Blount-Ayala

[Mark B]

In my opinion it’s silly to point out grammatical
errors in posts to a genealogy list. But because we've
already belabored this point of grammatical minutia
I’ll note that the traditional rule regarding “fewer”
vs. “less” (which, as several people have noted, is
often ignored in common usage) has nothing to do with
whether the noun is singular or plural. “Fewer” is
used for items that can be counted using whole
numbers. “There are fewer on-topic posts here than
there used to be.”

“Less” is used when the noun in question is not
counted using whole numbers. “I hope this grammatical
sniping ends in less than two hours.”

Sorry for the off-topic garbage,
Mark Briscoe





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides!
http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide

[D. Spencer Hines]

Bingo!

Nothing to do with "singular" and "plural"....

Less flour, less sugar....

BUT -- fewer grains of sugar.

What the HELL have the English teachers been doing in our schools over
the past 40-50 years?

It's a ruddy National Scandal.

DSH

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

| CE Wood wrote:
|
| > Ah yes - correct spelling - those darn keyboards.
| > But grammar is important too and cannot be blamed on keyboards:
| >
| > "less" is used only with a singular, "fewer" is used with plurals:
| >
| > i.e. not "less" mistakes, but "fewer" mistakes.
|
| You use fewer for anything you can count individually: e.g. fewer
| people; fewer dandelions; fewer relatives.
|
| You use less for anything that cannot be counted: less juice; less
| fog, less mess.
|
| Renia

[Doug Thompson]

Spencer

Surely you can see that the two definitions are in fact equivalent.

Try to give an example of the correct use of "less" with a plural - or
"fewer" with a singular!

Doug



in article [email protected], D. Spencer Hines at
[email protected] wrote on 17/4/05 10:55 pm:

Nothing to do with "singular" and "plural"....

Less flour, less sugar....

BUT -- fewer grains of sugar.

[Doug McDonald]

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

What the HELL have the English teachers been doing in our schools over
the past 40-50 years?

Trying to turn back the tide, of course. I used to
think as you do that there are standards of grammar
and word usage. I no longer do. Vox populi, vox dei.
I still think there needs to be a standard of spelling, whoever ...
oops, the spell checker obviously is rather bad at meaning, it really is
"however". We still need people.

Doug McDonald

[Doug McDonald]

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

You've just Sold Out, Doug.

Well, sort of. The vernacular language is a very different thing
from an academic subject, at least in America. In France, the
reputation is different, the reality (as far as I know) somewhere
between the US and what the French Academy wants.

Drop the standards in language and you soon see people dropping the
standards in History, Economics, Chemistry, Biology and so forth -- and
that's precisely what we have seen.

Well, yes. We do try to keep standards in Chemistry. We are, however,
forced to change. Just for what I sometimes teach, I have decided that
we should reduce the amount of mathematical quantum mechanics
we teach ... i.e. differential equation based ... in favor
of more applied useage, especially large-scale computation
of molecular structure ... a much "easier" subject, but one
vastly more important in actual fact. Really, it IS more important,
since all the analytically solvable simple models are long since
solved, and their applicability to spectroscopy ... which remains ...
is perfectly easily taught with only the answers. Some of the
old must be relegated to references to old books in order to
actually teach the new. Tempus fugit. If the new stuff is in
fact easier to learn, so be it. (Not to say that the specialists
in improving the computations don't find hard things to
do ... but for that, we have a VERY specialized course.)

Doug McDonald

[Gjest]

In a message dated 4/17/05 1:00:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

<< We can be certain that Aline de Gay was also the mother of Alan Basset's
eldest son, Thomas Basset, who died without issue in his father's lifetime in
1230. The heir to Thomas' lands at his death in 1230 was his younger
brother, Gilbert Basset. If Gilbert had been Thomas Basset's half-sibling, he could
not have inherited Thomas' lands. >>

Was there not at this time (1230) also living the next brother Philip ?
Was it normal for lands to descent only to one brother and not be divided
among all the brothers (heirs) ?
Thanks
Will Johnson

[Gjest]

In a message dated 4/17/05 1:00:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

<< Paget's Baronage gives no birthdate for either Thomas Basset or Gilbert
Basset. But he does indicate that Thomas had land grants in 1222 and
1224, and that Gilbert was granted property in 1217 and 1229. Taken at
face value, this suggests that both Thomas and Gilbert Basset were born
before 1200, >>

Just based on this, I would suspect that the Gilbert in 1217 is a different
person (uncle?). Otherwise I'm not sure why Gilbert would get land in 1217 as
a younger brother, with the elder not getting anything until 1222. Provided
all the sources still exist. While it's perfectly acceptable that Thomas got
land twice before Gilbert got any.
Will Johnson

[D. Spencer Hines]

You've just Sold Out, Doug.

Quite Sad.

Actually, I understand many teachers and professors of English have
NEVER had an English Grammar Course THEMSELVES.

A teacher of English told me that a few years ago. It seems there was a
movement to do away with such courses in the 60's, accelerating in the
70's.

Drop the standards in language and you soon see people dropping the
standards in History, Economics, Chemistry, Biology and so forth -- and
that's precisely what we have seen.

It must be VERY difficult for a person with High Standards to work at
many, not all, of our universities today.

"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.

DSH

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

| D. Spencer Hines wrote:
| >
| > What the HELL have the English teachers been doing in our schools
| > over the past 40-50 years?
|
| Trying to turn back the tide, of course. I used to
| think as you do that there are standards of grammar
| and word usage. I no longer do. Vox populi, vox dei.
| I still think there needs to be a standard of spelling, whoever ...
| oops, the spell checker obviously is rather bad at meaning, it really
| is "however". We still need people.
|
| Doug McDonald

[Gjest]

Sir Robert Wingfield descends from Aline de Gay through Robert's mother
Margaret of Hastings in this way

Robert Wingfield son of
Margaret of Hastings dau of
Anne le Despencer dau of
Edward le Despencer (mar Elizabeth Burghersh) son of
Edward le Despencer son of
Hugh le Despencer son of
Hugh le Despencer son of
Aline Basset dau of
Philip Basset son of
Aline de Gay

Now Edward le Despencer who married Elizabeth Burghersh is said at
http://www.genealogics.org to have died 11 Nov 1375 and his wife is said born abt 1341. That
gives a range for the birth of Anne le Despencer, their daughter of 1355/76

This Anne le Despencer married Sir Hugh of Hastings who died 9 Nov 1386 in
Spain. Allowing Anne to be at least 13 for her first birth gives a range for
their daughter Margaret of Hastings of 1368/87 for her own birth.

This Margaret of Hastings as mother of Sir Robert Wingfield and himself as
father of Sir Robert Wingfield born 1403 gives a very narrow range for possible
birthdates for Sir Robert. I now have 1382/8 because of this.

Will Johnson

[D. Spencer Hines]

Thank you.

That's honest.

It's good to see you are still writing _different FROM_.

Do you teach more Biochemistry today?

DSH

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

| D. Spencer Hines wrote:

| > You've just Sold Out, Doug.
|
| Well, sort of. The vernacular language is a very different thing
| from an academic subject, at least in America. In France, the
| reputation is different, the reality (as far as I know) somewhere
| between the US and what the French Academy wants.
|
|
| > Drop the standards in language and you soon see people dropping the
| > standards in History, Economics, Chemistry, Biology and so forth --
| > and that's precisely what we have seen.
|
| Well, yes. We do try to keep standards in Chemistry. We are, however,
| forced to change. Just for what I sometimes teach, I have decided that
| we should reduce the amount of mathematical quantum mechanics
| we teach ... i.e. differential equation based ... in favor
| of more applied useage, especially large-scale computation
| of molecular structure ... a much "easier" subject, but one
| vastly more important in actual fact. Really, it IS more important,
| since all the analytically solvable simple models are long since
| solved, and their applicability to spectroscopy ... which remains ...
| is perfectly easily taught with only the answers. Some of the
| old must be relegated to references to old books in order to
| actually teach the new. Tempus fugit. If the new stuff is in
| fact easier to learn, so be it. (Not to say that the specialists
| in improving the computations don't find hard things to
| do ... but for that, we have a VERY specialized course.)
|
| Doug McDonald

[Gjest]

In a message dated 4/17/05 3:58:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected]
writes:

<< Now Edward le Despencer who married Elizabeth Burghersh is said at
http://www.genealogics.org to have died 11 Nov 1375 and his wife is said born abt
1341. That
gives a range for the birth of Anne le Despencer, their daughter of 1355/76

This Anne le Despencer married Sir Hugh of Hastings who died 9 Nov 1386 in
Spain. Allowing Anne to be at least 13 for her first birth gives a range
for
their daughter Margaret of Hastings of 1368/87 for her own birth. >>

Leo's site also tells me that one of Anne's children was christened in 1382
so her range of birthdates should be restated now as 1355/68

Will Johnson

[fairthorne]

From: "Doug Thompson" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: Intelligent Spelling, Grammar, Syntax, Logic,Conceptualization
& Genealogy

Try to give an example of the correct use of "less" with a plural - or
"fewer" with a singular!

from Eric Partridge - Usage and Abusage, A Guide to Good English

less frequently occurs in place of fewer with collectives, as "to wear
less clothes" (Webster's)

cheers

Simon

[Mark B]

--- Doug Thompson <[email protected]> wrote:

Spencer

Surely you can see that the two definitions are in
fact equivalent.

Try to give an example of the correct use of "less"
with a plural - or
"fewer" with a singular!

Doug

-I'm less than 6 feet tall.
-The professional genealogist charged me less than
fifty dollars.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Gjest]

Through the A2A reader I've built up a new Wingfield family, but for the life
of me I cannot find any reference in Leo's database to any of these people.
I do find *similar* people but they are either too old or too young to be
this family.

Here is what I've built and I'd appreciate any helpful hints.

Sir Charles Blois was created a baronet in 1686.
He was the younger brother of William Blois, and they were the sons of Sir
William Blois (also Bloyse), Knight and his wife Martha, the daughter of Sir
Robert Brooke.

This Sir William Bloyse was the son of William Blois and his wife Cecily
Wingfield, daughter of Thomas Wingfield of Leatheringham.

Ancestral File seems to incorrectly give Cecily as wife to the son.

In addition to these things, in an account of the manor of Sigers (? not sure
if I read that right) it states that this Cecily was the great-granddaughter
of a Sir Anthony Wingfield, KG who sold the manor away originally and it
remarks that she by her marriage had gotten it back into her family.

So ... anybody have this bunch?
Thanks
Will Johnson

[Todd A. Farmerie]

[email protected] wrote:

Sir Robert Wingfield descends from Aline de Gay through Robert's mother
Margaret of Hastings in this way

Robert Wingfield son of
Margaret of Hastings dau of
Anne le Despencer dau of
Edward le Despencer (mar Elizabeth Burghersh) son of

Now Edward le Despencer who married Elizabeth Burghersh is said at
http://www.genealogics.org to have died 11 Nov 1375 and his wife is said born abt 1341. That
gives a range for the birth of Anne le Despencer, their daughter of 1355/76

This Anne le Despencer married Sir Hugh of Hastings who died 9 Nov 1386 in
Spain. Allowing Anne to be at least 13 for her first birth gives a range for
their daughter Margaret of Hastings of 1368/87 for her own birth.

This Margaret of Hastings as mother of Sir Robert Wingfield and himself as
father of Sir Robert Wingfield born 1403 gives a very narrow range for possible
birthdates for Sir Robert. I now have 1382/8 because of this.

This line is erroneous. Margaret Hastings was not daughter of Anne le
Despenser, but sister-in-law, belonging to a generation earlier. This
error, unfortunately, appeared in the first edition of Faris's
_Plantagenet Ancestry_. This was discussed here in 1996 (search Google
Groups for "hugh hastings anne faris wingfield" and you will find it
discussed several times.

taf

[Leo van de Pas]

Dear Wil,

I feed in information often mainly to add to people I already have. I will
see what I can find, are you interested mainly in ancestors? Or descendants
as well?
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: Sir Charles Blois, created a baronet in 1686 and his ancestors

Through the A2A reader I've built up a new Wingfield family, but for the
life
of me I cannot find any reference in Leo's database to any of these
people.
I do find *similar* people but they are either too old or too young to
be
this family.

Here is what I've built and I'd appreciate any helpful hints.

Sir Charles Blois was created a baronet in 1686.
He was the younger brother of William Blois, and they were the sons of Sir
William Blois (also Bloyse), Knight and his wife Martha, the daughter of
Sir
Robert Brooke.

This Sir William Bloyse was the son of William Blois and his wife Cecily
Wingfield, daughter of Thomas Wingfield of Leatheringham.

Ancestral File seems to incorrectly give Cecily as wife to the son.

In addition to these things, in an account of the manor of Sigers (? not
sure
if I read that right) it states that this Cecily was the
great-granddaughter
of a Sir Anthony Wingfield, KG who sold the manor away originally and it
remarks that she by her marriage had gotten it back into her family.

So ... anybody have this bunch?
Thanks
Will Johnson

[Douglas Richardson royala]

Dear Will ~

You appear to have stumbled onto another one of Leo van de Pas'
bloopers in his database regarding the descendants of Aline de Gay,
wife of Alan Basset. Margaret Hastings, wife of Sir John Wingfield,
was actually the daughter of Hugh Hastings, Knt. (died 1369), by his
wife, Margaret Everingham. This set of parentage would cause Margaret
Hastings to lose her Gay-Basset ancestry.

Margaret's correct parentage is indicated by a pedigree of Wingfield
family found in the 1613 Visitation of Huntingdonshire as follows:

"Sir John Wingfeild of Letheringham, k. maried Margrett, daughter of
Sir Hugh Hastings, of Elsing in Norff. k. by his Margret, d. of Sr Adam
Everingham, k. and lyeth buried at Letheringham, as appeareth by his
monument" [Reference: Charles, Vis. of Huntingdon 1613 (Camden Soc.
43) (1849): 125-128 (Wingfield pedigree].

Margaret (Hastings) Wingfield had two sons by her Wingfield marriage,
namely John and Robert, Knt. Following her husband's death, Margaret
Hastings married (2nd) John Russell, Knt. (died 1405), of Strensham,
Worcestershire, Knight of the Shire for Worcestershire, Master of the
King's Horse, Member of the King's Council. She had two hitherto
unidentified children by her Russell marriage, namely a son, John, and
a daughter, Margaret (wife of Ralph Rochford, Knt., of Fenn (in
Boston), Lincolnshire). Evidence proving the all new Russell children
can be found in the will of Margaret Hastings's sister, Lady Elizabeth
Elmham (nee Hastings), proved in 1420. I believe there are living
descendants of Margaret (Russell) Rochford, but I haven't yet traced
them.

For further details of Margaret Hastings, her two marriages, and her
Wingfield and Russell children, please see my forthcoming book, Magna
Carta Ancestry, scheduled for publication in June 2005. Should anyone
be interested in ordering a copy of the book, they may contact me
privately either by e-mail or through my website.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


[email protected] wrote:

In a message dated 4/17/05 3:58:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected]
writes:

Now Edward le Despencer who married Elizabeth Burghersh is said at

http://www.genealogics.org to have died 11 Nov 1375 and his wife is said
born abt
1341. That
gives a range for the birth of Anne le Despencer, their daughter of
1355/76

This Anne le Despencer married Sir Hugh of Hastings who died 9 Nov
1386 in
Spain. Allowing Anne to be at least 13 for her first birth gives a
range
for
their daughter Margaret of Hastings of 1368/87 for her own birth.

Leo's site also tells me that one of Anne's children was christened
in 1382
so her range of birthdates should be restated now as 1355/68

Will Johnson

[Leo van de Pas]

Dear Will and All,

Apologies to all, I had hoped Richardson had some decency and brains and let
the matters rest, but it seems Richardson just can't help himself. That he
is morally bankrupt should be obvious by now. I did not make a blooper, I
recorded accurately what David Faris shows in Plantagenet Ancestry,
Seventeenth Century Colonists,First edition Page 162.

Burke's Peerage 1938 Page 2009 only gives Margaret as father Sir Hugh
Hastings.
Burke's Peerage 1999 Page 2999 only gives Margaret as father Sir Hugh
Hastings.

If anyone made a blooper it was David Faris.

I would like to make clear that I have not set out to record descendants of
Aline de Gay, if her descendants appear, great as far as I am concerned.
Richardson talks about being polite and collegial, let him start. On my
website it is clearly marked where the information came from. If he wants to
be insulting, he is insulting the memory of David Faris, the man on whose
back he is now making money. Richardson how can you live with yourself?

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: Sir Robert Wingfield 1382/8 was Gay Ancestry: Aline de Gay,
wife of Basset

Dear Will ~

You appear to have stumbled onto another one of Leo van de Pas'
bloopers in his database regarding the descendants of Aline de Gay,
wife of Alan Basset. Margaret Hastings, wife of Sir John Wingfield,
was actually the daughter of Hugh Hastings, Knt. (died 1369), by his
wife, Margaret Everingham. This set of parentage would cause Margaret
Hastings to lose her Gay-Basset ancestry.

Margaret's correct parentage is indicated by a pedigree of Wingfield
family found in the 1613 Visitation of Huntingdonshire as follows:

"Sir John Wingfeild of Letheringham, k. maried Margrett, daughter of
Sir Hugh Hastings, of Elsing in Norff. k. by his Margret, d. of Sr Adam
Everingham, k. and lyeth buried at Letheringham, as appeareth by his
monument" [Reference: Charles, Vis. of Huntingdon 1613 (Camden Soc.
43) (1849): 125-128 (Wingfield pedigree].

Margaret (Hastings) Wingfield had two sons by her Wingfield marriage,
namely John and Robert, Knt. Following her husband's death, Margaret
Hastings married (2nd) John Russell, Knt. (died 1405), of Strensham,
Worcestershire, Knight of the Shire for Worcestershire, Master of the
King's Horse, Member of the King's Council. She had two hitherto
unidentified children by her Russell marriage, namely a son, John, and
a daughter, Margaret (wife of Ralph Rochford, Knt., of Fenn (in
Boston), Lincolnshire). Evidence proving the all new Russell children
can be found in the will of Margaret Hastings's sister, Lady Elizabeth
Elmham (nee Hastings), proved in 1420. I believe there are living
descendants of Margaret (Russell) Rochford, but I haven't yet traced
them.

For further details of Margaret Hastings, her two marriages, and her
Wingfield and Russell children, please see my forthcoming book, Magna
Carta Ancestry, scheduled for publication in June 2005. Should anyone
be interested in ordering a copy of the book, they may contact me
privately either by e-mail or through my website.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


[email protected] wrote:
In a message dated 4/17/05 3:58:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected]
writes:

Now Edward le Despencer who married Elizabeth Burghersh is said at

http://www.genealogics.org to have died 11 Nov 1375 and his wife is said
born abt
1341. That
gives a range for the birth of Anne le Despencer, their daughter of
1355/76

This Anne le Despencer married Sir Hugh of Hastings who died 9 Nov
1386 in
Spain. Allowing Anne to be at least 13 for her first birth gives a
range
for
their daughter Margaret of Hastings of 1368/87 for her own birth.

Leo's site also tells me that one of Anne's children was christened
in 1382
so her range of birthdates should be restated now as 1355/68

Will Johnson

[Douglas Richardson royala]

Dear Leo ~

I told you last week that I planned to review all of the online
genealogical databases. I really did mean what I said. I've been
planning this review for quite some time. You started out the process
by calling me and all the newsgroup members names such as "fool,"
"bloody fool," and "toadies." That wasn't very bright, Leo. You need
to apologize to all of us and promise to stop name calling here on the
newsgroup. I can't speak for anyone else but I know you hurt my
feelings.

As I stated earlier, I'm examining all of the genealogical databases
for content and accuracy. So far, we've found significant problems
with your database in both of these categories, and we've just
scratched the surface. If this process is painful for you, I encourage
to spend more time correcting your bloopers and less time collecting
pictures of busty Raquel Welch. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to
tell that you place way too much emphasis on shaky secondary sources
such as Burke. In sharp contrast, you pay little or no attention to
primary sources. This is no one's fault except your own.

In sharp contrast, I just checked Jim Weber's genealogical database at
http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb. ... &id=I11747.

As I expected, he shows the correct parentage for Margaret Hastings,
wife of John Wingfield and John Russell. Once again, Jim Weber's site
has the correct information and you don't. Who's fault is this, Leo?
Heavens, Leo, take some responsibility and stop whining and moaning.
If Jim Weber can get it straight, so can you.

I also checked Hal Bradley's great database just now. Just like Jim
Weber, he also has Margaret Hastings' correct parentage listed. Hats
off to both Jim and Hal. For those interested in Hal Bradley's site,
one version of Hal's database can be found at the following web
adddress:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... .htm#23040

If all else fails, Leo, you can also find Margaret Hastings' correct
parentage in your personal signed copy of my Plantagenet Ancestry book,
pages 288 and 768. Instead of drooling over pictures of Raquel Welch
this week, I invite you to spend some time reading my book. You might
learn something, Leo, and that would be a very good thing. I cite all
of my sources. Enjoy!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

[Doug Thompson]

Mark

We were discussing the adjectives "less" and "fewer" not the phrases you
gave.

Doug

in article [email protected], Mark B at
[email protected] wrote on 18/4/05 1:32 am:

--- Doug Thompson <[email protected]> wrote:
Spencer

Surely you can see that the two definitions are in
fact equivalent.

Try to give an example of the correct use of "less"
with a plural - or
"fewer" with a singular!

Doug


-I'm less than 6 feet tall.
-The professional genealogist charged me less than
fifty dollars.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Doug Thompson]

in article 003401c543ab$85a3cba0$0600000a@oemcomputer, "fairthorne" at
[email protected] wrote on 18/4/05 1:09 am:

From: "Doug Thompson" <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: Intelligent Spelling, Grammar, Syntax, Logic,Conceptualization
& Genealogy



Try to give an example of the correct use of "less" with a plural - or
"fewer" with a singular!


from Eric Partridge - Usage and Abusage, A Guide to Good English

less frequently occurs in place of fewer with collectives, as "to wear
less clothes" (Webster's)

cheers

Simon

Simon

The title gives it away. This is "Abusage" - not correct usage! Partridge is
pointing out a frequent occurrence. We are discussing the traditionally
correct use of the words.

Doug

[Robert Forrest]

From the Basset Charters, v. 50 (Pipe Roll Society), 1995 (my notes, not the original text)--

Alan Basset of Wycombe and Aline de Gai his wife, charter 1205. He m. (1) Alice ___; m. (2) Aline Jun 1205 - 15 Apr 1206. Aline
living 10 Jun 1229, d. bef. 22 Apr 1230. Alice may be same as Aline.
Thomas Basset, with consent of first son Gilbert, gave to son Alan of Wycombe the vill of Compton Bassett 1180-1182. Alan d. 1232.

[Douglas Richardson royala]

[email protected] wrote:

In a message dated 4/18/05 10:46:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

She is his only known wife. They were married in
or before 1200, and probably before 1195.

And doesn't the "Resealing of confirmation" which you (Douglas)
posted with
date 3 Jul 1190 and in which she is named "Aline and Cecily de
Gay..." indicate
that she was not a Basset at this time, so that her marriage would be

1190/1200 ?
Thanks
Will

Dear Will ~

Good point. If the two Gay heiresses were in the king's gift and the
girls were old enough to have their father's estates divided in 1190,
it seems a good bet that the king already had husbands in mind for both
Cecily and Aline at the time of the estate division in 1190. If so,
Cecily and Aline were probably married in or after 1190 to their
respective husbands.

Besides this document dated 1190, we know from other records that Alan
Basset and Aline de Gay's eldest known daughter, Aline Basset, was
married to her first husband, Drew de Montagu, in or before 1213. We
can be certain of this because Drew and Aline's son and heir, William
de Montagu, had livery of his father's lands in 1234 [see Complete
Peerage, 9 (1936): 76-77 (sub Montagu)]. This means William de Montagu
was born in or before 1213.

Judging from the chronology, it seem probable that Aline (Basset) de
Montagu was sometime born before 1200. If so, this would narrow the
time frame of her parents' marriage a little bit. My impression is
that Alan Basset and Aline de Gay were married in or before 1195.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salr Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

[Douglas Richardson royala]

Dear Leo ~

Please stop blaming everyone else for your current troubles. Your
problem isn't David Faris, or Douglas Richardson. Your problem is Leo
van de Pas.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


"Leo van de Pas" wrote:

Apologies to all, I had hoped Richardson had some decency and brains
and let
the matters rest, but it seems Richardson just can't help himself.
That he
is morally bankrupt should be obvious by now. I did not make a
blooper, I
recorded accurately what David Faris shows in Plantagenet Ancestry,
Seventeenth Century Colonists, First Edition Page 162.

If anyone made a blooper it was David Faris. Richardson talks about
polite
and collegial, let him start. On my website is clearly marked where
the
information came from. If he wants to be insulting, he is insulting
the
memory of David Faris, the man on whose back he is now making money.
Richardson how can you live with yourself?

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 12:11 AM
Subject: Re: Sir Robert Wingfield 1382/8 was Gay Ancestry: Aline de
Gay,
wife of Basset


Dear Leo ~

I told you last week that I planned to review all of the online
genealogical databases. I really did mean what I said. I've been
planning this review for quite some time. You started out the
process
by calling me and all the newsgroup members names such as "fool,"
"bloody fool," and "toadies." That wasn't very bright, Leo. You
need
to apologize to all of us and promise to stop name calling here on
the
newsgroup. I can't speak for anyone else but I know you hurt my
feelings.

As I stated earlier, I'm examining all of the genealogical
databases
for content and accuracy. So far, we've found significant problems
with your database in both of these categories, and we've just
scratched the surface. If this process is painful for you, I
encourage
to spend more time correcting your bloopers and less time
collecting
pictures of busty Raquel Welch. It doesn't take a rocket scientist
to
tell that you place way too much emphasis on shaky secondary
sources
such as Burke. In sharp contrast, you pay little or no attention
to
primary sources. This is no one's fault except your own.

In sharp contrast, I just checked Jim Weber's genealogical database
at


http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb. ... &id=I11747.

As I expected, he shows the correct parentage for Margaret
Hastings,
wife of John Wingfield and John Russell. Once again, Jim Weber's
site
has the correct information and you don't. Who's fault is this,
Leo?
Heavens, Leo, take some responsibility and stop whining and
moaning.
If Jim Weber can get it straight, so can you.

I also checked Hal Bradley's great database just now. Just like
Jim
Weber, he also has Margaret Hastings' correct parentage listed.
Hats
off to both Jim and Hal. For those interested in Hal Bradley's
site,
one version of Hal's database can be found at the following web
adddress:


http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... .htm#23040

If all else fails, Leo, you can also find Margaret Hastings'
correct
parentage in your personal signed copy of my Plantagenet Ancestry
book,
pages 288 and 768. Instead of drooling over pictures of Raquel
Welch
this week, I invite you to spend some time reading my book. You
might
learn something, Leo, and that would be a very good thing. I cite
all
of my sources. Enjoy!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

[Gjest]

In a message dated 4/18/05 10:46:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

<< She is his only known wife. They were married in
or before 1200, and probably before 1195. >>

And doesn't the "Resealing of confirmation" which you (Douglas) posted with
date 3 Jul 1190 and in which she is named "Aline and Cecily de Gay..." indicate
that she was not a Basset at this time, so that her marriage would be
1190/1200 ?
Thanks
Will

[Leo van de Pas]

Apologies to all, I had hoped Richardson had some decency and brains and let
the matters rest, but it seems Richardson just can't help himself. That he
is morally bankrupt should be obvious by now. I did not make a blooper, I
recorded accurately what David Faris shows in Plantagenet Ancestry,
Seventeenth Century Colonists, First Edition Page 162.

If anyone made a blooper it was David Faris. Richardson talks about polite
and collegial, let him start. On my website is clearly marked where the
information came from. If he wants to be insulting, he is insulting the
memory of David Faris, the man on whose back he is now making money.
Richardson how can you live with yourself?

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 12:11 AM
Subject: Re: Sir Robert Wingfield 1382/8 was Gay Ancestry: Aline de Gay,
wife of Basset

Dear Leo ~

I told you last week that I planned to review all of the online
genealogical databases. I really did mean what I said. I've been
planning this review for quite some time. You started out the process
by calling me and all the newsgroup members names such as "fool,"
"bloody fool," and "toadies." That wasn't very bright, Leo. You need
to apologize to all of us and promise to stop name calling here on the
newsgroup. I can't speak for anyone else but I know you hurt my
feelings.

As I stated earlier, I'm examining all of the genealogical databases
for content and accuracy. So far, we've found significant problems
with your database in both of these categories, and we've just
scratched the surface. If this process is painful for you, I encourage
to spend more time correcting your bloopers and less time collecting
pictures of busty Raquel Welch. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to
tell that you place way too much emphasis on shaky secondary sources
such as Burke. In sharp contrast, you pay little or no attention to
primary sources. This is no one's fault except your own.

In sharp contrast, I just checked Jim Weber's genealogical database at

http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb. ... &id=I11747.

As I expected, he shows the correct parentage for Margaret Hastings,
wife of John Wingfield and John Russell. Once again, Jim Weber's site
has the correct information and you don't. Who's fault is this, Leo?
Heavens, Leo, take some responsibility and stop whining and moaning.
If Jim Weber can get it straight, so can you.

I also checked Hal Bradley's great database just now. Just like Jim
Weber, he also has Margaret Hastings' correct parentage listed. Hats
off to both Jim and Hal. For those interested in Hal Bradley's site,
one version of Hal's database can be found at the following web
adddress:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... .htm#23040

If all else fails, Leo, you can also find Margaret Hastings' correct
parentage in your personal signed copy of my Plantagenet Ancestry book,
pages 288 and 768. Instead of drooling over pictures of Raquel Welch
this week, I invite you to spend some time reading my book. You might
learn something, Leo, and that would be a very good thing. I cite all
of my sources. Enjoy!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

[Doug Thompson]

No. You ate less mashed potato which may have been made with fewer potatoes.
It's easy to give commonly used incorrect sayings but they are still
incorrect.

Doug.

in article [email protected], Mark B at
[email protected] wrote on 18/4/05 7:17 pm:

I ate less mashed potatoes than he did. Of course,
before dinner I would have peeled fewer potatoes.

--- Doug Thompson <[email protected]> wrote:
Mark

We were discussing the adjectives "less" and "fewer"
not the phrases you
gave.

Doug

in article
[email protected],
Mark B at
[email protected] wrote on 18/4/05 1:32 am:


--- Doug Thompson <[email protected]
wrote:
Spencer

Surely you can see that the two definitions are
in
fact equivalent.

Try to give an example of the correct use of
"less"
with a plural - or
"fewer" with a singular!

Doug


-I'm less than 6 feet tall.
-The professional genealogist charged me less than
fifty dollars.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com






__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides!
http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide

[Gjest]

In a message dated 4/18/05 11:01:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

<< > > The wife of Floris II, Count of Holland, is sometimes mistakenly
called

Geertruid (Petronilla) of Saxony by some sources. This is possibly due
to
a mix-up with another person called Geertruid (Gertrude) who may have
been
Petronilla's half-sister, the daughter of Thierry's second wife
Geertruid
of Flanders, see below.

What is to say that Floris could not have been married twice?
Will Johnson

[Mark B]

I ate less mashed potatoes than he did. Of course,
before dinner I would have peeled fewer potatoes.

--- Doug Thompson <[email protected]> wrote:

Mark

We were discussing the adjectives "less" and "fewer"
not the phrases you
gave.

Doug

in article
[email protected],
Mark B at
[email protected] wrote on 18/4/05 1:32 am:


--- Doug Thompson <[email protected]
wrote:
Spencer

Surely you can see that the two definitions are
in
fact equivalent.

Try to give an example of the correct use of
"less"
with a plural - or
"fewer" with a singular!

Doug


-I'm less than 6 feet tall.
-The professional genealogist charged me less than
fifty dollars.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides!
http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide

[Doug Thompson]

in article [email protected], D. Spencer Hines at
[email protected] wrote on 18/4/05 8:56 pm:

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

| Some plural [collective -- DSH] nouns function as
| singulars. You get around the exceptions if you simply use
| the counting/noncounting rule.

Indeed.

Collective nouns ARE singular. Hence they obey the (two equivalent) rules
and use less.

Another note as to their equivalence. Use the countable, noncountable rule
if you like. But if you can't count it, it can't be plural. So the plural,
singular rule works equivalently! I can't see any exceptions. Can you?

There's nothing to argue about. The so-called different rules are one and
the same!

Doug

[Mark B]

Some plural nouns function as singulars. You get
around the exceptions if you simply use the
counting/noncounting rule.

Besides this being way off topic, it may be irrelevant
in 100 years, given the tendency of languages to
evolve.


--- Doug Thompson <[email protected]> wrote:

Mark

We were discussing the adjectives "less" and "fewer"
not the phrases you
gave.

Doug

in article
[email protected],
Mark B at
[email protected] wrote on 18/4/05 1:32 am:


--- Doug Thompson <[email protected]
wrote:
Spencer

Surely you can see that the two definitions are
in
fact equivalent.

Try to give an example of the correct use of
"less"
with a plural - or
"fewer" with a singular!

Doug


-I'm less than 6 feet tall.
-The professional genealogist charged me less than
fifty dollars.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides!
http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide

[Gjest]

Dear Will,
the main problem, if there is one is that Floris II, Count of
Holland was the grandson of Floris I, Count of Holland and Gertrude, daughter
of Duke Bernard II Billung of Saxony. Gertrude was mother by her 2nd husband
Robert I, Count of Flanders of Gertrude of Flanders , wife of Henry III, Count
of Louvain and 2ndly of Thierry II, Duke of Lorraine and so if Petronilla of
Lorraine was the daughter of Gertrude, They would be related in the second
degree of Consanquinity (own cousins) The same holds true for N (? Gertrude) of
Louvain, yet if Peter Stewart has said Petronilla of Lorraine was the daughter
of Thierry II, Duke of Lorraine and his first wife Hedwig of Forbach, widow
of the Count of Supplinburg and mother by him of Emperor Lothair II of the Holy
Roman Empire, no such problem exists.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Douglas Richardson royala]

Dear Will ~

Paget states that Gilbert son of Alan Basset "being fathful to King
John" had a grant of the manor of Fulbrook, Oxfordshire "part of the
forfeited lands of Henry de Saint Valery" on 15 March 1217. Paget's
source is: Close Rolls, 1 Henry III, m. 22.

Since Paget assigned this grant to Gilbert son of Alan Basset, it seems
likely that the original Close Rolls item identifies which Gilbert
Basset received the grant in 1217. Either that, or Fulbrook,
Oxfordshire was later found in the possession of either Gilbert son of
Alan Basset, or his brother and heir, Philip Basset. Quite possibly
the Reedy book would answer the second part of this equation.

Paget does make an occasional error (comes with the territory), so I
think it is best to check on the original grant and also take a look at
Reedy before we make any assumptions.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

[email protected] wrote:

In a message dated 4/18/05 10:11:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

Alan Basset of Wycombe and Aline de Gai his wife, charter 1205. He
m. (1)
Alice ___; m. (2) Aline Jun 1205 - 15 Apr 1206. Aline
living 10 Jun 1229, d. bef. 22 Apr 1230. Alice may be same as Aline.
Thomas Basset, with consent of first son Gilbert, gave to son Alan
of
Wycombe the vill of Compton Bassett 1180-1182. Alan d. 1232.

I think Douglas had mentioned land grants to a Gilbert in 1217 and
1229 and
to a Thomas in 1222 and 24. I had opined that Gilbert might be an
uncle, not
the brother of the Thomas who was son of Alan.

This above information seems to tell me (please correct me) that
1) Alan's father was Thomas
2) Thomas' eldest son (living in 1180) was Gilbert

So Alan named two of his children after his father, and his brother.
And I
think the land grant in 1217 was probably to this elder Gilbert which
would
preserve my idea that Thomas, son of Alan got his land before his
younger brother
Gilbert.
Will

[D. Spencer Hines]

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

| Some plural [collective -- DSH] nouns function as
| singulars. You get around the exceptions if you simply use
| the counting/noncounting rule.

Indeed.

| Besides this being way off topic, it may be irrelevant
| in 100 years, given the tendency of languages to
| evolve.

Hilarious!

We are writing NOW, not 100 years from now -- or 500 years AGO.

In 100 years we shall all be dead.

Further, How To Do Professional, Astute, Accurate Mediaeval Genealogy is
NEVER "Off-Topic" here.

Call it Meta-Mediaeval Genealogy if you like -- but don't neglect it.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Douglas Richardson royala]

[email protected] wrote:

In a message dated 4/17/05 10:00:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

Margaret (Hastings) Wingfield had two sons by her Wingfield
marriage,
namely John and Robert, Knt. Following her husband's death,
Margaret
Hastings married (2nd) John Russell, Knt. (died 1405), of Strensham,
Worcestershire, Knight of the Shire for Worcestershire, Master of
the
King's Horse, Member of the King's Council. She had two hitherto
unidentified children by her Russell marriage, namely a son, John,
and
a daughter, Margaret (wife of Ralph Rochford, Knt., of Fenn (in
Boston), Lincolnshire). Evidence proving the all new Russell
children
can be found in the will of Margaret Hastings's sister, Lady
Elizabeth
Elmham (nee Hastings), proved in 1420.

Well isn't that pretty.
Margaret of Hastings married Sir John Wingfield and had at least one
son
Robert
Meanwhile back at the farm
Sir John Russell married Agnes Planches and had at least one daughter

Elizabeth

Elizabeth Rusell and Robert Wingfield married
and also now I have that their two living parents married each other
as well?

If that is all correct, that's a cozy family.
Will

Dear Will ~

Yes, as far as I know, Margaret Hastings and her son, Robert Wingfield,
married a Russell father and daughter respectively.

By the way, have you located any other Basset-Gay line(s) in your
ancestry?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

[Gjest]

In a message dated 4/18/05 10:11:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

<< Alan Basset of Wycombe and Aline de Gai his wife, charter 1205. He m. (1)
Alice ___; m. (2) Aline Jun 1205 - 15 Apr 1206. Aline
living 10 Jun 1229, d. bef. 22 Apr 1230. Alice may be same as Aline.
Thomas Basset, with consent of first son Gilbert, gave to son Alan of
Wycombe the vill of Compton Bassett 1180-1182. Alan d. 1232. >>

I think Douglas had mentioned land grants to a Gilbert in 1217 and 1229 and
to a Thomas in 1222 and 24. I had opined that Gilbert might be an uncle, not
the brother of the Thomas who was son of Alan.

This above information seems to tell me (please correct me) that
1) Alan's father was Thomas
2) Thomas' eldest son (living in 1180) was Gilbert

So Alan named two of his children after his father, and his brother. And I
think the land grant in 1217 was probably to this elder Gilbert which would
preserve my idea that Thomas, son of Alan got his land before his younger brother
Gilbert.
Will

[Douglas Richardson royala]

Who are your gateway immigrant ancestors?

DR

[Gjest]

In a message dated 4/17/05 8:30:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

<< This line is erroneous. Margaret Hastings was not daughter of Anne le
Despenser, but sister-in-law, belonging to a generation earlier. This
error, unfortunately, appeared in the first edition of Faris's
_Plantagenet Ancestry_. This was discussed here in 1996 (search Google
Groups for "hugh hastings anne faris wingfield" and you will find it
discussed several times. >>

Thank you Todd I found your message in the archives and have now corrected
my database. On the particular topic Margaret of Hastings remains a descendent
of Aline de Gay as follows:

1 Margaret of Hastings dau of
2 Hugh of Hastings d 1369 near Calais, son of
3 Hugh of Hastings d Jul 1347, son of
4 Isabel le Despencer d 4 Dec 1334 dau of
5 Hugh le Despencer, Earl of Winchester d 27 Oct 1326 Bristol son of
6 Aline Basset, Countess of Norfolk d bef 11 Apr 1281 dau of
7 Philip Basset d aft 1241 son of
8 Aline de Gay d 10 Jun 1229 / 22 Apr 1230

Will Johnson

[Gjest]

Sir John Popham was the eldest son of Alexander Popham of Huntworth by Jane
Stradling and so a descendant through Cardinal Henry Beaufort of John, Duke of
Lancaster, son of King Edward III of England ( see MC 4 lines 27, 27 and RPA
under Beaufort pp 75- 81) also GDMENH (Genealogical Dictionary of Maine and
New Hampshire p 562 Captain George Popham, who was son of Sir John`s younger
brother Edward Popham and his wife Jane Norton served as President of the
Popham Colony in Maine. Sir John Popham married Amy Adams (or Games) and had a son
Sir Francis Popham. Sir John`s sister Katherine married William Pole / Poole
and had two children Elizabeth and William Pole / Poole who settled in
Massachusetts.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine, USA

[D. Spencer Hines]

"Doug Thompson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BE89C8F0.59550%[email protected]...

| Collective nouns ARE singular.

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

Twaddle & Balderdash.

CATTLE is a Collective Noun -- it is a PLURAL not a singular.

Surely English is not actually your first language. Which language is?

Gibberish?

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[D. Spencer Hines]

"Doug Thompson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BE89C8F0.59550%[email protected]...

| Collective nouns ARE singular.

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

Twaddle & Balderdash.

CATTLE is a Collective Noun -- it is a PLURAL not a singular.

Surely English is not actually your first language. Which language is?

Gibberish?

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Gjest]

In a message dated 4/17/05 10:00:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

<< Margaret (Hastings) Wingfield had two sons by her Wingfield marriage,
namely John and Robert, Knt. Following her husband's death, Margaret
Hastings married (2nd) John Russell, Knt. (died 1405), of Strensham,
Worcestershire, Knight of the Shire for Worcestershire, Master of the
King's Horse, Member of the King's Council. She had two hitherto
unidentified children by her Russell marriage, namely a son, John, and
a daughter, Margaret (wife of Ralph Rochford, Knt., of Fenn (in
Boston), Lincolnshire). Evidence proving the all new Russell children
can be found in the will of Margaret Hastings's sister, Lady Elizabeth
Elmham (nee Hastings), proved in 1420. >>

Well isn't that pretty.
Margaret of Hastings married Sir John Wingfield and had at least one son
Robert
Meanwhile back at the farm
Sir John Russell married Agnes Planches and had at least one daughter
Elizabeth

Elizabeth Rusell and Robert Wingfield married
and also now I have that their two living parents married each other as well?

If that is all correct, that's a cozy family.
Will

[Doug Thompson]

in article [email protected], D. Spencer Hines at
[email protected] wrote on 18/4/05 9:55 pm:

news:BE89C8F0.59550%[email protected]...

| Collective nouns ARE singular.

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

Twaddle & Balderdash.

CATTLE is a Collective Noun -- it is a PLURAL not a singular.

Surely English is not actually your first language.

Actually it is. In English English we distinguish between collective nouns
(such as herd) and plural-only nouns (such as cattle). Maybe in US English
you have lost the finer distinctions. Never mind I'm sure you will be able
to cope with the confusion it has raised in some people's minds about the
simple words "fewer" and "less".

Maybe here in England we will follow you one day into imprecision.

Until then, we'll be able to use the two rules equivalently but you may need
to keep to the one which suits your dialect. (Vernacular?)

Lets hope you perceive less twaddle in my writing and find fewer points to
argue with when you have thought it through thoroughly.

Doug

[Gjest]

In a message dated 4/18/05 1:15:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

<< By the way, have you located any other Basset-Gay line(s) in your
ancestry? >>

Doug at this time, I just have the two lines off the marriage of Hugh le
Despencer, Earl of Winchester and his wife Isabel of Beauchamp. I descend from
both their son Hugh and their daughter Isabel.
I'm adding a few hundred people a day to my tree so who knows what else I
might find.
Will

[Renia]

Douglas Richardson [email protected] wrote:

Dear Leo ~

Please stop blaming everyone else for your current troubles. Your
problem isn't David Faris, or Douglas Richardson. Your problem is Leo
van de Pas.

Best always,

Really?

Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


"Leo van de Pas" wrote:

Apologies to all, I had hoped Richardson had some decency and brains

and let

the matters rest, but it seems Richardson just can't help himself.

That he

is morally bankrupt should be obvious by now. I did not make a

blooper, I

recorded accurately what David Faris shows in Plantagenet Ancestry,
Seventeenth Century Colonists, First Edition Page 162.

If anyone made a blooper it was David Faris. Richardson talks about

polite

and collegial, let him start. On my website is clearly marked where

the

information came from. If he wants to be insulting, he is insulting

the

memory of David Faris, the man on whose back he is now making money.
Richardson how can you live with yourself?

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 12:11 AM
Subject: Re: Sir Robert Wingfield 1382/8 was Gay Ancestry: Aline de

Gay,

wife of Basset



Dear Leo ~

I told you last week that I planned to review all of the online
genealogical databases. I really did mean what I said. I've been
planning this review for quite some time. You started out the

process

by calling me and all the newsgroup members names such as "fool,"
"bloody fool," and "toadies." That wasn't very bright, Leo. You

need

to apologize to all of us and promise to stop name calling here on

the

newsgroup. I can't speak for anyone else but I know you hurt my
feelings.

As I stated earlier, I'm examining all of the genealogical

databases

for content and accuracy. So far, we've found significant problems
with your database in both of these categories, and we've just
scratched the surface. If this process is painful for you, I

encourage

to spend more time correcting your bloopers and less time

collecting

pictures of busty Raquel Welch. It doesn't take a rocket scientist

to

tell that you place way too much emphasis on shaky secondary

sources

such as Burke. In sharp contrast, you pay little or no attention

to

primary sources. This is no one's fault except your own.

In sharp contrast, I just checked Jim Weber's genealogical database

at

http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb. ... &id=I11747.

As I expected, he shows the correct parentage for Margaret

Hastings,

wife of John Wingfield and John Russell. Once again, Jim Weber's

site

has the correct information and you don't. Who's fault is this,

Leo?

Heavens, Leo, take some responsibility and stop whining and

moaning.

If Jim Weber can get it straight, so can you.

I also checked Hal Bradley's great database just now. Just like

Jim

Weber, he also has Margaret Hastings' correct parentage listed.

Hats

off to both Jim and Hal. For those interested in Hal Bradley's

site,

one version of Hal's database can be found at the following web
adddress:



http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... .htm#23040

If all else fails, Leo, you can also find Margaret Hastings'

correct

parentage in your personal signed copy of my Plantagenet Ancestry

book,

pages 288 and 768. Instead of drooling over pictures of Raquel

Welch

this week, I invite you to spend some time reading my book. You

might

learn something, Leo, and that would be a very good thing. I cite

all

of my sources. Enjoy!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

[Gjest]

On this board/list there was previously talk of this
John Comyn who died 1242 s.p. France and his wife Maud heir of Malcolm, Earl
of Angus

It was said this Maud married secondly Gilbert of Umfreville jure uxoris Earl
of Angus
and thirdly Richard /de Douvres/ of Chilham, Kent

But... who were the parents of this John Comyn ?
He was Earl of Angus by right of his wife for a while until his death I
suppose.
Leo's site does not seem to have this couple.
Thanks
Will Johnson

[Gjest]

Oh my goodness. I need to go rest.

I was just reading on Electric Scotland
http://www.electricscotland.com/webclan ... ter2s1.htm

about the Earls of Buchan. I came across the statement that David I, King of
Scotland had three daughters: Margaret, Isabel and Ada. As I was reading I
was checking against my database but I didn't have Ada.

I was on the verge of adding her, when I thought to check the throne claimant
in her name, this John Hastings "grandson of Ada". Well I DID actually have
a John (1262-1312/3) 1st Baron of Hastings. That seems about the right age
to be claiming the throne in 1291 I suppose. And checking his grandparents I
find ..... Ada Scott (!!)

And her parents? David Scott and Maud. This is as it appears in the
Ancestral File where I copied it from. On the one hand I'm glad I can correct this,
on the other, it's really bizarre how David, King of Scotland gets transformed
into David Scott.

Will Johnson

[Gjest]

In a message dated 4/18/05 1:54:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected]
writes:

<< And her parents? David Scott and Maud. This is as it appears in the
Ancestral File where I copied it from. On the one hand I'm glad I can
correct this,
on the other, it's really bizarre how David, King of Scotland gets
transformed
into David Scott. >>

Ugh. I mean of course David, Earl of Huntington d 1219 NOT David King of
Scotland.
Will

[D. Spencer Hines]

An intelligent, complete explication on LESS and FEWER.

Vide infra.

Accept no cheap substitutes from errant, arrogant Englishmen spouting
gibberish.

How Sweet It Is!

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

"The rule usually encountered is: use "fewer" for things you
count (individually), and "less" for things you measure: "fewer
apples", "less water". Since "less" is also used as an adverb
("less successful"), "fewer" helps to distinguish "fewer successful
professionals" (fewer professionals who are successful) from "less
successful professionals" (professionals who are less successful).
(No such distinction is possible with "more", which serves as the
antonym of both "less" and "fewer".)

"Less" has been used in the sense of "fewer" since the time of
King Alfred the Great (9th century), and is still common in that
sense, especially informally in the U.S.; but in British English it
became so rare that the 1st edition of the OED (in a section
prepared in 1902) gave no citation more recent than 1579 and gave
the usage label "Now regarded as incorrect." The 2nd edition of the
OED added two 19th-century citations, and changed the usage label to
"Frequently found but generally regarded as incorrect."

Fowler mentioned it only in passing, and cited no real examples.

In a section whose main intent was to disparage "less" in the sense
"smaller" or "lower", he wrote: "It is true that less and
lesser were once ordinary comparatives of little [...] and that
therefore they were roughly equivalent in sense to our smaller
[...]. The modern tendency is so to restrict less that it means
not smaller, but a smaller amount of, is the comparative rather
of a little than of little, and is consequently applied only to
things that are measured by amount and not by size or quality or
number, nouns with which much and little, not great and
small, nor high and low, nor many and few, are the
appropriate contrasted epithets: less butter, courage; but a
smaller army, table; a lower price, degree; fewer opportunities,
people. Plurals, and singulars with a or an, will naturally
not take less; less tonnage, but fewer ships; less manpower,
but fewer men [...]; though a few plurals like clothes and
troops, really equivalent to singulars of indefinite amount, are
exceptions: could do with less troops or clothes."

Bingo! Thompson takes an Egregious Pratfall on that one.
KAWHOMP!!! ---- DSH

Hoist with his own petar. ---- DSH

Webster's New International Dictionary, 2nd ed. (1934), gave the
usage label "now incorrect, according to strict usage, except with a
collective; as, to wear less clothes." Of the panelists for The
Harper Dictionary of Contemporary Usage (1975), 76% said that they
observed "less"/"fewer" distinction in speech, and 85% in writing.
The editors noted: "even those panelists who have not observed the
distinction in the past now regard it as a useful precept to bear in
mind in the future."

Partisans of "fewer" use "one car fewer" rather than "one
fewer car", and "far fewer" rather than "much fewer"."

Mark Israel
-----------------------------

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Deus Vult.

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

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

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

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Douglas Richardson royala]

[email protected] wrote:

Arg! I mispoke

Due to removing Anne le Despencer as the mother of Margaret, I've
lost half
of my descent from Aline de Gay!

Luckily I still descend from Isabel le Despencer to James Claypoole
the
immigrant (1634 London - ~1687 Philadelphia)

Thanks Doug for prodding me
Will Johnson

You're quite welcome, Will. The whole purpose of research and
discovery is learning new things and sharing them with others.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

[Doug Thompson]

in article [email protected], D. Spencer Hines at
[email protected] wrote on 18/4/05 11:19 pm:

though a few plurals like clothes and
troops, really equivalent to singulars of indefinite amount, are
exceptions: could do with less troops or clothes."

Bingo! Thompson takes an Egregious Pratfall on that one.
KAWHOMP!!! ---- DSH

Hoist with his own petar. ---- DSH

Perhaps you should reread that! "really equivalent to singulars of
indefinite amount".

I've never yet been hoist by a petar?? - mine or anyone else's. What's one
of those? Have you got a dictionary handy?

I'm bored by this now. It's clear I won't be able to make you understand the
simple point I was making, so I give up!

If we stop here you will have less opportunity to make a fool of yourself
and fewer opportunities to make a fool of me.

Now can you count the opportunities there or not?

Doug

[Gjest]

Dear Will,
According to Alan Young`s book Robert the Bruces` rivals, The
Comyns p 29 John Comyn, Earl of Angus` place in the family tree is unknown.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Gjest]

Dear Will,
It`s not so suprising that David, Earl of Huntingdon should
be referred to as David Scott as his son John is normally referred to as John
le Scot.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Gjest]

In a message dated 4/18/05 3:25:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected]
writes:

<< It`s not so suprising that David, Earl of Huntingdon
should
be referred to as David Scott as his son John is normally referred to as
John
le Scot. >>

But surely this is in reference to him living someplace far from Scotland?
Otherwise why call someone "the Scot" if they lived their whole life within
Scotland, seems a bit redundant.
Will

[Gjest]

Arg! I mispoke

Due to removing Anne le Despencer as the mother of Margaret, I've lost half
of my descent from Aline de Gay!

Luckily I still descend from Isabel le Despencer to James Claypoole the
immigrant (1634 London - ~1687 Philadelphia)

Thanks Doug for prodding me
Will Johnson

[D. Spencer Hines]

Well, let's see -- I've now proven Doug Thompson to be an arrant,
errant, ignorant and arrogant fool -- several times over.

But we might just as well do it again -- as Thompson is a VERY slow
learner -- and a demon for punishment.

Obviously, his puerile, ignorant, simplistic, reductionist and
inadequate grammatical Rule of Thumb of just always using LESS with a
singular and always using FEWER with plurals has come a cropper -- while
Thompson has been hoist with his own petar.

KAWHOMP!!!
----------------------

"less" is used only with a singular, "fewer" is used with plurals..."

Doug Thompson -- 17 April 2005

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

Yes, I KNOW it is ignorant, arrogant and stupid -- but he DID write and
post that.

Ignorance, Arrogance & Stupidity -- Especially When Combined In One
Person -- Should Be Exposed, Ridiculed And Excoriated.

So, here is another nail in Thompson's coffin -- yet another swift kick
in the arse -- followed by a hard blow upside the head with a sturdy
[rhetorical] 2 by 4.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

"_Less_ refers to quantity, _fewer_ to number.

"His troubles are less than mine" means "His troubles are not so great
as mine."

"His troubles are fewer than mine" means "His troubles are not so
numerous as mine."

Strunk & White, _The Elements of Style_, 2000, p. 51

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

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Peter Stewart]

Doug McDonald wrote:

Some of the old must be relegated to references to old
books in order to actually teach the new. Tempus fugit.

Most people who care about the subject would not split an infinitive
while engaging in a discussion of correct English.

Or are standards on this matter different in the USA?

Peter Stewart

[Doug McDonald]

Peter Stewart wrote:

Doug McDonald wrote:


Some of the old must be relegated to references to old
books in order to actually teach the new. Tempus fugit.


Most people who care about the subject would not split an infinitive
while engaging in a discussion of correct English.

Or are standards on this matter different in the USA?

Again, it's a matter of strict constructionist pedagogues and
the voice of the people. In America, the voice of the people
are loud, insistent, and clear on this issue: "everybody"
splits infinitives in conversation, and most do in writing.
In America, an unsplit infinitive in speech sounds actually **wrong**.
The brain finds a more felicitous connection of an adverb and
the word it modifies if the particle "to" does not separate them.

Tempus fugit.

I am aware of the old rules. I am also aware of the real world.
When all around me, or almost all, use one construction, so usually
do I. I in general do follow the old rule with "less" and "fewer",
especially since everybody still recognizes the old ways, and does
not think them "funny". I have actually heard people laugh at unsplit
infinitives. This is quite telling.

Doug McDonald

[Douglas Richardson royala]

Peter Stewart wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:

The topic is Aline de Gay. If you have something to say about
Aline de Gay, by all means, please proceed. I'm ready and
prepared to discuss Aline de Gay and her family.

So why won't you answer my request for further information about her,
from VCH Wiltshire vol IX? Can it be that you don't know what is
stated
there, as cited by William Reedy who remains the recognised authority
on this family? Or that it doesn't suit your purposes to discuss it
and
to provide definite proofs for your own assertions?

I seem to recall your stating that any post without sources was just
so
much blather. Where are your sources for this, beyond mere
assumptions?

Peter Stewart

Dear Newsgroup ~

As we can see above, Peter is casting around for straws instead of
looking for real evidence. He has deceived himself into thinking that
VCH Wiltshire would vindicate him. But, alas, it hasn't. Sigh. Oh
well.

Now that he's at the end of his Reedy rope, I'm waiting for him to
unleash the next newsgroup tirade. Funny, how people get so upset over
so little. Peter always has to be right. I'm willing to settle for
the truth. That's the difference between us.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.com

[Peter Stewart]

Doug McDonal wrote:

I have actually heard people laugh at unsplit infinitives.
This is quite telling.

Maybe - Churchill memorably laughed at the notion that sentences should
not end with prepositions ("That's a kind of pedantry up with which I
cannot put"). But his sentence is deliberately stilted, while of course
many attempts to avoid splitting the infinitive at all costs are just
clumsily precious.

In this case, I can't see quite what the adverb adds anyway. How else
can one teach but "actually"? I take this to mean "in order to teach
the new effectively", and that doesn't sound laughable to my Australian
ear.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Douglas Richardson wrote:

As we can see above, Peter is casting around for straws
instead of looking for real evidence. He has deceived
himself into thinking that VCH Wiltshire would vindicate
him. But, alas, it hasn't. Sigh. Oh well.

There is nothing to vindicate, of course - I have simply questioned the
thoroughness of your research, as you are trying to correct the current
authority on the Basset family, William Reedy, without apparently
following up the citations he gave for reaching a different conclusion.

To help you understand this, let me capitalise it and you can move your
lips as necessary in reading: I HAVE NO CONCLUSION ON THIS TO
VINDICATE.

VCH is not the only reference cited by Reedy, as you would know if you
had genuinely & competently researched the matter.

Now that he's at the end of his Reedy rope, I'm waiting for
him to unleash the next newsgroup tirade. Funny, how
people get so upset over so little. Peter always has to be
right. I'm willing to settle for the truth. That's the difference
between us.

This is at least equal to the most preposterous false statements that
Richardson has ever made.

Let's simply ask the newsgroup: Does anyone here (who is not his alter
ego) support this characterisation of Richardson as the altruistic
champion of truth against me as someone who never admits error while
chasing after personal vindication? If so, kindly put forward some
examples that can be tested.

Peter Stewart

[D. Spencer Hines]

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

| In America, the voice of the people
| are [sic] loud, insistent, and clear on this issue...

Hilarious!

Hardly A Reliable Witness....

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Gjest]

I've just found that some of the lines adding go back to the Counts of St Pol
and then back to this couple (see subject line).

Stirnet says that this Hugh I was b c 970 and is the son of
Hugh de Montreuil d 961

I'm just not sure I believe that a person can have a son 8 to 9 years after
his own death, but that's just me. So maybe someone has something useful to
say about this connection
Thanks!
Will Johnson

[Douglas Richardson royala]

Dear Peter ~

Boy, are you telling a whopper! Is your nose growing or what?

We all know that Leo's treatment of the Gay-Basset family is seriously
deficient, whereas Jim Weber's website is well done. How anyone could
claim that Jim Weber got "much of his information" on the ancestry and
descendants of Aline de Gay from Leo van de Pas is beyond me.

But wonders never cease, and liars never tell the truth.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Peter Stewart wrote:

Leo wrote:

The dishonesty of Richardson is quite hilarious.

It's an endless joke, apparently. What can you expect of someone who
tried to praise Jim Weber's database & his use of sources in
comparison
to your own, without noting that much of his information is sourced
directly & exclusively from yours?

Your excellent database doesn't need to be justified, Leo. The scope
of
this goes beyond the medieval period and far beyond the small pond of
British aristocracy and gentry in which Richardson floats around like
a
self-satisfied puffer-fish, poisoning the water.

Peter Stewart

[Douglas Richardson royala]

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:

My remark was about the obvious dishonesty of Richardson, not about
my data
base.

Really? Then I dare you to killfile me. Go ahead and make my day.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancesty.net

[Peter Stewart]

Douglas Richardson wrote:

We all know that Leo's treatment of the Gay-Basset family
is seriously deficient, whereas Jim Weber's website is well
done. How anyone could claim that Jim Weber got "much
of his information" on the ancestry and descendants of
Aline de Gay from Leo van de Pas is beyond me.

But wonders never cease, and liars never tell the truth.

Quite so. You claimed to be reviewing websites, not just their
treatment of the Gay-Basset family. You know perfectly well,as we all
do, that you crudely tried to make a stick out of Jim Weber's database
to beat Leo with, and that you failed dismally.

No-one has claimed 'that Jim Weber got "much of his information" on the
ancestry and descendants of Aline de Gay from Leo van de Pas' as you
flagrantly misrepresent.

Can you actually help yorself, or is falsehood the basis and whole of
your nature?

Peter Stewart

[Douglas Richardson royala]

Dear Peter ~

If I failed so flagrantly to beat Leo with Jim Weber's stick, why are
you now trying to make it look like Jim Weber got "much of his
information" in his database from Leo? Clearly Jim Weber bested Leo on
the Gay-Basset issue. Jim got five stars ....and Leo got ... well
.... maybe one. Not good for Leo. Not at all.

But that was the score yesterday. Who knows? Tomorrow may be
different. I plan to test all the genealogical databases at various
points. If Leo does good work elsewhere, it will surely show. My
initial impression, though, is that we will find more problems in Leo's
database, not less. We'll know more as the review continues. Let's
see how the next round goes.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Peter Stewart wrote:

Quite so. You claimed to be reviewing websites, not just their
treatment of the Gay-Basset family. You know perfectly well,as we all
do, that you crudely tried to make a stick out of Jim Weber's
database
to beat Leo with, and that you failed dismally.

No-one has claimed 'that Jim Weber got "much of his information" on
the
ancestry and descendants of Aline de Gay from Leo van de Pas' as you
flagrantly misrepresent.

Can you actually help yorself, or is falsehood the basis and whole of
your nature?

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Douglas Richardson [email protected] wrote:

Dear Peter ~

If I failed so flagrantly to beat Leo with Jim Weber's stick, why are
you now trying to make it look like Jim Weber got "much of his
information" in his database from Leo? Clearly Jim Weber bested Leo
on
the Gay-Basset issue. Jim got five stars ....and Leo got ... well
... maybe one. Not good for Leo. Not at all.

You failed flagrantly & dismally because you had no answer to the
points you had neglected to note or mention about Jum Weber's database
that were indicated by Stewart Baldwin, and you hadn't tested it enough
to find -- what you are still dishonestly arguing over - that he has
sourced much of his information from Leo. Try a random search, if you
can do anything so disinterested, and you will see that Genalogics
comes up often as the authority.

You know perfectly well that your remarks were taken by Leo, as they
clearly aimed to be taken, as a negative reflection on his work
generally, compared to Weber's on the same basis. If not, you had every
reason and opportunity to disclaim such an intention, and yet failed to
do so.

You (and Welch) are more than a liar, or two liars: you ARE a lie.
Utterly contemptible in your behaviour here over many years, you are
held in utter contempt by many SGM readers, and of course by other
genealogists, some of whom don't participate in the newsgroup just
because of your vile & deceitful presence here.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

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

<snip>

Incidentally, if anyone has access to the Melrose Chronicle, I'd
appreciate it if they would post the reference to Earl Malcolm's
marriage to Llywelyn's daughter and the statement that he was heir to
his uncle in 1228. The chronicle is in Latin I believe, so if it is
posted, it would have to be translated by someone.

And why not by you?

You claim to be a scholar, and profess to study primary sources - and these
for the period covered on SGM are mostly written in Latin or French (NOT
"franqais", remember).

Therefore if you are honest it should be no trouble for you to translate
from the Melrose chronicle. Indeed, it's also a mystery why you don't
already know what it says.

Peter Stewart

[Austin W. Spencer]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:46:53 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] ("Leo van de
Pas") wrote:

Douglas Richardson presents himself as a very confident and certain person
and first makes positive statements but when queried it becomes less so.

"I carefully stated these _facts_ in my book" Glossing over his reply the
word fact has disappeared:
Andrew MacEwen believes----was possibly the----the evidence is
lacking---Mr.MacEwen supposes---Mr.MacEwen thinks----could be---only a
theory---the countess (in 1237) could be the uncle's wife----would
presumably be---Melrose Chronicle suggests---

In fairness to every one who bought his book he should have been less
_certain_ in his book as now it emerges that the _fact_ he mentioned is only
a guess. It is still not explained why both the Complete Peerage and Scots
Peerage, believing in only one wife, should be overruled by the believes of
Andrew MacEwen and Douglas Richardson. As long as there is doubt, the doubt
should have been expressed and the _believe_ should not have been stated as
_fact_.

Douglas Richardson's case rests on a chain of circumstantial evidence apparently
transmitted to him by Andrew MacEwen, and I believe that it becomes much clearer
when the chronology is preserved.

1. Llywellyn had a legitimate daughter Susanna who last appears in 1228.
[4/20/2005 11:24 AM]

2. The Melrose chronicle reports the marriage of Malcolm, Earl of Fife, right
after his accession. We know from other sources that this occurred in 1228. The
sequence, according to Richardson, is typical for a man of his time, place, and
rank. In addition, the chronicle clearly identifies his bride as Llywelyn's
daughter. [4/20/2005 3:31 AM]

3. There is a reference to a servant of the Countess of Fife dated 6 July 1237.
The record does not give her forename, and Richardson identifies her with the
woman Malcolm had married in ca. 1228. [4/20/2005 3:31 AM] Upon further inquiry,
he also suggests that the previous count's widow was unlikely to be named in a
*Scottish* document of 1237. [4/20/2005 11:24 AM] Therefore, Malcolm's wife is
the more probable candidate. We may presume that the countess is the daughter of
Llywelyn, whom Malcolm had married as early as 1228.

4. It is well known that after Malcolm died in 1266, his widow Ellen married
Donald, Earl of Mar, and had issue by him. In Richardson's words, "It is not
possible chronologically for Ellen to be the same woman as Earl Malcolm's wife
back in the 1230's and still be of child bearing age in 1270." [4/20/2005 3:31
AM]

This last observation is on target; only Richardson's imprecise language fails
him. He might have noted that the interval between his estimated date of
marriage and his death, some 38 years, exceeds his wife's likely reproductive
interval -- *if* she truly married Malcolm shortly after his accession. But she
could have married him as late as 6 June 1237 in order to be mentioned as a
countess of Fife, and without necessarily contradicting the Melrose chronicle.
We simply haven't heard enough about the early events in Malcolm's tenure to
date this marriage with any greater confidence. And if Ellen was married closer
to that date, and closer to the age of seven years, it is possible to imagine
Ellen in her forties when, according to Richardson, the last of her children by
Donald was born as late as ca. 1275. [4/20/2005 5:06 PM]

I see little reason to dispute the latter date, given the timing of Ellen's
remarriage and the number of her children. Even so, the chronological evidence
alone does not absolutely rule out the standard filiation. So, before we can
accept this as a corrective to CP and SP, we need to know *even more* about the
circumstances: whether they militate against Malcolm's wife being identical with
Susanna, being relatively young, married as late as 1237, retaining a servant
named Maurice (which name, if I recall, had some vogue in Ireland and Wales) at
that date, and perhaps only consummating her marriage some years afterward.

I have been given to believe that Colban was in his teens when knighted as
stated in Scots Peerage. This means that Colban could have been born around
1249 and his mother's other son born in 1270 only 21 years apart and if his
mother was about 15 when giving birth to her first about 36 by the birth of
the other son.

Because historians standardise you insist I do the same? Why? I _try_ to
represent what I find and let others do the standardising if they want to.

I think in future you should be on safer grounds when using words like
blooper, coming a cropper because so far your _facts_ are lacking.

If Richardson's vice has been to read too much into the sequence of statements
in the Melrose chronicle, the vice of Leo van de Pas has been to cling
stubbornly to the facts presented in CP and SP. A lot of scholarship has been
published since then, much of it not readily accessible to him. And the
condition of the early Scottish records, as reported by MacEwen, makes it
incumbent upon researchers to consider all possible interpretations thereof.

Austin W. Spencer

[Gjest]

In a message dated 21/04/05 00:46:44 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected]
writes:

Has anyone heard of a 1541Visitation of Essex

No, I have never heard of it but I do have The Visitations of Essex for 1552,
1558, 1570, 1612 & 1634 on CD which is available from Archive CD Books,

Rose

[Gjest]

Being a descendant of the Heveningham family, I have done estensive research
into them and you can find details of Abigail and the rest of the family on my
website at . . .


http://www.genealogy.com/users/s/t/l/Ro ... 1058516190

Abigail Heveningham was the daughter of Sir Anthony Heveningam and Alice
Shelton, his wife. She was sister to Sir Arthur (d.1608) NOT daughter although
Sir Arthur did have a daughter named Abigail who was baptised 20 September 1592
at Ketteringham. This Abigail married Sir Augustine Pettus 27th December
1608.

Rose

[Chris Phillips]

[email protected] wrote:

I have just recently come across a reference to a Visitation
unfamiliar to me. Has anyone heard of a 1541Visitation of Essex? If
such exists, does anyone have access to it?

Anthony Wagner, in his listing of visitations in "The Records and
Collections of the College of Arms", mentions that Thomas Hawley,
Clarenceux, had a commission in 1541, which was confirmed in 1552 and again
in 1555, but apparently no records of visitations by him survive at the
College.

He says that British Library, Add. MS 7098, contains purported copies of
entries made at a visitation of Essex and other counties in 1553, but notes
that some entries are dated 1558 and others as late as 1571 and 1591. He
says that no copy has been found in the College of Arms, and spaculates that
these are traces of an incomplete visitation.

Chris Phillips

[Chris Phillips]

Will Johnson wrote:

So perhaps Keeper of the Swans should be interpreted to mean something
like
"Protector of All Swans in the Realm" ? I wonder how exactly a person
does
that

Here's some information about "swan upping" from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1287818.stm

Chris Phillips

[starbuck95]

"Cousins" mentioned in the 1710 will of Sir John Gayer are:

--Mercy Throgmorton
--John Rither
--James Car
--Elizabeth Phrip
--Lucy Hole
--Rachel Dale

[Doug McDonald]

Peter Stewart wrote:

I wrote:


AN infinitive is NOT a compound,


Doug McDonald replied:


Of course it is. It consists of the particle "to" prefixed
to a verb. "To" is a particle which signals infinitives. It does,
of course, happen to be pronounced like the preposition "to".


It takes two (or more) words to express an infinitive in English,
unusually, but there is NO compound sense to this whatsoever: the verb
form is integral WHICH IS WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE SPLIT.

You can go on adding semi-literate quibbles to cloud the issue for as
long as you like - the parts of speech are just what they are, and
their usage is governed by rules in English. You broke one of these
while opining about correct grammar. You should admit this, or keep
silent on the subject if you prefer, and move on.

Uh. You should admit that you are using "retreat to authority"
reasoning, and your authorities are outdated. The newer
modes of grammaer are much more logical. An infinitive in
English is a compound, and there is no getting around it.

Doug McDonald

[Douglas Richardson royala]

Do I have to do EVERYTHING for you, Peter? You're worse than a student
who doesn't do his homework.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Peter Stewart wrote:

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

snip

Incidentally, if anyone has access to the Melrose Chronicle, I'd
appreciate it if they would post the reference to Earl Malcolm's
marriage to Llywelyn's daughter and the statement that he was heir
to
his uncle in 1228. The chronicle is in Latin I believe, so if it
is
posted, it would have to be translated by someone.

And why not by you?

You claim to be a scholar, and profess to study primary sources - and
these
for the period covered on SGM are mostly written in Latin or French
(NOT
"franqais", remember).

Therefore if you are honest it should be no trouble for you to
translate
from the Melrose chronicle. Indeed, it's also a mystery why you don't

already know what it says.

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

Rose could you post a link that goes directly to Abigail?
I did go to your welcome page but was unable to determine which of the
various links would take me to where you have details on Abigail specifically.
I was only posting the details of her as it relates to the Digby family.
Thanks
Will Johnson

In a message dated 4/21/2005 2:42:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Maytree4
writes:

Being a descendant of the Heveningham family, I have done estensive research
into them and you can find details of Abigail and the rest of the family on
my website at . . .


http://www.genealogy.com/users/s/t/l/Ro ... 1058516190

Abigail Heveningham was the daughter of Sir Anthony Heveningam and Alice
Shelton, his wife. She was sister to Sir Arthur (d.1608) NOT daughter although
Sir Arthur did have a daughter named Abigail who was baptised 20 September
1592 at Ketteringham. This Abigail married Sir Augustine Pettus 27th December
1608.

Rose

[Douglas Richardson royala]

My comments are interspersed below. DR

Austin W. Spencer wrote:

4. It is well known that after Malcolm died in 1266, his widow Ellen
married
Donald, Earl of Mar, and had issue by him. In Richardson's words, "It
is not
possible chronologically for Ellen to be the same woman as Earl
Malcolm's wife
back in the 1230's and still be of child bearing age in 1270."
[4/20/2005 3:31
AM]

This last observation is on target; only Richardson's imprecise
language fails
him. He might have noted that the interval between his estimated date
of
marriage and his death, some 38 years, exceeds his wife's likely
reproductive
interval -- *if* she truly married Malcolm shortly after his
accession. But she
could have married him as late as 6 June 1237 in order to be
mentioned as a
countess of Fife, and without necessarily contradicting the Melrose
chronicle.
We simply haven't heard enough about the early events in Malcolm's
tenure to
date this marriage with any greater confidence. And if Ellen was
married closer
to that date, and closer to the age of seven years, it is possible to
imagine
Ellen in her forties when, according to Richardson, the last of her
children by
Donald was born as late as ca. 1275. [4/20/2005 5:06 PM]

We need to be sure that we're talking about the same train of events,
if we're going to come to some agreement here. The source for Earl
Malcolm's marriage to Llywelyn's daughter is Melrose Chronicle, which
source places the marriage at or about 1228. This date and source were
overlooked by Complete Peerage's account of Earl Malcolm. Just why
this took place, I have no idea. Complete Peerage's failure to
properly assess the available evidence is what has lead us to having
this discussion today.

Now, if we accept 1228 as the date of Earl Malcolm's marriage to Prince
Llywelyn's daughter (which Mr. MacEwen thinks is very reasonable), but
we assume the marriage was contracted only and not consumated until
later, it is apparent that Llywelyn's daughter would have been born no
later than 1221. Age seven was the legal age to contract a valid
marriage in medieval times. That being the case, then it is impossible
for Llywelyn's daughter to be the same person as Earl Malcolm's
surviving wife, Ellen. If Ellen was Llywelyn's daughter, she would
have been a minumum of 54 (not in her 40's as you say) when she gave
birth to her last child by Donald, Earl of Mar. This is not possible.
I conclude therefore that there were at least two wives, not one.

I see little reason to dispute the latter date, given the timing of
Ellen's
remarriage and the number of her children. Even so, the chronological
evidence
alone does not absolutely rule out the standard filiation.

Yes, it does. The chronological evidence makes it impossible for Earl
Malcolm's surviving wife, Ellen, to be the same woman as his first
wife, the daughter of Llywelyn, presuming we accept a date for Earl
Malcolm's first marriage as in or about 1228.

So, before we can

accept this as a corrective to CP and SP, we need to know *even more*
about the
circumstances: whether they militate against Malcolm's wife being
identical with
Susanna, being relatively young, married as late as 1237, retaining a
servant
named Maurice (which name, if I recall, had some vogue in Ireland and
Wales) at
that date, and perhaps only consummating her marriage some years
afterward.

I have been given to believe that Colban was in his teens when
knighted as
stated in Scots Peerage. This means that Colban could have been born
around
1249 and his mother's other son born in 1270 only 21 years apart
and if his
mother was about 15 when giving birth to her first about 36 by the
birth of
the other son.

Earl Malcolm's son and heir, Colban, is stated to have been a minor by
Complete Peerage at the time of Earl Malcolm's death in 1266. Complete
Peerage may well be right, but it gives no source for this statement.
If correct, it is barely possible for Earl Malcolm's surviving wife,
Ellen, to have been his mother. On the other hand, it is also possible
for Colban to have been the son of Earl Malcolm's first wife,
Llywelyn's daughter. So now we have a quandry.

My own feeling is that Earl Malcolm had three wives, not two. The
first wife was Llywelyn's daughter. She died without surviving male
issue. The second wife was the mother of Colban and his known brother.
The last wife was Ellen, who was clearly much younger than Earl
Malcolm. Ellen survived Earl Malcolm. This three wives scenario
seems to fit the facts better than the two wives arrangement we have at
present. In any case, the one wife scenario is utterly impossible.

Because historians standardise you insist I do the same? Why? I
_try_ to
represent what I find and let others do the standardising if they
want to.

I think in future you should be on safer grounds when using words
like
blooper, coming a cropper because so far your _facts_ are lacking.

Yes, it's true, I recommend that people follow modern historians'
standardization and modernization of names. But, I do not insist on
it. You are free to do what you wish.

If Richardson's vice has been to read too much into the sequence of
statements
in the Melrose chronicle, the vice of Leo van de Pas has been to
cling
stubbornly to the facts presented in CP and SP. A lot of scholarship
has been
published since then, much of it not readily accessible to him. And
the
condition of the early Scottish records, as reported by MacEwen,
makes it
incumbent upon researchers to consider all possible interpretations
thereof.

I look for the good in people and I usually find it. You've been civil
and polite throughout this discussion, until you began to discuss my so
called "vice." It is not necessary for you to pass judgement on me in
order to discuss 13th Century Scottish nobles.

Austin W. Spencer

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

[Gordon Banks]

Lots of stroke patients can still have sex, so maybe even up to 1240 if
the wife was capable.

On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 07:57 +1000, Leo van de Pas wrote:

Llewelyn of Wales had a stroke in 1237 and died in 1240. Helen could have
been born, just a guess, up to 1237.

[Gjest]

This reminds me of the post I had made some time ago about the "proper" form
of a name.

At that time I was asking a very generic question such as (this is just an
example and not a real person):

If Susan started her life as Susan of [born in] Newcastle and then her father
became Earl of Cornwell and she was then referred to as Susan of Cornwall in
some document. And later she marries the Count of Montagu and then becomes
styled as Susan of Montagu and also as Susan, Countess Montagu. Then her uncle
the Earl of Limburger dies and she inherits and becomes Duchess Limburger ....
how do we refer to her in programs that can only take ONE name field ?

I think the generally accepted answer would be, we follow the example of
previous historians where they agree, and we free-wheel where they don't.

Comments, and vicious personal attacks welcome

Will Johnson

[Douglas Richardson royala]

Peter Stewart wrote:

You (and Welch) are more than a liar, or two liars: you ARE a lie.
Utterly contemptible in your behaviour here over many years, you are
held in utter contempt by many SGM readers, and of course by other
genealogists, some of whom don't participate in the newsgroup just
because of your vile & deceitful presence here.

Peter Stewart

Does the hospital know you've escaped, Peter?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

[CE Wood]

The Penrose website is now:
http://216.250.129.112/modules.php?op=m ... e=surnames

No sources anymore, though.

CE Wood


Douglas Richardson [email protected] wrote:

Dear Will ~

snip> The Penrose Family website, which is now down, also uses Mr.
Lythgoe's program for their genealogical database. <snip

[Chris Phillips]

Douglas Richardson wrote:

We need to be sure that we're talking about the same train of events,
if we're going to come to some agreement here. The source for Earl
Malcolm's marriage to Llywelyn's daughter is Melrose Chronicle, which
source places the marriage at or about 1228. This date and source were
overlooked by Complete Peerage's account of Earl Malcolm. Just why
this took place, I have no idea. Complete Peerage's failure to
properly assess the available evidence is what has lead us to having
this discussion today.

This 1228 date seems to be the crux of the chronological argument. As this
is based on an inference from the way that the text of the Melrose Chronicle
is arranged, it would be interesting to see the text - as you've suggested -
and gauge how secure the inference is.

Having said that, even if she was married later than 1228, if the daughter
of Llewellyn is the countess mentioned in 1237, it still seems very unlikely
that she could be the same woman who went on to have 5 children after 1266.

Earl Malcolm's son and heir, Colban, is stated to have been a minor by
Complete Peerage at the time of Earl Malcolm's death in 1266. Complete
Peerage may well be right, but it gives no source for this statement.
If correct, it is barely possible for Earl Malcolm's surviving wife,
Ellen, to have been his mother. On the other hand, it is also possible
for Colban to have been the son of Earl Malcolm's first wife,
Llywelyn's daughter. So now we have a quandry.

My own feeling is that Earl Malcolm had three wives, not two. The
first wife was Llywelyn's daughter. She died without surviving male
issue. The second wife was the mother of Colban and his known brother.
The last wife was Ellen, who was clearly much younger than Earl
Malcolm. Ellen survived Earl Malcolm. This three wives scenario
seems to fit the facts better than the two wives arrangement we have at
present. In any case, the one wife scenario is utterly impossible.

Going by the chronological information in CP, it seems that Colbran must
have been born in or after - but not long after - 1245. CP says that Colbran
was a minor at his father's death in 1266, but also that Colbran's son
Duncan was aged 8 at Colbran's death in 1270 - implying he was born in 1261
or 1262.

I don't really understand the chronological problem in Colbran being the son
of Llewellyn's daughter, even if she was married as early as 1228, provided
she was reasonably young when she was married. Is there another reason apart
from chronology for introducing the idea of three successive marriages?

Chris Phillips

[D. Spencer Hines]

That devastating head injury Stewart received many years ago, when he
fell off his motorcycle while drunk, is obviously flaring up again.

He goes absolutely wacko....

DSH

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| Peter Stewart wrote:
|
| > You (and Welch) are more than a liar, or two liars: you ARE a lie.
| > Utterly contemptible in your behaviour here over many years, you are
| > held in utter contempt by many SGM readers, and of course by other
| > genealogists, some of whom don't participate in the newsgroup just
| > because of your vile & deceitful presence here.
|
| > Peter Stewart
|
| Does the hospital know you've escaped, Peter?
|
| Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
| Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

[Gjest]

I have encountered this in the Fox family of colonial Concord, Massachusetts, in which one man who flourished in the late 17th century had two sons named Samuel, one designated "the elder" and the other "the younger." Reliable primary evidence indicates each was the man's son. If I recall correctly, the sons were by different mothers. At the moment, I can't recall which was my ancestor!

Dave Morehouse
Hopkins, MN

[Leo van de Pas]

A modern time example could be multi-married Elizabeth Taylor. This is why I
record women with the name they were born with, at least in the genealogical
part. If there is a briography, then the naming can vary, depending on what
is said about a particular time in life. Some people record Mrs. XYZ if her
original name is not known, but I use NN in that case.
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 3:27 AM
Subject: Re: Mr Richardson's use of the term "vernacular"

This reminds me of the post I had made some time ago about the "proper"
form
of a name.

At that time I was asking a very generic question such as (this is just an
example and not a real person):

If Susan started her life as Susan of [born in] Newcastle and then her
father
became Earl of Cornwell and she was then referred to as Susan of Cornwall
in
some document. And later she marries the Count of Montagu and then
becomes
styled as Susan of Montagu and also as Susan, Countess Montagu. Then her
uncle
the Earl of Limburger dies and she inherits and becomes Duchess Limburger
.....
how do we refer to her in programs that can only take ONE name field ?

I think the generally accepted answer would be, we follow the example of
previous historians where they agree, and we free-wheel where they don't.

Comments, and vicious personal attacks welcome

Will Johnson

[Gjest]

OK but my issue was not with maiden and married names of women but rather
with changing TITLES. I wasn't referring to changing surnames.
Or are you saying that in this case you always refer to people by their birth
title.
So we couldn't say King Henry of England but rather Henry, Duke of Cornwall ?
Thanks
Will


In a message dated 4/21/05 1:34:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

<< A modern time example could be multi-married Elizabeth Taylor. This is why
I
record women with the name they were born with, at least in the genealogical
part. If there is a briography, then the naming can vary, depending on what
is said about a particular time in life. Some people record Mrs. XYZ if her
original name is not known, but I use NN in that case.
Leo >>

[Gjest]

Will,

Try this link. It should take you straight to the Heveningham of
Ketteringham (Abigail's branch) of the family. You should then be able to find Abigail
from the Index (follow the on -screen instructions).


http://www.genealogy.com/users/s/t/l/Ro ... 7tree.html

Rose

[Gjest]

Dear Newsgroup,
If Ellen ferch Llewelyn were born in say 1215 and
wed to Malcolm II, Earl of Fife as a minor of 12 or 13 (note that Isabel of
Angouleme was of a similar age when She married King John of England and that
She had a number of children by him, then married Hugues X de Lusignan in 1220
and had eight more children after the age of 32, so It is not so improbable
that Elen had children into her forties.
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

[Gjest]

Rose, thank you for that direct link. I note a few things missing from your
reconstruction but present at http://www.genealogics.org and would like you to
comment on them if you would.

Leo is showing that John Digby (1586-1653), 1st Earl of Bristol
was son to George Digby. You also have this but dont show his title.

But then was not George Digby, 2nd Earl of Bristol the son to this John the
1st Earl?
Your page does not show this.

And then further John Digby, 3rd Earl of Bristol should be son to the 2nd
Earl correct?

Thanks
Will Johnson

[Gjest]

In a message dated 4/21/05 12:02:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

<< My own feeling is that Earl Malcolm had three wives, not two. The
first wife was Llywelyn's daughter. She died without surviving male
issue. The second wife was the mother of Colban and his known brother.
The last wife was Ellen, who was clearly much younger than Earl
Malcolm. Ellen survived Earl Malcolm. >>

I don't see why. Colbron was a minor at his father's death in 1266. I doubt
that a little baby would be knighted in 1264 as was stated so let's say he
was at least 14 but no older than 19. If his mother, Llewellyn's daughter
married when she herself was 7 and if this happened in 1228 then she would be only
25 to 29 at his birth.
That does not strike me as needing a third wife for this to be possible.

Will Johnson

[Gordon Banks]

There are sources on some of the entries. This website claims that RI
colonist John Greene, Surgeon (from whom I also descend) is descended
from the Sir Henry Greene de Boketon of Greenes Norton,
Northamptonshire, who was Chief Justice of England. In fact, it even
gives an unbroken succession line.

My understanding is that this is not at all established. John Greene,
Surgeon did use the Greene arms (Az. 3 stags passant or) in a letter to
the King when he was in the government of RI. The definitive genealogy
book on the Greenes published in about 1890 takes that as good evidence,
but doesn't come up with an unbroken line, having one or more missing
generations. They do some hand waving about records being lost during
the War of the Roses, etc. But this site is the first I've seen to fill
in the gaps. I wonder where those names came from. His only source is
a group sheet number.

I would love to be able to claim another descent like this, but it
doesn't look very solid to me.

Does anyone else know more about this?

On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 13:30 -0700, CE Wood wrote:

The Penrose website is now:
http://216.250.129.112/modules.php?op=m ... e=surnames

No sources anymore, though.

CE Wood


Douglas Richardson [email protected] wrote:
Dear Will ~

snip> The Penrose Family website, which is now down, also uses Mr.
Lythgoe's program for their genealogical database. <snip
--

Gordon Banks <[email protected]>

[Leo van de Pas]

See in between:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin W. Spencer" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: Fact of Fiction? Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales married John
E of Huntington (1207-37)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:46:53 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] ("Leo
van de
Pas") wrote:

Douglas Richardson presents himself as a very confident and certain
person
and first makes positive statements but when queried it becomes less so.

"I carefully stated these _facts_ in my book" Glossing over his reply
the
word fact has disappeared:
Andrew MacEwen believes----was possibly the----the evidence is
lacking---Mr.MacEwen supposes---Mr.MacEwen thinks----could be---only a
theory---the countess (in 1237) could be the uncle's wife----would
presumably be---Melrose Chronicle suggests---

In fairness to every one who bought his book he should have been less
_certain_ in his book as now it emerges that the _fact_ he mentioned is
only
a guess. It is still not explained why both the Complete Peerage and
Scots
Peerage, believing in only one wife, should be overruled by the believes
of
Andrew MacEwen and Douglas Richardson. As long as there is doubt, the
doubt
should have been expressed and the _believe_ should not have been stated
as
_fact_.

Douglas Richardson's case rests on a chain of circumstantial evidence
apparently
transmitted to him by Andrew MacEwen, and I believe that it becomes much
clearer
when the chronology is preserved.

1. Llywellyn had a legitimate daughter Susanna who last appears in 1228.
[4/20/2005 11:24 AM]
=====Plantagenet Ancestry Page 744. Susanna of Wales. In 1228 her custody

was granted by King Henry III of England to Nicholas de Verdun, of Alton,
Staffordshire, and Clementine, his wife. Note: Susanna's subsequent history
is unknown; however, Andrew MacEwen suggests that she may well be Llywelyn's
unidentified daughter next below who married Malcolm, 7th Earl of Fife.

After 1228 there are no facts known about her, Andrew MacEwen suggests, and
he may well be correct, but then he could also be wrong. Does the Melrose
chronicle _really_ state Malcolm married? I understand it was asked whether
someone can produce the text and translate it from the Latin. It seems to me
we know a Melrose Chronicle exists but we do not know what is in it. Whether
typical or not, does this make it a concrete fact that Malcolm _did in fact_
marry? Two things happended in 1228, custody of Susanna is given to Nicholas
de Verdun and Malcolm becomes Earl and is _typically_ married. Shouldn't
this mean that he did _not_ marry Susanna as then the question arises why
give custody to one person while she marries another.

Plantagenet Ancestry again,
Possible child of Joan of England by Llywelyn (making her a possible full
sister of Ellen)
---of Wales married before 6 July 1237 (as his 1st wife) Malcolm 7th Earl of
Fife.
This is _established_ by a reference, but what have we been given as
reference? Document dated 6 July 1237 mentions "Maurice, servant of the
Countess of Fife"
How many facts can we extract from that? I would say, we can accept that
Maurice was alive. But was the Countess? What if Maurice was a very old man
in 1237 and could have been the servant of
1.Ada or Ela, said to be a niece of Malcolm IV, was married to Duncan, Earl
of Fife, this Duncan died in 1203.
2.Maud wife of Malcolm, Earl of Fife. This Earl died in 1228.
3.Helen of Wales married to Malcolm, Earl of Fife

These three ladies are all mentioned in the Complete Peerage and most likely
in Scots Peerage as well (I haven't looked). Plantagenet Ancestry totally
ignores the first name Helen as wife of Malcolm. Why? CP and SP have no
problems with that name.

2. The Melrose chronicle reports the marriage of Malcolm, Earl of Fife,
right
after his accession.
======Again, does this chronicle state that Malcolm married right after his

accession?
Have you seen it? I would love to see an e-mail containing the details of
this chronicle.
Richardson asked for this chronicle and also if someone could translate it
from Latin.

We know from other sources that this occurred in 1228.
===We know from other sources that Malcolm succeeded his uncle in 1228 but
does this require he got married immediately as well? Just because it is
customary does not mean it happened.

The

sequence, according to Richardson, is typical for a man of his time,
place, and
rank. In addition, the chronicle clearly identifies his bride as
Llywelyn's
daughter. [4/20/2005 3:31 AM]
====Again this chronicle. What if Susanna was the intended bride but she

died and they never married, returning us to the other possible daughter
named Helen by CP and SP and who may have been younger, much younger than
Susanna and therefor the marriage took place years later?

3. There is a reference to a servant of the Countess of Fife dated 6 July
1237.
The record does not give her forename, and Richardson identifies her with
the
woman Malcolm had married in ca. 1228. [4/20/2005 3:31 AM]
====As I said before: in 1237 Maurice the servant was alive but which

Countess of Fife was intended and was she alive?

Upon further inquiry,

he also suggests that the previous count's widow was unlikely to be named
in a
*Scottish* document of 1237.
======Why? Basically a widow of an Earl is not mentioned!!! It is the

servant who is mentioned and the 'Countess of Fife' is only mentioned to
identify Maurice. There may have been two people named Maurice, one was the
servant of the Countess of Fife (alive or death) and the other wasn't.

[4/20/2005 11:24 AM] Therefore, Malcolm's wife is

the more probable candidate. We may presume that the countess is the
daughter of
Llywelyn, whom Malcolm had married as early as 1228.
======Probable candidate, we may presume, these do not sound like facts,

only possibilites.

4. It is well known that after Malcolm died in 1266, his widow Ellen
married
Donald, Earl of Mar, and had issue by him. In Richardson's words, "It is
not
possible chronologically for Ellen to be the same woman as Earl Malcolm's
wife
back in the 1230's and still be of child bearing age in 1270." [4/20/2005
3:31
AM]

This last observation is on target; only Richardson's imprecise language
fails
him.
=====How do we know that Malcolm had a wife in the 1230s?

He might have noted that the interval between his estimated date of

marriage and his death, some 38 years, exceeds his wife's likely
reproductive
interval -- *if* she truly married Malcolm shortly after his accession.
====As you say *if*

But she

could have married him as late as 6 June 1237 in order to be mentioned as
a
countess of Fife, and without necessarily contradicting the Melrose
chronicle.

===Again, who says that in 1237 there was a live Countess of Fife? Maurice
was alive but that doesn't mean _a_ Countess of Fife was.

We simply haven't heard enough about the early events in Malcolm's tenure
to
date this marriage with any greater confidence.
====Exactly!

And if Ellen was married closer

to that date, and closer to the age of seven years, it is possible to
imagine
Ellen in her forties when, according to Richardson, the last of her
children by
Donald was born as late as ca. 1275. [4/20/2005 5:06 PM]

I see little reason to dispute the latter date, given the timing of
Ellen's
remarriage and the number of her children. Even so, the chronological
evidence
alone does not absolutely rule out the standard filiation. So, before we
can
accept this as a corrective to CP and SP,
==== I don't think we have any information at all acceptable to correct CP

and SP.

we need to know *even more* about the

circumstances: whether they militate against Malcolm's wife being
identical with
Susanna, being relatively young, married as late as 1237,
=====We have no facts associating Susanna with Malcolm. All we know is that

she was handed to Nicholas de Verdun in the year Malcolm became Earl. As far
as I am concerned the year 1237 and the Earl of Fife being married do not
co-incide.

retaining a servant

named Maurice (which name, if I recall, had some vogue in Ireland and
Wales) at
that date, and perhaps only consummating her marriage some years
afterward.

snip>.

If Richardson's vice has been to read too much into the sequence of
statements
in the Melrose chronicle,
======Again, has the Melrose chronicle been produced? What does it say?

the vice of Leo van de Pas has been to cling

stubbornly to the facts presented in CP and SP. A lot of scholarship has
been
published since then, much of it not readily accessible to him. And the
condition of the early Scottish records, as reported by MacEwen, makes it
incumbent upon researchers to consider all possible interpretations
thereof.

====I lack access to an enormous amount of information, but what I am really
doing is ask : Convice me!! I would like to be convinced!! But so far I have
not seen anything anywhere near _fact_

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

Austin W. Spencer

[Peter Stewart]

Doug McDonald wrote:

Uh. You should admit that you are using "retreat to
authority" reasoning, and your authorities are outdated.

The rules of grammar are necessarily authoritative, and since we are
discussing them we are already in "retreat" if you take the view that
the subject is regressive.

The newer modes of grammaer are much more logical.
An infinitive in English is a compound, and there is no
getting around it.

This is self-serving tripe - it isn't given to you & your fellow
"modernists" (or now "modists") to reinvent English grammar for the
nonce as some homespun system in which you are never wrong if the same
mistakes are commonly made by the man in the street.

An infinitive is NOT a compound of sense, like the irrelevant German
constructions you mentioned, although it may take two or more words to
express this integral meaning in English. I can go on repeating that
for you if necessary - it is a FACT, plain & simple as can be, not open
to debate or spin for the purpose of justifying your blatant error.

Peter Stewart

[Todd A. Farmerie]

[email protected] wrote:

I have encountered this in the Fox family of colonial Concord, Massachusetts, in which one man who flourished in the late 17th century had two sons named Samuel, one designated "the elder" and the other "the younger." Reliable primary evidence indicates each was the man's son. If I recall correctly, the sons were by different mothers. At the moment, I can't recall which was my ancestor!

I just remembered that the English father of immigrant John Coggeshall
was named John Coggeshall the elder, having a younger brother John
Coggeshall the younger, in the mid 16th century, the exact time period
in question.

taf

[Douglas Richardson royala]

Dear Carolyn ~

Thank you for posting the Penrose Family website address. Much
appreciated.

I see the Penrose site hasn't been undated since Christmas - it still
has the Christmas holly pattern in the background for the database.

Again, thanks for taking the time to post this information.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


CE Wood wrote:

The Penrose website is now:

http://216.250.129.112/modules.php?op=m ... e=surnames

No sources anymore, though.

CE Wood


Douglas Richardson [email protected] wrote:
Dear Will ~

snip> The Penrose Family website, which is now down, also uses Mr.
Lythgoe's program for their genealogical database. <snip

[D. Spencer Hines]

Bingo!

Stewart has this one right.

DSH

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

| Doug McDonald wrote:
|
| > Uh. You should admit that you are using "retreat to
| > authority" reasoning, and your authorities are outdated.
|
| The rules of grammar are necessarily authoritative, and since we are
| discussing them we are already in "retreat" if you take the view that
| the subject is regressive.
|
| > The newer modes of grammaer are much more logical.
| > An infinitive in English is a compound, and there is no
| > getting around it.
|
| This is self-serving tripe - it isn't given to you & your fellow
| "modernists" (or now "modists") to reinvent English grammar for the
| nonce as some homespun system in which you are never wrong if the same
| mistakes are commonly made by the man in the street.
|
| An infinitive is NOT a compound of sense, like the irrelevant German
| constructions you mentioned, although it may take two or more words to
| express this integral meaning in English. I can go on repeating that
| for you if necessary - it is a FACT, plain & simple as can be, not
| open to debate or spin for the purpose of justifying your blatant
| error.
|
| Peter Stewart

[Douglas Richardson royala]

Dear Newsgroup ~

I had a long talk today with Andrew B.W. MacEwen of Maine, the resident
expert on all things Scottish. The talk was very illuminating. I
asked Mr. MacEwen numerous questions and he had a ready answer for
nearly all of them. Clearly Mr. MacEwen has done his homework.

Basically he says that the only source that states that Malcolm, Earl
of Fife, married a daughter of Llywelyn is the Melrose Chronicle. Mr.
MacEwen has not one but two editions of the Melrose Chronicle in his
personal library. At my request, he examined both of them for me. He
read me the Latin and it was very easy to follow. Under the year 1230
it is stated that Earl Malcolm senior died and that he was succeeded by
his nephew "nepos", the younger Malcolm, who afterwards ["postea"]
married the daughter of Llywelyn. Since the senior Earl Malcolm is
thought to have died in 1228 or 1229 (sources vary on the exact date
according to Andrew), it seems likely that the death of the senior
Malcolm took place in 1228 or 1229 and that the younger Earl Malcolm
married the daughter of Llywelyn in or before 1230.

Melrose Chronicle is written in different hands, so Mr. MacEwen is
uncertain as to the exact dating of this particular entry. However,
the entry would appear to date prior to 1266, when the chronicle was
stopped, and possibly as early as 1230 itself. Mr. MacEwen says there
is a discussion regarding the dating of the various written hands which
is published in the "facsimile" edition of the Melrose Chronicle.

As for the evidence of Earl Malcolm's second wife, Ellen, he says there
is no record of Ellen as his wife in the earl's lifetime. He said
that the Scotichronicon records that Earl Malcolm's widow married
Donald, Earl of Mar. He didn't provide the date, but it can be easily
found in Scots Peerage or Complete Peerage. He added that there is a
rent roll dated 1290 in which Ellen, Countess of Mar, is named. He
said a transcript of the rent roll was published in Stevenson's
Illustrations of Scottish History. It is commonly assumed that Ellen,
Countess of Mar, named in the 1290 record is the same woman as Earl
Malcolm's surviving widow. Mr. MacEwen has no problem with that. Mr.
MacEwen continued to explain that for reasons he has not understood,
all secondary sources in turn identify Earl Malcolm's widow as being
the same woman as his earlier wife, the daughter of Llywelyn. On this
score, Mr. MacEwen says "This is impossible."

Mr. MacEwen says that the Earls of Fife were the premier comital family
of Scotland in this time period. As such, they would have had
sufficient status to contract a marriage to a legitimate daughter of
Prince Llywelyn. Since Llywelyn had a legitimate daughter named
Susanna available in the right time period to marry Earl Malcolm, Mr.
MacEwen has considered it a distinct possibility that this Susanna was
Earl Malcolm's first wife. However, there are no contemporary records
at all which provide the given name of either of Earl Malcolm's wives
during the earl's lifetime.

Mr. MacEwen said there is little in print written on the early Earls of
Fife. He knows of one article by Geoffrey Barrow which is entitled
"Earls of Fife in the 12th Century," which appeared in Proceedings of
the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 83 (1953): 51-62. Other than
that, nothing.

He said that when earlier scholars decided that Ellen, Countess of Mar,
named in 1290 record must be Earl Malcolm's earlier wife, there was
some apparent confusion between her and Llywelyn's proven legitimate
daughter, Ellen, wife of John of Scotland and Robert de Quincy. It was
finally decided that the two Ellen's must be separate and distinct
women. Yet, there seems to have been no effort made to check the
chronology to see if the unnamed wife Earl Malcolm married in 1228/30
was the same person as the wife we know as Ellen who subsequently
married Donald, Earl of Mar. It was more or less assumed the two wives
were the same person.

Mr. MacEwen says the chief problem in resolving the issue of the wives
of the early Earls of Fife is that the cartulary of their chief
foundation, Culross, was destroyed in a fire before any abstracts were
ever made from it. The destruction of this one cartulary is surely an
enormous loss. Had it survived, there presumably would have been
successive charters issued by each of the Earls of Fife, along with
dutiful reference to their wives and mothers.

Regarding my three wives scenario, Mr. MacEwen said he had considered
that possibility as well. However, given there is so little known
about Earl Malcolm's life, he thought it best to stick to the two wives
scenario and leave it at that. He stated emphatically that Earl
Malcolm's second surviving wife, Ellen, was clearly much younger than
Earl Malcolm and that it is impossible chronologically for Ellen to be
the same person as the daughter of Llywelyn.

Mr. MacEwen is not sure why the chronological issue over the two wives
was overlooked for so long. He said as far as he knows he's the first
person to have spotted the problem. I asked him about the possibility
of writing an article on this subject as a correction to Complete
Peerage and Scots Peerage. He said he has material in his files for
many articles and this is just another potential article. All the
same, he is working on several other articles at present. He
complained how much time they take to get them finished and done well.
He asked if I was interested in writing an article on the matter
myself. I said no, I also have more material than I have time to
handle. He closed by wishing me well with my Magna Carta Ancestry book
and we signed off.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

[Austin W. Spencer]

On 21 Apr 2005 20:46:30 -0700, "Douglas Richardson [email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

I had a long talk today with Andrew B.W. MacEwen of Maine, the resident
expert on all things Scottish. The talk was very illuminating. I
asked Mr. MacEwen numerous questions and he had a ready answer for
nearly all of them. Clearly Mr. MacEwen has done his homework.

Basically he says that the only source that states that Malcolm, Earl
of Fife, married a daughter of Llywelyn is the Melrose Chronicle. Mr.
MacEwen has not one but two editions of the Melrose Chronicle in his
personal library. At my request, he examined both of them for me. He
read me the Latin and it was very easy to follow. Under the year 1230
it is stated that Earl Malcolm senior died and that he was succeeded by
his nephew "nepos", the younger Malcolm, who afterwards ["postea"]
married the daughter of Llywelyn. Since the senior Earl Malcolm is
thought to have died in 1228 or 1229 (sources vary on the exact date
according to Andrew), it seems likely that the death of the senior
Malcolm took place in 1228 or 1229 and that the younger Earl Malcolm
married the daughter of Llywelyn in or before 1230.

Melrose Chronicle is written in different hands, so Mr. MacEwen is
uncertain as to the exact dating of this particular entry. However,
the entry would appear to date prior to 1266, when the chronicle was
stopped, and possibly as early as 1230 itself. Mr. MacEwen says there
is a discussion regarding the dating of the various written hands which
is published in the "facsimile" edition of the Melrose Chronicle.

[big snip]

Many thanks for this very helpful discussion. I am afraid, however, that you did
not quite understand my hypothetical "in her 40s" age estimate. I fully agree
that Ellen cannot have married for the first time in 1228; but I predicated the
hypothetical on a minimum age at marriage *and* a first marriage much later than
1228. I admit that this was stretching things quite a bit, but -- I thought --
no further than the chronicle and legal formalities would allow. In any case,
your first reply addressed the age factor, but not the date factor. If we cannot
agree on the interval that transpired between Malcolm's accession and marriage,
that puts the case for more than one wife in some doubt, though not very much.
Among other countervailing reasons, Llywelyn could in principle have had a
duaghter in ca. 1230, with or without his wife, whose only son was born in ca.
1208. But how likely is it that such a daughter was born to Llywelyn?

I was rather inclined to accept your argument to begin with; but it disturbed me
that there was no evident attempt to date the Melrose Chronicle entries. You
might say that I was afraid CP and SP would out eventually. And Mr. MacEwen's
judgment that the one-wife hypothesis is "impossible" demanded amplification.
The weight of the evidence is in your favor, but it would still help greatly if
we could date Malcolm's marriage more precisely.

Austin W. Spencer