Blount-Ayala

[Douglas Richardson royala]

Dear Chris ~

I'm sorry to hear you're confused. Perhaps the information below will
help you understand the train of events better.

We know for certain that Elizabeth de Aton, wife successively of
William Playce, Knt., and John Conyers, Knt., died in 1402. I've seen
the abstract of her will dated 1402 in Testamenta Eboracensia. As I
recall, her will mentions no husband, no children, and no
grandchildren. So this will is of no help.

It is uncertain when Elizabeth de Aton's son, William Playce, Jr.,
died. As I recall, Testamenta Eboracensia includes a note that he
conveyed all his lands to his wife, Margaret, and "her" children in
1397. In 1400 (or thereabouts), Margaret wife (not widow) of William
Playce, left a will naming her daughter, Elizabeth Hastings.

I assume that Elizabeth Hastings was the daughter and heiress of
William Playce, Jr. William Playce, Jr., certainly had a daughter
named Elizabeth who survived him, as she is specifically named in the
pedigree of the Playce family found in the Playce-Sigston-Sywardby
lawsuit dated 1432-3 which I've previously cited. If Elizabeth Playce
had died childless before her father, there would have been no need to
mention her in the law suit.

As such, assuming that William Playce, Jr., was dead in 1402, it would
appear that Elizabeth Playce, almost certainly the wife of a Hastings,
was the heiress of her grandmother, Elizabeth de Aton, in that year.
At Elizabeth Playce's own death before 1433, her interest in the Playce
family estates passed to her first cousin, William Sywardby, the elder,
of Sewerby, Yorkshire. Among the properties William Sywardby inherited
were the manors of Gristhorpe, Sigston Kirby, Foxton, and Winton,
Yorkshire. I've confirmed that these estates later passed to William
Sywardby's Pigot descendants. I'm uncertain what happened to the Aton
estates which Elizabeth Playce would have held. Presumably they passed
to her Aton cousins.

If anyone has additional particulars regarding these families, I'd
appreciate hearing from them here on the newsgroup. The Sywardby and
Pigot families definitely have living descendants. Complete Peerage's
handling of the Aton-Playce connection is one of the most serious
problems I've found in that work. William Playce, Jr., was not father
of Robert Place as claimed by Complete Peerage. Rather, William
Playce, Jr., had one daughter and heiress, Elizabeth, who died without
surviving issue sometime before 1433.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net



Chris Phillips wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:
In earlier posts, I've shown that Elizabeth de Aton's son and heir,
Sir
William Playce, was not the father of Robert Place as stated by
Complete Peerage. New research now indicates that Sir William
Playce's
heirs were actually the descendants of his sister, Margaret Playce,
wife of Sir John de Sywardby.

I'm slightly confused about where this leaves us as to Elizabeth
Aton's
heirs.

I've gone back over my notes, and I suspect I'm missing something,
but I
can't see any evidence about whether Sir William Playce survived his
mother
Elizabeth or not.

It has previously been suggested that Elizabeth's heirs were the
issue of
her 2nd marriage to Sir John Conyers, and for that reason I've been
assuming
that she was predeceased by the son of her 1st marriage, Sir William
Playce
(if Sir William had survived to become Elizabeth's heir, her Conyers
children would have been related to him only by half blood, so could
not
have succeeded him). But I can't see any mention of direct evidence
to that
effect.

Even if Sir William predeceased his mother, if his daughter Elizabeth
had
survived her, she must have been her heir, and in due course her
inheritance
(if any) should have passed to the Sywardby heirs of the younger
Elizabeth's
whole-blood aunt.

I am a bit handicapped because I haven't looked at what Elizabeth
Aton's
will says. It seems odd that the Complete Peerage account identifies
her
descendants as a different family of Playces. Presumably that means
the
author of the CP account hadn't traced the descent of Elizabeth's
share (if
any) of the Aton estates.

Chris Phillips

[Gjest]

So Renia would you say that someone reading my autobiography could then state:
"I obtained the knowledge that Mrs Rogers was cranky from a primary source" ?

But could not say:
"My primary source for the fact that Mrs Rogers was cranky is an autobiography..."

It's a fine job of splitting hairs. I thought the principle problem was determining the sources FOR certain facts. So what you're saying is, we cannot say that something is a primary source for any given fact, but only that is it a "Primary source".
Is that correct?
Will

[Peter Stewart]

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

<snip>

The journal is the primary source, not the information in it.

My entire point, very neatly put.

It contradicts almost everything else you have said.

The historian selects and uses the "primary" information contained in a
source, and then for ease calls it a "primary" source.

Peter Stewart

[Richard Smyth at UNC-CH]

It seems to me that historians use the terms "primary" and "secondary" to indicate the evidentiary value of the material under discussion. If that is true, then the sense of the distinction for historians is approximately the same as its sense for lawyers. The OED gives one relevant definition along those lines:

"1976 Halsbury's Laws of England (ed. 4) XVII. 9 In the unavoidable absence of the best or primary evidence of documents, the court will accept secondary evidence. This is evidence which suggests, on the face of it, that other and better evidence exists."

This would mean that primary evidence is evidence which is not on its face inferior to other evidence, although it can of course be contradicted by other and better evidence. This distinction seems reasonably clear and useful.

Regards,

Richard Smyth
[email protected]

[Tony Hoskins]

For this discussion I highly recommend, _Evidence!; citation analysis
for the family historian_ (Genealogical Publishing Company: Baltimore,
Md., 1997); especially Part 1 (section 2), "Fundamentals of Analysis",
pp. 42-58.

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

707/545-0831, ext. 562

[Tony Hoskins]

There is an infinite variety of sources in myriad stages of proximity
and distance to events/persons. This discussion seems to fail to see
this. All the attempts at precise categorization notwithstanding, each
source demands us to examine its *particular* merits - whatever we call
the souce. A secondary source is not necessarily inferior to a primary.
Nor is circumstantial evidence necessarily inferior to direct. Hence my
question: *why* this discussion?

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

707/545-0831, ext. 562

[Renia]

Tony Hoskins wrote:

There is an infinite variety of sources in myriad stages of proximity
and distance to events/persons. This discussion seems to fail to see
this.

This is being discussed. Perhaps you have not read all my replies.

All the attempts at precise categorization notwithstanding, each
source demands us to examine its *particular* merits - whatever we call
the souce.

Absolutely. I have said this.

A secondary source is not necessarily inferior to a primary.

Absolutely but we are discussing the difference between primary and
secondary sources - kindergarten stuff for historians. Secondary sources
are fantastic when they use and cite multiple primary sources"under one
roof", such as Keats-Rohan's "Domesday" series.

Nor is circumstantial evidence necessarily inferior to direct.

Sometimes, circumstantial evidence is all we have. But sometimes
circumstantial evidence can turn out to be just plain wrong. Direct
evidence is always better than circumstantial evidence, in cases where
we have both.

Hence my
question: *why* this discussion?

Why not? All sorts of things get discussed in newsgroups. This one is
more relevant to this newsgroup than many of the other discussions which
turn up. Genealogists need sources. And as Peter Stewart himself so
often says: new people come along or read the archives, read an
ill-informed post and get the wrong information. Genealogists, like
historians (of which they are a branch) need to know the difference
between the types of sources they use in order to make the best use of
the sources.

I'm surprised you don't see the need for a discussion such as this.

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

707/545-0831, ext. 562

Renia

[Renia]

[email protected] wrote:

So Renia would you say that someone reading my autobiography could then state:
"I obtained the knowledge that Mrs Rogers was cranky from a primary source" ?

But could not say:
"My primary source for the fact that Mrs Rogers was cranky is an autobiography..."

It's a fine job of splitting hairs. I thought the principle problem was determining the sources FOR certain facts. So what you're saying is, we cannot say that something is a primary source for any given fact, but only that is it a "Primary source".
Is that correct?
Will

The principal problem, or if you like, the problem in principle, for any
historian is in evaluating his sources. "How useful is this source?"

Your autobiography is a primary source. Whether the information inside
it is erroneous is not the point. All we know is YOU THOUGHT Mrs Rogers
was a crank, not that she IS a crank.

But if it is important for us to know whether Mrs Rogers truly was a
crank, then this historian would ask himself some basic questions. "How
does he know Mrs Rogers is a crank?" What other evidence in the
autobiography is there to show Mrs Rogers is a crank? Are you repeating
hearsay or did you know Mrs Rogers personally? (You will say so in your
autobiography, if you did.) Can I ascertain, from your autobiography,
whether you liked Mrs Rogers or whether she liked you? Does your
autobiography give examples of Mrs Rogers's crankiness? Are these
examples of her crankiness open to interpretation according to the
prejudice or subjectivity of either the author or the reader?

We are discussing the nature of sources, not what is in the sources.

Renia

[Renia]

Peter Stewart wrote:

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

snip

The journal is the primary source, not the information in it.


My entire point, very neatly put.

It contradicts almost everything else you have said.

Rubbish. It is the very opposite of what you have been saying and
exactly what I have been saying. I have not altered my position, now, or
when we discussed all this more than four years ago. But you have
altered your position.

The historian selects and uses the "primary" information contained in a
source, and then for ease calls it a "primary" source.

No, you have still misunderstood. It is the source itself which is
primary, not the information contained therein, the very opposite of
what you say, above. Historians do not call the information found in a
source the "primary source". The source itself is the "primary source".
Nothing to do with the "ease" of calling anything by a name. A
first-hand account is a primary source, not the information contained
within it.

A coin is a primary source, as is a grave, a memorial inscription, a
Tudor fireplace. What does the source tell us? What information can we
get from this source? How good is this source? Is it a copy of an
earlier source? Was the source created to make an impression? Why do we
have a huge Tudor fireplace in a tiny cottage? Why does the creator of
the source state that "Mrs Rogers is a crank"? Because he wants us to
think that, even if not true, because he simply didn't like her? Because
she was, and murdered all her children (evidenced from another source,
perhaps a newspaper)?

If a primary source (a family journal, say) states that "The family were
descended from the Percys", do we take this as true? No, we don't, not
unless the source gives the evidence from other primary sources, naming
charters or published genealogies (giving their own primary sources) or
other material from which we can re-examine the evidence ourselves.

Renia

[Peter Stewart]

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

<chomp>

We are discussing the nature of sources, not what is in the sources.

Deftly whipping the goal-posts out of the ground & stashing them out of
sight....what on earth is the value of a source independent of its contents,
or of discussing it ditto? Are we to define sources as "primary" or
"secondary" exclusively by their titles, or their provenience? Do the
accuracy and plausibility of their contents have nothing to do with
scholarly evaluation?

Tell that to the expert historiographers at the Vatican, after you inform
them that Christianity is founded purely on tradition & can have no
authority from "primary" (as in "contemporary") documents in the New
Testament after all.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Read what I wrote about medieval annals, Renia - you are getting down to the
Hines level for illogical twisting & turning.

Peter Stewart


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

Peter Stewart wrote:

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

snip

The journal is the primary source, not the information in it.


My entire point, very neatly put.

It contradicts almost everything else you have said.

Rubbish. It is the very opposite of what you have been saying and exactly
what I have been saying. I have not altered my position, now, or when we
discussed all this more than four years ago. But you have altered your
position.


The historian selects and uses the "primary" information contained in a
source, and then for ease calls it a "primary" source.

No, you have still misunderstood. It is the source itself which is
primary, not the information contained therein, the very opposite of what
you say, above. Historians do not call the information found in a source
the "primary source". The source itself is the "primary source". Nothing
to do with the "ease" of calling anything by a name. A first-hand account
is a primary source, not the information contained within it.

A coin is a primary source, as is a grave, a memorial inscription, a Tudor
fireplace. What does the source tell us? What information can we get from
this source? How good is this source? Is it a copy of an earlier source?
Was the source created to make an impression? Why do we have a huge Tudor
fireplace in a tiny cottage? Why does the creator of the source state that
"Mrs Rogers is a crank"? Because he wants us to think that, even if not
true, because he simply didn't like her? Because she was, and murdered all
her children (evidenced from another source, perhaps a newspaper)?

If a primary source (a family journal, say) states that "The family were
descended from the Percys", do we take this as true? No, we don't, not
unless the source gives the evidence from other primary sources, naming
charters or published genealogies (giving their own primary sources) or
other material from which we can re-examine the evidence ourselves.

Renia

[Gjest]

Renia writes: "The sources themselves are the primary or secondary sources. The facts presented within the sources are not the issue. A good historian (or genealogist) evaluates the source in order to evaluate the information given in the source. And that is a different discussion."

Someone seems to think you said that a source could be both primary and seconday and yet you seem to be saying just the opposite. And we ARE discussing the facts within the source, not just the source.
Will

[Renia]

[email protected] wrote:

Renia writes: "The sources themselves are the primary or secondary sources. The facts presented within the sources are not the issue. A good historian (or genealogist) evaluates the source in order to evaluate the information given in the source. And that is a different discussion."

Someone seems to think you said that a source could be both primary and seconday and yet you seem to be saying just the opposite. And we ARE discussing the facts within the source, not just the source.
Will

We are discussing sources. We have to evaluate the sources before we can
make good use of the information given by the sources. One of the ways
in which we do this, is to decide what kind of source it is. When we
know what kind of source it is (primary or secondary) then we are part
of the way towards evaluating its potential use and part of the way
towards evaluating what it tells us.

You do not evaluate the information before you evaluate the source.

I don't recall saying a source can be primary AND secondary. In some
ways, though, it can. A transcript of a medieval charter published in a
book is a secondary source. The charter itself is a primary source. But
we can't all go around contaminating old charters, so we treat the
transcript as if it was a primary source and leave the charter alone.

Renia

[Renia]

Peter Stewart wrote:

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

chomp

We are discussing the nature of sources, not what is in the sources.


Deftly whipping the goal-posts out of the ground & stashing them out of
sight....what on earth is the value of a source independent of its contents,
or of discussing it ditto? Are we to define sources as "primary" or
"secondary" exclusively by their titles, or their provenience? Do the
accuracy and plausibility of their contents have nothing to do with
scholarly evaluation?

Of course. But a secondary source is liable to mistranscription. If a
primary source is available, that is always preferable. Hence the
distinction between the two.

(Which is not to say a primary source is always correct. But that's
another discussion.)

Tell that to the expert historiographers at the Vatican, after you inform
them that Christianity is founded purely on tradition & can have no
authority from "primary" (as in "contemporary") documents in the New
Testament after all.

Now the Vatican is a valuable resource for English medieval history (as
well as much else, I don't doubt). Its archives are full of the
testaments of people willing to support the cause of a prospective saint
and the biographies of prospetive saints. I have found some marvellous
information there. But that's by-the-by. This, though, I imagine to be
the function of the Vatican historians, collecting up and preserving
material on prospective saints, as well as on the history of
Christianity. I doubt it is the remit of Vatican historians to be
particularly hung up on whether or not Christianity is founded on faith.
That is the function of Theologians.

Renia

[Renia]

Peter Stewart wrote:

Read what I wrote about medieval annals, Renia - you are getting down to the
Hines level for illogical twisting & turning.

Peter Stewart

I am afraid you are the one twisting and turning, Peter. Your
distraction techniques won't do. Remember what we are discussing, which
is the difference between primary and secondary sources. Using singular
wordy examples of the deaths in medieval annals of particular people as
a distraction won't work.

Renia

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

Peter Stewart wrote:


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

snip

The journal is the primary source, not the information in it.


My entire point, very neatly put.

It contradicts almost everything else you have said.

Rubbish. It is the very opposite of what you have been saying and exactly
what I have been saying. I have not altered my position, now, or when we
discussed all this more than four years ago. But you have altered your
position.



The historian selects and uses the "primary" information contained in a
source, and then for ease calls it a "primary" source.

No, you have still misunderstood. It is the source itself which is
primary, not the information contained therein, the very opposite of what
you say, above. Historians do not call the information found in a source
the "primary source". The source itself is the "primary source". Nothing
to do with the "ease" of calling anything by a name. A first-hand account
is a primary source, not the information contained within it.

A coin is a primary source, as is a grave, a memorial inscription, a Tudor
fireplace. What does the source tell us? What information can we get from
this source? How good is this source? Is it a copy of an earlier source?
Was the source created to make an impression? Why do we have a huge Tudor
fireplace in a tiny cottage? Why does the creator of the source state that
"Mrs Rogers is a crank"? Because he wants us to think that, even if not
true, because he simply didn't like her? Because she was, and murdered all
her children (evidenced from another source, perhaps a newspaper)?

If a primary source (a family journal, say) states that "The family were
descended from the Percys", do we take this as true? No, we don't, not
unless the source gives the evidence from other primary sources, naming
charters or published genealogies (giving their own primary sources) or
other material from which we can re-examine the evidence ourselves.

Renia

[Peter Stewart]

Renia wrote:

We are discussing sources. We have to evaluate the sources
before we can make good use of the information given by the
sources. One of the ways in which we do this, is to decide what
kind of source it is. When we know what kind of source it is
(primary or secondary) then we are part of the way towards
evaluating its potential use and part of the way towards
evaluating what it tells us.

Putting the cart firmly before the horse...Again, what is the basis for
evaluation before assessing the contents of a document? Just that it
purports to be a charter of a certain individual, for instance, can
only be tested by checking the text, dating and other details contained
in it - forgeries can & do come from the same source and time as the
real thing.

You do not evaluate the information before you evaluate
the source.

No, you may not evaluate the information before you IDENTIFY the source
or at least the general kind of source that it represents - in a
preliminary way - but nevertheless the contents must be integral to the
evaluation process.

I don't recall saying a source can be primary AND secondary. In
some ways, though, it can. A transcript of a medieval charter
published in a book is a secondary source. The charter itself is
a primary source. But we can't all go around contaminating old
charters, so we treat the transcript as if it was a primary source
and leave the charter alone.

The goal-posts just vanished in a whirl of smoke and mirrors. What you
are talking about now as a "primary source" is just an "original
document", not at all the same thing. There may be several, co-eval
originals of the same text - or for instance a charter may only be
known from a vidimus set down centuries after its date, and yet the
TEXT (i.e. the CONTENT) remains a valid primary source, mediated by the
copyist (as the original was by the scribe, unless you can show that
one of the principals in the transaction actually wrote it).

If a "primary" source is now just ink and parchment, we are in fantasy
land.

And it was Spencer who rightly said that a source can be both primary
and secondary at the same time. I fail to see how you can square that
with your new idea that it is essentially just a particular object.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Renia wrote:

Peter Stewart wrote:
Read what I wrote about medieval annals, Renia - you are
getting down to the Hines level for illogical twisting & turning.

Peter Stewart

I am afraid you are the one twisting and turning, Peter. Your
distraction techniques won't do. Remember what we are
discussing, which is the difference between primary and
secondary sources. Using singular wordy examples of the
deaths in medieval annals of particular people as a
distraction won't work.

Um, I didn't - what I wrote about medieval annals was earlier on,
nothing to do with the example of Duke Gislebert and the "primary"
sources for his death - equally apposite to its place in the discussion
- that for some reason you can't deal with.

As for my "distraction techniques" I was referring you back to a
specific statement in the thread, that you had evidently overlooked -
hardly distracting to a genuine participant, by any stretch.

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

Renia: "That a document can be a primary source for one detail and a secondary source for another detail is quite true. A medieval charter which additionally quotes a previous charter is an example of this."

Just when I thought I understood what you were saying you throw this back in. I thought you had said previously that we determine whether a source is primary or not *without regard* for the details it contains ? Now you're saying we HAVE to examine those details IN ORDER to decide if it's a primary source. That is confusing.
Will

[Gjest]

Renia wrote: "The term "primary source" does not mean "first in order of time". It means created at or near the time of the event. There can be multiple primary sources for one event. A baptism record can record the child's date of birth. So can its birth certificate. Both are primary sources, perhaps created weeks or months apart, and both created after the event itself."

But as per my previous example, you wrote that my autobiography was also a primary source even though it relates facts at quite a distance from the underlying event. A baptism record or birth certificate is a facile example i.e. no one would argue against that example.
But what about a delayed birth certificate created 50 years AFTER the birth. Is that a primary source for the birth?

Will

[Renia]

[email protected] wrote:

Renia: "That a document can be a primary source for one detail and a secondary source for another detail is quite true. A medieval charter which additionally quotes a previous charter is an example of this."

Just when I thought I understood what you were saying you throw this back in. I thought you had said previously that we determine whether a source is primary or not *without regard* for the details it contains ? Now you're saying we HAVE to examine those details IN ORDER to decide if it's a primary source. That is confusing.
Will

I've just posted some primary/secondary source definitions from
universities, etc. You may find an answer to that question there.

But to more directly answer your question, from the University at Albany:

Q
Sometimes, the same source might be a primary source for one research
paper and a secondary source for another. It all depends on the
relationship of the source to your research question. For example, if
you are researching Franklin Roosevelt's life, the book No Ordinary
Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II by
Doris Kearns Goodwin would be a secondary source. If you were
researching the literary style of Ms. Goodwin, it would be a primary source.
UNQ

A further example, from the Library of Congress web site:

Q
Primary and Secondary Sources

Historians use a wide variety of sources to answer questions about the
past. In their research, history scholars use both primary sources and
secondary sources. Primary sources are actual records that have survived
from the past, such as letters, photographs, articles of clothing.
Secondary sources are accounts of the past created by people writing
about events sometime after they happened.

For example, your history textbook is a secondary source. Someone wrote
most of your textbook long after historical events took place. Your
textbook may also include some primary sources, such as direct quotes
from people living in the past or excerpts from historical documents.

People living in the past left many clues about their lives. These clues
include both primary and secondary sources in the form of books,
personal papers, government documents, letters, oral accounts, diaries,
maps, photographs, reports, novels and short stories, artifacts, coins,
stamps, and many other things. Historians call all of these clues
together the historical record.
UNQ

The distinction between primary and secondary sources is not something
learnt in two minutes. It is a difficult concept for some to grasp, but
it is fundamental in historical training. As an history undergrad, you
will write all sorts of essays to find out whether you have understood
this basic principle.

Renia

[Renia]

[email protected] wrote:

Renia wrote: "The term "primary source" does not mean "first in order of time". It means created at or near the time of the event. There can be multiple primary sources for one event. A baptism record can record the child's date of birth. So can its birth certificate. Both are primary sources, perhaps created weeks or months apart, and both created after the event itself."

But as per my previous example, you wrote that my autobiography was also a primary source even though it relates facts at quite a distance from the underlying event. A baptism record or birth certificate is a facile example i.e. no one would argue against that example.
But what about a delayed birth certificate created 50 years AFTER the birth. Is that a primary source for the birth?

Yes, if the information for it was given by a person (the mother, say)
who witnessed the birth.

I've not actually come across a delayed birth certificate, as you put
it, but I have come across altered certificates, changing the father's
name from one thing to another, for example. Plainly the same father,
but the name was entered wrongly originally, and someone sought to amend
it. I've seen these sorts of examples take place within a few years of
the original birth certificate having been issued.

In the General Register Office Index for Births, I have seen the same
person entered three times. I have not seen the particular certificates
for that, but I can only imagine that amendments were made and the birth
certificate re-issued. But the index entries are years apart. (I'm doing
a one-name study of a rare name, and the Christian name of this person
is particularly rare, and must pertain to the same person.) The first
two entries are very close together. The third entry, about 20 years
later. I would class all of these as primary sources. Somebody, with
sufficient proof, presented their case, and the certificates were
changed. These certs are not just changed willy-nilly at anyone's fancy.

Renia

[Gjest]

In a message dated 2/17/2005 10:38:44 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

WHAT ARE PRIMARY SOURCES?
Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to
what actually happened during an historical event or time period. A
primary source reflects the individual viewpoint of a participant or
observer.

There is nothing there about being contemporary however. Nothing about being
created "at the time" of the event. Only that the viewpoint is of a
participant or observer. So the primary source could be created 80 years after the
event, provided a long lifetime. Right?
Will

[Gjest]

In a message dated 2/17/2005 10:53:48 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

I've not actually come across a delayed birth certificate, as you put
it, but I have come across altered certificates, changing the father's
name from one thing to another, for example.

Delayed Birth Certificate:
In the United States, birth certificates are required as a matter of state
law. That is, each state is allowed (or was) to create their own laws
regarding the issuance and requirement to have a birth certificate.
That is why each state's birth certificate start at different times. For
example Arkansas birth certificates only start in 1914, while in California
they start in 1905 (although spotty).
Now having said that, there are times, later in life, when a person was
required to prove their age. For example, to obtain Social Security benefits, a
pension, to prove age to get married, etc. So they were then, in some cases,
required to file a Delayed Birth Certificate. What sources were used to
prove birth varied, but in most cases bible records and affidavits of a relative,
doctor, midwife, were sufficient.

Will

[Renia]

[email protected] wrote:

In a message dated 2/17/2005 10:38:44 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:


WHAT ARE PRIMARY SOURCES?
Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to
what actually happened during an historical event or time period. A
primary source reflects the individual viewpoint of a participant or
observer.


There is nothing there about being contemporary however. Nothing about being
created "at the time" of the event. Only that the viewpoint is of a
participant or observer. So the primary source could be created 80 years after the
event, provided a long lifetime. Right?

Right. Like your autobiography written when you are 80 about events when
you were 6. (But if you state that Mrs Rogers is a crank, your
autobiography is not a primary source for evidence that she IS a crank,
but it is a primary source giving evidence that you thought she was.)

As to contemporary, it means, in this context, contemporary with the
person's lifetime to whom the event pertained, not necessarily with the
time when the event happened. But even that's a grey area.

Renia

[Renia]

[email protected] wrote:

In a message dated 2/17/2005 10:53:48 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:


I've not actually come across a delayed birth certificate, as you put
it, but I have come across altered certificates, changing the father's
name from one thing to another, for example.


Delayed Birth Certificate:
In the United States, birth certificates are required as a matter of state
law. That is, each state is allowed (or was) to create their own laws
regarding the issuance and requirement to have a birth certificate.
That is why each state's birth certificate start at different times. For
example Arkansas birth certificates only start in 1914, while in California
they start in 1905 (although spotty).
Now having said that, there are times, later in life, when a person was
required to prove their age. For example, to obtain Social Security benefits, a
pension, to prove age to get married, etc. So they were then, in some cases,
required to file a Delayed Birth Certificate. What sources were used to
prove birth varied, but in most cases bible records and affidavits of a relative,
doctor, midwife, were sufficient.

I see. Then I doubt very much that delayed birth certs exist (as such)
in England. Civil Registration began in 1837. By law, everyone had to
have their birth, marriage or death registered. That doesn't mean
everyone obeyed the law and rushed to the register office. I think it
was in 1875 (?) that a system of fines was brought in for those who
failed to register the event within a certain period of time. From that
time on, more events were registered. Nowadays, it's still an offence
not to register such events. I think the time period is 6 weeks, but I
could be corrected on that.

I have come across parish register entries for people seeking out their
baptismal details, possibly to acquire National Insurance. Presumably,
these were some of the people whose births were not registered or who
were registered in a different name. So often, I have come across people
who start life with one name, go through a series of others, and died
with a different name.

Renia

[Chris Phillips]

Douglas Richardson wrote:

As such, assuming that William Playce, Jr., was dead in 1402, it would
appear that Elizabeth Playce, almost certainly the wife of a Hastings,
was the heiress of her grandmother, Elizabeth de Aton, in that year.
At Elizabeth Playce's own death before 1433, her interest in the Playce
family estates passed to her first cousin, William Sywardby, the elder,
of Sewerby, Yorkshire. Among the properties William Sywardby inherited
were the manors of Gristhorpe, Sigston Kirby, Foxton, and Winton,
Yorkshire. I've confirmed that these estates later passed to William
Sywardby's Pigot descendants. I'm uncertain what happened to the Aton
estates which Elizabeth Playce would have held. Presumably they passed
to her Aton cousins.

It's the fate of the Aton estates that I don't understand. If Elizabeth
Playce survived her grandmother Elizabeth Aton, and was then succeeded as
heir to the Playce estates by the issue of her aunt Margaret, shouldn't she
also have been succeeded by the Sywardbys in her grandmother's share of the
Aton estates?

Of the Aton estates mentioned by Complete Peerage, the only ones that seem
to have been covered by the Victoria County History are Barlby and
Menthorpe, which the Atons held as tenants of the bishops of Durham. These
are discussed in the VCH of the East Riding of Yorkshire, vol. 3, which is
available at "British History Online", but unfortunately the Menthorpe
account gives no details, and the Barlby account says only that the descent
of Elizabeth's share has not been traced (copied below).

Chris Phillips
______________________________________________________________


BARLBY

In 1086 the bishop of Durham had 2 carucates in Barlby, one of which was
soke of Howden manor. (Footnote 62) The bishop's overlordship was still
mentioned in 1580. (Footnote 63)
The demesne lord of BARLBY manor in the mid 12th century was Gilbert of
Barlby, holding 2 carucates of the bishop. (Footnote 64) He was succeeded by
his son William de Aton. Another William held it in 1284, and the heirs of
Gilbert de Aton in 1302; it subsequently passed to another Gilbert (d. 1324)
and to his son William (d. 1389). (Footnote 65) William's heirs were his
daughters Anastasia, who married Edward St. John, Catherine, who married
Ralph Eure, and Elizabeth, who married first William Place and secondly Sir
John Conyers. (Footnote 66) The descent of Elizabeth's share has not been
traced. Anastasia's daughter Margaret married Thomas Broomfleet, and their
granddaughter married John, Lord Clifford. (Footnote 67) [etc]

66 - Cal. Close, 1385-9, 580; Feud. Aids, vi. 543.

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... =23002#n37

MENTHORPE WITH BOWTHORPE

That part of Menthorpe lying in Hemingbrough parish belonged to the bishops
of Durham and, like Barlby, (Footnote 7) was held under them by the Atons
and their descendants. (Footnote

7 - See p. 48. [i.e. the Barlby account]
8 - e.g. Feud. Aids, vi. 36, 138, 224, 272.

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... d=23006#s2

[JF Blanc]

Hello all,

It's a true disappointment to be forced to read out of topic
messages about today's british royals or about historiography.

Are there not specialized newsgroup on these topics?

Jean-François BLANC - Genealogia
[email protected]
http://blanc.mfoudi.online.fr et
http://gw.geneanet.org/index.php3?b=bln

[Peter A. Kincaid]

At 12:50 AM 18/02/2005, you wrote:

Renia: "That a document can be a primary source for one detail and a
secondary source for another detail is quite true. A medieval charter
which additionally quotes a previous charter is an example of this."

Just when I thought I understood what you were saying you throw this back
in. I thought you had said previously that we determine whether a source
is primary or not *without regard* for the details it contains ? Now
you're saying we HAVE to examine those details IN ORDER to decide if it's
a primary source. That is confusing.
Will

I believe the key is to evaluate the source in relation to the
event it is meant to give support for or against. In that
context, a secondary source can include a primary source
if the original source is lost. Given my last statement one
can see how things can be confused. Renia's medieval
charter is a primary source for the grant at that time and
a secondary source for a previous grant. The extract of
the previous grant would be primary to the first grant, but,
as an extract, it is a secondary source as long as
the original grant that it is extracting survives. If the original
grant did not survive the extract can be treated as a primary
source for the event. To further confuse things, the above
applies since there was typically only one original source for
the grant itself; namely the charter. However, the grant only
gained effect through seisine. If a precept for sasine and
instrument of sasine survived then these are primary sources
for the event and could make the extract of the original (now
lost) grant secondary if there is disagreement. I may be off
base but this is how I have come to understand things.

Best wishes!

Peter

[Renia]

JF Blanc wrote:

Hello all,

It's a true disappointment to be forced to read out of topic
messages about today's british royals or about historiography.

Are there not specialized newsgroup on these topics?

For my part, I have (probably) said all I am going to say on the matter.
But I do not see how you can think this topic (historiography and the
role of sources) is off-topic for a medieval genealogy newsgroup. It
isn't genealogy itself, but it is central to the field of genealogy.

Renia

[Peter A. Kincaid]

The discussion on today's british royals is an entertainment
blip spawned by recent events. I am sure it will soon die.
While few people likely appreciate the personal attacks in the
discussion on primary and secondary sources, the topic is
certainly interesting and relevant. Are we not trying to add
to our medieval knowledge, skill, and presentation? Regardless,
thanks to some long time subscribers of this list, this is no
ordinary list. Try as you may otherwise, you will have to weed
out the useful from the garbage with filters and your delete
button. It is par for the course.

Best wishes!

Peter


At 11:19 AM 18/02/2005, you wrote:

Hello all,

It's a true disappointment to be forced to read out of topic
messages about today's british royals or about historiography.

Are there not specialized newsgroup on these topics?

Jean-François BLANC - Genealogia
[email protected]
http://blanc.mfoudi.online.fr et
http://gw.geneanet.org/index.php3?b=bln

[Tony Hoskins]

Someone seems to think you said that a source could be both primary
and seconday and yet you seem to be saying just the opposite. And we

ARE discussing the facts within the source, not just the source.
Will
---
But he "facts" are indissolubly linked to the source - and cannot be
considered in vacuo. *That* I think is largely what Renia is saying; and
that is what I have been saying as well.

Tony Hoskins
Santa Rosa, California

[Gjest]

Brad wrote: "D) A family pedigree in a chronicle from an Abbey patronized by the Mowbrays, written in the early 1500s."

I'm not sure about this one Brad. A pedigree usually stretches back and wide over quite a distance. The pedigree would be primary in it's representation as a pedigree, however the underlying facts within that pedigree makes it secondary for those facts.
I would assume the compiler of that pedigree would have used underlying primary documents to make it and so therefore it, itself, in its facts, would be considered secondary would it not? After all is a visitation in the 16th century primary evidence for a birthdate in the 14th ? Per discussion it's not an eye-witness to the fact it purports.
Will

[Tony Hoskins]

But I do not see how you can think this topic (historiography and the
role of sources) is off-topic for a medieval genealogy newsgroup. It
isn't genealogy itself, but it is central to the field of genealogy.

Renia
--
I have come round to Renia's way of thinking on this. In a group where
the most *unlikely* and out of scope discussions occasionally take
place, what could be more germane or useful than discussion of the
factual, interpretive underpinnings of history/genealogy?

Tony Hoskins

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

707/545-0831, ext. 562

[Gjest]

In a message dated 2/18/2005 1:45:59 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

But I do not see how you can think this topic (historiography and the
role of sources) is off-topic for a medieval genealogy newsgroup. It
isn't genealogy itself, but it is central to the field of genealogy.

Renia
--
I have come round to Renia's way of thinking on this. In a group where
the most *unlikely* and out of scope discussions occasionally take
place, what could be more germane or useful than discussion of the
factual, interpretive underpinnings of history/genealogy?

Tony Hoskins



True, I agree with both of the above. The topics they mention are certainly
important to the study of Medieval genealogy and history. I must admit that
it has been very boring to me and I have taken to deleting most such
messages without opening. I have not kept up with the involved discussion, and am
really not interested in all of the little nit-picking messages. Such
messages though are necessary and it is of great importance to arrive at a decision
which can be used by all, if that is possible. I encourage those involved so
highly in these discussions to continue them until they are ALL satisfied
with the results.

I do, however, object to the completely off topic subject of the ancestry of
the Windsor (so called) family and the messages about Big Ears and his
whore. I realize that some of you will object to my catagorization here but that
is just exactly how I feel.

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

[Arkadiusz Bugaj]

Uzytkownik ""Sally Laine"" <[email protected]> napisal w wiadomosci
news:000901c50acc$10208520$d108d3d8@c0d9c5...

Eberstein & Everstein were two different families. Ludwig I was an
Everstein
died 1284 married Sophie of Gleichen died before 1267 daughter of Ludwig
II
of Gleichen.

Try http://www.genealogie-mittelalter.de and gen-med's archives for this family

Sally
There was a famliy Everstein in Pomerania. They were hold a nice piece of

land in the territory of Kamien bishopric. Used titel lord of Nowogard
(Neugard) The falmily settled, in XIII century, AFAIK, when incumbent bishop
was Herman von Gleichen and they were relatives.

Arkadiusz

----- Original Message -----
From: "Markus Welschhoff" <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: Eberstein - which of them?


Hello Inger!

Eberstein is the same like Everstein. The name comes from the castle
Everstein near Holzminden at the Weser. For more information about the
genealogy, use "Schwennicke, Europäische Stammtafeln, XVII, p. 82 - 85".

Bye, Markus.
__________________________________________________________
Mit WEB.DE FreePhone mit hoechster Qualitaet ab 0 Ct./Min.
weltweit telefonieren! http://freephone.web.de/?mc=021201

[Gjest]

[email protected] wrote:
Big Ears and his

whore.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

Such infantile name-calling is only going to spur on the kind of
discussion you say you do not want to see. Besides, she is not known to
have taken any sort of payment nor he to have offered it to her. And it
may be that he is HER Big Ears, not the way you have put it. I sure
wish Mexico would take Texas back.

[Douglas Richardson royala]

Dear Chris ~

William de Sywardby's mother, Margaret Playce, was the sister of Sir
William Playce, of Gristhorpe, Yorkshire, who married Elizabeth de
Aton. As such, William de Sywardby had no right to the Aton
inheritance, as Elizabeth de Aton was merely his aunt by marriage.

These relationships are determined by studying the pedigree of the
Playce-Sywardby family found in Genealogist n.s. 17 (1901): 244. Also,
you will want to read the biographies of Sir William Playce's two
grandfathers, Sir William Playce and John de Siggeston, found
Parliamentary Representation of York 1 (Yorks. Arch. Soc. Recs. 91)
(1935): 85-87; 95-96.

At the present time, I don't know what became of Elizabeth de Aton's
share of the Aton estates. I assume on her death, her Aton lands
descended to her son, William, Jr. (living 1397), or to his daughter,
Elizabeth (living 1400). On the death of the granddaughter Elizabeth
sometime before 1433, the Aton estates presumably reverted to the heirs
of Elizabeth de Aton's two sisters.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Chris Phillips wrote:

It's the fate of the Aton estates that I don't understand. If
Elizabeth
Playce survived her grandmother Elizabeth Aton, and was then
succeeded as
heir to the Playce estates by the issue of her aunt Margaret,
shouldn't she
also have been succeeded by the Sywardbys in her grandmother's share
of the
Aton estates?

Of the Aton estates mentioned by Complete Peerage, the only ones that
seem
to have been covered by the Victoria County History are Barlby and
Menthorpe, which the Atons held as tenants of the bishops of Durham.
These
are discussed in the VCH of the East Riding of Yorkshire, vol. 3,
which is
available at "British History Online", but unfortunately the
Menthorpe
account gives no details, and the Barlby account says only that the
descent
of Elizabeth's share has not been traced (copied below).

Chris Phillips
______________________________________________________________


BARLBY

In 1086 the bishop of Durham had 2 carucates in Barlby, one of which
was
soke of Howden manor. (Footnote 62) The bishop's overlordship was
still
mentioned in 1580. (Footnote 63)
The demesne lord of BARLBY manor in the mid 12th century was Gilbert
of
Barlby, holding 2 carucates of the bishop. (Footnote 64) He was
succeeded by
his son William de Aton. Another William held it in 1284, and the
heirs of
Gilbert de Aton in 1302; it subsequently passed to another Gilbert
(d. 1324)
and to his son William (d. 1389). (Footnote 65) William's heirs were
his
daughters Anastasia, who married Edward St. John, Catherine, who
married
Ralph Eure, and Elizabeth, who married first William Place and
secondly Sir
John Conyers. (Footnote 66) The descent of Elizabeth's share has not
been
traced. Anastasia's daughter Margaret married Thomas Broomfleet, and
their
granddaughter married John, Lord Clifford. (Footnote 67) [etc]

66 - Cal. Close, 1385-9, 580; Feud. Aids, vi. 543.

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... =23002#n37

MENTHORPE WITH BOWTHORPE

That part of Menthorpe lying in Hemingbrough parish belonged to the
bishops
of Durham and, like Barlby, (Footnote 7) was held under them by the
Atons
and their descendants. (Footnote

7 - See p. 48. [i.e. the Barlby account]
8 - e.g. Feud. Aids, vi. 36, 138, 224, 272.

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... d=23006#s2

[Chris Phillips]

Douglas Richardson wrote:

William de Sywardby's mother, Margaret Playce, was the sister of Sir
William Playce, of Gristhorpe, Yorkshire, who married Elizabeth de
Aton. As such, William de Sywardby had no right to the Aton
inheritance, as Elizabeth de Aton was merely his aunt by marriage.

These relationships are determined by studying the pedigree of the
Playce-Sywardby family found in Genealogist n.s. 17 (1901): 244. Also,
you will want to read the biographies of Sir William Playce's two
grandfathers, Sir William Playce and John de Siggeston, found
Parliamentary Representation of York 1 (Yorks. Arch. Soc. Recs. 91)
(1935): 85-87; 95-96.

At the present time, I don't know what became of Elizabeth de Aton's
share of the Aton estates. I assume on her death, her Aton lands
descended to her son, William, Jr. (living 1397), or to his daughter,
Elizabeth (living 1400). On the death of the granddaughter Elizabeth
sometime before 1433, the Aton estates presumably reverted to the heirs
of Elizabeth de Aton's two sisters.

I'm sorry, I really am confused now.

I admit I haven't seen any of the references you cite, but in your post a
week ago, you wrote, "Elizabeth Playce's heir in turn was her first cousin,
Sir William Sywardby (son and heir of her aunt, Margaret Playce), who
inherited the Playce family manors of Gristhorpe, Sigston Kirby, Foxton, and
Winton, Yorkshire."

The Elizabeth Playce referred to was the "only daughter and heiress" of "Sir
William Playce, son of Elizabeth de Aton". So her aunt, Margaret Playce,
must have been the sister of Sir William Playce, son of Elizabeth Aton.

So Margaret must be the daughter, not the sister, of Sir William Playce, of
Gristhorpe, Yorkshire, who married Elizabeth de Aton. As such, she must have
stood before the heirs of Elizabeth Atons sisters in the inheritance of
Elizabeth's share of the Aton estates.

Chris Phillips

[Renia]

[email protected] wrote:

In a message dated 2/18/2005 1:45:59 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

But I do not see how you can think this topic (historiography and the
role of sources) is off-topic for a medieval genealogy newsgroup. It
isn't genealogy itself, but it is central to the field of genealogy.

Renia
--
I have come round to Renia's way of thinking on this. In a group where
the most *unlikely* and out of scope discussions occasionally take
place, what could be more germane or useful than discussion of the
factual, interpretive underpinnings of history/genealogy?

Tony Hoskins



True, I agree with both of the above. The topics they mention are certainly
important to the study of Medieval genealogy and history. I must admit that
it has been very boring to me and I have taken to deleting most such
messages without opening.

That is a shame. Yes, there might have been a bit of nit-picking or
otherwise unsavoury stuff, but in my replies to Peter, (mostly) I have
tried to keep to the points raised.

I have not kept up with the involved discussion, and am
really not interested in all of the little nit-picking messages. Such
messages though are necessary and it is of great importance to arrive at a decision
which can be used by all, if that is possible. I encourage those involved so
highly in these discussions to continue them until they are ALL satisfied
with the results.

It would be very interesting to hear what other genealogists on this
newsgroup think of what has been discussed (nit-picking and other
unsavoury things apart). Most of you have kept silent.

How do you all feel the subject of sources and their relevance and
importance with reference to medeival genealogy?

Renia

[Gjest]

Dear Todd,
I know that Roderick Stuart`s Royalty for Commoners is
usually considered to be garbage, but in his line 180 citing Charles Evans Descent
from the Cid TAG 9[ 99- 100, George A Moriarty p 110 and Ramon Menendez Pidal
Espana del Cid volume II : pp 718-719 He states that Fernando Gundemariz
married Jimena , daughter of Alfonso V, King of Leon by his 2nd wife Urraca
Graces of Navarre, daughter of Garcia IV Sanchez of Navarre by his wife Jimena
Fernandez, daughter of Fernando Vermudez, Count of Cea. Is There reason to doubt
such a connection beyond the obvious reasons ?
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA

[Tony Hoskins]

I join Renia in being interested in learning others' thoughts on further
discussion of evidence, sources, and analysis.

In the meantime, though substantially agreeing with her other points,
I'd like to address Renia's following statements:

"Sometimes, circumstantial evidence is all we have. But sometimes
circumstantial evidence can turn out to be just plain wrong.

This is true: but only *sometimes*.

"Direct evidence is always better than circumstantial evidence, in
cases where we have both."

This can be quite untrue, and - because it can so frequently be untrue
- is why I have been uncomfortable with this discussion's apparent too
literal, too avid focus on attempting to qualify evidence/sources by
*type*.

Again, I'd like to refer to Elizabeth Shown Mills' _Evidence!: citation
and analysis for the family historian_ (1997), p. 45:

---
"Direct evidence is that which addresses a particular matter and points
to a conclusion without the addition of other supporting evidence."

"Indirect evidence is circumstantial information that requires us to
supply a thought process (and perhaps other evidence) to convert its
detail into a reliable conclusion.

According to genealogy's now-classic discussion by Noel C. Stevenson,
JD, FASG, 'Evidence is nonetheless effective because it is
circumstantial, if it be consistent, connected, and conclusive.'"
----

My own example: illustration of the occasional superiority of
circumstantial/indirect evidence over direct evidence:

Fact: Adam Vogelsang was born 12 August 1924.

Direct evidence (birth certificate): Adam Vogelsang was born 22 August
1924.

Indirect evidence (an assemblage of facts, constituting a
circumstantial case):
1) Adam's birth certificate stated he was born on his parents' farm,
near Urbana, Illinois.
2) Dr. Ridgway's journal for the month of August 1924 states, a) he
delivered the Vogelsang's baby son Adam, born on the farm sometime (date
not mentioned) during that month; and b) that he was attending a
conference 130 miles away in Chicago from 18-25 August.
3) Adam's mother, Mrs. Vogelsang, died 13 August 1924 (obituary ["she
died on the 13th, the day after giving birth to a son"]; tombstone).

This case illustrates that indirect/circumstantial evidence can be
superior to direct evidence.

And this brings me back to my concern that people put too much energy
into what to *call* evidence, rather than analyzing it's *quality*.




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

707/545-0831, ext. 562

[Douglas Richardson royala]

In my post last week, I inadvertedly stated that William Sywardby was
the first cousin to Elizabeth Playce, granddaughter of Elizabeth de
Aton. I should have said they were first cousin once removed. Mea
culpa. William's mother, Margaret (Playce) Sywardby, was the sister of
Elizabeth Playce's grandfather, Sir William Playce (husband of
Elizabeth de Aton).

The lack of published information about the Aton and Playce families
has been a serious handicap to unravelling the various relationships
involved in this complex puzzle. To my knowledge, no one in print has
identified Elizabeth Playce as the grand-daughter and heiress of
Elizabeth de Aton. I assume this is because Elizabeth de Aton's will
names no immediate family. In this instance, I'm especially thankful
for the pedigree published in the Genealogist taken from the 1432/3
lawsuit which lay outs the relationship between William Sywardby and
Elizabeth Playce. The pedigree doesn't mention Elizabeth de Aton,
although it does show her husband, William Playce.

Incidentally, I would have charted the various relationships before
now, but the new google system messes up anything that is more than a
single line of descent. I haven't yet figured out how to show two
collateral descents from the same ancestor, without the generations
shifting out of position. If anyone know how to present a complicated
chart without the tab settings being destroyed, I'd like to hear from
them.

Douglas Richardson

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Chris Phillips wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:
William de Sywardby's mother, Margaret Playce, was the sister of
Sir
William Playce, of Gristhorpe, Yorkshire, who married Elizabeth de
Aton. As such, William de Sywardby had no right to the Aton
inheritance, as Elizabeth de Aton was merely his aunt by marriage.

These relationships are determined by studying the pedigree of the
Playce-Sywardby family found in Genealogist n.s. 17 (1901): 244.
Also,
you will want to read the biographies of Sir William Playce's two
grandfathers, Sir William Playce and John de Siggeston, found
Parliamentary Representation of York 1 (Yorks. Arch. Soc. Recs. 91)
(1935): 85-87; 95-96.

At the present time, I don't know what became of Elizabeth de
Aton's
share of the Aton estates. I assume on her death, her Aton lands
descended to her son, William, Jr. (living 1397), or to his
daughter,
Elizabeth (living 1400). On the death of the granddaughter
Elizabeth
sometime before 1433, the Aton estates presumably reverted to the
heirs
of Elizabeth de Aton's two sisters.


I'm sorry, I really am confused now.

I admit I haven't seen any of the references you cite, but in your
post a
week ago, you wrote, "Elizabeth Playce's heir in turn was her first
cousin,
Sir William Sywardby (son and heir of her aunt, Margaret Playce), who
inherited the Playce family manors of Gristhorpe, Sigston Kirby,
Foxton, and
Winton, Yorkshire."

The Elizabeth Playce referred to was the "only daughter and heiress"
of "Sir
William Playce, son of Elizabeth de Aton". So her aunt, Margaret
Playce,
must have been the sister of Sir William Playce, son of Elizabeth
Aton.

So Margaret must be the daughter, not the sister, of Sir William
Playce, of
Gristhorpe, Yorkshire, who married Elizabeth de Aton. As such, she
must have
stood before the heirs of Elizabeth Atons sisters in the inheritance
of
Elizabeth's share of the Aton estates.

Chris Phillips

[Renia]

Tony Hoskins wrote:

I join Renia in being interested in learning others' thoughts on further
discussion of evidence, sources, and analysis.

In the meantime, though substantially agreeing with her other points,
I'd like to address Renia's following statements:

"Sometimes, circumstantial evidence is all we have. But sometimes
circumstantial evidence can turn out to be just plain wrong.

This is true: but only *sometimes*.

"Direct evidence is always better than circumstantial evidence, in
cases where we have both."

This can be quite untrue, and - because it can so frequently be untrue
- is why I have been uncomfortable with this discussion's apparent too
literal, too avid focus on attempting to qualify evidence/sources by
*type*.

Again, I'd like to refer to Elizabeth Shown Mills' _Evidence!: citation
and analysis for the family historian_ (1997), p. 45:

---
"Direct evidence is that which addresses a particular matter and points
to a conclusion without the addition of other supporting evidence."

"Indirect evidence is circumstantial information that requires us to
supply a thought process (and perhaps other evidence) to convert its
detail into a reliable conclusion.

According to genealogy's now-classic discussion by Noel C. Stevenson,
JD, FASG, 'Evidence is nonetheless effective because it is
circumstantial, if it be consistent, connected, and conclusive.'"
----

My own example: illustration of the occasional superiority of
circumstantial/indirect evidence over direct evidence:

Fact: Adam Vogelsang was born 12 August 1924.

Direct evidence (birth certificate): Adam Vogelsang was born 22 August
1924.

Indirect evidence (an assemblage of facts, constituting a
circumstantial case):
1) Adam's birth certificate stated he was born on his parents' farm,
near Urbana, Illinois.
2) Dr. Ridgway's journal for the month of August 1924 states, a) he
delivered the Vogelsang's baby son Adam, born on the farm sometime (date
not mentioned) during that month; and b) that he was attending a
conference 130 miles away in Chicago from 18-25 August.
3) Adam's mother, Mrs. Vogelsang, died 13 August 1924 (obituary ["she
died on the 13th, the day after giving birth to a son"]; tombstone).

This case illustrates that indirect/circumstantial evidence can be
superior to direct evidence.

And this brings me back to my concern that people put too much energy
into what to *call* evidence, rather than analyzing it's *quality*.

I don't think item 3) is indirect or circumstantial evidence. The
tombstone was probably engraved on the testimony of one of Mrs
Vogelsang's children, told at some point by a relative or family doctor
about their mother's unfortunate demise just after Adam's death.

The circumstantial evidence here points to the birthdate given on the
birth certificate being erroneously duplicated from the date of
registration of the birth.

Primary sources can be wrong. Which is why we need other verifying
evidence wherever we can get it. And you have that evidence, from the
tombstone.

Renia

[Dolly Ziegler]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005, Renia wrote:

How do you all feel the subject of sources and their relevance and
importance with reference to medeival genealogy?

Essential to understand these, of course. I learned a thing or three.

But no sensible person would plow through the dozens of posts on this
topic the past few days.

May I suggest, an essay on the topic, posted where newcomers could be
referred to it, would be a useful contribution. Renia?

Cheers, Dolly in Maryland USA

[Stewart Baldwin]

On 18 Feb 2005 16:23:24 -0800, "Douglas Richardson
[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

... If anyone know how to present a complicated
chart without the tab settings being destroyed,
I'd like to hear from them.

When I have posted complicated genealogical tables, I have never used
tabs, but instead put in the spaces one by one. That seems to work
fine, as long as people use a constant width font and keep the line
length long enough.

Stewart Baldwin

[Todd A. Farmerie]

[email protected] wrote:

I know that Roderick Stuart`s Royalty for Commoners is
usually considered to be garbage, but in his line 180 citing Charles Evans Descent
from the Cid TAG 9[ 99- 100, George A Moriarty p 110 and Ramon Menendez Pidal
Espana del Cid volume II : pp 718-719.

Each of the others derive their statements from España del Cid.

He states that Fernando Gundemariz
married Jimena , daughter of Alfonso V, King of Leon by his 2nd wife Urraca
Graces of Navarre, daughter of Garcia IV Sanchez of Navarre by his wife Jimena
Fernandez, daughter of Fernando Vermudez, Count of Cea. Is There reason to doubt
such a connection beyond the obvious reasons ?

Two reasons - first, it was a genealogical construct without
direct evidence, basically an attempt to "fix" a previous version
shown by contemporay documentation to be erroneous, and second,
that there is evidence which seems to contradict it.

From the Cid tradition, it is stated that Jimena Diaz, his wife,
was 'niece' (literally niece or granddaughter, but frequently
used more in a generic sense as younger female kinswoman). The
early pedigrees, as reflected by charts given in some of the
works of Salazar y Castro dating from a decade on either side of
1700, show this relationship quite simply - Jimena Diaz is given
as daughter of Count Diego (erroneously made grandson of Infanta
Christina, daughter of Vermudo II) by Jimena Alfonso, daughter of
Alfonso V. This was the accepted parentage up until Menendez
Pidal discovered a document in which Jimena and her siblings
appear, as well as their mother Christina, while grandfather
Fernando Gundemariz is named. Thus count Diego did not marry
Jimena Alfonso, but instead a Christina, apparently in turn
daughter of Fernando Gundemariz. In order to maintain the royal
connection Menendez Pidal simply shifted the marriage a
generation earlier, making Jimena Alfonso wife of Fernando and
grandmother of Jimena Diaz (defending it with nothing of more
substance than 'girls were frequently named after their
grandmothers' - note that he also errs with regard to Fernando's
grandfather, naming him Piniolo Jimenez. This well-known man was
Fernando's first cousin, a maternal grandson of Fernando's actual
grandfather, Piniolo Gundemariz.)

While he didn't present it in the context of the question of the
parentage of Jimena Diaz, Emilio Saez Sanchez (the author cited
as "Saly" in early versions of Royalty for Commoners, Stuart
having misread the handwriting of Moriarty when the latter cited
Saez in his Plantagenet Ancestry mss.) spent a good bit of time
discussing a document which seems to make a descent of Jimena
Diaz from a marriage of Fernando to Jimena extremely unlikely.
Specifically, Fernando and his wife Muniadona Ordoñez make a
grant that is witnessed by Infanta Jimena. The document is from
a late enough date that, given time for Muniadona to die, for
Fernando to mary Jimena, and for them to have had a daughter, it
is just not practical to suggest that Christina was daughter of
Fernando by Jimena. Given that he is only said to have married
Jimena because she had been displaced from the next generation,
there is no reason to even suggest that a marriage between
Fernando Gundemariz and Infanta Jimena ever took place. In fact,
there does not appear to be any surviving document that indicates
Jimena Alfonso ever married.

Does that answer your question?

taf

[Todd A. Farmerie]

[email protected] wrote:

I know that Roderick Stuart`s Royalty for Commoners is
usually considered to be garbage, but . . . He states that Fernando Gundemariz
married Jimena , daughter of Alfonso V, King of Leon by his 2nd wife Urraca
Graces of Navarre,

I should have added that I am aware of no documentary evidence
which allows the maternity of Infanta Jimena Alfonso to be
determined. I think from the (lack of) evidence, she could be
daughter of either of his wives, or of a non-wife.

taf

[Ginny Wagner]

<How do you all feel the subject of sources and their relevance and
importance with reference to medeival genealogy?>

I'm a total novice at all this but, since you ask, -- I want to say thank
you all for this discussion. It isn't falling on deaf ears. I feel like
I'm getting a first class education on this list -- even when the genealogy
creeps into the modern world -- I learn something. I'm learning how to
think like a genealogist/historian. I know that if I can learn to think the
way you guys do, eventually I will be able to keep the important things in
my head because I'll have learned how to categorize and prioritize.

This discussion taught me how to think about the various source documents
and the reliability of them. It has taught me that documents can be
mistranslated, that people err and may have written down a date incorrectly
so that you want to have corroborating evidence whenever possible. That the
evidence you think you have must make sense within everything known about
the times/place/situation so that history is vital in order to test the
information as to whether it even makes sense and which account is accurate.

That today there is more knowledge and source work than one person alone can
keep up with, that there is a body of knowledge, that has led to an
understanding of life back then as to what is possible and what isn't, so
that even the good forgeries from back then are found out. In other cases
it may never be possible to locate a name/person. That you guys have spent
years accummulating scads of data and you've placed it where you can find it
when you begin to discuss a bit of data because you know how to organize it.
That one person can't possibly hold all the information and check
everything -- that we need to help each other by sharing information and
testing "facts" with each other to avoid simple errors in assumptions.

I've learned that footnotes can be tricky things -- they don't always back
up all the information in a sentence/paragraph so that it's good to double
check and even better, when writing, to be specific and add explanation
about the footnotes. I've learned that there are many sources and scads of
information out there against which each bit of information must be tested
before making assertions and that assertions as to fact should be made
gingerly unless one wants to eat a lot of crow; that certainty often acts as
a roadblock to getting at the truth.

I've learned how stupid my comment, 1137 - 15 = 1122 was, re Eleanor's birth
date!

After reading through you guys' discussion, I learned that I have a lot to
learn, not just about genealogy and history but also how to conduct a
discussion. I'm very glad I'm on this list. Even if I'm not posting I'm
listening and appreciative of those who do, willing to post if/when I have
something to contribute or a question to ask. Thank you.

Ginny Wagner

"Do the best one can. Do it over again. Then still improve, even if ever
so slightly, those retouches. It is myself that I re-make," said the poet
Yeats in speaking of his revisions. -- Marguerite Yourcenar

[Gjest]

Dear Bronwen et als,
was Sambor II`s mother Zwinislawa a daughter
of Miezko III the Old, Duke of Great Poland and Cracow ? I saw in a couple LDS
pedigrees that was the case and that his daughter Anastasia married Bogislaw
I, Duke of Pomerania. The Latter is also given in Heraldry of the Royal Famies
of Europe ( HRFE) by Louda and MacLagan 1981 edition Table 132. Miezko III`s
2nd wife was Eudoxia, daughter of Izyaslav II, Grand Duke of Kiev.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Gjest]

On 26 Dec 2004 Louise Staley posted a confirmatory charter of Henry II
(previously cited by Doug Richardson), as follows:-
Henry' Rex Angl' Dux Norman' & Acquietan' & Comes Androg' Ep'o Exon & Iustic'
& Baronibus & Vic' & ministris & fidelibus suis Franc' & Angl' & Wallens' &
Cornub' & Devon' salutem: sciatis me concessisse & confirmasse Ric' Pincerne &
her' suis manerium de Conerton quod Robertus filius Comitis Glocestr' cognatus
meus ei dedit pro servicio suo; quare volo & firmiter precipio quod ipse
Ricardus & her' sui illud manerium habeant & teneant per servic' unius militis de
predicto Roberto fil' Comitis & de her' suis cum omnibus libertatibus &
liberis cons' suis & acquiet' eidem manerio pertinent', in bosco in planis in pratis
& pastur' in aquis & molend' in viis & semitis in hundr' & in omnibus rebus &
in omnibus locis, ita bene & in pace & libere & quiete & honore sicut unquam
Robertus filius Edmundi vel Comes Robertus avunculus meus manerium illud
melius libere quiete & honorificemus [sic] tenuit tempore Regis Henr' avi mei, et
sicut carta predicti Roberti fil' comitis Glocestr' testatur; preterea concedo
eidem Ricardo her' suis omnes alias terras & tenuras suas de quacunque eas
rationabiliter habeant, ita libere sicut ego unquam habui & tenui. Hiis testibus &
c.
[A2A, Cornwall Record Office: Arundell of Lanherne and Trerice[AR/17 -
AR/50], FAMILY TRUSTS: AR/20/1]

The document identifies previous owners of the manor of Conerton, namely
"Robertus filius comitis Glocestr' cognatus meus" and "Robertus filius Edmundi vel
Comes Robertus avunculus meus".

Comes Robertus is clearly Robert Earl of Gloucester, known as a bastard son
of Henry I, and therefore as an uncle of Henry II. And he is known to have had
a son Robert, whose grant of Conerton to Richard Pincerna is confirmed by the
King's charter, and who was IIRC Castellan of Gloucester Castle. The King
reasonably enough refers to his uncle's son as "cognatus".
But who was "Robertus filius Edmundi"? A possible translation of the text I
have underlined would be "Robert the son of Edmund otherwise Earl Robert" - a
construction supported by "tenuit"; if two different Roberts had been referred
to, "tenuerunt" would have been correct. But then, why would Henry II, who in
the same sentence of the same document speaks of Earl Robert as his uncle,
then refer to him as son of Edmund?
Who was this Edmund anyway?
And my last question is - why does the charter say "sicut ego unquam habui et
tenui"? Is there any reason to think that Conerton had ever come into the
King's own hand? On the other hand, if the King had never had the manor, what is
the point of his giving a confirmatory charter?

I appreciated Peter Stewart's masterly dismissal, in the same thread, of the
suggestion that Richard Pincerna might have been a son of a royal "pincerna".
Of course he might have been, but then again there is no reason to suppose
that he was, or that the Arundel family would have been significantly more
distinguished if he had been.
MM

[Arkadiusz Bugaj]

Uzytkownik <[email protected]> napisal w wiadomosci
news:[email protected]...

Dear Bronwen et als,
was Sambor II`s mother Zwinislawa a daughter
of Miezko III the Old, Duke of Great Poland and Cracow ? I saw in a couple
LDS
pedigrees that was the case and that his daughter Anastasia married
Bogislaw
I, Duke of Pomerania. The Latter is also given in Heraldry of the Royal
Famies
of Europe ( HRFE) by Louda and MacLagan 1981 edition Table 132. Miezko
III`s
2nd wife was Eudoxia, daughter of Izyaslav II, Grand Duke of Kiev.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Origin of Zwinislawa is still unknown. A view yoy quoted, that Zwinislava
is a daughter of Mieszko III the Old, was maintained by Oswald
Balzer(Genealogia Piastów -Genealogy of Piasts, Kraków 1895, p. 210). The
view was based on the chronicle of Magister Vincent information. Vincent,
without giving any names, claimed that Mieszko's daughter in 1181 married
Pomeranian collector of taxes (i.e. Piasts markgrave). On this basis,
Dlugosz in his chronicle (written in XV century), described Sambor's II
father, Msciwoj I, as Mieszko's son-in-law. This view was easily
overturned, as in 1181, office of 'the 'tax collctor' could have been held
rather by Sambor I, who was older than Msciwoj I, and also it is known for
certain that Zwnislawa's daughter, Miroslava, married son of Anastasia,
daughter of Mieszko III. Critics of this view were: Franciszek Duda, Rozwój
terytorialny Pomorza (wiek XI-XIII) Krakow 1905, p., 147, Adolf Hofmeister,
Genealogische Untershungen des Pommerschen Herzofhauses, Stettin 1938, s.
43, Kazimierz Jasinski, Jeszcze o Zwinislawie, zonie Mszczuja I, Zapiski
Towarzystwa Naukowego w Toruniu, t. 16, 1950, z. 1-4, s. 87. There have
been many proposals to solve the puzzle. Aformentioned F. Duda (p. 149),
claimed that Zwinislawa was a daughter of Silesian prince Mieszko of Opole,
but it lacks primary sources back up and was overthrown by K. Jasinski (p.
87). Name Zwinislawa was populara in Rurik dynasty so Msciwoj's wife was
sought among progeny of Polish prince Boleslaw the Tall and his wife
Zwinislawa of Czernichow. In that case our Zwinislawa would have had to be
born around 1160 because her alleged mother dies between 1159-1163, but in
that case the trouble is that she would have given births to her younger
after more than 40 years, in first decade of XIII century.There were many
other hypothesis of Zwinislawa's the Piast origin but inthat case there
always is an obstacle of close famlily relationships with Swietopelk the
Great and his wife Euphrosine of Wielkopolska, daughter of Odo the son of
Mieszko III. Many proponents (A. Hofmeister, p. 43, 71, 89; K. Jasinski, p.
84 and next; J. Spors, Dzieje polityczne ziemi slawienskiej, slupskiej i
bialogardzkiej w XII-XIV wieku, Poznan 1973, s. 36 has gathered hypothesis
of Ludwig Quandt (Ostpommern, seine Fursten, furstlichen Landestheilungen
und Districte, Baltische Studien, AF, 16, 1, 1856, p. 65 ), who claimed
that Zwinislawa was a daughter od prince of Slawno (tiny duchy in the
Middle Pommerania between Kolobrzeg and Slupsk). Unfortunately Quandt's
arguments lost its validity with the developement of historical knowledge.
Name criterion isn't valid as now among dynasts of Slawno, who we can
accept, there is only one name which isn knwown among Zwinislawa progeny,
i. e. Racibor, above all names Warcislaw, Racibor, Msciwoj, Swietopelk are
common in a family Lis, noblemen from Malopolska, from which supposedly
stemmed princes of Gdansk. Her alleged herediatary rights to Land of Slawno
are dubious in the light of Swantopolk statement, supposedly from 1236,
that he conquered the land thanks to rebellion of knights of Slavno against
Danish rule. There wer other minor hypothesis, including oine claiming
that she was a daughter of a local Pomeranian noblemen (of Oksywie), but it
is only a allegation. As for now the case of Zwinislawa origin doesn't seem
to be solved.
Arkadiusz

[Gjest]

On Leo's great web site we find Thomas Beaufort (1377-1426), Duke of Exeter but no wife or children listed for him.

http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 2&tree=LEO

"Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe", Jiri Louda and Michael Maclagan; Clarkson N Potter pub. 1981 has a chart which shows that

Thomas, Duke of Exeter, *1337 +1426 son of John of Gaunt by Catherine Roelt; married 1413 Margaret d of Thomas Neville.

Will Johnson

[CE Wood]

before Feb 15 1403/4 [Ref: CP V p203,CP IX p487-491, Paget HRHCharles
p24]
vor 15.II 1404 [Ref: ES III #157]

Per Tim Powys-Lybbe,
http://www.freewebs.com/powys/pl_tree/ps05/ps05_493.htm, there were no
children of this marriage.

CE Wood


[email protected] wrote:

On Leo's great web site we find Thomas Beaufort (1377-1426), Duke of
Exeter but no wife or children listed for him.

http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 2&tree=LEO

"Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe", Jiri Louda and Michael
Maclagan; Clarkson N Potter pub. 1981 has a chart which shows that

Thomas, Duke of Exeter, *1337 +1426 son of John of Gaunt by Catherine
Roelt; married 1413 Margaret d of Thomas Neville.

Will Johnson

[Gjest]

I was blithley going along entering various people when I stumbled on this from Heraldry of the Royal Families

Richard Nevill, Earl of Salisbury mar 1428
Alice Montagu, d of Thomas Earl of Salisbury

Adding this couple I have that this Thomas Earl of Salisbury married Eleanor of Holland d of Thomas 2nd Earl of Kent and Alice Fitzalan.

Very good.
Then I went up to that last couple to find that they *already* have a daughter Eleanor who mar 1388 Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March and then 1399 Edward Lord Cherleton.

Leo's web site also has this couple with two daughter's named Eleanor (among others). Could this be right?? When their mother calls for "Eleanor" how do they know which one?

Will

[Leo van de Pas]

Dear Wil,

The subject of parents giving two children the same first name has been
discussed before. Apparently it was done to make sure that at least one
child with that name would survive--
in this case there is a fair difference in age between the two sisters.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


--- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: Thomas Holland d 1397 and Alice FitzAlan's children

I was blithley going along entering various people when I stumbled on this
from Heraldry of the Royal Families

Richard Nevill, Earl of Salisbury mar 1428
Alice Montagu, d of Thomas Earl of Salisbury

Adding this couple I have that this Thomas Earl of Salisbury married
Eleanor of Holland d of Thomas 2nd Earl of Kent and Alice Fitzalan.

Very good.
Then I went up to that last couple to find that they *already* have a
daughter Eleanor who mar 1388 Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March and then

1399 Edward Lord Cherleton.

Leo's web site also has this couple with two daughter's named Eleanor
(among others). Could this be right?? When their mother calls for

"Eleanor" how do they know which one?

Will

[Douglas Richardson royala]

Dear Wil and Carolyn:

Thank you for your posts.

Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 200-204 (sub Exeter) has a good account
of the life of Sir Thomas Beaufort, Duke of Exeter (died 1426), the
legitimated son of the well known John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster.
C.P. correctly states that Sir Thomas Beaufort married Margaret
Neville, daughter and heiress of Sir Thomas Neville. As best I can
tell, no mention is made of any issue for this couple. My personal
research, however, indicates there was one child, a son, Henry
Beaufort, who died without issue in the lifetime of his father
[Reference: Calendar of Fine Rolls, 1430-1437 (1936): 137-140 (son
Henry "died without issue")].

For interest's sake, I've copied below an account of the life of Sir
Thomas Beaufort taken from my book, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004), along
with added new material on his heraldic seals.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

THOMAS BEAUFORT, K.G., Earl of Dorset, Duke of Exeter, of Greenwich,
Kent, Westhorp Hall, Marsh Hall (in Westhorp), Wyverstone, Heveles (in
Wyverstone), Rickinghall Superior, etc., Suffolk, Norwich, Norfolk,
captain of Calais, Conches, Harfleur, and Rouen, Constable of Ludlow
and Carmarthen Castles, Admiral of the Navy, deputy Earl Marshal,
vice-constable of England, Lieutenant of Aquitaine, Lieutenant of Duchy
of Normandy, Chief Justice of Chester and North Wales, Privy
Councillor, Chancellor of England, Admiral of England, Ireland and
Aquitaine, joint tutor to King Henry VI, born about Jan. 1377,
legitimated 9 Feb. 1396/7. He married before 15 Feb. 1403/4 MARGARET
(or MARGERY) NEVILLE, born about 1385, daughter and heiress of Thomas
Neville, Knt., of Hornby, Yorkshire. She was born about 1383-5 (aged
28-30 in 1413). They had one son, Henry. He was joint ambassador to
France in 1414. In 1415 he accompanied King Henry V's invasion of
France and was appointed captain of Harfleur on its surrender. During
the winter of 1415-16, he ravaged the Caux close up to Rouen. In
1416 he was defeated by Armagnac at Belmont, and was closely besieged
in Harfleur until he was relieved in August by John, Duke of Bedford.
He was created Count of Harcourt (in Normandy) 1 July 1418. On King
Henry V's approach to Rouen in July 1418, he sent Beaufort to summon
the town to surrender. In 1419 he was made captain of Rouen on its
surrender. He was then dispatched to reduce the coastal towns. In
1420 he was sent to the French court to negotiate the treaty of Troyes.
In Autumn 1420 he took part in the siege of Melun. He was taken
prisoner at the Battle of Beaugé 22 March 1421. On regaining his
freedom, he was sent to relieve Cosne in Summer 1422. On the death of
King Henry V in August 1422, he returned to England, he being one of
the king's executors. He was subsequently placed on the Council
under Gloucester's protectorate. His wife, Margaret, probably died
before 29 April 1424. SIR THOMAS BEAUFORT, Duke of Exeter, Count of
Harcourt, died testate at Greenwich, Kent 31 Dec. 1426, and was buried
at Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk. No living descendants.

References:

Weever, Ancient Funerall Monuments (1631): 726. Sandford, Gen. Hist.
of the Kings of England (1677): 256. Rymer, Fœdera 7 (1728):
849-850; 9 (1729): 8, 28-29, 42, 47 (Thomas styled "uncle" by
King Henry V of England); Rymer Fœdera 10 (1727): 29, 85-87 (Thomas
styled "uncle" by King Henry V of England). Nichols Coll. of All
the Wills (1780): 250-265. Brydges, Collins' Peerage of England 1
(1812): 222-243. Baker, Hist. & Antiq. of Northampton 1
(1822-1830): 54-56. Burke, Dict. of the Peerages... Extinct,
Dormant, and in Abeyance (1831): 38-39. Beltz, Memorials of the Most
Noble Order of the Garter (1841): clvi. Foss, Judges of England 4
(1851): 151-153 (biog. of Sir Thomas Beaufort). Ebchester & Burnby,
Obit. Roll (Surtees Soc. 31) (1856): 109. Annual Report of the Deputy
Keeper 33 (1872): 10. Wright, Feudal Manuals of English Hist. (1872).
Birch, Cat. of Seals in the British Museum 2 (1892): 483-484 (seal of
Thomas Beaufort, Earl of Dorset dated 1411-1416 - A shield of arms,
couché: quarterly 1, 4, FRANCE (modern); 2, 3, ENGLAND, within a
bordure gobony [azure and ermine]. Crest on a helmet, lambrequin or
mantling, and chapeau, a lion statant guardant. Supporters, two swans.
Background diapered with sprigs of foliage. Within a carved gothic
quatrefoil panel, ornamented with small quatrefoils or ball-flowers
along the inner edge). Papal Regs.: Letters 5 (1904): 627. C.P.R.
1401-1405 (1905): 98, 140, 318 (instances of Thomas styled
"king's brother"). D.N.B. 2 (1908): 49-50 (biog. of Sir Thomas
Beaufort). C.P. 4 (1916): 417 (sub Dorset); 5 (1926): 177 footnote f
(sub Eu), 200-204 (sub Exeter); 9 (1936): 491 (sub Neville). C.F.R.
1430-1437 (1936): 137-140 (son Henry "died without issue").
Chichele, Reg. of Henry Chichele 2 (Canterbury & York Soc. 42) (1937):
640 (biog. of Thomas Beaufort). Coat of Arms 7 (1962): 122-127 (arms
of Thomas Beaufort: Quarterly France (modern) and England, a bordure
gobony azure and ermine). Vale, English Gascony 1399-1453 (1970).
Ellis, Cat. of Seals in the P.R.O. 1 (1978): 5-6 (seal of Thomas
Beaufort, Duke of Exeter dated 1425 - In a cusped and traceried
circle, with a background of scrolls of foliage, a shield of arms,
couché: quarterly, FRANCE (modern) and ENGLAND, with a bordure gobony
of (plain) and ermine; helm above in profile with mantling and crest: a
lion gardant; two swans as supporters).

CE Wood wrote:

before Feb 15 1403/4 [Ref: CP V p203,CP IX p487-491, Paget HRHCharles
p24]
vor 15.II 1404 [Ref: ES III #157]

Per Tim Powys-Lybbe,
http://www.freewebs.com/powys/pl_tree/ps05/ps05_493.htm, there were
no
children of this marriage.

CE Wood


[email protected] wrote:
On Leo's great web site we find Thomas Beaufort (1377-1426), Duke
of
Exeter but no wife or children listed for him.


http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 2&tree=LEO

"Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe", Jiri Louda and Michael
Maclagan; Clarkson N Potter pub. 1981 has a chart which shows that

Thomas, Duke of Exeter, *1337 +1426 son of John of Gaunt by
Catherine
Roelt; married 1413 Margaret d of Thomas Neville.

Will Johnson

[Gjest]

In a message dated 2/23/2005 7:22:04 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

FYI -- On your website you list some Abbert (Ireland) Blakeneys. They are
direct descendants of the Norfolk Blakeneys I'm researching in relation to
the Townshends...

Rhoda maybe you could give the line with citations ?
Thanks
Will

[Gjest]

| > | done by several people, including Lord Randolph Churchill, to
| > | "protect the monarchy". You probably read about the surgical
| > | method by which the murders were done,

The problem with any "theory" if it can be raised that high, in explaining the Ripper murders as a cover-up is:
Why kill the hookers in that particular way? There are many ways to kill people and the particular way it was done would not be the way a professional killer would do it.
Will

[Gjest]

I am, as you know, a regular contributor to http://www.wikipedia.org. I am one of the editors for the articles on Baha U'llah and the various offshoot articles.

I have just noticed that on the Shoghi Effendi article someone has linked in a much larger and more readable genealogical chart (no sources of course). I find it interesting that they hide it away on this latter-day article instead of linking it to the main article on Baha U'llah.

At any rate, this chart purports to show the relationship between Baha U'llah, Mohammad, Jesus, Moses, Zoroaster, etc. But if you follow the links to the larger chart and download the blown-up version you will notice a few odd things.

One is that the line back beyond the fifth or six generation behind Baha U'llah is shown broken, which raises the question of whether this line is based on real sources or wishful thinking. If fact quite a few of the descents are shown with broken lines, when it is those breaks that are the most interesting to recover.

As far as I have found out, there is no source contemporary with him (d c 1891) that states that Baha U'llah is descendent from Mohammed. There *is* a source that says the Bab is, however that same source is silent on Baha and his brother Mirza Yahya when we would expect it to be clear if it was indeed the case.

You will note that this chart also connects Esau and Ishmael with spurious lineages unknown in any documentation, so I think the whole thing is highly suspect.

Of course I would eagerly review any sources that provide documentation on the descent from Mohammed.

Will Johnson

[D. Spencer Hines]

As I was saying:

Leo, what on earth have you been smoking or injecting?

You are RETAILING malicious, idle, jejune, childish FANTASIES -- through
rampant INSINUATION and HYPERBOLE.

Further, the ONUS is on YOU to PROVE your FANTASIES have some basis in
FACT -- not for ME to tell you who JACK THE RIPPER was.

You DO understand that BASIC PRINCIPLE of Genealogical and Historical
RESEARCH?

If you do NOT, you are in deep KIMCHEE indeed, Old Rugger.

PROVIDE us with the EVIDENCE or recant and withdraw the silly-buggers
CLAIMS -- as any honest man or woman would do.

Leo van de Pas is retailing this gibberish and obviously thinks it has
some CREDIBILITY.

But he is too LAZY and COWARDLY to provide any EVIDENCE for his idle
ASSERTIONS.

BAD SHOW.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

""Leo van de Pas"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:001401c4b164$b22dabc0$c3b4fea9@email...

| Dear Spencer,
|
| So good to see you reveal another area of your expertise. If you are
| able to detect the gibberish, surely you can enlighten us with the
| fact who was Jack the Ripper? If you are telling us what is wrong
| you are obliged to tell us what, according to you, is right. Why
| couldn't Lord Randolph Churchill (and others) be involved in a
| cover up to protect the monarchy? Have you read
| this book?
|
| ----- Original Message -----
|
| From: "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
| To: <[email protected]>
| Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 1:14 AM
| Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper & Queen Victoria's Grandson
|
| > Leo, I'm quite surprised to see you retailing this gibberish.
| >
| > Now you bring Winston Churchill's father into it.
| >
| > DSH
| >
| > ""Leo van de Pas"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| > news:000401c4b15c$ff45f960$c3b4fea9@email...
| >
| > | Dear John,
| > |
| > | Several years ago someone sent me a book called "The Ripper and
| > | the Royals". It maintains it was NOT Albert Victor but it was
| > | done by several people, including Lord Randolph Churchill, to
| > | "protect the monarchy". You probably read about the surgical
| > | method by which the murders were done, this dopey Duke had no
| > | medical knowledge to do it himself. He may have caused it but did
| > | not do it, nor asked [sic] for it to be done.
| > | Leo

[Gjest]

In a message dated 2/23/2005 8:25:23 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

But he is too LAZY and COWARDLY to provide any EVIDENCE for his idle
ASSERTIONS.




You go too far Hines. Leo has done more cheerfully for medieval genealogy
than most and one thing he has proven that his is NOT is Lazy. His valor is
equal to his honor in my eyes.

He has helped more tyros in the study of medieval genealogy than most and
has never asked for anything in return.

He simply mentioned what he had read in someone else's publication. It is
not up to him to either prove or disprove the data. If you think it is false
it is definitely up to you, in all your slothful glory (what have you done
for anyone? You are as bad as I in your failure to contribute anything tp the
site) to prove it false.

Get off his back.

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

[D. Spencer Hines]

"You probably read about the surgical method by which the murders were
done, this dopey Duke* had no medical knowledge to do it himself. He
may have caused it but did not do it, nor asked [sic] for it to be
done."...

...."Why couldn't Lord Randolph Churchill (and others) be involved in a
cover up to protect the monarchy?"

Leo van de Pas
-----------------

* Albert Victor Christian, [1864-1892] Duke of Avondale, Earl of
Athlone, son of "Bertie", the Prince of Wales, and grandson of Queen
Victoria.

Leo van de Pas has not provided a scintilla of evidence to prove ANY of
that rampant gibberish supra, maligning Lord Randolph Churchill and
others, who cannot defend themselves.

Yes, Leo has indeed done some marvelous things in Genealogy and I
applaud him for them -- but he has blotted his copybook on this one --
and it deserves to be pointed out.

Leo SAYS he doesn't read either my posts or my emails, so there is no
way I could have done this "privately" -- for those of you who wonder
about that.

Besides, PUBLIC errors should be corrected PUBLICLY.

Why is it only coming up now?

Because I've been quite busy with other priorities and only now had the
time to follow up on Leo's gaffe -- and intemperate, childish, hissy-fit
response to me, after which he retreated to hide behind his killfile --
back in October 2004.

Leo van de Pas -- hoist with his own petar.

PRATFALL!!!

KAWHOMP!!!

KERSPLAT!!!
-------------------

Of Note:

Albert Victor Christian:

Acceded: 24 May 1890. Duke of Avondale, Earl of Athlone, Betrothed to
Mary of Teck, who later married George V. He proposed to her at Luton
Hoo on 3 Dec 1891 and she accepted; they were engaged from that date.
The wedding was to have been on 27 Feb 1892. "Prince Eddy" --- as he
was known within the family --- became ill in early January and died on
14 Jan 1892 of pneumonia. Marriage to Annie Crook is only reputed, not
confirmed.

One theory, by Knight, has it that the Duke of Clarence was actually
Jack the Ripper. Jack, the pseudonymous perpetrator, committed the
notorious murders of at least seven women, all prostitutes, in, or
near, Whitechapel -- in London's East End -- from 7 August to 10
November 1888.

"Regarding HRH The Duke of Clarence and the Jack the Ripper controversy:

1. There are five accepted canonical victims of the Ripper:

A. Mary Ann Nichols, killed 31 August, 1888.
B. Annie Chapman, killed 9 September, 1888.
C. Elizabeth Stride, killed 30 September, 1888.
D. Catherine Eddowes, also killed 30 September, 1888.
E. Mary Anne Kelly, killed 9 November, 1888.

During these times, the Duke of Clarence was at the following locations:

29 August-7 September 1888 he stayed with Viscount Downe at Danby Lodge,
Grosmont, Yorkshire.

7-10 September, 1888 he was at the Cavalry Barracks in York with his
regiment.

27-30 September, 1888 he was at Abergeldie, Scotland staying with the
Royal Family at Balmoral.

2-12 November, 1888 he was with his parents the Prince and Princess of
Wales at Sandringham.

Nevertheless, he has featured in several recent Ripper books. The story
of his marriage and fathering a bastard child with Annie Crook has been
proven as a falsehood; he also is alleged to feature in several other
Ripper explanations, whether using Dr. William Gull as the actual
killer, a combination of the Duke's friends, his former tutor (and
alleged lover) James Kenneth Stephen, or even a conspiracy to hide the
involvement of his father the Prince of Wales with Mary Kelly, the last
victim. Take your pick! They're all nonsense. ******

Indeed! ---- DSH

My sources for Ripper information are varied. The best basic reference
available in the United States is "Jack the Ripper A-Z" from which the
dates of the Duke of Clarence's whereabouts in the autumn of 1888 are
drawn, quoting from published court circulars. Mention is also made of
these locations and the Duke's whereabouts on these dates in Michael
Harrison's "Clarence," in "The Ripper Legacy" by Martin Howells and
Keith Skinner, in "The Complete Jack the Ripper" by Donald Rumbelow, and
in "Prince Eddy and the Homosexual Underworld" by Theo Aronsen.

The body of literature on the Ripper is vast; in the last five years, at
least four books have posited that the Royal Family were somehow
involved. The most amusing is "The Ripper and the Royals," in which it
is claimed not only that the Duke of Clarence fathered a bastard child
through his illegal marriage to a Catholic girl, but that his death was
faked, that he died imprisoned at Glamis Castle, of all places, in the
1930s, that he was sent there by arrangement with the Bowes-Lyon family
who were then promised that one of their daughters would be allowed to
marry into the Royal Family, and even that George V was the product of
an illicit affair between Alexandra and Alexander Alexandrovich, the
future Emperor Alexander III of Russia."

Greg King 8 Nov 1997

From: ""John Parsons"" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: Jack the Ripper (was: The British/English Constitution)

| It was her grandson Albert Victor, duke of Clarence and Avondale
| (1864-1892) who, had he lived, would have been King and Emperor
| after his father, Edward VII.
|
| Allegations that the duke was Jack the Ripper surfaced in the 1970s
| after the papers of a London psychiatrist in the 1890s came to
| light. These papers described the real "Jack," among the doctor's
| patients, as the son of a noble English family, a man whose parents
| were renowned for their social gifts and who had done much to
| enhance British prestige around the world. While the account in
| no way pointed directly to the royal family, the British media of
| the day drew the conclusion that the duke of Clarence was
| meant.
|
| Within a short time, Buckingham Palace unearthed an ancient Court
| Circular showing that the duke was at Balmoral at the time of one
| of the Whitechapel murders.
|
| For many, Albert Victor's participation in the Whitechapel murders was
| later made more unlikely when declassified police records showed that
| he was among those present when a homosexual brothel in London
| was raided. Allegedly he had gone there expecting the Victorian
| equivalent of an evening of strip teases by pretty girls, and left
| quite disappointed.
|
| No certain conclusions about his private life can be based on this one
| incident, and it is abundantly clear from diaries and letters of the
| time that the duke carried on every bit as active a heterosexual
| love life as did his father. In fact royal secretaries were petrified
| at the mere thought that Queen Victoria might find out what her
| grandson was up to, and elaborate strategies were developed to
| conceal the truth from her.
| Albert Victor lurched from one unsatisfactory love affair to another,
| at one point falling desperately in love with a daughter of the Count
| of Paris, precipitating a minor crisis as public opinion would have
| opposed his marriage to a Roman Catholic, and the republican French
| government would not have wished the stature of the exiled Orleans
| family to be enhanced by such a marriage.
|
| The attractive but mentally inert Albert Victor was engaged in 1891 to
| his cousin Princess "May" of Teck, but the next January caught
| influenza while hunting at Sandringham and died of pneumonia.
| (Princess May in 1893 married his younger brother George, duke of
| York, who became George V in 1910.)
| Rumor continues to insist that Albert Victor died of something of a
| more social nature than pneumonia, but no proof of this has yet
| been found.
|
| John P.

'Nuff Said.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Leo van de Pas]

Dear Gordon,

Spencer Hines is not on my back, he is in my killfile and so I am doing well
without him.
Is it five years ago or more that Spencer Hines made some superb ancestor
lists? Nothing after that, sitting on his laurels spewing bile at people,
really a contribution to be proud of.
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victoria's
Grandson

In a message dated 2/23/2005 8:25:23 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

But he is too LAZY and COWARDLY to provide any EVIDENCE for his idle
ASSERTIONS.




You go too far Hines. Leo has done more cheerfully for medieval
genealogy
than most and one thing he has proven that his is NOT is Lazy. His valor
is
equal to his honor in my eyes.

He has helped more tyros in the study of medieval genealogy than most and
has never asked for anything in return.

He simply mentioned what he had read in someone else's publication. It
is
not up to him to either prove or disprove the data. If you think it is
false
it is definitely up to you, in all your slothful glory (what have you
done
for anyone? You are as bad as I in your failure to contribute anything
tp the
site) to prove it false.

Get off his back.

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

[nemo]

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

<snip>

"Regarding HRH The Duke of Clarence and the Jack the Ripper
controversy:

1. There are five accepted canonical victims of the Ripper:

A. Mary Ann Nichols, killed 31 August, 1888.
B. Annie Chapman, killed 9 September, 1888.
C. Elizabeth Stride, killed 30 September, 1888.
D. Catherine Eddowes, also killed 30 September, 1888.
E. Mary Anne Kelly, killed 9 November, 1888.

During these times, the Duke of Clarence was at the following
locations:

29 August-7 September 1888 he stayed with Viscount Downe at Danby
Lodge,
Grosmont, Yorkshire.

7-10 September, 1888 he was at the Cavalry Barracks in York with his
regiment.

27-30 September, 1888 he was at Abergeldie, Scotland staying with the
Royal Family at Balmoral.

2-12 November, 1888 he was with his parents the Prince and Princess
of
Wales at Sandringham.

Little details like this do not trouble Ripper conspiracy theorists.
The writer of detective fiction Patricia Cornwell revived the equally
dotty notion that the Whitehchapel murders were
perpertrated by artist Walter Sickert, even though it is proven beyond
doubt, by documentary evidence and eyewitnesses, that Sickert was in
France during the entire period the murders took place. Her slandering
of a deceased and distinguished artist won her millions of readers of
her book on the subject and, disgracefully, a BBC documentary
purporting to investigate the theory but in reality giving her book
massive publicity. What's to investigate when the suspect is proven not
to have been anywhere near the scene of the crimes?

[angel]

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Little details like this do not trouble Ripper conspiracy theorists.
The writer of detective fiction Patricia Cornwell revived the equally
dotty notion that the Whitehchapel murders were
perpertrated by artist Walter Sickert, even though it is proven
beyond
doubt, by documentary evidence and eyewitnesses, that Sickert was in
France during the entire period the murders took place. Her
slandering
of a deceased and distinguished artist won her millions of readers of
her book on the subject and, disgracefully, a BBC documentary
purporting to investigate the theory but in reality giving her book
massive publicity. What's to investigate when the suspect is proven
not
to have been anywhere near the scene of the crimes?

Who were the eyewitnesses and where can I see the documentary evidence?

[nemo]

angel wrote:

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Little details like this do not trouble Ripper conspiracy
theorists.
The writer of detective fiction Patricia Cornwell revived the
equally
dotty notion that the Whitehchapel murders were
perpertrated by artist Walter Sickert, even though it is proven
beyond
doubt, by documentary evidence and eyewitnesses, that Sickert was
in
France during the entire period the murders took place. Her
slandering
of a deceased and distinguished artist won her millions of readers
of
her book on the subject and, disgracefully, a BBC documentary
purporting to investigate the theory but in reality giving her book
massive publicity. What's to investigate when the suspect is proven
not
to have been anywhere near the scene of the crimes?


Who were the eyewitnesses and where can I see the documentary
evidence?

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/d ... ckert.html

I wrote the words you quote, not D. Spencer Hines, who I was replying
to.
See "Concept 6" and "Fact 6" of the "primer" on Cornwell's book and the
actual facts on the link provided. This is from a website
devoted to the evidence and theories surrounding the "Jack the Ripper"
murders.

[Todd A. Farmerie]

I recently got an email from someone who wanted to discuss a
medieval genealogy question off-list, so as not to fill the
mailboxes of the other list participants who might not be
interested. I state this for comparison with this thread, which
is neither genealogical nor medieval, yet is filling the
mailboxes of all subscribers. Perhaps those participating should
show the same consideration.

In recent weeks there have been a string of off-topic,
crossposted discussions, most of which have gone on long after
everyone in soc.genealogy.medieval ceased to participate (except
the person - almost always the same person - who initiated the
crosspost). If you value this group, it is important that you
not participate in these threads. At a minimum, eliminate the
crossposts. Crossposting a thread like this is like throwing
open your front door and putting up a sign saying "Party,
Everyone Welcome". It may seem like a good idea at the time,
inviting in a mix of interesting people, but you can be certain
of finding a mess in the morning, and there is no telling who
might be in your house when you wake up, with no good way of
making them leave.

Before responding ask yourself:

"Is this medieval?"
"Is this genealogical?"
"Is this only going to the group I participate in?"

If the answer to any of these is "no", then you should think
twice before posting.

taf

[D. Spencer Hines]

Yes, excellent points all.

Ripper Conspiracy Theorists [RCT] are a very sorry lot and deserve
focused condemnation and excoriation.

All going further to prove that Leo van de Pas's very unwise comments
were pure unadulterated gibberish.

If he had any honesty and integrity in this matter he would apologize
and withdraw them.

But I seem to have gotten his Dutch Dander and Stubbornness up and he is
not about to admit error.

So he hides behind his "killfile" -- which is actually an "I can't
compete or deal with this" file.

Sadly, that's clearly a Character Defect -- as van de Pas is quite
willing to let his unwarranted, malicious slurs against Lord Randolph
Churchill, the Duke of Clarence and "others" stand.

Some people don't give a fig about maligning the dead, who can't fight
back -- Leo is obviously one of them.

I don't do it and I will call out others who do so carelessly and
maliciously, as van de Pas has done.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

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

| Little details like this do not trouble Ripper conspiracy theorists.
| The writer of detective fiction Patricia Cornwell revived the equally
| dotty notion that the Whitechapel murders were
| perpetrated by artist Walter Sickert, even though it is proven beyond
| doubt, by documentary evidence and eyewitnesses, that Sickert was in
| France during the entire period the murders took place. Her slandering
| of a deceased and distinguished artist won her millions of readers of
| her book on the subject and, disgracefully, a BBC documentary
| purporting to investigate the theory but in reality giving her book
| massive publicity. What's to investigate when the suspect is proven
| not to have been anywhere near the scene of the crimes?

[Katheryn_Swynford]

Thank you, Douglas, for this info.

I had oft-seen it mentioned that Thomas had a son who 'died young' or
some such thing but hadn't gotten around to determining the source for
such an assertion.

Are you aware of the controversy regarding his place of interment?
While his will directed that he be buried alongside his wife at Bury
St. Edmunds, Mount Grace Priory continues to state that he was buried
there, at the Carthusian Monastery he either helped found or to which
he was a profound benefactor (they had granted him the rare privilege
of burial there).

His supposed St. Bury Edmunds tomb was despoiled in the 18th c. (?)
where it was found to be in despoiled condition. But I recall reading
somewhere that the tomb was located on the wrong side of some alter or
some such thing, hence the supposition that it wasn't really his at
all.

Any ideas?

Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net

[Douglas Richardson royala]

Dear Judy ~

Thank you for your good post. I'm glad you found the Beaufort
information I posted helpful.

In regards to your question about Thomas Beaufort's place of burial, at
the time of the dissolution of the monasteries, much needless damage
was done to ancient tombs and effigies. The normal ravages of time
have likewise ruined many monuments. As such, we may never know where
some of these people lay buried, including Thomas Beaufort.

Today I was reading the published notes of an antiquary regarding a
window formerly in the church of Elsing, Norfolk which commemorated
Hugh de Hastings (died 1347) and his wife, Margery Foliot. The window
displayed the Hastings arms quartered with Valence, and Hastings
impaling Foliot. Nice heraldic evidence. The author said that only
"pieces" of the window remained, and that was back in 1900.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Katheryn_Swynford wrote:

Thank you, Douglas, for this info.

I had oft-seen it mentioned that Thomas had a son who 'died young' or
some such thing but hadn't gotten around to determining the source
for
such an assertion.

Are you aware of the controversy regarding his place of interment?
While his will directed that he be buried alongside his wife at Bury
St. Edmunds, Mount Grace Priory continues to state that he was buried
there, at the Carthusian Monastery he either helped found or to which
he was a profound benefactor (they had granted him the rare privilege
of burial there).

His supposed St. Bury Edmunds tomb was despoiled in the 18th c. (?)
where it was found to be in despoiled condition. But I recall
reading
somewhere that the tomb was located on the wrong side of some alter
or
some such thing, hence the supposition that it wasn't really his at
all.

Any ideas?

Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net

[martin reboul]

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

angel wrote:
D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Little details like this do not trouble Ripper conspiracy
theorists.
The writer of detective fiction Patricia Cornwell revived the
equally
dotty notion that the Whitehchapel murders were
perpertrated by artist Walter Sickert, even though it is proven
beyond
doubt, by documentary evidence and eyewitnesses, that Sickert was
in
France during the entire period the murders took place. Her
slandering
of a deceased and distinguished artist won her millions of readers
of
her book on the subject and, disgracefully, a BBC documentary
purporting to investigate the theory but in reality giving her book
massive publicity. What's to investigate when the suspect is proven
not
to have been anywhere near the scene of the crimes?


Who were the eyewitnesses and where can I see the documentary
evidence?

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/d ... ckert.html

I wrote the words you quote, not D. Spencer Hines, who I was replying
to.
See "Concept 6" and "Fact 6" of the "primer" on Cornwell's book and the
actual facts on the link provided. This is from a website
devoted to the evidence and theories surrounding the "Jack the Ripper"
murders.

This is a fascinating subject, which an incredible number of hours and books
have been dedicated to in the last hundred years. Like the Kennedy assaination,
it has unfortunately attracted the attention of kooks and drama queens, who get
obsessively lost in a shoal of red herrings, and overlook the basic facts.

Like the Kennedy assasination, there was some element of a cover up, which is
how these things get started (Roswell is another classic example). The more you
cover up, the more eager the cat-like public are to dig up the dirt box and
cause mayhem, looking for... yes, well, never mind!

All the 'romantic' or 'interesting' suspects have been long discounted -
Clarence, Creme etc., nice though it would be, there is no evidence at all. It
was a far more seedy crime, the work of someone disturbed and sick - the
possibilities of what happened to them, and why the killings stopped, boils down
to this -

1) They died

2) They killed themself

3) They were done away with quietly (by murder or incarceration)

4) They moved away

5) They were satisfied after Mary Kelly for some reason

The 'Ripper Letters' have been shown to be the work of several people (some
suspected to be journalists), and the only one likely to be genuine (allegedly
delivered accompanied by half a kidney from a victim), was never examined
properly, or a match made with the deceased... as Jack said in his letter - "the
other half I fried and ate - it was nice".

3) has been favoured by many for years, and has much going for it - for
political reasons, i.e., fear of anti Jewish riots in the East End (a powder keg
at the time), Jack was dealt with 'off the record' rather than being brought to
trial. This would have been sensible but highly illegal, therefore was kept
quiet for good. The theories about masonic involvement and the strange writing
on the wall (which a dutiful policeman noted, but a senior policeman and
freemason had scrubbed off at once) were interesting, but unlikely to have been
the work of Jack - he was terrified of a riot, as -whether masonic or not - to
the East end public, there would have clearly been some inference that the Jews
had something to do with it. I am inclined to believe Warren on this matter.
This theory is the one I consider most likely. Frustrating for the police, as it
looked bad for them, but they did their duty, stopped the murders and maintained
order. Who was responsible and what happened to them, well... look it up!

Even so, there is one nagging doubt that I have, which is rather unpleasant and
disturbing - I haven't seen mentioned by anyone else. It revolves around 5),
Mary Kelly.
Anyone who has seen the ghastly photograph of her corpse, will realise what the
word 'ripper' really means - the poor girl was butchered, literally. Despite
that, she was found on examination to be several months pregnant, which may
possibly be the key to Jack's motivation - is it merely a coincidence that the
first murder occured shortly after she became pregnant, and the other victims
(when the murderer had not been disturbed) showed signs of the murderer being
horribly 'interested' in their womb and sexual organs? Some peculiar, sick
'curiousity' perhaps, or maybe vengeance on women...

It crossed my mind that the father of her child (Mary did dabble in
prostitution) may actually have been Jack the Ripper - a man unhinged for some
reason by what he had done, with a dangerously peculiar mental condition. Not
some careless Prince, just an ordinary sick psychopath, with some dangerous
sexual hangups? Maybe she was blackmailing him... maybe she just told him (more
likely IMO)... so much for 'Victorian Values'! Whatever, with her, he was done.

Just a thought... not a nice one, but then those are often the most interesting
ones of all?
Cheers
Martin

[Gjest]

In a message dated 2/25/2005 1:34:38 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

I have no suggestion as to the identity of JTR. I only have a
recommendation to those with an interest: Take the walking tour offered of
the Whitechapel district in London.



Or take a walking tour on some more applicable site than this one.

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

[Gjest]

Dolly wrote: "The oldest of these huge LDS Church databases, the International Genealogical Index (IGI), is an index to church ordinances. "

Dolly the IGI includes church ordinances, but that is not all it includes. The IGI also includes Patron submitted sheets, extracts from county marriage ledgers, and extract from county history books among other things.
Will

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
wrote:

Dolly wrote: "The oldest of these huge LDS Church databases, the
International Genealogical Index (IGI), is an index to church ordinances. "

Dolly the IGI includes church ordinances, but that is not all it includes.
The IGI also includes Patron submitted sheets, extracts from county marriage
ledgers, and extract from county history books among other things.

While we're on this, to whom does one reiterate the two greatest
desiderata with the current IGI:

1. search filtering by type of source (specifically, the ability to
return only extracted records rather than LDS patron-submitted data in
response to searches)

2. more robust surname-only search allowances (to search all events for
a given surname in a specific time and place). At present, one can
only surname-search for a specific extraction batch, or do the uselessly
huge searches involving entire countries and no specific date ranges.

This is essentially OT here, but I mention it because these two features
would revolutionize the value of the IGI for one essential preliminary
step to 'medieval genealogy' as it's practised by Americans--the process
of searching for the English origins of 17th-century emigrants.

Nat Taylor

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

[Dolly Ziegler]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 [email protected] wrote:

Dolly wrote: "The oldest of these huge LDS Church databases, the
International Genealogical Index (IGI), is an index to church
ordinances. "

Dolly the IGI includes church ordinances, but that is not all it
includes. The IGI also includes Patron submitted sheets, extracts from
county marriage ledgers, and extract from county history books among
other things. Will

Will, I refer you to the Resource Guide, "Finding an IGI Source."

As I said, the IGI is an index to church ordinances. Nothing gets into the
IGI unless a church ordinance has been performed.

The sources you mention, "Patron submitted sheets, extracts from county
marriage ledgers, and extract from county history books" are SOURCES for
some of the names for which church ordinances have been performed. The
Resource Guide goes into considerable detail about sources.

Please respond to me off-list if you wish to discuss this further.
Cheers, Dolly

[Renia]

[email protected] wrote:

Dolly wrote: "The oldest of these huge LDS Church databases, the International Genealogical Index (IGI), is an index to church ordinances. "

Dolly the IGI includes church ordinances, but that is not all it includes. The IGI also includes Patron submitted sheets, extracts from county marriage ledgers, and extract from county history books among other things.
Will

It also includes some Parish Registers, but much of it is from Bishop's
Transcripts (which often vary from the Parish Registers).

Renia

[Renia]

Dolly Ziegler wrote:

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 [email protected] wrote:

Dolly wrote: "The oldest of these huge LDS Church databases, the
International Genealogical Index (IGI), is an index to church
ordinances. "

Dolly the IGI includes church ordinances, but that is not all it
includes. The IGI also includes Patron submitted sheets, extracts
from county marriage ledgers, and extract from county history books
among other things. Will


Will, I refer you to the Resource Guide, "Finding an IGI Source."

As I said, the IGI is an index to church ordinances. Nothing gets into
the IGI unless a church ordinance has been performed.

Is that right? So whole parishes have had their people ordinanced, or
whatever it is? Somehow, I don't think so. I think the Mormon-centric
material might have been predominant 20 years ago, but since then, they
seem to have expanded on their source material, including unpublished
Bishop's Transcripts and published Parish Registers.

Renia

[angel]

Okay, will do that. Thank you.

[Gjest]

Dear Jean,
Thank You. I`m betting there is no known link between
Arnaud, Comte de Comminges ( d circa 1073) and that Robert de Comminges (died
1059/70) who followed William II the Bastard, Duke of Normandy into England shortly
after 1066 and was given the Earldom of Northumbria by William after He became
King. Robert attempted to possess the Earldom granted but according to some
sources was so despised by the local Saxons, that He was attacked and injured.
He was taken into a monastary, which his assailants then set ablaze. He, and
God knows how many others died in the fire.
Sincerely,
James William Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[JBunot]

Thank you for your question. Interesting. A Comminges in Anglo-Norman
Northumbria ? Sorry, I have no idea really if there is a link. Robert is
definetely not a name in the onomastic tradition of the Comminges or
allied families in that period frame. Never the less I will make a bit of
research on that and will be back. Yours truly. Jean Bunot

[Todd A. Farmerie]

JBunot wrote:

Thank you for your question. Interesting. A Comminges in Anglo-Norman
Northumbria ? Sorry, I have no idea really if there is a link. Robert is
definetely not a name in the onomastic tradition of the Comminges or
allied families in that period frame. Never the less I will make a bit of
research on that and will be back. Yours truly. Jean Bunot

I suspect that the similarity in toponym is coincidental - that Robert
was not actually from Comminges, but some Norman village with a
superficially similar name.

taf

[Leo van de Pas]

I have this Robert Comminges in my data base but as Robert Comyn.
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: Ahnentafel Petronille de Comminges- Bigorre

JBunot wrote:
Thank you for your question. Interesting. A Comminges in Anglo-Norman
Northumbria ? Sorry, I have no idea really if there is a link. Robert is
definetely not a name in the onomastic tradition of the Comminges or
allied families in that period frame. Never the less I will make a bit
of
research on that and will be back. Yours truly. Jean Bunot

I suspect that the similarity in toponym is coincidental - that Robert
was not actually from Comminges, but some Norman village with a
superficially similar name.

taf

[Gjest]

Dear Jean, Leo, Todd et als,
The Idea that Robert was a member of
the de Comminges family and in William`s service is not really so strange
provided I have my facts straight. I think the Comte de Comminges was subordinant
to the Comte de Flandres. If so, Robert a possible younger son or nephew
might well have become a knight in the service of Maud de Flandres and after
their marriage of William as well. Then again, Todd may be correct about the sound
alike place / surname in Normandy. Any ideas ?
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA

[Mark Harry]

Have to agree with Renia here.
Dolly, is it possible to find out the sources used for patron
submissions? a friend of mine is experiencing frustration in her Devon
research at present as an eighteenth century link between two families
is seemingly only attested to by a patron submission in the IGI. If
the link is correct, she has a provable medieval descent. How can she
find out what information the submission was based on?
Mark

[Todd A. Farmerie]

[email protected] wrote:

Dear Jean, Leo, Todd et als,
The Idea that Robert was a member of
the de Comminges family and in William`s service is not really so strange
provided I have my facts straight. I think the Comte de Comminges was subordinant
to the Comte de Flandres.

There does appear to be confusion - the Comminges in Jean Bunot's table
is in the French Pyrenees, on the Spanish border near Andorra. While I
don't know off the top of my head, their feudal lord would probably have
been one of the local big wigs - the Count of Toulouse or the King of
Aragon.

taf

[Todd A. Farmerie]

[email protected] wrote:

I think the Comte de Comminges was subordinant
to the Comte de Flandres.

I see now there is a town of Comines near Lille, claimed as the place of
origin of the Comyn and Cummings "clans", presumably the place you had
in mind. It was the seat of a seigneurie, and not a county. This is
the kind of coincidence I had in mind.

taf

[Gjest]

In a message dated 2/26/2005 5:48:46 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

I wonder whether or not the second hand book shops will be impacted or not,
but I
understand the threat to those few companies that now provide rare books on
CDRom. But one has to look at both sides, the negative impact to these
companies, and the positive impact of having the ability to search doing a google
search and having the reference for an entry in a rare book

Since anybody and their crazy aunt Millie can now *sell* your own second-hand
books online at http://www.amazon.com, thus becoming your own "bookstore", I think
second-hand bookstores are already being impacted by a lot of changes.
Having said that, there will always be that cadre of individuals who wish
to have their own copy of any particular book and so second-hand bookstores
will still exist. Also browsing a work online is not the same as taking said
book with you as you travel by bus from Akron to Toledo. So I don't fear the
total demise of bookstores.
Will

[Gjest]

In a message dated 2/26/2005 6:56:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

In some cases it is apparent that where several differing versions of
a family pedigree exist, all the versions were put in without that
fact being made clear,

I think you are confusing the IGI with the Ancestral File. The IGI *does*
have several different versions of "facts" on the same person, and
correspondingly many entries on the same person. The Ancestral File is and should remain a
file where each *person* is represented by exactly one entry.
Will

[Denis Beauregard]

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 03:02:21 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote in
soc.genealogy.medieval:

In a message dated 2/26/2005 6:56:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:


In some cases it is apparent that where several differing versions of
a family pedigree exist, all the versions were put in without that
fact being made clear,

I think you are confusing the IGI with the Ancestral File. The IGI *does*
have several different versions of "facts" on the same person, and
correspondingly many entries on the same person. The Ancestral File is and should remain a
file where each *person* is represented by exactly one entry.

The joke of the day !!!

I have seen recently someone married twice. There were about 4
entries for the 1st marriage and 2 for the 2nd, i.e. about 6
spouses were indicated with similar names and dates but not
exactly the same data.


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard
/\/ http://www.francogene.com
|\ >>Adresse modifiée souvent/email changed frequently<<
/ | Société généalogique canadienne-française
oo oo http://www.sgcf.com

[Gjest]

In a message dated 2/26/2005 10:11:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

I have seen recently someone married twice. There were about 4
entries for the 1st marriage and 2 for the 2nd, i.e. about 6
spouses were indicated with similar names and dates but not
exactly the same data.

The IGI is not *verified* by the LDS staff, they just enter it. The
variations are caused by people like you and me and others sending in variant data.
Just like real life. The IGI is not, in this case any *better* then the
Ancestral World Tree at http://www.ancestry.com. That is also just submissions by anyone
and their crazy aunt which may or may not be accurate. The IGI just compiles
it all, they don't edit it for accuracy.
Will

[Gjest]

Dear Todd,
Commines is precisely the place. One of the french branches
most prominent members was Philippe de Commines, who was involved in the
intriques between the French and Burgundian courts, a diplomat and historian. why
is the image of a " hatchet man" for King Louis XI of France spring to mind,
given his family seat`s location, He should of been in the service of Duke
Philip III of Burgundy.
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

[Denis Beauregard]

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 06:26:01 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote in
soc.genealogy.medieval:

In a message dated 2/26/2005 10:11:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

I have seen recently someone married twice. There were about 4
entries for the 1st marriage and 2 for the 2nd, i.e. about 6
spouses were indicated with similar names and dates but not
exactly the same data.

The IGI is not *verified* by the LDS staff, they just enter it. The
variations are caused by people like you and me and others sending in variant data.
Just like real life. The IGI is not, in this case any *better* then the
Ancestral World Tree at http://www.ancestry.com. That is also just submissions by anyone
and their crazy aunt which may or may not be accurate. The IGI just compiles
it all, they don't edit it for accuracy.

It was in the Ancestor File.


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard
/\/ http://www.francogene.com
|\ >>Adresse modifiée souvent/email changed frequently<<
/ | Société généalogique canadienne-française
oo oo http://www.sgcf.com

[Doug McDonald]

Then what is Pedigree Resource File?

Doug McDonald

[Chris Dickinson]

Will Johnson wrote:

The IGI is not *verified* by the LDS staff, they just enter it. The
variations are caused by people like you and me and others sending in
variant data.
Just like real life. The IGI is not, in this case any *better* then the
Ancestral World Tree at http://www.ancestry.com. That is also just submissions by
anyone
and their crazy aunt which may or may not be accurate. The IGI just
compiles
it all, they don't edit it for accuracy.

That's a little misleading and close to being wrong.

(1)
A significant number of IGI entries have been extracted from parish
registers and other sources under controlled conditions. These are
'reliable' in so far as any transcript in reliable and don't add material
beyond the source. These entries are, in your sense, verified.

(2)
Even indiviual transcripts sent in privately (so long as they don't add wild
ABT. guesses) are generally less subject to inaccuracy than are submitted
pedigrees. As soon as I connect extracted fact A to extracted fact B, I'm
adding my own interpretation and making it more difficult for any
third-party to make a judgement about the reliability of the evidence.

In both those senses, then, the IGI is 'better'.


Chris

[Denis Beauregard]

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:59:11 -0600, Doug McDonald
<mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:

Then what is Pedigree Resource File?

It was explained by one of the programmer who worked on the
presentation software in 2001.

AF is the old set of files. The Mormons try to merge repeated
data into one record, i.e. if John Smith and Mary Johnson from
Boston married in 1712 appear in 5 records, they will try to
have them in one single record, one number (AFN), etc. This
process is very long because it is not always obvious that
John Smith is also Jno Smyther married to Marge Jonson married
about 1714. So, someone submitting his data in 1990 may see
them in the database in 1995 only.

PRF is the new set of files. Now, they don't try to merge the
data and will distribute the GEDCOMs they receive short after
they receive them. Someone submitting a GEDCOM in 2005 can see
it on a CD-ROM in 2005 ! Much faster. But no duplicate is
removed.


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard
/\/ http://www.francogene.com
|\ >>Adresse modifiée souvent/email changed frequently<<
/ | Société généalogique canadienne-française
oo oo http://www.sgcf.com

[Richard C. Browning, Jr.]

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Dickinson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 09:13
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: New Ancestral File


Will Johnson wrote:


The IGI is not *verified* by the LDS staff, they just enter it. The
variations are caused by people like you and me and others
sending in
variant data. Just like real life. The IGI is not, in this case any
*better* then the Ancestral World Tree at http://www.ancestry.com. That is
also just submissions by anyone
and their crazy aunt which may or may not be accurate. The IGI just
compiles
it all, they don't edit it for accuracy.


That's a little misleading and close to being wrong.

(1)
A significant number of IGI entries have been extracted from
parish registers and other sources under controlled
conditions. These are 'reliable' in so far as any transcript
in reliable and don't add material beyond the source. These
entries are, in your sense, verified.

(2)
Even indiviual transcripts sent in privately (so long as they
don't add wild ABT. guesses) are generally less subject to
inaccuracy than are submitted pedigrees. As soon as I connect
extracted fact A to extracted fact B, I'm adding my own
interpretation and making it more difficult for any
third-party to make a judgement about the reliability of the evidence.

In both those senses, then, the IGI is 'better'.


Chris

Chris, while your first statement is probably correct, the second statement is hard for me
to believe from what I have seen on the familysearch site. I give one reference John
Browning with parents John Browning and Mary Codrington. Using this search I get an
ancestral file, seven IGI entries and 5 Pedigree Resource File entries all showing this
relationship. How does one explain the chronological impossibility the John Browning b.
1588 is the son of people who died in the late 17th century?

And apparently there is no possibility of correcting these errors.

At least one of the other sites allow post a sticky note to point out the error.

Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX

[Renia]

Doug McDonald wrote:

Then what is Pedigree Resource File?

Supposed to be the new, updated version of Ancestral File.

Renia

[Chris Dickinson]

Richard Browning wrote:

Chris, while your first statement is probably correct, the second statement
is hard for me
to believe from what I have seen on the familysearch site. I give one
reference John
Browning with parents John Browning and Mary Codrington. Using this search
I get an
ancestral file, seven IGI entries and 5 Pedigree Resource File entries all
showing this
relationship. How does one explain the chronological impossibility the
John Browning b.
1588 is the son of people who died in the late 17th century?

And apparently there is no possibility of correcting these errors.

At least one of the other sites allow post a sticky note to point out the
error.

Yes, I take your point.

I take no notice of private submissions on the IGI, so I'm not greatly
concerned by the ridiculous ones! They are easy enough to spot and
eliminate.

There are, nevertheless, non-extracted submissions (even if I take no notice
of them!) that have clearly been done by serious researchers who have looked
at sources not available to the LDS.

My second statement was really meant to say that it's easier to discard or
challenge raw date in an IGI form than it is to challenge information once
it has been drawn up into a chart. That's not jut an Internet problem - it's
a problem for all chart formats, even 17th century Visitation ones. Charts
have to simplify - the genealogist/herald/trickster can't include
everything.

Sure, charts that allow amendments are better than charts that don't.

Chris

[Richard C. Browning, Jr.]

My main problem with the FamilySearch site and their databases is that there appears no
way to get invalid data corrected. To me this seems hypocritical to me if the
genealogical connections are somehow related to religious ceremonies. I don't know how
the LDS uses this data in thir religion, but it must mean something to them if they go
back into the past and "seal" ancestors.

Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX

[Janet Ariciu]

The people who post their family are sometimes not members of the LDS
church. I am not member but I can post my family tree there. Like said in
email before the church does not check all the folks who add family tree to
their site.

Now if they seal those are members of the church and must be right. The
check and check but they human and one or two might get through.

I found one that some one post on church site and on worldconnect site too.
It took me while get it straight but the worldconnect is right but LDS site
is still wrong they cannot chance it.

Uncle Earl story is there and well always well be. That is why you must take
it as place to start not a place to stop.

I know it hard but sometimes the site do help. They do have records they
copied from Churches/Parishes, counties records, state records and books on
microfilm

You can order them from Salt lake to local LDS History Center.


Janet Ariciu
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard C. Browning, Jr. [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 1:56 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: New Ancestral File


My main problem with the FamilySearch site and their databases is that there
appears no
way to get invalid data corrected. To me this seems hypocritical to me if
the
genealogical connections are somehow related to religious ceremonies. I
don't know how
the LDS uses this data in thir religion, but it must mean something to them
if they go
back into the past and "seal" ancestors.

Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.0 - Release Date: 2/25/2005




--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.0 - Release Date: 2/25/2005