Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
Burke's also said the candidate with more royal blood wins.
[email protected] wrote:
Dear Newsgroup,
A further note on the Inca ancestry of Isabel
Suarez Chimpu Ocllo, wife of Sebastian Garcilaso de la Vega y Vargas.
how does he relate to Garcilaso, the author?
Peter Stewart <[email protected]> wrote in message news:
[email protected]>...
Douglas Richardson wrote:
"Sutliff" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:
[email protected]>...
Indeed, Brooks-Baker has been riding this nonsense for years .,,,
Most of this is to create publicity for himself and
his publications.
HS
He sounds like a good businessman to me.
From spruiking his wares with a falsehood?
In that line of business practice, Douglas Richardson is right up there
with Brooks-Baker, almost in the "goodness" league of Donald Trump and
Gordon Gecko.
Peter Stewart
Everyone knows that Donald Trump has made a lot of money from creating
publicity for himself and his business projects.
suppose it's easy for Mr. Stewart to criticize Mr. Trump when Mr.
Stewart spends his days reading Latin dictionaries and doing precious
little else.
We're still waiting for Mr. Stewart to produce evidence proving that
"cognatus" is the "usual" meaning of "brother-in-law" in post-Conquest
England. I wonder if Mr. Stewart can set down his Latin dictionary
long enough to do this? Mmmmmmm ..... I doubt it. Mr. Stewart is a
fraud.
DR
[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]
...<SNIPPED
I actually tackled Mr. Brooks-Baker in print already. See my article:
Genealogy and Politics in the Age of Misinformation, New England
Ancestors Vol. 2 (Winter 2001): 25-6.
Evidently Mr. B-B is an American who upon realizing that he couldn't
be the Earl of Kentucky, moved to Britain and has devoted himself to
royals and so forth and such like. He gets paraded out on Larry King
Live whenever the topic is the royal family. Above and beyond this,
one wonders what his credentials really are. If you pick up Burke's
Peerage and look for the editor's name, it is not he. In any case, he
is not much of a muchness IMHO.
Evidently Mr. B-B is an American who upon realizing that he couldn't
be the Earl of Kentucky, moved to Britain and has devoted himself to
royals and so forth and such like. He gets paraded out on Larry King
Live whenever the topic is the royal family. Above and beyond this,
one wonders what his credentials really are. If you pick up Burke's
Peerage and look for the editor's name, it is not he. In any case, he
is not much of a muchness IMHO.
No 51% asshole -that's why Kerry lost!
Dear Newsgroup,
Someone mentioned the demogoguery of hatred this
administration rode in on. I recall non, especially before the September 11,
2001 attacks.
I didn't vote for him either but try to understand the basis for democracy.
You
accept the will of the majority and go on. Find a better candidate and
better
ideas next time.
In a message dated 11/11/2004 10:51:11 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
Don't you people,
collectively and individually, have it in you to simply write off such
rants as pathetic grabs for attention and intentional attempts at
disruption and IGNORE THEM? Must you always allow every individual with
a personal agenda to drag this group through the mire every time they
see fit?
Please - STOP! STOP! STOP! STOP!
Incorrect
statements MUST be responded to, regardless of the boring effect upon people not
particularly interested in the subject. I will not, CANNOT, ignore false and
unfair statements.
You might notice that I have never began such a thread, but I WILL respond
regardless of where the thread starts.
You mean like the people in Germany in the 1930s did with Hitler's
rant.
Also, Anasatasia and Ralph Fitz Ranulf are said to have been the
parents of Mary Fitz Randolph who married Robert Neville, being
parents of that Randolph Neville who became 1st Baron Neville of Raby
and married Euphemia de Clavering, Joan Fitz Randoilph married Robert
de Tateshall and Anastasia Fitz Randolph married John Hansard.
(Source; Fitzc Randolf website) How much of this is known to be true?
Bronwen Edwards <[email protected]> 11/13/04 06:23PM
Well said, Matthew. Bronwen
I was initially under the impression that Bush had won fair and
square
until some of the evidence about the Ohio polls came out from
trustworthy sources like Keith Olbermann, who started reporting
about
the voter fraud, such as people voting completely Democratic except
for voting for Bush as President, which is obviously completely
inconsistent. I, personally, had participated in the early voting,
which is something all states should consider, because it would give
more people a chance to get the polls. My state voted for Bush as a
whole, but elected in landslide victory a Democrat for Governor, who
is a good man, and his father, also a politican, was a family friend
of my great-grandfather and extended family.
I really fear this country is becoming a christian fundamentalist
theocracy. These fundamentalists are against personal freedoms and
believe everyone should believe what they believe. I am sure I am
not
the only one who heard instances of Republicans saying that
protesters
and the like should be kicked out of the country, because they are
speaking out against the government. But wait a minute, isn't that
exactly what Bush is claiming to be fighting for in Iraq, the right
of
people to have different opinions about the government and not be
punished for it?
Because you excerise your rights to disagree with the government's
policies doesn't mean that you are un-American, it means you are
excersing a cherished American right.
Unfortunately President Clinton, who in my estimation was one of the
greatest presidents the USA has ever had, was demeaned by the crazed
religous right, becuase of the Lewinsky scandal. There is nothing at
all wrong with belonging to a religon faithfully, but when it makes
you narrow-minded and hateful of other people with different views
and
values it becomes a negative. I liked the idea of Rev. Al Sharpton
for
President, although Governor Dean was my first choice. In France a
few
years back a French President's funeral was attended by his wife and
his mistress. Over the centuries kings and leaders had many
mistress,
and it has nothing to do with their ability to govern, a fact which
was never brought into question until modern times. Not that I'm
saying they should have mistresses, but if they do it's not a
national
crisis, it's a personal family matter.
Matthew
[resent Sunday, 14 November, 2004]
As far as i know, there is no contemporary source for the father of St.
Aelfgifu. As to the name you give, Wynflaed, the -flaed ending is more
typical of a female name. Still Hart is a good researcher, and might
have found something of value.
" Actually Cyril Hart in Table 3.4, p. 128, shows Eadmund m., firstly,
But, I must be unique? Think again, and look at the numbers. The
coalition of Bush voters in '04 defies received opinion, and is the
harbinger of a new day. Pay attention.
Thank you Linda for your observations.
I have recently examined seven volumes of Matthew
Pariis - a most remarkable recorder.
What still remains unanswered are the lists of
individuals five times greater than Matthew's records
which can be seen in various texts. Where did these
authors get their information?
What I found fascinating was the mention of a "legendary" daughter of Ivo
who married Dick Whittington. It appears she is only "legend" and should be
ignored in
genealogy.
The Parliamentary biography for Dick Whittington gives Alice, (d.v.p.1410) as
In message of 12 Nov, [email protected] wrote:
snip
Also, Anasatasia and Ralph Fitz Ranulf are said to have been the
parents of Mary Fitz Randolph who married Robert Neville, being
parents of that Randolph Neville who became 1st Baron Neville of Raby
and married Euphemia de Clavering, Joan Fitz Randoilph married Robert
de Tateshall and Anastasia Fitz Randolph married John Hansard.
(Source; Fitzc Randolf website) How much of this is known to be true?
See CP IX, 496 including note (i) which confirms all this except
Anastasia Percy who is not mentioned as the wife of Ralph FitzRandolf,
though this marriage is in CP X, 454, note (b).
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected]
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
______________________________
Ok enough carping, maybe somebody has a better picture of Richard I.
"I`m not sure about Count Geoffrey, but it`s been my
understanding that the classic Plantagenet was of above average height for
the time, had blue eyes and thick red gold hair, though actually few of them
It's just a shame that http://www.wikipedia.com has such a God-awful picture of
Richard I. "A bronze seated on a horse..." you can't even SEE him!
I did page through a few of them enough to see that they mostly
appeared to be fair-haired. I only looked at maybe 6 of them in succession.
I think we're still waiting for that "proof" that King David had red
hair
At any rate, maybe there's a market for a web site called "The hair
color of the monarches of Europe!!" <grin
Will
Dear Leo, Will, et als,
Were the Fontevrault, Normandy effigies on
the tombs of Kings Henry II and Richard I and Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine
contemporary portraits or done huindreds of years after these monarchs` decease ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Dear Matthew,
I could be way off about this, but didn`t the Kings of
Judah sometimes sub for the High Preist, certainly They had religious duties
to perform, much as the King of Babylonia or Assyria or the Pharoah of Egypt
did. If They did, then perhaps this privilege was granted to successive heads
of the House of David... and if that were the case, it may follow that James
who acted as High Preist was the eldest son of Joseph. As such, He would of
more than been allowed in the most Holy places in the Temple, It would have been
expected of him. Remember too, that when still a child, Jesus entered the
temple and questioned the Preists and teachers.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Dear Matthew,
Why would You doubt that the
Head of the house of David
could have been a carpenter in that era ? The Romans
were the ones who chose
who was going to be accepted as the Ruler of Judea /
Israel and They picked a
pliable Jew (?) named Herod. They wouldn`t of cared
if the nominal head of the
former royal house made his living cleaning out
latrines nor as long as no
fuss was caused by him if He did play some sort of
role in the religion of
Yahweh. I`m not sure that the Herods bothered
themselves a great deal about it
either, as long as They weren`t disturbed.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
From: Gordon Banks <[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Jesus, his brother and his nephew
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:46:45 -0800
Joseph was the head of the house of David? A carpenter? I doubt that.
Also, I'm not sure what credence we can give to the stories about Jesus'
childhood, since the authors wrote those long after the fact and they
could have been embellished.
On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 14:24, [email protected] wrote:
Dear Matthew,
I could be way off about this, but didn`t the
Kings of
Judah sometimes sub for the High Preist, certainly They had religious
duties
to perform, much as the King of Babylonia or Assyria or the Pharoah of
Egypt
did. If They did, then perhaps this privilege was granted to successive
heads
of the House of David... and if that were the case, it may follow that
James
who acted as High Preist was the eldest son of Joseph. As such, He
would of
more than been allowed in the most Holy places in the Temple, It would
have been
expected of him. Remember too, that when still a child, Jesus entered
the
temple and questioned the Preists and teachers.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Jesus, his brother and his nephew
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:32:06 EST
Dear Matthew,
Why would You doubt that the Head of the house of
David
could have been a carpenter in that era ? The Romans were the ones who
chose
who was going to be accepted as the Ruler of Judea / Israel and They picked
a
pliable Jew (?) named Herod. They wouldn`t of cared if the nominal head of
the
former royal house made his living cleaning out latrines nor as long as no
fuss was caused by him if He did play some sort of role in the religion of
Yahweh. I`m not sure that the Herods bothered themselves a great deal about
it
either, as long as They weren`t disturbed.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
From: Francisco Antonio Doria <[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Jesus, his brother and his nephew
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 04:34:43 -0300 (ART)
The thing was much more complicated. The Kings of the
Jews were the Macchabeans, whose last heir was a
princess named Myriam, or Mariamne. She married Herod
the Great and took her inheritance rights to his
house. (Myriam, or Mariamne, is of course the same
name as Maria, Mary.)
I keep wondering if this little piece of history
doesn't lurk at the foundations of the legendary
version of Jesus' life. Wasn't there a disgruntled
Macchabean pretender named Yehoshua who fought Herod?
If so, there are, I think, zillions of their relatives
in today's world.
fa
--- [email protected] escreveu:
Dear Matthew,
Why would You doubt that the
Head of the house of David
could have been a carpenter in that era ? The Romans
were the ones who chose
who was going to be accepted as the Ruler of Judea /
Israel and They picked a
pliable Jew (?) named Herod. They wouldn`t of cared
if the nominal head of the
former royal house made his living cleaning out
latrines nor as long as no
fuss was caused by him if He did play some sort of
role in the religion of
Yahweh. I`m not sure that the Herods bothered
themselves a great deal about it
either, as long as They weren`t disturbed.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora!
http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/
The Massacre of the Innocents/Flight into Egypt
episode was probably another
invention that allowed the early Christian community
in Jerusalem to present
Jesus as a fulfilment of OT prophecy and his life as
a reflection of OT
events.
The Massacre of the Innocents in Bethlehem
corresponds to the slaughter of
Hebrew male children in Egypt by Pharaoh's order at
the time of Moses'
birth. Just as Moses, the bringer of the Old Law,
miraculously escaped such
a fate, so did Jesus, bringer of the New Law.
The Flight into Egypt story presumably arose from
the OT statement "My son I
have brought out of Egypt." which also references
the life of Moses.
Regards
John P.
From: Francisco Antonio Doria
[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Jesus, his brother and his nephew
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 04:34:43 -0300 (ART)
The thing was much more complicated. The Kings of
the
Jews were the Macchabeans, whose last heir was a
princess named Myriam, or Mariamne. She married
Herod
the Great and took her inheritance rights to his
house. (Myriam, or Mariamne, is of course the same
name as Maria, Mary.)
I keep wondering if this little piece of history
doesn't lurk at the foundations of the legendary
version of Jesus' life. Wasn't there a disgruntled
Macchabean pretender named Yehoshua who fought
Herod?
If so, there are, I think, zillions of their
relatives
in today's world.
fa
--- [email protected] escreveu:
Dear Matthew,
Why would You doubt that
the
Head of the house of David
could have been a carpenter in that era ? The
Romans
were the ones who chose
who was going to be accepted as the Ruler of
Judea /
Israel and They picked a
pliable Jew (?) named Herod. They wouldn`t of
cared
if the nominal head of the
former royal house made his living cleaning out
latrines nor as long as no
fuss was caused by him if He did play some sort
of
role in the religion of
Yahweh. I`m not sure that the Herods bothered
themselves a great deal about it
either, as long as They weren`t disturbed.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis.
Instale o discador agora!
http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/
From: Francisco Antonio Doria <[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Jesus, his brother and his nephew
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:33:40 -0300 (ART)
(If this ever becomes a kind of para-theological
discussion, I'll quit the thread.)
Someone called my attention to the Mariamne who
married Herod the Great, and to the conjecture that he
got the Macchabean's throne because of his marriage. A
massacre of the remaining Macchabeans would be quite
natural, to ensure his kingship - e.g. the massacre of
the last Ummayads by the Abbasids. Of course if the
family group is large, an efficient killing is always
difficult to implement.
From: Francisco Antonio Doria
[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Jesus, his brother and his nephew
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:33:40 -0300 (ART)
(If this ever becomes a kind of para-theological
discussion, I'll quit the thread.)
Wouldn't blame you if you did. I only meant to
point out that there were
very strong theological reasons (as well as any more
immediate historical
precedents) for early Christian writers to come up
with the Massacre of the
Innocents/Flight into Egypt episode.
Someone called my attention to the Mariamne who
married Herod the Great, and to the conjecture that
he
got the Macchabean's throne because of his
marriage. A
massacre of the remaining Macchabeans would be
quite
natural, to ensure his kingship - e.g. the massacre
of
the last Ummayads by the Abbasids. Of course if the
family group is large, an efficient killing is
always
difficult to implement.
Herod was betrothed to Mariamne for 5 years before
the Roman senate named
him king of Judaea, but did not marry her until
after he returned to
Palestine as king. First, of course, he had to
divest himself of his first
wife Doris.
Herod indeed put to death several members of
Mariamne's family, but these
murders/executions were spread out over a period of
many years. We might
include here the deaths by strangulation of Herod's
own two sons by
Mariamne, whom he was led by other jealous members
of his family to see as
rivals. He had Mariamne herself put to death after
she was accused of
adultery with Herod's uncle Joseph.
And we're brought up to think Henry VIII was bad.
Regards
John P.
From: Francisco Antonio Doria <[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Jesus, his brother and his nephew
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:18:54 -0300 (ART)
My conjectured (highly speculative) version of the
events would be: some other Mariamne from the
Macchabeans gives birth to a Yehoshua, who later
presents himself as the legitimate King of the Jews,
conquers the Temple and - you know what happens
next...
(I of course welcome your comments and criticisms,
especially because my proposed reconstruction is - so
far - just that, a speculation. My caveat doesn't
apply to you.)
Txs & all the best, chico
--- John Parsons <[email protected]> escreveu:
From: Francisco Antonio Doria
[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Jesus, his brother and his nephew
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:33:40 -0300 (ART)
(If this ever becomes a kind of para-theological
discussion, I'll quit the thread.)
Wouldn't blame you if you did. I only meant to
point out that there were
very strong theological reasons (as well as any more
immediate historical
precedents) for early Christian writers to come up
with the Massacre of the
Innocents/Flight into Egypt episode.
Someone called my attention to the Mariamne who
married Herod the Great, and to the conjecture that
he
got the Macchabean's throne because of his
marriage. A
massacre of the remaining Macchabeans would be
quite
natural, to ensure his kingship - e.g. the massacre
of
the last Ummayads by the Abbasids. Of course if the
family group is large, an efficient killing is
always
difficult to implement.
Herod was betrothed to Mariamne for 5 years before
the Roman senate named
him king of Judaea, but did not marry her until
after he returned to
Palestine as king. First, of course, he had to
divest himself of his first
wife Doris.
Herod indeed put to death several members of
Mariamne's family, but these
murders/executions were spread out over a period of
many years. We might
include here the deaths by strangulation of Herod's
own two sons by
Mariamne, whom he was led by other jealous members
of his family to see as
rivals. He had Mariamne herself put to death after
she was accused of
adultery with Herod's uncle Joseph.
And we're brought up to think Henry VIII was bad.
Regards
John P.
_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora!
http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/
Dear Matthew,
Why would You doubt that the Head of the house of David
could have been a carpenter in that era ? The Romans were the ones who chose
who was going to be accepted as the Ruler of Judea / Israel and They picked a
pliable Jew (?) named Herod. They wouldn`t of cared if the nominal head of the
former royal house made his living cleaning out latrines nor as long as no
fuss was caused by him if He did play some sort of role in the religion of
Yahweh. I`m not sure that the Herods bothered themselves a great deal about it
either, as long as They weren`t disturbed.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Even so, the
issue is confused by the two entirely different descents from David that
appear for Joseph in the Gospels. At least one of those two descents must
have been fabricated.
No Roman census is known to have been
taken in any year that can reasonably be associated with Jesus' birth, which
was most likely in 4 BCE (& in the spring, not at the winter solstice).
In a message dated 11/19/2004 2:41:40 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
No Roman census is known to have been
taken in any year that can reasonably be associated with Jesus'
birth, which
was most likely in 4 BCE (& in the spring, not at the winter
solstice).
Please explain the proof that he was born in the Spring?
Thanks
Probably the reference in Luke 2 to the "shepherds abiding in the
fields".
Finally, argument from lack of evidence is without
value. Lack of corroboration for the "Slaughter of the
Innocents," the visit of the Magi, or the "Flight Into
Egypt" (and all those other great or mediocre paintings)
doesn't mean the incidents didn't occur. The gospel
accounts are the only evidence we have for them: but
they are evidence, and subject to all the standard means
of evaluation.
I won't address the question of the historicity of the accounts of
Jesus' background, and don't pretend, either, to the linguistic
expertise necessary to evaluate the usual translation of the word as
"carpenter"; but FWIW, I've read more than once that the proper
meaning of the word is something closer to 'contractor' or 'builder,'
which doesn't sound quite so low-rent. Also, some snippets of the
Gospels seem to imply that Jesus moved in fairly comfortable circles
in his earlier years. Altho' I express no opinion on whether or not
he was a descendant of David (or for that matter, of God Almighty), I
will say that it seems to me that the earliest Church fathers,
including the authors of the Gospels, would have had a strong
theological motivation to emphasize his humble position in this world.
I've also read that "carpenter" should be translated more like
Probably it's also not valid to say of the differing
gospel genealogies that one of them must be false. If
anywhere, on this list we are aware of individuals with
multiple documentable descents from (for example)
Charlemagne. It seems this would be even more likely
in a much smaller and less-mobile population like that
of First Century B.C.E. Palestine. Could Jesus have
had 3 (one through Mary) or more valid descents from
David a millenium removed ? Probably almost certain,
don't you think ?
Those genealogies both claim to be male line through Joseph, don't
they? Mary isn't mentioned. You can have more than one descent from
Charlemagne, but at least one of them is through a female.
marshall kirk <[email protected]> 11/19/04 06:50AM
I won't address the question of the historicity of the accounts of
Dear Matthew,
Why would You doubt that the Head of the house
of David
could have been a carpenter in that era ? The Romans were the ones
who chose
who was going to be accepted as the Ruler of Judea / Israel and They
picked a
pliable Jew (?) named Herod. They wouldn`t of cared if the nominal
head of the
former royal house made his living cleaning out latrines nor as long
as no
fuss was caused by him if He did play some sort of role in the
religion of
Yahweh. I`m not sure that the Herods bothered themselves a great deal
about it
either, as long as They weren`t disturbed.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine
USA
In a message dated 11/19/2004 9:02:58 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
Those genealogies both claim to be male line through Joseph, don't
they? Mary isn't mentioned. You can have more than one descent from
Charlemagne, but at least one of them is through a female.
Sorry that makes no sense. Are you actually proposing that these genealogies
actually include EVERY person in the direct line?
In a message dated 11/19/2004 8:40:47 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
Probably the reference in Luke 2 to the "shepherds abiding in the
fields".
Explain more precisely. Or is it your contention that in 4BC they
had
"sheepfolds" where the sheep would winter?
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: FW: Re: FW: Re: Jesus, his brother and his nephew
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:11:19 -0500
"> > "... shepherds in the fields watching over their flocks by night."
Shepherds only do that at one time in the year--when the ewes are
lambing in"
THIS is only "proof" for those who somehow (incredulously) believe that
sheep are kept indoors nine months out of the year. That is not even true
today, let along in the Palestine/Judea of the 1st century.
The shepherds lived with their flocks year-round. Where do you imagine
the shepherds lived in the Winter? And where do you imageine the Sheep
lived? In a motel?
Will
On Fri, 2004-11-19 at 06:50, marshall kirk wrote:
I won't address the question of the historicity of the accounts of
Jesus' background, and don't pretend, either, to the linguistic
expertise necessary to evaluate the usual translation of the word as
"carpenter"; but FWIW, I've read more than once that the proper
meaning of the word is something closer to 'contractor' or 'builder,'
which doesn't sound quite so low-rent. Also, some snippets of the
Gospels seem to imply that Jesus moved in fairly comfortable circles
in his earlier years. Altho' I express no opinion on whether or not
he was a descendant of David (or for that matter, of God Almighty), I
will say that it seems to me that the earliest Church fathers,
including the authors of the Gospels, would have had a strong
theological motivation to emphasize his humble position in this world.
I've also read that "carpenter" should be translated more like
"handyman," which is more low rent.
Dear Matthew,
I could be way off about this, but didn`t the Kings of
Judah sometimes sub for the High Preist, certainly They had religious duties
to perform, much as the King of Babylonia or Assyria or the Pharoah of Egypt
did. If They did, then perhaps this privilege was granted to successive heads
of the House of David... and if that were the case, it may follow that James
who acted as High Preist was the eldest son of Joseph. As such, He would of
more than been allowed in the most Holy places in the Temple, It would have been
expected of him. Remember too, that when still a child, Jesus entered the
temple and questioned the Preists and teachers.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
If so, there are, I think, zillions of their relatives
in today's world.
I have looked for Thomas Brinson's will in the DocumentsOnLine service
http://www.documentsonline.pro.gov.uk/ for wills in the Canterbury
Archdiocese, but found nothing. Where is his will to be found?
[email protected] (Francisco
Antonio Doria) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
If so, there are, I think, zillions of their
relatives
in today's world.
How many zillions? Sorry, I couldn't resist. Bronwen
And it is an intriguing hypothesis.
We might have expected, though, given the widespread
hatred and distrust of
the Herodians, that if Yehoshua had a
Hasmonaean/Maccabaean descent, it
would have got some press in the Gospels.
As it is, the only hint of Mary's descent is that
her cousin Elizabeth was
"from the daughters of Aaron." We don't know
exactly how Mary was related
to Elizabeth, but on the basis of that one statement
about Elizabeth, it
would be at least a possibility that Mary was a
Levite. The office of High
Priest was held by members of the
Maccabaean/Hasmonaean dynasty, who
presumably had a Levitic descentl. But again we
have no reason to connect
Mary to the Maccabaean/Hasmonaean family.
Of course this might be explained simply by
observing that the Gospel
authors were interested in Jesus' divine birth & a
kingdom "not of this
earth." Consequently they would have ignored a
claim to earthly kingship.
Or, as I said in an earlier post, 'Matthew' and
'Luke' were more concerned
w/Joseph's alleged Davidic descent & not w/a
Maccabaean/Hasmonaean descent
through Mary.
Regards
John P.
From: Francisco Antonio Doria
[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Jesus, his brother and his nephew
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:18:54 -0300 (ART)
My conjectured (highly speculative) version of the
events would be: some other Mariamne from the
Macchabeans gives birth to a Yehoshua, who later
presents himself as the legitimate King of the
Jews,
conquers the Temple and - you know what happens
next...
(I of course welcome your comments and criticisms,
especially because my proposed reconstruction is -
so
far - just that, a speculation. My caveat doesn't
apply to you.)
Txs & all the best, chico
--- John Parsons <[email protected]> escreveu:
From: Francisco Antonio Doria
[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Jesus, his brother and his nephew
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:33:40 -0300 (ART)
(If this ever becomes a kind of
para-theological
discussion, I'll quit the thread.)
Wouldn't blame you if you did. I only meant to
point out that there were
very strong theological reasons (as well as any
more
immediate historical
precedents) for early Christian writers to come
up
with the Massacre of the
Innocents/Flight into Egypt episode.
Someone called my attention to the Mariamne who
married Herod the Great, and to the conjecture
that
he
got the Macchabean's throne because of his
marriage. A
massacre of the remaining Macchabeans would be
quite
natural, to ensure his kingship - e.g. the
massacre
of
the last Ummayads by the Abbasids. Of course if
the
family group is large, an efficient killing is
always
difficult to implement.
Herod was betrothed to Mariamne for 5 years
before
the Roman senate named
him king of Judaea, but did not marry her until
after he returned to
Palestine as king. First, of course, he had to
divest himself of his first
wife Doris.
Herod indeed put to death several members of
Mariamne's family, but these
murders/executions were spread out over a period
of
many years. We might
include here the deaths by strangulation of
Herod's
own two sons by
Mariamne, whom he was led by other jealous
members
of his family to see as
rivals. He had Mariamne herself put to death
after
she was accused of
adultery with Herod's uncle Joseph.
And we're brought up to think Henry VIII was
bad.
Regards
John P.
_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis.
Instale o discador agora!
http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/
And I have herd that at that time period it was more likely a stone worker.
And I have herd that at that time period it was more likely a stone
worker.
The word used is best translated as craftmaster or craftsman I
understand, which I believe probably means he was a stone
mason/worker. Although, I still usually call him Joseph the Carpenter,
so people know to whom I am refering.
From: [email protected] (Brad Verity)
To: [email protected]
Subject: Eleanor de Clare's Zouche Son (was Re: Errata)
Date: Fri, Nov 19, 2004, 5:34 PM
[email protected] ("Patricia Junkin") wrote in message news:
Can we assume that there may have been other children of Elizabeth de Calre
and William la Zouche Mortimer?
[email protected] (Brad Verity) wrote in message news:
Historian T.B. Pugh, in 'Glamorgan County History Volume III: The
Middle Ages' (University of Wales Press, 1971), pp. 176, 605 n. 60,
states that Eleanor de Clare and her second husband William Zouche had
only one son, the monk William. But in a footnote Pugh points out
that Dugdale's 'Monasticon', Volume II, p. 62 (which I haven't seen)
states that Eleanor had a son Hugh Zouche. Since Eleanor did have a
son named Hugh (Despenser) - this may be an error on the part of
Dugdale or the chronicle he cited.
I've had a chance to download the reference from Dugdale's Monasticon.
Dugdale's source for Hugh Zouche, son of Eleanor de Clare was the
Chronica de Tewkesburye in Bibliotheca Cottoniana. This was the
Tewkesbury Chronicle that CP used as a source for many of its Clare
and Despenser articles. The Chronicle was written in the reign of
Edward IV, so almost 150 years after Eleanor de Clare's death. Here
is the passage:
"Obiit domina Eleanora uxor ejusdem ij. kal. Julii anno Domini
MCCCXXXVij. Ista erat mater Hugonis tertii, et Edwardi primi, et
Gilberti le Despencer per conjugem suam Hugonem secundum. Post mortem
ejus maritata fuit domino Willielmus le Sowch, de quo genuit Hugonem
Souch."
The Tewkesbury Chronicle only gives Eleanor one son by William la
Zouche. It was incorrect on the son's first name, which we know from
contemporary records (Cal. Patent Rolls, Elizabeth, Lady of Clare's
household records) was 'William' not 'Hugh'. The Tewkesbury Chronicle
messes up a number of other first names - it refers to Margaret de
Clare, Eleanor's sister, as 'Isabella', and gives Edward le Despenser
and Anne Ferrers (Eleanor's son and daughter-in-law), four sons named
Edward, Thomas, Henry, and Gilbert, when we also know from
contemporary records the fourth son was named 'Hugh' not 'Gilbert'.
So, it seems Eleanor had only one child by William la Zouche - the son
named William who became a monk at Glastonbury.
Cheers, -----Brad
From: [email protected] (Brad Verity)
To: [email protected]
Subject: Eleanor de Clare's Zouche Son (was Re: Errata)
Date: Fri, Nov 19, 2004, 5:34 PM
[email protected] ("Patricia Junkin") wrote in message news:
Can we assume that there may have been other children of Elizabeth de Calre
and William la Zouche Mortimer?
[email protected] (Brad Verity) wrote in message news:
Historian T.B. Pugh, in 'Glamorgan County History Volume III: The
Middle Ages' (University of Wales Press, 1971), pp. 176, 605 n. 60,
states that Eleanor de Clare and her second husband William Zouche had
only one son, the monk William. But in a footnote Pugh points out
that Dugdale's 'Monasticon', Volume II, p. 62 (which I haven't seen)
states that Eleanor had a son Hugh Zouche. Since Eleanor did have a
son named Hugh (Despenser) - this may be an error on the part of
Dugdale or the chronicle he cited.
I've had a chance to download the reference from Dugdale's Monasticon.
Dugdale's source for Hugh Zouche, son of Eleanor de Clare was the
Chronica de Tewkesburye in Bibliotheca Cottoniana. This was the
Tewkesbury Chronicle that CP used as a source for many of its Clare
and Despenser articles. The Chronicle was written in the reign of
Edward IV, so almost 150 years after Eleanor de Clare's death. Here
is the passage:
"Obiit domina Eleanora uxor ejusdem ij. kal. Julii anno Domini
MCCCXXXVij. Ista erat mater Hugonis tertii, et Edwardi primi, et
Gilberti le Despencer per conjugem suam Hugonem secundum. Post mortem
ejus maritata fuit domino Willielmus le Sowch, de quo genuit Hugonem
Souch."
The Tewkesbury Chronicle only gives Eleanor one son by William la
Zouche. It was incorrect on the son's first name, which we know from
contemporary records (Cal. Patent Rolls, Elizabeth, Lady of Clare's
household records) was 'William' not 'Hugh'. The Tewkesbury Chronicle
messes up a number of other first names - it refers to Margaret de
Clare, Eleanor's sister, as 'Isabella', and gives Edward le Despenser
and Anne Ferrers (Eleanor's son and daughter-in-law), four sons named
Edward, Thomas, Henry, and Gilbert, when we also know from
contemporary records the fourth son was named 'Hugh' not 'Gilbert'.
So, it seems Eleanor had only one child by William la Zouche - the son
named William who became a monk at Glastonbury.
Cheers, -----Brad
I believe the usual form of the writ de diem clausit extremum required
among
other things an inquiry into the date of the death of the deceased. Has
anybody been able to trace the relevant IPM to see whether it did this? If
not, I
could volunteer to look in the PRO
Do any of you know how or if the surname Atmar derives from the Earls of
Mar? That has been told to us by the family, but I've found no
substantiating data.
I was trying to draw up a brief biography of Sir Amias Paulet (Ambassador
to
France in 1578) when I stumbled acrost it. I'm having confusion on Amias
because another source says that Amias Paulet was Governor of the Island of
Jersey (Channel Islands) from 1547.
I see my mistake. I picked up someone's assumed birthyear for Alice. Leo
here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 6&tree=LEO
has just bef 1141. But even so, if Mr Richardson is correct that she was
marrying abt 1195 she should have been at least 54 at that time and then
having a
child with her new husband?
But on another point, the review of this collection says "it gives the full
history of EVERY peerage created up to the 20th century.
You cannot get more
complete than this ". So how can there be a volume XIV ? Does this cover those
peerages created after the 20th century?