Blount-Ayala

[D. Spencer Hines]

She's pulled the net down over her head, raised the drawbridge and gone
into Siege Mode.

You are not dealing with her Reason any more -- just her Stubbornness
and Pride.

DSH

| I'm not sure how it originally arose, because the start of the
discussion
| seems to be missing from the archives, but certainly at one point
Francisco
| Doria gave what seemed to be an unexceptionable commentary on
copyright law,
| including the principle that "One may freely quote reasonable, short,
| excerpts from any public source, provided that the source is properly
| referenced."
|
| To this, Joan Asche simply replied "You are most certainly entitled to
your
| viewpoint but for the purposes of the mailing list you may not copy
and
| paste from other message boards. ... No further discussion is
necessary
| concerning this because that is simply the way that it is ..."
|
| I agree that quoting entire posts without permission is discourteous
and a
| breach of copyright, but what Ms Asche seems to be claiming goes way
beyond
| this. For example, it would mean that the two short quotations in the
| paragraphs above would break the rules, when this post crosses the
gateway
| into GEN-MEDIEVAL!
|
| I suspect she has misinterpreted RootsWeb's guidelines (and couldn't
be
| bothered to check when the question arose), but it would be nice to
know for
| sure.
|
| Chris Phillips

[Chris Dickinson]

Will Johnson wrote:

Chris I disagree. Consider this example. You read a book and quote a
paragraph in a new work and cite the source. Is this copyright
infringement? No,
it's normal scholarly citations. You are not reproducing their *work* you
are
quoting from it.

I quite agree with you. You've misunderstood my post.

[Re my comments below ... I'm not a lawyer nor employed by Rootsweb. I am a
list administrator, however, and this is my understanding of the situation]

'Quoting' from a post is fine. Reproducing it in its entirety is the same as
reproducing a book in its entirety - clearly a copyright infringement.
Somewhere between the two you have a twilight zone

This is not a copyright infringement and Ms Ache points at an AUP that
does not say this at all. I pointed that out to her and she just replied
"That's
just the way it is." I mean seriously that's a bit Napoleonic. "It's not
the law, it's what I say that matters." No dear, it's not.

The situation got a lot more complicated a year or two back when Rootsweb
changed its old AUP (which was quite simple and stated principles) into a
much more legal and formal device.

Rootsweb make it clear that copyright of a post remains with the poster at:

http://www.myfamilyinc.com/default.aspx?html=copyright

|"Content which has been contributed to public areas of the MyFamily.com,
|Inc. sites by users remain the property of the submitter or the original
|creator and we are a licensed distributor of such content."

They expand on this in the AUP:

http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/aup.html

|"Portions of the Service will contain user-provided content, to which you
|may contribute appropriate content (the "Content"). For this Content, the
|submitter is the owner, and RootsWeb.com is only a distributor. By
|submitting Content to RootsWeb.com, you grant MyFamily.com, Inc., the
|corporate host of the Service, a limited license to the Content to use,
|host, and distribute that Content and allow hosting and distribution on
|co-branded Services of that Content. You should submit only Content which
|belongs to you and will not violate the property or other rights of other
|people or organizations. MyFamily.com, Inc. is sensitive to copyright and
|other intellectual property rights of others."


If you are re-posting a whole post from one forum to another you are
submitting Content which doesn't belong to you.

You aren't even supposed to store other people's posts!

|"You are licensed to use the Content only for personal or professional
|family history research, and may download Content only as search results
|relevant to that research. The download of the whole or significant
|portions of any work or database is prohibited."


The problem for list administrators is that they are protected from any
personal risk of legal action only so long as they take reasonable steps to
apply the AUP. If they ignore it, then they are negligent and won't be
protected. Any list adminstrator should try to prevent copyright
infringement therefore and should be supported by users in that respect.

Chris
[by the way, my personal mail has been stuck in cyberspace for the last 24
hours - so if anyone is trying to reply off-list, my apologies. Men who know
are trying to fix the problem!]

[Francisco Antonio Doria]

I can't resist it: we need those people from _Lord of
the Rings_ to successfully assault the castle )

(Sorry...)

--- "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
wrote:

It sounds as if Joan Asche has pulled up the
drawbridge and gone into
Siege Mode.

DSH

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

| This is not a copyright infringement and Ms Ache
points at an AUP that
| does not say this at all. I pointed that out to
her and she just
| replied "That's just the way it is." I mean
seriously that's a bit
| Napoleonic. "It's not the law, it's what I say
that matters." No
| dear, it's not.
|
| Will Johnson

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates.
http://personals.yahoo.com

[D. Spencer Hines]

Well, Stalin did -- he just had them dropped down the memory hole or
air-brushed out.

DSH

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

| Can the moderator edit the archives?
|
| On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 13:24 +0100, Chris Phillips wrote:
| > posted in ancient?
| >
| > I'm not sure how it originally arose, because the start of the
| > discussion seems to be missing from the archives,
| --
| Gordon Banks <[email protected]>

[Gjest]

You are true! Thanks a lot! This is because of PAF that doesn't
automatically sort the children by birth date and the marriages by
date... I changed it

Thanks again for this error you pointed out!

Frederic D. Collin

[Gjest]

While I agree with some of your comments I must take issue with others. Each individual post is not an original work of art protected by copyright. In fact in particular there is an example given where you can extract every tenth page of a work and not be violating copyright but rather be protected under "fair use".
That, in my opinion, is the situation with a board or email posting like this list and the google groups. Extracting a single post, even in its entirety is not a copyright infringement, the *ownership* stays with the author, but that does not mean you can't repost it. It just means you can't *own* it or apply you own new copyright to its as a sole work.
However, you could certainly include every tenth post off this list including new, artistic, comments *around* them and then copyright that as a new work.
In my opinion.
At the very least, this area is grey and neither rootsweb nor anyone else should be applying some riduculous restrictions unless they've actually litigated it.
In addition I would consider that in general people posting to wide-open public lists like this are in a sense inherently giving up their claim to copyright those posts. It's sort of like being overheard at a cocktail party. You can't claim it was private, priviledged speech when you're saying it in public.
Will Johnson
- Information wants to be free.

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Dickinson <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 16:38:17 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: gen-ancient-L admin [OFF-TOPIC]


Will Johnson wrote:

Chris I disagree. Consider this example. You read a book and quote a
paragraph in a new work and cite the source. Is this copyright
infringement? No,
it's normal scholarly citations. You are not reproducing their *work* you
are
quoting from it.

I quite agree with you. You've misunderstood my post.

[Re my comments below ... I'm not a lawyer nor employed by Rootsweb. I am a
list administrator, however, and this is my understanding of the situation]

'Quoting' from a post is fine. Reproducing it in its entirety is the same as
reproducing a book in its entirety - clearly a copyright infringement.
Somewhere between the two you have a twilight zone

This is not a copyright infringement and Ms Ache points at an AUP that
does not say this at all. I pointed that out to her and she just replied
"That's
just the way it is." I mean seriously that's a bit Napoleonic. "It's not
the law, it's what I say that matters." No dear, it's not.

The situation got a lot more complicated a year or two back when Rootsweb
changed its old AUP (which was quite simple and stated principles) into a
much more legal and formal device.

Rootsweb make it clear that copyright of a post remains with the poster at:

http://www.myfamilyinc.com/default.aspx?html=copyright

|"Content which has been contributed to public areas of the MyFamily.com,
|Inc. sites by users remain the property of the submitter or the original
|creator and we are a licensed distributor of such content."

They expand on this in the AUP:

http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/aup.html

|"Portions of the Service will contain user-provided content, to which you
|may contribute appropriate content (the "Content"). For this Content, the
|submitter is the owner, and RootsWeb.com is only a distributor. By
|submitting Content to RootsWeb.com, you grant MyFamily.com, Inc., the
|corporate host of the Service, a limited license to the Content to use,
|host, and distribute that Content and allow hosting and distribution on
|co-branded Services of that Content. You should submit only Content which
|belongs to you and will not violate the property or other rights of other
|people or organizations. MyFamily.com, Inc. is sensitive to copyright and
|other intellectual property rights of others."


If you are re-posting a whole post from one forum to another you are
submitting Content which doesn't belong to you.

You aren't even supposed to store other people's posts!

|"You are licensed to use the Content only for personal or professional
|family history research, and may download Content only as search results
|relevant to that research. The download of the whole or significant
|portions of any work or database is prohibited."


The problem for list administrators is that they are protected from any
personal risk of legal action only so long as they take reasonable steps to
apply the AUP. If they ignore it, then they are negligent and won't be
protected. Any list adminstrator should try to prevent copyright
infringement therefore and should be supported by users in that respect.

Chris
[by the way, my personal mail has been stuck in cyberspace for the last 24
hours - so if anyone is trying to reply off-list, my apologies. Men who know
are trying to fix the problem!]

[Chris Dickinson]

Will Johnson wrote:

<snip>
Each individual post is not an original work of art protected by copyright.
<snip>

Yes, it is.

<snip>
At the very least, this area is grey
<snip>

No, it isn't.

<snip>

It's sort of like being overheard at a cocktail party. You can't claim it
was private, priviledged speech when you're saying it in public

Hmm, tittle-tattle is another matter.

Chris

[norenxaq]

[email protected] wrote:

Maybe there's a better group like soc-HISTORY-ancient that might work for us?
I don't know. I see rootsweb has turned down the quite useful request for
another list, which is strange as they have something like a gazillion lists
already.

my request was denied because it duplicated gen-ancient-l. at least that was the
explanation I was told

[norenxaq]

Hello:

I have started a group on yahoo, as rootsweb was unco-operative.

its address is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_genealogy

and is ready for members

thank-you

[Stanford Mommaerts-Browne]

FWIW: my 2¢.
Participation on these lists falls under the heading of implied consent.
Persons new to a list are advised to lurk for a while. If they do, they can
not help but be aware that posts are repeated, in whole or in part, on a
too-often-to-be-called-regular basis. Thus, if they have followed the
admonishment to lurk before they leap, they will be giving informed consent.
Now here's twist.
Copyright means the right to copy. Copyrights are regulated by statutory
laws in most countries. One of the primary ways that these laws come into
being are by the legislative process of the country becoming party to an
international treaty or accord respecting copyright. A country or nation or
state, (whatever), can add laws of its own to what it has agreed to accept
by becoming party to the treaty/accord/compact. By signing-on to the
agreement, they are giving explicit consent that they will enforce the
regulations of the accord. There are two major treaties at work in the
world today. Not all governments, regimes, (what have you), are party to
both. The US and the UK are not parties to the same. That is why
transoceanic publishing houses will publish, (make public), their works
simultaneously in the UK and the US. Canada is party to both.
Sooooo.......If someone posts from, say Australia, to a list distributed
world-wide, in countries whose governments have not adopted the treaty to
which Australia is party, that post has no protection under international
law, nor would that country's courts be likely to enforce same, as it is not
the law of the land.
This, of course, has no bearing on the issues of plagiarism, ethical
behaviour, honesty or intellectual integrity. Those are issues of
character.
There is also a principle of English Common Law that applies in those
countries wherein the ECL obtains. Probably elsewhere as well. That is the
principle of 'Reasonable and Prudent'. Whether or not something is
specifically legislated, it is _a priori_ binding law if it is what any
prudent and reasonable person would understand. I.e., One doesn't use
another's work and claim it as one's own. Even if that claim is not made,
one still cites; and then one uses only what is necessary. E.g, if one
needs only the conclusion of another scholar-researcher to construct the
hypothesis that one is building, one uses only the conclusion, and directs,
_via_ proper citation to the original author's original work.
Cutting-and-pasting whole or large portions of an e-post is often a matter
of convenience which is covered by the law of implied consent.
Respectfully,
Ford
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] copyright was gen-ancient-L admin [OFF-TOPIC]

At the very least, this area is grey and neither rootsweb nor anyone
else should be applying some riduculous restrictions unless they've actually

litigated it.

In addition I would consider that in general people posting to
wide-open public lists like this are in a sense inherently giving up their

claim to copyright those posts. It's sort of like being overheard at a
cocktail party. You can't claim it was private, priviledged speech when
you're saying it in public.

Will Johnson
- Information wants to be free.

[Francisco Antonio Doria]

Just joined it.

chico

--- norenxaq <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello:

I have started a group on yahoo, as rootsweb was
unco-operative.

its address is:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_genealogy

and is ready for members

thank-you

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

[jlsoler]

the charts in photos sections are badly scanned... so we can read them...

if someone can do something to increase the definition

--
J.Luc SOLER
[email protected]
[email protected]
http://gw1.geneanet.org/index.php3?b=soler
"Francisco Antonio Doria" <[email protected]> a écrit dans
le message de news:
[email protected]...

Just joined it.

chico

--- norenxaq <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello:

I have started a group on yahoo, as rootsweb was
unco-operative.

its address is:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_genealogy

and is ready for members

thank-you







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

[Gordon Banks]

It would be useful is someone who was not being moderated posted an
announcement on gen-ancient about the new group. She probably won't
have any group left after that.

On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 16:45 -0700, norenxaq wrote:

Hello:

I have started a group on yahoo, as rootsweb was unco-operative.

its address is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_genealogy

and is ready for members

thank-you
--

Gordon Banks <[email protected]>

[Paul K Davis]

I'm no longer being moderated on gen-ancient-l, but I found the process of
joining the Yahoo! group much too complex and annoying. I'd rather
continue with gen-ancient-l and hope the moderator gains helpful experience.

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

[Original Message]
From: Gordon Banks <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Date: 4/9/2005 11:36:22 AM
Subject: Re: ancient genealogy group

It would be useful is someone who was not being moderated posted an
announcement on gen-ancient about the new group. She probably won't
have any group left after that.

On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 16:45 -0700, norenxaq wrote:
Hello:

I have started a group on yahoo, as rootsweb was unco-operative.

its address is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_genealogy

and is ready for members

thank-you
--
Gordon Banks <[email protected]

[Gjest]

Yes, I agree. An email to you, is a gift, pure and simple, from the author
to the recipient(s). There is no perceived copyright imho. If someone writes
you a letter, can you publish that letter in a book? Yes you can. In my
opinion.
Many letters have been published after people have been dead, and not 75
years dead, just dead. This to me says, they did not have a *copyright* to
their letters as long as the recipient is publishing them. Not sure if this
would be the same if some third-party stole the letters and then published them.
I'm sure other people have other opinions on this. But unlike Chris'
assertion that it's theft, you are not stealing something that was *given* to you.
If you steal a car, that's not a gift. If you publish an email that was
given to you, that's not theft.
Will Johnson

In a message dated 4/9/2005 11:41:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

Email address to me belongs to me. The copyright may reside with the
author, but if it is sent to me, I can store it.

[Gjest]

Right that gets into the whole "did their copying affect my income"
issue. You have to show specific damage in order to get any financial
renumeration from a suit over copyright, imho.
The whole issue of a single post brings up an interesting angle. Is
each post an individual artistic expression, or is a person's entire posting
history, say on one list, considered a single work of itself ? So you could even
argue that by copying one or two posts you are excercising "fair use" over
their combined posting history to the list (evil grin).
As an aside, I don't know of any court case where these issues have
already been litigated. It would be interesting to read the opinions of the court
on all of this.
Will Johnson

In a message dated 4/9/2005 1:43:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

However, you cannot make a full copy of just anything, even for personal
study. You cannot, for example, copy an entire library book that is
still in print - you are expected to buy a copy.

[Gjest]

Dear Chris,
Consider the post, which is nothing more or less than mail
sent from an individual to every other individual on the list. If You are
subscribed You automatically (unless You chose to block another individual`s posts)
recieve post (i e letters) that are sent out. If Someone sends you
information in a letter, unless They inform You that You may not use it, then you have a
right to use it. If You aren`t subscribed than use on information is more
questionable and storage no problem. I usually encounter problems figuring out
how and what mail (real and virtual) to store,becausre at least on AOL, if You
delete mail, it`s still stored for a time unless You permanently delete it. If
You don`t delete it, it still eventually disappears.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Paul K Davis]

I believe you are mistaken on some points here.

First, the copyright laws were changed about 20 or 25 years ago. If you
send someone a letter now, paradoxically, they own the paper and the ink on
it, but you own the sequence of words on it. You also no longer need to
include an explicit statement of copyright.

Second, copyrights can be inherited, so many publications of letters are by
the heirs, who are the proper owners.

When I send an e-mail, for instance a political exhortation, which I would
like further distributed, I specifically include at the end a grant of the
right to redistribute in its entirety with proper credit to myself. (Note
that one wants to be careful not to grant the right to distribute an edited
version: only brief quotes as allowed by the copyright law, and entire
unaltered redistribution, otherwise someone may make it seem like you said
something different.)

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

[Original Message]
From: <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Date: 4/9/2005 1:26:47 PM
Subject: Re: storing other people's posts

Yes, I agree. An email to you, is a gift, pure and simple, from the
author
to the recipient(s). There is no perceived copyright imho. If someone
writes
you a letter, can you publish that letter in a book? Yes you can. In my
opinion.
Many letters have been published after people have been dead, and not
75
years dead, just dead. This to me says, they did not have a *copyright*
to
their letters as long as the recipient is publishing them. Not sure if
this
would be the same if some third-party stole the letters and then
published them.
I'm sure other people have other opinions on this. But unlike Chris'
assertion that it's theft, you are not stealing something that was
*given* to you.
If you steal a car, that's not a gift. If you publish an email that
was
given to you, that's not theft.
Will Johnson

In a message dated 4/9/2005 11:41:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:


Email address to me belongs to me. The copyright may reside with the
author, but if it is sent to me, I can store it.

[Paul K Davis]

Todd,

Thanks for this important clarification. I apologize for having omitted
some of the consideration.

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

[Original Message]
From: Todd A. Farmerie <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Date: 4/9/2005 1:42:30 PM
Subject: Re: storing other people's posts

I am sure this is getting a bit tedious, but a few of these issues are
relevant to broader research in the real world, not just USENET.

Paul K Davis wrote:
In a recent post, Chris Dickinson wrote "You aren't even supposed to
store
other people's posts!"

To the best of my knowledge this is not so. I believe the copyright law
allows individual to make one full copy of any copyrighted material
solely
for their own study.

I suspect that you are right with respect to posts - they are
distributed in the manner to which the author gave implied consent by
posting, and there is no mandate to then delete them from a computer
where they legitimately appeared, nor does the law prevent the rendering
of something into a more convenient format, for personal use, by someone
who legitimately posesses a copy (e.g. you can purchase a music CD and
copy it into MP3 format, but for personal use only).

However, you cannot make a full copy of just anything, even for personal
study. You cannot, for example, copy an entire library book that is
still in print - you are expected to buy a copy. The rights to copy
under 'fair use' depends on the complex interplay involving the
proportion of the entire work involved, the potential financial impact
on the copyright holder, availability of the original, purpose of
copying, etc.

taf

[Chris Phillips]

[email protected] wrote:
<<
If that's your position, than how is it that people do in fact publish
letters from dead people?

I don't think there's any doubt that copyright in the text of letters
legally belongs to their authors, though the letters themselves are owned by
their recipients (to be semi-topical, this was the subject of a notorious
dispute over copyright in the letters of the late Princess of Wales to one
of her lovers).

Equally, I think most people understand that copyright is inheritable while
it lasts.

Chris Phillips

[Gjest]

Lambert married N. de LOUVAIN 13  daughter of Henri III le Jeune de
LOUVAIN and Gertrude de FLANDRE. N. de LOUVAIN was born after 1090.

ES Band 1.2 Tafel 236 gives the name Gertrude to the wife of Lambert,
Count of Montaigu. She is dau. of Henry III, Count of Brabant [sic]
and Gertrude of Flanders. Her sister Adelheid m. Simon I, Duke of
Lorraine.

[Gjest]

While I understand your point below, I'm not sure it's correct. Essentially
you are saying that a person could never publish "Letters from my mother"
after that mother's death because:
A) you could no longer get permission and;
B) the dead mother would have copyright to the letter (since it came from
her) and copyright extends 75 years AFTER the person's death.

If that's your position, than how is it that people do in fact publish
letters from dead people? I guess you'd have to assume they've gotten the
permission of the person to publish it before they died.
This seems an awfully harsh version of copyright. Now presumably I cannot
publish the complete file of Abbie Hoffman held by the Secret Service because
it might include a letter writen by him, and he didn't give me permission to
publish that. Even though the contents created by the government are public
domain, and the letter itself was collected by the government and forms an
essential part of the file without which other items have no meaning.
- Will Johnson

In a message dated 4/9/2005 2:57:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

First, the copyright laws were changed about 20 or 25 years ago. If you
send someone a letter now, paradoxically, they own the paper and the ink on
it, but you own the sequence of words on it. You also no longer need to
include an explicit statement of copyright.

[Gjest]

Just to show that an old dog can learn a new trick, I've been reading up
today and I'm going to answer my own hypothetical below.
YOU could publish letters from your mother, after her death, because
copyright, in the absence of a specific assignment, would descend to you through
intestate law (or whatever it's called). Of couse I assume you'd have to be an
only child and her spouse died first. Or maybe copyright is jointly shared
with all descendents.
There is another thing about quoting a post however. In the specific
instance of critique, you are allowed to quote an entire work if you're doing it
for the purposes of criticizing it. That's kind of interesting.
Will

In a message dated 4/9/2005 4:06:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

Letters from my mother"
after that mother's death because:
A) you could no longer get permission and;
B) the dead mother would have copyright to the letter (since it came from
her) and copyright extends 75 years AFTER the person's death.

[Stanford Mommaerts-Browne]

One needs to click on the tiny image which the thumbnail-click produces.
Then the image expands to original size.
Ford
----- Original Message -----
From: "jlsoler" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 3:07 AM
Subject: ancient genealogy group little pb

the charts in photos sections are badly scanned... so we can read them...

if someone can do something to increase the definition

--
J.Luc SOLER
[email protected]
[email protected]
http://gw1.geneanet.org/index.php3?b=soler
"Francisco Antonio Doria" <[email protected]> a écrit
dans
le message de news:
[email protected]...

Just joined it.

chico

--- norenxaq <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello:

I have started a group on yahoo, as rootsweb was
unco-operative.

its address is:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_genealogy

and is ready for members

thank-you







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

[Paul K Davis]

However, as I failed to point out here, but did in another response,
copyrights are inheritable and sellable property.

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

[Original Message]
From: <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Date: 4/9/2005 4:05:36 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] storing other people's posts

While I understand your point below, I'm not sure it's correct.
Essentially
you are saying that a person could never publish "Letters from my mother"
after that mother's death because:
A) you could no longer get permission and;
B) the dead mother would have copyright to the letter (since it came from
her) and copyright extends 75 years AFTER the person's death.

If that's your position, than how is it that people do in fact publish
letters from dead people? I guess you'd have to assume they've gotten
the
permission of the person to publish it before they died.
This seems an awfully harsh version of copyright. Now presumably I
cannot
publish the complete file of Abbie Hoffman held by the Secret Service
because
it might include a letter writen by him, and he didn't give me permission
to
publish that. Even though the contents created by the government are
public
domain, and the letter itself was collected by the government and forms
an
essential part of the file without which other items have no meaning.
- Will Johnson

In a message dated 4/9/2005 2:57:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:


First, the copyright laws were changed about 20 or 25 years ago. If you
send someone a letter now, paradoxically, they own the paper and the
ink on
it, but you own the sequence of words on it. You also no longer need to
include an explicit statement of copyright.

[Gjest]

Bill,

Many thanks for your post, Your website certainly does contain interesting
information on the Leonards beyond that referenced in my article.

The name "Quinton" appears in the family of Pray (Pray alias Pynion) as well
as that of Leonards suggesting perhaps a relationship between the two
families (not surprising amogst ironworking families ) but also perhaps
strengthening a speculation that ancestors of both lived (at least for a while) near
St. Quinton France in Picardy where the Denization Rolls place at least one of
the Leonards (Perhaps, even, St. Quinton is a patron saint of ironworkers)

A possible ereference I was unable to find is G.H Quignon "Fondeurs et
ferroniers liegois en Beauvaisie xv, xvi siecles" Societe Academique et
Archeologie, Science et Arts du Department de l"Oise. Compte rendu de seances (1901) ,
mentioned by Awty in The Economic History Review vo XXXIV, No. 4, November
1981 p. 531 Probably this is most readil;y available at the French national
library in PAris.

In addition to Donald LInes Jacobus' article in TAG 10 (1933-4) 162-166
doubting the Dacre connection, Alice Everett wrote an additional article on the
subject in TAG 53 (1977)101-4 Leonards of Monmouthshire and Somersetshire--
both of which are referenced in my article

Thanks again for you appreciation of my article

Robert Bowman

[Gjest]

I have this book. Could you please specify which article you are referring
to ? The book is not indexed by every ancestor so it's hard to find an article
just by knowing a particular ancestor. I believe it is indexed by the living
descendent.
Thanks
Will Johnson

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

Living Descendants of
Blood Royal in America". Now, after digging deeper, I am seeing
referrences that this is a "false" line. Can anyone comment on this ?

[Lockehead]

Will-

Thank you for responding. In vol. 2, the reference is on page 314
(Edelen) and page 651 (Perkins). In vol. 4 the reference is on page 334
(same Edelen Family) and in vol. 3 the reference is on page 603 (same
Edelen family once again) and page 606 ( same Perkins). The more I look
this book, the more it looks like the kind of book a researcher in this
group described as "genealogy used to sell books."

[CE Wood]

They are not talking about the thumbnail, but the original size which
is still too small to read, as per messages on that list. They cannot
be further enlarged in a graphics program because the original
resolution was not high enough.

CE Wood


"Stanford Mommaerts-Browne" wrote:

One needs to click on the tiny image which the thumbnail-click
produces.
Then the image expands to original size.
Ford
----- Original Message -----
From: "jlsoler" <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 3:07 AM
Subject: ancient genealogy group little pb


the charts in photos sections are badly scanned... so we can read
them...

if someone can do something to increase the definition

--
J.Luc SOLER

[norenxaq]

[email protected] wrote:

I have this book. Could you please specify which article you are referring
to ? The book is not indexed by every ancestor so it's hard to find an article
just by knowing a particular ancestor. I believe it is indexed by the living
descendent.
Thanks
Will Johnson

Who is the author and publisher of the below mentioned work?

how generally reliable is it?

thank-you

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

Living Descendants of
Blood Royal in America". Now, after digging deeper, I am seeing
referrences that this is a "false" line. Can anyone comment on this ?

[Barbara P. Smith]

[email protected] wrote:

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


GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest Volume 05 : Issue 279

Today's Topics:
#1 Re: Beckwith lineage (George Beckw ["Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@inter]
#2 Re: Status of Magna Carta Ancestry ["joe" <[email protected]>]
#3 Re: Status of Magna Carta Ancestry [Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs]
#4 Re: Beckwith lineage (George Beckw ["Lockehead" <[email protected]>]
#5 Re: strong collateral lines [[email protected]]
#6 Re: Beckwith lineage (George Beckw [norenxaq <[email protected]>]
#7 Re: Descents from the Kings of Jud [William Marshall <[email protected]]
#8 Re: strong collateral lines [Tim Powys-Lybbe <[email protected]>]

Administrivia:
This GEN-MEDIEVAL digest has been distributed by RootsWeb. If you would like
to know more about RootsWeb, please visit the RootsWeb homepage at
http://www.rootsweb.com/

If you would like to unsubscribe, send to
[email protected] the message "unsubscribe" (without
the quotation marks).

If you would like to have a message included in the GEN-MEDIEVAL digest,
send it to [email protected].






______________________________



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

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


Douglas Richardson [email protected] wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

Good news to report to everyone. This past week Kim Everingham and I
shipped the Magna Carta Ancestry manuscript off to the the publisher.
Provided the schedule goes as planned, the book should be out on or
around June 1st, just in time for the NGS Conference in Nashville,
Tennessee.


Doug,

Congratulations! I want a copy at pre-publication price. Tell me the
amount and give me your address so that I can remit payment.

Barbara

[Stanford Mommaerts-Browne]

Someone had suggested uploading as 'files' rather than as photos. I have
tried same. Works well for me, but, then, so did photos. Try it and see.
F
----- Original Message -----
From: "CE Wood" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: ancient genealogy group little pb

They are not talking about the thumbnail, but the original size which
is still too small to read, as per messages on that list. They cannot
be further enlarged in a graphics program because the original
resolution was not high enough.

