Blount-Ayala

[Douglas Richardson royala]

[email protected] wrote:

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

Dear Will ~

Mr. MacEwen thinks that Colbron son of Malcolm Earl of Fife was about
20 when his father died in 1266, or born about 1246. I concur with
this estimate. If Colbron's mother was the daughter of Llywelyn, she
would have been a minimum of 23 in 1246 at his birth (that is, assuming
she was at least age 7 in or before 1230).

So, yes, the chronology would fit quite well for Llywelyn's daughter to
be Colbron's mother.

On the flip side, it would be pushing things for Colbran to be the son
of his father's surviving wife, Ellen. Ellen had her last child by her
Mar marriage about 1275. While it is techinically possible for Ellen
to be Colbran's mother, it is unlikely.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

[Gjest]

In a message dated 4/21/2005 8:47:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

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.

I think this is a very strong point. You are saying there is no reason they
would be marrying an illegitimate daughter since this would be a step down.

I wonder at the dating of Susanna's "guardianship" in 1228 and her father's
death in 1230 (is that right?). Could these two events be causal ?

Will Johnson

[Peter Stewart]

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

In a message dated 4/21/2005 8:47:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

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.

I think this is a very strong point. You are saying there is no reason
they
would be marrying an illegitimate daughter since this would be a step
down.

There are many examples of great magnates & rulers marrying illegitimate
ladies in order to cement alliances with their fathers - they might well
have preferred legitimate daughters, of course, assuming any was available
and on offer. The strength of this point would surely depend on knowing the
circumstances fairly well on both sides of the union.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

"starbuck95" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

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

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

Since you have read a great many wills from this period, can you indicate
for us in general terms the kind of meanings - narrow or broad,
genealogically - that "cousin" might have had for an early 18th-century
testator?

Peter Stewart

[Leo van de Pas]

Dear Austin,

Many thanks for this.

A few more facts apparently are emerging but do they clinch the deal?

"The Melrose Chronicle is the only source that states that Malcolm, Earl of
Fife married a daughter of Llywelyn". I don't think anyone doubted this in
the first place.
Also I don't think anyone questions when Malcolm (the uncle) died, 1228 or
1229.

It is such a pity that the Melrose Chronicle cannot be dated. "However, the
entry would appear to date prior to 1266, when the chronicle was stopped,
and possibly as early as 1230 itself".

This gives a time span of 36 years. Which could allow one wife for the
younger Malcolm who then marries again and has more children. What a pity
and I had hoped we could be certain and put it all behind us, one way or the
other.

Many thanks for sharing this.
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin W. Spencer" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: Fact of Fiction? Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales married John
E of Huntington (1207-37)

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

[Peter Stewart]

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

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.

<snip>

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.

Rubbish. These two statements are flatly at odds - if Andrew MacEwan is such
an expert in this subject, he certainly ought to be aware of John
Bannerman's paper 'MacDuff of Fife' in _Medieval Scotland, Crown, Lordship
and Community: Essays Presented to GWS Brown_, edited by Alexander Grant &
Keith J Stringer (Edinburgh, 1993).

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

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

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.

The conventional practice would be to refer to this lady by the highest rank
she attained in her own right - in this case, as Susan, Countess of
Limburger (not "Duchess" if she inherited this title from an uncle who was
an earl rather than a duke).

To take an extreme instance of this, hereafter Joseph Ratzinger will usually
be called Pope Benedict XVI, even if he should die tomorrow after 78 years
(less a few days) under his former name.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

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

<snip>

To take an extreme instance of this, hereafter Joseph Ratzinger will
usually be called Pope Benedict XVI, even if he should die tomorrow after
78 years (less a few days) under his former name.

Make that "plus a couple of days..."

I think he celebrated his 78th birthday on the day before the conclave
started.

Peter Stewart

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

In message of 22 Apr, "Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote:

<snip>

John Bannerman's paper 'MacDuff of Fife' in _Medieval Scotland,
Crown, Lordship and Community: Essays Presented to GWS Brown_,
edited by Alexander Grant & Keith J Stringer (Edinburgh, 1993).

And the article even appears in a footnote on an internet site, as
found by Google at:

http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/A ... donald.htm

The footnote shows that the article is 18 pages long so hardly
insubstantive.

It also appears in a list of books on Scottish women, compiled by Prof
E. Ewan (though not MacEwan) on:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~eewan/booktop.html

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

[John Parsons]

Legitmacy was not necessarily the touchstone for the medieval centuries that
can be argued the same way it can be argued for later centuries.

King Alexander I of Scotland married Sibylla, illegitimate daughter of Henry
I of England; the duke of Brittany married another of Henry I's illegitimate
daughters. Llywelyn himself had accepted John's illegitimate daughter as
his wife.

Contingent political circumstances could induce a nobleman to marry another
lord's illegitimate daughter if, at the time, the resulting alliance was
attractive enough.

Regards

John P.

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fact of Fiction? Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales married
John E of Hunt...
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 02:06:50 EDT

In a message dated 4/21/2005 8:47:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

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.

I think this is a very strong point. You are saying there is no reason
they
would be marrying an illegitimate daughter since this would be a step down.

I wonder at the dating of Susanna's "guardianship" in 1228 and her father's
death in 1230 (is that right?). Could these two events be causal ?

Will Johnson

[starbuck95]

Usually a 1st or 2nd cousin in this time period, I think.

[Peter Stewart]

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

In message of 22 Apr, "Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote:

snip

John Bannerman's paper 'MacDuff of Fife' in _Medieval Scotland,
Crown, Lordship and Community: Essays Presented to GWS Brown_,
edited by Alexander Grant & Keith J Stringer (Edinburgh, 1993).

And the article even appears in a footnote on an internet site, as
found by Google at:

http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/A ... donald.htm

The footnote shows that the article is 18 pages long so hardly
insubstantive.

It's far from insubstantial - any expert on Scottish history or genealogy in
this period, and well-informed amateurs, must have read it.

Thanks for posting this link, by the way - apart from the misguided attempt
to label the line of Scottish kings descended from Malcolm III as "Canmore
dynasty" (from his personal but not hereditary byname Ceannmor), this is
interesting.

Peter Stewart

[Renia]

Peter Stewart wrote:

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

snip

To take an extreme instance of this, hereafter Joseph Ratzinger will
usually be called Pope Benedict XVI, even if he should die tomorrow after
78 years (less a few days) under his former name.


Make that "plus a couple of days..."

I think he celebrated his 78th birthday on the day before the conclave
started.

16th April

[Peter Stewart]

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

<chomp>

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.

So why on earth isn't Leo free to do as he wishes with the name Basset?

<snip>

I look for the good in people and I usually find it.

By means of the attraction of opposites?

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

"starbuck95" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Usually a 1st or 2nd cousin in this time period, I think.

Thanks, that seems to be the standard meaning that old-fashioned British
people without a special interest in genealogy use today, with more distant
relatives usually given some qualification.

I wonder if different sectarians might still have used the word more broadly
in the early 18th-century - without referring to the example you gave, would
Quakers or other non-Conformists have tended to use "cousin" for all of
their community members, even for people who were not related to the
speaker/writer by blood?

Peter Stewart

[starbuck95]

The _VCH Hampshire_ mentions that the 1846 ed. of Burke's _Landed
Gentry_ has something on these Hampshire Dowses. Maybe that would be a
place to start.

[starbuck95]

I'm not sure exactly what the Quakers would have done (Dorcas Starbuck
and Damaris Coffin were certainly Quakers--like everyone else on the
island of Nantucket--but I'm assuming Sir John Gayer was Church of
England).

There is a Quaker marriage certificate from the 1700s reproduced in
Sylvanus J. Macy's _Macy Genealogy_. Dorcas Starbuck and Damaris
Coffin signed the document close together in the ladies' column in very
similar (and rather elegant) italic handwriting.

[Douglas Richardson royala]

Dear John ~

Mr. MacEwen's point is that the Earls of Fife were of sufficient rank
to contract a marriage to a legitimate daughter of Prince Llywelyn.
That is all.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


"John Parsons" wrote:

Legitmacy was not necessarily the touchstone for the medieval
centuries that
can be argued the same way it can be argued for later centuries.

King Alexander I of Scotland married Sibylla, illegitimate daughter
of Henry
I of England; the duke of Brittany married another of Henry I's
illegitimate
daughters. Llywelyn himself had accepted John's illegitimate
daughter as
his wife.

Contingent political circumstances could induce a nobleman to marry
another
lord's illegitimate daughter if, at the time, the resulting alliance
was
attractive enough.

Regards

John P.


From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fact of Fiction? Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales
married
John E of Hunt...
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 02:06:50 EDT

In a message dated 4/21/2005 8:47:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

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.

I think this is a very strong point. You are saying there is no
reason
they
would be marrying an illegitimate daughter since this would be a
step down.

I wonder at the dating of Susanna's "guardianship" in 1228 and her
father's
death in 1230 (is that right?). Could these two events be causal ?

Will Johnson

[Douglas Richardson royala]

Peter Stewart wrote:

Rubbish. These two statements are flatly at odds - if Andrew MacEwan
is such
an expert in this subject, he certainly ought to be aware of John
Bannerman's paper 'MacDuff of Fife' in _Medieval Scotland, Crown,
Lordship
and Community: Essays Presented to GWS Brown_, edited by Alexander
Grant &
Keith J Stringer (Edinburgh, 1993).

Peter Stewart

Mr. MacEwen has probably seen it, Peter. He specifically mentioned
MacDuff of Fife to me in our conversation.

Mr. MacEwen is a gentleman and a scholar, which you are not.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancesty.net

[Gjest]

Todd,

I also should have recalled the Coggeshall example, as John Coggeshall is also one of my ancestors (one I'm hoping someday will be shown to be a gateway ancestor).

Perhaps it goes without saying, but my Fox example is also a case of two brothers with the same name who were alive at the same time.

Dave Morehouse
Hopkins, MN

[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<

[Gjest]

Thanks for all your replies. The one about the two Paston brothers
named John was the most on point. None of you seem to think that it
implies that they were children by different mothers.

I knew when I chose the title for this thread that it could be mistaken
for spam, but I couldn't resist the pun!

[Doug McDonald]

Peter Stewart wrote:

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.

An infinitive is as much a compound as is for example "will be going".
It consists of a very and an particle which indicates infinitives.
In Latin an infinitive ... for example "amare" ("to love") is
not a compound.

You seem to have the idea that grammer is "what I was taught".
It is not. Grammar is the description of the structure of
a language. It is dependant only on the way people speak the language.
In modern linguistics, it is considered that writing is a secondary
thing, that spoken language is primary. It is true that written
language is also to be studied. The grammar of English has not changed
since you were taught ... its just that the grammarians have decided to
do a better job.

Doug McDonald

[R. Battle]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Doug McDonald wrote:
<snip>

You seem to have the idea that grammer is "what I was taught".
It is not. Grammar is the description of the structure of
a language. It is dependant only on the way people speak the language.
In modern linguistics, it is considered that writing is a secondary
thing, that spoken language is primary. It is true that written
language is also to be studied. The grammar of English has not changed
since you were taught ... its just that the grammarians have decided to do a
better job.
snip

If I might butt in...

It would appear that Messrs. McDonald and Stewart are speaking at
cross-purposes and about two different but related things. Both are
speaking of "grammar," but by that Mr. McDonald means "descriptive
grammar" and Mr. Stewart "prescriptive grammar." One might argue about
the relative merits of each (and, as a linguist, I would be more than
happy to engage in the debate off-list), but the two cannot be equated.

-Robert Battle

[Doug McDonald]

R. Battle wrote:

If I might butt in...

It would appear that Messrs. McDonald and Stewart are speaking at
cross-purposes and about two different but related things. Both are
speaking of "grammar," but by that Mr. McDonald means "descriptive
grammar" and Mr. Stewart "prescriptive grammar."

AH! Indeed, yes.

Doug McDonald

[John Parsons]

I might have been more specific and now point out that Welsh law did not
distinguish between a man's children on the basis of their mothers'
matrimonial status. Legitimate & illegitimate children alike had
inheritance rights. No notions of greater or lesser status would have
attached to Llywelyn's children and their marriages except perhaps, of
course, in the eyes of their spouses.

In other words, Llywelyn might not have bothered to identify any of his
daughters as legitimate or illegitimate when negotiating their marriages.
As far as he would have been concerned, they were all on the same footing.

We cannot, however, be certain why an earl of Fife would have wanted to
marry the daughter of a Welsh prince in the first place, and any debates on
whether that daughter was born in or out of wedlock must wait until that
first question is settled.

For all we know, the earl may have fallen in love with the girl at first
sight--not impossible--and was determined to marry her come what may. Since
her legitimacy didn't matter in her native land, it could very well not have
mattered to the earl.

Regards

John P.

From: "Douglas Richardson [email protected]" <[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fact or Fiction? Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales married
John E of Hunt...
Date: 22 Apr 2005 08:06:10 -0700

Dear John ~

Mr. MacEwen's point is that the Earls of Fife were of sufficient rank
to contract a marriage to a legitimate daughter of Prince Llywelyn.
That is all.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


"John Parsons" wrote:
Legitmacy was not necessarily the touchstone for the medieval
centuries that
can be argued the same way it can be argued for later centuries.

King Alexander I of Scotland married Sibylla, illegitimate daughter
of Henry
I of England; the duke of Brittany married another of Henry I's
illegitimate
daughters. Llywelyn himself had accepted John's illegitimate
daughter as
his wife.

Contingent political circumstances could induce a nobleman to marry
another
lord's illegitimate daughter if, at the time, the resulting alliance
was
attractive enough.

Regards

John P.


From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fact of Fiction? Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales
married
John E of Hunt...
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 02:06:50 EDT

In a message dated 4/21/2005 8:47:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

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.

I think this is a very strong point. You are saying there is no
reason
they
would be marrying an illegitimate daughter since this would be a
step down.

I wonder at the dating of Susanna's "guardianship" in 1228 and her
father's
death in 1230 (is that right?). Could these two events be causal ?

Will Johnson

[D. Spencer Hines]

Hilarious!

"Descriptive Grammar" is just coded language for a Lowering of Standards
across the board, in anything having to do with English Grammar.

It is the term of art used by lazy, worn-out, jaded and demoralized
English teachers, and their acolytes, who have Given Up and Sold Out.

DSH

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

| It would appear that Messrs. McDonald and Stewart are speaking at
| cross-purposes and about two different but related things. Both are
| speaking of "grammar," but by that Mr. McDonald means "descriptive
| grammar" and Mr. Stewart "prescriptive grammar." One might argue
| about the relative merits of each (and, as a linguist, I would be more
| than happy to engage in the debate off-list), but the two cannot be
| equated.
|
| -Robert Battle

[Tony Hoskins]

My two cents.

I have discovered numerous instances of this, too. Ancestors of mine,
Sir Edward Gorges (d.1566) and his wife Mary (Poyntz) Gorges, had two
sons named William (died 1583 and 1589 respectively). Also, in the
Hoskins / Hoskyns family of Herefordshire in the 16th and 17th centuries
are instances of more than one living son named John. And in each
instance both identically named sons were by the same mother.

Many more examples of this could be cited.

Tony Hoskins

Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

[Gjest]

One thing that has not been addressed sufficiently in this debate revolves
around the children of Donald of Mar by his wife, widow of the Earl of Fife.
(Did I get that right?)

I think Doug pointed out that she had five children. Is there firm evidence
for their birth years and that *she* was the mother of all five? I think that
would bear on the issue.

Another interesting thing is that nothing has been said about other children
by the marriage of the Earl of Fife to a daughter of Llewellyn. Did they
really only have one child in 20 to 40 years of marriage ? And then she goes on
to have FIVE by her next husband. That's a little hard to believe.

The alternative idea, that other children by this first marriage are not
mentioned in any work is equally hard to believe.

Having five children, whip-smack, in 10 years of marriage sounds like a young
woman to me, not a middle-aged woman who had only had one child in 20 to 40
years of prior marriage.

Will Johnson

[R. Battle]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Hilarious!

"Descriptive Grammar" is just coded language for a Lowering of Standards
across the board, in anything having to do with English Grammar.

It is the term of art used by lazy, worn-out, jaded and demoralized
English teachers, and their acolytes, who have Given Up and Sold Out.
snip

Not so. "Descriptive grammar" is the field of the linguist, not the
English teacher; if the latter were to teach descriptive grammar in the
guise of prescriptive grammar that would be an abrogation of duty and a
betrayal of trust.

However, it should be recognized that prescriptive grammar is an
artificial and arbitrary construct, and as such has little place in
true scientific study of language (except, of course, in writing about
it ). Good science is observational. A physicist does not formulate
rules and then try to force what he observes to conform to those rules;
rather, he observes what takes place and then forms hypotheses to fit the
observed phenomena. In the same way, a linguist (NOT an English teacher)
observes the way that language is actually used and seeks to account for
the observed facts.

-Robert Battle

[Gjest]

In "Living Descendents of Blood Royal" Vol 2, by Count d'Angerville, 1961
Sub "Henry IV, King of England" p xxiii

He states "[son of Henry IV] ... Humphrey b 3 Oct 1390, d 23 Feb 1447, Duke
of Gloucester, KG, Regent of England, during the minority of Henry VI; m 1428,
Eleanor, d 1454, dau of Reginald, 2nd Lord Cobham...."

Now in "Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe", Jiri Louda and Michael
Maclagan; Clarkson N Potter, New York 1981

they state of this same Humphrey that he married 1st 1422
Jacqueline (1401-36), Countess of /Holland/
and that they divorced 1426

This might just be an oversight. In general these well-known lines in Living
Descendents are accurate with respect to Heraldry, ibid, and with respect to
http://www.genealogics.org. That is, I have not found any glaring differences.

But this one is odd. Is this early marriage suspect? Living Descendents
generally covers all marriages even if there are no offspring, so it's not that.

Thanks
Will Johnson

[Douglas Richardson royala]

If I recall the matter correctly, I believe it was the anti-Pope who
annuled the marriage, and the Pope who later said it was valid. Does
that help Will?

DR

[email protected] wrote:

It appears in both cases it would have to be Martin V. Not all
sources agree
that the marriage to Jean (John) was actually annulled by the pope.
But if
it was and then four years later (approximately) reversed by the same
Pope that
sounds very odd to me.
Will Johnson

In a message dated 4/22/05 1:57:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

If you take the dates you can establish which Pope was involved.
If you go
to Genealogics and in Easy Name Search only enter the word Pope
and you
get a list of their names which includes the years they were Pope.
Hope that
helps.
Leo

[Gjest]

In a message dated 4/22/05 2:21:41 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

Now in "Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe", Jiri Louda and Michael
Maclagan; Clarkson N Potter, New York 1981

they state of this same Humphrey that he married 1st 1422
Jacqueline (1401-36), Countess of /Holland/
and that they divorced 1426

This might just be an oversight. In general these well-known lines in
Living
Descendents are accurate with respect to Heraldry, ibid, and with respect to

http://www.genealogics.org. That is, I have not found any glaring differences.



All children in the Netherlands learn about her in their history lessons in
elementary school.
Jacoba van Beieren, Jacqueline de Bavière, Duchess of Bavaria, Countess of
Holland, Zeeland and Hainaut. Le Quesnay 1401 - Teilingen 1436. She was
the only child of William VI, Duke of Bavaria, Count of Holland, Zeeland and
Hainaut, and Marguerite de Bourgogne. Married 1, 1415 Jean de Touraine, died
1417 Married 2, 1417 Jean IV of Brabant. Marriage annulled by the Pope at the
request of King Sigismund. The pretext, or reason, was that they were
cousins. Married 3, 1422 Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, brother of the King.
Marriage dissolved . At the treaty of Delft (De zoen van Delft) Jacoba lost most
of her rights and possessions to Philip of Bourgogne. She also had to seek
permission prior to any remarriage. She neglected to do so and thus lost all
her remaining rights. Married 4, 1432 Frank van Borselen, a nobleman from
Zeeland.. She retired to the castle Teilingen, near Leiden, where she died in
1436 from "consumption" as tuberculosis was called then. Her death consolidated
the possession of Holland, Zeeland and Henegouwen (Hainaut) in the hands of
the Duke of Bourgogne.
(from Standaard encyclopedie, vol 7, pp 374-375, no date, nv standaard
boekhandel Antwerpen, uitgeverij het spectrum nv, Utrecht)

Always optimistic--Dave

[Gjest]

In a message dated 4/22/05 12:57:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, UTZ writes:

<< Married 1, 1415 Jean de Touraine, died 1417 >>

This one doesn't do justice. Wasn't he the Dauphin of France, albeit for
only two years and I think he was Duke of Touraine right?
Thanks
Will

[Gjest]

In a message dated 4/22/05 12:57:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, UTZ writes:

<< Married 3, 1422 Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, brother of the King.
Marriage dissolved . >>

This marriage was also dissolved by the Pope I think. There were two
different entries related to 1426 and 1427 so I'm not sure which year relates to what
the Pope did re this marriage.
Will

[Gjest]

In a message dated 4/22/05 12:57:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, UTZ writes:

<< Married 4, 1432 Frank van Borselen, a nobleman from Zeeland.. >>

And her last husband was made Count of some place or other
Will

[Gjest]

In a message dated 4/22/05 12:57:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, UTZ writes:

<< Married 3, 1422 Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, brother of the King.
Marriage dissolved . >>

It's an interesting tight chronology that Henry V, King of England died 1 Sep
1422 and his son Henry VI became King but wasn't Humphrey the Regent during
the minority of Henry VI.
And then Humphrey and Jacquetta marry in Oct 1422. Was he already Regent
of England at this time ?
Will Johnson

[Leo van de Pas]

You say you look at Genealogics, there would have been no need for some of
your questions had you taken a good look. Read the biography I have for the
Countess of Holland, it is quite interesting.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas



----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 6:13 AM
Subject: Re: Humphrey (1390-1447), Duke of Gloucester and his marriages

In a message dated 4/22/05 12:57:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, UTZ writes:

Married 3, 1422 Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, brother of the King.
Marriage dissolved .

It's an interesting tight chronology that Henry V, King of England died 1
Sep
1422 and his son Henry VI became King but wasn't Humphrey the Regent
during
the minority of Henry VI.
And then Humphrey and Jacquetta marry in Oct 1422. Was he already
Regent
of England at this time ?
Will Johnson

[Gjest]

There is a medical condition known as Rhesus disease (Morbus
haemolyticus neonatorum), in which a woman with an Rh- blood type gives
birth to a baby with an Rh+ blood type. If she becomes pregnant a
second time with an Rh+ baby, the fetus will be destroyed by antibodies
her body produced from the first pregnancy. Today this condition can be
treated with medicine but of course in medieval times there was no
cure. So Rhesus disease might be the cause of a couple producing only
one child despite many years of marriage.


"Leo van de Pas" wrote:

The Earl of Fife had two sons by his wife. Both are recorded in Scots
Peerage as well as in Plantagenet Ancestry. Blue babies? I just
learned that
this applied to Anne of Britanny and her first husband.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yvonne Purdy" <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 7:16 AM
Subject: RE: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales....


It could well be in the first marriage that there was a blood
mismatch
between man and wife, leading to 'blue' babies who would have died
in this
period. Also possibly many miscarriages. Maybe one child who
survived.

On a second marriage, maybe a much better blood 'match' leading to
further
children who survived?

I have a child who was 21 from a first marriage, no others ensued
after
that
birth (without controlling them), married again at 41 and produced
two
others within two years and if better half hadn't screamed 'time'
and his
surgeon agreed, could well have produced many more.

Strange things happen on the reproduction scene.

Kind regards,
Yvonne

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 22 April 2005 18:50
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales....


One thing that has not been addressed sufficiently in this debate
revolves
around the children of Donald of Mar by his wife, widow of the Earl
of
Fife.
(Did I get that right?)

I think Doug pointed out that she had five children. Is there firm
evidence
for their birth years and that *she* was the mother of all five? I
think
that
would bear on the issue.

Another interesting thing is that nothing has been said about other
children
by the marriage of the Earl of Fife to a daughter of Llewellyn.
Did they
really only have one child in 20 to 40 years of marriage ? And
then she
goes on
to have FIVE by her next husband. That's a little hard to believe.

The alternative idea, that other children by this first marriage
are not
mentioned in any work is equally hard to believe.

Having five children, whip-smack, in 10 years of marriage sounds
like a
young
woman to me, not a middle-aged woman who had only had one child in
20 to
40
years of prior marriage.

Will Johnson

______________________________

[Gjest]

I did read it. But it didn't address why the marriage of the Duke of
Gloucester might be ignored by Living Descendents. I hypothecized that possibly
it was because the Pope invalidated that marriage later. But still I would
think it warrants a mention since her life seems so hectic what with four
marriages, being in line (through her spouse) for the Throne of France, marrying the
Regent of England, two annulments, an annulment reversal (is that common?),
losing her counties, getting a purely honorary title, etc.
By the way was the Pope that annulled her marriage to Jean (John) the same
one who a few years later reversed that decision ?
That's a lot of activity for one person to endure.


In a message dated 4/22/05 1:20:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

<< You say you look at Genealogics, there would have been no need for some of
your questions had you taken a good look. Read the biography I have for the
Countess of Holland, it is quite interesting.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas >>

[Leo van de Pas]

If you take the dates you can establish which Pope was involved. If you go
to Genealogics and in Easy Name Search only enter the word Pope and you
get a list of their names which includes the years they were Pope. Hope that
helps.
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 6:25 AM
Subject: Re: Humphrey (1390-1447), Duke of Gloucester and his marriages

I did read it. But it didn't address why the marriage of the Duke of
Gloucester might be ignored by Living Descendents. I hypothecized that
possibly
it was because the Pope invalidated that marriage later. But still I
would
think it warrants a mention since her life seems so hectic what with four
marriages, being in line (through her spouse) for the Throne of France,
marrying the
Regent of England, two annulments, an annulment reversal (is that
common?),
losing her counties, getting a purely honorary title, etc.
By the way was the Pope that annulled her marriage to Jean (John) the
same
one who a few years later reversed that decision ?
That's a lot of activity for one person to endure.


In a message dated 4/22/05 1:20:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

You say you look at Genealogics, there would have been no need for some
of
your questions had you taken a good look. Read the biography I have for
the
Countess of Holland, it is quite interesting.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

[Peter Stewart]

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

Peter Stewart wrote:

Rubbish. These two statements are flatly at odds - if Andrew MacEwan
is such
an expert in this subject, he certainly ought to be aware of John
Bannerman's paper 'MacDuff of Fife' in _Medieval Scotland, Crown,
Lordship
and Community: Essays Presented to GWS Brown_, edited by Alexander
Grant &
Keith J Stringer (Edinburgh, 1993).

Peter Stewart

Mr. MacEwen has probably seen it, Peter. He specifically mentioned
MacDuff of Fife to me in our conversation.

So why on earth did you quote him as citing only another paper, adding
"apart from that, nothing"?

Just can't stop yourself from lying, perhaps?

He could hardly have conversed about the earls of Fife without mentioning
MacDuff. The point is he failed - according to your breathless, adulatory
report - to mention John Bannerman's study in this context.

Mr. MacEwen is a gentleman and a scholar, which you are not.

And I have never claimed to be - your judgement on this is, of course, quite
worthless anyway.

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

Dear Tony and Others,
Sir William Brandon, grandfather of
Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk had two daughters named Margaret I have a suspicion
that Samuel White of Rochester, MA had two daughters named Penelope the
second being born around the time the elder Penelope was married in 1704.
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, ME USA

[Yvonne Purdy]

It could well be in the first marriage that there was a blood mismatch
between man and wife, leading to 'blue' babies who would have died in this
period. Also possibly many miscarriages. Maybe one child who survived.

On a second marriage, maybe a much better blood 'match' leading to further
children who survived?

I have a child who was 21 from a first marriage, no others ensued after that
birth (without controlling them), married again at 41 and produced two
others within two years and if better half hadn't screamed 'time' and his
surgeon agreed, could well have produced many more.

Strange things happen on the reproduction scene.

Kind regards,
Yvonne

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 22 April 2005 18:50
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales....


One thing that has not been addressed sufficiently in this debate revolves
around the children of Donald of Mar by his wife, widow of the Earl of Fife.
(Did I get that right?)

I think Doug pointed out that she had five children. Is there firm evidence
for their birth years and that *she* was the mother of all five? I think
that
would bear on the issue.

Another interesting thing is that nothing has been said about other children
by the marriage of the Earl of Fife to a daughter of Llewellyn. Did they
really only have one child in 20 to 40 years of marriage ? And then she
goes on
to have FIVE by her next husband. That's a little hard to believe.

The alternative idea, that other children by this first marriage are not
mentioned in any work is equally hard to believe.

Having five children, whip-smack, in 10 years of marriage sounds like a
young
woman to me, not a middle-aged woman who had only had one child in 20 to 40
years of prior marriage.

Will Johnson

______________________________

[Peter Stewart]

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

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Hilarious!

"Descriptive Grammar" is just coded language for a Lowering of Standards
across the board, in anything having to do with English Grammar.

It is the term of art used by lazy, worn-out, jaded and demoralized
English teachers, and their acolytes, who have Given Up and Sold Out.
snip

Not so. "Descriptive grammar" is the field of the linguist, not the
English teacher; if the latter were to teach descriptive grammar in the
guise of prescriptive grammar that would be an abrogation of duty and a
betrayal of trust.

However, it should be recognized that prescriptive grammar is an
artificial and arbitrary construct, and as such has little place in true
scientific study of language (except, of course, in writing about it ).
Good science is observational. A physicist does not formulate rules and
then try to force what he observes to conform to those rules; rather, he
observes what takes place and then forms hypotheses to fit the observed
phenomena. In the same way, a linguist (NOT an English teacher) observes
the way that language is actually used and seeks to account for the
observed facts.

Quite so - and the fact I observed was that Doug split an infinitive, either
because he was nodding in the context of a discussion about correct grammar
(before he had decided there is no such thing) or because he didn't know any
better (like the multitudinous American folk he now claims as authority for
his solecism).

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

It appears in both cases it would have to be Martin V. Not all sources agree
that the marriage to Jean (John) was actually annulled by the pope. But if
it was and then four years later (approximately) reversed by the same Pope that
sounds very odd to me.
Will Johnson

In a message dated 4/22/05 1:57:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

<< If you take the dates you can establish which Pope was involved. If you go
to Genealogics and in Easy Name Search only enter the word Pope and you
get a list of their names which includes the years they were Pope. Hope that
helps.
Leo >>

[Leo van de Pas]

The Earl of Fife had two sons by his wife. Both are recorded in Scots
Peerage as well as in Plantagenet Ancestry. Blue babies? I just learned that
this applied to Anne of Britanny and her first husband.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yvonne Purdy" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 7:16 AM
Subject: RE: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales....

It could well be in the first marriage that there was a blood mismatch
between man and wife, leading to 'blue' babies who would have died in this
period. Also possibly many miscarriages. Maybe one child who survived.

On a second marriage, maybe a much better blood 'match' leading to further
children who survived?

I have a child who was 21 from a first marriage, no others ensued after
that
birth (without controlling them), married again at 41 and produced two
others within two years and if better half hadn't screamed 'time' and his
surgeon agreed, could well have produced many more.

Strange things happen on the reproduction scene.

Kind regards,
Yvonne

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 22 April 2005 18:50
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales....


One thing that has not been addressed sufficiently in this debate revolves
around the children of Donald of Mar by his wife, widow of the Earl of
Fife.
(Did I get that right?)

I think Doug pointed out that she had five children. Is there firm
evidence
for their birth years and that *she* was the mother of all five? I think
that
would bear on the issue.

Another interesting thing is that nothing has been said about other
children
by the marriage of the Earl of Fife to a daughter of Llewellyn. Did they
really only have one child in 20 to 40 years of marriage ? And then she
goes on
to have FIVE by her next husband. That's a little hard to believe.

The alternative idea, that other children by this first marriage are not
mentioned in any work is equally hard to believe.

Having five children, whip-smack, in 10 years of marriage sounds like a
young
woman to me, not a middle-aged woman who had only had one child in 20 to
40
years of prior marriage.

Will Johnson

______________________________

[Douglas Richardson royala]

Peter Stewart wrote:

And I have never claimed to be - your judgement on this is, of
course, quite
worthless anyway.

Peter Stewart

Gosh, Peter, if my posts are so worthless, why do you keep reading
them? Could it be you like me after all? Say it's so.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

[R. Battle]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Peter Stewart wrote:
<snip>

Quite so - and the fact I observed was that Doug split an infinitive, either
because he was nodding in the context of a discussion about correct grammar
(before he had decided there is no such thing) or because he didn't know any
better (like the multitudinous American folk he now claims as authority for
his solecism).
snip

Right, which is what led me to my original observation--that while both of
you were talking about grammar, you meant *prescriptive* grammar; and Doug
(at least at that point) meant *descriptive* grammar. The influence that
descriptive grammar has or should have on prescriptive grammar is, of
course, another topic altogether.

-Robert Battle

[Peter Stewart]

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

Peter Stewart wrote:

And I have never claimed to be - your judgement on this is, of
course, quite
worthless anyway.

Peter Stewart

Gosh, Peter, if my posts are so worthless, why do you keep reading
them? Could it be you like me after all? Say it's so.

Can't you EVER get anything straight?

I said your judgment was worthless, not your posts. Every now & then, as
I've said before, the kind of hack-work you are competent to undertake will
turn up useful information, and it is occasionally possible to discern this
through the surrounding blather & falsehood.

Peter Stewart

[Gordon Banks]

There being a plethora of medical and non-medical problems that could
produce the same result, I don't see the usefulness of speculating about
a specific one unless there is some specific evidence.

On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 15:21 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

There is a medical condition known as Rhesus disease (Morbus
haemolyticus neonatorum), in which a woman with an Rh- blood type gives
birth to a baby with an Rh+ blood type. If she becomes pregnant a
second time with an Rh+ baby, the fetus will be destroyed by antibodies
her body produced from the first pregnancy. Today this condition can be
treated with medicine but of course in medieval times there was no
cure. So Rhesus disease might be the cause of a couple producing only
one child despite many years of marriage.

[Leo van de Pas]

In the case talked about it does not apply. Two healthy sons were born. It
does apply to Anne, Duchess of Brittany and her first husband King Charles
of France.
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Banks" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales....

There being a plethora of medical and non-medical problems that could
produce the same result, I don't see the usefulness of speculating about
a specific one unless there is some specific evidence.

On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 15:21 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
There is a medical condition known as Rhesus disease (Morbus
haemolyticus neonatorum), in which a woman with an Rh- blood type gives
birth to a baby with an Rh+ blood type. If she becomes pregnant a
second time with an Rh+ baby, the fetus will be destroyed by antibodies
her body produced from the first pregnancy. Today this condition can be
treated with medicine but of course in medieval times there was no
cure. So Rhesus disease might be the cause of a couple producing only
one child despite many years of marriage.

[Gjest]

Dear Douglas and others,
If Susanna of Wales wardship (? and
marriage) were placed under the supervision of Nicholas de Verdon, would it not
be likelier for her to have been wed to one of his relatives and so enhance
the fortunes of his house than to any high ranking Scot ? Wouldn`t the Earl of
Fife been more apt to have obtained a marriage from Prince David, Earl of
Huntingdon or perhaps Prince John of Huntingdon who was married to another of
Llewelyn Fawr `s daughters instead ?
Sincerely,
James
W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

[Leo van de Pas]

Dear James,
I agree with you. This is what I have said also. My remark seems to be
ignored as is my observation that the proof of 1237 that there _was_ a
Countess of Fife does not hold either. Yes, there was a Maurice, servant of
the Countess of Fife, Maurice was alive but was the Countess, and which
Countess? There could be a choice of three.

Now it also turns out that the Melrose Chronicle cannot be appropriately
dated, giving a time span of 1230 to 1266 for the marriage of the Earl of
Fife to a daughter of Llewelyn of Wales, which in turn can mean that the
Earl of Fife had only the one wife and she married again and had more
children.

I think there are too many ifs and because of that should be stick to CP and
SP?
When producing facts, shouldn't we stick to what we know and if we speculate
shouldn't it be stated as such?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales....

Dear Douglas and others,
If Susanna of Wales wardship (? and
marriage) were placed under the supervision of Nicholas de Verdon, would
it not
be likelier for her to have been wed to one of his relatives and so
enhance
the fortunes of his house than to any high ranking Scot ? Wouldn`t the
Earl of
Fife been more apt to have obtained a marriage from Prince David, Earl of
Huntingdon or perhaps Prince John of Huntingdon who was married to another
of
Llewelyn Fawr `s daughters instead ?
Sincerely,

James
W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

[Douglas Richardson royala]

So now you think my posts have great value? I knew you liked me.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Peter Stewart wrote:

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

And I have never claimed to be - your judgement on this is, of
course, quite
worthless anyway.

Peter Stewart

Gosh, Peter, if my posts are so worthless, why do you keep reading
them? Could it be you like me after all? Say it's so.

Can't you EVER get anything straight?

I said your judgment was worthless, not your posts. Every now & then,
as
I've said before, the kind of hack-work you are competent to
undertake will
turn up useful information, and it is occasionally possible to
discern this
through the surrounding blather & falsehood.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

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

So now you think my posts have great value? I knew you liked me.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Richardson is now trying to see how much idiocy he can cram into a single
sentence. His second effort above must take the prize, at least for the time
being.

Can anyone tell him of another newsgroup where he could find people who
might enjoy his games?

Peter Stewart

[Chris Phillips]

Leo van de Pas wrote:

Now it also turns out that the Melrose Chronicle cannot be appropriately
dated, giving a time span of 1230 to 1266 for the marriage of the Earl of
Fife to a daughter of Llewelyn of Wales, which in turn can mean that the
Earl of Fife had only the one wife and she married again and had more
children.

What was said initially is that the wording of the chronicle suggests the
marriage took place in or soon after 1228. What was said more recently is
that it's not known when the relevant entry was written, though it was
apparently before 1266.

I don't see that this is any reason to disregard the evidence from the
chronicle. However, I should like to see the text before deciding how well
the inference about the date is justified.

I think there are too many ifs and because of that should be stick to CP
and
SP?

I think "sticking with CP" is a very bad idea if the evidence can't be found
to back up CP's account. The identification of different wives as the same
woman is always going to require positive evidence, which doesn't appear to
exist in this case.

Chris Phillips

[Peter Stewart]

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

Leo van de Pas wrote:
Now it also turns out that the Melrose Chronicle cannot be appropriately
dated, giving a time span of 1230 to 1266 for the marriage of the Earl of
Fife to a daughter of Llewelyn of Wales, which in turn can mean that the
Earl of Fife had only the one wife and she married again and had more
children.

What was said initially is that the wording of the chronicle suggests the
marriage took place in or soon after 1228. What was said more recently is
that it's not known when the relevant entry was written, though it was
apparently before 1266.

I don't see that this is any reason to disregard the evidence from the
chronicle. However, I should like to see the text before deciding how well
the inference about the date is justified.

I wonder why Richardson hasn't bothered to post this yet, since he was so
proud of being able to follow it over the 'phone and showing off that he can
translate the odd word - so far he has regaled us with his understanding of
"nepos" and "postea", and his admiration of Andrew MacEwan for having
clearly "done his homework", something that Richardson would do well to
emulate.

The facsimile edition that MacEwan told him about is _The Chronicle of
Melrose, from the Cottonian Manuscript, Faustina B. IX in the British
Museum_, with an introduction by Alan Orr Anderson & Marjorie Ogilvie
Anderson, Studies in Economics and Political Science 100 (London, 1936). The
marriage of Malcolm is related under the year 1230, and the relevant text
was written in a hand whose additions the editors in their synoptic study
date as "earlier than the last rubric of the Glasgow series" (p. lv). The
rubric in question is for 1233 (p. lxxvii), but this may have been a later
addition (p. lxxvi).

Consequently all we can be sure of is that, according to the writer, Earl
Malcolm married a daughter of Llewelyn some time after he had succeeded his
uncle, whose death & burial at Kilenross are also reported in the chronicle
under 1230.

The relevant text is as follows (p. 80):

"Obiit comes Malcolmus...Cui successit Malcolmus nepos eius filius fratris
eius qui postea duxit uxorem filiam Leulini" (Earl Malcolm died...his nephew
Malcolm, son of his brother, succeeded him, who afterwards married the
daughter of Llewelyn).

Peter Stewart

[Chris Phillips]

Peter Stewart wrote:

Consequently all we can be sure of is that, according to the writer, Earl
Malcolm married a daughter of Llewelyn some time after he had succeeded
his
uncle, whose death & burial at Kilenross are also reported in the
chronicle
under 1230.
The relevant text is as follows (p. 80):

"Obiit comes Malcolmus...Cui successit Malcolmus nepos eius filius fratris
eius qui postea duxit uxorem filiam Leulini" (Earl Malcolm died...his
nephew
Malcolm, son of his brother, succeeded him, who afterwards married the
daughter of Llewelyn).

Thank you for posting the text. I wouldn't have concluded from that that the
marriage necessarily took place "almost immediately" after Malcolm's
succession.

If I understand correctly, Andrew MacEwan's argument is that Malcolm the
uncle actually died in 1228 or 1229, so that it is really the marriage that
is being reported under 1230. But the natural reading seems to be that the
elder Malcolm died, and the younger Malcolm succeeded, in 1230. Whether the
younger Malcolm married immediately after his succession or some time later
could depend on whether the annal was written immediately afterwards or some
years later.

Leo van de Pas wrote:

Can you see a fact that changes the information given to us by CP and SP?

I can't see a definite disproof of it, but I can see in the chronology a
major warning sign against simply assuming that the daughter of Llewellyn is
identical with the widow left by Malcolm in 1266.

In this sense I don't think your question is quite the right one to ask. I
think we should ask whether there is evidence to support the identification
made by CP. I think if the answer is "No", we should amend CP so that it
reads more cautiously something like, "Malcolm married after his succession
a daughter of Llewellyn ... at his death he left a widow Helen, who
remarried ...", and mention in a footnote Andrew MacEwan's argument that
these must be different women on chronological grounds.

One other point that I may have missed. Has anyone seen CP's evidence for
the identification cited in the Mar article [vol. 8, p. 403, note e], namely
"Fordun (Goodall), lib. ix, cap. 47; lib. x, cap. xxi"?

Does Fordun just copy the Melrose Chronicle, or is there some independent
evidence there?

Chris Phillips

[Chris Phillips]

I wrote:

In this sense I don't think your question is quite the right one to ask. I
think we should ask whether there is evidence to support the
identification
made by CP. I think if the answer is "No", we should amend CP so that it
reads more cautiously something like, "Malcolm married after his
succession
a daughter of Llewellyn ... at his death he left a widow Helen, who
remarried ...", and mention in a footnote Andrew MacEwan's argument that
these must be different women on chronological grounds.

I might add that this is essentially what I've done on my "CP corrections
and additions" web pages, where MacEwan's argument is noted under Fife and
Mar in the "proposed corrections" section.

Chris Phillips

[Peter Stewart]

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

Peter Stewart wrote:
Consequently all we can be sure of is that, according to the writer, Earl
Malcolm married a daughter of Llewelyn some time after he had succeeded
his
uncle, whose death & burial at Kilenross are also reported in the
chronicle
under 1230.
The relevant text is as follows (p. 80):

"Obiit comes Malcolmus...Cui successit Malcolmus nepos eius filius
fratris
eius qui postea duxit uxorem filiam Leulini" (Earl Malcolm died...his
nephew
Malcolm, son of his brother, succeeded him, who afterwards married the
daughter of Llewelyn).

Thank you for posting the text. I wouldn't have concluded from that that
the
marriage necessarily took place "almost immediately" after Malcolm's
succession.

If I understand correctly, Andrew MacEwan's argument is that Malcolm the
uncle actually died in 1228 or 1229, so that it is really the marriage
that
is being reported under 1230. But the natural reading seems to be that the
elder Malcolm died, and the younger Malcolm succeeded, in 1230. Whether
the
younger Malcolm married immediately after his succession or some time
later
could depend on whether the annal was written immediately afterwards or
some
years later.

If there is good evidence that the elder Earl Malcolm died a year or two
before 1230, then the entry under that year describing his burial at
Kilenross church, that he had founded, was probably written some while
later, when the precise chronology of these events had blurred over time.
The succession to the earldom and its timing were likely to be more
accurately remembered than an earl's wedding, that could have taken place in
Wales.

At any rate, there is just a statement that the nephew married Llewelyn's
daughter after he became earl - for all we know, this could have been after
another wife had died.

Peter Stewart

[Leo van de Pas]

Dear Chris,

Whatever information is given should be examined but no-one should jump to
conclusions.

"Basically the only source that states Malcolm, Earl of Fife, married a
daughter of Llywelyn is the Melrose Chronicle"

"Under the year 1230 it is stated that Earl Malcolm senior died and that he
was succeeded by his nephew"

"Who afterwards married the daughter of Llywelyn".

I think we can accept that the uncle died in 1228 or 1229. The "afterwards
married" can depend very much on when the Chronicle was written. How long,
or short, is "afterwards"? One year? Ten years? If we knew when it is
written that would help, but the timespan given is from say 1230 to 1266,
which stretches the time span for the "afterwards married" a great deal and
renders it very vague.

I agree we cannot ignore the Chronicle, and we should accept the facts that
are given. But what are the facts? The uncle died before 1230 and after his
death the nephew married a daughter of Llywelyn..............that is all,
there is not enough to say, he was married by 1230.

We can start guessing. For instance, when was the first son, Colbran, born?
Colbran was apparently a father in 1262. In 1264, as a minor, he was
knighted. He could have been a father at age 15 or 16. This would make him
born, say, before or in 1247. This is nineteen years or so after the uncle
died in 1228. If Colbran was born in 1247 and his mother was 16 at the time
she could have been born in 1231, making her 39 when her son by her second
husband was born. It is not much of a stretch and we can guess she was born
several years earlier (10?) and she would still have been able to have a
child in 1270.

My opinion is that we should stick with CP and SP but only until we find
acceptable information to change it, and so far have we found anything
acceptable?

Another aspect we know nothing about is the circumstances of Malcolm the
nephew. What was he doing and where was he after his uncle died and he
became Earl of Fife?
He could have been away, he could have been ill, all kinds of circumstances
which may have delayed him marrying. As well there may have been an
understanding between him and Llywelyn that a marriage would take place once
the daughter was old enough.
He may well have regarded her worth waiting for. After all I think it was a
prestigious marriage.

Can you see a fact that changes the information given to us by CP and SP?

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales....

Leo van de Pas wrote:
Now it also turns out that the Melrose Chronicle cannot be appropriately
dated, giving a time span of 1230 to 1266 for the marriage of the Earl
of
Fife to a daughter of Llewelyn of Wales, which in turn can mean that the
Earl of Fife had only the one wife and she married again and had more
children.

What was said initially is that the wording of the chronicle suggests the
marriage took place in or soon after 1228. What was said more recently is
that it's not known when the relevant entry was written, though it was
apparently before 1266.

I don't see that this is any reason to disregard the evidence from the
chronicle. However, I should like to see the text before deciding how well
the inference about the date is justified.


I think there are too many ifs and because of that should be stick to CP
and
SP?

I think "sticking with CP" is a very bad idea if the evidence can't be
found
to back up CP's account. The identification of different wives as the same
woman is always going to require positive evidence, which doesn't appear
to
exist in this case.

Chris Phillips

[Chris Phillips]

Leo van de Pas wrote:

If only-----there was more or different evidence. I think there are too
many
questions and possibilities for anyone to be able to say _fact_.

Yes - from what I've seen posted here, I think we have to say there is no
evidence as to the identity of the mother(s) of Malcolm's sons.

Chris Phillips

[Dark_Dandy]

Frank van Borselen and his brother rent Holland from Philip the Good from
october 1430

[Leo van de Pas]

Taking all this into account-----who is going to be the mother of the two
sons?
There is a fair idea that the sons were born a considerable time after 1230.
Possibly up to 19 years later......How old was minor Colban in 1264 but who
already had a child in 1262?

Perhaps it is not such a far fetched idea Malcolm was married three times.
"Fairly shortly" after succeeding as Earl, then the mother of his two son
and then the woman who became his widow and married the Earl of Mar and had
more children.

Surely "the daughter of Llywelyn" must be the outstanding one. And she could
be wife 1,2 or 3.

But then quoting Austin Spencer "If we cannot agree on the interval that
transpired between Malcom's accession and marriage, that puts the case for
more than one wife in some doubt, though not very much."

If only-----there was more or different evidence. I think there are too many
questions and possibilities for anyone to be able to say _fact_.

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales....

Peter Stewart wrote:
Consequently all we can be sure of is that, according to the writer,
Earl
Malcolm married a daughter of Llewelyn some time after he had succeeded
his
uncle, whose death & burial at Kilenross are also reported in the
chronicle
under 1230.
The relevant text is as follows (p. 80):

"Obiit comes Malcolmus...Cui successit Malcolmus nepos eius filius
fratris
eius qui postea duxit uxorem filiam Leulini" (Earl Malcolm died...his
nephew
Malcolm, son of his brother, succeeded him, who afterwards married the
daughter of Llewelyn).

Thank you for posting the text. I wouldn't have concluded from that that
the
marriage necessarily took place "almost immediately" after Malcolm's
succession.

If I understand correctly, Andrew MacEwan's argument is that Malcolm the
uncle actually died in 1228 or 1229, so that it is really the marriage
that
is being reported under 1230. But the natural reading seems to be that the
elder Malcolm died, and the younger Malcolm succeeded, in 1230. Whether
the
younger Malcolm married immediately after his succession or some time
later
could depend on whether the annal was written immediately afterwards or
some
years later.

Leo van de Pas wrote:
Can you see a fact that changes the information given to us by CP and
SP?

I can't see a definite disproof of it, but I can see in the chronology a
major warning sign against simply assuming that the daughter of Llewellyn
is
identical with the widow left by Malcolm in 1266.

In this sense I don't think your question is quite the right one to ask. I
think we should ask whether there is evidence to support the
identification
made by CP. I think if the answer is "No", we should amend CP so that it
reads more cautiously something like, "Malcolm married after his
succession
a daughter of Llewellyn ... at his death he left a widow Helen, who
remarried ...", and mention in a footnote Andrew MacEwan's argument that
these must be different women on chronological grounds.

One other point that I may have missed. Has anyone seen CP's evidence for
the identification cited in the Mar article [vol. 8, p. 403, note e],
namely
"Fordun (Goodall), lib. ix, cap. 47; lib. x, cap. xxi"?

Does Fordun just copy the Melrose Chronicle, or is there some independent
evidence there?

Chris Phillips

[Peter Stewart]

Chico wrote:

The theta (0) appears quite clear in the msg I've
received.

There is no theta in the name Eudokia - the gibberish that appeared in
my post ("Eu0doki/a") was the result of Usenet turning Greek letters
into Roman and the diacritical marks into extra symbols, so that
upsilon with tonos became a plain u & was followed by the extraneous 0.

Peter Stewart

[Doug McDonald]

Peter Stewart wrote:

Quite so - and the fact I observed was that Doug split an infinitive, either
because he was nodding in the context of a discussion about correct grammar
(before he had decided there is no such thing) or because he didn't know any
better (like the multitudinous American folk he now claims as authority for
his solecism).

I split infinitives because I LIKE to split infinitives. When
spoken they often sound better, when written, they read better.
"Better" means conveying sense more felicitously. I am not
beholden to the whims of old fuddy-duddy grammarians. They
are a pain in the behind "up with which I will not put".

It is not because I am was nodding, or because I didn't know
any better. I know what the fuddy-duddies say. I do note that
splitting infinitives is fun, because of the reactions
it invokes in people like Mr. Stewart. If it also evokes a
response from Mr. Hines, for whom I have higher respect,
so be it.

Doug McDonald

[Peter Stewart]

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

<snip>

It is not because I am was nodding

You are is nodding again now...

If you LIKE to use poor grammar, you had better keep out of discussions
about correct grammar.

Peter Stewart

[Francisco Antonio Doria]

The theta (0) appears quite clear in the msg I've
received.

fa

--- Peter Stewart <[email protected]> wrote:

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

""Karle Packard"" <[email protected]> wrote in
message

news:000701c54552$3611d3e0$b10cb1d8@oemcomputer...

Sorry, I mispoke when I identified the initial
dipthong of Evthokia's
name
as eta-upsilon. It is, of course,
epsilon-upsilon.


And the third letter of her name is delta, as you
said in the first
place, not theta - hence the conventional
transliteration is Eudokia, not
"Evthokia".

If your browser can be set to read a Greek font,
the name is Eu0doki/a

???????

The diacritical marks in my post were rendered into
nonsense by Usenet, as
Doug suggested, but this alternative is not
adequate.

Peter Stewart

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

[Gjest]

Dear Newsgroup,
I just looked at the Stirnet Genealogy website to
see what They had on the Helen ferch Llewelyn who is supposedly wife to
Malcolm II, Earl of Fife and Donald I, Earl of Mar. She is given there as a
possible daughter of Llewelyn and Eve Fitz Warine. Llewelyn died in 1247, Malcolm
II in 1266 and Donald I in 1297. If Helen were a daughter of Eve. when could
She have been born ?
Sincerely,
James
W Cummings

Dixmont, ME USA

[Gjest]

In a message dated 4/23/2005 3:32:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

at his death he left a widow Helen, who
remarried ...", and mention in a footnote Andrew MacEwan's argument that
these must be different women on chronological grounds.

I don't think we know that her name was Helen.
Will Johnson

[John Steele Gordon]

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

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.

Actually, the idea that splitting infinitives is "wrong" dates only to the
19th century (that golden age of prescriptive grammar--and prescriptive
everything else, for that matter). The English language in its modern form
was at least three hundred years old by then and such writers as
Shakespeare, Milton, and Pope--not generally considered among the
linguistically unwashed--regularly split infinitives in even the most formal
uses of the language.

The Miss Thistlebottom argument--as nearly as I can figure it out--is that
since English, uniquely among Indo-European languages, has infinitives that
*can* be split, they shouldn't be. That's not much of an argument,
especially when dealing with something as resolutely nonlogical as grammar.
It might be noted that when speaking spontaneously in normal conversation
even the most grammatically fastidious split infinitives with abandon--a
sure sign that the rule is an artificially imposed one, not an organic part
of the language.

But the argument has been made so often that under some written
circumstances a split infinitive now sounds "wrong." And since the only
unbreakable rule in linguistics is that "if enough speakers of a language
think something is wrong, then it's wrong," these split infinitives are now
"wrong."

H. W. Fowler, the grand Pooh-Bah of English usage in the early 20th century,
writes (in Modern English Usage) that "We [he's speaking editorially here]
will split infinitives sooner than be ambiguous or artificial; more than
that, we will freely admit that sufficient recasting will get rid of any s.
i. without involving either of those faults, & yet reserve to ourselves the
right of deciding in each case whether recasting is worth while."

Theodore Bernstein, for many years the New York Times's in-house H. W.
Fowler, wrote (in The Careful Writer) in 1977, "The issue of the split
infinitive has been undergoing a gradual change. It may well be that fifty
years from now the taboo will be dead. But for the present the careful
writer will in general observe it and when necessary disregard it. He will
disregard it not defiantly but boldly--boldly in the sure knowledge that he
knows what he is doing and can convince the discriminating reader of that
fact, boldly because he is aware that to do otherwise would be to fall into
ambiguity or awkwardness."

Both these highly regarded authorities, in other words, regard ambiguity and
awkwardness as worse sins than splitting an infinitive. So do I, for what
it's worth.

JSG

[Sutliff]

Another example of something similar is Humphrey Turner d. 1673 of Scituate
whose two eldest sons were both named John, one called John (1620-1695/7)
and the second called John Jr.(d.a bt. 1687). Both are presumed to be the
sons of Humphrey's wife Lydia Gaymer whom he married in Sandon, Essex in
1618.

HS

"Todd A. Farmerie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

[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

[D. Spencer Hines]

Split Infinitives

These are the key factors:

1. If you split an infinitive be cognizant of that fact.

2. If the sentence actually does make better sense and parse cleanly
with a split infinitive -- then split the infinitive.

