Botetourt item in National Archives Catalogue

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Below is another item pertaining to the early baronial Botetourt
family. This item was found in the helpful online National Archives
Catalogue.

This item involves a debt dated 1329, in which the creditors were
Master Thomas Botetourt and his brother, Master Roger Botetourt, both
priests. Master Thomas and Master Roger Botetourt were younger
brothers of Sir John Botetourt (died 1324), 1st Lord Botetourt, all
three men being sons of Sir Guy Botetourt, of Little Ellingham,
Norfolk, by his wife, Ada.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + +
Source: National Archives Catalogue (http://
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cata ... mmary=True)

C 241/101/124

Record Summary
Scope and content

Debtor: John de Wood, of Norwich, William Rodland, of Coston {Corston}
[Forehoe Hundred, Norfolk], Adam at the Wood, of Reymerston [Midford
Hundred, Norfolk], and Robert Dansy, of Reymerston.

Creditor: Master Thomas Botourt, and Master Roger Botourt [of Norwich,
Norfolk]

Amount: £24.

Before whom: William Butt, of Norwich; Edmund de Mulbarton, Clerk.

When taken: 10/10/1329

First term: 18/10/1329

Last term: 08/04/1330
Writ to: Sheriff of Norfolk
Sent by: William Butt, of Norwich; Edmund de Mulbarton, Clerk.
Endorsement: Coram Iusticiariis In Octabis Michaelis.
Covering dates 1330 Jun 11

[Gjest]

On Feb 6, 10:03 am, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

This item involves a debt dated 1329, in which the creditors were
Master Thomas Botetourt and his brother, Master Roger Botetourt, both
priests. Master Thomas and Master Roger Botetourt were younger
brothers of Sir John Botetourt (died 1324), 1st Lord Botetourt, all
three men being sons of Sir Guy Botetourt, of Little Ellingham,
Norfolk, by his wife, Ada.

You have *hypothesized that this was the case, but you are well aware
that this has not been proven to everybody's satisfaction. Is it that
hard to qualify such opinions, as you have demanded others do of
theirs? For that matter, you have pointed out the document that you
think will prove the relationship (evidence, in and of itself, that
the relationship has yet to be proven), but have you consulted that
document?

taf

[Douglas Richardson]

On Feb 6, 6:57 pm, [email protected] wrote:

< You have *hypothesized that this was the case, but you are well
aware
< that this has not been proven to everybody's satisfaction.
<
< taf

The author F.N. Craig published a brilliant article entitled "The
Parentage of John Botetourt (died 1324)" in TAG 63 (1988): 145-153, in
which he provided more than acceptable evidence that John Botetourt,
Knt., 1st Lord Botetourt, was the eldest son and heir of Guy
Botetourt, Knt., of Little Ellingham, Norfolk, by his wife, Ada. I've
since located additional evidence which corroborates and confirms Mr.
Craig's findings.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Gjest]

On Feb 7, 9:43 am, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

On Feb 6, 6:57 pm, [email protected] wrote:

You have *hypothesized that this was the case, but you are well
aware
that this has not been proven to everybody's satisfaction.

taf

The author F.N. Craig published a brilliant article entitled "The
Parentage of John Botetourt (died 1324)" in TAG 63 (1988): 145-153, in
which he provided more than acceptable evidence that John Botetourt,
Knt., 1st Lord Botetourt, was the eldest son and heir of Guy
Botetourt, Knt., of Little Ellingham, Norfolk, by his wife, Ada. I've
since located additional evidence which corroborates and confirms Mr.
Craig's findings.

And others have raised an alternative solution. Further, your
evidence does not confirm, but only supports his findings by your
interpretation of their implications. The very fact that you kept
trying to get Don Stone to research for you a document that would
prove the relationship demonstrates that the relationship is not
proven.

Again I ask, how hard is it to offer an appropriately qualified
statement, that while demanding this of others it seems to be beyond
your ability?

taf

[Mike Welch]

On Feb 6, 10:03 am, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

Below is another item pertaining to the early baronial Botetourt
family.  This item was found in the helpful online National Archives
Catalogue.

This item involves a debt dated 1329, in which the creditors were
Master Thomas Botetourt and his brother, Master Roger Botetourt, both
priests.  Master Thomas and Master Roger Botetourt were younger
brothers of Sir John Botetourt (died 1324), 1st Lord Botetourt, all
three men being sons of Sir Guy Botetourt, of Little Ellingham,
Norfolk, by his wife, Ada.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + +
Source: National Archives Catalogue (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cata ... .asp?CAT...)

C 241/101/124

Record Summary
Scope and content

Debtor: John de Wood, of Norwich, William Rodland, of Coston {Corston}
[Forehoe Hundred, Norfolk], Adam at the Wood, of Reymerston [Midford
Hundred, Norfolk], and Robert Dansy, of Reymerston.

Creditor: Master Thomas Botourt, and Master Roger Botourt [of Norwich,
Norfolk]

Amount: £24.

Before whom: William Butt, of Norwich; Edmund de Mulbarton, Clerk.

When taken: 10/10/1329

First term: 18/10/1329

Last term: 08/04/1330
Writ to: Sheriff of Norfolk
Sent by: William Butt, of Norwich; Edmund de Mulbarton, Clerk.
Endorsement: Coram Iusticiariis In Octabis Michaelis.
Covering dates  1330 Jun 11

Thank's Again Doug Keep up the good work and dont let the trolls get
you down. Oh wait they are the same trolls that left the newsgroup. Oh
wait they never left they just said they left lol. They are a joke.

Mike

[Douglas Richardson]

Take a walk around the block, taf.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Gjest]

On Feb 8, 4:43 am, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

(removal of wilful cross-posting to infected news-group)

On Feb 6, 6:57 pm, [email protected] wrote:

You have *hypothesized that this was the case, but you are well
aware
that this has not been proven to everybody's satisfaction.

taf

The author F.N. Craig published a brilliant article entitled "The
Parentage of John Botetourt (died 1324)" in TAG 63 (1988): 145-153, in
which he provided more than acceptable evidence that John Botetourt,
Knt., 1st Lord Botetourt, was the eldest son and heir of Guy
Botetourt, Knt., of Little Ellingham, Norfolk, by his wife, Ada.  I've
since located additional evidence which corroborates and confirms Mr.
Craig's findings.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Warning: before anyone else replies to this, be aware that the troll
Richardson has again inserted cross-posting to the sporge-infested
news-group alt.talk.royalty, as well as others. Please don't assist
him in his efforts to infect this newsgroup.

MA-R

[Leo van de Pas]

Thank's Again Doug Keep up the good work and dont let the trolls get
you down. Oh wait they are the same trolls that left the newsgroup. Oh
wait they never left they just said they left lol. They are a joke.

Mike

Dear Mike,

I know you are a good and faithful friend of Douglas, but I do not think the
above is fair.

Todd Farmerie told Douglas to be wary and not jump to conclusions. For
Douglas then to tell Todd to take a walk, is not very gracious. With
Douglas' behaviour he has lost the right to be treated with grace, there is
only one person to blame for that.

Why do you say people are a joke if they leave and return to Gen-Med? What
is funny about people deciding not to participate for a while? I have the
feeling you haven't participated for quite a while (I do not count lurking
as participating), are you a joke? I do not think so.

Is your definition of a "troll" someone who dares to disagree with Douglas
Richardson? Nobody is perfect, nobody is always correct, and then to try to
frighten people off who try to improve information is soooooooooooo stupid.

As I have said before, be careful with jumping to the aid of anybody, you do
give others a chance to add to the negative discussions.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia

[Douglas Richardson]

On Feb 7, 2:04 pm, Mike Welch <[email protected]> wrote:

< Thank's Again Doug Keep up the good work.
<
< Mike

You're quite welcome, Mike.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Gjest]

On Feb 7, 1:46 pm, [email protected] wrote:

On Feb 8, 4:43 am, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

(removal of wilful cross-posting to infected news-group)



On Feb 6, 6:57 pm, [email protected] wrote:

You have *hypothesized that this was the case, but you are well
aware
that this has not been proven to everybody's satisfaction.

taf

The author F.N. Craig published a brilliant article entitled "The
Parentage of John Botetourt (died 1324)" in TAG 63 (1988): 145-153, in
which he provided more than acceptable evidence that John Botetourt,
Knt., 1st Lord Botetourt, was the eldest son and heir of Guy
Botetourt, Knt., of Little Ellingham, Norfolk, by his wife, Ada. I've
since located additional evidence which corroborates and confirms Mr.
Craig's findings.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Warning: before anyone else replies to this, be aware that the troll
Richardson has again inserted cross-posting to the sporge-infested
news-group alt.talk.royalty, as well as others. Please don't assist
him in his efforts to infect this newsgroup.

MA-R

Yes, sorry, he slipped one by me.

taf

[[email protected]]

On Feb 7, 8:44 pm, [email protected] wrote:

On Feb 7, 1:46 pm, [email protected] wrote:



On Feb 8, 4:43 am, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

(removal of wilful cross-posting to infected news-group)

On Feb 6, 6:57 pm, [email protected] wrote:

You have *hypothesized that this was the case, but you are well
aware
that this has not been proven to everybody's satisfaction.

taf

The author F.N. Craig published a brilliant article entitled "The
Parentage of John Botetourt (died 1324)" in TAG 63 (1988): 145-153, in
which he provided more than acceptable evidence that John Botetourt,
Knt., 1st Lord Botetourt, was the eldest son and heir of Guy
Botetourt, Knt., of Little Ellingham, Norfolk, by his wife, Ada.  I've
since located additional evidence which corroborates and confirms Mr.
Craig's findings.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Warning: before anyone else replies to this, be aware that the troll
Richardson has again inserted cross-posting to the sporge-infested
news-group alt.talk.royalty, as well as others.  Please don't assist
him in his efforts to infect this newsgroup.

MA-R

Yes, sorry, he slipped one by me.

taf

<G>
a couple detestable old f**ts, worried about their navels
can't get over their own self-importance, which is nil

persiflage, persiflage, persiflage

~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne

http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval

[Gjest]

On Feb 8, 12:44 pm, [email protected] wrote:

On Feb 7, 1:46 pm, [email protected] wrote:





On Feb 8, 4:43 am, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

(removal of wilful cross-posting to infected news-group)

On Feb 6, 6:57 pm, [email protected] wrote:

You have *hypothesized that this was the case, but you are well
aware
that this has not been proven to everybody's satisfaction.

taf

The author F.N. Craig published a brilliant article entitled "The
Parentage of John Botetourt (died 1324)" in TAG 63 (1988): 145-153, in
which he provided more than acceptable evidence that John Botetourt,
Knt., 1st Lord Botetourt, was the eldest son and heir of Guy
Botetourt, Knt., of Little Ellingham, Norfolk, by his wife, Ada.  I've
since located additional evidence which corroborates and confirms Mr.
Craig's findings.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Warning: before anyone else replies to this, be aware that the troll
Richardson has again inserted cross-posting to the sporge-infested
news-group alt.talk.royalty, as well as others.  Please don't assist
him in his efforts to infect this newsgroup.

MA-R

Yes, sorry, he slipped one by me.

taf

That's quite understandable - inserting an additional cross-posting to
an irrelevant and infected newsgroup in a reply to an existing thread
is a low point even for the troll Richardson.

It is hard to imagine that his intention is anything other than a
perverse determination to bring this group down. Not a very collegial
way to "make friends" but perhaps a desperate remedy for hiding poor
scholarship and faulty reasoning.

MA-R

[[email protected]]

On Feb 7, 11:47 pm, [email protected] wrote:

On Feb 8, 12:44 pm, [email protected] wrote:



On Feb 7, 1:46 pm, [email protected] wrote:

On Feb 8, 4:43 am, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

(removal of wilful cross-posting to infected news-group)

On Feb 6, 6:57 pm, [email protected] wrote:

You have *hypothesized that this was the case, but you are well
aware
that this has not been proven to everybody's satisfaction.

taf

The author F.N. Craig published a brilliant article entitled "The
Parentage of John Botetourt (died 1324)" in TAG 63 (1988): 145-153, in
which he provided more than acceptable evidence that John Botetourt,
Knt., 1st Lord Botetourt, was the eldest son and heir of Guy
Botetourt, Knt., of Little Ellingham, Norfolk, by his wife, Ada.  I've
since located additional evidence which corroborates and confirms Mr..
Craig's findings.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Warning: before anyone else replies to this, be aware that the troll
Richardson has again inserted cross-posting to the sporge-infested
news-group alt.talk.royalty, as well as others.  Please don't assist
him in his efforts to infect this newsgroup.

MA-R

Yes, sorry, he slipped one by me.

taf

That's quite understandable - inserting an additional cross-posting to
an irrelevant and infected newsgroup in a reply to an existing thread
is a low point even for the troll Richardson.

It is hard to imagine that his intention is anything other than a
perverse determination to bring this group down.  Not a very collegial
way to "make friends" but perhaps a desperate remedy for hiding poor
scholarship and faulty reasoning.

MA-R

<G>
It is hard to imagine taf's intention is anything other than a
perverse
determination to bring this group down. Not a very collegial way to
"make friends" but perhaps a desperate remedy for hiding poor
thoughts,
no scholarship seen yet, and faulty thoughts, no reasoning seen yet

poor excuse, hiding his perverse self in sock puppetry as MA-R
or maybe its MA-R hiding herself in sock puppetry as taf

persiflage, persiflage, persiflage

~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne

http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval