Blount-Ayala

[D. Spencer Hines]

O.K.

Leo van de Pas ADMITS he CANNOT tell us about how the Duke of Clarence,
Queen Victoria's grandson, married an Orleans princess -- so the
"Monarchy had to be protected" -- somehow leading to the Jack The Ripper
murders, -- because it NEVER HAPPENED -- THERE WAS NO SUCH MARRIAGE.

PRATFALL!!!

KAWHOMP!!!

That's one down.

NOW Leo needs to tell us about how Albert Victor Christian, Duke of
Clarence, "allegedly married a Catholic girl far beneath his station"
[Annie Crook].

"Why not protect the Monarchy? When the heir of [sic] the throne is
allegedly married to a Catholic girl far beneath his station?"

Leo van de Pas
----------------

The BURDEN OF PROOF is on Leo.

Yes, Leo ACTUALLY DID write that Rampant Gibberish.

Hilarious!

It just doesn't get any better than this, Virginia.

Next thing we know, Leo will be publishing royal gibberish, libel and
slander in _The National Enquirer_.

'Nuff Said.
-------------------

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Gordon Banks]

For laughs try

http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/

[Leo van de Pas]

What I quoted was that Albert Victor was not involved, you called that
gibberish.

Then you start to defend Albert Victor------


If you attack people, just saying "gibberish" is not good enough. If you
want to become involved, which you do not have to, you tell them what is
wrong and why........

I only quoted what, according to me, was the relevant part of that book. I
did not say this is my opinion.

Why not protect the Monarchy? When the heir of the throne is allegedly
married to a Catholic girl far beneath his station? Even an Orleans princess
was not regarded as suitable.
If it came out that Albert Victor was married and had a daughter, can you
imagine the scandal? No, you can't and, according to you, there was no need
of a cover-up.

I keep my mind open that Albert Victor may have caused the murders, but that
they were done without his knowledge let alone approval.


----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 2:42 AM
Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper & Queen Victoria's Grandson

Dear Leo,

More gibberish on your part doesn't help at all.

"Protect the Monarchy..."

Hilarious!

Your Republican roots are coming out?

Read what I posted by Greg King.

DSH

""Leo van de Pas"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:001401c4b164$b22dabc0$c3b4fea9@email...

| Dear Spencer,
| So good to see you reveal another area of your expertise. If you are
able to
| detect the gibberish, surely you can enlighten us with the fact who
was Jack
| the Ripper? If you are telling us what is wrong you are obliged to
tell us
| what, according to you, is right. Why couldn't Lord Randolph
Churchill (and
| others) be involved in a cover up to protect the monarchy? Have you
read
| this book?
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]
| To: <[email protected]
| Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 1:14 AM
| Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper & Queen Victoria's Grandson
|
| > Leo, I'm quite surprised to see you retailing this gibberish.
|
| > Now you bring Winston Churchill's father into it.
|
| > DSH
|
| > ""Leo van de Pas"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| > news:000401c4b15c$ff45f960$c3b4fea9@email...
|
| > | Dear John,
| > |
| > | Several years ago someone sent me a book called "The Ripper and
the
| > | Royals". It maintains it was NOT Albert Victor but it was done by
| > | several people, including Lord Randolph Churchill, to "protect the
| > | monarchy". You probably read about the surgical method by which
| > | the murders were done, this dopey Duke had no medical knowledge
| > | to do it himself. He may have caused it but did not do it, nor
asked
| > | for it to be done.
| > | Leo

[Gjest]

In a message dated 10/13/2004 3:41:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

Hale fits the pattern to a folderol glove



I truly believe this is the greatest compliment I have ever received.
Thanks a million.

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

[Gjest]

In a message dated 10/13/2004 3:41:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

Hale is peddling and retailing Idle Rumours about his betters again.




Peddling is a process of attempting to sell an item, or idea. I did
neither. I merely asked a question. You are getting off your meds again aren't
you? And you do realize, don't you, that a Texan has no betters. We are simply
the greatest. Nuff said.

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

[Gjest]

In a message dated 10/13/2004 3:56:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

The flower "Sweet William" was named after Cumberland in England, but in
Scotland it is known as "Stinking Willie" or "Sour Billy.



You have the names correct but they were NOT the same plant in each country.
You should really get your facts completely correct prior to popping off at
your betters.

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

[D. Spencer Hines]

"Why couldn't Lord Randolph Churchill (and others) be involved in a
cover up to protect the monarchy?"

Leo van de Pas
-------------------------

Leo van de Pas wants to lend credence to that absurd conspiracy story.

THAT'S what I'm calling Rampant Gibberish.

Even Dan Rather wouldn't jump on board that cuniculan-pygan fantasy.

Further, Leo has not been able to present one SHRED of EVIDENCE to back
up his defense of the idea that a group of men including Lord Randolph
Churchill are somehow responsible for the Jack The Ripper murders,
because they were trying to "protect the monarchy" -- in the person of
the Duke of Clarence.

When challenged on the facts, Leo comes a cropper.

Hilarious!

'Nuff Said.
-------------------

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Bronwen Edwards]

Pinochet was wonderful. How dare you badmouth him? He was the saviour of
Chile.

Oh yeah, he saved Chile from its own democracy. Under Allende,
literacy was up, poverty was down, infant mortality was down, and the
workers controlled the resources. Under Pinochet, all of that was
reversed for the sake of a military dictator, supported by the US, who
privatized the resources so that the rewards would flow to himself,
his cronies and multinational corporations that were mostly American,
at the expense of the people. Under Pinochet, dissenters were
executed. He is guilty of crimes against humanity and has been placed
in a situation where he will be punished. Wish the same could be said
for those in power in the US at the time. They like to haul others
before the World Court but claim that it has no right to judge the US.

Sounds great! So Saddam was actually quite cuddly really?

Read my paragraph through again. Obviously you missed something.

the genocide practiced by Hussein was not
against "his own people", it was against the Kurds whose original
nation was sliced up into Turkey, Iran and Iraq.

Not against his own people? Well, that's OK then...

On the contrary, my criticism of my own country has to do with its
genocide against the Iraqis. For those of you who can get BBC Ch. 4,
they ran an audio tape that shows the attitude of some of the US
military. As for genocide, my family - present in "America" tens of
thousands of years before the ancestors of its government leaders
today - can tell you a great deal about it. But, then, from your tone
I would assume that an indigenous population is just there for the
plucking. Might makes right - fascists have always said that, whether
they be Italian, German, American, Israeli or yourself.

Further, the
chemicals etc. that he used had been sold to him by the US. That's why
this administration thought it knew what he had. Needless to say, this
is not a defense of Hussein, but let's tell the truth.

You are clearly an apologist for a brutal dictator.

Apologist, no. I said he was guilty of genocide - no question. But the
crisis in America had nothing to do with him. Pretty poor excuse to go
kill more Iraqis with American arms than Hussein ever did. But, then,
I suppose you don't think that Iraqi civilians have the right to
actually determine their form of government and their economic
position.

Third, the stated purpose of George W's invasion of Iraq was to "fight
terrorism", specifically to fight the forces that caused 9-11. There
was no contact between the government of Iraq and Al Quaeda; in fact,
Hussein refused to give them support.

Of course I know there was not connection between Iraq and 9/11. I am not a
US soccer mom, you know...

Neither am I. As to how I feel about "America": I love this land
beyond anything. I hate the behavior of its current government beyond
anything. I have a far greater claim to this nation and its resources
than any descendant of immigrants in the White House. Unfortunately, I
do not have a military to go do my dirty work for me. I am well
educated on the situation around the Persian Gulf - mainly from first
hand sources, both Iraqi and American. What is the source of your
information?

They disliked him because his
government was too secular.

Ridiculous!

Fourth, it seems like all the right wingers, like yourselves, can
really do is use name-calling, ridicule, and indulge in
self-congratulatory sniggering like little kids. Grow up.



"David Webb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
For countries like Australia and Britain, there is an argument that,
whatever the merits of the Iraq war, it is important to maintain the
strategic relationship with America. Australia, next to Indonesia and
the
other unstable nations, probably does well to keep up its relationship
with
the US. But Spencer Hines is wrong when he assumes that only
left-wingers
oppose the war. The war itself - as pointed out by Peter Hitchens in the
UK - is essentially left-wing, as it is based on the idea that all
nations
are equally suited to democracy. Genuine right-wing philosophy does not
assume that all cultures are equal, or that all nations are adaptable to
democracy, and this is being proved now in Iraq. I don't think the US
needs
to worry about how many allies it has when it intervenes abroad - a
great
power has to be prepared to act alone - and there was a good argument
that
Saddam's survival after the 1991 Gulf War was unsustainable, as the
world
had to maintain sanctions on the country indefinitely. So for these
reasons
I don't regret the Iraq war as such, and I don't think Western nations
should fall out over the bombing of third world countries that we care
little about. But there are constitutional issues surrounding the
deliberate
falsification of intelligence in order to justify the war in terms other
than those I have set out above, and, even worse, the badly named USA
PATRIOT Act, which reduces American liberty. It is no good George Bush
saying (ludicrously incorrectly) "they attack us because they don't like
our
freedom", if he then introduces legislation to take away America's
freedoms.
The correct way to deal with terrorists is NOT TO LET THEM INTO AMERICA
IN
THE FIRST PLACE. However, George Bush is pro-immigration and refuses to
close off the Mexican border. He favours a mass amnesty. He wants to
veto
the legislation now going through congress that would make it harder for
illegal immigrants to get driving licences. What happens in Iraq and
Afghanistan is an irrelevance to the US as long as Iraqis and Afghans
are
not permitted to enter the US except on business (and then pursued and
deported if they skip their visas). There shouldn't be any Arabs in
America,
because America was founded as an extension of Europe. Great
conservatives -
no wilting left-wing wallflowers - such as Patrick J. Buchanan and Sam
Francis have opposed the war. In the end whether the Iraqis have their
human
rights protected and whether they flourish as a nation is neither here
nor
there to patriots in Western nations. We need to pursue our own national
interests, not the "human rights of the world".



"D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Indeed They Are -- Stalwarts, In The Main.

Although They Have Their Leftover Left-Wing Loons Too.

DSH

[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| In a message dated 10/9/2004 4:24:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,
| [email protected] writes:
|
| Latham even LOOKS the part of the Pasty-Faced Wimp He IS: ---- DSH
|
|
| Medieval genealogy it ain't, but thanks for it Hines. I have always
| thought the Aussies were the closest thing to Yanks there was in
| the world. Good people.
|
| Gordon Hale
| Grand Prairie, Texas

[Betty Owen]

actually I thought Pat Cromwell
did a great job of the theories concerning the artist.
I think the artist had been commissioned by the doctor who had served the
royal family.

She did link a piece of rare stationary to him.
Some of his paintings are almost idenital to the murdered ladies... And I
beleive the murders did not stop... if you trace the artist and where he
lived.

She had a special TV show about this and a non-fiction book out about it....
She goes of the other suspects well and why they were ruled out.

Betty
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper & Queen Victoria's Grandson

Dear Leo,

More gibberish on your part doesn't help at all.

"Protect the Monarchy..."

Hilarious!

Your Republican roots are coming out?

Read what I posted by Greg King.

DSH

""Leo van de Pas"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:001401c4b164$b22dabc0$c3b4fea9@email...

| Dear Spencer,
| So good to see you reveal another area of your expertise. If you are
able to
| detect the gibberish, surely you can enlighten us with the fact who
was Jack
| the Ripper? If you are telling us what is wrong you are obliged to
tell us
| what, according to you, is right. Why couldn't Lord Randolph
Churchill (and
| others) be involved in a cover up to protect the monarchy? Have you
read
| this book?
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]
| To: <[email protected]
| Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 1:14 AM
| Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper & Queen Victoria's Grandson
|
| > Leo, I'm quite surprised to see you retailing this gibberish.
|
| > Now you bring Winston Churchill's father into it.
|
| > DSH
|
| > ""Leo van de Pas"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| > news:000401c4b15c$ff45f960$c3b4fea9@email...
|
| > | Dear John,
| > |
| > | Several years ago someone sent me a book called "The Ripper and
the
| > | Royals". It maintains it was NOT Albert Victor but it was done by
| > | several people, including Lord Randolph Churchill, to "protect the
| > | monarchy". You probably read about the surgical method by which
| > | the murders were done, this dopey Duke had no medical knowledge
| > | to do it himself. He may have caused it but did not do it, nor
asked
| > | for it to be done.
| > | Leo

[Leo van de Pas]

Spencer,
You have gibberish on the brain!!

Lance Salway, in his "Queen Victoria's grandchildren"ISBN 1 85585 078 8 ,
page 37
Eddie did not long regret the loss of Alix. Within a week he had fallen in
love with another princess, Helene d'Orleans. This match, though was
completely unsuitable......Eddy declared he was prepared to renounce his
right to the throne, but Helene's father refused to allow her to marry a
Protestant.

Giles St.Aubyn, in his "Edward VII Prince and King", ISBN 0-689-10937-7 ,
page 105
Rumours credited Eddy with every vice and folly. Sarah Bernhardt claimed
that he was her son Maurice's father. It was even whispered that the Prince
was Jack the Ripper, regardless of unanswerable alibis provided by the Court
Circular.
Page 106
The third possible bride for Prince Eddy was one of his own choice, Helene
d'Orleans.
<snip> On 20 August, Eddy and Helene became secretly enganged......

Georgina Battiscombe, in her "Queen Alexandra"" , first published in 1969,
pages 180 and 181.
.......Perhaps for this reason Prince Eddy refused to consider her (Princess
Margaret of Prussia); instead, in flat defiance of clear and positive
warnings from his wise grandmother, he proceeded to fall in love with the
most impossible of all princesses, Helene d'Orleans.
<snip>
So she (Queen Alexandra, then still Princess of Wales) looked on
benevolently whilst his sisters pointed out to him how very much in love
with him Princess Helene really was, and Princess Louise, now Duchess of
Fife, arranged that the two should meet each other frequently at her house
at Sheen, pressing home her point by inviting Princess Helene to Mar Lodge,
her Scottish home. There, in August 1890, the pair became engaged.

Three eminent historians and biographers, producing gibberish!! If only they
had spoken to Spencer Hines first!!

Spencer, did I ever say the Duke of Clarence MARRIED a Princess of Orleans?
You say I did, show it!!!


----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 6:20 AM
Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper & Queen Victoria's Grandson

Leo,

"Why not protect the Monarchy? When the heir of [sic] the throne is
allegedly married to a Catholic girl far beneath his station? Even an
Orleans princess was not regarded as suitable." [LVDP]

You are just posting more gibberish -- without a shred of proof.

Tell us all about the Duke of Clarence's marriage to an Orleans
princess.

DSH

[Leo van de Pas]

----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper & Queen Victoria's Grandson

O.K.

Leo van de Pas ADMITS he CANNOT tell us about how the Duke of Clarence,
Queen Victoria's grandson, married an Orleans princess
====I never did. This notion was only in the befuddled mind of Spencer Hines

Hines's Gibberish, pratfall, Kawomph alright.

-- so the

"Monarchy had to be protected" -- somehow leading to the Jack The Ripper
murders, -- because it NEVER HAPPENED -- THERE WAS NO SUCH MARRIAGE.
======what has Helene d'Orleans got to do with Jack the Ripper?

It only has in the befuddled mind of Spencer "I cannot comprehend" Hines.

The "story", it is a story because it has never been proven, is that Eddy
had married Annie Elizabeth Crook and fathered Alice Margaret Cook.

Spencer if you cannot keep your stories straight you should keep out of this
conversation.

I think your "editing" of messages is disgustingly dishonest, but not as
disgusting as the way you have treated Peter Stewart.


You have no prat left to fall on. Go and play somewhere else.

PRATFALL!!!

KAWHOMP!!!

That's one down.

NOW Leo needs to tell us about how Albert Victor Christian, Duke of
Clarence, "allegedly married a Catholic girl far beneath his station"
[Annie Crook].

"Why not protect the Monarchy? When the heir of [sic] the throne is
allegedly married to a Catholic girl far beneath his station?"

Leo van de Pas
----------------

The BURDEN OF PROOF is on Leo.

Yes, Leo ACTUALLY DID write that Rampant Gibberish.

Hilarious!

It just doesn't get any better than this, Virginia.

Next thing we know, Leo will be publishing royal gibberish, libel and
slander in _The National Enquirer_.

'Nuff Said.
-------------------

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[David Webb]

As I have pointed out, Bronwen, you are a little lacking in brain cells. My
posting indicated that I did not believe in some of the arguments for the
war in Iraq myself, but that has not prevented your rant.

Oh yeah, he saved Chile from its own democracy. Under Allende,
literacy was up, poverty was down, infant mortality was down, and the
workers controlled the resources. Under Pinochet, all of that was
reversed for the sake of a military dictator, supported by the US, who
privatized the resources so that the rewards would flow to himself,
his cronies and multinational corporations that were mostly American,
at the expense of the people. Under Pinochet, dissenters were
executed. He is guilty of crimes against humanity and has been placed
in a situation where he will be punished. Wish the same could be said
for those in power in the US at the time. They like to haul others
before the World Court but claim that it has no right to judge the US.

A world court would have not right to judge the US or anyone else, because
there is no world sovereign state. Allende was moving to install a
Cuban-style dictatorship. His nationalisation of news print was the last
straw, as it represented an attempt to nationalise information. Yes, trouble
makers did disappear under Pinochet, but order was restored. He was a great
friend of Britain's during the Falklands War. You are a scurrilous twit for
condemning him.

Sounds great! So Saddam was actually quite cuddly really?

Read my paragraph through again. Obviously you missed something.

No - you imply his regime had quite a few good features.

Not against his own people? Well, that's OK then...

On the contrary, my criticism of my own country has to do with its
genocide against the Iraqis. For those of you who can get BBC Ch. 4,
they ran an audio tape that shows the attitude of some of the US
military. As for genocide, my family - present in "America" tens of
thousands of years before the ancestors of its government leaders
today - can tell you a great deal about it. But, then, from your tone
I would assume that an indigenous population is just there for the
plucking. Might makes right - fascists have always said that, whether
they be Italian, German, American, Israeli or yourself.

America's Manifest Destiny was to rule from sea to shining sea - and the
Indians got in the way. See President Andrew Jackson for the details.

You are clearly an apologist for a brutal dictator.

Apologist, no. I said he was guilty of genocide - no question. But the
crisis in America had nothing to do with him. Pretty poor excuse to go
kill more Iraqis with American arms than Hussein ever did. But, then,
I suppose you don't think that Iraqi civilians have the right to
actually determine their form of government and their economic
position.

the Iraqis are not up to democracy

Of course I know there was not connection between Iraq and 9/11. I am
not a
US soccer mom, you know...

Neither am I. As to how I feel about "America": I love this land
beyond anything. I hate the behavior of its current government beyond
anything. I have a far greater claim to this nation and its resources
than any descendant of immigrants in the White House. Unfortunately, I
do not have a military to go do my dirty work for me. I am well
educated on the situation around the Persian Gulf - mainly from first
hand sources, both Iraqi and American. What is the source of your
information?

It was white Europeans who made America great, not some savages wandering
the plains. Get used to that fact. I do not need extra info on the Persian
Gulf thanks from any source whatsoever, I am sick of reading about it. DJW

[Leo van de Pas]

Poor Spencer,
He tries one tack and comes a cropper, and now he is trying another? Well,
he has become very trying lately, even more than usual.

I think he has wasten too much time and patience of many people, I can only
wonder what is wrong with him? Too much alcohol or not enough medication?

I am not going to waste any more time on him, I am going to do, what lots of
sensible people have done a long time ago, I am going to kill file him.


----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper & Queen Victoria's Grandson

"Why couldn't Lord Randolph Churchill (and others) be involved in a
cover up to protect the monarchy?"

Leo van de Pas
-------------------------

Leo van de Pas wants to lend credence to that absurd conspiracy story.

THAT'S what I'm calling Rampant Gibberish.

Even Dan Rather wouldn't jump on board that cuniculan-pygan fantasy.

Further, Leo has not been able to present one SHRED of EVIDENCE to back
up his defense of the idea that a group of men including Lord Randolph
Churchill are somehow responsible for the Jack The Ripper murders,
because they were trying to "protect the monarchy" -- in the person of
the Duke of Clarence.

When challenged on the facts, Leo comes a cropper.

Hilarious!

'Nuff Said.
-------------------

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[D. Spencer Hines]

"I have a far greater claim to this nation and its resources than any
descendant of immigrants in the White House."

Bronwen Edwards -- "Native American" Writ Large
-------------------------------------------

Hilarious!

MORE Gibberish....

As if the Gibberish we are being fed from Stewart and Van de Pas is not
enough these days.

'Nuff Said.

DSH

[D. Spencer Hines]

"Why couldn't Lord Randolph Churchill (and others) be involved in a
cover up to protect the monarchy?"

"Why not protect the Monarchy? When the heir of [sic] the throne is
allegedly married to a Catholic girl far beneath his station? Even an
Orleans princess was not regarded as suitable."

| Several years ago someone sent me a book called "The Ripper and the
| Royals". It maintains it was NOT Albert Victor but it was done by
| several people, including Lord Randolph Churchill, to "protect the
| monarchy". You probably read about the surgical method by which
| the murders were done, this dopey Duke had no medical knowledge
| to do it himself. He may have caused it but did not do it, nor
| asked [sic] for it to be done.

Leo van de Pas
-------------------------

Leo van de Pas wants to lend credence to that absurd conspiracy theory
for which he CANNOT present ANY EVIDENCE.

THAT'S what I'm calling RAMPANT GIBBERISH.

Greg King, in ATR, effectively said the same thing about the SAME BOOK
Leo is relying on for his air-headed remarks about a "conspiracy to
protect the Monarchy of Queen Victoria" -- SEVEN YEARS AGO. King
dismissed it thusly:
----------------------------

"The body of literature on the Ripper is vast; in the last five years,
at least four books have posited that the Royal Family were somehow
involved.

The most amusing is "The Ripper and the Royals," in which it is claimed
not only that the Duke of Clarence fathered a bastard child through his
illegal marriage to a Catholic girl, but that his death was faked, that
he died imprisoned at Glamis Castle, of all places, in the 1930s, that
he was sent there by arrangement with the Bowes-Lyon family who were
then promised that one of their daughters would be allowed to marry into
the Royal Family, and even that George V was the product of an illicit
affair between Alexandra and Alexander Alexandrovich, the future Emperor
Alexander III of Russia."

Greg King 8 Nov 1997
------------------------------

Even Dan Rather wouldn't jump on board that cuniculan-pygan fantasy.
The book is clearly a pot-boiler -- best used as a doorstop. Yet Van de
Pas touts it as some sort of reasoned account.

SHAMEFUL!!!

Further, Leo has NOT been able to present ONE SHRED of EVIDENCE to back
up his airing and defense of the idea that a group of men including Lord
Randolph Churchill are somehow responsible for the Jack The Ripper
murders in Whitechapel in 1888, because they were trying to "protect the
monarchy" -- in the person of the Duke of Clarence.

Leo is quite willing to throw mud at Lord Randolph Churchill, the Duke
of Clarence and others long dead -- as believable co-conspirators in
some feverish, diabolical plot to "protect the monarchy" of Queen
Victoria.

Totally Irresponsible Behavior On Van de Pas's PART -- And A Very Low
And Scurrilous Blow.

Then, when challenged on the facts, Leo comes a cropper -- and runs for
the tall grass.

Hilarious!

How Sweet It Is!

I stand for the Integrity of Queen Victoria's Monarchy in this matter
and anyone who wishes to besmirch it in this scurrilous, undocumented,
fashion had best have some CONVINCING EVIDENCE to BUTTRESS his case. I
listen to FACTS and EVIDENCE not rampant, cuniculan-pygan opinings of
the sort Van de Pas is indulging in.

He sounds like an old, wasted, farblondjet duffer meandering into his
dotage.

Leo does NOT concern himself with FACTS and EVIDENCE in this case -- so
to the dog house with him!

'Nuff Said.
-------------------

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[D. Spencer Hines]

Hilarious!

Translation:

Leo has run for the tall grass and is hiding out in his bunker, having
come a cropper on his anserine remarks about "protecting the Victorian
Monarchy." -- He is far too craven and pusillanimous to face the FACTS
and PRESENT EVIDENCE for his unsupported opinings. "So, when I can't
compete I just run away."

Ergo, Leo hides behind his ---- "I CAN'T COMPETE FILE."

Bad Show...

'Nuff Said.

DSH

""Leo van de Pas"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:000401c4b21b$ccc15560$c3b4fea9@email...

| Dear Gordon

| For me he has flashed for the last time. I use a [sic] e-mail washer
and all you
| see is who sends a message and the subject line. There were two from
Spencer
| and I killfiled both.
| Peace has returned for me.
| Leo van de Pas
| Canberra, Australia
---------------------------------

"Why couldn't Lord Randolph Churchill (and others) be involved in a
cover up to protect the monarchy?"

"Why not protect the Monarchy? When the heir of [sic] the throne is
allegedly married to a Catholic girl far beneath his station? Even an
Orleans princess was not regarded as suitable."

| Several years ago someone sent me a book called "The Ripper and the
| Royals". It maintains it was NOT Albert Victor but it was done by
| several people, including Lord Randolph Churchill, to "protect the
| monarchy". You probably read about the surgical method by which
| the murders were done, this dopey Duke had no medical knowledge
| to do it himself. He may have caused it but did not do it, nor
| asked [sic] for it to be done.

Leo van de Pas
-------------------------

Leo van de Pas wants to lend credence to that absurd conspiracy theory
for which he CANNOT present ANY EVIDENCE.

THAT'S what I'm calling RAMPANT GIBBERISH.

Greg King, in ATR, effectively said the same thing about the SAME BOOK
Leo is relying on for his air-headed remarks about a "conspiracy to
protect the Monarchy of Queen Victoria" -- SEVEN YEARS AGO. King
dismissed it thusly:
----------------------------

"The body of literature on the Ripper is vast; in the last five years,
at least four books have posited that the Royal Family were somehow
involved.

The most amusing is "The Ripper and the Royals," in which it is claimed
not only that the Duke of Clarence fathered a bastard child through his
illegal marriage to a Catholic girl, but that his death was faked, that
he died imprisoned at Glamis Castle, of all places, in the 1930s, that
he was sent there by arrangement with the Bowes-Lyon family who were
then promised that one of their daughters would be allowed to marry into
the Royal Family, and even that George V was the product of an illicit
affair between Alexandra and Alexander Alexandrovich, the future Emperor
Alexander III of Russia."

Greg King 8 Nov 1997
------------------------------

Even Dan Rather wouldn't jump on board that cuniculan-pygan fantasy.
The book is clearly a pot-boiler -- best used as a doorstop. Yet Van de
Pas touts it as some sort of reasoned account.

SHAMEFUL!!!

Further, Leo has NOT been able to present ONE SHRED of EVIDENCE to back
up his airing and defense of the idea that a group of men including Lord
Randolph Churchill are somehow responsible for the Jack The Ripper
murders in Whitechapel in 1888, because they were trying to "protect the
monarchy" -- in the person of the Duke of Clarence.

Leo is quite willing to throw mud at Lord Randolph Churchill, the Duke
of Clarence and others long dead -- as believable co-conspirators in
some feverish, diabolical plot to "protect the monarchy" of Queen
Victoria.

Totally Irresponsible Behavior On Van de Pas's PART -- And A Very Low
And Scurrilous Blow.

Then, when challenged on the facts, Leo comes a cropper -- and runs for
the tall grass.

Hilarious!

How Sweet It Is!

I stand for the Integrity of Queen Victoria's Monarchy in this matter
and anyone who wishes to besmirch it in this scurrilous, undocumented,
fashion had best have some CONVINCING EVIDENCE to BUTTRESS his case. I
listen to FACTS and EVIDENCE not rampant, cuniculan-pygan opinings of
the sort Van de Pas is indulging in.

He sounds like an old, wasted, farblondjet duffer meandering into his
dotage.

Leo does NOT concern himself with FACTS and EVIDENCE in this case -- so
to the dog house with him!

'Nuff Said.
-------------------

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[D. Spencer Hines]

"Why couldn't Lord Randolph Churchill (and others) be involved in a
cover up to protect the monarchy?"

"Why not protect the Monarchy? When the heir of [sic] the throne is
allegedly married to a Catholic girl far beneath his station? Even an
Orleans princess was not regarded as suitable."

| Several years ago someone sent me a book called "The Ripper and the
| Royals". It maintains it was NOT Albert Victor but it was done by
| several people, including Lord Randolph Churchill, to "protect the
| monarchy". You probably read about the surgical method by which
| the murders were done, this dopey Duke had no medical knowledge
| to do it himself. He may have caused it but did not do it, nor
| asked [sic] for it to be done.

Leo van de Pas
-------------------------

Leo van de Pas wants to lend credence to that absurd conspiracy theory
for which he CANNOT present ANY EVIDENCE.

THAT'S what I'm calling RAMPANT GIBBERISH.

Greg King, in ATR, effectively said the same thing about the SAME BOOK
Leo is relying on for his air-headed remarks about a "conspiracy to
protect the Monarchy of Queen Victoria" -- SEVEN YEARS AGO. King
dismissed it thusly:
----------------------------

"The body of literature on the Ripper is vast; in the last five years,
at least four books have posited that the Royal Family were somehow
involved.

The most amusing is "The Ripper and the Royals," in which it is claimed
not only that the Duke of Clarence fathered a bastard child through his
illegal marriage to a Catholic girl, but that his death was faked, that
he died imprisoned at Glamis Castle, of all places, in the 1930s, that
he was sent there by arrangement with the Bowes-Lyon family who were
then promised that one of their daughters would be allowed to marry into
the Royal Family, and even that George V was the product of an illicit
affair between Alexandra and Alexander Alexandrovich, the future Emperor
Alexander III of Russia."

Greg King 8 Nov 1997
------------------------------

Even Dan Rather wouldn't jump on board that cuniculan-pygan fantasy.
The book is clearly a pot-boiler -- best used as a doorstop. Yet Van de
Pas touts it as some sort of reasoned account.

SHAMEFUL!!!

Further, Leo has NOT been able to present ONE SHRED of EVIDENCE to back
up his airing and defense of the idea that a group of men including Lord
Randolph Churchill are somehow responsible for the Jack The Ripper
murders in Whitechapel in 1888, because they were trying to "protect the
monarchy" -- in the person of the Duke of Clarence.

Leo is quite willing to throw mud at Lord Randolph Churchill, the Duke
of Clarence and others long dead -- as believable co-conspirators in
some feverish, diabolical plot to "protect the monarchy" of Queen
Victoria.

Totally Irresponsible Behavior On Van de Pas's PART -- And A Very Low
And Scurrilous Blow.

Then, when challenged on the facts, Leo comes a cropper -- and runs for
the tall grass.

Hilarious!

How Sweet It Is!

I stand for the Integrity of Queen Victoria's Monarchy in this matter
and anyone who wishes to besmirch it in this scurrilous, undocumented,
fashion had best have some CONVINCING EVIDENCE to BUTTRESS his case. I
listen to FACTS and EVIDENCE not rampant, cuniculan-pygan opinings of
the sort Van de Pas is indulging in.

He sounds like an old, wasted, farblondjet duffer meandering into his
dotage.

Leo does NOT concern himself with FACTS and EVIDENCE in this case -- so
to the dog house with him!

'Nuff Said.
-------------------

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Gjest]

In a message dated 10/14/2004 1:41:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

Leo van de Pas wants to lend credence to that absurd conspiracy story.

THAT'S what I'm calling Rampant Gibberish.

Even Dan Rather wouldn't jump on board that cuniculan-pygan fantasy.

Further, Leo has not been able to present one SHRED of EVIDENCE to back
up his defense of the idea that a group of men including Lord Randolph
Churchill are somehow responsible for the Jack The Ripper murders,
because they were trying to "protect the monarchy" -- in the person of
the Duke of Clarence.






So far as I am aware NO ONE can PROVE anything about the Ripper murders.
Leo is just bringing up information that was put forward as a possibility. If
you don't recognize this perhaps you should go back to High School for
remedial English instruction.

Oh boy, of boy, here we go again. How long has it been since The Hawaii
flash has stirred up a good flame?

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

[JRKRideau]

"William Black" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

"Martin Reboul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

There are a few things I'd rather like to see, such as the full Jack the
Ripper
files and a certain incident that occured in Rendlesham Forest a few years
ago.
Anyone else have any ideas?

The 'Ripper' file was released prematurely a few years ago after a
particularly scurrilous book claimed that the royal family were all
involved, mainly in ritual slaughter for fun, and that all this was in the
files...

Even so, the idea of old Vicky slitting up a prostitute for kicks is one
that somehow doesn't work...

Nonsense, Rush Limbooug (sp?) will assure you that Vicky was a
mulitmurderer. Didn't he claim the Queen was a major drug dealer? Like
great grandmother like whatever I'm sure HM may not agree

[Frank Bullen]

"Madeira" or should that be "Malmsey"?

Frank

[Leo van de Pas]

Dear Gordon
For me he has flashed for the last time. I use a e-mail washer and all you
see is who sends a message and the subject line. There were two from Spencer
and I killfiled both.
Peace has returned for me.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 1:59 AM
Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper & Queen Victoria's Grandson

In a message dated 10/14/2004 1:41:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

Leo van de Pas wants to lend credence to that absurd conspiracy story.

THAT'S what I'm calling Rampant Gibberish.

Even Dan Rather wouldn't jump on board that cuniculan-pygan fantasy.

Further, Leo has not been able to present one SHRED of EVIDENCE to back
up his defense of the idea that a group of men including Lord Randolph
Churchill are somehow responsible for the Jack The Ripper murders,
because they were trying to "protect the monarchy" -- in the person of
the Duke of Clarence.






So far as I am aware NO ONE can PROVE anything about the Ripper murders.
Leo is just bringing up information that was put forward as a
possibility. If
you don't recognize this perhaps you should go back to High School for
remedial English instruction.

Oh boy, of boy, here we go again. How long has it been since The Hawaii
flash has stirred up a good flame?

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

[Gjest]

In a message dated 10/14/2004 2:56:30 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

Leo van de Pas wants to lend credence to that absurd conspiracy theory
for which he CANNOT present ANY EVIDENCE.





Leo just got tired of your phagocytic manner.


Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

[Merilyn Pedrick]

Bravo Bronwen
If America is so keen to get rid of nasty regimes, it could have a go at
Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Uganda, North Korea and Israel for a start - and I'm
sure there are others who could do with some "democratising" - but I guess
most of them don't have any oil, or, like Israel, have powerful friends in
America.
Merilyn Pedrick
Mylor, South Australia

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

From: Bronwen Edwards
Date: 10/14/04 10:45:41
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Bravo! -- Australians Prove To Be Far More Stalwart Than Wimpy
Spaniards

Pinochet was wonderful. How dare you badmouth him? He was the saviour of
Chile.

Oh yeah, he saved Chile from its own democracy. Under Allende,
literacy was up, poverty was down, infant mortality was down, and the
workers controlled the resources. Under Pinochet, all of that was
reversed for the sake of a military dictator, supported by the US, who
privatized the resources so that the rewards would flow to himself,
his cronies and multinational corporations that were mostly American,
at the expense of the people. Under Pinochet, dissenters were
executed. He is guilty of crimes against humanity and has been placed
in a situation where he will be punished. Wish the same could be said
for those in power in the US at the time. They like to haul others
before the World Court but claim that it has no right to judge the US.

Sounds great! So Saddam was actually quite cuddly really?

Read my paragraph through again. Obviously you missed something.

the genocide practiced by Hussein was not
against "his own people", it was against the Kurds whose original
nation was sliced up into Turkey, Iran and Iraq.

Not against his own people? Well, that's OK then...

On the contrary, my criticism of my own country has to do with its
genocide against the Iraqis. For those of you who can get BBC Ch. 4,
they ran an audio tape that shows the attitude of some of the US
military. As for genocide, my family - present in "America" tens of
thousands of years before the ancestors of its government leaders
today - can tell you a great deal about it. But, then, from your tone
I would assume that an indigenous population is just there for the
plucking. Might makes right - fascists have always said that, whether
they be Italian, German, American, Israeli or yourself.

Further, the
chemicals etc. that he used had been sold to him by the US. That's why
this administration thought it knew what he had. Needless to say, this
is not a defense of Hussein, but let's tell the truth.

You are clearly an apologist for a brutal dictator.

Apologist, no. I said he was guilty of genocide - no question. But the
crisis in America had nothing to do with him. Pretty poor excuse to go
kill more Iraqis with American arms than Hussein ever did. But, then,
I suppose you don't think that Iraqi civilians have the right to
actually determine their form of government and their economic
position.

Third, the stated purpose of George W's invasion of Iraq was to "fight
terrorism", specifically to fight the forces that caused 9-11. There
was no contact between the government of Iraq and Al Quaeda; in fact,
Hussein refused to give them support.

Of course I know there was not connection between Iraq and 9/11. I am not
a
US soccer mom, you know...

Neither am I. As to how I feel about "America": I love this land
beyond anything. I hate the behavior of its current government beyond
anything. I have a far greater claim to this nation and its resources
than any descendant of immigrants in the White House. Unfortunately, I
do not have a military to go do my dirty work for me. I am well
educated on the situation around the Persian Gulf - mainly from first
hand sources, both Iraqi and American. What is the source of your
information?

They disliked him because his
government was too secular.

Ridiculous!

Fourth, it seems like all the right wingers, like yourselves, can
really do is use name-calling, ridicule, and indulge in
self-congratulatory sniggering like little kids. Grow up.

[Brant Gibbard]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:12:39 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
("Frank Bullen") wrote:

"Madeira" or should that be "Malmsey"?

Frank

Yup, Malmsey, not Madeira.

Nowadays the word Malmsey is most often heard in reference to a style
of Madeira (the sweetest of the main styles), but in the Middle Ages
Madeira had not yet been invented, and Malmsey meant something quite
different from what it does today.

Malmsey was originally the name applied to wines from Greece, and had
it origin in a corruption of the name of the port of Monemvasia from
which most of them were shipped. The grapes weren't actually grown
there, the wine came from various other parts of Greece, particularly
Crete, but because it was then transshipped through Monemvasia that
name got applied to the wines. Unlike Madeira, these would have been
white wines, and would not have been fortified. They would
nonetheless have been fairly high in alcohol, and sweet, as no other
type of wine would have been able to survive the punishing sea voyage
to England.

The name of Monemvasia also got applied, in a variety of forms, often
as Malvasia, to a number of grape varieties from Greece. At a time
long after the Middle Ages the Malvasia grape got planted in the
Madeira islands, and when the fortified wine Madeira was invented it
became the source of one of the sweetest types. Later on the name
Malmsey was transferred from the grape to the style of Madeira.
Nowadays very little if any Malvasia is used in the style of Madeira
called Malmsey.


Brant Gibbard
Toronto, ON

[Gjest]

Dear Pat,
Breifly, the Line runs;
1. Conan I, Count of Rennes and Duke of Brittany d 997 m
Ermengarde of Anjou
2. Geoffrey I, Duke of Brittany d 1008 m Hawise of Normandy
3. Alan III, Duke of Brittany d 1040 m Bertha of Blois
4. Hawise of Brittany d 1072 m Hoel of Cornouille, jure uxoris
Duke of Brittany 1066 d 1084. (Successor of brother-in-law Conan II, Duke of
Brittany 1040-1066 )
5. Alan IV, Duke of Brittany d 1119 m Ermengarde of Anjou
6. Conan III, Duke of Brittany d 1148 m Maud, natural daughter of
King Henry I of England
7. Bertha of Brittany d bef 1167 m Alan, Count of Brittany and
Earl of Richmond d 1146, son of Stephen, Count of Brittany, Grandson of Eudes,
Count of Brittany, younger son of Duke Geoffrey I (above)
8. Conan IV, Duke of Brittany d 1171 m Margaret of Huntingdon (who
m 2nd Humphrey de Bohun IV d 1182
9 Constance,Countess of Brittany d 1201 m 1) Geoffrey, son of Henry
II of England , Duke of Brittany, 2) Ranulf, Earl of Chester ; Duke of
Brittany 3) Guy de Thouars, Duke of Brittany
Sources AR 7 lines 39 (gen 1-5), 119 (Gen 5-8) 96(Gen 8 and 9);see
also Richardson`s Plantagenet Ancestry p 6
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Bronwen Edwards]

America's Manifest Destiny was to rule from sea to shining sea - and the
Indians got in the way. See President Andrew Jackson for the details.

That didn't prevent the US from extending "sea to shining sea" into
the Pacific and the Latin American nations, now anywhere and
everywhere. As for Andrew Jackson, he has the distinction of having
broken the US laws and gone against its constitution in order to force
the Five Civilized Tribes of the Southeast to Indian Territory (now
mainly Oklahoma). He refused to abide by a Supreme Court judgement and
challenged them openly to use force to make him abide by the decision.
More recently, Baby Bush's daddy, when president, said that "if even
one small nation is invaded by another, that is one nation too many."
Apparently that only applies when and where his family decrees. He was
referring to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, but he could have been
referring to the US as far as I am concerned. Manifest destiny was
illegal according to the laws and sensibilities of the US at the time
and so it was invented by members of Congress and named by a
journalist to supply a "higher" mandate. As I paraphrase its
definition for my students, it means "The US can do whatever it wants
no matter what the consequences because God said so". The oldest
excuse in the book to act like a savage. The real savages came from
Europe and did NOT build this country. This country was built
literally on the backs of people from Africa and China superimposed on
the economies and governments already in place. I hope you are not as
ignorant about the aboriginal people in Australia as you are about
American Indians.

You are clearly an apologist for a brutal dictator.

Apologist, no. I said he was guilty of genocide - no question. But the
crisis in America had nothing to do with him. Pretty poor excuse to go
kill more Iraqis with American arms than Hussein ever did. But, then,
I suppose you don't think that Iraqi civilians have the right to
actually determine their form of government and their economic
position.

the Iraqis are not up to democracy

Why should they be? They didn't ask for an invasion by the US. They
have lost a great deal more since the US and its "alliance" (gang of
thugs) arrived than they ever lost under Saddam. They never expressed
any desire to become like Americans. So why impose a foreign system on
them? Refer to my original comments about the real motives behind the
US invasion.

It was white Europeans who made America great, not some savages wandering
the plains. Get used to that fact. I do not need extra info on the Persian
Gulf thanks from any source whatsoever, I am sick of reading about it. DJW

I didn't think you would be able to come up with resources for your
information other than the most superficial propagandic "news" media.

[Bronwen Edwards]

"D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

"I have a far greater claim to this nation and its resources than any
descendant of immigrants in the White House."

Bronwen Edwards -- "Native American" Writ Large
-------------------------------------------

Hilarious!

MORE Gibberish....

As if the Gibberish we are being fed from Stewart and Van de Pas is not
enough these days.

'Nuff Said.

Why Honeybuns! Thank you for the comparison. I am honored. Bronwen

DSH

[Sue J]

What has this got to do with genealogy. I have kept quiet until now
but this is really getting ridiculous. If you want a list to gripe
about politics, why don't you all start one and have a free-for-all.

Sue

-----Original Message-----
From: Merilyn Pedrick [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 7:42 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Bravo! -- Australians Prove To Be Far More Stalwart Than
Wimpy Spaniards


Bravo Bronwen
If America is so keen to get rid of nasty regimes, it could have a go
at
Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Uganda, North Korea and Israel for a start -
and I'm
sure there are others who could do with some "democratising" - but I
guess
most of them don't have any oil, or, like Israel, have powerful
friends in
America.
Merilyn Pedrick
Mylor, South Australia

[Gjest]

Please would contributors to this and other off-topic threads conduct their
debates on some appropriate list

[D. Spencer Hines]

This story may have some legs. Let's hope so:

DSH
--------------------------

"Heinz Kerry ended with what she called "a highly effective"remedy for
arthritis that drew laughter and some skepticism from the audience.

"You get some gin and get some white raisins - and only white raisins -
and soak them in the gin for two weeks," she said. "Then eat nine of
the raisins a day."

Despite the laughter, Dr. Steven Phillips, director of Geriatric
Medicine at the University of Nevada quickly supported the prescription.

Phillips, on stage with Heinz Kerry as part of the panel, said sulfur
and sulfides found in grapes are increased by the alcohol and could
perhaps alleviate joint pain.

Dr. Michael Gerber, a noted homeopathic doctor in Reno, also said the
formula has merit.

"It makes sense,"said Gerber from his office. "People go to hot springs
to soak in the water and that water is very high in sulfur. So Mrs.
Kerry's remedy is pretty plausible."

Dolores Jackson of Reno, a Kerry supporter who attended the rally, took
the raisin and gin remedy seriously.

"There are really other remedies where we don't have to use so many
drugs,"Jackson said. "I really believe in alternative medicine."

The health plan Heinz Kerry prescribed for the nation, however, did not
include any grapes."
-------------------------

Great!!!

Now we can have battling, vociferous, partisan doctors, homeopaths and
alternative medicine devotees in the final three weeks of the
campaign -- providing some humor and juice to the mix.

Gin will "cure" all sorts of things, of course -- just ask our British
cousins.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"John Gilmer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

| > And then there is Teresa's latest gaffe -- her "cure for
| > arthritis" - gin-soaked white raisins -- that woman is
| > a certifiable flake.
|
| Yep. She is completely "out of it." But that will make little
| difference.

[D. Spencer Hines]

Cameron Allen, F.A.S.G., was working on an article on the Bassanos and
their links with the Laniers.

Does anyone here know if it has been published?

Thanks.

DSH

[Patricia Junkin]

Dear Leo and James,
Thank you very much for the information. It is generous, indeed, and
provides both clarification and ratification of some information that I
have.
Pat

----------

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Loose Ends; Children of Conan I of Brittany
Date: Thu, Oct 14, 2004, 9:34 PM


Dear Pat,
Breifly, the Line runs;
1. Conan I, Count of Rennes and Duke of Brittany d 997 m
Ermengarde of Anjou
2. Geoffrey I, Duke of Brittany d 1008 m Hawise of Normandy
3. Alan III, Duke of Brittany d 1040 m Bertha of Blois
4. Hawise of Brittany d 1072 m Hoel of Cornouille, jure uxoris
Duke of Brittany 1066 d 1084. (Successor of brother-in-law Conan II, Duke of
Brittany 1040-1066 )
5. Alan IV, Duke of Brittany d 1119 m Ermengarde of Anjou
6. Conan III, Duke of Brittany d 1148 m Maud, natural daughter of
King Henry I of England
7. Bertha of Brittany d bef 1167 m Alan, Count of Brittany and
Earl of Richmond d 1146, son of Stephen, Count of Brittany, Grandson of Eudes,
Count of Brittany, younger son of Duke Geoffrey I (above)
8. Conan IV, Duke of Brittany d 1171 m Margaret of Huntingdon (who
m 2nd Humphrey de Bohun IV d 1182
9 Constance,Countess of Brittany d 1201 m 1) Geoffrey, son of Henry
II of England , Duke of Brittany, 2) Ranulf, Earl of Chester ; Duke of
Brittany 3) Guy de Thouars, Duke of Brittany
Sources AR 7 lines 39 (gen 1-5), 119 (Gen 5-8) 96(Gen 8 and 9);see
also Richardson`s Plantagenet Ancestry p 6
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Patricia Junkin]

Dear Leo and James,
Thank you very much for the information. It is generous, indeed, and
provides both clarification and ratification of some information that I
have.
Pat

----------

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Loose Ends; Children of Conan I of Brittany
Date: Thu, Oct 14, 2004, 9:34 PM


Dear Pat,
Breifly, the Line runs;
1. Conan I, Count of Rennes and Duke of Brittany d 997 m
Ermengarde of Anjou
2. Geoffrey I, Duke of Brittany d 1008 m Hawise of Normandy
3. Alan III, Duke of Brittany d 1040 m Bertha of Blois
4. Hawise of Brittany d 1072 m Hoel of Cornouille, jure uxoris
Duke of Brittany 1066 d 1084. (Successor of brother-in-law Conan II, Duke of
Brittany 1040-1066 )
5. Alan IV, Duke of Brittany d 1119 m Ermengarde of Anjou
6. Conan III, Duke of Brittany d 1148 m Maud, natural daughter of
King Henry I of England
7. Bertha of Brittany d bef 1167 m Alan, Count of Brittany and
Earl of Richmond d 1146, son of Stephen, Count of Brittany, Grandson of Eudes,
Count of Brittany, younger son of Duke Geoffrey I (above)
8. Conan IV, Duke of Brittany d 1171 m Margaret of Huntingdon (who
m 2nd Humphrey de Bohun IV d 1182
9 Constance,Countess of Brittany d 1201 m 1) Geoffrey, son of Henry
II of England , Duke of Brittany, 2) Ranulf, Earl of Chester ; Duke of
Brittany 3) Guy de Thouars, Duke of Brittany
Sources AR 7 lines 39 (gen 1-5), 119 (Gen 5-8) 96(Gen 8 and 9);see
also Richardson`s Plantagenet Ancestry p 6
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Martin Reboul]

"James Kemp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Someone known as Martin Reboul scribed the following at 02:34:32 on Wed,
13 Oct 2004, allegedly:
"James Kemp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Someone known as Thur scribed the following at 00:17:59 on Tue, 12 Oct
2004, allegedly:

Has the USA system anything to offer us?
Freedom of Information perhaps.

Also from 1 Jan 2005 the rest of the provisions of the FOI Act come into
force. Basically it means that anyone can ask (although it must be in
writing) for any information that is held and it must be supplied within
a defined timescale (15 working days IIRC).

Enough time for them to black out all the good bits!

Well you aren't allowed to do that, but I expect several shredders will
be worn out between now and 1 Jan '05 as people destroy material so that
they don't have to disclose it.

There are a few things I'd rather like to see, such as the full Jack the
Ripper
files and a certain incident that occured in Rendlesham Forest a few years
ago.
Anyone else have any ideas?

Well IIRC the Ripper files are at the PRO in Kew and you can just go
along and see them.

*Part* of the Ripper files - most are now well known. Interesting aside here,
the Ripper letters went missing during WWII, when the archives were moved to a
safe place outside London to be safe from bombs. The letters disappeared
somewhere en route, and only turned up again quite recently, following the death
of a retired (quite senior) police officer who had accidentally (ahem) taken
them home by mistake and forgot to return them - his widow did so for him,
posthumously.
A close friend of mine is a forensic scientist in the documents analysis dept.
of the Met, and they had a good look at them using modern techniques, though
nothing was revealed as they have been handled and contaminated severely over
the years (I suppose the case is still officially open?). Quite eerie
apparently - the only one thought to be genuine was the one accompanied by half
a kidney (still stained - yuk! she said).
What is allegedly/supposedly/apparently/(fill in extra adjectives here) missing
from the file, is the conclusion of the Police at the time - they didn't dare to
charge the murderer (though they knew who it was) because he was Jewish, and
there was likely to have been an apocalyptic riot in the East End, seething and
simmering with anti-semitism and revolution as it was at the time. He was
therefore consigned to a lunatic asylum for life on the quiet, where he died.
It has the ring of truth, being uncomplicated, fitting the facts and shaved
with Occam's Razor. The missing parts of the file have been missing for a long
time apparently, not for fear of offending the Jews, but because the actions of
the Police and Home Office were illegal and embarrassing to the establishment
even now. It is likely they have been destroyed, though not certain.
Cheers
Martin

[Martin Reboul]

"JRKRideau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

"William Black" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
"Martin Reboul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

There are a few things I'd rather like to see, such as the full Jack the
Ripper
files and a certain incident that occured in Rendlesham Forest a few years
ago.
Anyone else have any ideas?

The 'Ripper' file was released prematurely a few years ago after a
particularly scurrilous book claimed that the royal family were all
involved, mainly in ritual slaughter for fun, and that all this was in the
files...

Even so, the idea of old Vicky slitting up a prostitute for kicks is one
that somehow doesn't work...

Nonsense, Rush Limbooug (sp?) will assure you that Vicky was a
mulitmurderer. Didn't he claim the Queen was a major drug dealer? Like
great grandmother like whatever I'm sure HM may not agree

Not a dealer - a consumer. Mind you, there was the Opium War...

[Dave]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:59:29 GMT, "Martin Reboul"
<[email protected]> wrote:

"JRKRideau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"William Black" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
"Martin Reboul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

There are a few things I'd rather like to see, such as the full Jack the
Ripper
files and a certain incident that occured in Rendlesham Forest a few years
ago.
Anyone else have any ideas?

The 'Ripper' file was released prematurely a few years ago after a
particularly scurrilous book claimed that the royal family were all
involved, mainly in ritual slaughter for fun, and that all this was in the
files...

Even so, the idea of old Vicky slitting up a prostitute for kicks is one
that somehow doesn't work...

Nonsense, Rush Limbooug (sp?) will assure you that Vicky was a
mulitmurderer. Didn't he claim the Queen was a major drug dealer? Like
great grandmother like whatever I'm sure HM may not agree

Not a dealer - a consumer. Mind you, there was the Opium War...

And wasn't one of her sons Jack the Ripper?

[Sheila J]

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

This story may have some legs. Let's hope so:

DSH
--------------------------

"Heinz Kerry ended with what she called "a highly effective"remedy for
arthritis that drew laughter and some skepticism from the audience.

"You get some gin and get some white raisins - and only white raisins -
and soak them in the gin for two weeks," she said. "Then eat nine of
the raisins a day."

Despite the laughter, Dr. Steven Phillips, director of Geriatric
Medicine at the University of Nevada quickly supported the prescription.

Phillips, on stage with Heinz Kerry as part of the panel, said sulfur
and sulfides found in grapes are increased by the alcohol and could
perhaps alleviate joint pain.

Dr. Michael Gerber, a noted homeopathic doctor in Reno, also said the
formula has merit.

"It makes sense,"said Gerber from his office. "People go to hot springs
to soak in the water and that water is very high in sulfur. So Mrs.
Kerry's remedy is pretty plausible."

Dolores Jackson of Reno, a Kerry supporter who attended the rally, took
the raisin and gin remedy seriously.

"There are really other remedies where we don't have to use so many
drugs,"Jackson said. "I really believe in alternative medicine."

The health plan Heinz Kerry prescribed for the nation, however, did not
include any grapes."
-------------------------

Great!!!

Now we can have battling, vociferous, partisan doctors, homeopaths and
alternative medicine devotees in the final three weeks of the
campaign -- providing some humor and juice to the mix.

Gin will "cure" all sorts of things, of course -- just ask our British
cousins.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"John Gilmer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

| > And then there is Teresa's latest gaffe -- her "cure for
| > arthritis" - gin-soaked white raisins -- that woman is
| > a certifiable flake.
|
| Yep. She is completely "out of it." But that will make little
| difference.

Well, of course it works. HOw do you think the Queen Mother stayed alive
so long? She was pickled from the inside out.
I would recommend Bombay Gin - it's lovely!

[William Black]

"Martin Reboul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

What is allegedly/supposedly/apparently/(fill in extra adjectives here)
missing
from the file, is the conclusion of the Police at the time - they didn't
dare to
charge the murderer (though they knew who it was) because he was Jewish,
and
there was likely to have been an apocalyptic riot in the East End,
seething and
simmering with anti-semitism and revolution as it was at the time. He was
therefore consigned to a lunatic asylum for life on the quiet, where he
died.
It has the ring of truth, being uncomplicated, fitting the facts and
shaved
with Occam's Razor. The missing parts of the file have been missing for a
long
time apparently, not for fear of offending the Jews, but because the
actions of
the Police and Home Office were illegal and embarrassing to the
establishment
even now. It is likely they have been destroyed, though not certain.

There was certainly no reticence about blaming the Jews a few years later
during a whole series of 'Anarchist Outrage' killings that killed many more
than the Ripper ever did, and no outcry by the locals either...

Quote:

'This Evil Alien Influence That Stalks Our Shores'

(The Daily Mail hasn't changed much has it?)

And the killers in those cases undoubtedly were Jewish...

Anyway I was under the impression that the 'mad Jewish doctor' theory had
long been dismissed as the suspect had a cast iron alibi for at least two of
the murders, although he did go mad and was incarcerated in an insane
asylum.

Plus there's all the Masonic detailing at the murder scenes, at a time
(well ok then, when wasn't there a time) when the Met was riddled with
Masons.

The most logical conclusion seems to be that not all the murders were
committed by one man and at least two were copycat killings, certainly one
(Mary Eddoes? I can't remember) was very untypical as if the murderer had
been disturbed, which he wasn't, or didn't know all the gory details...

--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government

[Martin Reboul]

"Sheila J" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:8uVbd.727691$M95.125552@pd7tw1no...

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
This story may have some legs. Let's hope so:

DSH
--------------------------

"Heinz Kerry ended with what she called "a highly effective"remedy for
arthritis that drew laughter and some skepticism from the audience.

"You get some gin and get some white raisins - and only white raisins -
and soak them in the gin for two weeks," she said. "Then eat nine of
the raisins a day."

Despite the laughter, Dr. Steven Phillips, director of Geriatric
Medicine at the University of Nevada quickly supported the prescription.

Phillips, on stage with Heinz Kerry as part of the panel, said sulfur
and sulfides found in grapes are increased by the alcohol and could
perhaps alleviate joint pain.

Dr. Michael Gerber, a noted homeopathic doctor in Reno, also said the
formula has merit.

"It makes sense,"said Gerber from his office. "People go to hot springs
to soak in the water and that water is very high in sulfur. So Mrs.
Kerry's remedy is pretty plausible."

Dolores Jackson of Reno, a Kerry supporter who attended the rally, took
the raisin and gin remedy seriously.

"There are really other remedies where we don't have to use so many
drugs,"Jackson said. "I really believe in alternative medicine."

The health plan Heinz Kerry prescribed for the nation, however, did not
include any grapes."
-------------------------

Great!!!

Now we can have battling, vociferous, partisan doctors, homeopaths and
alternative medicine devotees in the final three weeks of the
campaign -- providing some humor and juice to the mix.

Gin will "cure" all sorts of things, of course -- just ask our British
cousins.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"John Gilmer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

| > And then there is Teresa's latest gaffe -- her "cure for
| > arthritis" - gin-soaked white raisins -- that woman is
| > a certifiable flake.
|
| Yep. She is completely "out of it." But that will make little
| difference.



Well, of course it works. HOw do you think the Queen Mother stayed alive
so long? She was pickled from the inside out.
I would recommend Bombay Gin - it's lovely!

Quite so - gin was introduced to Britain from Holland as a medicinal tonic, the
fact everyone got thoroughly pissed on pints of the stuff is neither here nor
there. Her Late Majesty was a splendid example of how the odd drop does no harm,
though I believe she liked green and yellow Chartreuse mixed 50:50 in
particular - gin was Princess Margaret's favourite I think, who didn't do quite
so well, bless her.

America brought the world Coca Cola of course, another efficaceous tonic - until
they removed the useful ingredient, now it is only fit for cleaning things or
dissolving teeth. I won't touch the stuff.

I would recommend that most people should up the dose to at least 14 - 25
raisins in order to feel any benefit, as Mother Theresa was very small and
slight. I'd also suggest they would work better if washed down with a goodly
slug of the juice they came with, which should kill the pain somewhat, but I am
not a doctor, so don't sue me if anything goes wrong.

You shouldn't scoff at these things Spency, you obviously know very little about
medicine, and absolutely nothing at all about drugs and medication. The only
thing you were right about was homeopathy, which is crap.

Cheers
Martin

[Gjest]

In a message dated 10/15/2004 2:26:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

"Heinz Kerry ended with what she called "a highly effective"remedy for
arthritis that drew laughter and some skepticism from the audience.




Excuse me for a minute. I must go be blood letted.

Joking aside, I don't know that the suggestion won't work and it does sound
medieval..

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

[Gjest]

Dear Newsgroup,
Did Reverend Leonard Hoare who married Bridget Lisle
have a relative who married Leonard Tarne who had by her a son Michael /
Myles Tarne who lived in Boston, Massachusetts during the mid to late seventeenth
century? Myles Tarne married one Sarah _________ .
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Martin Reboul]

"William Black" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

"Martin Reboul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

What is allegedly/supposedly/apparently/(fill in extra adjectives here)
missing
from the file, is the conclusion of the Police at the time - they didn't
dare to
charge the murderer (though they knew who it was) because he was Jewish,
and
there was likely to have been an apocalyptic riot in the East End,
seething and
simmering with anti-semitism and revolution as it was at the time. He was
therefore consigned to a lunatic asylum for life on the quiet, where he
died.
It has the ring of truth, being uncomplicated, fitting the facts and
shaved
with Occam's Razor. The missing parts of the file have been missing for a
long
time apparently, not for fear of offending the Jews, but because the
actions of
the Police and Home Office were illegal and embarrassing to the
establishment
even now. It is likely they have been destroyed, though not certain.

There was certainly no reticence about blaming the Jews a few years later
during a whole series of 'Anarchist Outrage' killings that killed many more
than the Ripper ever did, and no outcry by the locals either...

Quote:

'This Evil Alien Influence That Stalks Our Shores'

(The Daily Mail hasn't changed much has it?)

And the killers in those cases undoubtedly were Jewish...

Anyway I was under the impression that the 'mad Jewish doctor' theory had
long been dismissed as the suspect had a cast iron alibi for at least two of
the murders, although he did go mad and was incarcerated in an insane
asylum.

Plus there's all the Masonic detailing at the murder scenes, at a time
(well ok then, when wasn't there a time) when the Met was riddled with
Masons.

The most logical conclusion seems to be that not all the murders were
committed by one man and at least two were copycat killings, certainly one
(Mary Eddoes? I can't remember) was very untypical as if the murderer had
been disturbed, which he wasn't, or didn't know all the gory details...

As the years go by, fewer and fewer murders are attributed to Jack the Ripper. I
think we're down to five now? I suspect less. The fact is, at that time there
was a very tense and paranoid atmosphere in that part of London for numerous and
diverse reasons, some political, some criminal and many social. There were a lot
of grisly murders in the area, only the 'ripping' was at all unusual.

The old chestnut about 'medical knowledge' was really just a press fabrication -
it was really no more than butchery at best. The press also had a large part in
hyping up the legend, to the extent that reporters almost certainly wrote some
of the Ripper Letters to wind things up. Little wonder the police were confused
and innefectual - apparently motiveless murders, done by a madman in a wide area
with no regular pattern, it must have been impossibly frustrating before the
days of CCTV!

I think you're probably right about the copycat murders - what better way to get
rid of someone than to cut her upand put it down to 'Jack'? The police weren't
perhaps as diligent as they should have been in investigating the possible
motives and opportunities of those who were close to the unfortunate victims,
and several of them were prostitutes, a notoriously dangerous profession.

As for Freemasonry, have a look at this....

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Ma ... urders.htm

"Christoper's" statement is enlightening, though the rest is unlikely - I
seriously doubt any followers of the Craft would have been so obvious and
appallingly ruthless back in those days, when many brothers who would have been
'in the know' were of very high, almost puritanical beliefs and morality. It
wouldn't have been allowed, I'm sure.

The City and Met (especially detectives) were frequently Masons, but that is by
tradition and is certainly not the reason they failed to catch anyone. The
strange piece of 'Masonic' graffiti found at the scene of one murder, which
horrified one senior policeman (Warren, head of the Met, who ordered it to be
scrubbed away at once), referred to the 'Juwes', and had a somewhat crafty ring
to it, but I think his anxiety was probably due to fears of it being
misinterpreted by an Ingeresque member of the public as 'Jews', which would have
had all hell break loose in the East End. That is what he claimed, and I tend to
believe him (it could merely be a misinterpretation of poor writing by a
constable, as 'u' and 'e' can be mistaken easily).
It is however one of the most vital clues as to who killed Kate Eddowes (missing
kidney) - that was Jack, so was Annie Chapman and Mary Kelly... Polly Nichols
likely, Liz Stride not so likely.

It is a very sad reflection on London's East End in the 1880's - the ghastly
lives and conditions these unfortunate women endured were recorded for
posterity, which they never would have been had they not been murdered. Drink,
desperation and violence - so much for 'Victorian values', and time and time
again you come across people committed to lunatic asylums and descriptions of
many who were clearly insane.
All the victims were at least part-time hookers, all lived in sin (or had) with
partners from which they expected beatings... a bad, sad, mad world.
I think Jack was probably just a sick, sexual deviant, who perhaps finally (and
horrifically) satisfied his 'curiosity' with poor Mary Kelly (that photograph is
one of the most ghastly things I've ever seen). Easy and convenient to blame on
suicides who can't answer back (like Druitt), as Warren's successor tried to do.
The fact is, there were so many deeply disturbed and desperate people in the
area at the time, I doubt we'll ever know for sure.

Still, it's great fun seeing all the crackpot theories that seem to come up with
monotonous regularity. As it happens, I have noticed one thing that I haven't
seen anyone mention yet - the Whitechapel murders began at about the time Mary
Kelly (the last victim) became pregnant, and finished with her horrible
dismemberment. Whoever it was clearly had an obsession with the female sexual
organs - is there some connection? Put it this way, I'd be very, very interested
to know who the father of her unborn child was......

Too late though, all gone, no DNA, no chance. Even so, the Masonic connection
brings up another strange coincidence, as in the year 1888, strange things were
going on somewhere in Minnesota.... and 'Long' Liz Stride was Swedish! I suspect
a most sinister connection exists here, as (cont P98)
Cheers
Martin

[Martin Reboul]

"Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:59:29 GMT, "Martin Reboul"
[email protected]> wrote:


"JRKRideau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"William Black" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
"Martin Reboul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

There are a few things I'd rather like to see, such as the full Jack
the
Ripper
files and a certain incident that occured in Rendlesham Forest a few
years
ago.
Anyone else have any ideas?

The 'Ripper' file was released prematurely a few years ago after a
particularly scurrilous book claimed that the royal family were all
involved, mainly in ritual slaughter for fun, and that all this was in
the
files...

Even so, the idea of old Vicky slitting up a prostitute for kicks is one
that somehow doesn't work...

Nonsense, Rush Limbooug (sp?) will assure you that Vicky was a
mulitmurderer. Didn't he claim the Queen was a major drug dealer? Like
great grandmother like whatever I'm sure HM may not agree

Not a dealer - a consumer. Mind you, there was the Opium War...

And wasn't one of her sons Jack the Ripper?

No - it was her surgeon!

[CE Wood]

Whether or not it "works", I'm sure you will end up feeling no pain,
AND, most importantly, not really caring if you do or not.......

CE Wood

[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

In a message dated 10/15/2004 2:26:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

"Heinz Kerry ended with what she called "a highly effective"remedy for
arthritis that drew laughter and some skepticism from the audience.




Excuse me for a minute. I must go be blood letted.

Joking aside, I don't know that the suggestion won't work and it does sound
medieval..

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

[Ogden Johnson III]

Sheila J <[email protected]> wrote:

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
This story may have some legs. Let's hope so:

Poster Sheila J killfiled for blindly following D. Spencer
Hines's egomaniacal excess cross-posting, which has severely
decimated at least two of the groups he is inflicting this crap
on. If you *must* chime in on a D. Spencer Hines rant, please
trim the newsgroups list to only the newsgroup you are reading
his BS in.

This thread followed the above named person into the killfile, so
the rest of the responders in the thread who don't trim their
newsgroups get a pass until they are the first un-killfiled
responder to a DSH broadcast.
--
OJ III
[Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]

[Bryant Smith]

[Henry numbers]
1.Charles Hoare Sr m Margery ____
1.1 Charles Hoar Jr. m Joanna Hinksman
1.1.1 Leonard Hoar m Bridget Lisle
[N.B. 7 siblings omitted]
1.2 Unnamed daughter #1 m Leonard Tarne (also called Turner)
1.2.1 Charles
1.2.2 Other issue? Vide infra.
1.3 Thomas Hoare married and had issue
1.4 Another unnamed daughter m Thomas Hill; they had issue
The will of Charles Hoare Sr. appointed his sons in law Thomas Hill and
Leon[ar]d Tarne as overseers and gave them each saddle for their pains.
Charles Sr. was a saddler.)
See "The Hoar Family in America and its English Ancestry a Compilation
of Collectons Made By The Hon George Frisbie Hoar" at
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... page40.htm
which includes the will mentioned and a chart showing descendants
of Charles Sr. which names Charles and "other ch?" as children of Leonard Tarne
by a daughter of Charles Sr.

[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

Dear Newsgroup,
Did Reverend Leonard Hoare who married Bridget Lisle
have a relative who married Leonard Tarne who had by her a son Michael /
Myles Tarne who lived in Boston, Massachusetts during the mid to late seventeenth
century? Myles Tarne married one Sarah _________ .
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[William Black]

"Martin Reboul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

As for Freemasonry, have a look at this....

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Ma ... urders.htm

I'm afraid that this is just the 'stark bonkers' end of things.

All establishments 'conspire' to stay in power through semi formal networks.
The Free Masons are just the way it works in England, I imagine it works
differently in other countries, for example in Scotland it is very doubtful
if Freemasonry functions in this way, it's far too widespread, and the
usual centre 'blamed' for such activities seems to be the various church
organisations.

If the Free Masons didn't exist then it would be Rugby Union Clubs or some
other social setting, probably one where people could join only by
invitation.

--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government

[Frank Bullen]

Hi Martin

You wrote

<It is a very sad reflection on London's East End in the 1880's - the ghastly
<lives and conditions these unfortunate women endured were recorded for
<posterity, which they never would have been had they not been murdered. Drink,
<desperation and violence - so much for 'Victorian values', and time and time
<again you come across people committed to lunatic asylums and descriptions of
<many who were clearly insane.

I question whether one can describe all this as 'Victorian values'. Would not a truer reflection of these be represented by the many social experiments begun during the Victorian era which carried over into the 20th century, such as the Salvation Army, the Church Lads' Brigade, the Boy Scouts & Girl Guides, the teaching of respect for the elderly, teachers, the police and those in authority, etc., etc.? In my childhood in the thirties, these still exercised a considerable degree of influence on us and our friends.

And - Hey! Isn't it about time this thread were renamed? Most of the postings these days have nothing whatsoever to do with the title under which they appear .

Regards

Frank

[Sheila J]

Ogden Johnson III wrote:

Sheila J <[email protected]> wrote:


D. Spencer Hines wrote:

This story may have some legs. Let's hope so:


Poster Sheila J killfiled for blindly following D. Spencer
Hines's egomaniacal excess cross-posting, which has severely
decimated at least two of the groups he is inflicting this crap
on. If you *must* chime in on a D. Spencer Hines rant, please
trim the newsgroups list to only the newsgroup you are reading
his BS in.

This thread followed the above named person into the killfile, so
the rest of the responders in the thread who don't trim their
newsgroups get a pass until they are the first un-killfiled
responder to a DSH broadcast.

Yah.....finally kilfiled!

[Gjest]

Dear Bryant,
Thank you for the Hoare- Tarne- Hill information.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

[Peter Stewart]

[email protected] wrote:

Saturday, 16 October, 2004


Dear Peter,

Many thanks for those two added sources, esp. the additional Chester
charter. The reference by Earl Ranulf (d. 1153) to Richard Bacun as
cognatus meus> validates the reference in the Roucestre charter (cf.
first post in this thread). These, together with the known chronology
re: Earl Ranulf, Richard Bacun and the witnesses of the Roucestre
charter support the placement of Richard Bacun as nephew of Ranulf,
Earl of Chester (d. 1129) and 1st cousin of Earl Ranulf (d. 1153).

Much as I respect the work of Wm. Farrer, I don't quite see where
the 'illeg. daughter of Ranulf' theory came in. That certainly doesn't
work with the relationships stated by Earl Ranulf and Richard Bacun in
their respective charters.....

Farrer certainly knew the evidence, and remarked that the charter quoted
from _Monasticon_ "in its present form is open to suspicion" [HKF vol.
II p. 258].

The use of "avunculus" may be one of the problems with the document
rather than conclusive proof that Richard actually was a nephew,
legitimate or not, of an earl of Chester. Even if genuine, this word is
by no means always used in its strict sense of "maternal uncle".

If Richard Bacun was other than a brother-in-law or distant relative of
Ranulf II, it's harder to explain "cognatus" in his more satisfactory
record, when "nepos" or "consanguineus" might have been expected for an
acknowledged - and closer - blood link.

Given that Bacun was also a mere "familiaris" in the earl's reckoning,
an illegitimate connection makes sense to me either way.

Do you know where his name Richard came from? Maybe he was a kinsman
through Ranulf I's cousin Richard of Avranches, earl of Chester (drowned
in 1120).

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

Saturday, 16 October, 2004


Dear Peter,

Many thanks for those two added sources, esp. the additional Chester
charter. The reference by Earl Ranulf (d. 1153) to Richard Bacun as
<cognatus meus> validates the reference in the Roucestre charter (cf.
first post in this thread). These, together with the known chronology
re: Earl Ranulf, Richard Bacun and the witnesses of the Roucestre
charter support the placement of Richard Bacun as nephew of Ranulf,
Earl of Chester (d. 1129) and 1st cousin of Earl Ranulf (d. 1153).

Much as I respect the work of Wm. Farrer, I don't quite see where
the 'illeg. daughter of Ranulf' theory came in. That certainly doesn't
work with the relationships stated by Earl Ranulf and Richard Bacun in
their respective charters.....

Cheers,

John




------------------------

[email protected] (Peter Stewart) wrote:

There is a reference from the other side of the relationship in a
charter of Ranulf (II) de Gernon, earl of Chester from 1143/44,
"Ricardus Bacun, cognatus meus et familiaris" {Richard Bacon, my kinsman
and retainer) [see _The Charters of the Anglo-Norman Earls of Chester,
c. 1071–1237_, edited by Geoffrey Barraclough, Record Society of
Lancashire and Cheshire 126 (1988) p. 81 no. 68].

William Farrer in _Honors and Knights’ Fees_ suggested that Ranulf (I)
de Briquessart, earl of Chester (died January 1129) had an illegitimate
daughter who married Richard Bacon.

Peter Stewart

[Rosie Bevan]

It may be possible to pinpoint the date of the charter of gift, if genuine,
to 1153, the year William Fitzherbert was appointed archbishop of York, to
16 Dec 1153 when Ranulf II died ("WILL. Dei gratia Eboracensi archiepiscopo,
et R.eadem gratia Cestriae episcopo, et R comiti Cestriae..."). I'm not sure
who R. bishop of Chester might be because according to the Fasti Anglicanae
there was no such bishopric at the time.

Peter is correct in saying that the term 'avunculus' needs to be interpreted
more loosely as it can also include an uncle on the paternal side (and there
are other examples in the Monasticon Anglicanum of this), but I'm not
familiar with a wider meaning. Keats-Rohan [DD 159, 160] comments that
Richard Bacon was of the family of Bacon du Molay, seigneurs of Le
Molay-Liffry (William Bacon du Molay was a vassal of the vicomtes of Bayeux
in the eleventh century), and mentions Farrer's suggestion that Richard's
mother was a natural daughter of Ranulph I. If the relationship were
illegitimate, it would not necessarily be explicitly stated (cf the charters
of Geva, daughter of Hugh Lupus). If the relationship were legitimate one
could speculate that a daughter of Ranulph I and Countess Lucy may have
married a seigneur of Le Molay-Liffry, and that Richard Bacon was a younger
son. There is no indication from Richard's charter that the foundation grant
came from a maritagium from an earl of Chester, but in fact the land in
Rocester, Combridge and Wootton had been granted to Richard by Ranulf for
his service ("...pro servitio meo mihi dedit...").

Cheers

Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: Richard 'Bacun', nephew of Ranulf, Earl of Chester

[email protected] wrote:
Saturday, 16 October, 2004


Dear Peter,

Many thanks for those two added sources, esp. the additional
Chester
charter. The reference by Earl Ranulf (d. 1153) to Richard Bacun as
cognatus meus> validates the reference in the Roucestre charter (cf.
first post in this thread). These, together with the known chronology
re: Earl Ranulf, Richard Bacun and the witnesses of the Roucestre
charter support the placement of Richard Bacun as nephew of Ranulf,
Earl of Chester (d. 1129) and 1st cousin of Earl Ranulf (d. 1153).

Much as I respect the work of Wm. Farrer, I don't quite see where
the 'illeg. daughter of Ranulf' theory came in. That certainly doesn't
work with the relationships stated by Earl Ranulf and Richard Bacun in
their respective charters.....

Farrer certainly knew the evidence, and remarked that the charter quoted
from _Monasticon_ "in its present form is open to suspicion" [HKF vol.
II p. 258].

The use of "avunculus" may be one of the problems with the document
rather than conclusive proof that Richard actually was a nephew,
legitimate or not, of an earl of Chester. Even if genuine, this word is
by no means always used in its strict sense of "maternal uncle".

If Richard Bacun was other than a brother-in-law or distant relative of
Ranulf II, it's harder to explain "cognatus" in his more satisfactory
record, when "nepos" or "consanguineus" might have been expected for an
acknowledged - and closer - blood link.

Given that Bacun was also a mere "familiaris" in the earl's reckoning,
an illegitimate connection makes sense to me either way.

Do you know where his name Richard came from? Maybe he was a kinsman
through Ranulf I's cousin Richard of Avranches, earl of Chester (drowned
in 1120).

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

In a message dated 10/17/2004 3:12:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

In message of 16 Oct, [email protected] (Jay Cary) wrote:

[email protected] (Mack Dread) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
I just happened on a soc.genealogy.medieval posting of six years ago
concerning the work of the author Glanville-Richards. I notice in his
book that Ranulph de Glanville (father of Hervey) is identified as
the Sire de Glanville, who was supposedly one of the Commanders of
the Archers du Val du Real and Bretheul at the Battle of Hastings.
However, I often don't find the Sire listed as among the companions
of the Conqueror. There is the monument in Normandy that is
supposed to include him, but as Robert de Grenville. Or is this
someone else entirely?

Hello,

I have two books on Normans:

(1)THE ORIGIN OF SOME ANGLO-NORMAN FAMILIES by Lewis Christopher Loyd.
Reprinted by Geological Publishing Compnay, Inc., 1999 from Volume CIII of THE
PUBLICATIONS OF THE HARLEIAN SOCIETY Leeds, England, 1951.

Page 46, in this book, is a notation from the Registers of Philip Augustus
(1204-1208) regarding Philip Augustus giving Stephen de Longchamp Glanville
lands in the Val d' Auge that had formerly belonged to Richard de Glanville. This
event took place in 1213. Richard had a complaint regarding the king's uses
of his land.

Page 47. in this book, mentions Grenville, later the dukes of Buckingham. In
the Conqueror's reign Ralph de Grenville witnessed a charter of Waltet
Giffard for the abbey of Cerisy-la-Fort, and the family split into two branches:
Norman and English, both under-tenets of Giffard. Eustace Grenville gift of the
church place was confirmed by Hugh archbishop of Rouen to the abbey of
St-Wandille between 1142 and 1146. This abbey had a church of
Granville-de-Teinturiere. The same family was in a charter of Louis VIII of 1225 allowing Robert
de Grainville to succeed to Grainville on the extinction of the Norman branch.
His father died in England.

(2)THE NORMAN PEOPLE published by the Geneaological Publishing Co., Inc.,
1999.

Page 267 of this book states:

The Glenvilles or Grrenfields of Neath and Bideford alopted, instead of the
paternal coat of arms (a cross), the three rests of the Earls of Gloucester,
their feudal suzerains. The name is written Grenville, Greenfield, and Grenfell
through the Earls of Bath. They coat of arms showing them descended from
Fitz-Hamon has no proof.

Margaret Odrowaz-Sypniewska

http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/polcrt/index.html
http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/polcrt/RussiaTOC.html
http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/polcrt/BritRoyals.html
http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/polcrt/Germania.html
http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/polcrt/Estonia.html
http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/polcrt/HeraldryTOC.html

[Gjest]

Sunday, 17 October, 2004


Dear Rosie, Peter, et al.,

Thanks for your posts of yesterday.

While the use of the terms <avunculus> and <cognatus> cannot be
assumed to have their classical meaning, I wonder when the term
<cognatus> came to be used as encompassing other relationships
(e.g. brother in law) besides the conventional meaning of 'kinsman',
particularly in the Anglo-Norman arena? There is evidence of the
meaning of kinsman/cousin in charters contemporaneous with the
Roucestre/Chester charters in question.

The following is an example (taken from a later inspeximus dated
Michaelmas term, 1334) of a confirmation by Henry II of England:

Final concord; plus copy of confirmation by King Henry [II]
[Dorse; contemporary?] Confirmation by King Henry [II] of the
grant of Conerton manor to Richard Pincerna:
' Henry' RexAngl' DuxNorman' & Acquietan' & Comes Androg' Ep'o Exon
& Iustic' & Baronibus & Vic' & ministris & fidelibus suis Franc' &
Angl' & Wallens' & Cornub' & Devon' salutem: sciatis me concessisse
& confirmasse Ric' Pincerne & her' suis manerium de Conerton quod
Robertus filius Comitis Glocestr' cognatus meus ei dedit pro
servicio suo; quare volo & firmiter precipio quod ipse Ricardus
& her' sui illud manerium habeant & teneant per servic' unius
militis de predicto Roberto fil' Comitis & de her' suis cum omnibus
libertatibus & liberis cons' suis & acquiet' eidem manerio
pertinent', in bosco in planis in pratis & pastur' in aquis &
molend' in viis & semitis in hundr' & in omnibus rebus & in omnibus
locis, ita bene & in pace & libere & quiete & honore sicut unquam
Robertus filius Edmundi vel Comes Robertus avunculus meus manerium
illud melius libere quiete & honorificemus [sic] tenuit tempore
Regis Henr' avi mei, et sicut carta predicti Roberti fil' comitis
Glocestr' testatur; preterea concedo eidem Ricardo her' suis omnes
alias terras & tenuras suas de quacunque eas rationabiliter habeant,
ita libere sicut ego unquam habui & tenui. Hiis testibus &c. ' [1]

Aside from the reference to King Henry's maternal uncle [avunculus]
Robert, Earl of Gloucester, the charter specifically calls Earl
Robert's illegitimate son ' Robertus filius Comitis Glocestr' cognatus
meus '. The meanings here are unequivocal, as are the identifications
of the individuals involved. This charter obviously was issued ca.
1154 or later, but no later than A.D. 1189 (the date of Henry II's
death) - it therefore indicates a contemporaneous, or later, use of
both <avunculus> and <cognatus> in the "classical" sense of maternal
uncle and kinsman/cousin, respectively.

Cheers,

John



NOTES

[1] A2A, Cornwall Record Office: Arundell of Lanherne and Trerice
[AR/17 - AR/50], FAMILY TRUSTS: AR/20/1

[Peter Stewart]

[email protected] wrote:

Sunday, 17 October, 2004


Dear Rosie, Peter, et al.,

Thanks for your posts of yesterday.

While the use of the terms <avunculus> and <cognatus> cannot be
assumed to have their classical meaning, I wonder when the term
cognatus> came to be used as encompassing other relationships
(e.g. brother in law) besides the conventional meaning of 'kinsman',
particularly in the Anglo-Norman arena? There is evidence of the
meaning of kinsman/cousin in charters contemporaneous with the
Roucestre/Chester charters in question.

Usage varied - "avunculus" never lost its proper meaning of "maternal
uncle", but it could also take in more distant relationships, for
instance (as commonly in Breton texts) a cousin, once or twice removed.

The extension of meaning outside Brittany may have come about through
illegitimate, needy or boastful people who wanted to emphasise a family
link to higher rank, or through vagueness on the part of others
scribing, copying or even forging their documents.

If Farrer was right to suspect the charter of Richard Bacun, it might be
unwise to set too much store by "avunculus" in this.

"Cognatus" could always mean a blood relative, though brother-in-law was
quite usual and should be considered whenever we don't know enough to
rule it out.

Various meanings of Latin words in medieval writing can exist at the
same time. The contents of most charters would have been worked out and
communicated in the vernacular first, and then translated into Latin
following the locally preferred forms. The choice of words for specific
details can be idiocyncratic.

Peter Stewart

[Rosie Bevan]

John Parsons was kind enough to put me on the right track for finding out
who 'R, bishop of Chester' is. The bishops of Chester at this time were the
bishops of Coventry and Lichfield, the seat being at Coventry, so the bishop
in question was Roger de Clinton who was consecrated on 22 Dec 1129 and died
in April 1148. This poses a problem for the timing of William archbishop of
York, whose election actually took place in September 1144 but the
archbishop of Canterbury refused to confirm the election, and he was
deprived of the office by the pope on account that his appointment was a
royal intrusion, and replaced by Henry Murdac in 1147 until his death in
1153. This might be a factor in suspecting the charter might be a forgery.
Another thing which is a little unusual about the founding charter is the
absence of wife and sons.

Another interpretation of 'avunculus' which I'd forgotten about when I made
my post yesterday, is uncle-in-law. In a charter to Montebourg dated 1163 by
William de Soliers husband of Mabel de Redvers, Richard de Redvers, Earl of
Devon, is referred to as "avunculi sui" [Bearman, Robert (ed). Charters of
the Redvers Family and of the Earldom of Devon 1090-1217. (Devon and
Cornwall Record Society, 1994) p.187].

Going off on a tangent, I notice that you refer to Robert fitz Robert as
illegitimate. I don't believe this to be the case as nothing about his life
indicates he was ever anything but legitimate. Mabel the dowager countess of
Gloucester had a son called Robert, as she refers to her sons William and
Robert in charters [Paterson, Robert B (ed.). Earldom of Gloucester Charters
(Clarendon Press, 1973), nos. 48, 96 and 171], Robert called his daughter
and heir Mabel after his mother, William, earl of Gloucester, his brother
gave him a large estate in Cornwall (of which Connerton the subject of the
charter you quote was a part), and his marriage to Hawise de Redvers would
have been considered disparaging for her had he been illegitimate. The
notion that Robert fitz Robert was illegitimate appears to stem from a query
in note (b) CP V 686, "Another son, Robert, (query legit.), is named circa
1160 in Sarum Charters (Rolls Ser.), 33, and addressed in a writ from Henry
II as Castellan of Gloucester (Cart. S. Petri Glos., vol. I, p.241)."
Robert Bearman kindly sent me a useful paper which discusses the life of
Robert fitz Robert, entitled 'The descent of the Devonshire family of
Willington from Robert, earl of Gloucester' from W.M.M Picken, A Medieval
Cornish Miscellany (Phillimore, 2000), from which some of the above
information is derived.

Cheers

Rosie


----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: Richard 'Bacun', nephew of Ranulf, Earl of Chester

Sunday, 17 October, 2004


Dear Rosie, Peter, et al.,

Thanks for your posts of yesterday.

While the use of the terms <avunculus> and <cognatus> cannot be
assumed to have their classical meaning, I wonder when the term
cognatus> came to be used as encompassing other relationships
(e.g. brother in law) besides the conventional meaning of 'kinsman',
particularly in the Anglo-Norman arena? There is evidence of the
meaning of kinsman/cousin in charters contemporaneous with the
Roucestre/Chester charters in question.

The following is an example (taken from a later inspeximus dated
Michaelmas term, 1334) of a confirmation by Henry II of England:

Final concord; plus copy of confirmation by King Henry [II]
[Dorse; contemporary?] Confirmation by King Henry [II] of the
grant of Conerton manor to Richard Pincerna:
' Henry' RexAngl' DuxNorman' & Acquietan' & Comes Androg' Ep'o Exon
& Iustic' & Baronibus & Vic' & ministris & fidelibus suis Franc' &
Angl' & Wallens' & Cornub' & Devon' salutem: sciatis me concessisse
& confirmasse Ric' Pincerne & her' suis manerium de Conerton quod
Robertus filius Comitis Glocestr' cognatus meus ei dedit pro
servicio suo; quare volo & firmiter precipio quod ipse Ricardus
& her' sui illud manerium habeant & teneant per servic' unius
militis de predicto Roberto fil' Comitis & de her' suis cum omnibus
libertatibus & liberis cons' suis & acquiet' eidem manerio
pertinent', in bosco in planis in pratis & pastur' in aquis &
molend' in viis & semitis in hundr' & in omnibus rebus & in omnibus
locis, ita bene & in pace & libere & quiete & honore sicut unquam
Robertus filius Edmundi vel Comes Robertus avunculus meus manerium
illud melius libere quiete & honorificemus [sic] tenuit tempore
Regis Henr' avi mei, et sicut carta predicti Roberti fil' comitis
Glocestr' testatur; preterea concedo eidem Ricardo her' suis omnes
alias terras & tenuras suas de quacunque eas rationabiliter habeant,
ita libere sicut ego unquam habui & tenui. Hiis testibus &c. ' [1]

Aside from the reference to King Henry's maternal uncle [avunculus]
Robert, Earl of Gloucester, the charter specifically calls Earl
Robert's illegitimate son ' Robertus filius Comitis Glocestr' cognatus
meus '. The meanings here are unequivocal, as are the identifications
of the individuals involved. This charter obviously was issued ca.
1154 or later, but no later than A.D. 1189 (the date of Henry II's
death) - it therefore indicates a contemporaneous, or later, use of
both <avunculus> and <cognatus> in the "classical" sense of maternal
uncle and kinsman/cousin, respectively.

Cheers,

John



NOTES

[1] A2A, Cornwall Record Office: Arundell of Lanherne and Trerice
[AR/17 - AR/50], FAMILY TRUSTS: AR/20/1

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Mr. Stewart claims it is hard to accept that an earl would address his
nephew as "cognatus," when a more preferable term in Latin, namely
"nepos," would suffice. He is, of course, quite wrong.

A good example of the combined use of avunculus/cognatus in the
original records can be found in my book, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004),
pg. 118. I include mention of a charter issued by Alice, Countess of
Eu (died 1246), which is charter is witnessed by her maternal uncle,
William de Warenne, Earl of Surrey (died 1240), who is there styled
her "avunculus."

Elsewhere, the same Earl William de Warenne refers to the same Alice,
Countess of Eu, as his kinswoman, she being styled "cognatæ" by the
earl [Reference: Shirley, Royal & Other Hist. Letters Ill. of the
Reign of King Henry III 1 (Rolls Ser. 27) (1862): 42].

Alice, Countess of Eu, is, of course, the well known legitimate
daughter of Earl William's sister, Maud de Warenne, wife of Henri (or
Henry), 6th Count of Eu. So, one can not use the claim of
illegitimacy to explain Alice being called "cognatæ," as Mr. Stewart
has tried to do with Earl Ranulph's reference to Richard Bacon as his
"cognatus."

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

[email protected] wrote:
Saturday, 16 October, 2004


Dear Peter,

Many thanks for those two added sources, esp. the additional Chester
charter. The reference by Earl Ranulf (d. 1153) to Richard Bacun as
cognatus meus> validates the reference in the Roucestre charter (cf.
first post in this thread). These, together with the known chronology
re: Earl Ranulf, Richard Bacun and the witnesses of the Roucestre
charter support the placement of Richard Bacun as nephew of Ranulf,
Earl of Chester (d. 1129) and 1st cousin of Earl Ranulf (d. 1153).

Much as I respect the work of Wm. Farrer, I don't quite see where
the 'illeg. daughter of Ranulf' theory came in. That certainly doesn't
work with the relationships stated by Earl Ranulf and Richard Bacun in
their respective charters.....

Farrer certainly knew the evidence, and remarked that the charter quoted
from _Monasticon_ "in its present form is open to suspicion" [HKF vol.
II p. 258].

The use of "avunculus" may be one of the problems with the document
rather than conclusive proof that Richard actually was a nephew,
legitimate or not, of an earl of Chester. Even if genuine, this word is
by no means always used in its strict sense of "maternal uncle".

If Richard Bacun was other than a brother-in-law or distant relative of
Ranulf II, it's harder to explain "cognatus" in his more satisfactory
record, when "nepos" or "consanguineus" might have been expected for an
acknowledged - and closer - blood link.

Given that Bacun was also a mere "familiaris" in the earl's reckoning,
an illegitimate connection makes sense to me either way.

Do you know where his name Richard came from? Maybe he was a kinsman
through Ranulf I's cousin Richard of Avranches, earl of Chester (drowned
in 1120).

Peter Stewart

[Martin Reboul]

"William Black" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

"Martin Reboul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

As for Freemasonry, have a look at this....

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Ma ... urders.htm

I'm afraid that this is just the 'stark bonkers' end of things.

All establishments 'conspire' to stay in power through semi formal networks.
The Free Masons are just the way it works in England, I imagine it works
differently in other countries, for example in Scotland it is very doubtful
if Freemasonry functions in this way, it's far too widespread, and the
usual centre 'blamed' for such activities seems to be the various church
organisations.

If the Free Masons didn't exist then it would be Rugby Union Clubs or some
other social setting, probably one where people could join only by
invitation.

Exactly. It's just a place where people meet and make friends - golf clubs,
charitable organisations and virtually any other club (or even pub!) where
fairly like-minded people meet, all offer the potential for 'conspiratorial
mischief'. I suspect even Hunts might be included.... ;¬)

[Peter Stewart]

Douglas Richardson wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

Mr. Stewart claims it is hard to accept that an earl would address his
nephew as "cognatus," when a more preferable term in Latin, namely
"nepos," would suffice. He is, of course, quite wrong.

A good example of the combined use of avunculus/cognatus in the
original records can be found in my book, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004),
pg. 118. I include mention of a charter issued by Alice, Countess of
Eu (died 1246), which is charter is witnessed by her maternal uncle,
William de Warenne, Earl of Surrey (died 1240), who is there styled
her "avunculus."

Elsewhere, the same Earl William de Warenne refers to the same Alice,
Countess of Eu, as his kinswoman, she being styled "cognatæ" by the
earl [Reference: Shirley, Royal & Other Hist. Letters Ill. of the
Reign of King Henry III 1 (Rolls Ser. 27) (1862): 42].

Alice, Countess of Eu, is, of course, the well known legitimate
daughter of Earl William's sister, Maud de Warenne, wife of Henri (or
Henry), 6th Count of Eu. So, one can not use the claim of
illegitimacy to explain Alice being called "cognatæ," as Mr. Stewart
has tried to do with Earl Ranulph's reference to Richard Bacon as his
"cognatus."

No, Mr Stewart hasn't "tried to do" this at all - he has pointed out
William Farrer's suggestion, and added that "cognatus" together with
"familiaris" doesn't seem a likely way for a son of the earl of
Chester's legitimate sister to be described.

No doubt your acknowledged keen interest in this question has got in the
way of comprehension and accurate reporting. If you want to seem expert
and relevant, neither of which is in your power to achieve for real, one
example of "cognata" missing "familiaris" doesn't prove anything.

The known legitimate daughters of the earls of Chester, and those of
their cadet brothers for that matter, did notably and demonstrably
better in th marriage market than to fetch up with a member of the
comital retinue.

Peter Stewart

[Douglas Richardson]

My comments are interspersed below. DR

Peter Stewart <p m [email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

No, Mr Stewart hasn't "tried to do" this at all -

Yes, you have.

He has pointed out William Farrer's suggestion, and added that "cognatus"
together with "familiaris" doesn't seem a likely way for a son of the earl
of Chester's legitimate sister to be described.

We know what you said. You were wrong.

No doubt your acknowledged keen interest in this question has got in the
way of comprehension and accurate reporting.

Oh, please.

If you want to seem expert and relevant, neither of which is in your power
to achieve for real, one example of "cognata" missing "familiaris" doesn't
prove anything.

There is no need to insult me OR sidestep the evidence I provided. I
simply said you were wrong and provided a case to prove it. If you
have a problem with that, then you are the one lacking expertise and
relevance, not me. You're also lacking in manners. Beyond that,
you're a fine fellow.

The known legitimate daughters of the earls of Chester, and those of
their cadet brothers for that matter, did notably and demonstrably
better in the marriage market than to fetch up with a member of the
comital retinue.

Except for the Bacon family. Or, did you forget that Richard Bacon
called Earl Ranulph his uncle?

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

Mr. Stewart claims it is hard to accept that an earl would address his
nephew as "cognatus," when a more preferable term in Latin, namely
"nepos," would suffice. He is, of course, quite wrong.

A good example of the combined use of avunculus/cognatus in the
original records can be found in my book, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004),
pg. 118. I include mention of a charter issued by Alice, Countess of
Eu (died 1246), which is charter is witnessed by her maternal uncle,
William de Warenne, Earl of Surrey (died 1240), who is there styled
her "avunculus."

Elsewhere, the same Earl William de Warenne refers to the same Alice,
Countess of Eu, as his kinswoman, she being styled "cognat " by the
earl [Reference: Shirley, Royal & Other Hist. Letters Ill. of the
Reign of King Henry III 1 (Rolls Ser. 27) (1862): 42].

Alice, Countess of Eu, is, of course, the well known legitimate
daughter of Earl William's sister, Maud de Warenne, wife of Henri (or
Henry), 6th Count of Eu. So, one can not use the claim of
illegitimacy to explain Alice being called "cognat ," as Mr. Stewart
has tried to do with Earl Ranulph's reference to Richard Bacon as his
"cognatus."

[Gjest]

Monday, 18 October, 2004


Dear Rosie, Peter, Douglas, et al.,

Many thanks for your responses, insight and documentation.

Actually, one 'narrowing' possibility (slight as it may seem)
is that, prior to the refusal of the Archbp. of Canterbury to
confirm William's election as Archbishop of York, there is a
narrow window when he was considered (in York) to be the
Archbishop; perhaps the charter in question was attested in
September (maybe October) 1144?

On the Gloucester issue, thanks to Rosie for clearing up the
alleged illegitimacy of 'Robert fitz Robert'. CP was the (or my)
source for this statement, and I'm sure Chris will be thrilled to
add another "CP Correction" to his site. Not to mention the many
Champernoun, Botreaux, Dinham and other descendants who receive
this minor 'upgrade' in their royal descent (via Robert) from
Henry I, King of England &c.

Cheers,

John

[Gjest]

Monday, 18 October, 2004


Dear Douglas,

Thanks for your reply to my post.

Beyond what Terry Reigel provided previously, and the charter evidence
currently under discussion, I don't have other evidence in hand as yet to
firm up this alleged descent as yet.

Hopefully one outgrowth of the review now under way will be the proof
(or disproof) of the Chester connection, after which as to claims to
illustrious ancestry, no one will question the Bacon.

Cheers,

John



------------------

[email protected] (Douglas Richardson) wrote:

Dear John ~

Thank you for your good post. It is most illuminating. As a blood
descendant of Michael Bacon of Dedham, Massachusetts, I'm keenly
interested in this matter. By all means, please keep up the good
work!

Most sincerely, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

Saturday, 16 October, 2004


Hello All,

In a 1999 thread, Terry Reigel posted an AT for the (alleged) ancestry
of the emigrant Michael Bacon of Winston, Suffolk (d. 18 Apr 1648 in
Dedham, Massachusetts). I have replicated that post below [1].

<<<<<<<<< SNIP >>>>>>>>>>>

[Peter Stewart]

Comments interspersed - anyone would think that Douglas Richardson must
be incapable of learning caution from his past imbecilities:

Douglas Richardson wrote:

My comments are interspersed below. DR

Peter Stewart <p m [email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...


No, Mr Stewart hasn't "tried to do" this at all -


Yes, you have.

I have NOT - read again. I have nothing to retract in the light of
further checking. You have.

He has pointed out William Farrer's suggestion, and added that "cognatus"
together with "familiaris" doesn't seem a likely way for a son of the earl
of Chester's legitimate sister to be described.


We know what you said. You were wrong.

I urged caution about "avunculus" in a suspect document, not ruling
anything out.

No doubt your acknowledged keen interest in this question has got in the
way of comprehension and accurate reporting.


Oh, please.

Well then, your habitual idiocy has got in the way....

If you want to seem expert and relevant, neither of which is in your power
to achieve for real, one example of "cognata" missing "familiaris" doesn't
prove anything.


There is no need to insult me OR sidestep the evidence I provided. I
simply said you were wrong and provided a case to prove it. If you
have a problem with that, then you are the one lacking expertise and
relevance, not me. You're also lacking in manners. Beyond that,
you're a fine fellow.

But you haven't provided evidence, and the only side-step in view is
yours regarding both "famiiaris" and the suspicion of Farrer about the
Rocester foundation charter as printed in _Monasticon_.

The known legitimate daughters of the earls of Chester, and those of
their cadet brothers for that matter, did notably and demonstrably
better in the marriage market than to fetch up with a member of the
comital retinue.


Except for the Bacon family. Or, did you forget that Richard Bacon
called Earl Ranulph his uncle?

No, you forgot that an unsatisfactory document, that is not witnessed or
confirmed by any of his family, used the tem "avunculus" even though
this seems to go against other & better evidence.

Now see if you can follow it - here are all the occurrences of Richard
Bacon in _The Charters of the Anglo-Norman Earls of Chester, c.
1071–1237_, edited by Geoffrey Barraclough, Record Society of Lancashire
and Cheshire 126 (Chester or Gloucester, 1988). Note particularly the
editor's confusion, which has evidently bedevilled this question since
and apparently led Katherine Keats-Rohan into a misundestanding:

#43 p. 58, charter of Earl Ranulf II, 1136-45, witnessed by "Ricardo
Bacone", no relationship stated (the editor's note says "his mother was
apparently a natural daughter of Ranulf I, and he referred to Ranulf II
as his uncle" citing Farrer in _Honors and Knights' Fees_)

#52 p. 65, notification by Earl Ranulf II, 1141-47, witnessed by
"Ricardo Bacun", no relationship stated

#55 p. 67, witnessed by "Rogero filio Ricardi, nepote comitis" - this
means witnessed "by the earl's nephew/great-nephew/grandson Roger fitz
Richard". IF Richard was himself the earl's nephew as stated in the
Rocester charter, his son Roger must have been either a grandson or
great-nephew of the same earl. However, plain "nephew" must be
preferred, which obviates the same relationship for his father Richard.
The earl in 1141-43 when Barraclough's charter #55 was given, and who
must be meant as the "comes" in question, was Ranulph II, who could
barely have had a second-generation descendant or collateral by the
early 1140s - his son and heir Hugo de Kyvelioc wasn't born until 1147.

On this basis, I suspect the relationship was just as Farrer (who, as I
said earlier, knew the evidence) conjectured: that Richard Bacun was a
brother-in-law and retainer of Ranulf II, most likely husband of the
earl's illegitimate sister, and that his son Roger was consequently the
earl's nephew. This connection was perhaps muddled by the Rocester
copyist/forger in or after Roger's time into making the father instead
of the son into a nephew. Barraclough pointed out a confirmation by Pope
Eugenius III that "seems to vouch for the authenticity of the original
grant of Rocester and its appurtenances", and this was dated 27
September 1147. However, Rosie Bevan has suggested that the surviving
Rocester document might have been concocted around 1204 if the Bacon
lands were Norman escheats. The foundation grants in September 1147 may
not have been all that were mentioned in this later confirmation for all
I know - I don't have access to check, and the papal confirmation may
not have gone into that level of detail anyway.


#68 p. 81, confirmation by Earl Ranulf II, 1143-44, of the gift of
Richar Bacon, "cognatus meus et familiaris" to Rocester, witnessed by
"Willelmo Bacun" (the editor's note contradicts the one for #43 above,
stating "Rocester abbey...was founded in or shortly after 1143 by
Richard Bacon, who probably married an illegitimate daughter of Ranulf
I". I think this makes more sense than his first go at it making Richard
a grandson of Ranulf I).

#262 pp. 260-261, confirmation by Earl Ranulf III, dated (NB by
Baraclough) to 1191-94, of the gift to Rocester, naming "Ricardus
Bacoun" without mentioning any relationship, no Bacons amongst the witnesses

#332 p. 333, charter of Earl Ranulf III, explicitly dated 1201,
witnesses "Willelmo Bacon" and "Ricardo Bacon", no relationship stated

I can't be sure this covers all mentions of Richard & Roger by the earls
of Chester - #55 is omitted from the index entry for Richard while Roger
doesn't appear there at all.

It seems clear enough to me that the Bacon father and son were not
long-recognised kinsmen of the earls, and an illegitimate link through
Richard's wife (Roger's mother) being a bastard daughter of Earl Ranulf
I fits well enough as I see this slender evidence. Certainly "avunculus"
in the Rocester document is not supported, but is indeed cast further
into doubt.

Peter Stewart

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear John ~

I posted the same exact item regarding Robert, son of Robert Fitz Roy,
Earl of Gloucester, back in May 2004 (see the copy of my post below).
So, Chris Phillips is already appraised of this record and of Robert's
existence as a hitherto overlooked son of the Earl of Gloucester.

I might note that the younger Robert is styled "Robertus filius
Comitis Glocestr'" in the record relating to the manor of Conerton,
Cornwall. By parlance used by modern historians, this man would be
correctly styled "Robert Fitz Count," not Robert Fitz Robert, or
Robert Fitz Earl. He is ancestral to the Champernoun and Basset
families. So, he has many living descendants.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: [email protected]

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

From: [email protected] (Douglas Richardson)
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Subject: Re: CP Addition: Ancestry of the Lords Botreaux
Date: 1 May 2004 16:00:12 -0700

Dear John ~

As a followup to my earlier post, I've a found a record in the A2A
Catalogue (http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp) which indicates
that Sir John Arundell was holding the manor of Conerton, Cornwall of
the Basset family of Umberleigh, Devon in the 1500's. As I recall,
the Basset family of Umberleigh were the heirs through their Beaumont
and Wilington ancestry of the senior Champernoun family. The
Champernoun family held the manor of Umberleigh in ancient times. My
guess is that Basset family inherited the overlordship of the manor of
Conerton along with the manor of Umberleigh by direct descent from
Robert Fitz Count (living c. 1154). This matter deserves further
study.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


- - - - - - -
Arundell of Lanherne and Trerice

Catalogue Ref. AR
Creator(s):
Arundell family of Lanherne and Trerice, Cornwall

GENERAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT PAPERS

Cornwall

Connerton Manor - ref. AR/3/77 - 114

FILE [no title] - ref. AR/3/87 - date: [late 17th century or
c.1700]
[from Scope and Content] Cites that in 1370-71 (44 Edw III) the
lord of the manor of Wamberlegh claimed homage of Sir John Arundell in
regard of Comerton; that an Inquisition Post Mortem of Sir John
Arundell in 1509 x 1547 (temp. Hen VIII) found that Conerton was held
of the heirs of Bassett of their manor of Umberley (service unknown).
Queries where Umberley is, and whether any payments or
acknowledgements have been made since 1660-61 (12 Car II); notes that
all homages and knight's services were abolished by an act of 1660-61.
[1 p.; English]


[email protected] (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
Dear John ~

In your post below on the ancestry of the Botreaux family, you refer
to Robert, son of Robert, Earl of Gloucester, who was living 1141/7.
The charter below dated 1334 [sic] is taken from the helpful online
A2A catalogue (http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp). This charter
was issued by King Henry II of England. It names the king's
grandfather, King Henry I of England (died 1135); Robert Fitz Roy,
Earl of Gloucester, his uncle; as well as Robert son of the Earl of
Gloucester (or if you prefer Robert Fitz Count), who the king styles
"my kinsman" [cognatus meus]. If I read the charter correctly, Robert
Fitz Count was living at the date of this charter, which must have
been issued in or after 1154, when King Henry II ascended to the
throne.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: [email protected]

Cornwall Record Office: Arundell of Lanherne and Trerice [AR/17 -
AR/50]

Arundell of Lanherne and Trerice

Catalogue Ref. AR
Creator(s):
Arundell family of Lanherne and Trerice, Cornwall


FAMILY PAPERS

FAMILY TRUSTS

FILE [no title] - ref. AR/20/1 - date: 1334, Michaelmas term
[from Scope and Content] Henry' Rex Angl' Dux Norman' &
Acquietan' & Comes Androg' Ep'o Exon & Iustic' & Baronibus & Vic' &
ministris & fidelibus suis Franc' & Angl' & Wallens' & Cornub' &
Devon' salutem: sciatis me concessisse & confirmasse Ric' Pincerne &
her' suis manerium de Conerton quod Robertus filius Comitis Glocestr'
cognatus meus ei dedit pro servicio suo; quare volo & firmiter
precipio quod ipse Ricardus & her' sui illud manerium habeant &
teneant per servic' unius militis de predicto Roberto fil' Comitis &
de her' suis cum omnibus libertatibus & liberis cons' suis & acquiet'
eidem manerio pertinent', in bosco in planis in pratis & pastur' in
aquis & molend' in viis & semitis in hundr' & in omnibus rebus & in
omnibus locis, ita bene & in pace & libere & quiete & honore sicut
unquam Robertus filius Edmundi vel Comes Robertus avunculus meus
manerium illud melius libere quiete & honorificemus [sic] tenuit
tempore Regis Henr' avi mei, et sicut carta predicti Roberti fil'
comitis Glocestr' testatur; preterea concedo eidem Ricardo her' suis
omnes alias terras & tenuras suas de quacunque eas rationabiliter
habeant, ita libere sicut ego unquam habui & tenui. Hiis testibus &c.

[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

Monday, 18 October, 2004


Dear Rosie, Peter, Douglas, et al.,

Many thanks for your responses, insight and documentation.

Actually, one 'narrowing' possibility (slight as it may seem)
is that, prior to the refusal of the Archbp. of Canterbury to
confirm William's election as Archbishop of York, there is a
narrow window when he was considered (in York) to be the
Archbishop; perhaps the charter in question was attested in
September (maybe October) 1144?

On the Gloucester issue, thanks to Rosie for clearing up the
alleged illegitimacy of 'Robert fitz Robert'. CP was the (or my)
source for this statement, and I'm sure Chris will be thrilled to
add another "CP Correction" to his site. Not to mention the many
Champernoun, Botreaux, Dinham and other descendants who receive
this minor 'upgrade' in their royal descent (via Robert) from
Henry I, King of England &c.

Cheers,

John

[Gjest]

Monday, 18 October, 2004


Dear Peter,

The relationships stated in the charters, as you have indicated
before, need to be looked at carefully. However, some relationships
are not as 'unknown' as they might otherwise seem.

You noted in the most recent post in this thread that Barraclough
included in his work a charter (#55) witnessed by "Rogero filio
Ricardi, nepote comitis" [1], whom you identified as a son of Richard
Bacun, and thereby nephew [<nepos>] of Earl Ranulf (d. 1153). This
would support the interpretation of <cognatus> meaning "brother-in-law"
which you stated earlier as being more likely correct, but
unfortunately this identification is erroneous.

This individual was Roger fitz Richard, son of Richard de Clare
(slain 1136) by Adeliza, legitimate sister of Earl Ranulf. His elder
brother, Gilbert de Clare, was then Earl of Hertford (Roger succeeded
him in 1152).

Cheers,

John


NOTES

[1] Barraclough, The Charters of the Anglo-Norman Earls of Chester,
c. 1071-1237 (The Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 1988),
p. 67.

[Rosie Bevan]

Dear John

Yes, it is good to have Robert's maternity established. Mr Picken's article
is very well sourced and he gives a pedigree chart from Henry I through the
Champernouns to John de Willington d.1338.

Robert also occurs as Robert de Ilchester in two other charters, and far
from being "hitherto overlooked" (CP V was published in 1926), he has been
discussed by Robert Bearman in his 'Charters of the Redvers Family'
published in 1994, as well as W.M.M Picken in 1998. Unfortunately Douglas
Richardson overlooked Robert when he prepared a line (124A) from Robert de
Caen to Sir John Bonville for AR7 published in 1999.

Robert's original (1154-55) and Henry II's confirmation (1156-57) charters
of the gift of Connerton to Richard Pincerna were published in Charles
Bowles, 'A Short Account of the Hundred of Penwith in the County of
Cornwall' (Shaftsbury, 1805) pp. 19-22. Both charters are reproduced in full
in Mr Picken's article. The reason for the appearance of the confirmation
charter with the fines in the Arundel muniments (A2A) was that the liberties
of the manor of Connerton infringed the Crown's prerogatives.

Charter no. 171 from Robert B. Patterson, 'Earldom of Gloucester Charters'
(Oxford, 1973) is by Countess Mabel and earl William her son, announcing
restorations made to Jocelin, bishop of Salisbury (c.1147-8). In it she
refers to William and Robert as her sons, "Hec autem omnia ego M(abilia)
comitissa et filii mei Will(elmu)s consul et Rob(ertus) nos per omnia
servaturos et firmam pacem tam episcopo quam hominibus suis suis et
corporibus [eorum] et de rebus eorum nos exhibituros et servaturos fide
interposita sine malo ingenio assecuravimus."

I hope this fills in the detail for anyone interested.

Cheers

Rosie


----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 3:25 AM
Subject: Re: Richard 'Bacun', nephew of Ranulf, Earl of Chester

Monday, 18 October, 2004


Dear Rosie, Peter, Douglas, et al.,

Many thanks for your responses, insight and documentation.

Actually, one 'narrowing' possibility (slight as it may seem)
is that, prior to the refusal of the Archbp. of Canterbury to
confirm William's election as Archbishop of York, there is a
narrow window when he was considered (in York) to be the
Archbishop; perhaps the charter in question was attested in
September (maybe October) 1144?

On the Gloucester issue, thanks to Rosie for clearing up the
alleged illegitimacy of 'Robert fitz Robert'. CP was the (or my)
source for this statement, and I'm sure Chris will be thrilled to
add another "CP Correction" to his site. Not to mention the many
Champernoun, Botreaux, Dinham and other descendants who receive
this minor 'upgrade' in their royal descent (via Robert) from
Henry I, King of England &c.

Cheers,

John

[Peter Stewart]

[email protected] wrote:

Monday, 18 October, 2004


Dear Peter,

The relationships stated in the charters, as you have indicated
before, need to be looked at carefully. However, some relationships
are not as 'unknown' as they might otherwise seem.

You noted in the most recent post in this thread that Barraclough
included in his work a charter (#55) witnessed by "Rogero filio
Ricardi, nepote comitis" [1], whom you identified as a son of Richard
Bacun, and thereby nephew [<nepos>] of Earl Ranulf (d. 1153). This
would support the interpretation of <cognatus> meaning "brother-in-law"
which you stated earlier as being more likely correct, but
unfortunately this identification is erroneous.

This individual was Roger fitz Richard, son of Richard de Clare
(slain 1136) by Adeliza, legitimate sister of Earl Ranulf. His elder
brother, Gilbert de Clare, was then Earl of Hertford (Roger succeeded
him in 1152).

Cheers,

John


NOTES

[1] Barraclough, The Charters of the Anglo-Norman Earls of Chester,
c. 1071-1237 (The Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 1988),
p. 67.

Please tell us what makes you so sure of this identification, John - I
see the index agrees with you, but that doesn't cite an authority. Roger
fitz Richard de Clare was certainly a nephew of Earl Ranulf II, and he
appears to have witnessed a charter of his uncle only once (unless #55
is counted a second). This is #45, witnessed also by Roge's elder
brother and some other important & official persons ("Et inde sunt
testes...[excluding the clerics] Gilbertus comes de Clara, Willelmus de
Ferreres, Ricardus pincerna, Rogerus nepos comitis, Robertus Basset,
Robertus pincerna de Hegglebi, et pluribus aliis" [who didn't rate naming]).

On the other hand, the witnesses to #55 were a quite different lot,
mostly "familiares" of the earl and named down to the last & least, a
mere cook ("Testibus Normannus de Verdun et Rogero filio Ricardi, nepote
comitis, et Robert Grevesac et Gaifrido Malebisse et Mainone capellano
et Ricardo pincerna et Gaufrido dispensario et Hugone osturcario et
Serlone venatore et Roberto filio Hugonis et Willelmo pincerna et
Waltero de Hambia et Willelmo de Costenciis et Philippo camerario et
Spileman et Willelmo de Bovilla et Roberto de Bovilla et Ranulfo
ostiario et Radulfo iusticia et Gaufrido nepote Bocardi et Gaufrido
nepote Ricardi Bacun et Turgerro Lincolniensi et Willelmo ac Ricardo
capellanis et Herberto coco").

Unless you have a particular reason to place Roger fitz Richard de Clare
in this company, and to explain why the brother & heir to the earl of
Hertford rated after Norman de Verdun in 1141/3, I think the question of
who was the earl's nephew Roger in this instance must be left open,
especially in light of the equally known facts that Earl Ranulf II
called Richard Bacun his "cognatus" (probably brother-in-law) and
"familiaris", and that he in turn had a son named Roger. Medieval earls
could have two namesake nephews with namesake fathers, as this one of
Chester evidently did.

Peter Stewart

[Rosie Bevan]

Dear John and Peter

There are some interesting observations being made here. If Roger fitz
Richard is Ranulf's Clare nephew through his sister Adelise of Chester, then
the charter has also misled Keats-Rohan in her entry for Roger Bacon (DD
159), where she says he is son of Richard Bacon, who was a nephew of Ranulph
II earl of Chester, and married to a daughter of William fitz John de
Harptre. This cuts the tie between Roger and Richard Bacon.

Going through the references to Richard Bacon which Peter has kindly looked
up for us, it looks as if the only reliable charter information we have for
a relationship between Richard and Ranulf is "cognatus meus et familiaris",
in the light of the dubious foundation charter. This incidentally, as Peter
informed me offlist, Barraclough thinks may not be genuine, because in the
17th century it had a seal that was not authentic. If we add to this to the
conflict in dating, and the lack of any family members involved, I think it
needs to be treated with some scepticism.

Another early mention of a Richard Bacon is a gift to Bungay priory, Suffolk
which was confirmed by Henry III - 'De dono Ricardi Bacon de Lodnes decem
acras terrae in Osmundeshaye" [Mon Ang 4:338].

There were three other Bacons returned as holding land in England in 1166 -
Roger, Robert and William. There is no carta for Chester so Richard is not
mentioned, but no Bacons are recorded holding of the honour of Chester after
Richard.

William and Robert Bacon shared 4 knights' fees of William de Montefichet
in Essex with Alexander de Kerdenton. The Montfichet connection may suggest
a relationship through the Clares, as wife of William de Montfichet was
Margaret de Clare who was sister-in-law to Ranulf II of Chester. In which
case the "in-law" nuance of cognatus discussed by Peter would be apt. The
same or another William Bacon was holding a third of a fee in Bradwell,
Essex having married one of the three daughters and coheirs of Thomas
Bardolf. He forfeited his land as a Norman escheat in 1204.

In Devon, the carta returned by William fitz John de Harptre records that he
had given two parts of a fee with his daughter to Roger Bacoun. This was
presumably in Rewe which also became a Norman escheat. In 1172 a Roger
Bachon held 4 parts of a fee in "Campigneio" Normandy.

We are not looking at large fees here, all of which seem to have been
disparate and obtained by marriage, so it is probable that we are not
looking at a close or legitimate connection to the earls of Chester.

Perhaps someone has done some research into the early Bacon family and can
make sense of all this?

Cheers

Rosie




----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: Richard 'Bacun', nephew of Ranulf, Earl of Chester

Monday, 18 October, 2004


Dear Peter,

The relationships stated in the charters, as you have indicated
before, need to be looked at carefully. However, some relationships
are not as 'unknown' as they might otherwise seem.

You noted in the most recent post in this thread that Barraclough
included in his work a charter (#55) witnessed by "Rogero filio
Ricardi, nepote comitis" [1], whom you identified as a son of Richard
Bacun, and thereby nephew [<nepos>] of Earl Ranulf (d. 1153). This
would support the interpretation of <cognatus> meaning "brother-in-law"
which you stated earlier as being more likely correct, but
unfortunately this identification is erroneous.

This individual was Roger fitz Richard, son of Richard de Clare
(slain 1136) by Adeliza, legitimate sister of Earl Ranulf. His elder
brother, Gilbert de Clare, was then Earl of Hertford (Roger succeeded
him in 1152).

Cheers,

John


NOTES

[1] Barraclough, The Charters of the Anglo-Norman Earls of Chester,
c. 1071-1237 (The Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 1988),
p. 67.

[Rosie Bevan]

Dear Peter

Thanks for posting the charter to give us some context regarding Roger fitz
Richard. It is clear that this is not an earl witnessing amongst members of
Ranulf's household. In which case scrub what I said about K-R's entry for
Roger Bacon. Interesting to see a Geoffrey "nepote Ricardi Bacun".

Cheers

Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: Richard 'Bacun', nephew of Ranulf, Earl of Chester

[email protected] wrote:
Monday, 18 October, 2004


Dear Peter,

The relationships stated in the charters, as you have indicated
before, need to be looked at carefully. However, some relationships
are not as 'unknown' as they might otherwise seem.

You noted in the most recent post in this thread that Barraclough
included in his work a charter (#55) witnessed by "Rogero filio
Ricardi, nepote comitis" [1], whom you identified as a son of Richard
Bacun, and thereby nephew [<nepos>] of Earl Ranulf (d. 1153). This
would support the interpretation of <cognatus> meaning "brother-in-law"
which you stated earlier as being more likely correct, but
unfortunately this identification is erroneous.

This individual was Roger fitz Richard, son of Richard de Clare
(slain 1136) by Adeliza, legitimate sister of Earl Ranulf. His elder
brother, Gilbert de Clare, was then Earl of Hertford (Roger succeeded
him in 1152).

Cheers,

John


NOTES

[1] Barraclough, The Charters of the Anglo-Norman Earls of Chester,
c. 1071-1237 (The Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 1988),
p. 67.

Please tell us what makes you so sure of this identification, John - I
see the index agrees with you, but that doesn't cite an authority. Roger
fitz Richard de Clare was certainly a nephew of Earl Ranulf II, and he
appears to have witnessed a charter of his uncle only once (unless #55
is counted a second). This is #45, witnessed also by Roge's elder
brother and some other important & official persons ("Et inde sunt
testes...[excluding the clerics] Gilbertus comes de Clara, Willelmus de
Ferreres, Ricardus pincerna, Rogerus nepos comitis, Robertus Basset,
Robertus pincerna de Hegglebi, et pluribus aliis" [who didn't rate
naming]).

On the other hand, the witnesses to #55 were a quite different lot,
mostly "familiares" of the earl and named down to the last & least, a
mere cook ("Testibus Normannus de Verdun et Rogero filio Ricardi, nepote
comitis, et Robert Grevesac et Gaifrido Malebisse et Mainone capellano
et Ricardo pincerna et Gaufrido dispensario et Hugone osturcario et
Serlone venatore et Roberto filio Hugonis et Willelmo pincerna et
Waltero de Hambia et Willelmo de Costenciis et Philippo camerario et
Spileman et Willelmo de Bovilla et Roberto de Bovilla et Ranulfo
ostiario et Radulfo iusticia et Gaufrido nepote Bocardi et Gaufrido
nepote Ricardi Bacun et Turgerro Lincolniensi et Willelmo ac Ricardo
capellanis et Herberto coco").

Unless you have a particular reason to place Roger fitz Richard de Clare
in this company, and to explain why the brother & heir to the earl of
Hertford rated after Norman de Verdun in 1141/3, I think the question of
who was the earl's nephew Roger in this instance must be left open,
especially in light of the equally known facts that Earl Ranulf II
called Richard Bacun his "cognatus" (probably brother-in-law) and
"familiaris", and that he in turn had a son named Roger. Medieval earls
could have two namesake nephews with namesake fathers, as this one of
Chester evidently did.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

John, you are presuming that the Roger fitz Richard of #45 was Roger de
Clare and not Roger Bacon - why?

This too is open (or rather ajar) to question - William Ferrers, heir to
the earl of Derby, was placed next after Gilbert, earl of Clare (who is
not described as nephew to the earl of Chester) with Richard pincerna
between Ferrers and the Roger fitz Richard (who is called the earl of
Chester's nephew but not the earl of Clare's brother).

As for the unnamed witnesses to this charter, I doubt very much that the
earl's hunstman and cook were present with his fellow-magnate, but in
any case they weren't worth recording as bystanders to the business
being transacted.

In charter #55 they were. Roger fitz Richard de Clare belonged securely
to the class of magnates, as heir to his brother the earl and nephew to
a comital colleague, rather more imposing a figure than the baronial
Norman de Verdun with his connections by marriage. Whoever the earl of
Chester's nephew Roger was in this document, tt is possible that the men
headed two separate lists that have been read horizontally by the editor
instead of vertically.

The order of witnesses in the Chester charters around this time is not
consistent enough to draw definite conclusions, but only good for
general observatinos about the company in which any witness is found. In
particular, the pincerna appears all over the place in lists. Witnessing
as "nepos" at the head of a company of lesser familiares is just what
one might expect for the son of a known "cognatus" and "familiaris" of
the earl.

Nevertheless, I don't know what evidence you have to make a "ready"
assessment that the same Roger was necessarily involved in both
transactions, much less that he was advancing in seniority with age in
the service of his uncle - for one thing, we don't know for sure the
chronological order of these two documents, and we don't have any reason
I'm aware of to suppose that Roger de Clare was resident in the earl of
Chester's household from the late 1130s to the mid-1140s or so. I would
expect many more occurrences in the charters if that were the case.
Given that his own elder brother became an earl ca 1138 I think it much
more likely that he was kept busy elsewhere.

The question doesn't appear to be answerable on the evidence reviewed in
this thread.

Peter Stewart



[email protected] wrote:

Tuesday, 19 October, 2004


Dear Peter,

There's actually no significant difference as to the placement of
'Roger fitz Richard' in these two charters on which to conclude that
we're speaking (likely or otherwise) of two different individuals, in
terms of social standing or otherwise.

Charter #45 has a limited number of individuals named (an
abbreviated list, ending in "et pluribus aliis" [who didn't rate
naming])" as you stated. This could, and most likely was, a similar
grouping of those 'familiares' and others, such as you characterized
those who 'came in last' on charter #55. No reason to conclude this
was 'quite a different lot' when no names/occupations are given to
compare.

Note, however, that in Charter #45, 'Rogerus nepos comitis'
[identified by Barraclough as Roger, son of Richard de Clare] is
listed AFTER 'Ricardus pincerna' - whom we might presume to have been
a 'botiller' or butler ['pincerna'] to the Earl of Chester. Charter
#55 places Roger fitz Richard ['Rogero filio Ricardi'] BEFORE Richard
'Pincerna', re: whom there's no reason to conclude (esp. given the
occupation/epithet provided] that this was a different individual from
the Richard 'Pincerna' of charter #55. If we were to hang our hats on
comparative placements of individuals, it would be necessary to explain
this 'higher ranking' of Roger fitz Richard in #55 [whom you believe to
have been of a 'lower' rank than Roger son of Richard de Clare] as
opposed to the Roger fitz Richard [accepted as the son of Richard de
Clare] in charter #45.

In fact, there's no reason to 'demote' the Roger in #55 and claim
he was a different, lower-ranking individual - he is listed after
Norman de Verdun, a tenant in chief (of Farnham Royal) and son-in-law
of Geoffrey de Clinton, former royal treasurer to Henry I [<camerarius
consilio Regis>]. His brother-in-law, Geoffrey 'II' de Clinton, was
married into the family of the Earls of Warwick, so we're not talking
about someone (i.e. Norman) outside the baronial class who would have
ranked below Roger fitz Richard de Clare (again, not yet an Earl
himself) prior to his elevation in 1152.

In comparing these two charters, the only comparison one might
readily draw is that Roger fitz Richard was most likely the same
individual in #45 and #55; that he had aged slightly; that he
had acquired a little more status in the service of his uncle the
Earl of Chester; and that he was therefore in fact 'promoted' in his
positioning as a witness (in the witness list of #55) as compared
to that given in #45.

I hope this satisfies those concerns as to the identification
of 'Rogerus filius Ricardus', at least with regard to these two
charters.

Cheers,

John

[Gjest]

Tuesday, 19 October, 2004


Dear Peter,

There's actually no significant difference as to the placement of
'Roger fitz Richard' in these two charters on which to conclude that
we're speaking (likely or otherwise) of two different individuals, in
terms of social standing or otherwise.

Charter #45 has a limited number of individuals named (an
abbreviated list, ending in "et pluribus aliis" [who didn't rate
naming])" as you stated. This could, and most likely was, a similar
grouping of those 'familiares' and others, such as you characterized
those who 'came in last' on charter #55. No reason to conclude this
was 'quite a different lot' when no names/occupations are given to
compare.

Note, however, that in Charter #45, 'Rogerus nepos comitis'
[identified by Barraclough as Roger, son of Richard de Clare] is
listed AFTER 'Ricardus pincerna' - whom we might presume to have been
a 'botiller' or butler ['pincerna'] to the Earl of Chester. Charter
#55 places Roger fitz Richard ['Rogero filio Ricardi'] BEFORE Richard
'Pincerna', re: whom there's no reason to conclude (esp. given the
occupation/epithet provided] that this was a different individual from
the Richard 'Pincerna' of charter #55. If we were to hang our hats on
comparative placements of individuals, it would be necessary to explain
this 'higher ranking' of Roger fitz Richard in #55 [whom you believe to
have been of a 'lower' rank than Roger son of Richard de Clare] as
opposed to the Roger fitz Richard [accepted as the son of Richard de
Clare] in charter #45.

In fact, there's no reason to 'demote' the Roger in #55 and claim
he was a different, lower-ranking individual - he is listed after
Norman de Verdun, a tenant in chief (of Farnham Royal) and son-in-law
of Geoffrey de Clinton, former royal treasurer to Henry I [<camerarius
consilio Regis>]. His brother-in-law, Geoffrey 'II' de Clinton, was
married into the family of the Earls of Warwick, so we're not talking
about someone (i.e. Norman) outside the baronial class who would have
ranked below Roger fitz Richard de Clare (again, not yet an Earl
himself) prior to his elevation in 1152.

In comparing these two charters, the only comparison one might
readily draw is that Roger fitz Richard was most likely the same
individual in #45 and #55; that he had aged slightly; that he
had acquired a little more status in the service of his uncle the
Earl of Chester; and that he was therefore in fact 'promoted' in his
positioning as a witness (in the witness list of #55) as compared
to that given in #45.

I hope this satisfies those concerns as to the identification
of 'Rogerus filius Ricardus', at least with regard to these two
charters.

Cheers,

John

[John Parsons]

Leo,

Louis de Brienne and Marie de Beaumont had a large family (including two
other sons, Louis, bishop of Durham, & Richard, hardly noticed by later
historians but clearly referred to by English royal clerks as "brother of
the lady de Vescy," who became a knight of the royal households). The dates
of these children's marriages were likely to be spread over a commensurately
long span of time.

It is very early here (4:30 a.m.) & I have just waked up with a filthy
migraine. Later when I am feeling better I will look through my notes for
specific references to the Beaumonts in English royal wardrobe
materials--they were cousins of Eleanor of Castile, their patron in England.
In the years 1289-90 two sons of Louis and Agnes were living at the
English court as the "pueri de Beaumound'" so they were both fairly young
then. Henry was certainly one of these boys, as he is mentioned by name (he
needed frequent medical attention) & I think Louis must have been the
other--Richard was a knight not long after this, so he was clearly older
than the "pueri." IIRC, there was difficulty getting Louis consecrated as
bishop of Durham because of his youth at the time, so I imagine he was the
other "boy" in 1289-90. (It also became obvious during the consecration
that he couldn't handle the Latin!)

Henry and Louis died long after Jean, so I suspect they were also born long
after he was. As far as Henry is concerned this consideration, plus the
fact that he was called "puer" in 1289-90, supports your reasoning below of
a birth date in the early 1280s. Louis was probably older than Henry, but I
would have to go to the library & check the controversy over Louis' election
& consecration to the see of Durham to guess just how much older.

As a younger son, Henry de Beaumont would have had to wait for a marriage
that would bring him property & thanks to Plantagenet munificence, he got
it. So the fact that he didn't marry until probably well into his 20s is
easily understood.

As to Jean de Beaumont, my notes show that he married AFTER 26 Sept. 1265,
not IN that year. Children could, of course, be "married" that young IF the
families wanted the marriage for political or inheritance reasons. (Given
that Agnes de Beaumont married in 1253 but was bearing children ca 1280 &
later, she must have married very young--as we would expect for an heiress.)
What might have happened ca 1265 was a marriage contract or canonical
betrothal, with proper marriage when the parties were of canonical age (past
the 12th birthday for a girl, for a boy past the 14th birthday--in the 15th
year).

But again, we know only that Jean was not married as of 26 Sept. 1265 & we
don't know at what date thereafter he really did marry. As his eldest son
married in 1299 I imagine that son was born in the 1270s so I suspect that
Jean probably did marry some years "after" 1265.

From: "Leo van de Pas" <[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: CP worry
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:26:21 +1000

Louis de Brienne married in 1253 Agnes Vicomtesse de Beaumont.
They had seven children, of these :
Jean married in 1265 (aged about 12?)
Marguerite married in 1278
Marie married in 1283
Isabelle married about 1279/1280
Jeanne married circa 1286
but now the youngest :
Henry = Complete Peerage II pages 59-60 = married about 1310, certainly
before 14 July 1310

I wonder when was Henry born------he attended Edward I in Scotland in 1302.
How old was he then? In 1308 he is recorded as a knight. If he was 20 in
1302 then he was born in 1282 when all (except one) siblings were already
married. Those sibling married between 12 and 33 years after their parents
married.........I doubt he was born in 1282, my guess is that he was born
earlier but then why is there no record of him before 1302? I am running in
a circle, one the one hand he should be born earlier on the other he should
be born later.

Can anyone enlighten me?
Many thanks.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

[Peter Stewart]

Some comments interspersed - I can't easily follow your post, John, only
able to read from the screen with difficulty & having no printer to help:

[email protected] wrote:

Tuesday, 19 October, 2004


Dear Peter,

Whoa there! Time to rein it in, the road's all downhill already..

Peter, you're alleging support in these charters for relationships of
a Roger Bacon for which there's no visible means of support.

I am engaging in a discussion of possibilities, not contending for
certainties. Richard Bacon was called "cognatus" (likeliest to mean
brother-in-law, with "[blood] kinsman" the obvious alternative, but
neither of these is supported by other definite evidence) and
"familiaris" (not contentious, but too much ignored) of Earl Ranulf II
of Chester.

We know the same earl had another "cognatus" named Richard, that is
Richard de Clare the husband of his sister Adeliza.

We know that Richard de Clare had a son named Roger, who as far as we
can tell was the next brother after Earl Gilbert and the only heir the
latter ever had, quite probably only a year or so younger. Gilbert was
an earl from ca 1138 and his next brother was most probably not
consigned to an uncle's household for up to a decade after this.

We know there was a contemporary Roger Bacon.

We know that Gilbert de Clare witnessed four charters of his uncle the
earl of Chester, one before and three after he became an earl himself.
In none of these is he called "nepos comitis".

We know that his brother Roger de Clare witnessed one charter of his
uncle (Barraclough #109), in which he is called "Ricardo de Clara" with
no relationship stated to Earl Ranulf.

We do not know that he was resident in the earl of Chester's household
at any stage. We do not know that "Rogerus nepos comitis", who evidently
was more familiar by the stated relationship than by his own family
name, was this man. The assumption that he was the same relies on the
knowledge that someone existed who could be so described, and from a
Roger nephew to Earl Ranulf appearing along with Earl Gilbert on one
occasion. Short of perfect proof.

To suggest that any questioning of this meagre conventional wisdom or
surmise of alternatives in the course of discussion is galloping
downhill doesn't accord with my understanding of genealogical
investigation or the purpose of SGM.

Apart from the accord between "cognatus" for Richard Bacon and "nepos"
for Roger fitz Richard (obviously IF he was Roger Bacon), the fact that
Richard Bacon was a "familiaris" in the earl's retinue and that a Roger
fitz Richard occurs to all appearances in a similar capacity at a time
when Richard de Clare was clearly more important, had he been in
attendance, than the preceding witness, should not be blithely
overlooked just because Barraclough and others haven't considered it in
print.

Neither of us should assume a particular person or relationship to be
proved in this instance - there are problems with both identifications.

I am not denying your opinion, just pointing out issues to be
considered. If you would consider these rather than just characterising
them, we _might_ go forward, though I don't think much progress can be
made on the evidence currently before the newsgroup.

Equally, I have not denied the possibility that the term "avunculus" in
the Rocester document _might_ be true and genuine. But I can't see any
supporting evidence, where the opportunity for this clearly & repeatedly
existed, or other circumstantial indications of how this would work.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Peter Stewart wrote:

Some comments interspersed

Well, I started out to intersperse them, but quickly lost track of who
wrote what....

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

Tuesday, 19 October, 2004


Dear Peter,

Whoa there! Time to rein it in, the road's all downhill already..

Peter, you're alleging support in these charters for relationships of
a Roger Bacon for which there's no visible means of support. Several
posts ago in this same thread, you wrote:
___________________________

#55 p. 67, witnessed by "Rogero filio Ricardi, nepote comitis" - this
means witnessed "by the earl's nephew/great-nephew/grandson Roger fitz
Richard". IF Richard was himself the earl's nephew as stated in the
Rocester charter, his son Roger must have been either a grandson or
great-nephew of the same earl. However, plain "nephew" must be
preferred, which obviates the same relationship for his father Richard.
The earl in 1141-43 when Barraclough's charter #55 was given, and who
must be meant as the "comes" in question, was Ranulph II, who could
barely have had a second-generation descendant or collateral by the
early 1140s - his son and heir Hugo de Kyvelioc wasn't born until 1147.

On this basis, I suspect the relationship was just as Farrer (who, as I
said earlier, knew the evidence) conjectured: that Richard Bacun was a
brother-in-law and retainer of Ranulf II, most likely husband of the
earl's illegitimate sister, and that his son Roger was consequently the
earl's nephew. This connection was perhaps muddled by the Rocester
copyist/forger in or after Roger's time into making the father instead
of the son into a nephew. Barraclough pointed out a confirmation by Pope
Eugenius III that "seems to vouch for the authenticity of the original
grant of Rocester and its appurtenances", and this was dated 27
September 1147. However, Rosie Bevan has suggested that the surviving
Rocester document might have been concocted around 1204 if the Bacon
lands were Norman escheats.

<<<<<<< SNIP >>>>>>>>>
________________________________________


Now, the charters indicate the existence of Richard Bacon the donor,
and of William and Robert Bacon (relationship, if any, not stated). From
whence does Roger Bacon come from? There is no Roger Bacon, or Rogerus
nepos comitis, in the Roucestre cartulary (Monasticon Anglicanum). It
appears that the Roger Bacon of Domesday Descendants has been identified,
without a sound basis, as being the same as "Rogero filio Ricardi, nepote
comitis" of the Chester charters, an outgrowth of trying to explain the
relationship of Richard Bacon to Earl Ranulf of Chester.

We know there was an individual, "Rogero filio Ricardi, nepote
comitis", well documented as the brother of Earl Gilbert of Hertford and
later Earl of Hertford himself.

You wrote in your last post:
_____________

John, you are presuming that the Roger fitz Richard of #45 was Roger de
Clare and not Roger Bacon - why?

This too is open (or rather ajar) to question - William Ferrers, heir to
the earl of Derby, was placed next after Gilbert, earl of Clare (who is
not described as nephew to the earl of Chester) with Richard pincerna
between Ferrers and the Roger fitz Richard (who is called the earl of
Chester's nephew but not the earl of Clare's brother).
__________________________


The identification of Roger fitz Richard (charter #45) was
Barraclough's act, not mine. You yourself noted this earlier in stating,
"I see the index agrees with you, but that doesn't cite an authority".
You later in the same paragraph stated, "This is #45, witnessed also by
Roge's elder brother and some other important & official persons ("Et
inde sunt testes...[excluding the clerics] Gilbertus comes de Clara,
Willelmus de Ferreres, Ricardus pincerna, Rogerus nepos comitis,.." If
you see a significant problem here, with the heir of the Earldom of Derby
and an important adult functionary of the Earl of Chester taking place in
the charter witness parade before a young nephew of the Earl (as a
younger brother of Gilbert, not himself likely to be in line to become
Earl as of that time) looking to make a name and place for himself,
that's certainly your right. You may also want to explain why you stated
at that time that Earl Gilbert of Hertford was "Roge's [sic] elder
brother" and now contend that he was not.

As to Roger being called nephew of the Earl (of Chester) but not of
the Earl Gilbert in the text, witnesses were usually given a relatively
brief identification, and to the scribe it was clearly of more
significance that Roger was a nephew of Earl Ranulf than that he was
related to anyone else. Can you provide an example of a more extended
description of a witness to such a charter?

~ As you pointed out, Earl Gilbert is not called nephew of Earl
Ranulf in the charter; there was no mystery as to his
identification, so why would this have been done? An individual
called Roger (or Roger fitz Richard) was another matter: in this
instance, identifying that individual as a relation to the Earl
of Chester was appropriate, and typical.

An approach from the evidence, and the knowledge that there was a
known Roger (fitz Richard, and nephew of Earl of Ranulf) would indicate
that an identification of this individual as Roger de Clare is called
for, until some other evidence is produced. Rosie wrote concerning
an entry in Domesday Descendants,

" If Roger fitz Richard is Ranulf's Clare nephew through his sister
Adelise of Chester, then the charter has also misled Keats-Rohan in
her entry for Roger Bacon (DD 159), where she says he is son of
Richard Bacon, who was a nephew of Ranulph II earl of Chester, and
married to a daughter of William fitz John de Harptre. This cuts the
tie between Roger and Richard Bacon. "

Rosie noted that there was a Roger Bacon who was a landholder in
1166 (possibly the same Roger Bacon of Domesday Descendants), but we
apparently have no evidence that (A) he was a son of Richard Bacon,
benefactor of Roucester, or (B) that he was a relation of the Earl
of Chester. Short of such evidence, I see no basis (outside of
enjoying the exercise in theorizing an alternate explanation that MIGHT
be true) to assume such a relationship.

Cheers,

John

[Peter Stewart]

Peter Stewart wrote:

<snip>

We know that his brother Roger de Clare witnessed one charter of his
uncle (Barraclough #109), in which he is called "Ricardo de Clara" with
no relationship stated to Earl Ranulf.

We do not know that he was resident in the earl of Chester's household
at any stage.

Apologies, this should read "We know that his [Earl Gilbert's] younger
brother Richard witnessed one charter of his uncle...We do not know that
their brother Roger was resident in the earl of Chester's household at
any stage."

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

Dear Newsgroup and especially Michael Delano,
I
believe the Jenkins family to be of Welsh origin, originally being Ap Jenkin , I
also descend from a Jenkins family, as well as the Delanos.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Douglas Richardson]

Peter Stewart <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

We know that his brother Roger de Clare witnessed one charter of his
uncle (Barraclough #109), in which he is called "Ricardo de Clara" with
no relationship stated to Earl Ranulf.

Peter Stewart

Dear Newsgroup ~

Peter Stewart says "we know" that Roger de Clare witnessed a charter
as "Ricardo de Clara?" Actually, "Ricardo de Clara" is Latin for
Richard de Clare, not Roger de Clare.

Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: [email protected]

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear John ~

I believe you meant to say that Agnes de Beaumont was the wife of
Louis de Brienne. Right? If not, perhaps we are talking about a
different couple.

I show Louis and Agnes had eight children, as follows:

John, Vicomte of Beaumont
Henry, 1st Lord Beaumont, Earl of Buchan
Louis, Bishop of Durham
Charles, a priest
Marguerite (wife of Bohemond VII, Prince of Antioch and Count of
Tripoli)
Marie (wife of Henri III d'Auvaugour, baron of Mayenne)
Isabel (wife of John de Vescy)
Jeanne (wife of Guy VII de Laval, Count of Caserta)

With the exception of the son, Charles, my list agrees with that of
Leo van de Pas.

I have extensive material in my book, Plantagenet Ancestry, on three
of the above children, namely Henry, Louis, and Isabel, all of whom
came to England. Your post mentions another child, Richard, who came
to England. What is your source for Richard's existence? You cite
"English royal clerks" - whatever that is. That is a very vague
citation. Can you give us a more specific reference for Richard than
that?

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


[email protected] ("John Parsons") wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

Leo,

Louis de Brienne and Marie de Beaumont had a large family (including two
other sons, Louis, bishop of Durham, & Richard, hardly noticed by later
historians but clearly referred to by English royal clerks as "brother of
the lady de Vescy," who became a knight of the royal households). The dates
of these children's marriages were likely to be spread over a commensurately
long span of time.

It is very early here (4:30 a.m.) & I have just waked up with a filthy
migraine. Later when I am feeling better I will look through my notes for
specific references to the Beaumonts in English royal wardrobe
materials--they were cousins of Eleanor of Castile, their patron in England.
In the years 1289-90 two sons of Louis and Agnes were living at the
English court as the "pueri de Beaumound'" so they were both fairly young
then. Henry was certainly one of these boys, as he is mentioned by name (he
needed frequent medical attention) & I think Louis must have been the
other--Richard was a knight not long after this, so he was clearly older
than the "pueri." IIRC, there was difficulty getting Louis consecrated as
bishop of Durham because of his youth at the time, so I imagine he was the
other "boy" in 1289-90. (It also became obvious during the consecration
that he couldn't handle the Latin!)

Henry and Louis died long after Jean, so I suspect they were also born long
after he was. As far as Henry is concerned this consideration, plus the
fact that he was called "puer" in 1289-90, supports your reasoning below of
a birth date in the early 1280s. Louis was probably older than Henry, but I
would have to go to the library & check the controversy over Louis' election
& consecration to the see of Durham to guess just how much older.

As a younger son, Henry de Beaumont would have had to wait for a marriage
that would bring him property & thanks to Plantagenet munificence, he got
it. So the fact that he didn't marry until probably well into his 20s is
easily understood.

As to Jean de Beaumont, my notes show that he married AFTER 26 Sept. 1265,
not IN that year. Children could, of course, be "married" that young IF the
families wanted the marriage for political or inheritance reasons. (Given
that Agnes de Beaumont married in 1253 but was bearing children ca 1280 &
later, she must have married very young--as we would expect for an heiress.)
What might have happened ca 1265 was a marriage contract or canonical
betrothal, with proper marriage when the parties were of canonical age (past
the 12th birthday for a girl, for a boy past the 14th birthday--in the 15th
year).

But again, we know only that Jean was not married as of 26 Sept. 1265 & we
don't know at what date thereafter he really did marry. As his eldest son
married in 1299 I imagine that son was born in the 1270s so I suspect that
Jean probably did marry some years "after" 1265.




From: "Leo van de Pas" <[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: CP worry
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:26:21 +1000

Louis de Brienne married in 1253 Agnes Vicomtesse de Beaumont.
They had seven children, of these :
Jean married in 1265 (aged about 12?)
Marguerite married in 1278
Marie married in 1283
Isabelle married about 1279/1280
Jeanne married circa 1286
but now the youngest :
Henry = Complete Peerage II pages 59-60 = married about 1310, certainly
before 14 July 1310

I wonder when was Henry born------he attended Edward I in Scotland in 1302.
How old was he then? In 1308 he is recorded as a knight. If he was 20 in
1302 then he was born in 1282 when all (except one) siblings were already
married. Those sibling married between 12 and 33 years after their parents
married.........I doubt he was born in 1282, my guess is that he was born
earlier but then why is there no record of him before 1302? I am running in
a circle, one the one hand he should be born earlier on the other he should
be born later.

Can anyone enlighten me?
Many thanks.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

[John Parsons]

I apologize if I typo'd and had Agnes and Louis married to anyone but each
other. As I said, it was early in the morning and I was not on top of the
world yesterday. My immediate concern was to give Leo some information as
quickly as I could.

The information on the "pueri de Beaumound'" and their brother Richard comes
from the wardrobe accounts of Edward I and Eleanor of Castile, which I
scoured extensively in MS at the PRO and the British Library. As promised I
will excavate those notes soon (this weekend) & post relevant entries to the
list. I don't consult the old thesis notes as often as I do my genealogical
notes, so the PRO and BL transcripts are hidden away in my storage closet
which for some reason I cannot begin to fathom has acquired the nickname
Hissarlik.

Those who wish to look into matters sooner may consult my edition of Queen
Eleanor's wardrobe book for 1289-90 & the Benjamin & Catherine Byerly
edition of Wardrobe Records for 1286-90. The Byerly volume must be used
with great caution as it is full of palaeographical slips. (A memorable one
involves one of the queen's ladies in waiting who, according to the original
MS, was sent back from Gascony to England "ad pregnandum." The Byerlys
render this "ad peregrinandum.")

Richard de Beaumont, evidently named for Agnes' ancestors, appears in Moor's
*Knights of Edward I* though his kinship to Queen Eleanor is not noted
there; AFAIK, that link is provided only by the wardrobe entry that calls
him brother of the lady de Vescy. Vyvyan's Visitation Pedigrees for Devon
includes a Beaumont family whose earliest member is a Richard of this
period; the arms are a variant of the Brienne arms. Of course the problems
with Vyvyan's work are too well known for this line to be accepted without a
great deal of independent confirmation. (If it could be confirmed, we might
have another extant branch of the Briennes in addition to the baronets who,
when last I checked, were tottering on the brink of extinction.)

Agnes de Beaumont and Louis de Brienne did have a son Charles. When
presented to a stall, which I think (& I'm only recollecting here) was
sometime ca 1290, he was explicitly described as kinsman of Queen Eleanor.
IIRC, very little else is known of him apart from the entry in *Fasti* for
that presentation. Possibly he was also one of the "pueri de Beaumound'" in
1289-90 but at the time (& to the best of my recollection) the only "boy"
identified by name was Henry.

Regards

John P.

From: [email protected] (Douglas Richardson)
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: CP worry (Beaumonts)
Date: 19 Oct 2004 20:16:08 -0700

Dear John ~

I believe you meant to say that Agnes de Beaumont was the wife of
Louis de Brienne. Right? If not, perhaps we are talking about a
different couple.

I show Louis and Agnes had eight children, as follows:

John, Vicomte of Beaumont
Henry, 1st Lord Beaumont, Earl of Buchan
Louis, Bishop of Durham
Charles, a priest
Marguerite (wife of Bohemond VII, Prince of Antioch and Count of
Tripoli)
Marie (wife of Henri III d'Auvaugour, baron of Mayenne)
Isabel (wife of John de Vescy)
Jeanne (wife of Guy VII de Laval, Count of Caserta)

With the exception of the son, Charles, my list agrees with that of
Leo van de Pas.

I have extensive material in my book, Plantagenet Ancestry, on three
of the above children, namely Henry, Louis, and Isabel, all of whom
came to England. Your post mentions another child, Richard, who came
to England. What is your source for Richard's existence? You cite
"English royal clerks" - whatever that is. That is a very vague
citation. Can you give us a more specific reference for Richard than
that?

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


[email protected] ("John Parsons") wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
Leo,

Louis de Brienne and Marie de Beaumont had a large family (including two
other sons, Louis, bishop of Durham, & Richard, hardly noticed by later
historians but clearly referred to by English royal clerks as "brother
of
the lady de Vescy," who became a knight of the royal households). The
dates
of these children's marriages were likely to be spread over a
commensurately
long span of time.

It is very early here (4:30 a.m.) & I have just waked up with a filthy
migraine. Later when I am feeling better I will look through my notes
for
specific references to the Beaumonts in English royal wardrobe
materials--they were cousins of Eleanor of Castile, their patron in
England.
In the years 1289-90 two sons of Louis and Agnes were living at the
English court as the "pueri de Beaumound'" so they were both fairly
young
then. Henry was certainly one of these boys, as he is mentioned by name
(he
needed frequent medical attention) & I think Louis must have been the
other--Richard was a knight not long after this, so he was clearly older
than the "pueri." IIRC, there was difficulty getting Louis consecrated
as
bishop of Durham because of his youth at the time, so I imagine he was
the
other "boy" in 1289-90. (It also became obvious during the consecration
that he couldn't handle the Latin!)

Henry and Louis died long after Jean, so I suspect they were also born
long
after he was. As far as Henry is concerned this consideration, plus the
fact that he was called "puer" in 1289-90, supports your reasoning below
of
a birth date in the early 1280s. Louis was probably older than Henry,
but I
would have to go to the library & check the controversy over Louis'
election
& consecration to the see of Durham to guess just how much older.

As a younger son, Henry de Beaumont would have had to wait for a
marriage
that would bring him property & thanks to Plantagenet munificence, he
got
it. So the fact that he didn't marry until probably well into his 20s
is
easily understood.

As to Jean de Beaumont, my notes show that he married AFTER 26 Sept.
1265,
not IN that year. Children could, of course, be "married" that young IF
the
families wanted the marriage for political or inheritance reasons.
(Given
that Agnes de Beaumont married in 1253 but was bearing children ca 1280
&
later, she must have married very young--as we would expect for an
heiress.)
What might have happened ca 1265 was a marriage contract or canonical
betrothal, with proper marriage when the parties were of canonical age
(past
the 12th birthday for a girl, for a boy past the 14th birthday--in the
15th
year).

But again, we know only that Jean was not married as of 26 Sept. 1265 &
we
don't know at what date thereafter he really did marry. As his eldest
son
married in 1299 I imagine that son was born in the 1270s so I suspect
that
Jean probably did marry some years "after" 1265.




From: "Leo van de Pas" <[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: CP worry
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:26:21 +1000

Louis de Brienne married in 1253 Agnes Vicomtesse de Beaumont.
They had seven children, of these :
Jean married in 1265 (aged about 12?)
Marguerite married in 1278
Marie married in 1283
Isabelle married about 1279/1280
Jeanne married circa 1286
but now the youngest :
Henry = Complete Peerage II pages 59-60 = married about 1310, certainly
before 14 July 1310

I wonder when was Henry born------he attended Edward I in Scotland in
1302.
How old was he then? In 1308 he is recorded as a knight. If he was 20
in
1302 then he was born in 1282 when all (except one) siblings were
already
married. Those sibling married between 12 and 33 years after their
parents
married.........I doubt he was born in 1282, my guess is that he was
born
earlier but then why is there no record of him before 1302? I am
running in
a circle, one the one hand he should be born earlier on the other he
should
be born later.

Can anyone enlighten me?
Many thanks.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

[Douglas Richardson]

My comments are interspersed below. DR

Peter Stewart <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

Usage varied - "avunculus" never lost its proper meaning of "maternal
uncle", but it could also take in more distant relationships, for
instance (as commonly in Breton texts) a cousin, once or twice removed.

The extension of meaning outside Brittany may have come about through
illegitimate, needy or boastful people who wanted to emphasise a family
link to higher rank, or through vagueness on the part of others
scribing, copying or even forging their documents.

My files indicate that the Latin word "avunculus" in this time period
in England was used for maternal uncle. By 1400, it was used for
either maternal or paternal uncle. If Richard Bacon referred to
Ranulph I, Earl of Chester, as his "avunculus" prior to 1150, this is
almost surely an indication that Richard Bacon was referring to Earl
Ranulph as his maternal uncle. Moreover, if Barraclough is correct
that this charter was inspected and confirmed by Pope Eugenius III in
1147, then this charter is almost certainly genuine.

If Farrer was right to suspect the charter of Richard Bacun, it might be
unwise to set too much store by "avunculus" in this.

I disagree.

"Cognatus" could always mean a blood relative, though brother-in-law was
quite usual and should be considered whenever we don't know enough to
rule it out.

I've never seen the word "cognatus" used for brother-in-law in English
records. My files indicate "cognatus/cognata" in this period was
strictly used for a blood kinsman/kinswoman, even as close as niece or
nephew. I've already provided Mr. Stewart with an example of the
latter.

The only Latin term I've seen used for a relation by marriage in
English medieval records is "affini" or "affinis." Please see a copy
of my earlier post below which deals with this word. I should add
that on rare occasions, usually in private correspondence, I find that
a relation by marriage such as a niece's husband was addressed as
"nephew." I find this occurs after 1300. I only know of one such
instance before 1300. In public charters and crown records, when
kinship is acknowledged, invariably kinship by blood is intended, not
by marriage. This is true for all periods.

Various meanings of Latin words in medieval writing can exist at the
same time. The contents of most charters would have been worked out and
communicated in the vernacular first, and then translated into Latin
following the locally preferred forms. The choice of words for specific
details can be idiocyncratic.

Mr. Stewart seems to be all over the place with his alleged "meanings"
of Latin words. I'm not able to trust his renderings, unless he can
provide the newsgroup contemporary examples from English records as I
have done. If he is unable to provide examples, then he should
withdraw his claims. Simple as that.

Peter Stewart

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: [email protected] (Douglas Richardson)
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Subject: Examples of "affini" [kinsman/kinswoman]
Date: 10 Aug 2003 15:54:14 -0700

Dear Newsgroup ~

Reviewing my notes, I find that King Edward I of England was called
"affini" [kinsman by marriage] by Rudolf I, King of the Romans
[Reference: Thomas Rymer, Foedera 1 Pt. 1 (1816): 556]. The term
"affini" means that Edward I was married to a kinswoman of Rudolf, or
vice versa. As best I can determine, King Edward I was related to
Rudolf's 2nd wife, Isabelle of Burgundy, in the 4th and 5th degrees of
kindred by common descent from Eleanor of Aquitaine. King Edward I
was not closely related to King Rudolf himself. Below is a chart of
the kinship between King Edward I and Isabelle of Burgundy:

Eleanor of Aquitaine
__________________/___________________
/ /
John King of England Marie of France
/ /
Henry III, King of England Thibaut III, Count Champagne
/ /
Edward I, King of England Thibaut I, King of Navarre
/
Beatrix of Champagne
= Hugues IV, Duke of Burgundy
/
Isabelle of Burgundy

I also find that Ela, Countess of Salisbury, was styled "affini"
[kinswoman] by King Henry III [Reference: Calendar of Charter Rolls, 2
(1898): 25]. King Henry was the nephew of Countess Ela's husband,
William Longespee.

Elsewhere I find that Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland, was styled
"affinis" by King Henry IV of England [Reference: Calendar of Patent
Rolls, 1399-1401 (1903): 28]. Earl Ralph was married to King Henry
IV's half-sister, Joan Beaufort.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Todd A. Farmerie]

Douglas Richardson wrote:

My comments are interspersed below. DR

Peter Stewart <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...


Usage varied - "avunculus" never lost its proper meaning of "maternal
uncle", but it could also take in more distant relationships, for
instance (as commonly in Breton texts) a cousin, once or twice removed.


The extension of meaning outside Brittany may have come about through
illegitimate, needy or boastful people who wanted to emphasise a family
link to higher rank, or through vagueness on the part of others
scribing, copying or even forging their documents.


My files indicate that the Latin word "avunculus" in this time period
in England was used for maternal uncle. By 1400, it was used for
either maternal or paternal uncle.

FWIW, in one of the Kendall muniments a son of Nicholas Kendall refers
to Lawrence Kendall as "avunculus", but this is much later than the
period in question.

If Richard Bacon referred to
Ranulph I, Earl of Chester, as his "avunculus" prior to 1150, this is
almost surely an indication that Richard Bacon was referring to Earl
Ranulph as his maternal uncle.

Is this date (1150) the first example you have of it being otherwise
used, or was its use arbitrary? What is the earliest date you have for
a contrary use?

If Farrer was right to suspect the charter of Richard Bacun, it might be
unwise to set too much store by "avunculus" in this.


I disagree.

I am not sure I follow you here - if the charter is spurious, then it is
wise to set too much store by its text?

"Cognatus" could always mean a blood relative, though brother-in-law was
quite usual and should be considered whenever we don't know enough to
rule it out.


I've never seen the word "cognatus" used for brother-in-law in English
records. My files indicate "cognatus/cognata" in this period was
strictly used for a blood kinsman/kinswoman, even as close as niece or
nephew. I've already provided Mr. Stewart with an example of the
latter.

As has been pointed out, AN example does not prove, or even indicate, a
particular strict usage of a word (sort of like saying - "see, I'm not
dead right now, so therefor I must be immortal.") Only a detailed
analysis, giving the number of times it is used for each type of
relationship, (known relationship, as if you conclude "it is always used
this way" to interpret a relationship, then you cannot count that
instance as a known case, as it would be circular), preferentially
broken down by time period.

taf

[D. Spencer Hines]

"Where the Allies Stand"

""Australian Prime Minister John Howard said Tuesday he hopes George W.
Bush wins a second term in office, and praised the U.S. president for
his 'great leadership to the world in the fight against terrorism,' "
the Associated Press reports from Jakarta, where Howard was visiting
Indonesia's delightfully named President-elect Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

John Kerry used to talk a lot about the support he supposedly has from
"foreign leaders"-- but we'll take John Howard and (for all his faults)
Vladimir Putin over Mahathir Mohammad and Yasser Arafat any day."

James Taranto
The WSJ
-----------------

And Kim Jong Il, who also supports John Kerry.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

[Gjest]

Jenkins is derived from a English transliteration of the Welsh term "fychan"
meaning "junior". The name was applied to many Welsh lines distinguishing a
junior. The Welsh term for younger was "ievan" from which the name EVAN is
derived. An example is the line of Jean ap Dada of Pengwern, who had a son name
Jean who was called Jean Fychan instead of Jean ap Jean. His son, Howel was
Howel ap Jean Fychan. When one wished to distinguish an older individual from
a younger individual of the same name, the term "ievan" was applied. This
does not have to imply a father - son relationship only a distinction in ages.

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
wrote:

Jenkins is derived from a English transliteration of the Welsh term "fychan"
meaning "junior". The name was applied to many Welsh lines distinguishing a
junior.

This is interesting. According to the _Oxford Dictionary of English
Surnames_, 3d rev. ed., 'Jenkins' is a diminutive from 'John',
suggesting specifically 'young John' or 'John junior', rather than a
'junior' of any name. Early attested forms of the name given in the
entry in this dictionary do not suggest it is a transliteration of
'fychan'. Can you cite a reference which shows your alternative version
to be correct?

The Welsh term for younger was "ievan" from which the name EVAN is
derived. An example is the line of Jean ap Dada of Pengwern, who had a son
name Jean who was called Jean Fychan instead of Jean ap Jean. His son, Howel was
Howel ap Jean Fychan. When one wished to distinguish an older individual
from a younger individual of the same name, the term "ievan" was applied. This
does not have to imply a father - son relationship only a distinction in
ages.

Like 'Jenkin', 'Ievan' is certainly only a proper name and not a general
'term' of relative age or relationship like 'fychan'. The same
_Dictionary_ (along with Leslie Dunkling and William Gosling's
_Everyman's Dictionary of First Names_ [Penguin, 1983]), says that
'Evan' and 'Ievan' are simply Welsh versions of the given name 'John'
and says nothing about a transferred or distinct general meaning of
'younger', etc. It is quite possible, though, that there has been a
published argument for this based on the similarity of the Latin
'iuvenis' (= 'a youth', 'the younger') to the Welsh 'Ievan'. I would
like to see a citation to a discussion on this.

Nat Taylor

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

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article
<[email protected]>,
Nathaniel Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
wrote:

Jenkins is derived from a English transliteration of the Welsh term
"fychan"
meaning "junior". The name was applied to many Welsh lines distinguishing
a
junior.

This is interesting. According to the _Oxford Dictionary of English
Surnames_, 3d rev. ed., 'Jenkins' is a diminutive from 'John',
suggesting specifically 'young John' or 'John junior', rather than a
'junior' of any name. Early attested forms of the name given in the
entry in this dictionary do not suggest it is a transliteration of
'fychan'.

I should have added that a 'transliteration' is the rendering of
something to a phonetic approximation in another alphabet, so this isn't
one. But at any rate nor can I see how 'Jenkin' could *translate*
'Ievan' or 'fychan': the early forms cited in the _Dictionary_ imply
that it is simply 'John' or 'Ievan' with a diminutive '-kin' strapped on.

Nat Taylor

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

[Rosie Bevan]

Peter is away from home and unable to respond to the newsgroup at present,
but I'm sure he will when able.

In a previous post I gave an example from 1163 how 'avunculus' was used in
the sense of uncle-in-law (William de Soliers to Richard, Earl of Devon).
The following is a example where it is used as paternal uncle. In a
confirmation charter to Castleacre priory, Nicola de la Haie, after the
death of her second husband in 1214, referred to "Robert de Haia avus meus,
et Richard de Haia pater meus, et Radulf de Haia avunculus meus." [Mon.Ang.
5:53]. So it would be a mistake to insist that 'avunculus' was used
exclusively to mean maternal uncle until 1400.

While Pope Eugenius confirmed a foundation charter for Rocester, it was not
necessarily this particular charter in question, and there are certainly
enough anomolies about it to suspect a monastic forgery.

The main problem in this thread is documenting a link between Richard Bacon
to the AT, in the light that there are no verifiable descendants. I would be
interested to know far the line itself been documented.

Cheers

Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 6:39 AM
Subject: Re: Richard 'Bacun', nephew of Ranulf, Earl of Chester

Douglas Richardson wrote:
My comments are interspersed below. DR

Peter Stewart <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...


Usage varied - "avunculus" never lost its proper meaning of "maternal
uncle", but it could also take in more distant relationships, for
instance (as commonly in Breton texts) a cousin, once or twice removed.


The extension of meaning outside Brittany may have come about through
illegitimate, needy or boastful people who wanted to emphasise a family
link to higher rank, or through vagueness on the part of others
scribing, copying or even forging their documents.


My files indicate that the Latin word "avunculus" in this time period
in England was used for maternal uncle. By 1400, it was used for
either maternal or paternal uncle.

FWIW, in one of the Kendall muniments a son of Nicholas Kendall refers
to Lawrence Kendall as "avunculus", but this is much later than the
period in question.

If Richard Bacon referred to
Ranulph I, Earl of Chester, as his "avunculus" prior to 1150, this is
almost surely an indication that Richard Bacon was referring to Earl
Ranulph as his maternal uncle.

Is this date (1150) the first example you have of it being otherwise
used, or was its use arbitrary? What is the earliest date you have for
a contrary use?

If Farrer was right to suspect the charter of Richard Bacun, it might be
unwise to set too much store by "avunculus" in this.


I disagree.

I am not sure I follow you here - if the charter is spurious, then it is
wise to set too much store by its text?

"Cognatus" could always mean a blood relative, though brother-in-law was
quite usual and should be considered whenever we don't know enough to
rule it out.


I've never seen the word "cognatus" used for brother-in-law in English
records. My files indicate "cognatus/cognata" in this period was
strictly used for a blood kinsman/kinswoman, even as close as niece or
nephew. I've already provided Mr. Stewart with an example of the
latter.

As has been pointed out, AN example does not prove, or even indicate, a
particular strict usage of a word (sort of like saying - "see, I'm not
dead right now, so therefor I must be immortal.") Only a detailed
analysis, giving the number of times it is used for each type of
relationship, (known relationship, as if you conclude "it is always used
this way" to interpret a relationship, then you cannot count that
instance as a known case, as it would be circular), preferentially
broken down by time period.

taf

[Glyn Jones]

I agree with you.
John & Sheila Rowlands (The Surnames of Wales') give the derivation as a pet
form of John. Hardly found at all in North Wales.

Glyn

Glyn Jones FRPS

Remember Tryweryn
http://www.glynphoto.com
Join the Royal Photographic Society
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Taylor" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: Welsh names (was Re: Loyalists to Canada)

In article
nathanieltaylor-232DBD.17502620102004@n ... thlink.net>,
Nathaniel Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
wrote:

Jenkins is derived from a English transliteration of the Welsh term
"fychan"
meaning "junior". The name was applied to many Welsh lines
distinguishing
a
junior.

This is interesting. According to the _Oxford Dictionary of English
Surnames_, 3d rev. ed., 'Jenkins' is a diminutive from 'John',
suggesting specifically 'young John' or 'John junior', rather than a
'junior' of any name. Early attested forms of the name given in the
entry in this dictionary do not suggest it is a transliteration of
'fychan'.

I should have added that a 'transliteration' is the rendering of
something to a phonetic approximation in another alphabet, so this isn't
one. But at any rate nor can I see how 'Jenkin' could *translate*
'Ievan' or 'fychan': the early forms cited in the _Dictionary_ imply
that it is simply 'John' or 'Ievan' with a diminutive '-kin' strapped on.

Nat Taylor

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

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
wrote:

A helpful reference to this discussion is titled "Welsh Manuscripts In The
College of Arms, by Major Francis Jones. London. There is a section of a
guide to Welsh terms and contractions used in the Welsh Collections of the
College of Arms. On page 39 is listed the Welsh along with an English
translation. The Welsh Ieuaf/Ifanc is translated "younger". The Welsh
Ieuanc is translated, "young".

This is interesting, but I remain skeptical; this goes against various
basic authorities I am able to consult now. Does this source clearly
indicate that these words ('Ievaf', 'Ifanc', 'Ievanc') mean 'younger'
and / or 'young' and not specifically 'younger' or 'young' *John* in
their respective contexts? If so, since this goes against other
standard references, I would say it is important to inspect both Jones'
sources and his credentials before accepting it.

Nevertheless, I asked for a reference and you provided it--thank you!
This does NOT often happen around here. I've requested a copy of the
_Catalogue_ to take a look in the near future.

Nat Taylor

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

[Gjest]

A helpful reference to this discussion is titled "Welsh Manuscripts In The
College of Arms, by Major Francis Jones. London. There is a section of a
guide to Welsh terms and contractions used in the Welsh Collections of the College
of Arms. On page 39 is listed the Welsh along with an English translation.
The Welsh Ieuaf/Ifanc is translated "younger". The Welsh Ieuanc is translated,
"young". The use of fychan in the Welsh is described in a reference titled
"Annals and Antiquities of the Counties and County Families of Wales, by
Nicholas. On page 451 Vol.I, Jevan Fychan (or junior) is described. The Welsh
alphabet does not have a J, thus the English had a very difficult time
phonetically recorded the Welsh sounds. The transliteration of the Welsh into English
surnames began centuries before the 1700s. Thus, the studies by John and
Sheila Rowlands are incomplete in their analysis.

[Stewart Baldwin]

Ieuan or Ievan (later Evan), the spelling given in the original
posting, is an early Welsh form of John (a name which was also
extensively borrowed by the Welsh in its English spelling, but much
later, and by that time generally regarded as a distinct name). The
name Ieuaf is a distinct name, and was, at least in the early period,
a name and not an epithet. [Source: Bartrum's Early Welsh
Genealogical Tracts, where there are several Ieuafs (and Ieuans), but
Bartrum's index of epithets does not list either Ieuan or Ieuaf as
epithets.]

I do not recall ever seeing "Ieuan" as an epithet, although I have
seen it (and its more modern form Evan) on countless occasions as a
personal name. "Ieuaf" is much less common.

As for the suggestion that Jenkins is an Anglicization of Fychan, I
share Nat's skepticism. As he pointed out, Jenkin is a diminutive
from of the name John. In those cases in which the epithet Fychan
eveolved into a surname, the usual Anglicization was Vaughan.

Stewart Baldwin

[Glyn Jones]

Ifanc and ieuanc are adjectives meaning 'young'. Jenkin/Jenkins meaning the
same thing seem to be imaginative.

Glyn

Glyn Jones FRPS

Remember Tryweryn
http://www.glynphoto.com
Join the Royal Photographic Society
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Taylor" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 4:27 AM
Subject: Re: Welsh names (was Re: Loyalists to Canada)

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
wrote:

A helpful reference to this discussion is titled "Welsh Manuscripts In
The
College of Arms, by Major Francis Jones. London. There is a section
of a
guide to Welsh terms and contractions used in the Welsh Collections of
the
College of Arms. On page 39 is listed the Welsh along with an English
translation. The Welsh Ieuaf/Ifanc is translated "younger". The Welsh
Ieuanc is translated, "young".

This is interesting, but I remain skeptical; this goes against various
basic authorities I am able to consult now. Does this source clearly
indicate that these words ('Ievaf', 'Ifanc', 'Ievanc') mean 'younger'
and / or 'young' and not specifically 'younger' or 'young' *John* in
their respective contexts? If so, since this goes against other
standard references, I would say it is important to inspect both Jones'
sources and his credentials before accepting it.

Nevertheless, I asked for a reference and you provided it--thank you!
This does NOT often happen around here. I've requested a copy of the
_Catalogue_ to take a look in the near future.

Nat Taylor

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

[Gjest]

A detailed orthography is available in a text titled: Welsh Surnames, by T.
J. Morgan and P. Morgan, Cardiff, University of Wales Press, 1985. A good
Welsh dictionary would also be helpful, where the welsh term "ifanc" is defined as
"young". It is also important to consider the syntax. For example, the
proper name JOHN from the latin IOAN was introduced into the Brythonic culture w
ith the introduction of Christianity around 440 AD. [Bede's Ecclesiastical
History] With the spread of Christianity, the use of this name was wide spread
among the tribal groups. Written in Welsh as Ievan, [Welsh language and
identity developing between 600 - 700 AD], it would assume its position in the
naming structure of the Welsh. When a male child was born, his given name was
attached to the previous six generations of his fathers. Thus our JOHN (latin
IOAN, Welsh, Ievan,) would become Ryce ap David ap Thomas ap William ap Howel
ap Edward ap Ievan. To the male child, his name would be his genealogy. It
was not until Edward I, that the English language was declared the "official"
language of court in 1273. It was in 1273, that the first JONES appears in
the "English'" language. As Welsh began its assimilation into the English
culture, it confronted many dilemmas [during various periods, the Welsh language
was outlawed] By the Act of Union, 1536, a Welshman was required to adopt the
English system of surnames. It was during this "adoption" process that the
English struggled phonetically with the Welsh language and traditional naming
system. Every person who had a father named JOHN would be presenting his last
name as "ap Ievan". The English would have difficulty with the Welsh language,
having no J only "Si" as the closest phonetical sound. For the English
'apIevan' would imply John's Son. To the Welsh, its translation would be "son of
John". The syntax would be genitive possessive in the English, thus written
Ievans. Orthographically, to the Welsh it would be written "Si" for the
English "J", "eu" representing the "o" and "n". Thus Welsh = Sion's : English =
JOYNES or JOHNS or JOANES or JONES. The last becoming the most widely
transliterated. The major transition period occurred following the Act of Union
1536. A detailed analysis of this transition can be found The Jones Genealogist,
Vol. III, No. 4, 1991. In contrast, the Welsh term "ieuanc" would be a
demonstrative adjective applied to the nominative case. An English phonectially
equivalent is ie = E u= V an = AN with the c silent. The term fychan, would
be in the nominative case, being the word for "junior", not young or younger.
The Welsh f has the same sound as the English v, as in "fan". The Welsh
y has two sounds one long, the other short. One sound is similar to the
English 'ah' the other to the French 'a la' The Welsh ch is the same harsh,
throaty sound as in the Scottish loch or the German mach. Thus pronouncing this
term in the Welsh "fa-ock-a-n" or sounding much like JOCKIN or JOCKEN or
JENKIN. See Rhestr o Enwau LLedoedd, Gwasg Prifysgod Cymru (University of Wales
Press) Edited by Elwyn Davies, 1967 pp. for a discussion of the Welsh language,
alphabet and phonetics.

[Todd A. Farmerie]

[email protected] wrote:

When a male child was born, his given name was
attached to the previous six generations of his fathers. Thus our JOHN (latin
IOAN, Welsh, Ievan,) would become Ryce ap David ap Thomas ap William ap Howel
ap Edward ap Ievan.

You have this backwards. In your example, "our JOHN" would be Ievan ap
Edward ap Howel ap . . . .

By the Act of Union, 1536, a Welshman was required to adopt the
English system of surnames.

Welshmen may have been required to do so to interact with the English
legal system, but your average Welshman had no need of this, and were
still changing names with generations in the mid-to-late 1800s.

The term fychan, would
be in the nominative case, being the word for "junior", not young or younger.
The Welsh f has the same sound as the English v, as in "fan". The Welsh
y has two sounds one long, the other short. One sound is similar to the
English 'ah' the other to the French 'a la' The Welsh ch is the same harsh,
throaty sound as in the Scottish loch or the German mach. Thus pronouncing this
term in the Welsh "fa-ock-a-n" or sounding much like JOCKIN or JOCKEN or
JENKIN.

In this derivation, where does the (first) N come from? The -kin ending
is broad and well documented: Wilkin (William), Watkin (Walter), Simkin
(Simon), Perkin (Piers), etc. A Jenkin0 from John seems inevitable, and
in this context, preferable.

taf

[Gjest]

In reply to Bryant Smith's query, here is the IGI entry


John Lisle
Male

Birth: 1600 Wooton, , Hampshire, England

Christening: Death: 11 AUG 1664 Lausanne, Vaud, Switzerland


Marriages:
Spouse: <A HREF="http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/IGI/individual_record.asp?recid=100260009507&lds=1&region=2&frompage=99">Alicia Beconsawe</A>
Marriage: 27 OCT 1626 Ellingham, Hampshire, England

MM

[Bryant Smith]

It looks to me like the submitter may have fudged the marriage date by
exactly one decade. When you go to the link for the family, you find
a convenient date
for Alice Lisle's birthdate, two years after the given marriage date.
This page says NO SOURCES GIVEN by the submitter. Utterly unreliable.
What is needed is the actual microfiche copy of the parish records.


[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

In reply to Bryant Smith's query, here is the IGI entry


John Lisle
Male

Birth: 1600 Wooton, , Hampshire, England

Christening: Death: 11 AUG 1664 Lausanne, Vaud, Switzerland


Marriages:
Spouse: <A HREF="http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/IGI/individual_record.asp?recid=100260009507&lds=1&region=2&frompage=99">Alicia Beconsawe</A
Marriage: 27 OCT 1626 Ellingham, Hampshire, England

MM

[D. Spencer Hines]

"Rouge Alert!"

"From an interview with John Kerry in Rolling Stone magazine:

Q: What do you think of the color-coded terror alerts the Department of
Homeland Security issues?

Kerry: I think Americans, sadly, laugh at it. They don't know what to
do.

Q: Will you continue that program?

Kerry: No. I'm going to find some more thoughtful way of alerting
America.

Reader Jonathan Wilson offers a preview of Kerry's French-looking alert
system:

Level 1: Ennui
Level 2: Comme ci, comme ca
Level 3: Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose
Level 4: Regardez!
Level 5: Zut alors!"

James Taranto
The WSJ
------------------

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

[Gjest]

The parish records for Ellingham are stated by IGI to be in the Hampshire
Record Office at Sussex Street Winchester SO23 8TH England Tel: 01962 846154
Fax: 01962 878681

The parish records for Ellingham are stated to be.: 113M82/PR1-8

[Gjest]

The connection comes through the Latin translations of the Greek for JOHN.
Early Christian writings were in the vernacular Greek termed by many "koine
Greek", which represented a melting pot of the ancient Greek dialects.
Initially, what was to become New Testament letters were written in aramaic, but what
has survived comes through fragments written in what was to be determined
koine Greek. [ A detailed study of this is found in Light from the Ancient East,
by Adolf Deissmann published in German, 1922. Another founding father of this
field is A.T. Robertson who published A Grammar Of The Greek New Testament,
In The Light of Historical Research, 1914.] The letter of John is known as
KATA IWANNHN (W = omgea). John was one of the leading disciples of Christ and
was known as the "beloved disciple". Jesus gave the care of his mother to John
at his crucifixion, thus making John a key New Testament personality. Latin
replaced the Greek as the recorded language of the Bible when formal Church
structure became Romanized and the Greek language faded. The Latin form of John
was IOAN, and it was this form which found its way into the Byrthonic
languages. As Christianity was introduced into the western coastal regions of
Britain, it introduced Latin as the formal Church language of record. What was to
develop as the Welsh language and culture absorbed this Latin with many of the
mothers wishing to name a male child after the special person of IOAN. Having
adopted this name over several hundred years, it appears in the Welsh
vernacular as IEVAN. There was also a Welsh term for young or younger spelled ifanc
ot ivan. Here the syntax is distinctive with IEVAN being a subject and Ifanc
being an adjective. Both are almost identical in spelling and sound much like
our English to, too, and two but it is their use that defines which word is use
correctly in our language. However, there are examples where both are
interpreted as EVANS. This is where the confusion arises and it is often assumed
that EVANS and JONES are of the same origins.