia
law.
This one deed appears to be a problem and therefore it shouldn't be used
as
evidence of anything. This is all I have been stating.

I think it is futile and a complete waste of time to continue this
thread.
This is not a case of whether Katherine Dale is Diana Skipwith's daughter
but
whether this deed is valid or not. You want to use the law to prove your
case about married women having no rights in this period but you ridicule
the
law when it mandates something you don't want to believe.

MichaelAnne

Vickie Elam White

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Vickie Elam White » 16 mai 2006 15:19:46

Jeff,

I have no particular ax to grind about who Katherine's mother was, I'm not
descended from this family. I'm just interested in knowing the answer
because it has been such a frustrating case.

You may or may not know it, but I have been doing VA genealogy for many
years. I am quite familiar with VA laws. However, what *should* happen
didn't always happen, especially if one's husband happened to be the county
clerk and would benefit (or one of his family members would benefit) from
his actions.

It is never a good idea to base an entire argument on one deed or set of
deeds, but when that deed or set of deeds is perhaps not completely "kosher"
then there are some real red flags a-waving.

Vickie Elam White

"JTC" <jeffchip9@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147736793.767682.276740@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I don't know what you understood. This stuff isn't just for the
benefit of the participants, it's also for people who "lurk." If you
now want to claim you had a clear understanding of the legal system in
17th Cent VA before this thread started, be my guest. You certainly
tried to gloss over the fact that Douglas was using two widows to prove
his point. Go back and read the posts.

In 17th century VA, a married woman did not have an identity apart from
her husband. In the four books I have read on this subject, while
there is discussion of marital discord, there is not one reference of a
woman using her maiden name DURING marriage, even though there are
in-depth discussions of the various legal arrangements women could
enter into.

Here's an example of a jointure, or pre-nuptial agreement I've cited
before: On 1 July 1740, Joseph Heale of Lancaster Co., VA made his
will, and it contains an example of "jointure." I suggest you track
down the Jay Berry Price book and have a look at it. You seem to be
under the illusion that these arrangements between men and women were
informal and verbal--nothing could be further from the truth, and that
notion tells me that you don't have the slightest idea of what your
talking about. In fact, isn't it true that you and others on this
board have yet to produce even one example of a married woman using her
maiden name during marriage in 17th century VA? Why do you think that
is?

I have ordered the Fleet books on CD-Rom so I can check out Guido's
claim that Fleet thought these 1655 deeds were bogus: I have seen the
Fleet book, and I remember looking at those deeds, and I don't recall
Fleet intimating that these deeds were fraudulent. I do remember a
comment about the handwriting. Guido is saying that Dale created these
fraudulent deeds by having or changing his wife's name from "Dale" to
"Skipwith" so he could avoid having his wife as a witness to the deeds,
which she days was illegal. I don't know what to say about that. If
the Carter people think that kind of reasoning is going to stand them
in good stead, god bless 'em. It ranks up there with "scribal error."
How would MichaelAnne prove such a charge? I do remember reading a
post in which MichaelAnne was going to do something with those deeds in
connection with a treatment of Thomas Carter that never appeared.

norenxaq

Re: new early modern genealogy group announcement

Legg inn av norenxaq » 16 mai 2006 16:36:01

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:

In message of 16 May, norenxaq@san.rr.com (norenxaq) wrote:



Hello:

I have started a new group whose address is:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/early_modern_genealogy

which is intended to cover anything from 1500-1800.



Regrettably of course this is not a newsgroup and I find using web-based
dialogues to be slow and cumbersome.



during the subscription process, one has the choice of having whatever

is posted sent directly to their email address. the result is the same
speed as any usenet group

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: new early modern genealogy group announcement

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 16 mai 2006 16:37:09

In message of 16 May, norenxaq@san.rr.com (norenxaq) wrote:

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:

In message of 16 May, norenxaq@san.rr.com (norenxaq) wrote:



I have started a new group whose address is:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/early_modern_genealogy

which is intended to cover anything from 1500-1800.



Regrettably of course this is not a newsgroup and I find using web-based
dialogues to be slow and cumbersome.



during the subscription process, one has the choice of having whatever
is posted sent directly to their email address. the result is the same
speed as any usenet group

Quite right, thanks, and in the process I found the source of some spam
was from a Yahoo group so unsubscribed from same.

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

John Brandon

Re: Gorham Pedigree

Legg inn av John Brandon » 16 mai 2006 19:55:47

Interesting, Ginny. How 'modern' is the writing (or is it typed)?

"Ginny Wagner" wrote:
The following is a pedigree that I purchased from the
Grimston estate papers at Verulamium. Comments?

1. Ralph de Gorram ?
1.1. Ralph Lord of Tanniere 1120
1.1.1. William Lord of Tanniere built castle 1155
1.1.1.1. Giles Lord of La Tanniere 1180
1.1.1.1.1. William Lord of la Tanniere 1210 (seal of lions
rampant, two and one)
1.1.1.1.1.1. Sir Ralph Lord of La Tanniere and Livarre, d.
1227 dsp
1.1.1.1.1.2. Sir Robert inherited La Tanniere and Livarre,
d. 1237, dsp.
1.1.1.1.2. Henry
1.1.1.1.3. Mary = Guido de St. Loup (St. Lo)
1.1.1.1.3.1. Gervaise
1.1.1.1.3.2. Groiet
1.1.1.1.3.3. Sir Giles de St. Loup, heir of Sir Ralph de Lo
and of La Tanniere
1.1.1.1.4. dtr = Sir Fulc de Orta, co-heir with Sir Robert
de Taniere and of Livarre, living 1253
1.1.1.2. Juhel
1.1.1.3. Clementia

1.1.2. Henry

1.2. Geoffrey de Gorham, 16th abbot of St. Albans 1119-1146
1.3. Olive(ia) = Hugh, son of Humboldt, Westwick 1130, dsp;
Westwick-Gorham to Ive
1.4. William, Great Chicksands priory, 1150
1.4.1. Robert 18th abbot of St. Albans 1151-1166
1.4.2. Ralph Lord of Sarret in Herts 1160
1.4.2.1. Robert a monk of St. Albans 1160
1.4.2.2. Ralph
1.4.2.2.1. Henry a monk of St. Albans 1216
1.4.2.3. Geoffrey Rector of Luton 1153
1.4.3. Ive Lord of Westwick 1146
1.4.3.1. Geoffrey Lord of Westwick 1166
1.4.3.1.1. Sir Henry of Westwick occ 1199 and 1220
1.4.3.1.1.1. Sir William of Westwick = Cecilia de Sandford
d. 1230
1.4.3.1.1.1.1. Sir William moity of Westwick was in Ireland
in 1257, d. 1278
1.4.3.1.1.1.1.1. William d. a minor, 1290
1.4.3.1.1.1.1.2. John = Isabella, sold Gorhambury to Alicia
Countess of Oxford (niece of Cecilia Sandford) for her son,
Alphonse de Veer, 1320[a]
1.4.4. Geoffrey 1160
1.4.4.1. Henry sold knights fee Cransley 1202, sold knights
fee Flore 1208
1.4.4.1.1. Wiliam Land of Cransley, Flore, Wingrave &
Rolvesham, d. ca. 1296
1.4.4.1.1.1. Sir Hugh had land in Benefield = Margery
Angevin who brought Churchfield & Whaplode, d. 1325 and sold
manor of Churchfield 1325 (seal of three joined fetters)
1.4.4.1.1.1.1. William had land at Churchfield which he sold
1332, living 1338


1.4.4.1.1.1.2. Thomas inherited Whaplode, sold it 1329,
living 1338 at LIncoln
1.4.4.1.1.1.2.1. Thomas, knight temp Richard II (seal of
three joined fetters)
1.4.4.1.1.1.2.1.1. Maragaret sole heiress = Sir John
Littlebury to whom she brought the manor of Gorham in
Whaplode ca. 1400
1.4.4.1.1.1.3. Nicholas had land Whaplode, living 1338


2. W filius Gorram occ 1086 Domesday book II 441 at
Cippenhall
2.1. Henry godfather of Abbot Robert occ 1160
2.1.1. Ogger, d. before 1199
2.1.1.1. William of Stapleford, 1199
2.1.1.1.1. William murdered at Stapleford 1264
2.1.1.1.1.1. John of Stapleford manor 1264
2.1.1.1.1.1.1. Reginald living Stapleford 1336
2.1.1.1.1.1.2. Robert living Stapleford 1336
2.1.1.1.1.1.3. Ralph recotr of Little Oakley 1299, and of
Great Marsden 1300, d. 1349
2.1.1.2. Reginald priest of Knipton
2.1.2. William of Stapleford, d. 1199 dsp
2.1.3. Wimarch disputed Staplefor with her nephew William
1199[b]

2.2. Maurice

..................

1. John of Glapthorne Churchfield and Benefield, b. 15xx =
Elena ... d. 1588
1.1. John of Glapthorne b. 1571 at St. Neots, d. 1617
1.1.1. John of Glapthorne b. 1606 ...
1.1.1.1. John of St. Neots, b. 1635 at Glapthorne, d. 1725
1.1.1.1.1. Henry d. before 1725
1.1.1.1.2. Jonathan b. 1687 = Elizabeth Boynton, d. 1789
1.1.1.1.2.1. Jonathan b. 1714, d. 1774, dsp
1.1.1.1.2.2. Rebecca b. 1716, d. 1778 in London
1.1.1.1.2.3. Stephen b. 1721, = Matisa Wye of St. Neots d.
1789
1.1.1.1.2.3.1. George James only child b. 1752 at St. Neots
= Mary Greame(?) of Towthorpe, d. 1840, Eaton Ford House
St. Neots
1.1.1.1.3. Samuel b. 1688
1.1.1.1.4. Elizabeth d. 1760
1.1.1.1.5. x dsp
1.1.1.1.6. x dsp
1.1.1.1.7. x dsp
1.1.1.1.8. x dsp
1.1.1.1.9. x dsp
2. James b. 1550 at Benefield m. Agnes Bernington d. 1576

a. Gorhambury escheated to crown 1388, Abbot St. Albans
repurchased revision 1393, granted by Henry VIII to J.
Rowlatt who sold it to Sir Nicholas Bacon 1563, Passed to
Sir Harbottle Grimston 1652.

b. name disappears from Leicestershire


There are dotted lines between a daughter, who I think is
Olive or Olivia and William then another dotted line from
William and Henry in the second generation. There appears
to be no connection between Ralph and W. filius Gorram in
the first generation of the pedigree. In the third
generation, William and Henry are connected then a dotted
line extends from Henry. Robert, Ralph, Ive and Geoffrey
are all connected in the third generation. There is a
dotted line from the preceding Ralph to Henry, a monk of St.
Albans. A dotted line extends from William at Churchfield
to John of Glapthorne and Benefield who has a dotted line to
James at Benefield who started the American branch.

The branch from 1. John of Glapthorne descends until about
1913 with English Gorhams.

Ginny Wagner

Ginny Wagner

Gorham Pedigree

Legg inn av Ginny Wagner » 16 mai 2006 20:24:01

The following is a pedigree that I purchased from the
Grimston estate papers at Verulamium. Comments?

1. Ralph de Gorram ?
1.1. Ralph Lord of Tanniere 1120
1.1.1. William Lord of Tanniere built castle 1155
1.1.1.1. Giles Lord of La Tanniere 1180
1.1.1.1.1. William Lord of la Tanniere 1210 (seal of lions
rampant, two and one)
1.1.1.1.1.1. Sir Ralph Lord of La Tanniere and Livarre, d.
1227 dsp
1.1.1.1.1.2. Sir Robert inherited La Tanniere and Livarre,
d. 1237, dsp.
1.1.1.1.2. Henry
1.1.1.1.3. Mary = Guido de St. Loup (St. Lo)
1.1.1.1.3.1. Gervaise
1.1.1.1.3.2. Groiet
1.1.1.1.3.3. Sir Giles de St. Loup, heir of Sir Ralph de Lo
and of La Tanniere
1.1.1.1.4. dtr = Sir Fulc de Orta, co-heir with Sir Robert
de Taniere and of Livarre, living 1253
1.1.1.2. Juhel
1.1.1.3. Clementia

1.1.2. Henry

1.2. Geoffrey de Gorham, 16th abbot of St. Albans 1119-1146
1.3. Olive(ia) = Hugh, son of Humboldt, Westwick 1130, dsp;
Westwick-Gorham to Ive
1.4. William, Great Chicksands priory, 1150
1.4.1. Robert 18th abbot of St. Albans 1151-1166
1.4.2. Ralph Lord of Sarret in Herts 1160
1.4.2.1. Robert a monk of St. Albans 1160
1.4.2.2. Ralph
1.4.2.2.1. Henry a monk of St. Albans 1216
1.4.2.3. Geoffrey Rector of Luton 1153
1.4.3. Ive Lord of Westwick 1146
1.4.3.1. Geoffrey Lord of Westwick 1166
1.4.3.1.1. Sir Henry of Westwick occ 1199 and 1220
1.4.3.1.1.1. Sir William of Westwick = Cecilia de Sandford
d. 1230
1.4.3.1.1.1.1. Sir William moity of Westwick was in Ireland
in 1257, d. 1278
1.4.3.1.1.1.1.1. William d. a minor, 1290
1.4.3.1.1.1.1.2. John = Isabella, sold Gorhambury to Alicia
Countess of Oxford (niece of Cecilia Sandford) for her son,
Alphonse de Veer, 1320[a]
1.4.4. Geoffrey 1160
1.4.4.1. Henry sold knights fee Cransley 1202, sold knights
fee Flore 1208
1.4.4.1.1. Wiliam Land of Cransley, Flore, Wingrave &
Rolvesham, d. ca. 1296
1.4.4.1.1.1. Sir Hugh had land in Benefield = Margery
Angevin who brought Churchfield & Whaplode, d. 1325 and sold
manor of Churchfield 1325 (seal of three joined fetters)
1.4.4.1.1.1.1. William had land at Churchfield which he sold
1332, living 1338


1.4.4.1.1.1.2. Thomas inherited Whaplode, sold it 1329,
living 1338 at LIncoln
1.4.4.1.1.1.2.1. Thomas, knight temp Richard II (seal of
three joined fetters)
1.4.4.1.1.1.2.1.1. Maragaret sole heiress = Sir John
Littlebury to whom she brought the manor of Gorham in
Whaplode ca. 1400
1.4.4.1.1.1.3. Nicholas had land Whaplode, living 1338


2. W filius Gorram occ 1086 Domesday book II 441 at
Cippenhall
2.1. Henry godfather of Abbot Robert occ 1160
2.1.1. Ogger, d. before 1199
2.1.1.1. William of Stapleford, 1199
2.1.1.1.1. William murdered at Stapleford 1264
2.1.1.1.1.1. John of Stapleford manor 1264
2.1.1.1.1.1.1. Reginald living Stapleford 1336
2.1.1.1.1.1.2. Robert living Stapleford 1336
2.1.1.1.1.1.3. Ralph recotr of Little Oakley 1299, and of
Great Marsden 1300, d. 1349
2.1.1.2. Reginald priest of Knipton
2.1.2. William of Stapleford, d. 1199 dsp
2.1.3. Wimarch disputed Staplefor with her nephew William
1199[b]

2.2. Maurice

...................

1. John of Glapthorne Churchfield and Benefield, b. 15xx =
Elena ... d. 1588
1.1. John of Glapthorne b. 1571 at St. Neots, d. 1617
1.1.1. John of Glapthorne b. 1606 ...
1.1.1.1. John of St. Neots, b. 1635 at Glapthorne, d. 1725
1.1.1.1.1. Henry d. before 1725
1.1.1.1.2. Jonathan b. 1687 = Elizabeth Boynton, d. 1789
1.1.1.1.2.1. Jonathan b. 1714, d. 1774, dsp
1.1.1.1.2.2. Rebecca b. 1716, d. 1778 in London
1.1.1.1.2.3. Stephen b. 1721, = Matisa Wye of St. Neots d.
1789
1.1.1.1.2.3.1. George James only child b. 1752 at St. Neots
= Mary Greame(?) of Towthorpe, d. 1840, Eaton Ford House
St. Neots
1.1.1.1.3. Samuel b. 1688
1.1.1.1.4. Elizabeth d. 1760
1.1.1.1.5. x dsp
1.1.1.1.6. x dsp
1.1.1.1.7. x dsp
1.1.1.1.8. x dsp
1.1.1.1.9. x dsp
2. James b. 1550 at Benefield m. Agnes Bernington d. 1576

a. Gorhambury escheated to crown 1388, Abbot St. Albans
repurchased revision 1393, granted by Henry VIII to J.
Rowlatt who sold it to Sir Nicholas Bacon 1563, Passed to
Sir Harbottle Grimston 1652.

b. name disappears from Leicestershire


There are dotted lines between a daughter, who I think is
Olive or Olivia and William then another dotted line from
William and Henry in the second generation. There appears
to be no connection between Ralph and W. filius Gorram in
the first generation of the pedigree. In the third
generation, William and Henry are connected then a dotted
line extends from Henry. Robert, Ralph, Ive and Geoffrey
are all connected in the third generation. There is a
dotted line from the preceding Ralph to Henry, a monk of St.
Albans. A dotted line extends from William at Churchfield
to John of Glapthorne and Benefield who has a dotted line to
James at Benefield who started the American branch.

The branch from 1. John of Glapthorne descends until about
1913 with English Gorhams.

Ginny Wagner

John Brandon

Re: Gorham Pedigree

Legg inn av John Brandon » 16 mai 2006 20:38:16

easily these days, but plan to post the result when I've
something worth sharing. ;-)

Okay, thanks, 'cause two of my three Howland lines are through the
Gorhams --

Ginny Wagner

RE: Gorham Pedigree

Legg inn av Ginny Wagner » 16 mai 2006 21:29:01

John, there is a note on the hand penned pedigree,
"Extracted from Family Records by Capt A. Gorham 1913". It
took four A7(?) the English large size, to get the whole
thing copied. The pedigree matches the CTG by George
Cornelius Gorham in a number of instances.

I'm still trying to combine it, CTG, Power, King, Knapp,
Hall, Round and Keats-Rohan into a manageable whole, with
footnotes, etc. I'm new at all this and get distracted
easily these days, but plan to post the result when I've
something worth sharing. ;-)

Ginny

Renia

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Renia » 16 mai 2006 22:29:08

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:

In message of 16 May, "Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com> wrote:


I agree completely!


"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:44691fd3@news.ColoState.EDU...

snip


The discussion of American gateways has always been here. It was
explicitly included in the charter because, like it or not, for
Americans gateways are the sine qua non of medieval genealogy. Rare is
the American for whom these topics aren't inextricably linked. (Such a
broad umbrella is not limited to Americans either. Most of the heraldic
Visitations likewise fall outside the classical definition of Medieval
yet they too are oft-discussed, for analogous reasons).

However, creating another group for everyone posting about things

I am less interested in will not purify the group, nor will the vacuum
theoretically so created by banishing the unwanted discussion bring
these lost topics and posters back. If you want more medieval
discussion in this group, then post more medieval material.

There are not enough people here interested in medieval material any
more, as you imply, below, regarding Stewart Baldwin's Henry Project

pages.


That being said, think about the implications of a new group. Either
the early-modern s.g.m posters would refuse to migrate, and there would
be no benefit, or they would migrate, and by your own characterization,
there would be no one left here with an interest in medieval topics.
What then would be accomplished?


It sounds to me as if there is an under-current of opinion developing to
extend the group up to 1800.

If that became the case, then our American friends might begin to
discover just how difficult early modern British (for example) genealogy
is, how many Brits just don't expect to connect to the aristocracy and
royalty, and just how common some British surnames really are within
parishes and areas.

Renia

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Renia » 16 mai 2006 22:30:12

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:

In message of 16 May, "Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com> wrote:


No, I'm saying that the line is a royal line and thus allowed per the FAQ.


But still the question is what's special about royal lines? Genealogy
is concerned about people and these characters are people much the same
as the rest of us.

If exceptions are allowed for a certain groups of people, even if they
are in the FAQ, why not for all people?

Quite agree. And if the argument is "well, royals have medieval
pedigrees" and "early colonial Americans have medieval pedigrees", then
so does everybody, in the end.

Renia

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Renia » 16 mai 2006 22:33:26

Chris Dickinson wrote:

Todd A. Farmerie posted in reply to my:


As there is already a soc.history.early-modern, why not a
soc-genealogy.early-modern?


with:


Creating a new group of limited distribution with a confusing name

snip

I've never really understood why some people find 'Early Modern' a confusing
term, but then I taught the subject for 15 years - at least my students
weren't confused (I hope)!

Some of the confusions wouldn't apply to a genealogy group, because there
would be a natural tendency to take it from the beginning of parish
registers (the ending date wouldn't matter much).



(and even if it did, would not suddenly engender more medieval discussion).

snip


I have very little interest in medieval genealogy. I only follow the group
to see what Americans are saying about their colonial ancestors. In that
respect, I think that a group which encourages European-based non-medieval
specialists to participate would benefit everybody.

However, I don't see that a mailing list would work (the subject is too
broad) - it would have to be a newsgroup.


Agree. I follow this newsgroup just in case a name or subject which
interest me pops up. But I would be interested in discussions on
18th-19th century Polish and Ukrainian ancestry, or Irish (or anywhere
else, come to that!)

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 16 mai 2006 23:21:36

In message of 16 May, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

<snip of a proposed change>

Why try to change this one, instead of just subscribing to one that
is more relevant?

Yet:

In message of 15 May, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

Everyone is free to post whatever they want on the medieval period.
To my mind that comes all the way up to 1660, but some would
disagree.

If that is not a change I don't know what is!

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

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»