Blount-Ayala

[Gjest]

I'd like to recall that last message. I based it on your statement
that Margaret must have been born around 1300. It is not clear to me
if Nicholas de Vipont was b ca. 1320 or later. As I recall, his
daughter Margaret was born bef 1362 but exactly when is not clear.

I wonder if Margaret de Roos was his wife born say 1325 and Margaret de
Penreth was his mother born say 1295.

Margaret wife of Robert de Vipont was reported holding Lamanby and
Seliwra after his death so it could have been his.

Maybe a possibility. This appears complicated.

Doug

[Leo van de Pas]

Beautifully said.
Thank you.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 6:28 AM
Subject: Re: "Need For Moderated Group"

Dear Everyone,
I am of the opinion that moderation is a very good
thing, especially if It Everyone moderating their own behavior. There is
scant
need for Any of our number to play Schoolmaster / Schoolmarm and decide
who is
right and who is wrong. Everyone gets upset sometimes, just as Everyone
including interestingly enough Mr Richardson who wants apparently to be
moderator is
capable of instigating hate and discontent among our fellow listers. No
one
is perfect and I wonder if a moderator would choose the dubious path of
the
Lady at GEN Ancient. Absolute Power does corrupt absolutely.
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

[Peter Stewart]

Leo van de Pas wrote:

<snip>

I do hope he starts his own group with himself as moderator
and moves away from gen-med----I won't be joining him.

He might achieve the same end (that is, a Peter-Stewart-free newsgroup)
by calling for support to have me withdraw voluntarily.

Certainly if Richardson starts his own forum I shall not be trying to
join it or attend as a "lurker" (and by the way, it never fails to
amuse me when net consumers of SGM pipe up complaining about what
regular posters have to say, as if we owe them not just a free ride but
also delivery to their doorstep).

I would not wish to see Richardson disappear from SGM, because he turns
up useful information occasionally and triggers useful discussions more
frequently, for all his obvious ulterior motives (calling for everyone
to post descents from Aline de Gai, just in case he has missed any...)

However, his ridiculous holier-than-thou attitude does give hypocrisy a
worse name. This will not improve, of course - the spot can't change
its leopard.

Peter Stewart

[Leo van de Pas]

Dear Peter,
Do not sell yourself short. I think you are just "what the doctor ordered",
you are needed to keep selfrighteous, pompous, selfpromoting people in line.
Sadly, Richardson has good points (did I say that?) but if there was a
question who would I like to see eliminated from gen-med, it would be
Richardson (not even Hines) for the simple reason that Richardson has been
directly and indirectly the cause of most disharmony and disruption on
gen-med in the last few years. I really think Richardson is a tragedy, he
could do so much good for genealogy and for himself, but he is ruining
goodwill with his behaviour. He just doesn't seem to be able to see what he
has done. I do hope he starts his own group with himself as moderator and
moves away from gen-med----I won't be joining him.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: Moderation - To have or not have

""Leo van de Pas"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:003901c55027$fd077c40$c3b4fea9@email...

snip

What to do when offended? Either you defend yourself (if it was in
regards
to yourself) or you ignore. And what if a person continues to be
offensive?
Kill file.

Or short of kill-filing, if that is too hard, any distressed soul who
doesn't wish to read my posts can try NOT OPENING THEM.

Peter Stewart

[Brad Verity]

Douglas Richardson [email protected] wrote:

Dear Mr. Verity ~

Please call me 'Brad'. We've corresponded at various points, both on
and off this newsgroup, for about five years now. There's no need to
stand on formality.

I'll continue to call you 'Douglas' unless you wish otherwise.

I think you should re-read Mr. Stewart's post once again.

OK, I did.

For the name
"Richardson," replace it with "Verity." Then tell me how well the
newsgroup is working.

I think it's working fine. Peter was stating in that post he will call
you certain things ("liar", "fraud", etc.) when you engage in specific
behaviors that he described.

Now, I don't think Peter, myself, or anyone else will ever be able to
prove that you pointedly pad your bibliography and skim the sources you
have listed.

What has been demonstrated previously on this newsgroup (by me, Louise
Staley, Stewart Baldwin, Todd Farmerie, and probably others I can't
recall), is that the long list of sources you include (two instances
were after the potted biography of Sir Edward Stradling and Jane
Beaufort, and on the family of Henry II) are either redundant or do not
pertain specifically to parentage, etc.

Whether intentional or not on your part, it's very misleading. It's
also very old news - we've had numerous discussions on this newsgroup
about this.

As for replacing my name with yours in Peter's post, my reaction would
be to address the behaviors he brings up, or point out to him (as you
did earlier in the thread) that I wasn't participating in the
discussion on Princess Louise.

That said - I don't know if you followed the discussion on Anne de la
Pole, wife of Gailhard de Durfort - In it, Peter and I disagree on
different points on that topic, and do so in a way that's neither
libelous or requires moderation. I floated my theories on Anne's
parentage, and he came back with dissenting points that did make me
look at Duchess Alice's motivations (which of course, I can only
assume, or at best, deduce, as she sadly did not leave a diary or
autobiography) in a different light. In the absence of further
evidence, we can agree to disagree.

Exactly. It isn't working well at all.

It works fine for me, as it has for the past 5 years.

I believe sanity should prevail.

Sanity or civility? I wouldn't classify you, Peter, or anyone on this
newsgroup as insane in personality or behavior. Respect of course
should be practiced by everyone, and I like to view all the members of
the newsgroup as capable of it. Emotion is bound to creep into posts
every once in awhile - we aren't robots or Vulcans - but if the
emotional outbursts are ignored or steered back to topic, the topic
usually comes to some kind of conclusion.

I support a moderated group. It's
time we moved in that direction.

I find the group as it is, more than adequate. As I suggested earlier,
you can start a message board on your website and moderate discussion
there.

Cheers, -------Brad

[Brad Verity]

In a message dated 5/3/05 1:36:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

Isn't she the other Beatriz, the bastard daughter of
D. João I, King of Portugal?

[email protected] wrote:

This is what I discovered.
Beatrice of Portugal (~1386 - 23 Oct 1439 Bordeaux), Countess of
Arundell
mar 26 Nov 1405
Thomas FitzAlan (~1381 - 13 Oct 1415 Arundel), 11th Earl of Arundel

Hope I got that right, it took a little digging.

Dear Will and Francisco,

Yes, that is exactly the Beatrice, countess of Arundel, I was talking
about. After the earl of Arundel's death, she remarried (if I recall
correctly) John Holland, earl of Huntingdon, first cousin of Henry V.

Cheers, ------Brad

[Leo van de Pas]

One thing we must not loose sight off----again Richardson is the cause of
this onversation. It was Richardson who talks about expelling people and be
nice (even if you are wrong and don't you dare expose that). Again,
indirectly, Richardson is causing this conversation away from genealogy and
history. I don't think either that we should do without Richardson, but he
should make himself less unpalatable, come off his high horse or pedestal.
Leo van de Pas


----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: Moderation - To have or not have

Leo van de Pas wrote:

snip

I do hope he starts his own group with himself as moderator
and moves away from gen-med----I won't be joining him.

He might achieve the same end (that is, a Peter-Stewart-free newsgroup)
by calling for support to have me withdraw voluntarily.

Certainly if Richardson starts his own forum I shall not be trying to
join it or attend as a "lurker" (and by the way, it never fails to
amuse me when net consumers of SGM pipe up complaining about what
regular posters have to say, as if we owe them not just a free ride but
also delivery to their doorstep).

I would not wish to see Richardson disappear from SGM, because he turns
up useful information occasionally and triggers useful discussions more
frequently, for all his obvious ulterior motives (calling for everyone
to post descents from Aline de Gai, just in case he has missed any...)

However, his ridiculous holier-than-thou attitude does give hypocrisy a
worse name. This will not improve, of course - the spot can't change
its leopard.

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

Dear Will,
Roger le Bigod, 5th Earl of Norfolk and Earl Marshal of
England was the elder son of Sir Hugh le Bigod by Joan Burnet. Sir Hugh was the 2nd
son of Hugh le Bigod, 3rd Earl of Norfolk and Maud Marshal, daughter of
William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke and Marshal of England. Roger succeeded on the
death of his uncle Roger le Bigod, 4th Earl of Norfolk Source: BXP p 53
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Gjest]

Leo's website http://www.genealogics.org tells us that Charles was baptised 14 Sep
1657 Yoxford. And his father was William Blois and his mother Martha Brooke. I
have posted below some notes on this family and would appreciate comments and
criticisms.
Will Johnson


Using this as a starting board, I will be posting reference, all in the A2A
under the BLOIS family archives

Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch: Blois Family Archives Catalogue Ref.
HA30
BLOIS FAMILY
EVIDENCES of TITLE
Other evidences concerning the Brooke-Blois estates
Darsham
FILE - Release of Darsham meadows in Darsham, and messuage, Botwrights meadow
in Blythburgh, rectory of Bramfield, and cottage in Sibton, Charles Blois,
Grundisburgh, Esq., son and heir of Sir William Blois, and Mary Brooke, his
sister, to Elizabeth Mann, Yoxford, widow - ref. HA30/312/360 - date: 9th
November, 1678

This add the detail that William Blois was dead by this date. And that
Charles' sister Mary is now a Brooke.

Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch: Blois Family Archives Catalogue Ref.
HA30
BLOIS FAMILY
BLOIS FAMILY records
Wills and executorship records
Blois wills
FILE - Probate will, William Blois, Grundisbungh, Esq. - ref. HA30/312/183 -
date: 13th September, 1673

This add the detail that William Blois died aft this will of 13th Sep 1673

Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch: Blois Family Archives Catalogue Ref.
HA30
BLOIS FAMILY
EVIDENCES of TITLE
Blois estates; Ipswich, Grundisburgh, Levington, etc.
Evidences concerning Yoxford
FILE - Release and covenant to levy fine, tenement Rivetts in Yoxford, Robert
Blois, Esq., son and heir of Sir William Blois, Grundisburgh, and others to
Mary Brooke, sister and co-heir of Sir Robert Brooke, Yoxford, deceased - ref.
HA30/312/25 - date: 11th October, 1670

I believe this is telling us that Robert is the heir of this same William who
died in 1673/8. And now we introduce another character Mary Brooke, the
sister of Robert (not sister-in-law).

Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch: Blois Family Archives Catalogue Ref.
HA30
BLOIS FAMILY
Local and Official
BROOKE FAMILY RECORDS
Lady Elizabeth Brooke, d.1683
FILE - Memorandum concerning marriage jointure, William Blois and Jane
Brooke. In Lady Elizabeth Brooke's hand (?). - ref. HA30/369/188 - date: (26th
December 1659)

Lady Elizabeth Brooke, is the mother of William Blois of Grundisburgh Hall
(who d 1673/8). I believe this marriage is between this William's son and
either one of Elizabeth's daughters or granddaughters.

Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch: Blois Family Archives Catalogue Ref.
HA30
BLOIS FAMILY
BLOIS FAMILY records
Legal
FILE - Decree in Chancery for delivery of lease of Westwood Lodge with lands
in Blythburgh and Walberswick, Westleton, etc. William Blois and Jane, his
wife, plaintiffs, and Mary Brooke, defendant. - ref. HA30/312/361 - date: 30th
April, 1663

William and Jane are now married and suing either his sister Mary (Blois)
Brooke or his aunt Mary Brooke

For proof that Mary Brooke is a daughter of Sir Robert and his wife Elizabeth
see:
Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch: Blois Family Archives Catalogue Ref.
HA30
BLOIS FAMILY
EVIDENCES of TITLE
Other evidences concerning the Brooke-Blois estates
Leiston
FILE - Deed of agreement between Lady Elizabeth Brooke, William Blois,
Ipswich, the elder, William Blois, Grundisburgh, the younger, and Martha, his wife,
one of the daughters of Sir Robert and Lady Elizabeth Brooke, Mary Brooke,
another daughter, concerning messuage Westhouse in Leiston and other properties
bequeathed by the late Sir Robert - ref. HA30/312/267 - date: 5th June, 1648

Which also adds the fact that Robert died before 5 June 1648

We can do slightly better on that date here:

Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch: Blois Family Archives Catalogue Ref.
HA30
BLOIS FAMILY
EVIDENCES of TITLE
Blois estates; Ipswich, Grundisburgh, Levington, etc.
Grundisburgh and district.
FILE - Bargain and sale of tenement Dayes in Grundisburgh and Otley, 2 small
tenements and 2 acres of land in Grundisburgh, 2 messuages in 'Hembly',
tenements Forthes and Baylies in Trimley, William Blois, elder, Grundisburgh, Esq.,
and William, his son and heir, to Lady Elizabeth Brooke, Yoxford, widow, and
John, her son and heir, and others, 15th January, 1647. Enrolled in Chancery. -
ref. HA30/312/13 - date: 8th February, 1647

Elizabeth is already a widow here. And this confirms that there was in
existence a William Blois son and heir to William of Grundisburgh Hall. This
younger is who I believe married Jane Brooke in 1659.

For a minimum limit on Sir Robert Brooke's death see
Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch: Blois Family Archives Catalogue Ref.
HA30
BLOIS FAMILY
BLOIS FAMILY records
Estate management
Vouchers
FILE - Bundle of vouchers marked 'Old Receipts from my Grandfather to Lady
Brooke for my Mother's portion, etc.' being receipts from William Blois,
Grundisburgh, senior, to Lady Elizabeth Brooke for portion of his daughter, Martha
Blois, 1647 to 1657. Also acknowledgement by Nathaniel Bacon, Friston Hall, of
receipt of £1000 from Sir Robert Brooke, part payment of £2000, given to
Nathaniel Bacon with Sir Robert's daughter Elizabeth, 17th June, 1641. Also note of
fines of court held at Yoxford, 19th April, 1679, and Westleton. - ref.
HA30/312/391 - date: 25th April, 1679

I believe from this Sir Robert was alive 17 June 1641 in order to give his
daughter to Nathaniel Bacon of Friston Hall.

Further on Nathaniel Bacon see
Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch: Blois Family Archives Catalogue Ref.
HA30
BLOIS FAMILY
EVIDENCES of TITLE
Other evidences concerning the Brooke-Blois estates
Essex properties
FILE - Lease for 1 year, manors of Wansted and Stonehill, Essex, advowson of
Wansted Church and houses and lands in Essex and Suffolk, Nathaniel Bacon,
Friston, Esq., one of the co-heirs of Sir Robert Brooke, deceased, to Sir William
Blois, Grundisburgh - ref. HA30/312/349 - date: 4th November, 1670

This tells us again that Nathaniel Bacon was an heir of Sir Robert and that
Nathanial was alive 4 Nov 1670

[Gjest]

Further identification of the ancestors leads us to the name of the father of
the previously mentioned Sir Robert Brooke of Cockfield Hall who is the
maternal grandfather of the subject Charles, 1st Baronet Blois
- Will Johnson

Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch: Blois Family Archives Catalogue Ref.
HA30
HOPTON FAMILY records
Financial
Other financial records
FILE - Release by Robert Hopton, Witham, Somerset, Esq., son and
heir of Sir Arthur Hopton, Kt., deceased, to Sir Robert Brooke, Cockfield Hall,
Yoxford, High Sheriff of Suffolk, son and heir of Robert Brooke, alderman of
London, of Statutes Staple and recognisances in Court of Chancery (Schedule
annexed) to which manors and land purchased of Arthur Hopton by Robert Brooke are
subject. - ref. HA30/312/21 - date: 28th November, 1613

[Gjest]

Further we now add the exact date and age for Lady Elizabeth Brooke, the
widow of Robert Brooke of Cockfield Hall
Will Johnson

Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch: Blois Family Archives Catalogue Ref.
HA30
BLOIS FAMILY
Local and Official
BROOKE FAMILY RECORDS
Lady Elizabeth Brooke, d.1683
FILE - MS. of sermon preached at the funeral of Lady Brooke of Cockfield
Hall, Yoxford, died 22nd July 1683, aged 81, buried 26th July. By Nathaniel
Parkhurst, M.A., vicar of Yoxford and chaplain to her ladyship - ref. HA30/369/16
[n.d.]

[Peter Stewart]

Brad Verity wrote:

<snip>

Now, I don't think Peter, myself, or anyone else will ever be able
to prove that you pointedly pad your bibliography and skim the
sources you have listed.

This is already proved beyond a reasonable doubt - anyone who thinks
that "Willelmus...domino" means one person, a William lord of X, is
incapable of making worthwhile sense of any source written in Latin -
the error is too fundamental to leave room for debate on this. Likewise
anyone who thinks that "français" in a mistake and deliberately
changes the word to "franqais" cannot possibly know anything of French
- even the name of the language is a mystery to him. Richardson
committed both of these errors: therefore any claim to have read and
drawn information from primary sources, remembering that virtually all
in his field of study were written in either Latin or French, is
largely a sham on his part. He depends on translations and extracts, or
on secondary work published earlier, and on a bit of unreliable
word-spotting by himself at best. This is Roderick Stuart revisited.

No matter how many times the basic deficiency in Richardson's
preparation for his work is pointed out, or the fraud of covering it
up, he takes no action to remedy this; and his supporters apparently
excuse him on the grounds that they wish for an ultimate authority in
the field, and by default they are stuck with him. The naked emperor
revisited.

<snip>

As for replacing my name with yours in Peter's post, my reaction
would be to address the behaviors he brings up, or point out to
him (as you did earlier in the thread) that I wasn't participating in
the discussion on Princess Louise.

All that occurred in that thread to upset him was the use of his name
as a byword to describe a similar inanity from someone else. He then
chose to propagate this embarrassment by sending it on to two
newsgroups that had not received it beforehand, while complaining to
their listowners about ME when I had not in any way disturbed their
collegial repose.

That said - I don't know if you followed the discussion on Anne
de la Pole, wife of Gailhard de Durfort - In it, Peter and I disagree
on different points on that topic, and do so in a way that's neither
libelous or requires moderation. I floated my theories on Anne's
parentage, and he came back with dissenting points that did make
me look at Duchess Alice's motivations (which of course, I can only
assume, or at best, deduce, as she sadly did not leave a diary or
autobiography) in a different light. In the absence of further
evidence, we can agree to disagree.

In that instance, an equally good case can be made for different views
and the choice at present is really no more than a matter of
preference. Were the same to happen in discussion between Richardson
and me, there could of course be a similar outcome. Despite his
alleging "obsession" on my part, I don't respond to most of his posts,
not even reading many of them, and I don't waste my time thinking about
him at all when not reading SGM messages.

An agreement to differ could result from several of the controversies
raised by Richardson, or sometimes bursting on him unawares from a
mindset of self-satisfied certainty on his part, if he would only leave
well enough alone. But often he prefers to sneer at others, as recently
and so gratuitously at Leo, in order to deflect attention from some
error or misjudgment that he can't bring himself to admit. This
behaviour is apparently "collegial" from his own standpoint, but pure
bastardry to on onlooker.

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

In a message dated 5/3/05 7:40:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected]
writes:

<< Also acknowledgement by Nathaniel Bacon, Friston Hall, of
receipt of £1000 from Sir Robert Brooke, part payment of £2000, given to
Nathaniel Bacon with Sir Robert's daughter Elizabeth, 17th June, 1641. >>

I believe in this post I have inadvertently stumbled upon a correction to
those people who trace through this couple who parented the Nathaniel Bacon of
Bacon's Rebellion (in the US). I have spied many websites that claim that the
Nathaniel Bacon bap 2 Jan 1647 and d 25 Oct 1676 VA is the son of THOMAS Bacon
and his wife Elizabeth, dau of Sir Robert Brooke. However the above seems to
be saying quite clearly ?? that the husband of Elizabeth was Nathaniel Bacon,
not Thomas.
Correct me where I am wrong.
Thank you.
Will Johnson

[Peter Stewart]

James Cummings wrote:

<snip>

Roger le Bigod, 5th Earl of Norfolk and Earl Marshal of
England was the elder son of Sir Hugh le Bigod by Joan Burnet.

I don't think Burke's Extinct peerage has this right - as far as I
recall, the mother of Roger, 5th earl of Norfolk, was Joan de
Stuteville, heiress of Liddel Strength & Cottingham, widow of Hugh
Wake, lord of Bourne, daughter of Nicholas de Stuteville.

Peter Stewart

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

In message of 4 May, "Brad Verity" <[email protected]> wrote:

Douglas Richardson [email protected] wrote:

<snip>

What has been demonstrated previously on this newsgroup (by me, Louise
Staley, Stewart Baldwin, Todd Farmerie, and probably others I can't
recall), is that the long list of sources you include (two instances
were after the potted biography of Sir Edward Stradling and Jane
Beaufort, and on the family of Henry II) are either redundant or do not
pertain specifically to parentage, etc.

May I add in a confession on my part. In my amateurish compilations for
domestic consumption, I have done the same as Douglas Richardson: I
have only put my references all against the name and not against each
individual fact. I know, and knew, this is bad practice but plead that
I had to do it because I could not otherwise transfer my source data by
GEDCOM.

I am aware of the best practice which has been established for at least
a hundred years. You put an index number in the text and in the
footnotes on each page (or at the end of the chapter, though I prefer
them to be on the page) you put down any details relevant to the text.
Complete Peerage follows this practice as does The Scots Peerage. It is
a pleasure to read such books knowing that they have combined
interesting prose with disciplined academic reference practices. Their
work may have been a little supplanted by later research and documents
uncovered that simply were not publicly available at those times but
they remain models of scholarly methodology.

A few years ago I was able to read one of Paul Reed's articles and it
was an even better model of scholarship: every detail was clearly
referenced in the footnotes. It was also a most interesting read.

I would therefore encourage Douglas Richardson not to do as I do but to
follow this long established scholarly method. One hopes that his new
books, assiduously advertised here, will be in accord with best
practices.

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

[Peter Stewart]

""Frank"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:001301c55089$98f71b40$f247ef9b@frank...

<snip>

The problem is that , periodically, one of the perpetrators will post a
subject line that interests a serious researcher who wastes valuable time
(and, in many instances, money) trying to find the gem hidden away

Ah, and you would be such a "serious researcher"?

Odd then that you have never share any of your serious research with the
newsgoup.

Even odder that as recently as 2 April this year your posted:

"I'm both new to this list and new to medieval genealogy so please excuse my
naivety".

You are displaying more of it now.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

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

""Frank"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:001301c55089$98f71b40$f247ef9b@frank...

snip

The problem is that , periodically, one of the perpetrators will post a
subject line that interests a serious researcher who wastes valuable time
(and, in many instances, money) trying to find the gem hidden away

Ah, and you would be such a "serious researcher"?

Odd then that you have never share any of your serious research with the
newsgoup.

Even odder that as recently as 2 April this year your posted:

"I'm both new to this list and new to medieval genealogy so please excuse
my
naivety".

You are displaying more of it now.

My apologies to Frank Bullen - I see that he has changed his identifier from
both names to just his first, like

""Frank"" <[email protected]>

who posted the quotation above on 2 April.

Going by a single name is somewhat confusing, but I should have checked
further.

Peter Stewart

[Francisco Antonio Doria]

OK. The other Beatriz, Bea Fettiplace is (very likely)
a daughter of Dom Lopo de Sousa, Master of Christ.

fa

--- Brad Verity <[email protected]> escreveu:

In a message dated 5/3/05 1:36:51 PM Pacific
Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

Isn't she the other Beatriz, the bastard
daughter of
D. João I, King of Portugal?

[email protected] wrote:


This is what I discovered.
Beatrice of Portugal (~1386 - 23 Oct 1439
Bordeaux), Countess of
Arundell
mar 26 Nov 1405
Thomas FitzAlan (~1381 - 13 Oct 1415 Arundel),
11th Earl of Arundel

Hope I got that right, it took a little digging.

Dear Will and Francisco,

Yes, that is exactly the Beatrice, countess of
Arundel, I was talking
about. After the earl of Arundel's death, she
remarried (if I recall
correctly) John Holland, earl of Huntingdon, first
cousin of Henry V.

Cheers, ------Brad

_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis.
Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/

[Frank]

Thank you, Leo, for the words "using free speech in a responsible way." in
your posting.

Someone raised the question of freedom of speech.

This has nothing whatever to do with free speech.

Certainly any subscriber is free to reveal the limitations of their minds
and the unfettered nature of their egos. But
please - let them go through their interrupted growing up process somewhere
else, without interfering with others.

To perpetuate infantile bickering that is more suited to the kindergarten
playground than a forum dedicated to intelligent - if not always desperately
serious - research, to my mind, demostrates a lack of responsibility and the
sort of behaviour to be expected from the ignorant. Not from people who
are capable of
displaying a degree of intelligence.

Such behaviour is indulged in not from serious intent, but simply to satisfy
the ego. This is obvious from the interminable tit-for-tat nature of the
exchanges. I am amazed that they can find the time to bother with such
rubbish!

The problem is that , periodically, one of the perpetrators will post a
subject line that interests a serious researcher who wastes valuable time
(and, in many instances, money) trying to find the gem hidden away in a pile
of shit.

Now, if there WERE a moderator, I'd probably (and rightly) be kicked out for
using that word. Yet that is an accurate description of what these people
flood the list with every day.

By all means, let a moderated list be created.

Frank

[Brad Verity]

Francisco Antonio Doria wrote:

OK. The other Beatriz, Bea Fettiplace is (very likely)
a daughter of Dom Lopo de Sousa, Master of Christ.

Dear Francisco,

I have never heard of Dom Lopo de Sousa, Master of Christ. Do you have
any biographical details on him? Was he still alive in 1414/5, about
the time Beatriz married Gilbert, 5th Lord Talbot? Do you have an idea
why he would have sent a daughter to England?

Thanks and Cheers, ----Brad

[Patricia Junkin]

Doug,

The dates I have are as follows.
Robert de Veteriponte [1303-13 Jul 1371] m. Margaret Heiress Lamonby &
Middlesceugh [ca. 1300-10 Sep 1359]

Their son,
Nicholas [ca. 1320-1362] m. Elena Daubeney [-1363]

Their children:
Robert[ b.c. 1340-1369-71] s.p.
Elizabeth [c. 1346-aft. 1420] m. Thomas Blencowe
Joan [1349-] m. William Whitlaw

Robert and Margaret also had a son, John whose son John b. 1340 inherited
from his grandmother.

Pat

----------

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Identity of Maud de Bernake, wife of James de Roos, of Gedney,
Lincolnshire
Date: Tue, May 3, 2005, 7:49 PM


I'd like to recall that last message. I based it on your statement
that Margaret must have been born around 1300. It is not clear to me
if Nicholas de Vipont was b ca. 1320 or later. As I recall, his
daughter Margaret was born bef 1362 but exactly when is not clear.

I wonder if Margaret de Roos was his wife born say 1325 and Margaret de
Penreth was his mother born say 1295.

Margaret wife of Robert de Vipont was reported holding Lamanby and
Seliwra after his death so it could have been his.

Maybe a possibility. This appears complicated.

Doug

[Patricia Junkin]

Doug,

The dates I have are as follows.
Robert de Veteriponte [1303-13 Jul 1371] m. Margaret Heiress Lamonby &
Middlesceugh [ca. 1300-10 Sep 1359]

Their son,
Nicholas [ca. 1320-1362] m. Elena Daubeney [-1363]

Their children:
Robert[ b.c. 1340-1369-71] s.p.
Elizabeth [c. 1346,aged 24 in 1370.-aft. 1420] m. Thomas Blencowe
Joan [1349-] m. William Whitlaw

Robert and Margaret also had a son, John whose son John b. 1340 inherited
from his grandmother.

A mention of a de Ros connection. In 1344 William de Roos: a bovate of land
held by John Vaporvent [Vipont] by service of one hundred and 1/4 part
knight¹s fee.

Pat

----------

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Identity of Maud de Bernake, wife of James de Roos, of Gedney,
Lincolnshire
Date: Tue, May 3, 2005, 7:49 PM


I'd like to recall that last message. I based it on your statement
that Margaret must have been born around 1300. It is not clear to me
if Nicholas de Vipont was b ca. 1320 or later. As I recall, his
daughter Margaret was born bef 1362 but exactly when is not clear.

I wonder if Margaret de Roos was his wife born say 1325 and Margaret de
Penreth was his mother born say 1295.

Margaret wife of Robert de Vipont was reported holding Lamanby and
Seliwra after his death so it could have been his.

Maybe a possibility. This appears complicated.

Doug

[Gjest]

After I posted this I found in the Ancestral File, a submission that this
William Blois was the same person as William Blois the husband of Mary Brooke,
and thus this wife Jane was a second wife. Per the AF supposed to be a widow of
his brother-in-law John Brooke. I am not yet sure on what basis this
connection is made.
Then Lady Elizabeth would be the groom's mother-in-law and the bride's
mother-in-law as well.
Would that be considered normal procedure ?
Thanks
Will

In a message dated 5/3/2005 7:40:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch: Blois Family Archives Catalogue Ref.

HA30
BLOIS FAMILY
Local and Official
BROOKE FAMILY RECORDS
Lady Elizabeth Brooke, d.1683
FILE - Memorandum concerning marriage jointure, William Blois and Jane
Brooke. In Lady Elizabeth Brooke's hand (?). - ref. HA30/369/188 - date:
(26th
December 1659)

Lady Elizabeth Brooke, is the mother of William Blois of Grundisburgh Hall
(who d 1673/8). I believe this marriage is between this William's son and
either one of Elizabeth's daughters or granddaughters.

[Francisco Antonio Doria]

Hi,

There is a paper by Nat Taylor on the matter,
available online. Also, there is Planchet's 19th
century discussion of the identity of Beatriz
Fettiplace. You can also find it at Nat's site,
together with several genealogical charts that answer
your questions.

Best, fa

--- Brad Verity <[email protected]> escreveu:

Francisco Antonio Doria wrote:


OK. The other Beatriz, Bea Fettiplace is (very
likely)
a daughter of Dom Lopo de Sousa, Master of Christ.

Dear Francisco,

I have never heard of Dom Lopo de Sousa, Master of
Christ. Do you have
any biographical details on him? Was he still alive
in 1414/5, about
the time Beatriz married Gilbert, 5th Lord Talbot?
Do you have an idea
why he would have sent a daughter to England?

Thanks and Cheers, ----Brad

_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis.
Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/

[Francisco Antonio Doria]

On the exchanges between Portugal and England in the
late 14th-early 15th century: we know of several
members of the Portuguese nobility who went to England
in that time frame - there is a beautiful legend, Os
Doze de Inglaterra - The Twelve Knights who went to
England to fight for honorable causes. At least one
Portuguese nobleman, Dom Alvaro de Almada, is saud to
have been made an Earl in Englando (I must check the
extant documentary evidence); and a member of the
Butler Sudley family settled in Portugal - their name
was changed to Sodré in Portugal.

fa

--- Brad Verity <[email protected]> escreveu:

Francisco Antonio Doria wrote:


OK. The other Beatriz, Bea Fettiplace is (very
likely)
a daughter of Dom Lopo de Sousa, Master of Christ.

Dear Francisco,

I have never heard of Dom Lopo de Sousa, Master of
Christ. Do you have
any biographical details on him? Was he still alive
in 1414/5, about
the time Beatriz married Gilbert, 5th Lord Talbot?
Do you have an idea
why he would have sent a daughter to England?

Thanks and Cheers, ----Brad

_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis.
Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/

[Gjest]

In my research on the Bacon family today I came across an interesting
reference. I know that we had discussed at some point whether and how Anne was
addressed by Elizabeth when she became Queen.

Today I've found in Chalmers' Biographical Dictionary, in the article on
Nicholas Bacon, lord keeper (in the reign of Elizabeth) this quote:

"Some of the queen's counsellers thought it necessary that the attainder of
the of the queen's mother should be taken off; but the lord keeper " [This in
Nicholas Bacon - my note] " thought the crown purged all defects, and in
compliance with his advice, two laws were made, one for recognizing the queen's
title, the other for restoring her in blood as heir to her mother." [There is
nothing further in this article dealing with this issue - my note]

Will Johnson

[Frank]

Sorry, Peter, but I decline to indulge any desire to involve me in the
rubbish that mars this list.

Yes - I do consider myself a serious researcher. Not - I freely admit - a
particularly learned one - but I am researching with the sole purpose of
discovering the truth about what interests me. You may disagree with that
definition - such is your prerogative.

And - thank you for quoting me accurately.

Regards

Frank

[Frank]

Hi again, Peter

You wrote <My apologies to Frank Bullen - I see that he has changed his
identifier from
both names to just his first, like

""Frank"" <[email protected]>

who posted the quotation above on 2 April.

Going by a single name is somewhat confusing, but I should have checked
further.

I have already acknowledged the words you quoted eartlier as mine. However
I have no knowledge whatsoever of the "virgin.net" URL you mention. It has
certainly never been related to anything I have written. And I don't think
Virgin is an ISP here yet.

<Going by a single name is somewhat confusing, but I should have checked
further.>

Yes, of course - apology accepted in good faith.

Regards

Frank

[Gjest]

In a message dated 5/4/05 5:16:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected]
writes:

<< 7 William Ferrers b: 28 February 1332/33 in Newbold Verdon, LEI, ENG
d:
08 January 1370/71 in Stebbing, ESS, ENG
.... +Margaret de Ufford b: Abt. 1330 d: 02 September 1375 in Gyng, ESS,
ENG Burial: Church of the Friars Preachers at Chelmsford, ESS, ENG >>

Genealogics says this birthdate for William should be a bap/chr date.
Will Johnson

[Peter Stewart]

Something peculiar happened in the Usenet sender details - when sorting on
"From" yesterday, two messages of 2005 came up as from "Frank" and five from
"Frank Bullen". I didn't look further than this & reading the second "Frank"
post from which I quoted, that on a second look showed
[email protected] as sender.

My computer skills are less than nugatory at the best of times, but this
wasn't one of them.

Peter Stewart



""Frank"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:00d501c550e4$66652f40$2346ef9b@frank...

Hi again, Peter

You wrote <My apologies to Frank Bullen - I see that he has changed his
identifier from
both names to just his first, like

""Frank"" <[email protected]

who posted the quotation above on 2 April.

Going by a single name is somewhat confusing, but I should have checked
further.

I have already acknowledged the words you quoted eartlier as mine.
However
I have no knowledge whatsoever of the "virgin.net" URL you mention. It
has
certainly never been related to anything I have written. And I don't
think
Virgin is an ISP here yet.

Going by a single name is somewhat confusing, but I should have checked
further.

Yes, of course - apology accepted in good faith.

Regards

Frank

[Gjest]

In a message dated 5/4/05 3:11:04 PM Central Daylight Time, WJhonson writes:

In a message dated 5/4/05 5:16:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected]
writes:

<< 7 William Ferrers b: 28 February 1332/33 in Newbold Verdon, LEI, ENG
d:
08 January 1370/71 in Stebbing, ESS, ENG
..... +Margaret de Ufford b: Abt. 1330 d: 02 September 1375 in Gyng, ESS,
ENG Burial: Church of the Friars Preachers at Chelmsford, ESS, ENG >>

Genealogics says this birthdate for William should be a bap/chr date.
Will Johnson


Thanks, changed.

Always optimistic--Dave

[Gjest]

I believe Nicholas and Elena had another daughter, Margaret b. bef 1362
and married to William de Stapleton of Edenhall, Cumberland - but I do
not have proof of this.

Doug Smith

[Gjest]

Dear Peter,
Thank You for the correction. Sheppard in AR 7 Line 69 Gen
29 Says the same, citing CP IX 593 and further adds that Joan was the daughter
of Nicholas Stuteville by Devorguilla, daughter of Roland, Lord of Galloway
CP XII (2) pp 298-99.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

[Patricia Junkin]

A later Nicholas did have a daughter Margaret who married William de
Stapilton Jr. She was Heiress of Alston Moor, daughter and heir of the last
owner, succeeded as ³Domina² to Alston Moor. Her mother, Mary, I believe,
married 2) William Stapilton Sr.
C 143/405/1 Mary late the wife of William de Stapelton to have common of
pasture in the forest of Inglewood for herself and the tenants of her manor
of Edenhall. [Cumb.]
10 RICHARD II. [1387]
Pat

----------

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Identity of Maud de Bernake, wife of James de Roos, of Gedney,
Lincolnshire
Date: Wed, May 4, 2005, 6:59 PM


I believe Nicholas and Elena had another daughter, Margaret b. bef 1362
and married to William de Stapleton of Edenhall, Cumberland - but I do
not have proof of this.

Doug Smith

[D. Spencer Hines]

Correct, Peter.

This was a brain problem on your part -- not a computer problem.

'Twas an eructation from the penumbra of your cerebral cortex -- known
in the vernacular as a "brain fart."

Nothing to do with computers.

DSH

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

| Something peculiar happened in the Usenet sender details - when
sorting on
| "From" yesterday, two messages of 2005 came up as from "Frank" and
five from
| "Frank Bullen". I didn't look further than this & reading the second
"Frank"
| post from which I quoted, that on a second look showed
| [email protected] as sender.
|
| My computer skills are less than nugatory at the best of times, but
this
| wasn't one of them.
|
| Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

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

Correct, Peter.

This was a brain problem on your part -- not a computer problem.

'Twas an eructation from the penumbra of your cerebral cortex -- known
in the vernacular as a "brain fart."

Nothing to do with computers.

That sounds like a fair description - I've never heard the term before, but
no doubt you are more familiar with the phenomenon.

Peter Stewart

[Renia]

[email protected] wrote:

Just to remind everyone, my surprise was based on the early date (early
16th century) of the two siblings sharing the same name. Only one of
you have provided another example from this period or earlier. For
lack of more examples, I guess I have to continue assuming that at this
time the practice was extraordinarily unusual.

Since this was posted, I've just aquired and am transcribing the will of
John Dashwood of West Stafford in Dorset dated and proved 1594. In it,
he specifically names "my sonn John thonger", who was "my youngest sonn"
and under age in 1594. Both he and brother Edward were to receive
property in Yetminster, which properties were for his "wife to enjoy
according to the custome".

He also specifically names "my sonn John thelder" who was to receive all
his right estate and interest in Hilton.

He also had one married daughter and three other sons, two of them also
under age.

Renia

[Jean-François BLANC]

Hello,

I'm quite often shocked by immoderate posts, but IMHO there is no need
to ask somebody to perform such an annoying task. Moderation may be
performed by every member just by ignoring offending posts and not
replying to them.

JF Blanc

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

In message of 5 May, Renia <[email protected]> wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
Just to remind everyone, my surprise was based on the early date (early
16th century) of the two siblings sharing the same name. Only one of
you have provided another example from this period or earlier. For
lack of more examples, I guess I have to continue assuming that at this
time the practice was extraordinarily unusual.


Since this was posted, I've just aquired and am transcribing the will of
John Dashwood of West Stafford in Dorset dated and proved 1594. In it,
he specifically names "my sonn John thonger", who was "my youngest sonn"
and under age in 1594. Both he and brother Edward were to receive
property in Yetminster, which properties were for his "wife to enjoy
according to the custome".

He also specifically names "my sonn John thelder" who was to receive all
his right estate and interest in Hilton.

He also had one married daughter and three other sons, two of them also
under age.

My brother uncovered that at much the same time one William Powys
(1594-1577) of Ludlow had not merely two sons called John but in fact
three of them, one by his first marriage and two by his second. His
known total offspring was nine sons and three daughters.

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

[Gjest]

Thanks Pat!

I may understand this yet.

Doug


"Patricia Junkin" wrote:

A later Nicholas did have a daughter Margaret who married William de
Stapilton Jr. She was Heiress of Alston Moor, daughter and heir of
the last
owner, succeeded as ³Domina² to Alston Moor. Her mother, Mary, I
believe,
married 2) William Stapilton Sr.
C 143/405/1 Mary late the wife of William de Stapelton to have common
of
pasture in the forest of Inglewood for herself and the tenants of her
manor
of Edenhall. [Cumb.]
10 RICHARD II. [1387]
Pat

----------
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Identity of Maud de Bernake, wife of James de Roos, of
Gedney,
Lincolnshire
Date: Wed, May 4, 2005, 6:59 PM


I believe Nicholas and Elena had another daughter, Margaret b. bef
1362
and married to William de Stapleton of Edenhall, Cumberland - but I
do
not have proof of this.

Doug Smith

[Gjest]

On Tue, 3 May 2005 15:50:20 +0000 (UTC), "Tony Hoskins" wrote:

Please add my vote in support of a moderated group.

And mine.

[Douglas Richardson royala]

Brad Verity wrote:

I think it's working fine. Peter was stating in that post he will
call
you certain things ("liar", "fraud", etc.) when you engage in
specific
behaviors that he described.

Cheers, -------Brad

Name calling is inappropriate behavior here on the newsgroup.

It's that simple.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

[Gjest]

On Thu, 5 May 2005 14:28:46 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote:

On Tue, 3 May 2005 15:50:20 +0000 (UTC), "Tony Hoskins" wrote:

Please add my vote in support of a moderated group.

And mine.

None of these votes mean anything. For your votes to count, there first has to
be an RFD, and then a CFV. After the CFV, then your votes will have some
meaning (assuming you've formatted them correctly).

Again:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/moderation/pitfalls/
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/moderat ... amble.html

[D. Spencer Hines]

Indeed.

There is lots of pious, airy-fairy, wheelspinning and thumbsucking going
on here.

DSH

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

| On Thu, 5 May 2005 14:28:46 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
wrote:
|
| >On Tue, 3 May 2005 15:50:20 +0000 (UTC), "Tony Hoskins" wrote:
| >
| >>Please add my vote in support of a moderated group.
| >
| >And mine.
|
| None of these votes mean anything. For your votes to count, there
first has to
| be an RFD, and then a CFV. After the CFV, then your votes will have
some
| meaning (assuming you've formatted them correctly).
|
| Again:
|
| http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/moderation/pitfalls/
| http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/moderat ... amble.html

[Gjest]

The forum's collective advice encouraged me to keep looking for a
second William. Last night he finally popped up. It isn't 100%
confirmed, since the author did not specify where he got his pedigree
of the family of William's mother from -- it does not conform to the
visitations. However, he was a very careful scholar with enormous
knowledge of Leicestershire. There it was: "William senior" and
"William junior" right next to each other on the family tree, with
Thomas as their father -- exactly as the 1528 Will had specified.

Part of my misgivings about it turning to be in this branch was that
there were two older brothers (an older half-brother and an older full
brother) who had better claims to the inheritance. At the time I
didn't know their death dates. But since then I've confirmed that both
died young and were out of the way when the patriarch died, leaving
only his own son as the heir. I give them credit for not agreeing to
rub him out and split the inheritance.

I don't give Cardinal Morton any credit for bringing about the birth of
the two Williams, he seems to be continuing his slide in my esteem.
The mother of the two Williams had been married to a man in
Leicestershire who died almost immediately after the marriage. One
reason I doubted this whole scenario was that I didn't see how this
family would have had contacts with a family in Leicestershire. Turns
out more info I didn't know. The woman, Margaret, married the deceased
husband's younger brother. Evidently there was a challenge, and it
came under Cardinal Morton's authority to decide. He invalidated the
marriage to the deceased man's brother (a la the claim of Henry VIII),
and proceeded to marry her to his widower nephew Thomas -- about triple
her age at the time! I have a feeling neither she nor her family had
much say in the matter. Cardinal Morton wanted her property for his
own family. Talk about a conflict of interest!

Ironically, the day before I discovered the second William I had read
an article in Genealogists' Magazine in which Dr. Ratzell reviewed the
evidence on the topic of sons with the same name, and concluded that it
was extraordinarily rare and usually limited to half-brothers. He
claimed that if one checked many of the instances claimed for shared
names, most the first son was already dead when the second was given
the name. Thank goodness I didn't let this article dissuade me from
continuing my research, grasping at straws, until I found the second
William.

[Todd A. Farmerie]

Douglas Richardson [email protected] wrote:

Brad Verity wrote:


I think it's working fine. Peter was stating in that post he will

call

you certain things ("liar", "fraud", etc.) when you engage in

specific

behaviors that he described.



Cheers, -------Brad



Name calling is inappropriate behavior here on the newsgroup.

It's that simple.

Is it?



On Oct 29 2004, Google archived a post in which the following appeared:

"If Mr. Stewart is unable to find actual examples from the period, then
it will be clear to all that he is a petty fraud posing as a serious
scholar, a mere "wannabe" Latin expert."


On Dec 4 2004:

"Peter Stewart Wonky idea?"


On 12 Nov 2003:

"Your nose is growing bigger and bigger, Peter."


On Feb 4 2004, one entitled:

"Peter Stewart's brazen folly and incompetence"



There is a word for someone who applies to others a standard they do not
apply to themselves. I say that to make more than one point. If one
thinks a moderator is necessary to protect themselves from others, they
should at least give some thought to the appropriateness of their own
(mis)behavior. As I am sure was the case for the posts above, people
sometimes say things that they later regret - nobody is perfect.
Likewise, though, there are ways of insulting people, demeaning people,
belittling people or just "yanking their chain" without actual name
calling, such as my sentence at the start of this paragraph. Do I
really want someone to have to decide whether or not to throw me off the
newsgroup for a simple statement of fact, not directed toward an
individual except by implication, and containing not a single insulting
word. More importantly, do you want someone to make the decision with
regard to one of your posts? Also, there are inappropriate posts that
are not insulting: posts that are off topic (50 years out of period, for
example); irrelevant crossposts; posts that advertise a product, etc.
Sometimes these too are not blatant, drifting to a different period in
an on-topic thread, or including the "product information" at the end of
an otherwise topical post. Is that a decision you want someone to make?
Is there anyone who wants to make that decision? Of course the
alternative available to a person intent on founding a new group is to
make themselves moderator, and make the rules, "what I say goes," but
that is a setup optimal for just one person.

Let me be blunt here. There will never be a moderated newsgroup
parallel to soc.gen.med. I have been through the creation process
enough times to known what it entails, what problems are likely to
arise, and what the outcome is likely to look like. When the proponent
of the new group is one of the instigators of the problems in the
existing one, there just aren't enough votes to pass the new moderated
group over all of the NO votes. Likewise, while it used to be a
possibility, it is now impossible to moderate an existing group.
Alternatives have been suggested to you, but the best alternative is for
people to behave in THIS group. That means, basically, everyone - me,
you, him, her, should look first to their own actions here and avoid
behaviors that unnecessarily piss people off and make them more likely
to misbehave in return. (I was going to list a litany of annoying
behaviors, but they have all been pointed out at one time or another: we
all know what they are, given the constant repetition - don't do them!)

It is not simple, not by a long shot.

taf

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

In message of 5 May, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 5 May 2005 14:28:46 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote:

On Tue, 3 May 2005 15:50:20 +0000 (UTC), "Tony Hoskins" wrote:

Please add my vote in support of a moderated group.

And mine.

None of these votes mean anything. For your votes to count, there
first has to be an RFD, and then a CFV. After the CFV, then your
votes will have some meaning (assuming you've formatted them
correctly).

Again:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/moderation/pitfalls/
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/moderat ... amble.html

(Very interesting, those websites.)

I have not seen any sign of any activity to actually do anything about
this moderation proposal of Douglas Richardson's. Noone is actually
doing a thing. Why not, might I ask?

If nothing is done, absolutely nothing will happen.

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

[CED]

Mr. Richardson,

You favor a moderated group; but, who would decide what is
inappropriate behavior? How would that decision be made?

You say that name calling is inappropriate behavior; but, what is name
calling?

If one were to suggest that certain of your posts give evidence that
you are pompous, would that be "name calling" ?

If one were to suggest that, when you want to cuddle up to someone
(curry favor), that you are obsequious, would that be name calling?

If someone were to point out that you have only a very limited
knowledge of language and that, even in English, you misuse terms,
would that be name calling?

Would you expect a moderator to protect you from criticism?

CED

[Gjest]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 02:01:47 +0000 (UTC), "Steven C. Perkins" wrote:

The following publication may be of interest:

http://server30087.uk2net.com/PROME/

It looked an excellent buy - so I bought it!

However, I'm having problems getting it to work consistently (WXP,
SP2).

What experiences are others having, please?

[D. Spencer Hines]

MANY folks here are no doubt descended from or kin to some of the
Crusaders portrayed in this film.

For example, anyone who is a descendant of Edward III is also reportedly
a descendant of Reynald de Chatillon.

Anyone who is descended from Henry II is reportedly a [half] first
cousin [x times removed] of Baldwin IV 'The Leper King' of Jerusalem.

Further, anyone who is descended from Edward III is reportedly also a
first cousin [x times removed] of Guy de Lusignan, King of Jerusalem.

Tens of millions of folks Worldwide.

DSH

Hmmmmmmm...

Roger Ebert says _Kingdom Of Heaven_ is a better film than Ridley
Scott's previous historical epic, _Gladiator_.

Interesting...

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

"The first thing to be said for Ridley Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven" is
that Scott knows how to direct a historical epic."

"I might have been kinder to his "Gladiator" had I known that "Troy" and
"Alexander" were in my future, but "Kingdom of Heaven" is better than
"Gladiator" -- deeper, more thoughtful, more about human motivation and
less about action."

"The second thing is that Scott is a brave man to release a movie at
this time about the wars between Christians and Muslims for control of
Jerusalem."

"Few people will be capable of looking at "Kingdom of Heaven"
objectively."

"I have been invited by both Muslims and Christians to view the movie
with them so they can point out its shortcomings. When you've made both
sides angry, you may have done something right."...

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... 0505/REVIE
WS/50426001
--------------------

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[D. Spencer Hines]

Additional Information.

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

MANY folks here are no doubt descended from or kin to some of the
Crusaders portrayed in this film.

For example, anyone who is a descendant of Edward III is also reportedly
a descendant of Reynald de Chatillon.

Anyone who is descended from Henry II is reportedly a [half] first
cousin [x times removed] of Baldwin IV 'The Leper King' of Jerusalem.

Further, anyone who is descended from Henry III is reportedly also a
first cousin [x times removed] of Guy de Lusignan, King of Jerusalem.

Tens of millions of folks Worldwide are related to or descended from the
Crusaders.

DSH

Hmmmmmmm...

Roger Ebert says _Kingdom Of Heaven_ is a better film than Ridley
Scott's previous historical epic, _Gladiator_.

Interesting...

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

"The first thing to be said for Ridley Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven" is
that Scott knows how to direct a historical epic."

"I might have been kinder to his "Gladiator" had I known that "Troy" and
"Alexander" were in my future, but "Kingdom of Heaven" is better than
"Gladiator" -- deeper, more thoughtful, more about human motivation and
less about action."

"The second thing is that Scott is a brave man to release a movie at
this time about the wars between Christians and Muslims for control of
Jerusalem."

"Few people will be capable of looking at "Kingdom of Heaven"
objectively."

"I have been invited by both Muslims and Christians to view the movie
with them so they can point out its shortcomings. When you've made both
sides angry, you may have done something right."...

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... 0505/REVIE
WS/50426001
--------------------

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Peter Stewart]

Spencer Hines wrote:

MANY folks here are no doubt descended from or kin to some
of the Crusaders portrayed in this film.

For example, anyone who is a descendant of Edward III is also
reportedly a descendant of Reynald de Chatillon.

I can't remember any thread about him in SGM, so I wonder if the
newsgroup has been informed that ES and a lot of other modern works
have attached Reynald to the wrong family - he was evidently a cadet of
the seigneurial family of Semur, holding Chatillon-sur-Loing, and not a
member of the better-known (later on) line of Chatillon-sur-Marne.

But maybe this has been discussed at length before now & I missed it.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Paul Davis wrote:

Yes, Peter, there was mostly huff & puff in DR's missive that
originated this thread, but many of us realized that even without
your dragging him through the horse droppings.

"Many of us" are not the sole audience or the arbiters of what ought to
be posted, Paul - like DR himself, "many of us" should realise that the
newsgroup doesn't revolve around "us" and our rate of uptake. The
record, in the archive, has a life of its own and DR often hopes to
trap the unwary there with trash that passes unremarked. Why else would
he so shamelessly try to misrepresent exchanges that occured only a day
or so earlier?

The cost of dealing with a collegial fiend of his kind is constant
vigilance, dreary as this may be.

Peter Stewart

[Brad Verity]

Francisco Antonio Doria wrote:

There is a paper by Nat Taylor on the matter,
available online. Also, there is Planchet's 19th
century discussion of the identity of Beatriz
Fettiplace. You can also find it at Nat's site,
together with several genealogical charts that answer
your questions.

Dear Francisco,

Thank you for the referral to Nat Taylor's website and article on
Beatriz Fettiplace. The article was well thought out and informative.
You and Nat have done great work in identifying the likely parentage of
Lady Talbot.

I wonder if her marriage to Gilbert, Lord Talbot, was meant to help
heal a Talbot/Arundel feud.

From A.J. Pollard, 'John Talbot and the War in France,
1427-1453'(Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1983), p. 10:

"Talbot showed a marked propensity for disturbing the king's peace.
The occasion of his being sent to Ireland may have been a quarrel with
the earl of Arundel in 1413. What exactly happened we do not know, but
the two were in dispute over a property called Pokmore in Shropshire.
The outcome was that Henry V imposed hefty recognizances on both
parties and in November arrested and committed Talbot to the Tower,
where he languished until he was released and appointed lieutenant of
Ireland in February. [footnote: 'CCR 1413-19', p. 24; J.H. Wylie, 'The
Reign of Henry V', 1 (1914), pp. 63-4.]"

The earl of Arundel's 1413 quarrel was with John Talbot (then baron of
Furnival, later 1st Earl of Shrewsbury), but John's elder brother and
the head of the family was Gilbert, 5th Lord Talbot. On 16 Nov. 1413,
the day John was imprisoned in the Tower, Gilbert had to enter a
recognisance for f4000, to be levied in co. Salop, to be of good
behavior. John had his own recognisance of f4,000. The earl of
Arundel had to enter a recognisance of 10,000 marks. It was Gilbert
who was the feudal tenant of the earl of Arundel for the manor of
Whitchurch. Gilbert and Beatriz were married by May 1415, as their one
child - daughter Ankarett - was born in January 1416.

Historian Barbara Ross surmised that Beatriz brought a dowry of money
to her marriage (as she didn't bring any lands), and that Gilbert may
have been short of cash due to military service in Wales and Ireland.
This could be so, but who provided Beatriz's cash dowry and who
arranged the marriage? Neither Gilbert or his parents had ever been to
Portugal (though his paternal grandfather Gilbert, 3rd Lord Talbot, had
been there, militarily and diplomatically, on at least two occasions in
the 1380s).

The Lancastrian royal family was close to their royal Portugese first
cousins. It may be worth checking into the legend of the Twelve
Knights further - if any of them came to England in 1413-15 (especially
one of the Sousa de Arronches line), Beatriz may have accompanied them.
Yet I feel it is Beatrice, countess of Arundel, who is the likeliest
candidate to have arranged the Gilbert/Beatriz marriage. She was
influential and wealthy enough to help settle a fellow Portugese
kinswoman. And if the marriage helped to settle the Talbot/Arundel
feud as well, even better.

Cheers, -------Brad

[CED]

Dear Paul K Davis:

Your concern about draging things through horse whatever is
understandable.

During a recent review of the archives, I came to understand that Mr.
Richardson has his own purposes for some of his postings. He sometimes
cites his own postings as authority. The subject of this thread is one
in which he has long had an interest; therefore, the original post in
the thread raises legitimate concern as to its purpose. Some on the
list appear to be mindful of this and are alert not to let such a post
go unchallenged.

I am not a genealogist and have no personal interest in whatever
purposes Mr. Richardson has. However, in my recent months of of
attention to the list, I have come to understand some of the ravings
and clashes exhibited on it. Sometimes there is more, and others less,
than meets the eye.

CED

[Paul K Davis]

Yes, Peter, there was mostly huff & puff in DR's missive that originated
this thread, but many of us realized that even without your dragging him
through the horse droppings.

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

[Original Message]
From: Peter Stewart <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Date: 5/8/2005 10:52:11 PM
Subject: Re: Identification of William Longespee's mother, Countess Ida

John Higgins wrote:

Hmmm....does "all of us" include DR?

It never has to this point, John, but you never know - one day he might
climb down from his high horse and realise it never left the stable
yard of his own ego, that is now eye-deep in equine ordure.

Peter Stewart

[Betty Owen]

I do agree we do not need to moderate this group however, there is one area
where we do need to moderate and that is for the protection of computers
We continue to have at least one individual who constantly tries to annoy
everyone with installing language software---in an effort of safety and
practicing safe and courtesy computers skills we do need some sort of
control....
thanks
Betty
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-François BLANC" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 12:36 AM
Subject: Re: Need for moderated group

Hello,

I'm quite often shocked by immoderate posts, but IMHO there is no need
to ask somebody to perform such an annoying task. Moderation may be
performed by every member just by ignoring offending posts and not
replying to them.

JF Blanc



--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 4/7/2005

[Gjest]

In a message dated 5/9/05 10:38:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

<< In fact, I could write an entire book just discussing all the errors and
omissions that I've found in Complete Peerage alone. Objectivity aside, it's
simply not possible to comment on all mistakes I've found in the literature
in my books. >>

I think that would be a fabulous idea You could even convince CP to
include it on their website as a supplement.
Will Johnson

[Roger LeBlanc]

If the ancestry of Reynald was discussed in this group then I guess I
missed it also. I understand him to be the son of Henry of
Chatillon-sur-Marne and Ermengarde (possibly Montjoy?).
What is the alternative suggested?

Roger LeBlanc

Peter Stewart wrote:

Spencer Hines wrote:



MANY folks here are no doubt descended from or kin to some
of the Crusaders portrayed in this film.

For example, anyone who is a descendant of Edward III is also
reportedly a descendant of Reynald de Chatillon.



I can't remember any thread about him in SGM, so I wonder if the
newsgroup has been informed that ES and a lot of other modern works
have attached Reynald to the wrong family - he was evidently a cadet of
the seigneurial family of Semur, holding Chatillon-sur-Loing, and not a
member of the better-known (later on) line of Chatillon-sur-Marne.

But maybe this has been discussed at length before now & I missed it.

Peter Stewart

[D. Spencer Hines]

Then we have Sibylla, Queen of Jerusalem, from 1186 [until her death in
1190] in consort with her husband, Guy de Lusignan, King of Jerusalem,
who was deposed in 1192.

Sibylla is played by the lovely Eva Green.

Anyone who is descended from Henry II is reportedly a [half] first
cousin [x times removed] of Sibylla.

MANY folks here are no doubt descended from or kin to some of the
Crusaders portrayed in this film.

Tens of millions of folks Worldwide are related to or descended from the
Crusaders.

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[D. Spencer Hines]

Then we have Sibylla, Queen of Jerusalem, from 1186 [until her death in
1190] in consort with her husband, Guy de Lusignan, King of Jerusalem,
who was deposed in 1192.

Sibylla is played by the lovely Eva Green.

Anyone who is descended from Henry II is reportedly a [half] first
cousin [x times removed] of Sibylla.

MANY folks here are no doubt descended from or kin to some of the
Crusaders portrayed in this film.

Tens of millions of folks Worldwide are related to or descended from the
Crusaders.

The trick, of course, is in finding the discrete, specific, genealogical
links.

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Gjest]

Dear Listers,
I have no idea why Walter Lee Sheppard didn`t make
mention of Douglas` identification of Countess Ida as William Longespee`s mother
in 1992. As far as the comment Someone made about Someone who had published
only a few genealogical articles suppressing evidence contrary to one of their
articles conclusions. I imagine it would vary from person to person. but I
wouldn`t do that even if it were within my power to do so... which begs the
conclusion that Mr Sheppard, being in such a position of power could publish
Everything He wished rather than a few articles.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

[Douglas Richardson royala]

Dear James ~

My good friend and editor, Kimball Everingham, occasionally reminds me
that the reason why genealogists fight so fiercely over such tiny
scraps of information is because so little is at stake. I suspect he
is entirely correct.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

[email protected] wrote:

Dear Listers,
I have no idea why Walter Lee Sheppard didn`t
make
mention of Douglas` identification of Countess Ida as William
Longespee`s mother
in 1992. As far as the comment Someone made about Someone who had
published
only a few genealogical articles suppressing evidence contrary to one
of their
articles conclusions. I imagine it would vary from person to person.
but I
wouldn`t do that even if it were within my power to do so... which
begs the
conclusion that Mr Sheppard, being in such a position of power could
publish
Everything He wished rather than a few articles.


Sincerely,


James W Cummings


Dixmont, Maine USA

[Peter Stewart]

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

If the ancestry of Reynald was discussed in this group then I guess I
missed it also. I understand him to be the son of Henry of
Chatillon-sur-Marne and Ermengarde (possibly Montjoy?). What is the
alternative suggested?

The connection of Reynald to the family of Châtillon-sur-Marne was a guess
of Du Chesne, repeated by Anselme - his parents apparently were Hervé II de
Semur-en-Brionnais, seigneur of Donzy and his wife of unknown name, a
daughter of Hugues le Blanc, seigneur of La Ferté Milon. I think he was
given Châtillon-sur-Loing before he went to Palestine, so that the surname
came from his fief rather than his family.




Evidence for this was given by Jean Richard in 'Aux origines d'un grand
lignage: des palladii à Renaud de Châtillon', _Media in Francia...: Recueil
de mélanges offert à Karl Ferdinand Werner_ (Maulévrier, 1989) pp. 409-418..



One of the sources for this is Peter of Blois, who wrote a reverent account
of Raynald's death at the hands of Saladin - Peter would certainly have
known if Raynald had come from Châtillon-sur-Marne, but instead he wrote
that he was "iure successorio dominus Castellionis, Samurii, Burbonis
aliorumque magni nominis castellorum" (by hereditary right lord of
Chatillon, Semur, Bourbon and other castles of great renown - NB this was an
exaggeration, he didn't inherit Semur and his family didn't even hold
Bourbon though he might have been descended from its seigneurs) [see _Petri
Blesensis tractatus duo: Passio Raginaldi principis Antiochie, Conquestio de
dilatione vie Ierosolimitane_, edited by Robert BC Huygens, Corpus
Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaeualis CXCIV (Turnhout, 2002) p. 42]




He was also described as uncle to (from memory) a son of Sulpice d'Amboise
who was married to Agnes de Donzy, known to be the daughter of Hervé II.
This is the evidence that placed him in the right generation of that family.
But it's a while since I read the article, and I will have to check it again
later to make sure of this.



Peter Stewart

[Michael W Cook]

On 9/5/05 10:26 pm, in article [email protected], "D.
Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote:

Then we have Sibylla, Queen of Jerusalem, from 1186 [until her death in
1190] in consort with her husband, Guy de Lusignan, King of Jerusalem,
who was deposed in 1192.

Sibylla is played by the lovely Eva Green.

Anyone who is descended from Henry II is reportedly a [half] first
cousin [x times removed] of Sibylla.

MANY folks here are no doubt descended from or kin to some of the
Crusaders portrayed in this film.

Tens of millions of folks Worldwide are related to or descended from the
Crusaders.

The trick, of course, is in finding the discrete, specific, genealogical
links.

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Goodness me, this film has certainly seen Hines searching the Web for info
on this period to make himself look knowledgeable on the subject.

If you'd asked him these questions 6 months ago he wouldn't have had a clue
who or what you were talking about.

Laughable.

[Randy Jones]

From an earlier posting by Richard Borthwick:

Many genealogies show him as the son of Henri de Chatillon-sur-Marne (d.p.1130) . A correction is made in ES III/1:154. Reynald belonged to the family of Chatillon-sur-Loing and not Chatillon-sur-Marne. In the latter reference he is said to be the son of Geoffroy lord of C-s-L. The article by S Schein in Lexikon des Mittelalters VII:416-417 claims him to be to be the brother of Geoffroy and son of Herve II lord of Donzy. Runciman History of the Crusades (penguin edition) vol.2, p.345 identifies him as the younger son of Geoffroy count of Gien and lord of C-s-M. Bouchard Sword, Miter and Cloister (Ithaca/London, 1987), p.327 does not mention our Reynald but she points out that Geoffroy II lord of Donzy and count of Chalon appears in a charter of 1086 with a "nepos" Raynald son of Robert de Chatillon and that this Reynald had a son Narjod. Bouchard says "It seems most likely that Robert of Chatillon was the brother of Geoffrey II's unnamed wife, or perhaps a relative of Savari!
c of
Vergy." (Savaric was Geoffroy II's maternal uncle.) The name 'Reynald' occurs several times in the family of Donzy and it may have passed from that family to that of Chatillon. Our Reynald died in 1187, and according to ES III/3:435 Geoffroy II d.1111, his son Herve II d.1120 and his grandson Geoffroy III d.1157. It would seem that Reynald was rather more remote than the various speculations for affiliation suggest. My guess (and it is only that) is that he was a grandson or great grandson of Robert of Chatillon. -- Richard Borthwick


Peter Stewart <[email protected]> wrote:

"Roger LeBlanc" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

If the ancestry of Reynald was discussed in this group then I guess I
missed it also. I understand him to be the son of Henry of
Chatillon-sur-Marne and Ermengarde (possibly Montjoy?). What is the
alternative suggested?

The connection of Reynald to the family of Châtillon-sur-Marne was a guess
of Du Chesne, repeated by Anselme - his parents apparently were Hervé II de
Semur-en-Brionnais, seigneur of Donzy and his wife of unknown name, a
daughter of Hugues le Blanc, seigneur of La Ferté Milon. I think he was
given Châtillon-sur-Loing before he went to Palestine, so that the surname
came from his fief rather than his family.




Evidence for this was given by Jean Richard in 'Aux origines d'un grand
lignage: des palladii à Renaud de Châtillon', _Media in Francia...: Recueil
de mélanges offert à Karl Ferdinand Werner_ (Maulévrier, 1989) pp. 409-418..



One of the sources for this is Peter of Blois, who wrote a reverent account
of Raynald's death at the hands of Saladin - Peter would certainly have
known if Raynald had come from Châtillon-sur-Marne, but instead he wrote
that he was "iure successorio dominus Castellionis, Samurii, Burbonis
aliorumque magni nominis castellorum" (by hereditary right lord of
Chatillon, Semur, Bourbon and other castles of great renown - NB this was an
exaggeration, he didn't inherit Semur and his family didn't even hold
Bourbon though he might have been descended from its seigneurs) [see _Petri
Blesensis tractatus duo: Passio Raginaldi principis Antiochie, Conquestio de
dilatione vie Ierosolimitane_, edited by Robert BC Huygens, Corpus
Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaeualis CXCIV (Turnhout, 2002) p. 42]




He was also described as uncle to (from memory) a son of Sulpice d'Amboise
who was married to Agnes de Donzy, known to be the daughter of Hervé II.
This is the evidence that placed him in the right generation of that family.
But it's a while since I read the article, and I will have to check it again
later to make sure of this.



Peter Stewart




---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour

[D. Spencer Hines]

Amusing....

Peter Stewart needs to go stand in the dunce's corner again -- with his
face to the wall and crowned with the dunce's cap -- he's grown
accustomed to it.

It really doesn't matter who Reynald de Chatillon's ANCESTORS were --
when we calculate his discrete relationships to folks living today.

What matters is who Reynald's DESCENDANTS are.

Reynald de Chatillon died in 1187, executed by Saladin [perhaps even BY
Saladin himself] after the Battle of Hattin -- there is lots of time for
descendants.

Deus Vult

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Renia]

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Amusing....

Peter Stewart needs to go stand in the dunce's corner again -- with his
face to the wall and crowned with the dunce's cap -- he's grown
accustomed to it.

It really doesn't matter who Reynald de Chatillon's ANCESTORS were --
when we calculate his discrete relationships to folks living today.

In genealogical terms, it does matter who his ancestors were, because
many people claim them as their own. If they are the wrong ancestors,
then they are no more his decendants' ancestors than they are his.

Logic isn't your strong point, is it?

What matters is who Reynald's DESCENDANTS are.

Reynald de Chatillon died in 1187, executed by Saladin [perhaps even BY
Saladin himself] after the Battle of Hattin -- there is lots of time for
descendants.

Ain't surfin' wonderful? You can find out all sorts of things you never
knew before.

Deo Volente.

Renia

[Peter Stewart]

What on earth can this be about?

In a genealogy newsgroup, is it not reasonable to suppose that someone will
care about the ancestors of a famous medieval personage?

And is not Jean Richard a great expert whose findings are of considerable
interest in this field?

Is Spencer having another brain-fade, perhaps, as we more politley call this
phenomenon in Australia? Up to his cortex in the dayne again, wallowing in
the 100-acre curtilage of his intellectual cottage?

Or is he covering perhaps for some past post in which he has misstated
Raynald's ancestry?

Either way, he still hasn't answered my straightforward question about his
apparent double standard over acknowledgements. I wonder why...

Peter Stewart


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

Amusing....

Peter Stewart needs to go stand in the dunce's corner again -- with his
face to the wall and crowned with the dunce's cap -- he's grown
accustomed to it.

It really doesn't matter who Reynald de Chatillon's ANCESTORS were --
when we calculate his discrete relationships to folks living today.

What matters is who Reynald's DESCENDANTS are.

Reynald de Chatillon died in 1187, executed by Saladin [perhaps even BY
Saladin himself] after the Battle of Hattin -- there is lots of time for
descendants.

Deus Vult

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Peter Stewart]

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

Then we have Sibylla, Queen of Jerusalem, from 1186 [until her death in
1190] in consort with her husband, Guy de Lusignan, King of Jerusalem,
who was deposed in 1192.

Sibylla is played by the lovely Eva Green.

Anyone who is descended from Henry II is reportedly a [half] first
cousin [x times removed] of Sibylla.

MANY folks here are no doubt descended from or kin to some of the
Crusaders portrayed in this film.

Tens of millions of folks Worldwide are related to or descended from the
Crusaders.

The trick, of course, is in finding the discrete, specific, genealogical
links.

And if not "descended from" but only "kin to" a crusader, the link must come
about through at least one of the crusader's ancestors - so pray tell us
what is wrong with my initiating a discussion of the ancestry of a
particularly famous crusader?

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

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

Amusing....

Peter Stewart needs to go stand in the dunce's corner again -- with his
face to the wall and crowned with the dunce's cap -- he's grown
accustomed to it.

It really doesn't matter who Reynald de Chatillon's ANCESTORS were --
when we calculate his discrete relationships to folks living today.

What matters is who Reynald's DESCENDANTS are.

Reynald de Chatillon died in 1187, executed by Saladin [perhaps even BY
Saladin himself] after the Battle of Hattin -- there is lots of time for
descendants.

Maybe Spencer has got the nonsense out of his system and we can now get on
with a sensible discussion.



The beheading of Raynald by Saladin himself is well enough attested,
recorded in the chronicle of his contemporary Ernoul as redacted later (the
original text is lost).



According to this account, Saladin had received a group of captives
including Raynald and King Guy de Lusignan, to whom he handed a drink. The
king passed the cup on to Raynald, causing Saladin to make the point that he
had not himself given refreshment to Raynald as that would have put him
under the customary obligations of a host to a guest. Instead, he called for
a blade and struck off the head of this inveterate enemy - see _Chronique
d'Ernoul et de Bernard le Tresorier_ edited by Louis de Mas Latrie (Paris,
1871) pp. 173-174.



Peter Stewart

[John Steele Gordon]

Well, brace yourself for a shock, but Lands End is at the end of the land,
where the tippy-tip of England meets the sea, a few miles west of the town
of Penzance, of Gilbert and Sullivan fame.

JSG

""Janet"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:01a901c55557$d8f44510$7771a00c@George...

Where is Lands End, Cornwall England?

Janet

[Janet]

Where is Lands End, Cornwall England?

Janet

[John Brandon]

Kimball Everingham ... occasionally reminds me that the reason why
genealogists fight so fiercely over such tiny scraps of information is

because so little is at stake.

That is a profound statement I think.

[Chris Phillips]

Douglas Richardson wrote:

Kimball Everingham ... occasionally reminds me that the reason why
genealogists fight so fiercely over such tiny scraps of information is
because so little is at stake.

John Brandon wrote:

That is a profound statement I think.

The version I heard was:

Q: "Why are academic politics so bitter?"
A: "Because the stakes are so low!"

Chris Phillips

[Gjest]

In a message dated 10/05/2005 12:38:18 GMT Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

Sibylla is played by the lovely Eva Green.
This is really for Mr Hines.

who is this cardboard actress, Eva Green? Her acting isn't much better than
Mr Bloom's, and somewhat worse than all the others...but I still enjoyed the
film.
regards
Pg

[Renia]

Look on the map of England, its the bit at the extreme bottom left, on
the tip.

Renia

John Steele Gordon wrote:

Well, brace yourself for a shock, but Lands End is at the end of the land,
where the tippy-tip of England meets the sea, a few miles west of the town
of Penzance, of Gilbert and Sullivan fame.

JSG

""Janet"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:01a901c55557$d8f44510$7771a00c@George...


Where is Lands End, Cornwall England?

Janet

[12-stringer]

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

In a message dated 10/05/2005 12:38:18 GMT Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

Sibylla is played by the lovely Eva Green.
This is really for Mr Hines.

who is this cardboard actress, Eva Green? Her acting isn't much better
than
Mr Bloom's, and somewhat worse than all the others...but I still enjoyed
the
film.
regards
Pg

No doubt you missed Bertolucci's "The Dreamers," where the talents of Ms
Green are most definitely established.

[Gjest]

In a message dated 10/05/05 Dave, aka UTZ, gives Anne Ferrers, the wife of
Edward le Despencer, as the daughter of William Ferrers (1271/2-1324/5). However
my own notes give her as the daughter of William's son Henry Ferrers of Groby
and his wife Isabel de Verdon, a daughter of Theobald 2nd Lord Verdon.
Since I have with my usual incompetence mislaid my source notes, I would be
grateful if some kind soul could confirm Anne's parentage for me: a source
would be much appreciated
MM

[D. Spencer Hines]

Indeed.

Her talents were not only established but displayed in the buff to the
delectation of all.

DSH

"12-stringer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| > In a message dated 10/05/2005 12:38:18 GMT Daylight Time,
| > [email protected] writes:
| >
| > Sibylla is played by the lovely Eva Green.
| > This is really for Mr Hines.
| >
| > who is this cardboard actress, Eva Green? Her acting isn't much
better
| > than
| > Mr Bloom's, and somewhat worse than all the others...but I still
enjoyed
| > the
| > film.
| > regards
| > Pg
| >
| >
|
| No doubt you missed Bertolucci's "The Dreamers," where the talents of
Ms
| Green are most definitely established.

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

In message of 10 May, [email protected] wrote:

In a message dated 10/05/05 Dave, aka UTZ, gives Anne Ferrers, the
wife of Edward le Despencer, as the daughter of William Ferrers
(1271/2-1324/5). However my own notes give her as the daughter of
William's son Henry Ferrers of Groby and his wife Isabel de Verdon,
a daughter of Theobald 2nd Lord Verdon. Since I have with my usual
incompetence mislaid my source notes, I would be grateful if some
kind soul could confirm Anne's parentage for me: a source would be
much appreciated MM

CP IV, pp. 274-5, confirms that Anne, d. 8 Aug 1367, was the wife of
Edward, marrying at Groby on 20 Apr 1335, and daughter of Sir Wm de
Ferrers, lord Ferrers of Groby.

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

[Peter Stewart]

I did not write any of the words quoted below, and I know nothing about Eva
Green.

Peter Stewart

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

In a message dated 10/05/2005 12:38:18 GMT Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

Sibylla is played by the lovely Eva Green.
This is really for Mr Hines.

who is this cardboard actress, Eva Green? Her acting isn't much better
than
Mr Bloom's, and somewhat worse than all the others...but I still enjoyed
the
film.
regards
Pg

[Douglas Richardson royala]

Dear MM:

In answer to your good question, I've copied below my account of Edward
le Despenser, Knt. (died 1342) and his wife, Anne de Ferrers, which is
taken from my forthcoming book, Magna Carta Ancestry. My research
indicates that Sir Edward le Despenser and Anne de Ferrers were married
in 1335 at Groby, Leicestershire. I've identified Anne de Ferrers as
the daughter of William de Ferrers, Knt., 1st Lord Ferrers of Groby, by
Ellen, daughter of John de Segrave, Knt., 2nd Lord Segrave. I believe
this is the same parentage provided for Anne de Ferrers by Complete
Peerage.

Among other pieces of evidence, I show that Anne de Ferrers's maiden
name is indicated by an ancient pedigree of the Despenser family
recorded in Tewkesbury Cartulary which refers to her as "filia domini
de Ferrers" [daughter of Lord Ferrers] (see a fuller transcript below).
Also, an original seal of Anne de Ferrers's has survived which is
dated 1363. This seal shows the arms of Despenser impaling Ferrers,
which again proves her maiden name. The seal also includes four
roundels of arms, including those of Quincy and Segrave. Segrave and
Quincy represent the arms of Anne's mother and paternal grandmother.

For additional supporting evidence that Anne de Ferrers's mother,
Ellen, was a Segrave, please see Legge, Anglo-Norman Letters &
Petitions (Anglo-Norman Text Soc. 3) (1941): 78-79, for a letter
dated 1399/1406 from Thomas la Warre, 5th Lord Warre, to Thomas
Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury, in which Thomas la Warre mentions
his "cousin" [mon tesentierment amé cousin], Henry le Despenser,
Bishop of Norwich. Bishop Despenser and Lord la Warre were kin by
common descent from the Segrave family. Bishop Despenser was a
grandson of Ellen (de Segrave) de Ferrers above; Lord la Warre was a
descendant of Ellen de Segrave's aunt, Eleanor (de Segrave) la
Zouche.

Please contact me privately by e-mail or through my website if
interested in ordering a copy of Magna Carta Ancestry. The special
pre-publication price is in effect until June 1st, 2005.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: Magna Carta Ancestry, by Douglas Richardson, scheduled for
publication June 1st, 2005, by Genealogical Publishing Company,
Baltimore, Maryland.

I. EDWARD LE DESPENSER, Knt., of Buckland, Buckinghamshire, Eyworth,
Bedfordshire, Yelvertoft, Northamptonshire, Essendine, Rutland, West
Winterslow, Wiltshire, etc., 2nd son. He married at Groby,
Leicestershire 20 April 1335 ANNE DE FERRERS, daughter of William de
Ferrers, Knt., 1st Lord Ferrers of Groby, by Ellen, daughter of John de
Segrave, Knt., 2nd Lord Segrave [see GROBY 5 for her ancestry]. They
had five sons, Edward, Knt., K.G. [4th Lord le Despenser], Hugh,
Thomas, Knt., Henry (clerk) [Bishop of Norwich], and Gilbert. SIR
EDWARD LE DESPENSER was slain testate (P.C.C. 97 Beck) at Morlaix 30
Sept. 1342, while serving on an expedition. In 1352 John de Hotham
granted his widow, Anne, and her brother, Thomas de Ferrers, Knt., the
castle of Kilkenny and other estates in Ireland for life, with
remainder to her son, Hugh. In 1363 the king granted her a moiety of
the manor of Burley, Rutland, in exchange for the manor of Yardley
Gobion, Northamptonshire. She died 8 August 1367.

References:

Bridges, Hist. & Antiqs. of Northamptonshire 1 (1791): 607-608.
Dugdale et al. ,Monasticon Anglicanum 2 (1819): 59-65 (Tewkesbury
Cartulary: "Edwardus [le Despenser] igitur primus, frater Hugonis
tertii, ex Anna filia domini de Ferrers, genuit Edwardum secundum,
Thomas, Henricum, et Gilbertum secundum, et fortunio belli ante fratrem
suum decessit."). Blore, Hist. & Antiqs. of Rutland 1(2) (1811): 19
(Despenser pedigree). Brydges, Collins' Peerage of England 6 (1812):
496-511. Hunter, South Yorkshire 1 (1828): 71 (Despenser pedigree).
Burke, Dict. of the Peerages... Extinct, Dormant & in Abeyance (1831):
171-174. Lennard & Vincent, Vis. of Warwick 1619 (H.S.P. 12) (1877):
282-285 (Spencer pedigree: "Edw. Dn's Spencer 2 fil. Hugonis le
Despensor = Anna fil. Hen. Dn'i Ferrers."). Papal Regs.: Petitions
1 (1896): 261 (Edward styled "king's kinsman"). Desc. Cat. of
Ancient Deeds 5 (1906): 557-558 (widow Anne styled "cousin" by
King Edward III of England). VCH Bedford 2 (1908): 230-232. Clark
,Cartæ et Alia Munimenta de Glamorgancia 4 (1910): 1292. C.P.R.
1361-1364 (1912): 417. Saltmarshe, Hist. & Chartulary of the Hothams
of Scorborough (1914): 209, 214-215. C.P. 4 (1916): 272 footnote j,
274-275 (sub Despenser), Appendix H, 671 (chart). VCH Rutland 2
(1935): 114-115, 119, 252 (Despenser arms: Quarterly argent gules
fretty or with a bend sable over all). VCH Northampton 4 (1937): 89.
Stokes et al., Warwickshire Feet of Fines 2 (Dugdale Soc. 15) (1939):
111-112. Pugh, Abs. of Feet of Fines Rel. Wiltshire (Wiltshire Arch.
& Nat. Hist. Soc. Recs. 1) (1939): 129. Paget, Baronage of England
(1957) 182: 1-2 (sub Despenser). Cal. Inqs. Misc. 4 (1957): 6-8.
Smith Itinerary of John Leland 4 (1964): 150-163. Ellis, Cat. of
Seals in the P.R.O. 1 (1978): 21 (seal of Anne, widow of Edward le
Despenser, knight, dated 1363 - A shield of arms: quarterly, in the
second and third quarters a fret, over all a bend [DESPENSER] impaling
four mascles [FERRERS]. Within a cusped circle, surrounded by a band
of pointed tracery broken by four roundels of arms containing (above) a
sleeping lion (below) a pierced cinquefoil [QUINCY], (left) three
chevrons [CLARE], (right) a lion rampant crowned [SEGRAVE]). Ancient
Deeds-Series AS & WS (List & Index Soc. 158) (1979): 5 (Deed A.S.21).
TAG 69 (1994): 129-139. Nottingham Medieval Studies 41 (1997): 153
(chart). Underhill, For Her Good Estate (1999).


[email protected] wrote:

In a message dated 10/05/05 Dave, aka UTZ, gives Anne Ferrers, the
wife of
Edward le Despencer, as the daughter of William Ferrers
(1271/2-1324/5). However
my own notes give her as the daughter of William's son Henry Ferrers
of Groby
and his wife Isabel de Verdon, a daughter of Theobald 2nd Lord
Verdon.
Since I have with my usual incompetence mislaid my source notes, I
would be
grateful if some kind soul could confirm Anne's parentage for me: a
source
would be much appreciated
MM

[Peter Stewart]

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

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Kimball Everingham ... occasionally reminds me that the reason why
genealogists fight so fiercely over such tiny scraps of information is
because so little is at stake.

John Brandon wrote:
That is a profound statement I think.


The version I heard was:

Q: "Why are academic politics so bitter?"
A: "Because the stakes are so low!"

And of course academics might turn around & say the same about politics at
any other level - whatever someone is not engaged in can seem petty from the
outside.

But university politics are a different matter from controversies within the
purview of actual studies, that often can be fights to the death (of
reputations at least).

That is because truth is at stake, and truth even in scraps is never tiny.

This debate started out over sound vs unsound ethics and methodology, rather
than mere errors, and everyone should be able to recognise the value of
these.

Peter Stewart

[D. Spencer Hines]

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

| On Sun, 08 May 2005 04:54:59 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
|
| > So what, I can point out at least one error. That Baldwin was a
| > leper was most significant in that he died young without an heir
| > (except for his sister's husband) removing one of the more competent
| > Kings of Jerusalem at a critical time.
|
| Actually, he did have an heir: Baldwin V, the young son of his
| sister's deceased first husband. He went so far as to have his nephew
| crowned while he was still alive in an effort to prevent Guy from
| succeeding him. Baldwin V died about a year after Baldwin IV, however,
| so Guy came to the throne anyway, with just a slight delay. (Rather
| than immediately, as the movie implies).
-----------------------------------------------------------

Yes, but the excised parts of the film (75 minutes or so) -- when
restored in the Director's Cut on the Special Edition DVD -- will flesh
out that part of the plot and give us back Baldwin V, Sibylla's son --
who tragically died at age 7 or 8. Very smart of Ridley Scott.

We'll also get to see lots more of Eva Green = Sibylla.

Win-Win....

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Jazmine]

In regards to the comments that Eva Green is talentless. I think Mr
Hines has discovered an old wise man's saying that beauty negates a
lack of talent. Unfortunately, it makes me think of people like Britney
Spears who can't even sing, let alone read or write music, and is
called a musician. It's really a disgrace to someone like myself who
plays piano and writes her own songs while still in high school. But I
think luck has a lot to do with it as well. Being at the right place at
the right time.

And not to sound crazy, but seriously, can't you have an historical
movie without some type of nudity or over the top love scene. I vote
that historical and/or historical fiction movies should be family
friendly, so everybody can watch, enjoy, and learn.

Jazmine Grimaldi

[Peter Stewart]

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

In regards to the comments that Eva Green is talentless. I think Mr
Hines has discovered an old wise man's saying that beauty negates a
lack of talent. Unfortunately, it makes me think of people like Britney
Spears who can't even sing, let alone read or write music, and is
called a musician. It's really a disgrace to someone like myself who
plays piano and writes her own songs while still in high school. But I
think luck has a lot to do with it as well. Being at the right place at
the right time.

And not to sound crazy, but seriously, can't you have an historical
movie without some type of nudity or over the top love scene. I vote
that historical and/or historical fiction movies should be family
friendly, so everybody can watch, enjoy, and learn.

And how do you think medieval families perpetuated themselves to priggish
modern descendants if not by love-making?

Peter Stewart

[Jazmine]

I guess it's those years of my Catholic school talking. I wasn't even
conceived in holy matrimony, but I think people can learn to be a
little tamer. Those medieval ancestors also washed their clothes and
used the lavatory, but you don't see those happening often on film. I
guess everything in moderation is okay, as long as you're not debasing
yourself for the almighty dollar.

I was once told that there were periods where Michelangelo's David
had a fig leaf covering his nudity and other periods where it was taken
off, depending on how conservative people were feeling. Basically,
society goes through fig leaf periods and other periods where we feel a
bit more liberal. In that respect we're the same as our medieval
ancestors.

Jazmine Grimaldi

[D. Spencer Hines]

We don't see Eva Green's full performance in the current release of the
film. See my previous posts in this thread.

When/If a full 220 minute version, a Director's Cut, is released on the
Special Edition DVD, we will.

DSH

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

| In regards to the comments that Eva Green is talentless. I think Mr
| Hines has discovered an old wise man's saying that beauty negates a
| lack of talent.

[Peter Stewart]

If there were scatological scenes instead of erotic ones in movies,
blockbusters like 'Kingdom of Heaven' wouldn't get made in the first
place, as the movie industry would be flushing itself down the drain.

I dare say many youngsters in even the most pious Catholic families
would know at least in theory about whatever activities Ridley Scott
has put on screen - it's a bit like foul language, if you know what it
means in the first place then you are only complaining about being
reminded of a human foible that you can't or won't accommodate in your
own view of the world; and if you don't already know then you are being
educated.

Anything that shakes a narrow prejudice or enlightens ignorance can't
be all to the bad.

Peter Stewart

[D. Spencer Hines]

Bingo!

Of course, "Educators" -- including professors -- are often found to be
peddling all sorts of arrant rubbish and codswallop.

Further, they frequently prattle on incessantly about matters far beyond
their ken and even pass judgment on things they have never seen or done.

It's one major reason why they have lost so much respect over the past
50 years -- particularly the Historians and Pseudo-Historians.

The Academic Clerisy also does a miserable job of policing its own
ranks -- and weeding out the charlatans, the incompetents and the
outright frauds.

DSH

"Chucky & Janica" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

[...]

| This has no bearing on the discussion. The discussion is about the
movie.
|
| > As I said, Professor Riley Smith is probably more qualified than
| > anyone living today to pass comment on the Crusades, even if he
| > hasn't seen the film.
|
| He can pass comment on the crusades all he likes. The quote we are
| discussing here, however, is a comment on the movie. A very specific
| condemnation of the contents of a movie he had either not seen, or had
| not paid attention to while watching. I really can't see why you find
| this distinction so difficult to grasp.
|
| > I also happen to think he was right, it was absolute balls.
|
| As I said earlier in this thread, there are many things you can
| criticise about this movie. Your credibility while doing said
| criticism is improved immensely if you actually comment on
| the reality of the movie, instead of what you think might be
| in it. This professor made a judgmental comment on the
| movie's message, deciding that it portrayed the muslims as
| civilised and the crusaders as brutes. This is quite simply false.
| The movie did no such thing, and the commentator having the
| title "professor" will not alter that reality.
|
| Janica

[D. Spencer Hines]

Renia MAY be confused, i.e., bollixed up.

It wouldn't be the first time.

She MAY think an hour has 50 minutes rather than 60 and be confusing 124
minutes with 144 minutes.

Or, the Greeks are censoring and truncating films on their own?

The Special Edition DVD, the Director's Cut, may be closer to 220
minutes.

Some of the "missing scenes" deal with a major sub-plot concerning
Sibylla's young son, who became Baldwin V, King of Jerusalem, for a very
short period -- until he died tragically at 7 or 8.

DSH

"Chucky & Janica" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| "Renia" <[email protected]> kirjoitti
| viestiss$B!&([email protected]...
|
| > > Am I wrong in understanding that we in the US are seeing
| > > a different version than the one being shown in Europe?
| > > I'm told that the US version is significantly shorter.
| >
| > I've just seen it here in Greece. It ran for 124 minutes.
|
| Finnish theatres are showing it for 2h 24min, and it still felt like
| Scott had had to cut too much out of it. I wonder what scenes you
| missed out on?
|
| Janica

[D. Spencer Hines]

| Am I wrong in understanding that we in the US are seeing
| a different version than [sic] the one being shown in Europe?
| I'm told that the US version is significantly shorter.

Pogue Gans

| > I've just seen it here in Greece. It ran for 124 minutes.

Renia Simmonds

| Finnish theatres are showing it for 2h 24min, and it still felt like
| Scott had had to cut too much out of it. I wonder what scenes you
| missed out on?

Janica Hindle
-----------------------

Renia MAY be confused, i.e., bollixed up.

It wouldn't be the first time.

She MAY have forgotten an hour has 60 minutes rather than 50 and be
confusing 124 minutes with 144 minutes.

Or, the Greeks are censoring and truncating films on their own?

The forthcoming Special Edition DVD, the Director's Cut, may be closer
to 220 minutes.

Some of the "missing scenes" deal with a major sub-plot concerning
Sibylla's young son, who became Baldwin V, King of Jerusalem, for a very
short period -- until he died tragically, perhaps poisoned, at the
tender age of 7 or 8 in 1186 -- BEFORE the Battle of Hattin.

Deus Vult

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[D. Spencer Hines]

| Actually, 145 minutes sounds more familiar! (More than 2 hours, with
| a 4 in the number!)

Renia Airhead Simmonds

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

Hilarious!

Renia Airhead = Bollixed Up Indeed.

DSH

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

| Brant Gibbard wrote:

| > On Wed, 11 May 2005 01:57:30 +0300, Renia <[email protected]>
| > wrote:
| >
| >
| >>I've just seen it here in Greece. It ran for 124 minutes.
| >>
| >>Renia
| >
| >
| > That's odd! I just saw it this morning here in Canada, and at least
| > according to the movie theatre's webiste, [sic] it was 145 minutes!
|
| Actually, 145 minutes sounds more familiar! (More than 2 hours, with
| a 4 in the number!)

Renia Airhead Simmonds
---------------------------------------

Deus Vult

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Renia]

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Renia MAY be confused, i.e., bollixed up.

It wouldn't be the first time.

She MAY think an hour has 50 minutes rather than 60 and be confusing 124
minutes with 144 minutes.

That's what I did. It was 145 minutes.

Or, the Greeks are censoring and truncating films on their own?

The Special Edition DVD, the Director's Cut, may be closer to 220
minutes.

Some of the "missing scenes" deal with a major sub-plot concerning
Sibylla's young son, who became Baldwin V, King of Jerusalem, for a very
short period -- until he died tragically at 7 or 8.

Someone here said Baldwin V was the son of Baldwin IV (not Balian) and
he ruled for a year until he died when Guy became king. Balian was
married to someone else. So it's probably just as well those erroneous
scenes were cut.

Renia

[fairthorne]

From: "Jazmine" <[email protected]>

Those medieval ancestors also washed their clothes and
used the lavatory, but you don't see those happening often on film.

try Jabberwocky

cheers

Simon

[Todd A. Farmerie]

Renia wrote:

Someone here said Baldwin V was the son of Baldwin IV (not Balian) and
he ruled for a year until he died when Guy became king. Balian was
married to someone else. So it's probably just as well those erroneous
scenes were cut.

Mind the crossposts. This thread is going out to SIX different
newsgroups. Please trim accordingly in your responses.

taf

[Michael W Cook]

On 11/5/05 7:57 am, in article [email protected], "D.
Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote:

Bingo!

Of course, "Educators" -- including professors -- are often found to be
peddling all sorts of arrant rubbish and codswallop.

Further, they frequently prattle on incessantly about matters far beyond
their ken and even pass judgment on things they have never seen or done.

It's one major reason why they have lost so much respect over the past
50 years -- particularly the Historians and Pseudo-Historians.

The Academic Clerisy also does a miserable job of policing its own
ranks -- and weeding out the charlatans, the incompetents and the
outright frauds.

DSH

Would that be the same 'Academic Clerisy' that you once belonged to ?

You never tell us why you stopped teaching.

Or were you hoofed out of that job too, Housing Officer ?

[Peter Stewart]

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

"Roger LeBlanc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
If the ancestry of Reynald was discussed in this group then I guess I
missed it also. I understand him to be the son of Henry of
Chatillon-sur-Marne and Ermengarde (possibly Montjoy?). What is the
alternative suggested?

The connection of Reynald to the family of Châtillon-sur-Marne was a guess
of Du Chesne, repeated by Anselme - his parents apparently were Hervé II
de Semur-en-Brionnais, seigneur of Donzy and his wife of unknown name, a
daughter of Hugues le Blanc, seigneur of La Ferté Milon. I think he was
given Châtillon-sur-Loing before he went to Palestine, so that the surname
came from his fief rather than his family.

Evidence for this was given by Jean Richard in 'Aux origines d'un grand
lignage: des palladii à Renaud de Châtillon', _Media in Francia...:
Recueil de mélanges offert à Karl Ferdinand Werner_ (Maulévrier, 1989) pp.
409-418..

One of the sources for this is Peter of Blois, who wrote a reverent
account of Raynald's death at the hands of Saladin - Peter would certainly
have known if Raynald had come from Châtillon-sur-Marne, but instead he
wrote that he was "iure successorio dominus Castellionis, Samurii,
Burbonis aliorumque magni nominis castellorum" (by hereditary right lord
of Chatillon, Semur, Bourbon and other castles of great renown - NB this
was an exaggeration, he didn't inherit Semur and his family didn't even
hold Bourbon though he might have been descended from its seigneurs) [see
_Petri Blesensis tractatus duo: Passio Raginaldi principis Antiochie,
Conquestio de dilatione vie Ierosolimitane_, edited by Robert BC Huygens,
Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaeualis CXCIV (Turnhout, 2002) p.
42]

He was also described as uncle to (from memory) a son of Sulpice d'Amboise
who was married to Agnes de Donzy, known to be the daughter of Hervé II.
This is the evidence that placed him in the right generation of that
family. But it's a while since I read the article, and I will have to
check it again later to make sure of this.

And sure enough it is wrong - in Richard's version, Agnes of Donzy was
married to Sulpice d'Amboise but this was not the proof adduced for placing
Raynald into the same generation as her.

The rationale given for this is that the chronicle of Ernoul, cited in my
earlier post, called Raynald a brother of the lord of Gien, which passed
from the Donzy family as the marriage portion of another sister - and since
Raynald could not have belonged to the previous generation (which contained
a known namesake anyway) this is the last place that he could fit in the
cadet line of Semur-en-Brionnais, as Peter of Blois stated, with a brother
who held Gien.

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

Thank you very much Tim P-W. I have amended our tree accordingly, making Anne
Ferrers Henry's sister rather than his daughter
MM