CE Wood


"Stanford Mommaerts-Browne" wrote:
One needs to click on the tiny image which the thumbnail-click
produces.
Then the image expands to original size.
Ford
----- Original Message -----
From: "jlsoler" <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 3:07 AM
Subject: ancient genealogy group little pb


the charts in photos sections are badly scanned... so we can read
them...

if someone can do something to increase the definition

--
J.Luc SOLER

[Paul K Davis]

works great for me too. thanks Ford.
-- PKD [Paul K Davis, [email protected]]

[Original Message]
From: Stanford Mommaerts-Browne <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Date: 4/11/2005 8:23:27 PM
Subject: Re: ancient genealogy group little pb

Someone had suggested uploading as 'files' rather than as photos. I have
tried same. Works well for me, but, then, so did photos. Try it and see.
F
----- Original Message -----
From: "CE Wood" <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: ancient genealogy group little pb


They are not talking about the thumbnail, but the original size which
is still too small to read, as per messages on that list. They cannot
be further enlarged in a graphics program because the original
resolution was not high enough.

CE Wood


"Stanford Mommaerts-Browne" wrote:
One needs to click on the tiny image which the thumbnail-click
produces.
Then the image expands to original size.
Ford
----- Original Message -----
From: "jlsoler" <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 3:07 AM
Subject: ancient genealogy group little pb


the charts in photos sections are badly scanned... so we can read
them...

if someone can do something to increase the definition

--
J.Luc SOLER

[Gjest]

To answer a few question. This book "Living Descendents of Blood Royal" was compiled and edited by Count d'Angerville, F.R.S.A. In his dedication he notes that his collaborator was Professor Arthur Adams PhD, etc, President of the American Society of Genealogists and Editor of the New England Historical and Genealogical Review.
A foreword by G Andrews Moriarty, F S A states that Count d'Angerville is the "... distingushed editor of the 'Annuaire de la Noblesse de France'.... "

He states in his preface that "Many hours have been spent examining the pedigrees which follow and these have been checked prior to publication with the early Visitation records, County histories, Harleian Society publications, Complete Peerage editions and many other authoritative works of reference. Doubtful or unproved lines have been rigorously excluded. It is however with regret that I have been forced to reject for lack of conclusive evidence, so many of the pedigrees hitherto accepted as proven by others, and submitted for publication in good faith....
In the case of American pedigrees, the fulcrum upon which the descent rests, is the successful identification on both sides of the Atlantic of the immigrant ancestor." [empahsis added]

The author goes on to state that there was no charge for entry into this book or into volume 1 of the same work.

I believe these indications are good to show that the work can be relied upon at least as far as the scholarship available in 1961 was able.
More to follow.
Will Johnson

-----Original Message-----
From: Lockehead <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: 10 Apr 2005 13:25:24 -0700
Subject: Re: Beckwith lineage (George Beckwith of Maryland)


Will-

Thank you for responding. In vol. 2, the reference is on page 314
(Edelen) and page 651 (Perkins). In vol. 4 the reference is on page 334
(same Edelen Family) and in vol. 3 the reference is on page 603 (same
Edelen family once again) and page 606 ( same Perkins). The more I look
this book, the more it looks like the kind of book a researcher in this
group described as "genealogy used to sell books."

[Gjest]

We now turn to the particular question of George Beckwith and I shall quote the entry sub Edelen from Volume II, undated but foreword 1961 and preface dated 1962.

Initially claiming descent starting from Louis the Stammerer (844-879), King of France 877-9, etc. Skipping foreward in the descent [fully shown] to :

"25 Thomas Beckwith b Featherstone Castle, Yorkshire, father of [no further information given]

26 George Beckwith, baptised Featherstone Castle, 29 March 1606, d 1676; emigrated to Maryland 1648; m 1649 Frances Harvey, dau of Nicholas Harvey, lord of St Joseph's Manor, St Mary's co, Maryland, with Court Leet and Court Baron. (This manor was surveyed , 2 Dec 1642, for Nicholas Harvey, Gent., 1000 acres in Harvey Hundred; Seigniory in Early Maryland, 1949, p 63, by Harry Wright Newman.) (Arch of Maryland, Vol 65, p 679)"

To me it would appear that rather than flattering wealthy patrons, Count d'Angerville has truly expressed the state of the archives parenthetically mentioned above. Your next step would be to consult these archives yourself to find satisfaction that the descent is as recorded.

Will Johnson

-----Original Message-----
From: Lockehead <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: 10 Apr 2005 13:25:24 -0700
Subject: Re: Beckwith lineage (George Beckwith of Maryland)


Will-

Thank you for responding. In vol. 2, the reference is on page 314
(Edelen) and page 651 (Perkins). In vol. 4 the reference is on page 334
(same Edelen Family) and in vol. 3 the reference is on page 603 (same
Edelen family once again) and page 606 ( same Perkins). The more I look
this book, the more it looks like the kind of book a researcher in this
group described as "genealogy used to sell books."

[Barbara P. Smith]

[email protected] wrote:

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


GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest Volume 05 : Issue 281

Today's Topics:
#1 List of Immigrants in Magna Carta ["Douglas Richardson royalancestry@]
#2 Re: The authority of "Living Desce [[email protected]]
#3 Re: John of Gaunt [Tim Powys-Lybbe <[email protected]>]
#4 Re: Beckwith lineage (George Beckw [[email protected]]
#5 Re: Last rites declaration of Ioan [Matthew Harley <[email protected]>]

Administrivia:
This GEN-MEDIEVAL digest has been distributed by RootsWeb. If you would like
to know more about RootsWeb, please visit the RootsWeb homepage at
http://www.rootsweb.com/

If you would like to unsubscribe, send to
[email protected] the message "unsubscribe" (without
the quotation marks).

If you would like to have a message included in the GEN-MEDIEVAL digest,
send it to [email protected].






______________________________



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

Subject:
List of Immigrants in Magna Carta Ancestry
From:
"Douglas Richardson [email protected]" <[email protected]
Date:
12 Apr 2005 12:31:01 -0700
To:
[email protected]

To:
[email protected]


Dear Newsgroup ~

Please find below a list of the New World immigrants whose Magna Carta
descents are featured in the forthcoming book, Magna Carta Ancestry,
scheduled for publication on or about June 1st, 2005. The list
includes several new names, among them Joseph Bickley of Virginia,
Gerard Fowke of Virginia and Maryland, Rose (Stoughton) Otis of New
Hampshire, and Peter Worden of Massachusetts.

For interest's sake, I've also included in the book an account of the
Magna Carta ancestry of the medieval kings of Scotland from King Robert
I de Brus down to King James IV. In the latter endeavor, I was greatly
assisted by my good friend and colleague, Andrew B.W. MacEwen of Maine,
who is always and ever the resident expert on all things Scottish.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net



Thank you Doug for making this list available to us. We will all

benefit from your research and knowledge.

Barbara

[Nathaniel Taylor]

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

We now turn to the particular question of George Beckwith and I shall quote
the entry sub Edelen from Volume II, undated but foreword 1961 and preface
dated 1962.

Initially claiming descent starting from Louis the Stammerer (844-879), King
of France 877-9, etc. Skipping foreward in the descent [fully shown] to :

"25 Thomas Beckwith b Featherstone Castle, Yorkshire, father of [no further
information given]

26 George Beckwith, baptised Featherstone Castle, 29 March 1606, d 1676;
emigrated to Maryland 1648; m 1649 Frances Harvey, dau of Nicholas Harvey,
lord of St Joseph's Manor, St Mary's co, Maryland, with Court Leet and Court
Baron. (This manor was surveyed , 2 Dec 1642, for Nicholas Harvey, Gent.,
1000 acres in Harvey Hundred; Seigniory in Early Maryland, 1949, p 63, by
Harry Wright Newman.) (Arch of Maryland, Vol 65, p 679)"

To me it would appear that rather than flattering wealthy patrons, Count
d'Angerville has truly expressed the state of the archives parenthetically
mentioned above. Your next step would be to consult these archives yourself
to find satisfaction that the descent is as recorded.

The 'Archives of Maryland' is a published series of volumes of documents
from early Maryland, now available online; vol. 65, p. 679 merely
presents a 1658 deed signed by George Beckwith:

http://tinyurl.com/7yjx4

The problem remains whether the George Beckwith of Maryland is the same
man as the one said to have been baptized 29 March 1606 in or at
'Featherstone Castle'. The sources cited do not support the
filiation--simply provide some documentation of the individual after his
immigration to the colony. This is a common problem: one sees a
genealogical assertion, accompanied by a citation to a source, which one
then assumes must prove or support the filiation, when in fact it
doesn't speak to the issue.

Now, about this 'Featherstone Castle' supposedly in Yorkshire. There is
a famous Featherstone Castle near Haltwhistle in Northumberland (Tyne
valley). But the only google hits for such a castle in Yorkshire are
copies of data on this alleged Beckwith ancestry. Frankly, I would be
surprised if this baptism could actually be found to exist at all--let
alone be proved to refer to the Maryland settler. In short, I am
suspicious of the whole line.

Nat Taylor

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

[Peter Marrow]

Dear GEN-MEDIEVAL type personages,

27 Nov.,15 Henry VI. [A.D. 1436] at the Guildhall, London:

'came John Weston, gentilman, who married Agnes, daughter of William Marwe,
late smith (faber), and acknowledged that he had received from John
Chichele, the Chamberlain, his wife's patrimony.'

[From: 'Folios 161-170: June 1436 -', Calendar of letter-books of the city
of London: K: Henry VI (1911) pp. 205-18. on the wonderful British History
Online website].

What is going on here with this Chamberlain cove?

Agnes Marwe's dad, William, had died in 1430. Does this mean that her mum,
Joan (still alive in 1431) was dead by 1436 and the children of William
Marwe who were John, Agnes, William (later mayor of London 1455/6), had all
been minors when both parents had popped their clogs?

What was the age of majority at that epoch?

Did the Chamberlain chappie somehow take charge of the Marwe estate
(patrimony)?

I understand the latin 'faber' was used to describe a worker with hard
materials such as a blacksmith. Does anyone know of a more particular usage
for the term? Many of the Marwes were stonemasons.

best regards to One and All,
Peter Marrow
Edinburgh

[Douglas Richardson royala]

[email protected] wrote:

For Sir Hugh Le Despencer, of Ryhall, Justiciar of England

Leo shows that he married Avila de/of Bassett and had four children
one of
whom was Hugh Le Despencer, Earl of Winchester b 1 Mar 1260/1

No other information is giving on the first Hugh.

The Ancestral File states that this first Hugh died at the Battle of
Evesham,
Worchestershire, England 4 Aug 1265

Can anyone comment on this death place and date for Hugh the
Justiciar?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Dear Will ~

For starters, the surname is correctly spelled "le Despenser," not "Le
Despencer." Sir Hugh le Despenser (died 1265) married Aline Basset,
not Avila de Bassett, or Aliva Bassett. The surname Basset is
invariably spelled with one "t" and does not take a "de" with it.
Aline Basset's given name and surname are correctly given in Complete
Peerage, 5 (1926): 261 (sub Despenser). Complete Peerage also
correctly states that Sir Hugh le Despenser (husband of Aline Basset)
"joined the Earl of Leicester in his last campaign, and with him was
slain at the battle of Evesham, 4 Aug. 1365."

I might add that Aline (Basset) le Despenser was named for her paternal
grandmother, Aline de Gay, wife of Alan Basset. For your interest,
I've copied below a message I posted back in 2002 regarding the
parentage of Aline de Gay. My old post should help you extend the
Basset-Gay ancestry back a bit further.

If you have any other questions, Will, please let me know.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
COPY OF EARLIER POST

From: Douglas Richardson ([email protected])
Subject: Re: Philip de Gai Lord Wootten Basset?
View: Complete Thread (9 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Date: 2002-12-18 09:24:09 PST

Dear Linda ~

Thank you for your good post.

In answer to your question, Aline de Gay, wife of Alan Basset (died
1232-3), was daughter and co-heiress of Philip de Gay, of Wootton
Basset, Wiltshire and Northbrook, co. Oxford, by his wife, Cecily.
Philip de Gay in turn was the son and heir of Stephen de Gay, by his
wife, Aline, daughter and heiress of Walter Pipard (Aline Pipard being
formerly the wife of John Marshal, hereditary Master Marshal of
England).

VCH Wiltshire 9 (1970): 190-191 includes a history of the manor of
Wootton Basset, Wiltshire. For reasons not known to me, the editor
commences his account of this manor with Alan Basset in 1210.
However, with a bit of research in the records, the history of this
manor can be traced back to Alan Basset's father-in-law, Philip de
Gay, then to Philip's mother, Aline (Pipard) de Gay, then to Aline
Pipard's father, Walter Pipard.

For evidence of the parentage of Aline de Gay, wife of Alan Basset, I
direct your attention to an agreement made in King Henry II's court in
1190, regarding the division of Philip de Gay's estate, which
agreement was re-confirmed by King Henry II's son, King Richard, in
1198. A copy of the reconfirmation is provided below:

383 (2735R). Aline and Cecily de Gay. Resealing of confirmation
(Vezelay, 3rd July 1190) of agreement in Henry II's court concerning
division of inheritance from their father, Philip de Gay. Cecily is
to have all the land in Norbroch' [Northbrook], and quit claims the
rest to Aline; if either dies without legitimate issue, the other
party shall inherit.

Huius autem innovationis teste sunt Hii, Baldwin, Count of Aumale,
William Marshal, William Fitz Ralph seneschal of Normany, Warin Fitz
Gerald, Saher de Quincy. Dat' per manum E. Elien' Episcopi
Cancellarii nostri. Roche d'Orival 22nd August 1198. Seal on cords.
London, PRO, E42/314 [Reference: J.C. Holt and Richard Mortimer,
Acta of Henry II and Richard I, published as List and Index Soc.,
Special Series, vol. 21, pg. 204].

It appears that Cecily, sister of Aline de Gay, died without issue
soon after 1198. As best I can determine, Aline and her husband, Alan
Basset, later held all of the Gay family holdings, including
Northbrook which was assigned to Cecily. These lands passed by
descent from the Basset family onto the Despenser family.

As for evidence of Philip de Gay's wife, Cecily, whose name has never
been identified in print to my knowledge, I direct your attention to
the book, Three Rolls of the King's Court in the Reign of King Richard
the First A.D. 1194-1195, published as Publications of the Pipe Roll
Soc., vol. 14 (1891), pg. 89. There you will find a reference which
reads as follows under the heading Blakingaue Hundred:

"Sedzilia q' fu[it] vxor Philipp de Gay in donocoe d[omi]ni Rex
Wotton [terra sua] ...."

This record basically identifies Cecily as widow of Philip de Gay and
states she was then (1194/5) in the king's gift, meaning her former
husband was a tenant in chief of the king. Wootton Basset is
specifically named, it being then in the hundred as named.

Lastly, I should mention that in recent time, there was an article on
Robert, Earl of Gloucester, bastard son of King Henry I, which
included information on Philip de Gay above. The material in that
article was wildly inaccurate and incorrect. You can find my brief
review of that article in the google archives of the newsgroup. I
believe Ken Finton republished my review in a back issue of The
Plantagenet Connection. This person's article is proof that
historians sometimes make poor genealogists. In this particular
instance, the gentleman was neither a good historian, nor a good
genealogist.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[email protected] (Linda) wrote in message
ews:<[email protected]>...
I have seen a genealogy that states that Philip de Gai was Lord of
Wootten Basset. Can anyone confirm this, and perhaps provide a
reference? I have seen some genealogies indicating that his
Grandson,
Philip Basset, was later in posession of the Wootten Basset estate,
and that Philip's daugher, Aline, was born there in about 1250.

Also, I am wondering about the origin of the "de Gai" part of the
name. I know that there was a place in Gloucester called "Caer
Gai".

[Gjest]

For Sir Hugh Le Despencer, of Ryhall, Justiciar of England

Leo shows that he married Avila de/of Bassett and had four children one of
whom was Hugh Le Despencer, Earl of Winchester b 1 Mar 1260/1

No other information is giving on the first Hugh.

The Ancestral File states that this first Hugh died at the Battle of Evesham,
Worchestershire, England 4 Aug 1265

Can anyone comment on this death place and date for Hugh the Justiciar?
Thanks
Will Johnson

[Clive West]

W Johnson wrote:

For Sir Hugh Le Despencer, of Ryhall, Justiciar of England

Leo shows that he married Avila de/of Bassett and had four children one of
whom was Hugh Le Despencer, Earl of Winchester b 1 Mar 1260/1

No other information is giving on the first Hugh.

The Ancestral File states that this first Hugh died at the Battle of
Evesham,
Worchestershire, England 4 Aug 1265

Can anyone comment on this death place and date for Hugh the Justiciar?
Thanks
Will Johnson



The following items from the rolls might interest you:

Calendar of Patent Rolls. 1258-1266, p. 459. 5 Oct., 1265. Grant for life,
in
consideration of the service of Philip Basset, to Aliva, late the wife of
Hugh
le Despenser, the daughter of the said Philip, of the manor of Fretheby and
other manors, late of the said Hugh, which the king lately committed to her
in
tenancy during pleasure.

Miscellaneous Inquisitions. No. 769. After Evesham. 1265. The jury say that
Hugh
Despencer held the manor of Fredeby in demesne and was killed at the battle
of
Evesham. The manor was worth £10 clear yearly; and Robert de
Tibetoft had seisin thereof after the battle and took seven marks of rent at
Michaelmas, and now it is in the hands of the relict of Hugh Despencer by a
writ
of the king.

The land referred to is Freeby in Leicestershire. This Hugh le Despenser was
not the first of this name. His father who died naturally (unusual for this
family) in 1238 was also Sir Hugh le Despenser, son of Thomas.

Clive West

[Gjest]

Thank you to Douglas and Clive for your interesting points on this family.

I have only recently been able to connect my own line to this family so I
appreciate the information.

Will Johnson

[Leo van de Pas]

Sorry to seem nasty, but we should never be dogmatic, especially not about
spellings as we all know rigid spellings have only come into use only in the
last 150 or more years.

But when we quote (naughty Will Johnson) we should show the spellings shown
of what they quote from. Will tells that "Leo shows that he married Avila
de/of Bassett"
anyone reading this would accept that that I gave the name Avila de/of
Bassett".
But I do not, go to my website and see Aliva Bassett.

Douglas maintains the first name is Aline not Avila or Aliva. Tell that to
Burke's Extinct Peerage 1866, the source shown on Aliva's page. To say
dogmatic Aline is the name, I think, is silly as there are obviously
different spellings in the different sources. His quibble about Le Despencer
and le Despencer is appreciated and I will make corrections.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 6:58 AM
Subject: Re: Hugh Despencer, Justiciar of England ; Update to
http://www.genealogics.org

[email protected] wrote:
For Sir Hugh Le Despencer, of Ryhall, Justiciar of England

Leo shows that he married Avila de/of Bassett and had four children
one of
whom was Hugh Le Despencer, Earl of Winchester b 1 Mar 1260/1

No other information is giving on the first Hugh.

The Ancestral File states that this first Hugh died at the Battle of
Evesham,
Worchestershire, England 4 Aug 1265

Can anyone comment on this death place and date for Hugh the
Justiciar?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Dear Will ~

For starters, the surname is correctly spelled "le Despenser," not "Le
Despencer." Sir Hugh le Despenser (died 1265) married Aline Basset,
not Avila de Bassett, or Aliva Bassett. The surname Basset is
invariably spelled with one "t" and does not take a "de" with it.
Aline Basset's given name and surname are correctly given in Complete
Peerage, 5 (1926): 261 (sub Despenser). Complete Peerage also
correctly states that Sir Hugh le Despenser (husband of Aline Basset)
"joined the Earl of Leicester in his last campaign, and with him was
slain at the battle of Evesham, 4 Aug. 1365."

I might add that Aline (Basset) le Despenser was named for her paternal
grandmother, Aline de Gay, wife of Alan Basset. For your interest,
I've copied below a message I posted back in 2002 regarding the
parentage of Aline de Gay. My old post should help you extend the
Basset-Gay ancestry back a bit further.

If you have any other questions, Will, please let me know.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
COPY OF EARLIER POST

From: Douglas Richardson ([email protected])
Subject: Re: Philip de Gai Lord Wootten Basset?
View: Complete Thread (9 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Date: 2002-12-18 09:24:09 PST

Dear Linda ~

Thank you for your good post.

In answer to your question, Aline de Gay, wife of Alan Basset (died
1232-3), was daughter and co-heiress of Philip de Gay, of Wootton
Basset, Wiltshire and Northbrook, co. Oxford, by his wife, Cecily.
Philip de Gay in turn was the son and heir of Stephen de Gay, by his
wife, Aline, daughter and heiress of Walter Pipard (Aline Pipard being
formerly the wife of John Marshal, hereditary Master Marshal of
England).

VCH Wiltshire 9 (1970): 190-191 includes a history of the manor of
Wootton Basset, Wiltshire. For reasons not known to me, the editor
commences his account of this manor with Alan Basset in 1210.
However, with a bit of research in the records, the history of this
manor can be traced back to Alan Basset's father-in-law, Philip de
Gay, then to Philip's mother, Aline (Pipard) de Gay, then to Aline
Pipard's father, Walter Pipard.

For evidence of the parentage of Aline de Gay, wife of Alan Basset, I
direct your attention to an agreement made in King Henry II's court in
1190, regarding the division of Philip de Gay's estate, which
agreement was re-confirmed by King Henry II's son, King Richard, in
1198. A copy of the reconfirmation is provided below:

383 (2735R). Aline and Cecily de Gay. Resealing of confirmation
(Vezelay, 3rd July 1190) of agreement in Henry II's court concerning
division of inheritance from their father, Philip de Gay. Cecily is
to have all the land in Norbroch' [Northbrook], and quit claims the
rest to Aline; if either dies without legitimate issue, the other
party shall inherit.

Huius autem innovationis teste sunt Hii, Baldwin, Count of Aumale,
William Marshal, William Fitz Ralph seneschal of Normany, Warin Fitz
Gerald, Saher de Quincy. Dat' per manum E. Elien' Episcopi
Cancellarii nostri. Roche d'Orival 22nd August 1198. Seal on cords.
London, PRO, E42/314 [Reference: J.C. Holt and Richard Mortimer,
Acta of Henry II and Richard I, published as List and Index Soc.,
Special Series, vol. 21, pg. 204].

It appears that Cecily, sister of Aline de Gay, died without issue
soon after 1198. As best I can determine, Aline and her husband, Alan
Basset, later held all of the Gay family holdings, including
Northbrook which was assigned to Cecily. These lands passed by
descent from the Basset family onto the Despenser family.

As for evidence of Philip de Gay's wife, Cecily, whose name has never
been identified in print to my knowledge, I direct your attention to
the book, Three Rolls of the King's Court in the Reign of King Richard
the First A.D. 1194-1195, published as Publications of the Pipe Roll
Soc., vol. 14 (1891), pg. 89. There you will find a reference which
reads as follows under the heading Blakingaue Hundred:

"Sedzilia q' fu[it] vxor Philipp de Gay in donocoe d[omi]ni Rex
Wotton [terra sua] ...."

This record basically identifies Cecily as widow of Philip de Gay and
states she was then (1194/5) in the king's gift, meaning her former
husband was a tenant in chief of the king. Wootton Basset is
specifically named, it being then in the hundred as named.

Lastly, I should mention that in recent time, there was an article on
Robert, Earl of Gloucester, bastard son of King Henry I, which
included information on Philip de Gay above. The material in that
article was wildly inaccurate and incorrect. You can find my brief
review of that article in the google archives of the newsgroup. I
believe Ken Finton republished my review in a back issue of The
Plantagenet Connection. This person's article is proof that
historians sometimes make poor genealogists. In this particular
instance, the gentleman was neither a good historian, nor a good
genealogist.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[email protected] (Linda) wrote in message
ews:<[email protected]>...
I have seen a genealogy that states that Philip de Gai was Lord of
Wootten Basset. Can anyone confirm this, and perhaps provide a
reference? I have seen some genealogies indicating that his
Grandson,
Philip Basset, was later in posession of the Wootten Basset estate,
and that Philip's daugher, Aline, was born there in about 1250.

Also, I am wondering about the origin of the "de Gai" part of the
name. I know that there was a place in Gloucester called "Caer
Gai".

[D. Spencer Hines]

| His quibble about Le Despencer and le Despencer
| is appreciated and I will make corrections.
| Best wishes
| Leo van de Pas
| Canberra, Australia

Nope...

STILL wrong, Leo.

It's supposed to be:

_le Despenser_...

And this correction can hardly be considered a "QUIBBLE" from Douglas
Richardson -- if you are in fact going to change it.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Clive West]

In contemporary documents le Despenser is most common but you also find
Dispenser, Despencer and Dispensator with or without "le". At a time when
most people couldn't read, no one cared much how their name was spent and it
was up to the scribe. Aliva and Avila are probably attempts by different
scribes to latinise the name Aline when writing documents in latin.

CNW

[D. Spencer Hines]

Irrelevant.

The "you will also find" argument is a non-starter.

We spell the name _le Dispenser_ today.

Similarly we spell the Bard's name _Shakespeare_, not some other variant
that Shakespeare himself may have used -- because that too is
irrelevant.

We are writing in 2005, not 1200 or 1600.

Further, "spent" is not a good spelling for "spelt" or "spelled".

We also spell the name of the language _Latin_, not _latin_.

These are not "quibbles" -- just sound practice. -- Any well-schooled
fourth-grader should know them.

DSH

""Clive West"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:002701c540ca$c4fe51a0$6650fea9@CliveWest...

| In contemporary documents le Despenser is most common but you also
find
| Dispenser, Despencer and Dispensator with or without "le". At a time
when
| most people couldn't read, no one cared much how their name was spent
[sic] and it
| was up to the scribe. Aliva and Avila are probably attempts by
different
| scribes to latinise the name Aline when writing documents in latin.
[sic]
|
| CNW

[Douglas Richardson royala]

Dear Will, Spencer, etc. ~

The spelling of the given name Aline is no quibble. Aline is the
commonly accepted spelling of this name by modern historians and
genealogists.

There are five successive Aline's in the Pipard-Gay-Basset-Despenser
family over seven generations as follows:

1. Aline Pipard, wife of John le Marshal and Stephen de Gay.
2. Philip de Gay.
3. Aline de Gay, married Alan Basset.
4. Philip Basset - he had sister, Aline Basset, who married (1st) Drew
de Montagu and (2nd) Richard Talbot.
5. Aline Basset, married Hugh le Despenser.
6. Hugh le Despenser.
7. Aline le Despenser, married Edward Burnell, Lord Burnell.

Complete Peerage spells the name of four of these women Aline, not
Aliva. They can be found in Vol. 2 (1912): 434 (sub Burnell); 4
(1916): 259-261 (sub Despenser); and 9 (1936): 76-77 (sub Montagu).
The fifth woman, Aline Pipard, is mentioned by Complete Peerage in an
unindexed Appendix which I have not yet located.

I find only three of the five above Aline's in Leo's genealogics
database. Two of them are correctly connected as mother and daughter.
The third Aline is not connected to the other two women, yet is closely
related. Of the three found in Leo's database, one is correctly called
Aline; the other two are mistakenly called Aliva. Aliva is one of the
Latin forms you find for this given name. The Latin form should be
avoided, and the vernacular form employed if known.

In summary, Leo's database comes a cropper. Missing individuals,
misspelled surnames (Le Despencer for le Despenser, Bassett for
Basset), the use of Latin forms of given names (Aliva for Aline), and
inconsistency regarding spelling. I also note that Leo has chosen to
ignore the evidence presented twice previously on the newsgroup
regarding Aline de Gay's parentage, once in 2002 and once in 2004.
And, I've just scratched the surface.

When I have time in the near future, I plan to write a thorough review
for the newsgroup of all the better known online genealogical
databases. The databases will be graded on content, ease of use,
citation of sources, reliability, use of Latin forms, etc. Each
category will be graded on a scale from 1 to 10. Then, all the
categories will be totalled to give the larger picture. When
completed, I plan to submit my findings for publication in a
genealogical journal.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Nope...

STILL wrong, Leo.

It's supposed to be:

_le Despenser_...

And this correction can hardly be considered a "QUIBBLE" from Douglas
Richardson -- if you are in fact going to change it.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Chris Phillips]

Douglas Richardson wrote:

Aliva is one of the
Latin forms you find for this given name. The Latin form should be
avoided, and the vernacular form employed if known.

I suspect this is one of those cases where "Alina" has been misread as
"Aliua" (owing to the difficulty of telling "n" and "u" apart), and then
turned into "Aliva" (because of the equivalence of "u" and "v" in Latin).

Chris Phillips

[Stanford Mommaerts-Browne]

On Thursday, April 14, 2005 at 8:31 AM
"D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> sat at his keyboard and typed

----- Original Message -----
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Subject: Re: Incorrect reportage was Re: Hugh Despencer, Justiciar of
England ; Update to http://www.genealogics.org


< snippity-snip>

These are not "quibbles" -- just sound practice. -- Any well-schooled
fourth-grader should know them.

DSH

You obviously have a much higher regard for our educational system than I!

SM-B

[Gjest]

I thought Aline was a shortening of Adelina (noble manner) or Adelinde (noble
snake), anyway I think the original root, or rather part of the root, is from
the Germanic for noble - Adela. Perhaps someone can explain to a non Latin
scholar why Aliva should be the Latinized form of this name?

Adrian

Dear Will, Spencer, etc. ~

The spelling of the given name Aline is no quibble. Aline is the
commonly accepted spelling of this name by modern historians and
genealogists.

There are five successive Aline's in the Pipard-Gay-Basset-Despenser
family over seven generations as follows:

1. Aline Pipard, wife of John le Marshal and Stephen de Gay.
2. Philip de Gay.
3. Aline de Gay, married Alan Basset.
4. Philip Basset - he had sister, Aline Basset, who married (1st) Drew
de Montagu and (2nd) Richard Talbot.
5. Aline Basset, married Hugh le Despenser.
6. Hugh le Despenser.
7. Aline le Despenser, married Edward Burnell, Lord Burnell.

Complete Peerage spells the name of four of these women Aline, not
Aliva. They can be found in Vol. 2 (1912): 434 (sub Burnell); 4
(1916): 259-261 (sub Despenser); and 9 (1936): 76-77 (sub Montagu).
The fifth woman, Aline Pipard, is mentioned by Complete Peerage in an
unindexed Appendix which I have not yet located.

I find only three of the five above Aline's in Leo's genealogics
database. Two of them are correctly connected as mother and daughter.
The third Aline is not connected to the other two women, yet is closely
related. Of the three found in Leo's database, one is correctly called
Aline; the other two are mistakenly called Aliva. Aliva is one of the
Latin forms you find for this given name. The Latin form should be
avoided, and the vernacular form employed if known.

In summary, Leo's database comes a cropper. Missing individuals,
misspelled surnames (Le Despencer for le Despenser, Bassett for
Basset), the use of Latin forms of given names (Aliva for Aline), and
inconsistency regarding spelling. I also note that Leo has chosen to
ignore the evidence presented twice previously on the newsgroup
regarding Aline de Gay's parentage, once in 2002 and once in 2004.
And, I've just scratched the surface.

When I have time in the near future, I plan to write a thorough review
for the newsgroup of all the better known online genealogical
databases. The databases will be graded on content, ease of use,
citation of sources, reliability, use of Latin forms, etc. Each
category will be graded on a scale from 1 to 10. Then, all the
categories will be totalled to give the larger picture. When
completed, I plan to submit my findings for publication in a
genealogical journal.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Nope...

STILL wrong, Leo.

It's supposed to be:

_le Despenser_...

And this correction can hardly be considered a "QUIBBLE" from Douglas
Richardson -- if you are in fact going to change it.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

In message of 14 Apr, [email protected] (Gordon Banks) wrote:

I understand that Princess Diana's father (or was it grandfather?) wrote
a book claiming the Spencers derived from the le Despensers. Is that
just a wild supposition, or is there more evidence.

You might also like to read Horace Round's debunking of this in
"Peerage and Family History", pub 1901 and reprinted 1996 by
Genealogical Co of Baltimore.

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

[Chris Phillips]

Gordon Banks wrote:

I understand that Princess Diana's father (or was it grandfather?) wrote
a book claiming the Spencers derived from the le Despensers. Is that
just a wild supposition, or is there more evidence.

Tim Powys-Lybbe replied:

You might also like to read Horace Round's debunking of this in
"Peerage and Family History", pub 1901 and reprinted 1996 by
Genealogical Co of Baltimore.

Earl Spencer's book is available online here:
http://www.althorp.com/spencer-family/spencer-book.asp

In reproducing the fraudulent alleged descent from the Despensers he neatly
sidesteps the overwhelming scholarly evidence against it by saying that he
"fail[s] to see where the problem lies". If only he had read Round's paper,
he could scarcely fail to see it - the Spencers are alleged to descend from
a member of the Despenser family for whom there is clear contemporary
evidence that he died without issue.

Chris Phillips

[Gordon Banks]

Do we know whether the le Despensers were literate? I think most kings
were, but how far did literacy extend to these barons?

On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 19:09 +1000, Leo van de Pas wrote:

Many thanks for your message.
As I said----people should not be too dogmatic about medieval spellings.
It is so silly to grandstand, it only achieves eggs on faces.
Again many thanks for your message.
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "Clive West" <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: Incorrect reportage was Re: Hugh Despencer, Justiciar of
England ; Update to http://www.genealogics.org


In contemporary documents le Despenser is most common but you also find
Dispenser, Despencer and Dispensator with or without "le". At a time when
most people couldn't read, no one cared much how their name was spent and
it
was up to the scribe. Aliva and Avila are probably attempts by different
scribes to latinise the name Aline when writing documents in latin.

CNW



--

Gordon Banks <[email protected]>

[Gordon Banks]

I understand that Princess Diana's father (or was it grandfather?) wrote
a book claiming the Spencers derived from the le Despensers. Is that
just a wild supposition, or is there more evidence.

[Doug Thompson]

in article [email protected], D. Spencer Hines at
[email protected] wrote on 14/4/05 3:04 am:

It's supposed to be:

_le Despenser_...

in article [email protected], D. Spencer Hines at
[email protected] wrote on 14/4/05 4:31 pm:

We spell the name _le Dispenser_ today.

Leo's not the only one who doesn't always keep his spellings consistent is
he?

Doug

[Gjest]

Dear Gordon,
Arguably there were several literate gentry/ nobles by
the early Thirteenth century in England as in 1215 twenty-five of them were
named Sureties of the Magna Carta. They were sworn to make certain the King kept
his written word. As such, It would have been rather stupid to elect men who
could not read exactly what the King was promising, plus the merchant class was
beginning to rise in the cities and They as well doubtless were comencing to
keep written records of the stuffs They had in stock. Not to mention all those
charters that were being witnessed.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA

[Gordon Banks]

Is this the father of William Marshal?

On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 09:31 -0700, Douglas Richardson
[email protected] wrote:

1. Aline Pipard, wife of John le Marshal and Stephen de Gay.

--
Gordon Banks <[email protected]>

[Doug Thompson]

in article [email protected], Douglas
Richardson [email protected] at [email protected] wrote on 14/4/05
5:31 pm:

The Latin form should be
avoided, and the vernacular form employed if known.

This is a personal opinion Douglas, which is not shared by everyone. Stick
to your own methods by all means, but there is no reason to expect others to
conform.

Doug

[Gjest]

Dear Gordon,
According to AR 7 Line 66 generation 27 William Marshal
who married Isabel, daughter of Richard ` Strongbow` de Clare, 2nd Earl of
Pembroke and in right of his wife 3rd Earl of Pembroke, Protector and Regent of
England 1216-1219 was the son of a John le Marshal, Marshal of England by his
2nd wife Sibyl, daughter of Walter de Salisbury and sister of Patrick, Earl of
Salisbury.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Leo van de Pas]

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 2:31 AM
Subject: Re: Spelling of the name Aline



<snip>

I find only three of the five above Aline's in Leo's genealogics
database. Two of them are correctly connected as mother and daughter.
The third Aline is not connected to the other two women, yet is closely
related. Of the three found in Leo's database, one is correctly called
Aline; the other two are mistakenly called Aliva. Aliva is one of the
Latin forms you find for this given name. The Latin form should be
avoided, and the vernacular form employed if known.

In summary, Leo's database comes a cropper. Missing individuals,
misspelled surnames (Le Despencer for le Despenser, Bassett for
Basset), the use of Latin forms of given names (Aliva for Aline), and
inconsistency regarding spelling. I also note that Leo has chosen to
ignore the evidence presented twice previously on the newsgroup
regarding Aline de Gay's parentage, once in 2002 and once in 2004.
And, I've just scratched the surface.

Douglas looks at matters, apparently, from the point of what he would like
me to do.
But I have my own approach, an approach he does not seem to have grasped as
yet.
Missing individuals? What a laugh, he thinks I should have all the Alines
_he_ knows because _he_ knows them. On many of my files is a remark saying
_Complete_ which only means that _I_ think I have all the details _I have
access to_ and if those people Douglas would want me to have do not have
_Complete_ they simply are not _Complete_

Douglas maintains that _I mistakenly call them Aliva_ before Douglas jumps
to conclusions, has he checked the source mentioned? Has he looked at the
source? What does the source calls them? My mistake? The Sources mistake? A
mistake because Douglas thinks so? I try to present what I find, not what
Douglas would like me to make of it. If I quote a source, I believe, I must
try to present that source as faithfully as possible.

And now Aline de Gay's parentage.........do you expect me to watch Gen-med
like a vulture to extract every snippet thrown at us by Douglas Richardson?
My website collection is not just for medieval times, it covers a great deal
more than that period alone.
For many years I have collected mainly genealogical data but lately I am
concentrating on biographical details and lately many brief biographies have
been added, many will only show up after the next update.

"Aliva is one of the Latin forms you find for this given name. The Latin
form should be avoided, and the vernacular form employed if known." This to
me sounds meddling with sources. If I want to show people what I have found,
I have to show what the source says. And when we say vernacular, vernacular
of which time? The time when that person lived or the 21st century
vernacular?

There are many things I would like to be able to do, like sitting down and
extracting every person from CP and ES but as I have to do everything alone
there just is not the time to do all I would like to do. Then to say my
database becomes a cropper because I do not have all the Alines Douglas
would like me to have? I can only say: stiff. If Douglas wants to judge
anything he needs to know the premise applied, if he does not know or
understand, he only shows himself to be a fool, but then many people already
think of him as that in some aspects.

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

When I have time in the near future, I plan to write a thorough review
for the newsgroup of all the better known online genealogical
databases. The databases will be graded on content, ease of use,
citation of sources, reliability, use of Latin forms, etc. Each
category will be graded on a scale from 1 to 10. Then, all the
categories will be totalled to give the larger picture. When
completed, I plan to submit my findings for publication in a
genealogical journal.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Nope...

STILL wrong, Leo.

It's supposed to be:

_le Despenser_...

And this correction can hardly be considered a "QUIBBLE" from Douglas
Richardson -- if you are in fact going to change it.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Douglas Richardson royala]

Doug Thompson wrote:

in article [email protected],
Douglas
Richardson [email protected] at [email protected] wrote on
14/4/05
5:31 pm:

The Latin form should be
avoided, and the vernacular form employed if known.

This is a personal opinion Douglas, which is not shared by everyone.
Stick
to your own methods by all means, but there is no reason to expect
others to
conform.

Doug

Dear Doug ~

If this is a personal opinion, it is one shared by all the major
scholars of the 20th Century. So I'm in very good company, Doug. The
reason why scholars use a standardized vernacular form for each given
name is quite simple: it avoids much confusion. If you decide not to
follow this convention, it is certainly your choice. But I recommend
against it.

Occasionally I find that scholars waffle on using the vernacular form.
However, it invariably involves an earlier time period when a given
name was undergoing a change. An example would be the Latin form
Adeliza which morphed into the more recognizable Alicia. The modern
vernacular form of course would be Alice. The reason why scholars have
more trouble with these early cases is because the earlier you go, it
is increasinly more difficult to find any particular given name in
vernacular texts. As you know, most of the earlier texts are found
entirely in Latin.

All the same, as I stated earlier, if a standardized vernacular form
can be established, it should be employed. If not, I wouldn't lose
sleep over it. I'd just keep looking.

DR

[Chris Phillips]

Leo van de Pas wrote:

We have to be careful.

The present day Spencer family does not descend _in the male line_ descend
from Hugh the Earl of Winchester, but they do descend from him. The line
is
spelled out in HRH by Sir Iain Moncreiffe.

Yes. It is the male-line descent that is claimed in the book by Earl
Spencer, despite having been comprehensively disproved by Round.

Chris Phillips

[Leo van de Pas]

We have to be careful.

The present day Spencer family does not descend _in the male line_ descend
from Hugh the Earl of Winchester, but they do descend from him. The line is
spelled out in HRH by Sir Iain Moncreiffe.

Sir Iain who failes the educational tests in the USA as he spells the
surname as le Despencer, gives the following

Hugh, Earl of Winchester
/
Hugh, lord le Despencer
/Elizabeth le Despencer
/
Thomas 5th Lord Berkeley
/
Elizabeth Berkeley
/
Lady Elizabeth Beauchamp
/
Sir Henry Nevill
/
Richard Nevill, 2nd Lord Latimer
/
John Nevill, 3rd Lord Latimer
/
John Nevill, 4th Lord Latimer
/
Catherine Nevill
/
Henry Percy, 9th Earl of Northumberland
/
Lady Dorothy Percy
/
Lady Dorothy Sidney
/
Robert Spencer, 2nd Earl of Sunderland
etc.

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas


----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 7:01 AM
Subject: Re: Hugh Despencer, Justiciar of England ; Update to
http://www.genealogics.org

Gordon Banks wrote:
I understand that Princess Diana's father (or was it grandfather?)
wrote
a book claiming the Spencers derived from the le Despensers. Is that
just a wild supposition, or is there more evidence.

Tim Powys-Lybbe replied:
You might also like to read Horace Round's debunking of this in
"Peerage and Family History", pub 1901 and reprinted 1996 by
Genealogical Co of Baltimore.


Earl Spencer's book is available online here:
http://www.althorp.com/spencer-family/spencer-book.asp

In reproducing the fraudulent alleged descent from the Despensers he
neatly
sidesteps the overwhelming scholarly evidence against it by saying that he
"fail[s] to see where the problem lies". If only he had read Round's
paper,
he could scarcely fail to see it - the Spencers are alleged to descend
from
a member of the Despenser family for whom there is clear contemporary
evidence that he died without issue.

Chris Phillips

[Peter Stewart]

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

Dear Will, Spencer, etc. ~

The spelling of the given name Aline is no quibble. Aline is the
commonly accepted spelling of this name by modern historians and
genealogists.

There are five successive Aline's in the Pipard-Gay-Basset-Despenser
family over seven generations as follows:

1. Aline Pipard, wife of John le Marshal and Stephen de Gay.
2. Philip de Gay.
3. Aline de Gay, married Alan Basset.
4. Philip Basset - he had sister, Aline Basset, who married (1st) Drew
de Montagu and (2nd) Richard Talbot.

William Reedy, editor of _Basset Charters c.1120 to 1250_ (London, 1995),
table 3 on p. xxxix, gave Philip as the youngest son of his father's first
wife, Alice de Gray, presumably considering that his daughter Aline was
named after his step-mother or sister.

Is this an error on Reedy's part, and/or is there specific evidence for
Philip's maternity?

Peter Stewart

[CED]

Mr. Richardson,

Please give us your definition of the term 'vernacular' and source for
that definition. The usage of that term which you employ seems to
differ from that of standard definitions given in popular dictionaries.
It appears that you confuse 'vernacular' with vulgar, vulgate, or
popular.

CED

[Leo van de Pas]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: Hugh Despencer, Justiciar of England ; Update to
http://www.genealogics.org

Leo van de Pas wrote:
We have to be careful.

The present day Spencer family does not descend _in the male line_
descend
from Hugh the Earl of Winchester, but they do descend from him. The line
is
spelled out in HRH by Sir Iain Moncreiffe.

Yes. It is the male-line descent that is claimed in the book by Earl
Spencer, despite having been comprehensively disproved by Round.

Chris Phillips

Yes, I know. I have the present Earl Spencer's book. Such a pity he hangs on

to that error.
Leo

[Douglas Richardson royala]

William Reedy, editor of _Basset Charters c.1120 to 1250_ (London,
1995),
table 3 on p. xxxix, gave Philip as the youngest son of his father's
first
wife, Alice de Gray, presumably considering that his daughter Aline
was
named after his step-mother or sister.

Is this an error on Reedy's part, and/or is there specific evidence
for
Philip's maternity?

Dear Newsgroup ~

Yes, Mr. Reedy made an unfortunate error. Sir Philip Basset was the
son of Alan Basset, of Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, by his only known
wife, Aline, daughter and co-heiress of Philip de Gay (or Gai), of
Wootton Basset, Wiltshire and Northbrook, Oxfordshire. Aline's surname
is definitely Gay (or Gai), not Gray.

I believe you can find Aline's correct surname given in an ancient deed
(#A4821) in which her husband, Alan Basset, gave the offerings of the
chapel of his court of Wootton to the mother church of Wootton.
Aline's surname can also be found in a charter published in Bradenstoke
Cartulary:

Littlecott
[1229 x 1232] Gift in alms by Alan Basset, at the instance of Aline
de Gay his wife, of all the land held by Ethelwin in Littlecott,
together with
Ethelwin and all his family. To be held of Alan and his heirs, free of
all
but royal service and a rent of 5s. payable annually to the house of
[Monkton]
Farleigh at the feast of St. Mary in Mar. and at Michaelmas. Warranty.
Seals of Alan and Aline. Witnesses: Sir Wal. abbot of Stanley, Gilb.
Basset. END OF QUOTE. [Reference: Vera London, Cartulary of
Bradenstoke Priory (Wiltshire Rec. Soc. 35) (1979)].

Aline de Gay's lands in Wiltshire and Oxfordshire eventually passed to
her son, Sir Philip Basset, and thence by lineal descent onto the
Despenser family. Below is a record taken from the National Archives
catalogue which shows Sir Philip Basset was patron of the church of
Wootton Bassett, Wiltshire, which property formed part of his Gay
inheritance:

E 42/377:
Ordinances made by Walter, Bishop of Salisbury, for a hospital to be
founded at Wootton Bassett by Sir Philip Basset, patron of the church,
and Th. de Gay, rector: [Wilts.]. Date: 1266.

By the way, it would be great if newsgroup members could post their
descent from Aline de Gay, wife of Alan Basset, down to an immigrant
gateway ancestor. Aline de Gay has modern descendants through three of
her children: (1) Sir Philip Basset (ancestor of the Despenser family);
(2) Aline (wife of Drew de Montagu, Richard Talbot, and Nicholas de
Yatingdon); and (3) Katherine (wife of John Lovel). If we look for it,
I bet we all have Gay ancestry.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

[Douglas Richardson royala]

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 2:31 AM
Subject: Re: Spelling of the name Aline

I can only say: ... he only shows himself to be a fool, but then many

people already

think of him as that in some aspects.

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

It isn't necessary to call me a name, Leo. You hurt my feelings.

Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

[Douglas Richardson royala]

You shouldn't call me names, Leo. I feel bad, real bad.

Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


"Leo van de Pas" wrote:

Very simple. Do your home work and show you are not a fool, remember
Amy de
Gaveston?
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 10:13 AM
Subject: Name calling and hurt feelings



"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 2:31 AM
Subject: Re: Spelling of the name Aline

I can only say: ... he only shows himself to be a fool, but then
many
people already
think of him as that in some aspects.

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

It isn't necessary to call me a name, Leo. You hurt my feelings.

Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

[Leo van de Pas]

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 2:31 AM
Subject: Re: Spelling of the name Aline

When I have time in the near future, I plan to write a thorough review
for the newsgroup of all the better known online genealogical
databases. The databases will be graded on content, ease of use,
citation of sources, reliability, use of Latin forms, etc. Each
category will be graded on a scale from 1 to 10. Then, all the
categories will be totalled to give the larger picture. When
completed, I plan to submit my findings for publication in a
genealogical journal.

====You are too late already. A genealogical magazine is already planning a
review.
But don't let that stop you, it would be interesting to compare the two
reviews.
Leo van de Pas

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Nope...

STILL wrong, Leo.

It's supposed to be:

_le Despenser_...

And this correction can hardly be considered a "QUIBBLE" from Douglas
Richardson -- if you are in fact going to change it.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Leo van de Pas]

Very simple. Do your home work and show you are not a fool, remember Amy de
Gaveston?
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 10:13 AM
Subject: Name calling and hurt feelings

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 2:31 AM
Subject: Re: Spelling of the name Aline

I can only say: ... he only shows himself to be a fool, but then many
people already
think of him as that in some aspects.

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

It isn't necessary to call me a name, Leo. You hurt my feelings.

Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

[D. Spencer Hines]

Yes, that was my error.

I admit to mine -- however Leo van de Pas is not man enough to do the
same -- but tries to wriggle out of them and throw little hissy fits --
as he did on the matter of Jack The Ripper and Lord Randolph Churchill.

Tres drole...

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

Recte:

Irrelevant.

The "you will also find" argument is a non-starter.

We spell the name _le Despenser_ today.

Similarly we spell the Bard's name _Shakespeare_, not some other variant
that Shakespeare himself may have used -- because that too is
irrelevant.

We are writing in 2005, not 1200 or 1600.

Further, "spent" is not a good spelling for "spelt" or "spelled".

We also spell the name of the language _Latin_, not _latin_.

These are not "quibbles" -- just sound practice. -- Any well-schooled
fourth-grader should know them.

""Clive West"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:002701c540ca$c4fe51a0$6650fea9@CliveWest...

| In contemporary documents le Despenser is most common but you also
| find Dispenser, Despencer and Dispensator with or without "le". At a
| time when most people couldn't read, no one cared much how their
| name was spent [sic] and it was up to the scribe. Aliva and Avila are
| probably attempts by different scribes to latinise the name Aline
| when writing documents in latin. [sic]
|
| CNW

[D. Spencer Hines]

Concerning Reviews:

It's certainly NOT "too late".

Let a thousand flowers bloom.

DSH

""Leo van de Pas"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:001301c54150$a68ee960$c3b4fea9@email...
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: <[email protected]>
| To: <[email protected]>
| Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 2:31 AM
| Subject: Re: Spelling of the name Aline
|
| >
| > When I have time in the near future, I plan to write a thorough
review
| > for the newsgroup of all the better known online genealogical
| > databases. The databases will be graded on content, ease of use,
| > citation of sources, reliability, use of Latin forms, etc. Each
| > category will be graded on a scale from 1 to 10. Then, all the
| > categories will be totalled to give the larger picture. When
| > completed, I plan to submit my findings for publication in a
| > genealogical journal.
|
| ====You are too late already. A genealogical magazine is already
planning a
| review.

| But don't let that stop you, it would be interesting to compare the
two
| reviews.
| Leo van de Pas
|
| >
| > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
| >
| > Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
| >
| >
| > D. Spencer Hines wrote:
| > >
| > > Nope...
| > >
| > > STILL wrong, Leo.
| > >
| > > It's supposed to be:
| > >
| > > _le Despenser_...
| > >
| > > And this correction can hardly be considered a "QUIBBLE" from
Douglas
| > > Richardson -- if you are in fact going to change it.
| > >
| > > D. Spencer Hines
| > >
| > > Lux et Veritas et Libertas
| > >
| > > Vires et Honor

[Gjest]

1 Aline Gay
2 Philip Basset
3 Aline Basset b 1241, Countess of Norfolk
4 Hugh le Despencer b 1 Mar 1260/1, Earl of Winchester
5 Isabel le Despencer d 1334
6 Hugh of Hastings d 1347
7 Hugh of Hastings d 1369 near Calais
8 Hugh of Hastings d 1386 Spain
9 Margaret of Hastings d abt 1397
10 Sir Robert Wingfield of Leatheringham d 1409
11 Sir Robert Wingfield of Leatheringham b 1403
12 Sir Henry Wingfield d 1494
13 Sir Robert Wingfield d 1575
14 Sir Robert Wingfield d 1580
15 Lady Dorothy Wingfield 1565-1619
16 Sir John Claypoole 1595-1660
17 James Claypoole 1634-~1687 born in London, died in Philadelphia

Will Johnson

From: Douglas Richardson [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Cc:
Bcc:
Subject: Gay Ancestry: Aline de Gay, wife of Alan Basset
Date: 14 Apr 2005 17:03:14 -0700


By the way, it would be great if newsgroup members could post their
descent from Aline de Gay, wife of Alan Basset, down to an immigrant
gateway ancestor. Aline de Gay has modern descendants

[Doug McDonald]

Gordon Banks wrote:

Do we know whether the le Despensers were literate? I think most kings
were, but how far did literacy extend to these barons?

Well, in a book I have about the Roses, the only documents reproduced,
and there are many, that are written in the actual hand of the
writer are two, one by the King of SCotland (I forget which one),
and one by the Third Earl of Huntly.

Doug McDonald

[Douglas Richardson royala]

CED wrote:

Mr. Richardson,

Please give us your definition of the term 'vernacular' and source
for
that definition. The usage of that term which you employ seems to
differ from that of standard definitions given in popular
dictionaries.
It appears that you confuse 'vernacular' with vulgar, vulgate, or
popular.

CED

Dear CED ~

I did not mean vulgar, vulgate, or popular. I meant vernacular.

The following definition of "vernacular" is taken from Merriam-Webster
Online Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/):

1 a : using a language or dialect native to a region or country rather
than a literary, cultured, or foreign language

I trust this answers your question.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

[Dolly Ziegler]

Douglas Richardson wrote:

When I have time in the near future, I plan to write a thorough review
for the newsgroup of all the better known online genealogical
databases. The databases will be graded on content, ease of use,
citation of sources, reliability, use of Latin forms, etc. Each
category will be graded on a scale from 1 to 10. Then, all the
categories will be totalled to give the larger picture. When
completed, I plan to submit my findings for publication in a
genealogical journal.

Doug, will your review focus on medieval content or the overall content?
Of course GEN-MEDIEVAL readers would hope for the medieval aspect.

Off-topic warning: I'd like to mention an article in the December 2004
edition of "Family Chronicle." <www.familychronicle.com> Content of the
magazine is very good, I think; illustrations not flashy, but I value
content more. Topics cover a wide range.

The article is "Getting Good Value Online" by Donna Potter Phillips. She
compares the quality and ease of information on five _PAY_ sites:
Ancestry.com, Genealogy.com, MyTrees.com, GenServ.com, and
OneGreatFamily.com. Prices range from $199.95/year to $12/year. Her
comments on her test searches are interesting.

I would have liked to read her comments on HeritageQuest.com, which is not
marketed to individuals but can be accessed through many public and
private libraries, and is part of the resources at Godfrey Library
<http://www.Godfrey.org> The Godfrey is especially strong on old
newspapers, and subscription is $35/year including HeritageQuest.
Godfrey users have a help list that is outstanding.

Cheers, Dolly in Maryland

[Leo van de Pas]

Dear Dolly,
When reviewing anything, shouldn't you look at the whole? Only for special
reasons should you focus on only one aspect. Of course, remarks can be made
that chapter/period xyz is better or worse than other chapters/periods.

When reviewing anything you should know the premise of what has been set out
to achieve and an important aspect is to look whether this has been
achieved. Also on my website is an invitation for additions and
corrections--- I do not see myself as either infallible or as _the expert_
Over the period my website has been on line I have received many messages
with additions and corrections and, gradually, I do hope the whole data base
will improve in size and reliability.

One person recently asked me why I stop with Charlemagne's ancestors by
Arnulf, and the reply was that I rather miss out on information than have
speculative information. Surely I do have some speculative information and,
it will be appreciated, if anyone points them out to me and I will correct
and even remove.

I think it is interesting to see that you mention sites where you have to
pay for access. Somehow, yes I would love to be paid, but also see that as
questionable. Of course, everybody deserves to be paid for their efforts BUT
genealogical details, in my opinion, belong to everybody and should be
shared around. Today you help me, tomorrow I help someone else and so we all
can help each other.

I understand in July a review of my website may get into print and I am
pleased, if only as through that review more people may become aware of it,
and again allow people to make use of it and help (hopefully) to improve the
whole collection.

I am not sure when the next update will take place, but by then MANY new
portraits, especially before circa 1500/1600 will be added as well as many
short biographies.

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

..
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dolly Ziegler" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: Website Review

Douglas Richardson wrote:

When I have time in the near future, I plan to write a thorough review
for the newsgroup of all the better known online genealogical
databases. The databases will be graded on content, ease of use,
citation of sources, reliability, use of Latin forms, etc. Each
category will be graded on a scale from 1 to 10. Then, all the
categories will be totalled to give the larger picture. When
completed, I plan to submit my findings for publication in a
genealogical journal.

Doug, will your review focus on medieval content or the overall content?
Of course GEN-MEDIEVAL readers would hope for the medieval aspect.

Off-topic warning: I'd like to mention an article in the December 2004
edition of "Family Chronicle." <www.familychronicle.com> Content of the
magazine is very good, I think; illustrations not flashy, but I value
content more. Topics cover a wide range.

The article is "Getting Good Value Online" by Donna Potter Phillips. She
compares the quality and ease of information on five _PAY_ sites:
Ancestry.com, Genealogy.com, MyTrees.com, GenServ.com, and
OneGreatFamily.com. Prices range from $199.95/year to $12/year. Her
comments on her test searches are interesting.

I would have liked to read her comments on HeritageQuest.com, which is not
marketed to individuals but can be accessed through many public and
private libraries, and is part of the resources at Godfrey Library
http://www.Godfrey.org> The Godfrey is especially strong on old
newspapers, and subscription is $35/year including HeritageQuest.
Godfrey users have a help list that is outstanding.

Cheers, Dolly in Maryland

[Douglas Richardson royala]

Dear Dolly ~

Thank you for your good post.

In answer to your question, yes, I plan to focus my review of
genealogical websites on those with significant English colonial and
medieval content, which is my area of expertise. Initially I plan to
examine the free databases. Depending on how that goes, I'll probably
tackle the pay-for-use databases next.

As I indicated in my earlier post, the genealogical databases will be
graded on content, ease of use, citation of sources, reliability, use
of Latin forms, etc.

For everyone's interest, I took a quick look at Jim Weber's colonial
and medieval website today. This website is found at the following web
address:

http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb. ... er&recno=0

I checked Mr. Weber's database for all the same items involving Aline
de Gay and her family which I earlier checked for Leo van de Pas'
genealogics.org website. I'm happy to report that Mr. Weber passed the
examination with flying colors! This is in sharp contrast with my
dismal findings earlier this week regarding Mr. van de Pas' website.

Mr. Weber had ALL five Aline's of the Gay-Basset contingent in his
database.
He had the name "Aline" spelled correctly for each individual.
He had the name "le Despenser" spelled correctly.
He had the name "Basset" spelled correctly.
He had up to seven sources listed for each couple, including Complete
Peerage.
He had Aline de Gay's parentage listed correctly.

If I was to score Mr. Weber on accuracy, thoroughness, reliability,
content, and use of sources, he would score a perfect 100%. While this
was my first test of Mr. Weber's database, he did extraordinarily well
by anyone's standards. I might note that Mr. Weber even went so far as
to quote verbatim from posts here on the medieval newsgroup, so readers
could determine his source of materials which are not available in
print. Hats off to Mr. Weber. Mr. Weber is clearly a very thorough
and accurate researcher.

Having said that, I did note some problem areas in both Mr. Weber's and
Mr. van de Pas' databases regarding the descendants of Aline de Gay in
the outer generations. I plan to address these problem areas in later
posts. Hopefully, we'll all learn something new along the way, ...
provided, of course, we keep it civil, polite, and collegial.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Dolly Ziegler wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:

When I have time in the near future, I plan to write a thorough
review
for the newsgroup of all the better known online genealogical
databases. The databases will be graded on content, ease of use,
citation of sources, reliability, use of Latin forms, etc. Each
category will be graded on a scale from 1 to 10. Then, all the
categories will be totalled to give the larger picture. When
completed, I plan to submit my findings for publication in a
genealogical journal.

Doug, will your review focus on medieval content or the overall
content?
Of course GEN-MEDIEVAL readers would hope for the medieval aspect.

Off-topic warning: I'd like to mention an article in the December
2004
edition of "Family Chronicle." <www.familychronicle.com> Content of
the
magazine is very good, I think; illustrations not flashy, but I value

content more. Topics cover a wide range.

The article is "Getting Good Value Online" by Donna Potter Phillips.
She
compares the quality and ease of information on five _PAY_ sites:
Ancestry.com, Genealogy.com, MyTrees.com, GenServ.com, and
OneGreatFamily.com. Prices range from $199.95/year to $12/year. Her
comments on her test searches are interesting.

I would have liked to read her comments on HeritageQuest.com, which
is not
marketed to individuals but can be accessed through many public and
private libraries, and is part of the resources at Godfrey Library
http://www.Godfrey.org> The Godfrey is especially strong on old
newspapers, and subscription is $35/year including HeritageQuest.
Godfrey users have a help list that is outstanding.

Cheers, Dolly in Maryland

[Leo van de Pas]

How fascinating, Aline de Gay is the test-stone for websites. I remember not
so long one person had checked only one line in Douglas Richardson's book
and had this quietly dismantled and the outcry!!! that was so dishonest as
there was so much that was correct!! It seems we can expect double standards
from Richardson.

I did not not set out to collect information to please Richardson and
certainly I did not set out to find the descendants of Aline de Gay and so I
do not see it as a problem if they lack in detail.

Richardson maintains we have to be civil, polite and collegial----I missed
honest and correct. He hasn't noted that he saw that I have 62 Basset
against 37 Bassett.
But don't let honesty and being correct stand in the way of a good hatched
job.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: Website Review

Dear Dolly ~

Thank you for your good post.

In answer to your question, yes, I plan to focus my review of
genealogical websites on those with significant English colonial and
medieval content, which is my area of expertise. Initially I plan to
examine the free databases. Depending on how that goes, I'll probably
tackle the pay-for-use databases next.

As I indicated in my earlier post, the genealogical databases will be
graded on content, ease of use, citation of sources, reliability, use
of Latin forms, etc.

For everyone's interest, I took a quick look at Jim Weber's colonial
and medieval website today. This website is found at the following web
address:


http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb. ... er&recno=0

I checked Mr. Weber's database for all the same items involving Aline
de Gay and her family which I earlier checked for Leo van de Pas'
genealogics.org website. I'm happy to report that Mr. Weber passed the
examination with flying colors! This is in sharp contrast with my
dismal findings earlier this week regarding Mr. van de Pas' website.

Mr. Weber had ALL five Aline's of the Gay-Basset contingent in his
database.
He had the name "Aline" spelled correctly for each individual.
He had the name "le Despenser" spelled correctly.
He had the name "Basset" spelled correctly.
He had up to seven sources listed for each couple, including Complete
Peerage.
He had Aline de Gay's parentage listed correctly.

If I was to score Mr. Weber on accuracy, thoroughness, reliability,
content, and use of sources, he would score a perfect 100%. While this
was my first test of Mr. Weber's database, he did extraordinarily well
by anyone's standards. I might note that Mr. Weber even went so far as
to quote verbatim from posts here on the medieval newsgroup, so readers
could determine his source of materials which are not available in
print. Hats off to Mr. Weber. Mr. Weber is clearly a very thorough
and accurate researcher.

Having said that, I did note some problem areas in both Mr. Weber's and
Mr. van de Pas' databases regarding the descendants of Aline de Gay in
the outer generations. I plan to address these problem areas in later
posts. Hopefully, we'll all learn something new along the way, ...
provided, of course, we keep it civil, polite, and collegial.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Dolly Ziegler wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:

When I have time in the near future, I plan to write a thorough
review
for the newsgroup of all the better known online genealogical
databases. The databases will be graded on content, ease of use,
citation of sources, reliability, use of Latin forms, etc. Each
category will be graded on a scale from 1 to 10. Then, all the
categories will be totalled to give the larger picture. When
completed, I plan to submit my findings for publication in a
genealogical journal.

Doug, will your review focus on medieval content or the overall
content?
Of course GEN-MEDIEVAL readers would hope for the medieval aspect.

Off-topic warning: I'd like to mention an article in the December
2004
edition of "Family Chronicle." <www.familychronicle.com> Content of
the
magazine is very good, I think; illustrations not flashy, but I value

content more. Topics cover a wide range.

The article is "Getting Good Value Online" by Donna Potter Phillips.
She
compares the quality and ease of information on five _PAY_ sites:
Ancestry.com, Genealogy.com, MyTrees.com, GenServ.com, and
OneGreatFamily.com. Prices range from $199.95/year to $12/year. Her
comments on her test searches are interesting.

I would have liked to read her comments on HeritageQuest.com, which
is not
marketed to individuals but can be accessed through many public and
private libraries, and is part of the resources at Godfrey Library
http://www.Godfrey.org> The Godfrey is especially strong on old
newspapers, and subscription is $35/year including HeritageQuest.
Godfrey users have a help list that is outstanding.

Cheers, Dolly in Maryland

[Peter Stewart]

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

Dear Dolly ~

Thank you for your good post.

In answer to your question, yes, I plan to focus my review of
genealogical websites on those with significant English colonial and
medieval content, which is my area of expertise. Initially I plan to
examine the free databases. Depending on how that goes, I'll probably
tackle the pay-for-use databases next.

As I indicated in my earlier post, the genealogical databases will be
graded on content, ease of use, citation of sources, reliability, use
of Latin forms, etc.

For everyone's interest, I took a quick look at Jim Weber's colonial
and medieval website today. This website is found at the following web
address:

http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb. ... er&recno=0

I checked Mr. Weber's database for all the same items involving Aline
de Gay and her family which I earlier checked for Leo van de Pas'
genealogics.org website. I'm happy to report that Mr. Weber passed the
examination with flying colors! This is in sharp contrast with my
dismal findings earlier this week regarding Mr. van de Pas' website.

Mr. Weber had ALL five Aline's of the Gay-Basset contingent in his
database.
He had the name "Aline" spelled correctly for each individual.
He had the name "le Despenser" spelled correctly.
He had the name "Basset" spelled correctly.
He had up to seven sources listed for each couple, including Complete
Peerage.
He had Aline de Gay's parentage listed correctly.

If I was to score Mr. Weber on accuracy, thoroughness, reliability,
content, and use of sources, he would score a perfect 100%. While this
was my first test of Mr. Weber's database, he did extraordinarily well
by anyone's standards. I might note that Mr. Weber even went so far as
to quote verbatim from posts here on the medieval newsgroup, so readers
could determine his source of materials which are not available in
print. Hats off to Mr. Weber. Mr. Weber is clearly a very thorough
and accurate researcher.

So perhaps you will now tell us what you make of the entries in Jim Weber's
database that are sourced like this one (ID: I32547):

Sources:
1.. Title: Leo's Genealogics Website (Leo van de Pas), http://www.genealogics.org
Page: Raoul III 'le Prudent' Prince de Deols
Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

Is this some genealogy in this post that I'm not getting?
Thanks
Will

[CED]

The definition you have chosen to share with us is quite ambiguous and,
for the purposes of medieval genealogy, of little use.

In 1400 England, what "language or dialect" native to England was not
the "literary, cultured, or foreign language?" If you think about it,
you can see how your defintion is of little use.

Moreover, literary languages are written languages; if you are quoting
a written language, it is by your definition, not vernacular.

It may be best, in order to define your use of the term 'vernacular,'
to review your use of that term on this list. According to the
archives, you have used that term as a substantive matter in debate,
sometimes most critical of others, more than 20 times. Please review
your use of the term "vernacular" on this list and give us the
"literary," the "cultured," or the "foreign" language which is the
contrast of the "language or dialect native to" England. (For the time
being, it is not necessary to review your use of the term for France.)
If going in to the archives is inconvenient for you, I can supply a
list of your posts in which you have used the term.

CED

[CED]

Dear Douglas Richardson,

Please excuse my failure to use a salutation in my last posting. It was
inadvertent.

By the way, what language or languages in 1400 England was or were not
the vernacular? If Latin was not the vernacular during our period,
which variety of Latin: church Latin? charter Latin? court Latin?
chronicle Latin? If French was not the vernacular, which variety of
French?

If 1400 is too difficult, try 1300 or 1200.

With respect to any of these dates, your definition raises more
questions than it supplies answers.

CED

[Douglas Richardson royala]

Dear CED ~

Sounds to me like you just want an argument. If so, I'll take a pass
on that.

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

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.ancestry.net


CED wrote:

The definition you have chosen to share with us is quite ambiguous
and,
for the purposes of medieval genealogy, of little use.

In 1400 England, what "language or dialect" native to England was not
the "literary, cultured, or foreign language?" If you think about it,
you can see how your defintion is of little use.

Moreover, literary languages are written languages; if you are
quoting
a written language, it is by your definition, not vernacular.

It may be best, in order to define your use of the term 'vernacular,'
to review your use of that term on this list. According to the
archives, you have used that term as a substantive matter in debate,
sometimes most critical of others, more than 20 times. Please review
your use of the term "vernacular" on this list and give us the
"literary," the "cultured," or the "foreign" language which is the
contrast of the "language or dialect native to" England. (For the
time
being, it is not necessary to review your use of the term for
France.)
If going in to the archives is inconvenient for you, I can supply a
list of your posts in which you have used the term.

CED

[Peter Stewart]

Douglas Richardson wrote:

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

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

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

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

Just a wee point -

I wasn't aware that there were right and wrong ways to spell Christian names
and patronymics in the middle ages. I distinctly remember that spelling only
became standardised in the latter part of the 19th Century, in England, that
is.Surely waht matters is the biographies of the people inviolved and the k
nown dates of these individuals, followed by scholarly work, advice and
research on the primary and secondary sources available to us to help us to
identify more on the individual, or even refute certain claims founded on woolly or
mistaken previous research...at least that is what I believe a gentleman
ought to try to do...
apart from:
"Three unspeakable precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience
and the prudence never to practice either of them." (Samuel Langhorne
Clemens)
regards
Peter ( de loriol)

[Gjest]

Dear Newsgroup,
Spellings even in eighteenth / nineteenth century
America were not necessarily concrete. Take as an example my ancestor
Benjamin Rolerson b 1768 in London as Benjamin Rolestone, a style He continued to use
until at least his marriage at Camden, Maine to Mary Grose / Gross in 1794.
He and his brother James who was generally styled Rollinson are said to ran
away from their home in London, England at a very young age (It`s been indicated
that Benjamin was as young as six, which I find incredible ) He and his wife
settled in Northport, Maine where a list published in the NEHGR of the places
the early settlers were from indicades He was from Reading, but doesn`t
further indicate if Reading, MA or Reading in England (one? of them) is meant.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Doug McDonald]

Douglas Richardson [email protected] wrote:

Dear Dolly ~

Thank you for your good post.

In answer to your question, yes, I plan to focus my review of
genealogical websites on those with significant English colonial and
medieval content,

I looked at Jim Weber's large website, and immediately found
something iffy. I'm more Scottish than English, so I looked there.

Jim has the wife of Archibald Douglas, Regent of Scotland, d. 1333,
as one Dornagilda Comyn, a daughter of the "Black" Comyn. Both
SP and CP have the wife, and mother of William, 1st Earl Douglas,
as Beatrix de Lindsay.

Doug McDonald

[Stewart Baldwin]

On 15 Apr 2005 20:27:31 -0700, "Douglas Richardson
[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Dolly ~

Thank you for your good post.

In answer to your question, yes, I plan to focus my review of
genealogical websites on those with significant English colonial and
medieval content, which is my area of expertise. Initially I plan to
examine the free databases. Depending on how that goes, I'll probably
tackle the pay-for-use databases next.

As I indicated in my earlier post, the genealogical databases will be
graded on content, ease of use, citation of sources, reliability, use
of Latin forms, etc.

For everyone's interest, I took a quick look at Jim Weber's colonial
and medieval website today. This website is found at the following web
address:

http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb. ... er&recno=0

I checked Mr. Weber's database for all the same items involving Aline
de Gay and her family which I earlier checked for Leo van de Pas'
genealogics.org website. I'm happy to report that Mr. Weber passed the
examination with flying colors! This is in sharp contrast with my
dismal findings earlier this week regarding Mr. van de Pas' website.

Mr. Weber had ALL five Aline's of the Gay-Basset contingent in his
database.
He had the name "Aline" spelled correctly for each individual.
He had the name "le Despenser" spelled correctly.
He had the name "Basset" spelled correctly.
He had up to seven sources listed for each couple, including Complete
Peerage.
He had Aline de Gay's parentage listed correctly.

If I was to score Mr. Weber on accuracy, thoroughness, reliability,
content, and use of sources, he would score a perfect 100%. While this
was my first test of Mr. Weber's database, he did extraordinarily well
by anyone's standards. I might note that Mr. Weber even went so far as
to quote verbatim from posts here on the medieval newsgroup, so readers
could determine his source of materials which are not available in
print. Hats off to Mr. Weber. Mr. Weber is clearly a very thorough
and accurate researcher.

Having said that, I did note some problem areas in both Mr. Weber's and
Mr. van de Pas' databases regarding the descendants of Aline de Gay in
the outer generations. I plan to address these problem areas in later
posts. Hopefully, we'll all learn something new along the way, ...
provided, of course, we keep it civil, polite, and collegial.

If and when the above projected grading of databases appears, I would
hope that the criteria used will be less superficial than the brief
glimpses which we have seen so far. In particular, it would seem that
the high grades given to Mr. Weber's database are based to a major
extent on the fact that it agrees with Doug on certain points of
spelling currently being disputed, and overlooks some very major flaws
that are readily apparent from anything more than a very brief
examination.

For example, one very well known aspect of medieval genealogy is the
existence of various fanciful pseudohistorical pedigrees containing
long lists of fictional names which seduce a large percentage of
novice genealogists. A quick look shows that Mr. Weber has included a
large number of these mythical individuals (for example, various
pseudohistorical Frankish and Scandinavian kings) in his database,
something that should always be considered as a major negative
indicator.

I would also regard the practice of including a large number of
verbatim quotes from elsewhere on the internet to be a negative
factor, rather than a positive one as suggested above. There are far
too many websites which use the ease of copying and pasting other
people's material as a substitute for doing their own research.
For example, on the page for Rollo of Normandy, Mr. Weber produdes
what is apparently a large verbatim quote from a posting somewhere on
the internet by a certain Curt Hofemann, which in turn includes
massive verbatim quotes from my own webpage on Rollo of Normandy at
the Henry Project. Although my name and website are both mentioned,
the extent of the borrowing is not made clear. My account is mangled
by the insertion of various other material, and someone unfamiliar
with my website would find it difficult to separate my own words from
Mr. Hofemann's. The bibliography at the end of the quote appears to
be that of Mr. Hofemann, but is in fact taken verbatim from my own
page on Rollo. There is no indication that Mr. Weber was aware of
this, but it does underline his own lack of effort.

Finally, it is interesting to note that Mr. Weber's website gives the
maternal grandmother of "Poppa de Bayeux" as a certain "Miss de
Brittany", and I was wondering if we could have an official ruling
with regard to how well this satisfies the "Richardsonian Rules" for
the presentation of names in genealogies.

Stewart Baldwin

Henry Project URL:
http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/henry.htm

[Paul K Davis]

You are quite right about lack of standardization. I have found, in the
contemporary records, something like fourteen different spellings of one of
my fourteenth century ancestors. For the sake of helping others today find
medieval people in my on-line database, I have tried to enforce a certain
amount of consistency, but always keep a list of the contemporary spellings
in the notes section.

People who debate the "correct" spelling are, I conclude, objectively bad
scholars on this issue. If you are convinced your "Reid" ancestor has
nothing to do with a "Read" family, you may miss the true answer to one of
your questions. On the other hand, it also is bad scholarship to simply
"correct" the spellings, without noting the originals. Then you run the
reverse risk of lumping unrelated people together. Good scholarship
includes not only stating what we know, but stating the limits on what we
know. A correct assessment of the range of spellings of a name can be as
important as knowing the "standard" spelling.

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

[Original Message]
From: <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Date: 4/16/2005 3:33:07 AM
Subject: re: Scholars and Gentlemen

Just a wee point -

I wasn't aware that there were right and wrong ways to spell Christian
names
and patronymics in the middle ages. I distinctly remember that spelling
only
became standardised in the latter part of the 19th Century, in England,
that
is.Surely waht matters is the biographies of the people inviolved and the
k
nown dates of these individuals, followed by scholarly work, advice and
research on the primary and secondary sources available to us to help us
to
identify more on the individual, or even refute certain claims founded on
woolly or
mistaken previous research...at least that is what I believe a gentleman
ought to try to do...
apart from:
"Three unspeakable precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of
conscience
and the prudence never to practice either of them." (Samuel Langhorne
Clemens)
regards
Peter ( de loriol)

[Rick Eaton]

I believe that the language of the day is now called Middle french. It is
still being taught at places like the University of Ottawa, by the way.

Rick

Dear Douglas Richardson,

Please excuse my failure to use a salutation in my last posting. It was
inadvertent.

By the way, what language or languages in 1400 England was or were not
the vernacular? If Latin was not the vernacular during our period,
which variety of Latin: church Latin? charter Latin? court Latin?
chronicle Latin? If French was not the vernacular, which variety of
French?

If 1400 is too difficult, try 1300 or 1200.

With respect to any of these dates, your definition raises more
questions than it supplies answers.

CED

[CED]

Dear Mr. Richardson,

I seems odd that you "take a pass" on an argument. Just in the posts of
this day you have indulged in an argument which you started. Why take
a pass in this case?

If you object to discussing your use of the term "vernacular" in the
topic of "Aline de Gay," another thread can be started. However, it is
you who began the argument by your misuse of "vernacular" when
discussing the name "Aline." I asked for your defintion, giving you
the benefit of the doubt; and you gave a definition which differs with
your usage. Even with your definition, no written language or foreign
language can be the vernacular in England. In fact, before 1400, the
only possible vernacular in England was English; even in that case
there is doubt because examples of written English can be found before
1400.

Since you object to discussing your use of the term "vernacular" in
this thread, I shall continue, shortly, in a different thread. In
order to avoid being OT, I shall use only examples of your use of the
term in your postings to this newsgroup.

CED

[Douglas Richardson royala]

Dear CED ~

I regret that I'm not able to help you if you have a closed mind. Your
statements to date make it clear that you want to pick an argument
about semantics. If so, you are insincere in having first asked me for
clarification of my position, since you obviously already have your
mind made up.

Rather than pour over my statements (which are actually quite general)
about the spelling of the given name, Aline (which is the topic of this
thread), I recommend you tell us your specific position on this matter.
Please provide your sources and examples to prove your opinions. Real
dialogue can happen if the conversation becomes a two-way street.

Please understand that I have purposely kept my statements rather
bland, as I find complex statements here on the newsgroup are often
ambushed by those with a hidden agenda. Therefore, what you think I
believe may not be the full reality. A broad overview such as I have
presented usually leaves out the more subtler nuances to such issues,
as well as any observed exceptions to the overall larger pattern.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED wrote:

Dear Mr. Richardson,

I seems odd that you "take a pass" on an argument. Just in the posts
of
this day you have indulged in an argument which you started. Why
take
a pass in this case?

If you object to discussing your use of the term "vernacular" in the
topic of "Aline de Gay," another thread can be started. However, it
is
you who began the argument by your misuse of "vernacular" when
discussing the name "Aline." I asked for your defintion, giving you
the benefit of the doubt; and you gave a definition which differs
with
your usage. Even with your definition, no written language or foreign
language can be the vernacular in England. In fact, before 1400, the
only possible vernacular in England was English; even in that case
there is doubt because examples of written English can be found
before
1400.

Since you object to discussing your use of the term "vernacular" in
this thread, I shall continue, shortly, in a different thread. In
order to avoid being OT, I shall use only examples of your use of the
term in your postings to this newsgroup.

CED

[CED]

Dear Mr. Richardson,
I do not "want to pick an argument about semantics." It is not
semantics. For you to say that it is only a matter of semantics is to
betray your lack of understanding of your own posts in the past. I want
to ensure that the term "vernacular" is used properly. You introduced
the term. You used the term in a context in which no proper meaning
could be deduced. The vernacular, even by the definition you submitted,
is an unwritten language.
Please see my discussion of this matter under the heading "Mr.
Richardson's use of the term 'vernacular.' "
I have no agenda. I hope only to encourge posters to use terms
properly, at least in the case of those who make claims of authority,
which you have done.
You recommend that I "tell us your specific position on this matter.
Please provide your sources and examples to prove your opinions."
This, I believe is your standard ploy in staving off embarrassing
questions. I have no position except an insistance on clarity in the
use of the English language in posts on this newsgroup. What sources
would you have me provide to back up that position. Common sense and
good English are my sources.
CED

[D. Spencer Hines]

You are obviously so stupid you haven't a clue as to the meaning of the
word:

SEMANTICS.

Put on the dunce cap now and go stand in the corner -- with your face to
the wall -- and let's hear no more babbling and prattling from you.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

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

| Dear Mr. Richardson,
| I do not "want to pick an argument about semantics." It is not
| semantics. For you to say that it is only a matter of semantics is to
| betray your lack of understanding of your own posts in the past. I
want
| to ensure that the term "vernacular" is used properly. You introduced
| the term. You used the term in a context in which no proper meaning
| could be deduced....

[CED]

Spencer:

To be called stupid by you is an honor.

CED

[Gjest]

Dear Doug and others,
In a recent post , Someone... I forget
whom used the term straitened , apparently meaning ` to set things right` which
I always thought was spelled straightened which spelling also means `to make
straight ` where as straitened indicated `restrictive` as in `straitened
circumstances` i. e. ` poor `

Have these Spellings and their meanings been changed ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Doug McDonald]

[email protected] wrote:

Dear Doug and others,
In a recent post , Someone... I forget
whom used the term straitened , apparently meaning ` to set things right` which
I always thought was spelled straightened which spelling also means `to make
straight ` where as straitened indicated `restrictive` as in `straitened
circumstances` i. e. ` poor `

Have these Spellings and their meanings been changed ?

I don't know.

I was refering to "fewer" and "less".

When the phrase "less than 10 items" appeared at the express
lane of supermarkets, and nobody outside Champaign and Madison,
at the store closest campus, complained, "less" became
a common and therefore acceptable word to denote a lower count,
and applied to the plural word "items".

In England the preposition used after the word "different"
has apparently become commonly and acceptably "to". I find this
bizarre in the extreme, but the English apparently don't.

Here in America, people used to say "have a good day".
One still hears that rarely, but mostly it has become
"have a good one".

Doug

[Gjest]

James,
It was me, myself, and I. Not Doug, don't blame stuff on him. I checked
it with spell check, and it told me it was correct. It is the wrong word,
though, as you pointed out, the usual problem that one may have in spell checking.

You did, after all, get the meaning of my sentence correctly!!! I checked
your reply below, and it told me "straitened" was spelled correctly but the use
of a space before the comma was a punctuation mistake which you used!! I
spell checked your entire message, and it found more than a dozen cases of the
same punctuation problem -- it appears that your fingers automatically put a
space between each word and the punctuation that goes with it. In addition,
spell check missed, but I got, the use of a capital in "these Spellings and
their meanings ".

But I got your meaning in spite of your errors, just as you got mine. I am
embarrassed to have made two bad errors in my original Amy Wyllys line which I
corrected. I am fall less embarrassed by misusing a word without a loss of
meaning. I taught in college, and I remember the colleague who got really
nasty to me once because I told him to "Drive careful," instead of "Drive
carefully." I avoided telling him, "Drive badly," but I was tempted.

Anyway, your point is made and taken.

Charlie McNett



In a message dated 4/17/2005 12:17:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
Dear Doug and others,
In a recent post , Someone... I forget
whom used the term straitened , apparently meaning ` to set things right`
which
I always thought was spelled straightened which spelling also means `to make
straight ` where as straitened indicated `restrictive` as in `straitened
circumstances` i. e. ` poor `

Have these Spellings and their meanings been changed ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA