Blount-Ayala

[Gryphon801]

That is if you are willing to cope with four pages on one page and tiny print.
I am glad I bought mine in the 1960s in all its glory. Many of the pages were
uncut [it was the second copy of a major library].

[Gjest]

In a message dated 27/11/04 18:27:46 GMT Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

I note, on amazon.com, the Complete Peerage Volumes I-XIII (bound in 6
books)
is retailing for $495.00 US.

But if you are looking for used originals of the 2nd edition, perhaps as an
investment, you will be lucky to find a set much under UK pounds 2,000

So if XIV is 95 pounds all by itself, then it appears if you wait a bit you
can get it at a deep discount. (Provided of course that the British pound
has
not suddenly grossly deflated without my knowledge).

Its the US $ that is on the slide.

So each volume I to XIII is about $38 US which is quite a sight less than 95

pounds per. And further there are two USED versions of this collection on
Amazon starting at $386 which would be $30 US each.

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? Or was the above-quoted reviewer
misled? Or is XIV just corrections and appendixes?
Will

Vol XIV is an update, as well as corrections, its title being Addenda and
Corrigenda. The last and only previous update (Vol XIII) had a cut-off date of
1938.

Adrian

[Sue J]

Hi List,

Thank-you all for the explanation. I have found several used volumes
for sale but I am going to wait a few days before getting. These are
on e-bay starting at $9.99. No sense in bidding right now. Will wait
and see how high the bidding goes.

Sue in Florida [email protected]

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 2:21 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: CP I-XIII was Re: XIV for sale anywhere?

In a message dated 27/11/04 18:27:46 GMT Standard Time,
[email protected]
writes:

I note, on amazon.com, the Complete Peerage Volumes I-XIII (bound in
6
books)
is retailing for $495.00 US.

But if you are looking for used originals of the 2nd edition, perhaps
as an
investment, you will be lucky to find a set much under UK pounds 2,000

So if XIV is 95 pounds all by itself, then it appears if you wait a
bit you
can get it at a deep discount. (Provided of course that the British
pound
has
not suddenly grossly deflated without my knowledge).

Its the US $ that is on the slide.

So each volume I to XIII is about $38 US which is quite a sight less
than 95

pounds per. And further there are two USED versions of this
collection on
Amazon starting at $386 which would be $30 US each.

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? Or was the above-quoted
reviewer
misled? Or is XIV just corrections and appendixes?
Will

Vol XIV is an update, as well as corrections, its title being Addenda
and
Corrigenda. The last and only previous update (Vol XIII) had a
cut-off date of
1938.

Adrian

[Patti Metsch]

Dear James:

Thanks for your response. I am actually not sure if it is a measurement; I
assumed such based on the context in which it was used:

1561: "The same William Gaylard with the same Juliana, with her land, viz. 1
messuage and half a virgate of bondland, 3 daynes of overland, formerly of
John Bone..."
1587: "Hugh Gaylord for 1 dayne of bondland lying in the south part of one
meadow..."
1591: Hugh Gaylard for 1 messuage and a half virgate of bondland in the
tithing of Duddleston, formerly of John Bradbeare, and first fined for 1
dayne of bondland in the south part of a meadow..."

These entries appears to have come from the Books of Fines and regards
property in the area around Taunton, Somerset, England.

Any enlightment is appreciated.

Patti


----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: Definition of dayne

Dear Patti et als,
Are You sure it`s a measurement ? your phrase
is
one dayne of bondland which could be a reference to the Danelaw (aka
York,
Northumbria) during the ninth and tenth centuries in especial. It may be
the term
the Saxons used to denote the followers of the local danish chieftain or
perhaps the territory controlled by a sub chieftain. bondland referring to
the
land occupied by bondsmen (aka serfs).
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings

Dixmont,
Maine USA

[Gjest]

Dear Patti,
I believe I was wrong before, and it certainly appears to
be a measurement of land. in this case overland probably indicates a hilly
area, and bondland rather than having anything to do with serfdom, is more likely
to be mortgaged property. Property put up as bond in the case of a debt ( land
forfieted if a required sum of money weren`t paid.)
Sincerely.
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[D. Spencer Hines]

Your math is somewhat bollixed.

If a quarter of a hide is 30 acres, then at least SOME hides must be 120
acres -- not just either 60 acres or 180 acres.

DSH

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

| Dear Patti et als,
| I searched several websites about obsolete
| measures and didn`t locate a defintion for dayne ( I even looked for
dein or deign,
| but no luck on that score.) I did however find reference after a
fashion to
| virgate (which some of You probably know about) A vIirgate also known
as a
| yardland was a quarter of a hide , 30 acres or 12 hectares . Though
the Hide could
| in some areas be 60 acres rather than 180 acres. [sic]
| Sincerely,
| James W Cummings
| Dixmont, Maine USA

[D. Spencer Hines]

You didn't say BETWEEN.

You said:

"I did however find reference after a fashion to virgate (which some of
You probably know about) A vIirgate [sic] also known as a yardland was a
quarter of a hide, 30 acres or 12 hectares . Though the Hide could in
some areas be 60 acres rather than 180 acres. [sic]"

The internal mathematical logic is off.

Yes, we know a hide was not a precise numerical measure.

Cheers,

DSH

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

| Dear Spencer,
| I didn`t do any math. That was what the
definition
| given for hide said. between 60 and 180 acres.
| Sincerely,
|
James W
| Cummings
|
Dixmont,
| Maine

[Gjest]

Dear Patti et als,
I searched several websites about obsolete
measures and didn`t locate a defintion for dayne ( I even looked for dein or deign,
but no luck on that score.) I did however find reference after a fashion to
virgate (which some of You probably know about) A vIirgate also known as a
yardland was a quarter of a hide , 30 acres or 12 hectares . Though the Hide could
in some areas be 60 acres rather than 180 acres.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Patti Metsch]

Thanks, James. That's about as much as I already got. I jotted off a
message to Merriam-Webster's Language Research Service to see if they can
tell me anything more. Will post to the list any response.

Regards,
Patti Metsch
Pensacola, FL USA

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: Definition of Dayne

Dear Patti et als,
I searched several websites about obsolete
measures and didn`t locate a defintion for dayne ( I even looked for dein
or deign,
but no luck on that score.) I did however find reference after a fashion
to
virgate (which some of You probably know about) A vIirgate also known as a
yardland was a quarter of a hide , 30 acres or 12 hectares . Though the
Hide could
in some areas be 60 acres rather than 180 acres.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Patti Metsch]

James W Cummings <[email protected]> wrote:

"overland probably indicates a hilly area, and bondland rather than having
anything to do with serfdom, is more likely to be mortgaged property.
Property put up as bond in the case of a debt ( land forfieted if a required
sum of money weren`t paid.)"

Whereas -

Bondland: land which also contained dwelling houses and other buildings
(such as barns) and was usually held by copyhold

Overland: land (such as pastures) which contained no dwellings and was
usually held by freehold

Patti Metsch
Pensacola, FL USA

[Peter Stewart]

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Recte:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/ ... 9819c.html

OF COURSE, the Prince of Wales deserved to have a mistress -- and one
who was NOT an airhead.

It WAS his birthright.

"I refuse to be the only Prince of Wales who never had a mistress."

Prince Charles -- allegedly

Including the first? Edward II isn't usually noted for this aspect of
his private life.

Perhaps the queen as reported had it right: "Charles is hopeless". She,
of course, in mind & spirit is far above the absurdity of whining about
her "birthright".

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

Dear Spencer,
I didn`t do any math. That was what the definition
given for hide said. between 60 and 180 acres.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine

[David Webb]

What a stupid posting! Do you want people on this list to outbid you or
drive the price up? Really, you are lacking in brain cells.


""Sue J"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:001101c4d4b7$fcb26570$0201a8c0@SUSAN01...

Hi List,

Thank-you all for the explanation. I have found several used volumes
for sale but I am going to wait a few days before getting. These are
on e-bay starting at $9.99. No sense in bidding right now. Will wait
and see how high the bidding goes.

Sue in Florida [email protected]

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 2:21 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: CP I-XIII was Re: XIV for sale anywhere?

In a message dated 27/11/04 18:27:46 GMT Standard Time,
[email protected]
writes:

I note, on amazon.com, the Complete Peerage Volumes I-XIII (bound in
6
books)
is retailing for $495.00 US.


But if you are looking for used originals of the 2nd edition, perhaps
as an
investment, you will be lucky to find a set much under UK pounds 2,000



So if XIV is 95 pounds all by itself, then it appears if you wait a
bit you
can get it at a deep discount. (Provided of course that the British
pound
has
not suddenly grossly deflated without my knowledge).


Its the US $ that is on the slide.


So each volume I to XIII is about $38 US which is quite a sight less
than 95

pounds per. And further there are two USED versions of this
collection on
Amazon starting at $386 which would be $30 US each.

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? Or was the above-quoted
reviewer
misled? Or is XIV just corrections and appendixes?
Will



Vol XIV is an update, as well as corrections, its title being Addenda
and
Corrigenda. The last and only previous update (Vol XIII) had a
cut-off date of
1938.

Adrian

[Sue J]

Only letting people know there are volumes out there for sale. If
they outbid me, I don't care. Right now, for one volume, it is only
running $10 US. They can have the books if they want. That was not
my purpose to run prices up but to make them aware of some great buys.
Get off your horse, or should I say mule. Not everyone has ulterior
motives. Look inward to yourself first. I made a whole bid of 1
cent. Big deal.

Sue in Florida [email protected]

-----Original Message-----
From: David Webb [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 9:09 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: CP I-XIII was Re: XIV for sale anywhere?

What a stupid posting! Do you want people on this list to outbid you
or
drive the price up? Really, you are lacking in brain cells.


""Sue J"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:001101c4d4b7$fcb26570$0201a8c0@SUSAN01...

Hi List,

Thank-you all for the explanation. I have found several used
volumes
for sale but I am going to wait a few days before getting. These
are
on e-bay starting at $9.99. No sense in bidding right now. Will
wait
and see how high the bidding goes.

Sue in Florida [email protected]

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 2:21 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: CP I-XIII was Re: XIV for sale anywhere?

In a message dated 27/11/04 18:27:46 GMT Standard Time,
[email protected]
writes:

I note, on amazon.com, the Complete Peerage Volumes I-XIII (bound
in
6
books)
is retailing for $495.00 US.


But if you are looking for used originals of the 2nd edition,
perhaps
as an
investment, you will be lucky to find a set much under UK pounds
2,000



So if XIV is 95 pounds all by itself, then it appears if you wait
a
bit you
can get it at a deep discount. (Provided of course that the
British
pound
has
not suddenly grossly deflated without my knowledge).


Its the US $ that is on the slide.


So each volume I to XIII is about $38 US which is quite a sight
less
than 95

pounds per. And further there are two USED versions of this
collection on
Amazon starting at $386 which would be $30 US each.

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? Or was the above-quoted
reviewer
misled? Or is XIV just corrections and appendixes?
Will



Vol XIV is an update, as well as corrections, its title being
Addenda
and
Corrigenda. The last and only previous update (Vol XIII) had a
cut-off date of
1938.

Adrian

[Ken Ozanne]

Just in case anyone hasn't noticed, Archive CD books have a current special
on 58 volumes of visitations at 30 pounds (you do have to be a life member,
which costs 60 pounds). To an isolated individual like me, this seems a
wonderful bargain. I guess I will be buying vol XIV of CP for 95 pounds,
which makes it seem the more expensive.

Best,
Ken

[Bronwen Edwards]

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

What a stupid posting! Do you want people on this list to outbid you or
drive the price up? Really, you are lacking in brain cells.

Speaking of stupid postings, now why would you say a thing like that?
Most of us have copies already I would think. Interesting how the
scoundrels of the world assume that others think like they do,
assigning their own motives to others. If someone from this group
tries to outbid her, I'll bet that I know who it would be. I doubt
that the reaction that you are "warning" her about (as an excuse to
insult yet another person who does not deserve it) did not even cross
the minds of the majority of people in this group. What planet did
they throw you off of?

[Gjest]

In a message dated 29/11/04 08:42:33 GMT Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

" ... D'ne Elisabeth Arundell Ducisse Norff. et Joh'is Gausell militis
qui quidem Joh'es obijt 11 die mensis Maij a'o D'ni 1481 ac D'na
Elisabeth Wingfield uxor predicti Joh'is filia Anne Montague Ducisse
Exon' et ..."

Not sure whether this will be of any help but I note that "Ancient Funerall
Monuments - 1631" states . . . Iohannis PAULET not Goushill. I'm not an
expert but would this be one and the same name? The full inscription, which was
only a fragment then, in 1631 states . . . It also states that that Sir Robert

"Elizabethe Arundel, Ducisse Norfol. & Iohannis PAULET militis, qui quidem
Iohannes obijt x Maij M.cccclxxxi. . . . . ac Domina Elizabetha Winfeld uxor
predicti Iohannis filia . . . "

Rose

[Gjest]

Douglas,

I have further studied the "Ancient Funeral Monuments - 1631" and it actually
states that the wife of Sir Robert Wingfield was Elizabeth Gousall. Other
Wingfields buried at Letheringham are listed as :

Sir Robert Wingfield, Lord of Letheringham.
Sir John wingfield, and Elizabeth his wife.
Sir Thomas Wingfield
Sir Robert Wingfield and Elizabeth Russell, his wife. obijt Robertus, 1409.
Thomas Wingfield and Margaret, his wife.
Richard Wingfield, Anne and Mary.

The tomb with the fragment of the inscription which mentions Elizabethe
Arundel, Duchess of Norfolk if described thus :

"Here is alfo an ancient faire Tombe very fouly defaced, whereupon this
fragment of an Infcription following is onely remaining . . .

"Elizabethe Arundel, Ducisse Norfol. & Iohannis PAULET militis, qui quidem
Iohannes obijt x Maij M.cccclxxxi. . . . . ac Domina Elizabetha Winfeld uxor
predicti Iohannis filia . . . "

So, the inscriptions were in a very bad way in 1631.

Rose

[Gjest]

I too was about to post a message suggesting Douglas should consult John
Weever's _Ancient Funeral Monuments_, then I saw Rose's two messages. I would be
interested why Doug, an expert and with all the resources of Salt Lake
available to him, would choose not to mention this work when it would seem to be of
relevance. Is there a problem with John Weever's work?

Adrian

Rose wrote,

Douglas,

I have further studied the "Ancient Funeral Monuments - 1631" and it
actually
states that the wife of Sir Robert Wingfield was Elizabeth Gousall. Other
Wingfields buried at Letheringham are listed as :

Sir Robert Wingfield, Lord of Letheringham.
Sir John wingfield, and Elizabeth his wife.
Sir Thomas Wingfield
Sir Robert Wingfield and Elizabeth Russell, his wife. obijt Robertus, 1409.
Thomas Wingfield and Margaret, his wife.
Richard Wingfield, Anne and Mary.

The tomb with the fragment of the inscription which mentions Elizabethe
Arundel, Duchess of Norfolk if described thus :

"Here is alfo an ancient faire Tombe very fouly defaced, whereupon this
fragment of an Infcription following is onely remaining . . .

"Elizabethe Arundel, Ducisse Norfol. &Iohannis PAULET militis, qui quidem
Iohannes obijt x Maij M.cccclxxxi. . . . . ac Domina Elizabetha Winfeld uxor

predicti Iohannis filia . . . "

So, the inscriptions were in a very bad way in 1631.

Rose

[Gjest]

Dear Newsgroup,
I`m curious, what would one call the Bastard son of
a Duchess of Exeter?
No, I don`t know anything about it, but I am curious. After all, Henry
Holand, Duke of Exeter`s wife Lady Anne Plantagenet continued to be known as Anne,
Duchess of Exeter after Their divorce and They both remarried.
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

[Gjest]

"Rather than help each other, the main focus
of this group (and I am by no means including ALL the list members) seems to
be to criticize, belittle, berate and argue over the most inane minutia.
This just makes me sad."

<tongue-in-cheek>
Well it's certainly more mature to take the high moral ground of complaining about the people who complain. This is obviously different than those who just complain about the procedures and materials that others use.
</tongue-in-cheek>

There are some people who have the stomach to stand in an argument and point out the discrepanices in the procedure. Then there are people who think that any argument is childish, because they don't like conflict of any sort.
But any argument should address the character of the evidence presented, and not the character of the PERSON presenting it, imho. Of course it's hard to point at "who started it", but some posters obviously have a long history between them.
Will Johnson

[Gjest]

"I think you should be able to find PDF images of both the sources (in Latin) on the French Bibliotheque Nationale's Gallica website. To see them, go to http://gallica.bnf.fr/, follow the "Recherche" link, enter the reference number in the "Recherche libre" field, and click "Rechercher"."

Speaking of sources. I just discovered that http://www.wikipedia.com has a few companion websites, also offering free, non-copyrighted, material for general consumption. One of these is called http://www.wikisource.com and is for posting complete source documents for which either there was never any copyright, or for which the copyright has expired.
It already has tons of things posted and it would be great if that were expanded. There is no limit to what you can post, so you can post a charter from the 12th century as readily as the inauguration speech of Bush. Just as long as the material is not currently copyright.
Will Johnson

[Gjest]

"One wouldn't mind if the "secret" truly remained a secret, but hinting and teasing about something for years without delivering is an unfortunate (and rather sadistic) technique of some genealogists."

And in this trait, they are joined by a veritable heavenly host of persons such as the ones who sat on Qumran for 40 years. There are still many documents from ancient times waiting to be published.

[Chris Phillips]

Will Johnson wrote:

Speaking of sources. I just discovered that http://www.wikipedia.com has a few
companion websites, also offering free, non-copyrighted, material for

general consumption. One of these is called http://www.wikisource.com and is for
posting complete source documents for which either there was never any
copyright, or for which the copyright has expired.

It already has tons of things posted and it would be great if that were
expanded. There is no limit to what you can post, so you can post a charter

from the 12th century as readily as the inauguration speech of Bush. Just
as long as the material is not currently copyright.


Thanks for posting details of wikisource.

In a way this seems like an admirable project, but I wonder if it's really
duplicating the work being done by the long-established Project Gutenberg:
http://promo.net/pg/

Perhaps the technology is superior in some way, but from my visit to the
website I couldn't work out a simple way of keeping track of new
"accessions" to wikisource, despite the availability of various elaborate
logs of "Recent changes" and "Related changes", and a host of mailing lists.

Chris Phillips

[Gjest]

In a message dated 11/29/2004 3:13:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

So, there's her solution.

Good Show.

DSH



Do you have the volumes under discussion? I feel sure you do. Why don't
YOU offer to do look ups for people less fortunate than yourself. It would be
the Christian thing to do and I feel certain you consider yourself a
Christian. Just make the offer and it will make you feel better all over you body.

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

[Roger Tansey]

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

In a message dated 11/29/2004 3:13:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

So, there's her solution.

Good Show.

DSH



Do you have the volumes under discussion? I feel sure you do. Why don't
YOU offer to do look ups for people less fortunate than yourself. It would be
the Christian thing to do and I feel certain you consider yourself a
Christian. Just make the offer and it will make you feel better all over you body.

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

I've received much help and guidance from this group and will be happy
to re-pay the kindness. I do have CP and will be happy to do look-ups
for those in need.

Best, Roger

[Gjest]

After reading the "process" by which his roots were uncovered, I'm skeptical. You can read it for yourself here
http://www.uahc.org/rjmag/03fall/kerry.shtml

Let me know if you think that what was done there is genealogy. A reporter who had recently uncovered his OWN Jewish roots, turns to a genealogist who specialized in uncovering Jewish roots. This, at a time, when no one suspected that Kerry might have even HAD Jewish roots.

That's not genealogy. That's "finding evidence to prove what you want it to prove". That's bad science and bad genealogy.

Of course the article may be oversimplifying or mistating, but I'd like to see a peer-reviewed article in a credible, genealogical journal. This "proof" just leaves me cold.

Will Johnson

[D. Spencer Hines]

Hilarious!

Rampant Gibberish....

The man/woman Jhonson has written KELLY for KERRY throughout.

Speech Impediment?

What a bulvon!

The data on Fred and Ida is solid ---- WAR does not post gibberish.

The post below is the dumbest of the month.

DSH

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| "A good account of his ancestry can be found at:
| http://members.aol.com/wreitwiesn/candidates2004/
| It seems pretty clear to me that he is part Jewish."
|
| How, from this site, can you tell that they actually connected the
dots correctly? You can't. Its just the same hash with more exact
specifications for a few of the alledged documents that tie them
together.
| However the text of these documents is not specified and it's only
in the text that we can be acquainted with the facts as they existed.
| In addition there is no procedure defined whereby they ensured that
Fritz Kohn and Fred Kelly are the same person. Parenthetical
expressions tend to imply that they are interpolating and thus discredit
the evidence that these are the same person.
| I do not deny that Fred Kelly, grandfather of John, said he was
born in Austria. As did his wife Ida and eldest son Eric. That the
family first lived in or near Chicago seems pretty certain as Mildred
was born in IL. And the application for naturalization is clear as Fred
states that he arrived in 1904 and was naturalized in 1911.
| Those are the known facts.
| However.
| To then state that that Fred Kelley is the same person as the Fred
Kelley who came on the ship so-and-so means you have done an exhaustive
sweep for ANY F Kelley who arrived in 1904 at any port of the US or
Canada. This is not clear.
| To state that this Fred Kelley who came from Genoa, is the same
Kelley who applied to change his name, is to say you have done an
exhaustive sweep for any Fred Kelley's in Austria or environs, to ensure
that you have the right one. And also any Fritz Kohn's to make sure you
have the right one. This is not clear.
| To ensure that this Eric is the same one as baptised as so-and-so
means you have....
| You get the picture.
| The mere fact that a certain name change application for some Fritz
Kohn to change his name to Kelly, is not any sort of proof that this
person is Fred Kelly who arrived in 1904.
| It's just not sound, in my opinion.
| Now perhaps the authors are leaving out certain specifications that
would make this clear. But the site pointed to certainly does.
| Will Johnson

[Kelsey J. Williams]

Hello,

A good account of his ancestry can be found at:

http://members.aol.com/wreitwiesn/candidates2004/

It seems pretty clear to me that he is part Jewish.

Sincerely,
Kelsey J. Williams

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

After reading the "process" by which his roots were uncovered, I'm skeptical. You can read it for yourself here
http://www.uahc.org/rjmag/03fall/kerry.shtml

Let me know if you think that what was done there is genealogy. A reporter who had recently uncovered his OWN Jewish roots, turns to a genealogist who specialized in uncovering Jewish roots. This, at a time, when no one suspected that Kerry might have even HAD Jewish roots.

That's not genealogy. That's "finding evidence to prove what you want it to prove". That's bad science and bad genealogy.

Of course the article may be oversimplifying or mistating, but I'd like to see a peer-reviewed article in a credible, genealogical journal. This "proof" just leaves me cold.

Will Johnson

[Gjest]

"A good account of his ancestry can be found at:
http://members.aol.com/wreitwiesn/candidates2004/
It seems pretty clear to me that he is part Jewish."

How, from this site, can you tell that they actually connected the dots correctly? You can't. Its just the same hash with more exact specifications for a few of the alledged documents that tie them together.
However the text of these documents is not specified and it's only in the text that we can be acquainted with the facts as they existed.
In addition there is no procedure defined whereby they ensured that Fritz Kohn and Fred Kelly are the same person. Parenthetical expressions tend to imply that they are interpolating and thus discredit the evidence that these are the same person.
I do not deny that Fred Kelly, grandfather of John, said he was born in Austria. As did his wife Ida and eldest son Eric. That the family first lived in or near Chicago seems pretty certain as Mildred was born in IL. And the application for naturalization is clear as Fred states that he arrived in 1904 and was naturalized in 1911.
Those are the known facts.
However.
To then state that that Fred Kelley is the same person as the Fred Kelley who came on the ship so-and-so means you have done an exhaustive sweep for ANY F Kelley who arrived in 1904 at any port of the US or Canada. This is not clear.
To state that this Fred Kelley who came from Genoa, is the same Kelley who applied to change his name, is to say you have done an exhaustive sweep for any Fred Kelley's in Austria or environs, to ensure that you have the right one. And also any Fritz Kohn's to make sure you have the right one. This is not clear.
To ensure that this Eric is the same one as baptised as so-and-so means you have....
You get the picture.
The mere fact that a certain name change application for some Fritz Kohn to change his name to Kelly, is not any sort of proof that this person is Fred Kelly who arrived in 1904.
It's just not sound, in my opinion.
Now perhaps the authors are leaving out certain specifications that would make this clear. But the site pointed to certainly does.
Will Johnson

[Ian Cairns]

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

"I think you should be able to find PDF images of both the sources (in
Latin) on the French Bibliotheque Nationale's Gallica website. To see
them, go to http://gallica.bnf.fr/, follow the "Recherche" link, enter the
reference number in the "Recherche libre" field, and click "Rechercher"."

Speaking of sources. I just discovered that http://www.wikipedia.com has a few
companion websites, also offering free, non-copyrighted, material for
general consumption. One of these is called http://www.wikisource.com and is for
posting complete source documents for which either there was never any
copyright, or for which the copyright has expired.
It already has tons of things posted and it would be great if that were
expanded. There is no limit to what you can post, so you can post a
charter from the 12th century as readily as the inauguration speech of
Bush. Just as long as the material is not currently copyright.
Will Johnson

I think the main Wikipedia link is
http://en.wikipedia.org/ or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

and the Wikisource link is:
http://wikisource.org or http://wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page:English

although the ones you give also work.

While you are there and to keep on topic, there's the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fry%27s_Island
which touches on Henry of Essex's trial by combat.

Regards
Ian

[Kelsey J. Williams]

Hello,

Okay, let us then examine the relevant documents. I think we can both
agree that the 1920 census quoted on W.A. Reitwiesner's website
relates to John Kerry's father and grandfather:

1920 Massachusetts, Norfolk Co., Brookline, vol. 86, ED 174, sheet 8,
line 30

Father's
Mother's
Rel Age Emig N/A Year Birthpl Birthpl
Birthpl
Kerry Frederick A Head 46 1904 N 1911 Austria Austria
Austria
Ada Wife 42 1904 N 1911 Austria Austria
Austria
Eric A Son 18 1904 N 1911 Austria Austria
Austria
Mildred Dau 10 Ill Austria
Austria
Richard Son 4 Mass Mass
Austria
Block Elise V Svt 48 1896 A Germany Germany
Germany

N/A = naturalized or alien Year = year of naturalization
Richard's father was born in Austria, but the census schedule says
Massachusetts

So, the next item to find is an immigration record for a family
consisting of a Frederick, Ada & Eric Kerry for came to the U.S.
roughly around 1904 (my experience has been that immigration dates
given on censuses are fairly unreliable and ought to be taken with a
grain of salt).

I typed in "Fred Kerry" at http://www.ellisislandrecords.org and received
precisely one match which I will reproduce below:

List or Manifest of Alien Passengers . . ., S.S. Konigin Luise,
sailing from Genoa, 4 May 1905, arriving at New York, 18 May 1905,
lines 10-12:
Frederick Kerry, 32, Male, Married, Merchant
Ida [Kerry], 28, Female, Married
Erich [Kerry], 4, Male, Single
All were able to read & write, were classified as German citizens of
Austria, last resided in Vienna, did not know their final destination,
paid their own passage, had never been in the U.S. and were listed as
"travelling."

Given the way in which the names and ages on this passenger list match
with the census record given above to seems to me unreasonable to
suppose that we are dealing with two different families.

If we accept that these two families are the same I think we can also
reasonably accept that this family is the same as the family who
changed their name from Kohn to Kerry on 17 March 1902 (see W. A.
Reitwiesner's site). That family consisted of: Fritz Kohn, his wife,
Ida, geb. Löwe, and their son Erich. As the record of name change
states that they were living in Mödling at the time, it seems only
reasonable then that the Fritz, Ida & Erich Kohn who were baptized at
the Pfarrkirche St. Othmar in Mödling on 9 October 1901 were the same
family. I assume that their baptismal records would state if they
were converted Jews and, assuming that is so, this would seem to be an
entirely plausible chain of evidence tracing the origin of Frederick
Kerry back to Fritz Kohn.

Furthermore, although I am not sure what process of deduction was used
to locate the birth records of Fritz Kohn & Ida Löwe, I should observe
that according to W.A. Reitwiesner's site (apparently based on either
an obit or a tombstone) Frederick Kerry died on 23 November 1921, aged
48 years, 6 months & 13 days. If we then calculate a birth date we
arrive at 10 May 1873 which is, coincidentally, the exact date given
for the birth of the Jewish Fritz Kohn in Bennisch, Austria, as
recorded in the contemporary parish register of that place.

Overall, I think the evidence for Kerry's Jewish ancestry is entirely
sound.

Sincerely,
Kelsey J. Williams

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

"A good account of his ancestry can be found at:
http://members.aol.com/wreitwiesn/candidates2004/
It seems pretty clear to me that he is part Jewish."

How, from this site, can you tell that they actually connected the dots correctly? You can't. Its just the same hash with more exact specifications for a few of the alledged documents that tie them together.
However the text of these documents is not specified and it's only in the text that we can be acquainted with the facts as they existed.
In addition there is no procedure defined whereby they ensured that Fritz Kohn and Fred Kelly are the same person. Parenthetical expressions tend to imply that they are interpolating and thus discredit the evidence that these are the same person.
I do not deny that Fred Kelly, grandfather of John, said he was born in Austria. As did his wife Ida and eldest son Eric. That the family first lived in or near Chicago seems pretty certain as Mildred was born in IL. And the application for naturalization is clear as Fred states that he arrived in 1904 and was naturalized in 1911.
Those are the known facts.
However.
To then state that that Fred Kelley is the same person as the Fred Kelley who came on the ship so-and-so means you have done an exhaustive sweep for ANY F Kelley who arrived in 1904 at any port of the US or Canada. This is not clear.
To state that this Fred Kelley who came from Genoa, is the same Kelley who applied to change his name, is to say you have done an exhaustive sweep for any Fred Kelley's in Austria or environs, to ensure that you have the right one. And also any Fritz Kohn's to make sure you have the right one. This is not clear.
To ensure that this Eric is the same one as baptised as so-and-so means you have....
You get the picture.
The mere fact that a certain name change application for some Fritz Kohn to change his name to Kelly, is not any sort of proof that this person is Fred Kelly who arrived in 1904.
It's just not sound, in my opinion.
Now perhaps the authors are leaving out certain specifications that would make this clear. But the site pointed to certainly does.
Will Johnson

[Gjest]

"If we accept that these two families are the same I think we can also reasonably accept that this family is the same as the family who changed their name from Kohn to Kerry on 17 March 1902 (see W. A. Reitwiesner's site). That family consisted of: Fritz Kohn, his wife, Ida, geb. Löwe, and their son Erich."

The problem being here, that the name change does not specify the family group. Or at least the site you referred to does not specify that it does. Does the site actually give the full and complete text from that name change? Or does it list, in retrospect, the names of what the family should be, based on previous knowledge of what was expected?

When I read the site, he does not in fact give the text of the name change.
Will Johnson

[Gjest]

"Furthermore, although I am not sure what process of deduction was used to locate the birth records of Fritz Kohn & Ida Löwe, I should observe that according to W.A. Reitwiesner's site (apparently based on either an obit or a tombstone) Frederick Kerry died on 23 November 1921, aged
48 years, 6 months & 13 days. "

The date is based on his obituary. The age is calculated, reverso, after knowing of the bastismal record. This information is not primary, it's derivative after the fact.
Will Johnson

[D. Spencer Hines]

"I told you - and the newsgroup - that I had fallen from a motorbike and
hit my head on a cobblestone, acquiring a brain impairment."

Peter Stewart -- 1 December 2004, 0250 GMT

"I have openly acknowledged to SGM, without prompting from nuisnaces,
[sic] my having an acquired brain impairment."

Peter Stewart -- 1 December 2004, 0344 GMT

-----------Cordon Sanitaire------------------

Bingo!

Quite True!

A serious person with a clear-minded, functioning, UNIMPAIRED brain
quite obviously would NEVER write something so foolish, silly-buggers
and obtuse as THIS:

-------Cordon Sanitaire---------------

"A question of course is a kind of suggestion, since if it can't be
answered in the positive it would not be posed in the first place:..."

Peter Stewart -- 30 November 2004, 0715 GMT

-------Cordon Sanitaire----------------

It DOES take someone with a BRAIN IMPAIRMENT a truly BOLLIXED BRAIN,
such as Peter Stewart, to write -- and then POST that sort of risible
GIBBERISH.

But:

GREAT ENTERTAINMENT!

This is why Kings liked Fools at Court -- for Entertainment -- and if
the fools were a bit brain-damaged, with bollixed brains -- so much the
better -- that often made them funnier.

Peter Stewart makes an EXCELLENT Fool.

Enjoy!

Tally Ho!

"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.

'Nuff Said.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Gjest]

In a message dated 12/1/2004 4:11:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

As to GIBBERISH, he has still not begun to explain why it is that he
asked if a dayne could "conceivably" be equal to around 120 acres just
33 minutes after himself posting crystal-clear evidence that it could
not "conceivably" be so.




If you cannot refute the question; refute the questioner.

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

[D. Spencer Hines]

A serious person with a clear-minded, functioning, UNIMPAIRED brain
quite obviously would NEVER write something so foolish, silly-buggers
and obtuse as THIS:

-------Cordon Sanitaire---------------

"A question of course is a kind of suggestion, since if it can't be
answered in the positive it would not be posed in the first place:..."

Peter Stewart -- 30 November 2004, 0715 GMT

-------Cordon Sanitaire----------------

Hilarious!

It DOES take someone with a BRAIN IMPAIRMENT a truly BOLLIXED BRAIN,
such as Peter Stewart, to write -- and then POST that sort of risible
GIBBERISH.

But:

GREAT ENTERTAINMENT!

This is why Kings liked Fools at Court -- for Entertainment -- and if
the fools were a bit brain-damaged, with bollixed brains -- so much the
better -- that often made them funnier.

Peter Stewart makes an EXCELLENT Fool.

Enjoy!

Tally Ho!

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Peter Stewart]

You are posting duplicates once more today, Spencer - is the brain
bollixed up again so soon? Or are you just as incapable of recognising
this kind of problem on your part as errors of logic?

The tripe you wrote doesn't get any better from repetition.

Peter Stewart


D. Spencer Hines wrote:

"I told you - and the newsgroup - that I had fallen from a motorbike and
hit my head on a cobblestone, acquiring a brain impairment."

Peter Stewart -- 1 December 2004, 0250 GMT

"I have openly acknowledged to SGM, without prompting from nuisnaces,
[sic] my having an acquired brain impairment."

Peter Stewart -- 1 December 2004, 0344 GMT

-----------Cordon Sanitaire------------------

Bingo!

Quite True!

A serious person with a clear-minded, functioning, UNIMPAIRED brain
quite obviously would NEVER write something so foolish, silly-buggers
and obtuse as THIS:

-------Cordon Sanitaire---------------

"A question of course is a kind of suggestion, since if it can't be
answered in the positive it would not be posed in the first place:..."

Peter Stewart -- 30 November 2004, 0715 GMT

-------Cordon Sanitaire----------------

It DOES take someone with a BRAIN IMPAIRMENT a truly BOLLIXED BRAIN,
such as Peter Stewart, to write -- and then POST that sort of risible
GIBBERISH.

But:

GREAT ENTERTAINMENT!

This is why Kings liked Fools at Court -- for Entertainment -- and if
the fools were a bit brain-damaged, with bollixed brains -- so much the
better -- that often made them funnier.

Peter Stewart makes an EXCELLENT Fool.

Enjoy!

Tally Ho!

"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.

'Nuff Said.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Peter Stewart]

[email protected] wrote:

In a message dated 12/1/2004 4:11:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

As to GIBBERISH, he has still not begun to explain why it is that he
asked if a dayne could "conceivably" be equal to around 120 acres just
33 minutes after himself posting crystal-clear evidence that it could
not "conceivably" be so.


If you cannot refute the question; refute the questioner.

Quite so, Gordon - from Spencer's point of view, he can't afford either
to speak or keep quiet on this. For years he has made a daily routine of
bullying & bluffing on SGM (as in other newsgroups) from a false
stance of knowledge, intelligence and general one-upmanship over
everyone else.

Now we can all see that he doesn't know the basics of Latin or observe
the simplest logic, and worse that he can't admit the slightest error.

This exposure is fatal to his projecting an image of educated
superiority. And if he loses that outlet he becomes an addict in withdrawal.

So let's cut him enough slack to see if he will be able to calculate the
percentages & learn to shut up.

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

In a message dated 12/1/2004 9:41:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

So let's cut him enough slack to see if he will be able to calculate the
percentages & learn to shut up.




But I recall an old adage about old dogs and new tricks. Hope is always
there.

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

[William Earl Haskell]

Alert wrote:

Knights Templar await apology from Pope

THE TIMES (UK) -- THE VATICAN is giving "serious consideration" to
apologising for the persecution that led to the suppression of the
Knights Templar.

The suppression, which began on Friday , October 13, 1307, gave Friday
the Thirteenth its superstitious legacy.

The knights want a Papal apology nearly 700 years after they were
disbanded and hounded into exile.

Well, it was all very sad that this happened, but what's this "The knights
_want_" (in the present tense)? Does this mean there is a group who call
themselves the "Knights Templar" these days?

If so, they can't possibly be legitimate. The original Knights of the Temple
was a Catholic order, like the Society of Jesus, and when it was quashed in
1307 by the Church that created it, it was disbanded as an order. IOW it
ceased to exist entirely, in any real sense of the word.

I'd like to know more about this unseemly situation, not being currently a
practicing RC and therefore a bit out of the mix.

PLEASE READ THE ORIGINAL REPORTS:

Why should I do that? This _is_ Usenet, after all...

[Richard Smyth at Road Run]

The statement which Hines quotes is good evidence that Stewart has a functioning, unimpaired brain. Even if it were false,
which I do not believe it is, one can see why a clear-minded person would believe it to be true.

"D. Spencer Hines"

A serious person with a clear-minded, functioning, UNIMPAIRED brain
quite obviously would NEVER write something so foolish, silly-buggers
and obtuse as THIS:

-------Cordon Sanitaire---------------

"A question of course is a kind of suggestion, since if it can't be
answered in the positive it would not be posed in the first place:..."

Peter Stewart -- 30 November 2004, 0715 GMT

Regards,

Richard Smyth
[email protected]

[Gjest]

"I typed in "Fred Kerry" at http://www.ellisislandrecords.org and received precisely one match which I will reproduce below:
List or Manifest of Alien Passengers . . ., S.S. Konigin Luise, sailing from Genoa, 4 May 1905, arriving at New York, 18 May 1905,
lines 10-12:
Frederick Kerry, 32, Male, Married, Merchant
Ida [Kerry], 28, Female, Married
Erich [Kerry], 4, Male, Single"

Kelsey thank you for finding this relevant document. I've added it to his file and will be posting it to the AWT shortly.
Will

[Gjest]

Dear Newsgroup,
Assuming Camilla Campbell was concieved on her
parents` wedding night, She was about 15 when She wed, with some families that
was two to three years above marriagable age in that time.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA

[Peter Stewart]

Richard Smyth at Road Runner wrote:

The statement which Hines quotes is good evidence that Stewart has a functioning, unimpaired brain. Even if it were false,
which I do not believe it is, one can see why a clear-minded person would believe it to be true.

Thank you, Richard - unfortunately for himself, Spencer is busily
scraping the bottom of this barrel of his own nonsense, and a bit of
forlorn waste is the best he can come up with.

I can't imagine who he thinks might be laughing WITH him about an
accident of which he doesn't know the causes or consequences; I suppose
with his very poor conceptual abilities and probable lack of social ease
he can't tell when laughter is actually directed AT him in his desperate
buffoonery.

Happily no-one on SGM need ever feel the slightest twinge of discomfort
at the ponderous sarcasm of Dayne Spencer Hines, since he is so prone to
foolish errors and incapable of admitting or even seeing his own
deficiencies in knowledge, logic and ethics.

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

You can get CP on CD-rom for $99.50 pounds or about $195.00 U.S. from _ABC
Publications - 33931f_
(http://www.abc-publications.co.uk/shop/ ... p?p=33931f) _http://www.abc-publications.co.uk/shop/contact.php_
(http://www.abc-publications.co.uk/shop/contact.php)

The Complete Peerage by G. E. Cokayne (2nd Edition, 13 volumes in 14)
Scott

[Chris Phillips]

[email protected] wrote:

You can get CP on CD-rom for $99.50 pounds or about $195.00 U.S. from
_ABC
Publications - 33931f_

Maybe it's just worth repeating that this is an unauthorised copy on CD,
which breaches CP's copyright.

As far as I know it does _not_ include volume 14.

Chris Phillips

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

In message of 3 Dec, "Chris Phillips" <[email protected]> wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

You can get CP on CD-rom for $99.50 pounds or about $195.00 U.S. from
_ABC Publications - 33931f_

Maybe it's just worth repeating that this is an unauthorised copy on CD,
which breaches CP's copyright.

I wonder about that. The volumes were using commissioned writings and
it is not obvious who owns the copyright of such. Certainly personal
copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. But how
long does corporate copyright last for? Something tells me that it is
no more than 50 years after publication.

Obviously I am only speaking of UK law, if only because the possible
offense has been committed in England.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected]
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

[Chris Phillips]

I wrote:

Maybe it's just worth repeating that this is an unauthorised copy on CD,
which breaches CP's copyright.

Tim Powys-Lybbe replied:

I wonder about that. The volumes were using commissioned writings and
it is not obvious who owns the copyright of such. Certainly personal
copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. But how
long does corporate copyright last for? Something tells me that it is
no more than 50 years after publication.

There is some useful information here on a government website:
http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk ... e_faqs.htm

I interpret it to mean that the copyright in each article with a distinct
author would be that author's copyright, unless the copyright was assigned
to CP at the time. So I was perhaps wrong to speak of CP's
copyright -perhaps not, depending on what was originally agreed - but much
of CP would still be under copyright protection on this interpretation.

I can't see anything about 50 years after publication rather than 70 years
after the authors' deaths. (Although even if it were so, vol. 12 part 2
would still be copyright).

Chris Phillips

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

In message of 3 Dec, "Chris Phillips" <[email protected]> wrote:

I wrote:
Maybe it's just worth repeating that this is an unauthorised copy on CD,
which breaches CP's copyright.

Tim Powys-Lybbe replied:
I wonder about that. The volumes were using commissioned writings and
it is not obvious who owns the copyright of such. Certainly personal
copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. But how
long does corporate copyright last for? Something tells me that it is
no more than 50 years after publication.

There is some useful information here on a government website:
http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk ... e_faqs.htm

I interpret it to mean that the copyright in each article with a distinct
author would be that author's copyright, unless the copyright was assigned
to CP at the time. So I was perhaps wrong to speak of CP's
copyright -perhaps not, depending on what was originally agreed - but much
of CP would still be under copyright protection on this interpretation.

I can't see anything about 50 years after publication rather than 70 years
after the authors' deaths.

In my view this site is, and remains, unclear about the status of
commissioned work. Newspapers are almost entirely composed of
commissioned work, for instance, and the site seem to suggest that the
paper magnate might own the copyright. Does he own it until the last
author of the last scrap in each issue has died? Or do some oher rules
apply? I still suspect the latter.

(Although even if it were so, vol. 12 part 2 would still be
copyright).

Agreed. I wonder what Sutton Publishing are doing?

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected]
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

[Gjest]

In a message dated 12/3/2004 8:18:51 AM Pacific Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

It's on 10 reels; the catalog tells which volumes are on each reel.

Many FHCs allow patrons to pay for two renewals to keep a frequently-used
film on "indefinite loan." In "my" FHC this would cost a total USD 10 per
reel. Two of us cooperated to do this for the 10 reels in "my old" FHC.

There ya go. So for (3.5+3.75+3.75) * 10 you can get the entire CP at your
local FHC.

[Gjest]

In a message dated 12/3/2004 8:57:00 AM Pacific Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

I would share with Chris Phillips' anticipated question of what right or
licence does LDS have to make these copies?

They are rather exacting in getting approval of the relevant copyright
holder. In fact there are thousands of books they have NOT filmed for just that
reason. So I'm relatively confident (92.6%) that they did in this case as well.
Of course that doesn't stop anyone from actually GOING to Salt Lake and
looking at the original item in person. Maybe Doug can tell us whether the general
public is allowed to view, on-site, the entire holdings of the LDS
Genealogical branch.
Will

[Todd A. Farmerie]

[email protected] wrote:

Of course that doesn't stop anyone from actually GOING to Salt Lake and
looking at the original item in person. Maybe Doug can tell us whether the general
public is allowed to view, on-site, the entire holdings of the LDS
Genealogical branch.

Some rarely used films are off-site, and require a day advanced notice
to have them called in. For a small subset of the fiche, you are
required to deposit an ID, I guess to make sure you give it back. Also,
in a few instances, due to inefficiencies in the catalog, actually
finding a book proved to be a day-long task (for example, most recently,
a particular issue of a regional British Who's Who). However, with the
exception of a class of church-specific records (including private
membership records, and some of the original pioneer journals), for
which you need to be a member and have a letter from your local church,
I have yet to want a look at any book or filmed record in the FHC
catalog to which I could not gain access.

taf

[Dolly Ziegler]

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 [email protected] wrote:

Of course that doesn't stop anyone from actually GOING to Salt Lake and
looking at the original item in person. Maybe Doug can tell us whether
the general public is allowed to view, on-site, the entire holdings of
the LDS Genealogical branch. Will

Doug Richardson may be typing his reply right now....I'll elbow in
here....

I was researching at the Family History Library in Salt Lake City Oct.
18-30. All their books and films are available to the public, free. You
just take them off the shelf or out of a film drawer. As many books as you
can carry, only 5 films at a time.

Book photocopies cost 5 cents, film 23 cents (I think), unlimited
downloads to CDs -- may be required to buy CDs there, I didn't learn how
to do that. Laptops, scanners & USB drives are allowed.

Two vast floors of books, one of films/fiche, two (British Isles and
International) that have both.

As far as I know, the only restricted items are personal histories of
LDS Church members, some are restricted to family members or "temple
permit holders." (May not be correct term, I'm not a member of the LDS
Church.) In almost 30 years using the FHL, there's never been anything I
wanted that was unavailable to me.

The library has been remodeled this year, and some films were not kept
on-site but had to be requested a day or more ahead of time. Some Mexican
church registers, for example.

One surprising note, this may be the last major library in the world that
requires no photo ID, no sign-in, no registration forms. My friend who had
never been there, was amazed at that. Two days later she found her
grandmother's christening record on those Mexican cathedral record
microfilms.

Cheers, Dolly in Maryland USA

[Gordon Banks]

USA copyrights are 95 years.

On Fri, 2004-12-03 at 15:11 +0000, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:

In message of 3 Dec, "Chris Phillips" <[email protected]> wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

You can get CP on CD-rom for $99.50 pounds or about $195.00 U.S. from
_ABC Publications - 33931f_

Maybe it's just worth repeating that this is an unauthorised copy on CD,
which breaches CP's copyright.

I wonder about that. The volumes were using commissioned writings and
it is not obvious who owns the copyright of such. Certainly personal
copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. But how
long does corporate copyright last for? Something tells me that it is
no more than 50 years after publication.

Obviously I am only speaking of UK law, if only because the possible
offense has been committed in England.

--

Gordon Banks <[email protected]>

[Gjest]

In a message dated 03/12/04 20:01:50 GMT Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

Before springing for the 95 pounds, may I ask how much of Vol. XIV is
devoted to corrections of the old stuff vs. recent peers? I'm only
related to one current peer and he became a lord through his
professional endeavor, not because of our common ancestors, who were
silversmiths. My interest in CP is genealogical, and I have little
interest in the current aristocracy or life peers.

Thanks.

I would say about 25:75 as to corrections:additions.

Adrian

[Gjest]

NO, I DID NOT WRITE THIS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Adrian

[email protected] wrote:

One family for instance was augmented with names
given to the pups of a favourite dog: the successor of
the peer who did this had no intention, more than 25
years later, of spoiling his father's prank.

Ann:
That's what comes of claiming them as dependents on the tax
return! The successor may have been envisioning an early version of
back taxes plus exorbitant fines plus interest ....

L.P.H.,

Ann

Feudalism: when it's your Count that votes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Leo van de Pas]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug McDonald" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 4:01 AM
Subject: Leo's Website Response

The third Earl of Huntly is NOT the son of Annabella
of Scotland, rather, of Elizabeth Hay, indeed, all
sons of the 2nd Earl are by Hay, and while a daughter
is supposed to be by Annabella, I have not found an
impeccable source which says which one, though the
one you list is the usual suspect.

This message sent me off into the direction of the Scottish Peerage and CP.

The Scottish Peerage
George Gordon, 2nd Earl of Huntly, his first marriage was rendered illegal
canonically.
He married before 10 March 1459-60 Princess Annabella Stewart, daughter of
King James I. "The Princess appears to have had no male issue, and six years
after the marriage George was again a-wooing." A divorce from Annabella was
proclaimed 24 July 1471, and on 4,11 and 18 August 1471 banns of marriage
between George and Elizabeth Hay were published. "It is usually said the
marriage did not take place till after 12 May 1476, but this is founded on
the erroneous date noted above (a footnote explains this), and the marriage
probably followed closely on the final proclamation.

Then there is a remark in regards to Elizabeth Hay, "In February 1504-5 she
obtained letters against Alexander, Earl of Huntly, compelling him to pay 50
pounds to her as his mother-----"

What puzzles me is the marriage contract of Alexander, 3rd Earl. Lets assume
George, his father, married Elizabeth Hay in 1471 (after 18 August)
Alexander, say born in 1472, would he contract to marry 20 October 1474? His
brother Adam was already born and the contract stipulated that failing him,
his brother Adam was to implement the contract and so forth, "from son to
son lauchfully gotten." In 1485 Alexander (aged 13?) was sitting in
Parliament.


CP Volume VI page 677. At first it seems CP is avoiding allotting Alexander
a mother, but in a footnote gives the same details. "The identity of his
mother is doubtful." To me, it seems Alexander should have been born well
and truly before 1472 (to sit in Parliament) and Elizabeth Hay, as widow of
Alexander's father, may well have been called his mother when she perhaps
was his step-mother.

CP Volume VI page 676, here we find that George Gordon, 2nd Earl of Huntly,
married 1st Elizabeth Dunbar, by whom he seems to have had no issue, and the
marriage was dissolved before March 1459/60. This word "seems" seems to me a
dangerous word.
Could Alexander have been son of this first wife? Say born in 1458-9 he
would have been about 25 when sitting in Parliament and about 15 when his
marriage was contracted.

Does anyone dare make a guess?

With many thanks.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

[Chris Phillips]

Leo van de Pas wrote:

CP Volume VI page 677. At first it seems CP is avoiding allotting
Alexander
a mother, but in a footnote gives the same details. "The identity of his
mother is doubtful." To me, it seems Alexander should have been born well
and truly before 1472 (to sit in Parliament) and Elizabeth Hay, as widow
of
Alexander's father, may well have been called his mother when she perhaps
was his step-mother.

Maybe it's worth quoting that footnote in full:

"The identity of his mother is very doubtful. He sat in Parl. in 1485, and
was
one of the Lords of the Articles, which points to his having been son of the
Princess
Annabel, but in a charter of 21 Feb. 1504/5 Elizabeth, Countess of Huntly,
is called
his mother, and, further, the divorce of Annabel, and the banns of Elizabeth
Hay,
were recorded 4 July 1492 at his request in the Consistorial Court of
Aberdeen. (Scots
Peerage, iv, 531)."

Chris Phillips

[Chris Phillips]

Leo van de Pas wrote:

CP Volume VI page 677. At first it seems CP is avoiding allotting
Alexander
a mother, but in a footnote gives the same details. "The identity of his
mother is doubtful." To me, it seems Alexander should have been born well
and truly before 1472 (to sit in Parliament) and Elizabeth Hay, as widow
of
Alexander's father, may well have been called his mother when she perhaps
was his step-mother.

One possible way out of the dilemma occurred to me. Maybe somebody with more
knowledge of Scottish practice at the time can say whether it's a feasible
explanation.

Could Alexander have been the son of George and Elizabeth Hay, but born
before their marriage? Would the divorce of Annabel and George's remarriage
to Elizabeth have been sufficient to legitimise him in Scottish law?

Chris Phillips

[Peter A. Kincaid]

One possible way out of the dilemma occurred to me. Maybe somebody with more
knowledge of Scottish practice at the time can say whether it's a feasible
explanation.

Could Alexander have been the son of George and Elizabeth Hay, but born
before their marriage? Would the divorce of Annabel and George's remarriage
to Elizabeth have been sufficient to legitimise him in Scottish law?

Chris Phillips

Yes. In Scotland, an illegitimate child was legitimised by the subsequent
marriage of the parents.

Best wishes!

Peter

[Rick Eaton]

[NAMERick [email protected]@sbcglobal.net

Beware!

Unfortunately, having been hospitalized for five weeks (tomorrow), I do not
have anyt written resources at hand to quote from. But, two years ago, I
studied the question of hydes to learn that all hydes were not created equal
by the Norman overseers of England. In the more densely populated, urban,"
and richer areas of Southern Ebgland, a Hyde was smaller thaqn, for example,
one on the less populated, poorer and less secure Welsh Marches.If anyone if
intrerested, I will see if I can find the references.

RICK

Your math is somewhat bollixed.

If a quarter of a hide is 30 acres, then at least SOME hides must be 120
acres -- not just either 60 acres or 180 acres.

DSH

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

| Dear Patti et als,
| I searched several websites about obsolete
| measures and didn`t locate a defintion for dayne ( I even looked for
dein or deign,
| but no luck on that score.) I did however find reference after a
fashion to
| virgate (which some of You probably know about) A vIirgate also known
as a
| yardland was a quarter of a hide , 30 acres or 12 hectares . Though
the Hide could
| in some areas be 60 acres rather than 180 acres. [sic]
| Sincerely,
| James W Cummings
| Dixmont, Maine USA

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

In message of 4 Dec, [email protected] ("Leo van de Pas") wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug McDonald" <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 4:01 AM
Subject: Leo's Website Response

The third Earl of Huntly is NOT the son of Annabella
of Scotland, rather, of Elizabeth Hay, indeed, all
sons of the 2nd Earl are by Hay, and while a daughter
is supposed to be by Annabella, I have not found an
impeccable source which says which one, though the
one you list is the usual suspect.

This message sent me off into the direction of the Scottish Peerage and CP.

The Scottish Peerage
George Gordon, 2nd Earl of Huntly, his first marriage was rendered illegal
canonically.
He married before 10 March 1459-60 Princess Annabella Stewart, daughter of
King James I. "The Princess appears to have had no male issue, and six years
after the marriage George was again a-wooing." A divorce from Annabella was
proclaimed 24 July 1471, and on 4,11 and 18 August 1471 banns of marriage
between George and Elizabeth Hay were published. "It is usually said the
marriage did not take place till after 12 May 1476, but this is founded on
the erroneous date noted above (a footnote explains this), and the marriage
probably followed closely on the final proclamation.

Then there is a remark in regards to Elizabeth Hay, "In February 1504-5 she
obtained letters against Alexander, Earl of Huntly, compelling him to pay 50
pounds to her as his mother-----"

What puzzles me is the marriage contract of Alexander, 3rd Earl. Lets assume
George, his father, married Elizabeth Hay in 1471 (after 18 August)
Alexander, say born in 1472, would he contract to marry 20 October 1474? His
brother Adam was already born and the contract stipulated that failing him,
his brother Adam was to implement the contract and so forth, "from son to
son lauchfully gotten." In 1485 Alexander (aged 13?) was sitting in
Parliament.


CP Volume VI page 677. At first it seems CP is avoiding allotting Alexander
a mother, but in a footnote gives the same details. "The identity of his
mother is doubtful." To me, it seems Alexander should have been born well
and truly before 1472 (to sit in Parliament) and Elizabeth Hay, as widow of
Alexander's father, may well have been called his mother when she perhaps
was his step-mother.

CP Volume VI page 676, here we find that George Gordon, 2nd Earl of Huntly,
married 1st Elizabeth Dunbar, by whom he seems to have had no issue, and the
marriage was dissolved before March 1459/60. This word "seems" seems to me a
dangerous word.
Could Alexander have been son of this first wife? Say born in 1458-9 he
would have been about 25 when sitting in Parliament and about 15 when his
marriage was contracted.

Does anyone dare make a guess?

No.

But I can report that the 2002 Scots landed gents (a misnomer if ever
there was one as it is padded ot with all peers; perhaps the landed
gents have mostly died out?) has:

"GEORGE, 2nd Earl of Huntly ... He m. 1stly, by contract 20 May 1445,
Elizabeth Dunbar, widow of Archibald, Earl of Moray, and dau. of James,
Earl of Moray (...). He div. her and m. 2ndly, 10 Mar 1459, Lady
Annabella Stuart, dau. of JAMES I, from whom he was div. 24 July 1471
(...) and by her had issue, with four daus.,
"ALEXANDER, 3rd Earl."

There are, as usual, no references to this text.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected]
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

[Sam Sloan]

On 25 Nov 2004 14:17:49 GMT, [email protected] (HAASpittle) wrote:

I'd recommend the December issue of Discover magazine as a good read for those
interested in how ancient humans populated the earth after migrating out of
Africa some 50,000+ years ago. The cover story is "Secrets of the Y
Chromosome." Dr. Spencer Wells collected blood samples from thousands of
central Asians and analyzed them to determine how they are related to
populations elsewhere. Among his findings is evidence that native Americans
came from the Altai mountain region in western Mongolia. There is some
evidence that about 8% of modern central Asian men are related to Genghis Kahn
who must have been one of the most prodigious fornicators of all time. It
seems that humans moved out of Africa and first settled in the meat rich
central Asian plateau for several thousand years before branching west into
Europe and east into far Siberia and then into North America. The genetic
North American line met their ancient brothers much later in 1492 when proper
white folks landed on the east side of North America.

Old Haasie

Because of your posting I went to the newsstand and bought the
magazine, $4.99, because I am interested in this subject and have
several pages about it on my website.

http://www.samsloan.com/lucy.htm
http://www.samsloan.com/adameve.htm

I found the article to be somewhat disappointing because I already
knew almost everything in it and the part I did not know I have
questions and doubts about.

For example, it says that Genghis Khan had 600 wives and concubines
and probably hundreds of children. I know of no historical basis for
this claim. I have the family tree of Genghis Khan on my website. I
claim him as my in-law because my daughter Shamema Honzagool is said
or believed to be his drect descendant.

http://www.samsloan.com/pafg106.htm#2579

According to my website, he had five wives, Borte, Yesui, Yesugen,
Gurbesu and Qulan. He had only four sons who are known to history. My
daughter is said to be descended from his second son, Chuchtai, also
spelled Jagatai and several other ways.

Of course, it is possible that he had many more wives and children but
I doubt that he had hundreds since he spent his entire life waging
wars and battles. I have read extensively on this subject and I am
certain that the claim that he had 600 wives has no known historical
basis.

The statement that the American Indians have their origin in the Altai
Mountains of Mongolia is interesting. However, the more important
question is how they got here. The author assumes that they came
across the Bearing Strait to Alaska. However, I believe that there
were four seperate immigrations. The most likely route is across the
Pacific Ocean from Polynesia to Chile, because the ocean currents run
that way. Another route is across the North Atlantic by way of Iceland
and Greenland. Note than on the map on page 32 of the article he shows
two immigrations, the other one coming from Africa through Borneo but
never touching Asia, but he never mentions this second route in his
article.

He bases his article on analysis of the Y Chromosomr Marker M45. My
own DNA is analyzed on my website at
http://www.samsloan.com/dnatest.htm

My results show that I am mostly English or rather that my DNA is
mostly shared by people in England and Ireland. My DNA is shared by
many men in Iceland too. However, the Discover article does not show
where I fit in there.

I would have liked to see some real data, rather than just a general
discussion of the subject. Nevertheless it is a tought provoking
article for anyone unfamiliar with the subject.

Sam Sloan

[michael kenefick]

In the US PBS network had a similar story on its program Nova(?). It was very
interesting.

Sam Sloan wrote:

On 25 Nov 2004 14:17:49 GMT, [email protected] (HAASpittle) wrote:

I'd recommend the December issue of Discover magazine as a good read for those
interested in how ancient humans populated the earth after migrating out of
Africa some 50,000+ years ago. The cover story is "Secrets of the Y
Chromosome." Dr. Spencer Wells collected blood samples from thousands of
central Asians and analyzed them to determine how they are related to
populations elsewhere. Among his findings is evidence that native Americans
came from the Altai mountain region in western Mongolia. There is some
evidence that about 8% of modern central Asian men are related to Genghis Kahn
who must have been one of the most prodigious fornicators of all time. It
seems that humans moved out of Africa and first settled in the meat rich
central Asian plateau for several thousand years before branching west into
Europe and east into far Siberia and then into North America. The genetic
North American line met their ancient brothers much later in 1492 when proper
white folks landed on the east side of North America.

Old Haasie

Because of your posting I went to the newsstand and bought the
magazine, $4.99, because I am interested in this subject and have
several pages about it on my website.

http://www.samsloan.com/lucy.htm
http://www.samsloan.com/adameve.htm

I found the article to be somewhat disappointing because I already
knew almost everything in it and the part I did not know I have
questions and doubts about.

For example, it says that Genghis Khan had 600 wives and concubines
and probably hundreds of children. I know of no historical basis for
this claim. I have the family tree of Genghis Khan on my website. I
claim him as my in-law because my daughter Shamema Honzagool is said
or believed to be his drect descendant.

http://www.samsloan.com/pafg106.htm#2579

According to my website, he had five wives, Borte, Yesui, Yesugen,
Gurbesu and Qulan. He had only four sons who are known to history. My
daughter is said to be descended from his second son, Chuchtai, also
spelled Jagatai and several other ways.

Of course, it is possible that he had many more wives and children but
I doubt that he had hundreds since he spent his entire life waging
wars and battles. I have read extensively on this subject and I am
certain that the claim that he had 600 wives has no known historical
basis.

The statement that the American Indians have their origin in the Altai
Mountains of Mongolia is interesting. However, the more important
question is how they got here. The author assumes that they came
across the Bearing Strait to Alaska. However, I believe that there
were four seperate immigrations. The most likely route is across the
Pacific Ocean from Polynesia to Chile, because the ocean currents run
that way. Another route is across the North Atlantic by way of Iceland
and Greenland. Note than on the map on page 32 of the article he shows
two immigrations, the other one coming from Africa through Borneo but
never touching Asia, but he never mentions this second route in his
article.

He bases his article on analysis of the Y Chromosomr Marker M45. My
own DNA is analyzed on my website at
http://www.samsloan.com/dnatest.htm

My results show that I am mostly English or rather that my DNA is
mostly shared by people in England and Ireland. My DNA is shared by
many men in Iceland too. However, the Discover article does not show
where I fit in there.

I would have liked to see some real data, rather than just a general
discussion of the subject. Nevertheless it is a tought provoking
article for anyone unfamiliar with the subject.

Sam Sloan

[D. Spencer Hines]

Hmmmmmmm....

But more to the POINT, the operative question is:

"Do THEY want to find YOU?"

DSH

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

| I would also like to find about 5 or 6 children I have through
| artificial insemination since I was a sperm donor.
|
| Sam Sloan

[Sam Sloan]

On 05 Dec 2004 17:53:07 GMT, [email protected] (HAASpittle) wrote:

Sam, I hope you found the cover story interesting.

Old Haasie

The article is interesting but there are several better. Take a look
at:

http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/346Ychromo.html
http://www.alab.fmed.edu.uy/Schurretal.html
http://www.blackindians.com/DNATesting2.htm

As a result of these articles, I now have a new theory:

The X-Chromosome from the female line has a different origin from the
Y-Chromosome of the males. The way this happened is that the first
humans reached America about 30,000 years ago. About 17,000 years ago
or even as recently as 12,000 years ago, a fresh migration occured.
The new males killed off or out reproduced the perviously established
males and mated with their females.

As I stated before, there are four different types of Y-Chromosomes in
the Native American Population. However, there are five different
X-Chromosome types. Where did the extra type come from? That was from
the girls that were left over when all their male relatives were
killed off by the new arrivals.

Native Americans strongly object to this theory. They want to be the
first, but the evidence is that there were others who got here before
they did.

How does this affect the legality of casino gambling on Indian
reservations, if the Indians were not the first to arrive here?

Sam Sloan

[Sam Sloan]

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 15:16:53 GMT, [email protected] (Sam Sloan)
wrote:

He bases his article on analysis of the Y Chromosomr Marker M45. My
own DNA is analyzed on my website at
http://www.samsloan.com/dnatest.htm

My results show that I am mostly English or rather that my DNA is
mostly shared by people in England and Ireland. My DNA is shared by
many men in Iceland too. However, the Discover article does not show
where I fit in there.

I would have liked to see some real data, rather than just a general
discussion of the subject. Nevertheless it is a tought provoking
article for anyone unfamiliar with the subject.

Sam Sloan

My own DNA is mapped at
http://www.familytreedna.com/ftLogin.as ... code=H3135

I believe that the mother of my great-grandfather was named Mary Sloan
and that she lived in Philadelphia and she gave her maiden surname to
her son, Creighton Sloan, who was born in 1842.

My Y-Chromosome does not match with anybody named Sloan, but I believe
that through Mary Sloan I am related to all the famous Sloans
including John Sloan and Alfred P. Sloan.

I would also like to find about 5 or 6 children I have through
artificial insemination since I was a sperm donor.

Sam Sloan

[StanB]

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

I would also like to find about 5 or 6 children I have through
artificial insemination since I was a sperm donor.

The world is doomed. Does Sam wants to find his children so he can help
support them?

[Sam Sloan]

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:26:36 GMT, [email protected] (Sam Sloan)
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 15:16:53 GMT, [email protected] (Sam Sloan)
wrote:

He bases his article on analysis of the Y Chromosomr Marker M45. My
own DNA is analyzed on my website at
http://www.samsloan.com/dnatest.htm

My results show that I am mostly English or rather that my DNA is
mostly shared by people in England and Ireland. My DNA is shared by
many men in Iceland too. However, the Discover article does not show
where I fit in there.

I would have liked to see some real data, rather than just a general
discussion of the subject. Nevertheless it is a tought provoking
article for anyone unfamiliar with the subject.

Sam Sloan

My own DNA is mapped at
http://www.familytreedna.com/ftLogin.as ... code=H3135

I believe that the mother of my great-grandfather was named Mary Sloan
and that she lived in Philadelphia and she gave her maiden surname to
her son, Creighton Sloan, who was born in 1842.

My Y-Chromosome does not match with anybody named Sloan, but I believe
that through Mary Sloan I am related to all the famous Sloans
including John Sloan and Alfred P. Sloan.

I would also like to find about 5 or 6 children I have through
artificial insemination since I was a sperm donor.

Sam Sloan

Haplogroup Test: My matches suggest that I belong to Haplogroup R1b.

[Sam Sloan]

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 18:14:06 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
<[email protected]> wrote:

Hmmmmmmm....

But more to the POINT, the operative question is:

"Do THEY want to find YOU?"

DSH

Glad to see you back Hines. It has been a long time.

To the rest of you, Hines here is the worst gadfly on the entire
internet. If you think StanB and Tim H are bad, that is because you do
not know about Spencer Hines. He claims to be a relative of Princess
Diana Spencer, but cannot provide a link. He claims to be a graduate
of Yale University, right up there with George and John, but cannot
provide a date.

Hines abuses everybody, calls them idiots, knocks their data, but
never provides any of his own. There are constant objections to his
postings, especially from newcomers who do not know about him, but the
moderator never bans him because he does stay on topic which is
Medieval Genealogy.

Speaking of which, it seems that the moderator has banned me from the
group, since I have not received a posting from there in over a year.
Do you know anything about that?

Sam Sloan

[Don Stone]

Sam Sloan wrote:

Speaking of which, it seems that the moderator has banned me from the
group, since I have not received a posting from there in over a year.
Do you know anything about that?

Since Sloan crossposts to so many groups, one cannot tell to which group he
is referring above. Soc.genealogy.medieval is unmoderated, of course, and
no one can be banned from it.

-- Don Stone

[StanB]

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

Speaking of which, it seems that the moderator has banned me from the
group, since I have not received a posting from there in over a year.
Do you know anything about that?

This ranks right up there with when you reported that the FBI shut down your
site.

[Chess One]

The statement that the American Indians have their origin in the Altai
Mountains of Mongolia is interesting. However, the more important
question is how they got here. The author assumes that they came
across the Bearing Strait to Alaska. However, I believe that there
were four seperate immigrations. The most likely route is across the
Pacific Ocean from Polynesia to Chile, because the ocean currents run
that way. Another route is across the North Atlantic by way of Iceland
and Greenland. Note than on the map on page 32 of the article he shows
two immigrations, the other one coming from Africa through Borneo but
never touching Asia, but he never mentions this second route in his
article.

Sam, this is a currently interesting item of investigation among
paeleontogolists, and the subject of a recent televison documentary which
offers some contrary information to this normal view of trans-Siberian
migration across the Bering Straights, and down the 'Ice gap' to the now-USA
of the first native americans, and, by DNA, traces their forst roots to a
more European base, especially from France.

He bases his article on analysis of the Y Chromosomr Marker M45. My
own DNA is analyzed on my website at
http://www.samsloan.com/dnatest.htm

My results show that I am mostly English or rather that my DNA is
mostly shared by people in England and Ireland. My DNA is shared by
many men in Iceland too. However, the Discover article does not show
where I fit in there.

I would have liked to see some real data, rather than just a general
discussion of the subject. Nevertheless it is a tought provoking
article for anyone unfamiliar with the subject.

I admit, I can neither remember the name of the tv program, nor even which
channel showed it [PBS?] but if I can unearth something will make another
note.

On a purely personal note.Your book! It is wrapped and addressed, but not
yet delivered to the PO, since I am working flat-out on other things. So, no
GO, maybe I'll get it together tomorrow?

Cordially, Santa

> Sam Sloan

[Bronwen Edwards]

Native Americans strongly object to this theory. They want to be
the
first, but the evidence is that there were others who got here before
they did.

What makes you think so (to both statements here)? First of all, there
are many Native American opinions about anything. Don't just assume
that all "Indians" think alike. There are Native American
archaeologists and geneticists, you know. The objections are to the
assumption that there is any one explanation for who was "here first"
(western hemisphere). Every group has its own traditions about that
and, like such traditions everywhere, they are expressed in religion,
ritual, metaphor and allegory. Like other traditions, there are
elements of empirical truth in them if you know where to look. For
example, an "ice giant" could be a mammoth or other megafauna. The
ending of the world could be any far-ranging natural disaster. Why
assume that acceptance of one of the traditional accounts
automatically contradicts the scientific view? My mother, a Catholic
who went to college, insisted that Adam and Eve were Cro-Magnons.

Native American accounts talk about origins in many places - my
father's people (Hopi) say that they came from the west, "sealed in
reeds that floated on the water", and landed on the west coast of Baja
California. Priests still go there for special ceremonies. To walk
there, the priests must walk about 1000 miles (before cars, wagons,
etc.; today they drive). The Hopi are acknowledged to have the oldest
continuously inhabited village or town in North America. Hopi accounts
talk about the coming of the Navajo and Apache people from the north,
in a migration along the eastern side of the Continental Divide. This
happened about 1000 years ago. The argument is against the notion that
all "Indians" have a common origin in Asia and wandered across
Beringia (much too big to be called a strait). Some obviously did
(Navajo and Apache among them), but others did not. Archaeologists are
only now beginning to find evidence to show that these Native accounts
were closer to the truth than the old Berint Strait theory. I can just
see an Asian population (from that little valley in Mongolia shown in
Discover Magazine) stopping at the brink of Asia to consider whether
or not they should leave evidence to make future archaeologists happy.

It would be a surprise to me if there were not many people here whose
genes may not have survived to present day "Indians". On the Northwest
Coast, the "Indians" have a tradition that they have had trading and
other relations with the Ainu of Japan from time immemorial. Linguists
cannot find a connection but genes may have traveled between them.
What if the genetic markers went the other way? What if that valley in
Mongolia represents a terminal point rather than an origin point? I
know the genetic argument against that but I had to pose the question.
The evidence for people in North America who did not resemble the
modern Native Americans rests on Kennewick Man, Spirit Cave Man and
other skulls - all of which most closely resemble the Ainu. It would
be a surprise, indeed, if the Ainu and Northwest Coast "Indians" were
trading with one another and Ainu individuals were NOT getting into
trouble here. In South America, these ancient skulls most closely
resemble Melanesian people - especially the aboriginal people of
Australia. As seagoing peoples, it would be a surprise of the
Melanesians did NOT get here. There has probably been contact with
Polynesians as well - although they speak a language based in
Malaysia, many Polynesians say that their traditional origin account
has them as the descendants of South American "Indians". As we all
know, languages can be changed by history so it cannot be proven that
their physical origin was Malaysia simply because that is where their
language came from. They also speak of more than one wave of people
reaching their islands. The temptation for many Europeans and
Euro-Americans is to oversimplify these things and assume that the
Native people cannot have a scientific bases for their accounts.

How does this affect the legality of casino gambling on Indian
reservations, if the Indians were not the first to arrive here?

It doesn't - since sovereignty is not based on Aboriginal Title in the
US. And I doubt that anyone can produce living descendants of these
ancient people - unless it be the "Indians" themselves. - Bronwen
Edwards

Sam Sloan

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Chris ~

Andrew MacEwen, the authority on all things Scottish, indicates that
Alexander Gordon was the child of George Gordon, by his 3rd wife,
Elizabeth Hay. He is presently working on an article which will
provide conclusive evidence regarding Alexander Gordon's parentage.
Mr. MacEwen also reports that George Gordon had only one child by his
2nd marriage to Annabel of Scotland, namely Isabel (wife of William
Hay, 3rd Earl of Erroll). This information is reported in part in my
book, Plantagenet Ancestry, page 663, courtesy of Mr. MacEwen.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


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

Leo van de Pas wrote:
CP Volume VI page 677. At first it seems CP is avoiding allotting
Alexander
a mother, but in a footnote gives the same details. "The identity of his
mother is doubtful." To me, it seems Alexander should have been born well
and truly before 1472 (to sit in Parliament) and Elizabeth Hay, as widow
of
Alexander's father, may well have been called his mother when she perhaps
was his step-mother.


One possible way out of the dilemma occurred to me. Maybe somebody with more
knowledge of Scottish practice at the time can say whether it's a feasible
explanation.

Could Alexander have been the son of George and Elizabeth Hay, but born
before their marriage? Would the divorce of Annabel and George's remarriage
to Elizabeth have been sufficient to legitimise him in Scottish law?

Chris Phillips

[Douglas Richardson]

Tim Powys-Lybbe <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

But I can report that the 2002 Scots landed gents (a misnomer if ever
there was one as it is padded ot with all peers; perhaps the landed
gents have mostly died out?) has:

"GEORGE, 2nd Earl of Huntly ... He m. 1stly, by contract 20 May 1445,
Elizabeth Dunbar, widow of Archibald, Earl of Moray, and dau. of James,
Earl of Moray (...). He div. her and m. 2ndly, 10 Mar 1459, Lady
Annabella Stuart, dau. of JAMES I, from whom he was div. 24 July 1471
(...) and by her had issue, with four daus.,
"ALEXANDER, 3rd Earl."

There are, as usual, no references to this text.

Dear Tim ~

George Gordon and Annabel of Scotland were divorced in 1466, not 1471.
This information is provided courtesy of Andrew MacEwen, of Stockton
Springs, Maine.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Gjest]

"Andrew MacEwen, the authority on all things Scottish, indicates that Alexander Gordon was the child of George Gordon, by his 3rd wife, Elizabeth Hay. He is presently working on an article which will provide conclusive evidence regarding Alexander Gordon's parentage. Mr. MacEwen also reports that George Gordon had only one child by his 2nd marriage to Annabel of Scotland, namely Isabel (wife of William Hay, 3rd Earl of Erroll). This information is reported in part in my book, Plantagenet Ancestry, page 663, courtesy of Mr. MacEwen."

But is he actually going to specifically address the issue that this Alexander was already contracted in marriage, and sitting in parliament at a point where he would certainly have to have been born before his parent's marriage?
Will

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

In message of 6 Dec, [email protected] (Douglas Richardson) wrote:

Tim Powys-Lybbe <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

But I can report that the 2002 Scots landed gents (a misnomer if ever
there was one as it is padded ot with all peers; perhaps the landed
gents have mostly died out?) has:

"GEORGE, 2nd Earl of Huntly ... He m. 1stly, by contract 20 May 1445,
Elizabeth Dunbar, widow of Archibald, Earl of Moray, and dau. of James,
Earl of Moray (...). He div. her and m. 2ndly, 10 Mar 1459, Lady
Annabella Stuart, dau. of JAMES I, from whom he was div. 24 July 1471
(...) and by her had issue, with four daus.,
"ALEXANDER, 3rd Earl."

There are, as usual, no references to this text.

Dear Tim ~

George Gordon and Annabel of Scotland were divorced in 1466, not 1471.
This information is provided courtesy of Andrew MacEwen, of Stockton
Springs, Maine.

But this suffers from the same problem as Burke: no refereces. Where
does this information come from?

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected]
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

[Gjest]

http://www.ardice.com/Regional/Europe/U ... Adderbury/

[Patricia Junkin]

Douglas,
Might I ask an out of period question? Has any connection been made between
Gov. Patrick Gordon of Pennsylvania (1726) and the Huntly Gordons.
Thank you,
Pat
----------

From: [email protected] (Douglas Richardson)
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Alexander Gordon, 3rd Earl of Huntly
Date: Sun, Dec 5, 2004, 11:28 PM


Dear Chris ~

Andrew MacEwen, the authority on all things Scottish, indicates that
Alexander Gordon was the child of George Gordon, by his 3rd wife,
Elizabeth Hay. He is presently working on an article which will
provide conclusive evidence regarding Alexander Gordon's parentage.
Mr. MacEwen also reports that George Gordon had only one child by his
2nd marriage to Annabel of Scotland, namely Isabel (wife of William
Hay, 3rd Earl of Erroll). This information is reported in part in my
book, Plantagenet Ancestry, page 663, courtesy of Mr. MacEwen.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


"Chris Phillips" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
Leo van de Pas wrote:
CP Volume VI page 677. At first it seems CP is avoiding allotting
Alexander
a mother, but in a footnote gives the same details. "The identity of his
mother is doubtful." To me, it seems Alexander should have been born well
and truly before 1472 (to sit in Parliament) and Elizabeth Hay, as widow
of
Alexander's father, may well have been called his mother when she perhaps
was his step-mother.


One possible way out of the dilemma occurred to me. Maybe somebody with more
knowledge of Scottish practice at the time can say whether it's a feasible
explanation.

Could Alexander have been the son of George and Elizabeth Hay, but born
before their marriage? Would the divorce of Annabel and George's remarriage
to Elizabeth have been sufficient to legitimise him in Scottish law?

Chris Phillips

[An. Archer]

Hi All,

Here is a question that could provide some interesting responses!

During medieval times it was advantageous for a widow to remarry as soon as
possible, and a rich one could be snapped up within months of her husband's
death. However, there must have been many instances when bodies were missing
or unidentifiable after a battle and therefore no proof of widowhood.

Was there civil or canon law to permit an 'assumed widow' to remarry if her
husband remained missing for a specified number of years?? Any interesting
examples??

An.

[Peter A. Kincaid]

On 8 Jul 1482, Alexander witnessed, as the granter's eldest son, a charter by
George, Earl of Huntlie to Thomas Barde and his wife [NAS, GD185/8/2/5].
Thus, he was born at the very latest in 1468. That he sat in Parliament in
1485 suggests he was born before 1464 (ie. he was of the age of majority).

Peter

At 03:00 AM 06/12/2004, you wrote:

"Andrew MacEwen, the authority on all things Scottish, indicates that
Alexander Gordon was the child of George Gordon, by his 3rd wife,
Elizabeth Hay. He is presently working on an article which will provide
conclusive evidence regarding Alexander Gordon's parentage. Mr. MacEwen
also reports that George Gordon had only one child by his 2nd marriage to
Annabel of Scotland, namely Isabel (wife of William Hay, 3rd Earl of
Erroll). This information is reported in part in my book, Plantagenet
Ancestry, page 663, courtesy of Mr. MacEwen."

But is he actually going to specifically address the issue that this
Alexander was already contracted in marriage, and sitting in parliament at
a point where he would certainly have to have been born before his
parent's marriage?
Will

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article <[email protected]>,
"An. Archer" <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi All,

Here is a question that could provide some interesting responses!

During medieval times it was advantageous for a widow to remarry as soon as
possible, and a rich one could be snapped up within months of her husband's
death. However, there must have been many instances when bodies were missing
or unidentifiable after a battle and therefore no proof of widowhood.

Was there civil or canon law to permit an 'assumed widow' to remarry if her
husband remained missing for a specified number of years?? Any interesting
examples??

Well, this is the crux of the (sixteenth-century) partly-true story of
the _Return of Martin Guerre_--both the film, with Gerard Depardieu, and
the book on which it was based, by Princeton cultural historian Natalie
Zemon Davis. The film was made in 1982, with Davis collaborating on it;
Davis' book came out in 1983.

That having been said, I cannot remember whether the case (in the book
OR the film) was a civil or ecclesiastical one (or a combination of
both, in different ways). My hunch would be that there was probably a
secular, customary law for judging missing persons to be dead, and that
custom may have been different in different places. I know nothing of
any English cases of this kind. Does anyone?

Nat Taylor

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

[Leo van de Pas]

If born "before 1464" then he was about 10 (or more) when his marriage was
contracted, which makes a bit more sense. Many thanks Peter.
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 4:18 AM
Subject: Re: Alexander Gordon, 3rd Earl of Huntly

On 8 Jul 1482, Alexander witnessed, as the granter's eldest son, a charter
by
George, Earl of Huntlie to Thomas Barde and his wife [NAS, GD185/8/2/5].
Thus, he was born at the very latest in 1468. That he sat in Parliament
in
1485 suggests he was born before 1464 (ie. he was of the age of majority).

Peter

At 03:00 AM 06/12/2004, you wrote:
"Andrew MacEwen, the authority on all things Scottish, indicates that
Alexander Gordon was the child of George Gordon, by his 3rd wife,
Elizabeth Hay. He is presently working on an article which will provide
conclusive evidence regarding Alexander Gordon's parentage. Mr. MacEwen
also reports that George Gordon had only one child by his 2nd marriage to
Annabel of Scotland, namely Isabel (wife of William Hay, 3rd Earl of
Erroll). This information is reported in part in my book, Plantagenet
Ancestry, page 663, courtesy of Mr. MacEwen."

But is he actually going to specifically address the issue that this
Alexander was already contracted in marriage, and sitting in parliament
at
a point where he would certainly have to have been born before his
parent's marriage?
Will

[[email protected]]

Apparently Capt. Thomas Breedon was a relation of the Winthrops--

Robert C. Black, _The Younger John Winthrop_ (Columbia U.P., 1966), p.
399:

"For Breedon, see Andrews [_The Colonial Period of American History_],
I, 461n, 514, and II, 63n. He appears to have been a distant 'kinsman'
of JWJ [John Winthrop, Jr.]; see JWJ to Breeden, July 4, 1664, copy in
ms. Win. Paps., 5.186, Mass. Hist. Soc."

[Hugh Watkins]

"michael kenefick" <[email protected]> wrote

In the US PBS network had a similar story on its program Nova(?). It was
very
interesting.

Sam Sloan wrote:

On 25 Nov 2004 14:17:49 GMT, [email protected] (HAASpittle) wrote:

I'd recommend the December issue of Discover magazine as a good read for
those
interested in how ancient humans populated the earth after migrating out
of
Africa some 50,000+ years ago. The cover story is "Secrets of the Y
Chromosome." Dr. Spencer Wells collected blood samples from thousands
of
central Asians and analyzed them to determine how they are related to
populations elsewhere. Among his findings is evidence that native
Americans
came from the Altai mountain region in western Mongolia. There is some
evidence that about 8% of modern central Asian men are related to
Genghis Kahn
who must have been one of the most prodigious fornicators of all time.
It
seems that humans moved out of Africa and first settled in the meat rich
central Asian plateau for several thousand years before branching west
into
Europe and east into far Siberia and then into North America. The
genetic
North American line met their ancient brothers much later in 1492 when
proper
white folks landed on the east side of North America.

snip

there was an older study in Scientific American by a dentist mapping tooth
variations
which told much the same story

Hugh W

[mdelanow]

RICK!!!!!

It is good to see you are up and around.

How is the Eaton research going? Have you been in contact with Alan G?
Cheers,

Michael D. Warner

[Doug McDonald]

[email protected] wrote:

Dear Mr. Kincaid ~

High born males appear in medieval records as witnesses for their
parents often as young as 14 or 15.

....

Insofar as adulthood is concerned, English monarchs occasionally
granted lands to teenage males, often after a young man had served the
king in war. Certainly women were deemed of age as early as 14. So,
the notion that someone had to be 21 to be accepted as an adult in
society is not exactly a medieval notion. I presume Scotland had
similar customs. As such, I believe that contracting a marriage,
witnessing a document, and attending Parliament are all functions that
someone under 21 might have done in this time period in Scotland.

I don't know about Parliament. But as far as I know, you really
did have to be 21 to formally take seisin to land, in Scotland. If there
are clear cases where this was not the case, I would like to know.
There appears to be no good land evidence for dates in this case,
unfortunately.

Doug McDonald

[Doug McDonald]

Doug McDonald wrote:

I don't know about Parliament. But as far as I know, you really
did have to be 21 to formally take seisin to land, in Scotland. If there
are clear cases where this was not the case, I would like to know.
There appears to be no good land evidence for dates in this case,
unfortunately.

I should add that it is actually not Alexander but rather his sister or
half-sister Elizabeth, who married William Keith, 3rd Earl Marischal,
whom I am purportedly a descendant of. ( I say purportedly because
while this is a standard line, and in RD600, I have severe
doubts about a "wrong wife". If the later generation is in fact
the correct wife, if Elizabeth were a daughter of Annabella, I
would be a descendant of James I, one generation later than
Robert III, which I securely am.

Doug McDonald

[Peter A. Kincaid]

It appears that some people are responding to my post to Gen-Medieval
on other lists. Thus, I am somewhat blind as to what other discussion
might be going on relevant to this subject.

I noted the following in my previous post:

"On 8 Jul 1482, Alexander witnessed, as the granter's eldest son, a charter by
George, Earl of Huntlie to Thomas Barde and his wife [NAS, GD185/8/2/5].
Thus, he was born at the very latest in 1468. That he sat in Parliament in
1485 suggests he was born before 1464 (ie. he was of the age of majority)."

I recognized that males could witness documents as early as
14. Hence my note about being born at the latest in 1468 (ie.
1482-14=1468). My second point I was not completely sure on
so I stated "suggests." It is my understanding that in order to attend
Parliament in Scotland one had to be the holder of land of a certain value.
I am more certain that one had to be 21 to legally take sasine of land
without a curator/procurator/tutor/guardian. In the latter case, any
alienation could have been revoked up to and upon coming of age. This
had a big bearing on the debts of the estate which the heir was ultimately
responsible for.

Regardless, prior to coming of age the land was in wardship. The superior
had the right to the wardship and non entries and could assign these rights.
Often they did to the highest bidder. The register of the Privy Seal is
full of
grants of wardship. In order to maximize profits the purchaser would surely
want to exercise their rights as long as possible.

One has to remember that things in Scotland were in many cases a lot different
than in England (ie. different legal system) so just because something was the
case in England does not mean it was also the case in Scotland.

Peter

At 12:54 PM 07/12/2004, Doug McDonald wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
Dear Mr. Kincaid ~
High born males appear in medieval records as witnesses for their
parents often as young as 14 or 15.

...

Insofar as adulthood is concerned, English monarchs occasionally
granted lands to teenage males, often after a young man had served the
king in war. Certainly women were deemed of age as early as 14. So,
the notion that someone had to be 21 to be accepted as an adult in
society is not exactly a medieval notion. I presume Scotland had
similar customs. As such, I believe that contracting a marriage,
witnessing a document, and attending Parliament are all functions that
someone under 21 might have done in this time period in Scotland.



I don't know about Parliament. But as far as I know, you really
did have to be 21 to formally take seisin to land, in Scotland. If there
are clear cases where this was not the case, I would like to know.
There appears to be no good land evidence for dates in this case,
unfortunately.

Doug McDonald

[Peter A. Kincaid]

As a clarification of my last posts the other estates
of the burgesses and the ecclesiastics obviously
had other criteria for attending Parliament other
than land tenure of a certain value.

Peter

At 12:54 PM 07/12/2004, Doug McDonald wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
Dear Mr. Kincaid ~
High born males appear in medieval records as witnesses for their
parents often as young as 14 or 15.

...

Insofar as adulthood is concerned, English monarchs occasionally
granted lands to teenage males, often after a young man had served the
king in war. Certainly women were deemed of age as early as 14. So,
the notion that someone had to be 21 to be accepted as an adult in
society is not exactly a medieval notion. I presume Scotland had
similar customs. As such, I believe that contracting a marriage,
witnessing a document, and attending Parliament are all functions that
someone under 21 might have done in this time period in Scotland.



I don't know about Parliament. But as far as I know, you really
did have to be 21 to formally take seisin to land, in Scotland. If there
are clear cases where this was not the case, I would like to know.
There appears to be no good land evidence for dates in this case,
unfortunately.

Doug McDonald

[Gjest]

Dear David,
I came across a pedigree of the ancestors of Isabel
Plumpton b 1422, wife of Stephen Hamerton.
It runs thus:
1 Eldredus de Plumpton b 1107- deceased
2 Peter de Plumpton b abt 1133 married abt 1165 Helena
NN; deceased
3 Nigel I de Plumpton b abt 1168- d 1205 married ca
1186 Juliana de Warwick
4 Robert I de Plumpton b abt 1187-d 1244 m ? Mowbray
5 Nigel II de Plumpton b abt 1216- dc 1271 m abt 1239
Avicia de Clare
6 Robert II de Plumpton b 1241- d 1298 m Isabella de
Westwick
7 Robert III de Plumpton b ca 1268- d 1325 m Lucy de
Roos
8 William I de Plumpton b 1294- d 1362 m Christiana
Mowbray b 1305-d 1362
9 Robert IV de Plumpton b abt 1340- d 1407 m Isabella
Scrope b ca 1349
10 William II de Plumpton b 1362- d 1405 m Alice Gisburn
b 1364- d 1424
11 Robert V de Plumpton b 1383- d 1421 m Alice Foljambe b
1368- d 1416
12 William III de Plumpton b 1404-d 1480 m Elizabeth
Stapleton b ca 1406-d 1451
13 Isabel Plumpton b 1422 m Stephen Hamerton
11 Jane Plumpton b 1387 ( sister of Robert V de Plumpton
) m William Mallory b ca 1375- d 1445

Sources LDS pedigree,
http://www.geocities.com/missourimule_2 ... mpton.html . AR 7 line 170 for generations 6 & 7
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Gjest]

On 29 May 2002 I wrote:

The Brienne genealogy was established by Joseph Roserot de Melin in
_La diocèse de Troyes des origines à nos jours (IIIe siècle-1955)_
(Troyes, 1957). Without looking, I imagine this was a major source
for tables 681-5 in _Europäische Stammtafeln_, neue Folge, III/4
(Marburg, 1989).

I am reviving this old thread (and another separately) in order to
correct the reference given: Joseph Roserot de Melin didn't establish
the Brienne genealogy. I had evidently misinterpreted abbreviations in
my own notes, which in this instance derived from Alphonse Roserot's
_Dictionnaire historique de la Champagne méridionale_, 3 vols (Troyes,
1942-1948, reprinted Marseilles, 1984).

Apologies to anyone who was inconvenienced by this error on my part.
Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

On 15 January 2004 I wrote:

My notes agree with Miroslav - Érard I, count of Brienne married
Alix, called de Rosnay, dame of Ramerupt, daughter of André de
Montdidier, count of Arcies, seigneur of Ramerupt & an unknown
wife. Their elder son Gauthier II, count of Brienne & seigneur
of Ramerupt married first Humbeline de Baudement, daughter of
André, seigneur of Baudement & his wife Agnès of unknown family.
The main source for this was Joseph Roserot de Melin, _La diocèse
de Troyes des origines à nos jours (IIIe siècle-1955)_ (Troyes,
1957).

Once again, the source of this information was not Joseph Roserot de
Melin's work but rather Alphonse Roserot's _Dictionnaire historique de
la Champagne méridionale_, 3 vols (Troyes, 1942-1948, reprinted
Marseilles, 1984).

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

Hmmmh......Leo van de Pas' website cites an Andre, seigneur de
Baudemont, d. 19 Jul 1142 (citing ES XIV:51), who m. Agnes, dame de
Braine. According to the site, this Andre and Agnes had a daughter,
Helvide and a son, Gui. Could these also be the parents of Humbeline,
wife of Gauthier II de Brienne?

On the same website (citing inter alia, Turton at 206 and ES III:681),
Gauthier II's wife is listed as "NN de Soissons." Interestingly, one
of the four children of Gauthier and NN is named Elwide.....a name
which doesn't appear to be in the immediate ancestry of Gauthier's....
Thanks,

Roger

[Gjest]

Friday, 10 December, 2004


Hello All,

Following is the documentation promised re: Richard Symmes of
Barnsley, co. Yorks. (d. bef 8 Oct 1492) and his immediate
descendants.

A detailed pedigree will be provided in the near future: due
to some newly discovered material, there will be an additional
post or thread dealing with the ancestry of Alice (Symmes) Lacy
and her siblings prior to finalizing the promised pedigree.

In the text provided below, note Mr. Brown’s question on
p. 20, note (2) as to the identity of ‘the lady Margaret Symmes’,
the executrix of the will of Richard Symmes the elder (given
on p. 21). Given that Richard Symmes did not mention his wife in
his will, it is reasonable to presume she had predeceased him, so
that 'lady Margaret' was not his spouse. Since his deceased son
William had been married to the well-born Margaret Bosvile, I
think it most likely this was in fact his daughter-in-law, ‘lady
Margaret (Bosvile) Symmes’.

Cheers,

John

______________________________________

the following extracts are from William Brown, F.S.A., ed.
Yorkshire Deeds, Vol. II (The Yorkshire Archaelogical Society
Record Series, Vol. L for the Year 1913) [printed for the
Society, 1914]


Yorkshire Deeds II:20


Barkisland {1}

56. Sept. 15, 16 Henry VIII (1524). Bargain and sale by Thomas
Trigott {2}, esq., and ‘Jan’ his wife, cousin and one of the
heirs of William Symez, deceased, to John Sayvell of the Newe

_______________________________

<Notes to p. 20>

{1} Near Halifax. See vol. i, p. 10.

{2} Of South Kirkby. There is a pedigree of the family in
Hunter’s South Yorkshire (ii, 447). Thomas Trigott married
Joan, daughter and heiress of Robert son of John son of Elias
de Burton, her mother being Joan, one of the daughters of
William Symmes the elder of Barnsley, by Margaret, daughter
and coheiress of Thomas Bosvile of Edderthorpe, and a niece of
Richard Symmes, vicar of Halifax. William Symmes, mentioned
in this deed, was son of William Symmes the elder, and uncle
to Joan Trigott, who was one of his coheiresses. As the
pedigree of the Symmes family does not appear to have been
previously made out, it may be usefully recorded here.
Richard Symmes, senior, of Barnsley, had two sons, Richard
junior, vicar of Halifax, and William senior, of Barnsley,
the first being one of his executors. The relationship of
the lady Margaret Symmes, probably a nun, another of his
executors, is not known. On the death of Richard senior,
his son Richard, the vicar of Halifax, succeeded to the family
estates. On Feb. 1, 1492-3, Richar Symson alias Symmes, vicar
of the church of Halifax, paid 6s. 8d. heriot to the lord of
the manor of Wakefield for two messuages, buildings, half a
bovate of land, and 15 acres of roideland in Hipperholme after
the death of Richard Symson, also called Richard Symmes, his
father. The vicar, who died in 1496, took several pieces of
waster land from the lord of the manor of Hipperholme. His
brother, William senior, predeceased him in 1483, having
married Margaret, daughter of Thomas Bosvile of Edderthorpe,
by whom he had a son William junior and three daughters, Alice
the wife of Gerrard Lacy, Isabel the wife of John Sayntpaule,
and Joan the wife of Robert de Burton.

==================================

Yorkshire Deeds II:21


Hall {1}, gent., of all their messuages, lands, etc., in the town
and fields of Barkysland, then in the tenure of Gilbert Helywell,
which, by the decease of the said William, were to them limited
and assigned. Thom(a)s Trygot. (J. T. Horton, esq.)

57. Same date. Bond in 40li. from Thomas Trigott, late of
Kynesley {2}, esq., to John Sayvell of Newhall, gent., to observe
the covenants contained in the last deed. Thom(a)s Trigott. (J.
T. Horton, esq.)

58. Sept. 20, 16 Henry VIII. Grant by Thomas and Joan Trigott to
John Sayvell of the above. Power to John Thornehill, esq., and
Thomas Boith to deliver seisin. Thom(a)s Trigot. Seisin
delivered in the presence of John Gleydehill, Geoffrey Romsden
junior, Thomas Woodhed, James Gleydhill, Gilbert Helywell. (J. T.
Horton, esq.) {3}

59. Mar. 7, 1491-2. Richard Symmes of Barnesley. Inprimis
I bequeath my soul to Almighty God, the most Blessed Virgin
Mary, his mother, and all his Saints, and my body to be buried
in the parish church of Barnesley, in the choir there, on the
north side, founded in honour of St. John the Baptist. Also I
will that the church have all her rights and liberties falling
to her by my death, and I bequeath in the name of my mortuary
my best beast, etc. To the house of St. Robert of Knaresburgh,
12d. To Sir Simon Spynke, chaplain, 20d. To Sir John
Billcliffe, chaplain, 20d. To Sir John Corbrig, chaplain, 20d.
To Sir Richard Hall, chaplain, 12d. To Sir John Holmebrigre,
chaplain, 12d. To Richard Barnby, 20s. Residue to William
Symmes, son of William Symmes. Master Richard Symmes, vicar
of the church of Halifax, Gerard Lacy, and Richard Barnby,
executors, and lady Margaret Symmes executrix. John Savile,
knt., supervisor. Witnesses, Brian Bradford, Simon Spynke,
John Billcliff, chaplains, and others. Proved Oct. 6, 1492,
by the exors.’ (Reg. Test., v, 415.)

___________________________________

<Notes to p. 21>

[con’t from p. 20, note {2}:]
William Symmes junior thus became heir to his uncle Richard, and
on Oct. 7, 1497, paid 8s. 2d. heriot for the two messuages,
buildings, half bovate of land, and 15 acres of roideland and 4
1/2 acres lately taken from the waste (by the vicar) in
Hipperholme, after the death of Richard Symmes, vicar of Halifax,
described as “patruiâ€

[Gjest]

It's my understanding that it was Robert Marmion II that took part in
the Invasion of Ireland 1172 with Strongbow (Richard De Clare) and this
started the Marmion Clan in Ireland- I believe he was in Dublin. Is
there anything written anywhere, any documentation, that indicates who
he had these children with, how long he was there?
Any assistance would be appreciated.
Brigitte Marmion

[Gjest]

Dear Marilyn,
According to AR 7 line 118, Geoffrey was the son of Fulk
V, Count of Anjou`s first marriage to Erembourg ( also known as Eremburge de
la Fleche), daughter of Helias de la Fleche, Count of Maine. They married in
1110 and She died in 1126. In 1129 Fulk V married Melisinde, elder daughter and
co- heiress of Baldwin II de Rethel, King of Jerusalem, in whose right Fulk
became King of Jerusalem and by whom He had two sons Baldwin III d dsp 1162 and
Amaury I d 1174 were Kings of Jerusalem in sucession. So King Richard I of
England`s involvement in the 3rd Crusade was very much a family related affair.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine
USA

[Paul K Davis]

Plus, Richard's mother, Eleanor, went on crusade with her first husband,
Louis of France.

-- PKD [Paul K Davis, [email protected]]

[Original Message]
From: <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Date: 12/12/2004 6:21:37 AM
Subject: Re: Geoffrey Plantagenet- Mother

Dear Marilyn,
According to AR 7 line 118, Geoffrey was the son of
Fulk
V, Count of Anjou`s first marriage to Erembourg ( also known as Eremburge
de
la Fleche), daughter of Helias de la Fleche, Count of Maine. They married
in
1110 and She died in 1126. In 1129 Fulk V married Melisinde, elder
daughter and
co- heiress of Baldwin II de Rethel, King of Jerusalem, in whose right
Fulk
became King of Jerusalem and by whom He had two sons Baldwin III d dsp
1162 and
Amaury I d 1174 were Kings of Jerusalem in sucession. So King Richard I
of
England`s involvement in the 3rd Crusade was very much a family related
affair.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine
USA