3. Split some infinitives but don't split others to show folks you know
the difference.

4. Then you can just spit in the eye [rhetorically speaking] of anyone
who hassles you on the matter.

DSH

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

| Peter Stewart wrote:
|
| >
| > Quite so - and the fact I observed was that Doug split an
infinitive, either
| > because he was nodding in the context of a discussion about correct
grammar
| > (before he had decided there is no such thing) or because he didn't
know any
| > better (like the multitudinous American folk he now claims as
authority for
| > his solecism).
|
|
| I split infinitives because I LIKE to split infinitives. When
| spoken they often sound better, when written, they read better.
| "Better" means conveying sense more felicitously. I am not
| beholden to the whims of old fuddy-duddy grammarians. They
| are a pain in the behind "up with which I will not put".
|
| It is not because I am was nodding, or because I didn't know
| any better. I know what the fuddy-duddies say. I do note that
| splitting infinitives is fun, because of the reactions
| it invokes in people like Mr. Stewart. If it also evokes a
| response from Mr. Hines, for whom I have higher respect,
| so be it.
|
| Doug McDonald

[Francisco Antonio Doria]

Yes, I know, Peter. Eudokía < eu+dokéo, dokô, ``I
teach well.'' Ultimate root is as in deíknumi, or in
Latin digitus. (If you don't agree with my
etimologies, please do tell me so in pvt, to avoid an
unnecessary side discussion.)

fa

--- Peter Stewart <[email protected]> wrote:

Chico wrote:

The theta (0) appears quite clear in the msg I've
received.

There is no theta in the name Eudokia - the
gibberish that appeared in
my post ("Eu0doki/a") was the result of Usenet
turning Greek letters
into Roman and the diacritical marks into extra
symbols, so that
upsilon with tonos became a plain u & was followed
by the extraneous 0.

Peter Stewart

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

[Matthew Harley]

This is what I have found unsavoury about Richardson:

You say have no intention of justifying yourself in public anymore. Do
cows jump over the moon, Leo?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

"Best always"

He pretends a phoney pseudo-Christian respect, but clearly
despises his better.

Matt Harley

[Peter Stewart]

"John Steele Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...

<snip>

Both these highly regarded authorities, in other words, regard ambiguity
and awkwardness as worse sins than splitting an infinitive. So do I, for
what it's worth.

As I pointed out before Doug MacDonald announced that his own LIKES in
grammar trump received standards, so that anyone remarking on an anomaly in
his usage is a misguided "fuddy-duddy", his term "to actually teach the new"
was inelegant in sense as well as construction. This didn't clear up any
ambiguity. Fowler's commonsense about recasting the sentence is all that
need be applied in this case. My suggestion was "to teach the new
effectively".

Your idea that the taboo on split infinitives can only be traced to the 19th
century is not convincing to me - can you quote examples from Johnson,
Swift, Addison or Steele in the 18th?

Your idea that "even the most grammatically fastidious split infinitives
with abandon" in speaking is far from my experience. Maybe in Manhattan, but
not yet in Melbourne.

Peter Stewrat

[Douglas Richardson royala]

[email protected] wrote:

In a Will from 1526-27 the testator wrote:

"I leave to my dowghter Elizabeth syst the house ...."

The editor of the Will says he has no idea what "syst" could mean, or
if it is an abbreviation or is somewhat illegible, he has no idea
what
word could be intended.

Do any of you have any idea what "syst" (or something that could be
read in its place) means?

I think the word "syst" is a misreading. I suspect the correct word is
"first" not "syst." The "r" in "first" may be superscripted and not
have been noticed by you. This is purely a guess without seeing the
original.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

[Chris Phillips]

Douglas Richardson wrote:

I think the word "syst" is a misreading. I suspect the correct word is
"first" not "syst." The "r" in "first" may be superscripted and not
have been noticed by you. This is purely a guess without seeing the
original.

If the "r" was of the type with a downstroke below the line, I can see that
"ir" could easily be misread as "y". I can't really see the sense of "first"
in the context, though that might be clearer if we had a bit more of the
text.

Chris Phillips

[Chris Dickinson]

Peter Stewart wrote:

That is a possible answer as to how he may have abbreviated it, but not
why. It appears strange that one word in the text would be shortened by
just two letters, and such an important word too since, if it means
"sister" at all, it is essential to identifying the legatee - who would
surely stand in a rather unexpected kind of relationship to be receiveing
this bequest ahead of the man's own flesh & blood. And yet a conventional
abbreviation like Eliz. was not used for someone who couldn't very well be
mistaken, unless he had another "dowghter" named Eliza.

I don't have a problem with that.

You do get wills that use the testator's familiar expression for a relative,
even though everything else is hunky-dory. I've seen, for instance, a
bequest to 'my nevvy' rather than 'my nephew'; and, in this case, if 'sist'
were a common local term for sister (or even if it weren't!), then there's
no problem about it appearing in the will without any abbreviation marks.

Chris

[Chris Dickinson]

Peter Stewart wrote (not in the same order):

Once more, I suggest looking in the OED, where there may be a range of
definitions beyond the Scottish one above

I have had a look in the OED both at 'syst' and 'sist', but this hasn't
helped. As the word 'syst' comes before the definite article ('x syst the
house' rather than 'x the syst house' or 'x the house syst'), 'syst' seems
most likely to qualify the preceding word ('x' - or, in this case,
'Elizabeth').

<snip>

Can you point to other examples where a will was phrased so crudely and
ambiguously, where anything like "dowghter Elizabeth syst" means anything
like "my daughter-in-law Elizabeth's sister"?
snip

The individual bits aren't a problem, but I think the size of the bequest
is.

The use of 'daughter' for daughter-in-law, stepdaughter or goddaughter was
common enough.

The use of phrasing like 'I give to my brother son William one silver spoon'
was also quite common. I've just quickly flicked through my files and the
first examples I've come across are in a 1704 will (a bequest to 'Jane
Woodell my eldest sister daughter') and in 1684 one ('my nephew Mary
Towerson children'), showing that the possessive didn't need a "'s".

However, I can't immediately remember a bequest to an in-law's sister,
except possibly where the term 'cousin' is used.

My main problem with this suggestion is that the bequest is of real estate,
and I would have expected a slightly more positive identification, if only
to prevent any legal challenge. Had the bequest been merely of spoons,
say, then I would think the interpretation quite likely.

Chris

[Douglas Richardson royala]

[email protected] wrote:

Do any of you have any idea what "syst" (or something that could be
read in its place) means?

I think the word "syst" is a misreading. I suspect the correct word is
"fyrst" (or first) not "syst." The "r" in "fyrst" may be superscripted
and not
have been noticed by you. This is purely a guess without seeing the
original.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

[Ginny Wagner]

In: "I leave to my dowghter Elizabeth syst the house ...."

What if instead of daughter, it was 'dowager' Elizabeth, sister the house?
Could he have had a sister named Elizabeth? I know my ancestor left his
manor to his sister and her husband who changed their surnames to the one he
used and when she died childless, the manor went to his brother's sons.

Ginny

"To think is to differ."
Clarence Darrow, remark during the Scopes Trial, 1925

[Chris Dickinson]

Chris Phillips wrote in response to Douglas Richardson:

Douglas Richardson wrote:
I think the word "syst" is a misreading. I suspect the correct word is
"first" not "syst." The "r" in "first" may be superscripted and not
have been noticed by you. This is purely a guess without seeing the
original.

If the "r" was of the type with a downstroke below the line, I can see that
"ir" could easily be misread as "y". I can't really see the sense of
"first"
in the context, though that might be clearer if we had a bit more of the
text.

Yes, 'first' would be nice .... if there are other 'Itm' or other bequests
following. Any such?

I suppose it could be 'just the house'

Chris

[Chris Dickinson]

[email protected] wrote:

I should have added two things:

<snip>

The testator went
on to describe the house he was leaving her, which he specified to be
the house she was currently living in. The context doesn't imply that
she was living with a husband, but rather that she was living on the
charity of the testator.

Two: The testator leaves a dowry to four daughters, identical in each
case, and fairly substantial. (money, not property) They were all
unmarried at the time. Elizabeth my dowghter was not listed with them,
and left only a little house. She was discussed in a different part of
the Will where the testator talked about his property of lesser value.
I suppose she could be a widow, or a bastard. He says nothing about a
dowry.
snip

I think that if Elizabeth is clearly mentioned in a later part of the will,
then the idea of 'syst' being 'sister' is clearly out of the window.

I don't think there's a problem about Elizabeth being treated differently
than the other daughters. She may, if she were a widow, have already been
provided for; or the house may, if she were a stepdaughter, have come from
her mother; or, as you say, she may have been a bastard; or, to be callous,
the other girls may have been more likely to attract husbands and were given
a little bit of financial padding to help; or, if she were a stepdaughter,
she may have been considerably older than the others.

Chris

[Rick Eaton]

"Rick Eaton" [email protected]

Many thanks to Clive for your answer. It seems that one of my early
ancestors was a prebendary.

Rick Eaton asked:


What are PREBENDARIES OF DASSET PARVA?


Dasset Parva is/was the name of a village. A prebendary was a cathedral
official (usually a member of the chapter) who drew a prebend or salary from
the revenues of the cathedral.

CNW

[John Townsend]

I suggest that his daughter's name is Elizabeth Sykes and he is leaving her
the house. Whose will is it by the way?

Regards,

Best wishes,

John Townsend
Genealogist/Antiquarian Bookseller
http://www.johntownsend.demon.co.uk

[starbuck95]

Cist or Ceast (and variations) is an English surname, as well.

[starbuck95]

And, unless you know whom she married (or that she didn't marry), I
think it would be most sensible to assume that Elizabeth Syst/ Cist/
Ceast was her married name.

(Daughter could mean also step-daughter, with Elizabeth being the child
of the testator's wife by a previous husband).

[Gordon Banks]

The front page of today's Wall Street Journal has an article on James
Sorenson's DNA project, which is competitive with the one discussed here
from National Geographic (only Sorenson does the test free).

[Gjest]

Dear Rick Eaton,

I hope your early ancestor had a second job. See 2. below.

Webster's New World Dictionary, 1972; 1. a person receiving a prebend 2. in
the Church of England, an honorary canon with only the title of a prebend

Best regards,

Brom Nichol

[Peter Stewart]

John Brandon wrote:

And, unless you know whom she married (or that she didn't
marry), I think it would be most sensible to assume that
Elizabeth Syst/ Cist/ Ceast was her married name.

(Daughter could mean also step-daughter, with Elizabeth
being the child of the testator's wife by a previous husband).

A surname in this context would seem the most plausible suggestion.

However, the original post said that "The editor of the Will says he
has no idea what "syst" could mean, or if it is an abbreviation or is
somewhat illegible, he has no idea what word could be intended", so
that maybe this possibility had already been ruled out.

Can [email protected] tell us if the editor's discussion or other
evidence points to the lady's surname and/or her exact relationship to
the testator?

Peter Stewart

[John Townsend]

Peter Stewart wrote (snip)

A surname in this context would seem the most plausible suggestion.

I quite agree. (See my earlier post, suggesting "Sykes")

However, the original post said that "The editor of the Will says he
has no idea what "syst" could mean, or if it is an abbreviation or is
somewhat illegible, he has no idea what word could be intended", so
that maybe this possibility had already been ruled out.

I don't follow Peter's logic here. If the editor had no idea what "syst"
could mean and if there is the possibility of an illegible word (in which
event the editor had no idea what word could be intended), then how could
the possibility that it was a surname be ruled out?

Could the original poster give us more information, please?

Best wishes,

John Townsend
Genealogist/Antiquarian Bookseller
http://www.johntownsend.demon.co.uk

[Peter Stewart]

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

Peter Stewart wrote (snip)

A surname in this context would seem the most plausible suggestion.

I quite agree. (See my earlier post, suggesting "Sykes")

However, the original post said that "The editor of the Will says he
has no idea what "syst" could mean, or if it is an abbreviation or is
somewhat illegible, he has no idea what word could be intended", so
that maybe this possibility had already been ruled out.


I don't follow Peter's logic here. If the editor had no idea what "syst"
could mean and if there is the possibility of an illegible word (in which
event the editor had no idea what word could be intended), then how could
the possibility that it was a surname be ruled out?

By the editor's possibly knowing that the Elizabeth in question was the
testator's actual daughter, for instance, and/or that her surname was maybe
NOT anything like "Syst". I suppose that in the absence of such evidence a
competent editor would have some idea that these letters might represent a
proper name, and not be at a total loss to suggest this.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

""Peter G R Howarth"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

"Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
Eminent writers, like everyone else, make mistakes, and have done over
more
than >six hundred years with other common errors such as number in verb
forms. Should >we therefore abandon rules in all these areas too?

This is the heart of the problem. Without the equivalent of an Académie
française or Accademia della Crusca, how do English speakers decide what
is
good English? One method is the way we learned the language and continue
to
expand it. We watch how others use it, paying particular attention to
those
who do so to good effect. This requires us to exercise our own judgment,
especially about what is effective.

Well said - nonetheless, the very worst grammar can be the most effective
means of communication at times.

Remember Eliza Dolittle in "My Fair Lady", unforgettably splitting an adverb
"Abso-bloomin'-lutely". Not recommended by hide-bound grammarians, but
certainly not to be avoided for that reason. In my army days I heard some
expressions of punchier speech in this vein (not only from Cockney troopers)
that bowed to no rule of grammar, but that unfortunately are not fit to be
posted here.

The cumulative judgment of speakers and writers will inevitably move the
English language along & change notions of correctness over time. If anyone
feels something to be wrong, and thinks a reason for this can be identified,
it is almost always better practice to recast the sentence. Failing to do
this with a split infinitive may be common and acceptable - but not very
smart without acknowledgment in a thread about correct grammar.

Peter Stewart

[Peter G R Howarth]

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

Eminent writers, like everyone else, make mistakes, and have done over more
than >six hundred years with other common errors such as number in verb

forms. Should >we therefore abandon rules in all these areas too?

This is the heart of the problem. Without the equivalent of an Académie
française or Accademia della Crusca, how do English speakers decide what is
good English? One method is the way we learned the language and continue to
expand it. We watch how others use it, paying particular attention to those
who do so to good effect. This requires us to exercise our own judgment,
especially about what is effective.

Another way is to use the judgment of others, who want to improve English by
purging it of what they see as errors. 'Don't copy him when he does that,
do this instead.' They then provide what they consider to be justification
for their views. This started during the late seventeenth and early
eighteenth century with scholarly suggestions for improvement, as part of an
attempt to find rules for language and music as well as for science.
Unfortunately, in response to the nineteenth century middle class's desire
for guidance on all things social, less able writers produced a multitude of
fixed rules. Those of us who invested time and effort in learning some of
them, under compulsion or otherwise, may feel that others who haven't ought
not to get away with it. I have a fairly modest collection of twenty-eight
books on English usage (out of a thousand or so published). What is
interesting is that no author agrees completely with any other. We
therefore still have to exercise our judgment to pick out those authors, or
rules, we feel we ought to follow.

A third way is to say that, because some other language works in a
particular way, English ought to do the same. Again, no two languages have
exactly the same grammar (although all languages may well have certain broad
structures in common). Latin has a different form for the infinitive and
the imperative, but German does not, at least in the imperative for Sie,
which is the one most commonly used. We are therefore reduced to choosing
those precedents we agree with and those we don't. I have to say that I do
not see the logic in claiming that, because language X and language Y do
this, language Z must do the same.

Whichever method we use, in the end it is a personal decision. Where there
is disagreement, I prefer the first method, presuming that if many eminent
writers do the same thing it is unlikely that they could all be mistaken
every time they did it. This is similar to the principle on which the OED
was compiled.

The second method fits in with those eighteenth-century scholars who wanted
rules so that they would know what was right and would then be able to
preserve that for future use (cf. Johnson's preface to his dictionary).

Those who favour different methods are unlikely to agree on details at the
level of split infinitives. But we can at least agree that grammar and
usage are important, and that we should always care how we use the language
that we had the greatest good fortune to learn as our mother tongue.

Peter G R Howarth





--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.3 - Release Date: 25/04/2005

[Gjest]

Thanks again for all your contributions. I guess I have to accept that
there are two brothers named William. As far as whether it implies
that they were by different mothers, that remains unclear.

Yesterday I re-read every published Visititation and did not find any
16th century Morton with two sons named William. The best I could do
was one Thomas who had one William, but he is a poor match because a
number of other sons (he had two marriages) were older; there is no
reason this William (who disappeared into obscurity) would have been in
line to inherit such a great estate. I walked away from the library
yesterday really down! (There is no evidence of these Williams in the
list of the Chancery documents available from Ancestry Plus either.)

[Gjest]

Thanks to all of you for your carefully thought out replies to my
inquiry.

On my next trip to the library I promise to copy out the entire section
so that you get the context. It also occurs to me that it's important
whether she got the house for her lifetime only and then it reverts to
the heirs or it is hers free and clear.

I personally would assume that it was an obscure legal term, were there
any indication that such a term exists. I think my second choice is
that the editor misread it, and I thought perhaps one of you might have
a suggestion for a similar looking word in 15th century script.

I noted as significant your comments that documents use the words
"daughter" as a synonym for daughter-in-law. That might make a lot of
sense here.

It is very odd that this patriarch leaves four unmarried daughters at
his death, which occurred in his 50s or 60s, and his son had only
recently attained his majority. There is no current evidence that
these are products of a second marriage. However this man is not well
documented. Perhaps Elizabeth was the only surviving progeny of a
first marriage that is not documented. That theory would help to
explain why his five other children were begotten after he was 35-40.

The early years of Elizabeth's father are very obscure. He settled
down at an obscure manor in Dorset early in life. The family patriarch
was Cardinal Morton, who put most of his property into trusteeship when
he got his first bishopric. The Cardinal's brothers all predeceased
him, and I suppose he could have selected anyone in the family to leave
his possessions to, since he had no lawful children. It all fell in
the lap of Elizabeth's father, making him extremely wealthy, but prior
to that point he lived a quiet and obscure life.

Thanks again, and I will follow with more details soon.

[D. Spencer Hines]

No, you are quite right.

Princess Louise had no known children.

DSH

"Margret" <no> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

| To settle an argument could someone tell me if Queen Victoria's
| daughter Louise had any children? I don't think she did; but could be
| wrong (as usual!! )

[Peter Stewart]

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

No, you are quite right.

Princess Louise had no known children.

She didn't have any unknown children either.

Her husband, who became duke of Argyll a few decades after their marriage,
was too much interested in his own sex - Louise had to have some windows
bricked over at Kensington Palace to stop his nocturnal adventures in Hyde
Park. Whether or not this worked for her, she didn't go adventuring beyond
their connubial arrangements, and sublimated her maternal instincts in art
(both her own work and in the interests of other artists). By all accounts
she was a good woman, unlike some notoriously sour maidens in the royal
family, and deserved a happier life.

Peter Stewart

[D. Spencer Hines]

| She didn't have any unknown children either.

Pogue Stewart -- stupidly pontificating.
-------------------------------

There is no possible way Pogue Stewart could be absolutely sure of that.

So he cannot make such a categorical statement -- without being laughed
at.

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor