Fw: Every English monarch down to Queen Elizabeth II is a de

[Leo van de Pas]

Dear Aaron,

What is your agenda? Why hammer that I have it wrong because it is different
from Nat Taylor? What if Nat has it wrong? What if we both have it wrong?

I have given you the details, to which you still have not replied, which
explains why I have what I have,
I have asked you to provide better sources.

If you can't, why continue this "Leo has it wrong."

Are you saying in this message that I do not have all English monarchs as
descendants of William the Conquerer? Which one?

Your "proof" is other websites but, sorry ,_other websites_ are not
sources, unless they have sources displayed. If they do, you should say the
source is, as is mentioned on website xyz.

I think Nat Taylor already has stated he is not sure of his records.

Repeating "Leo has it wrong" does not fix it. In stead of repeating this,
come with acceptable sources (not websites). If you can't, stop this mantra
"Leo has it wrong".

With best wishes,
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia



----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 4:17 PM
Subject: Every English monarch down to Queen Elizabeth II is a descendant of
William the Conqueror

Every English monarch down to Queen Elizabeth II is a descendant of
William the Conqueror


John Ravilious records the integrity of the following:
Nat Taylor records the integrity of the following:
British Peerage records the integrity of the following:
Leo van de Pas does not record the same, see below:

Leo does not have Margaret Graham, Countess of Menteith
as mother of Majorie Stewart, dau. of RS, 1st Steward Duke of Albany


Robert Stewart, 1st Duke of Albany-Margaret Graham, Countess of
Menteith
Duncan Campbell, 1st Lord of Lochow=Majorie Stewart, dau. of RS, 1st
Duke
Archibald CampbellI, Master of Campbell=Elizabeth Somerville

Of this, Leo van de Pas needs to correct the first generation wife,
Margaret Graham, Countess of Menteith,
married 9 Sep 1361, by Papal dispensation

Aaron

From: "Leo van de Pas" <[email protected]
Subject: Fw: Robert Stewart, 1st Duke of Albany, 1340-1420,and dau.
Lady Marjorie Stewart, 1380-1432
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:42:44 +1100

======= Can you be precise? I have 1361. The date you give (where did
it
come from?) and is it the date of the dispensation or is it the
actual
marriage date?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

Nat Taylor proposes the Stewart pedgree segment, as follows:

http://www.nltaylor.net/ancestry/royald ... gruder.htm

1. Robert I Bruce, King of Scotland ($B"w(B 1329) $B!g(B Isabel, dau. of Donald,
Earl of Mar
2. Marjorie ($B"w(B 1316), Princess of Scotland $B!g(B Walter Stewart
(1293-1326), 6th High Steward of Scotland

3. Robert II (1316-1390), 1st Stewart King of Scotland 1371-1390 $B!g(B
Elizabeth ($B"w(B1355), dau. Sir Adam Mure

4. Robert Stewart (~1340-1420) , 1st Duke of Albany, Regent of
Scotland $B!g(B Margaret Graham of Menteith ($B"w(B1380)

5. Marjory Stewart ($B"w(B 1432) $B!g(B Duncan Campbell, 1st Lord Campbell
(~1370-1453)

6. Archibald Campbell, Master of Campbell (~1393-1431/40) $B!g(B Elizabeth
Somerville

7. Colin Campbell ($B"w(B 1493), 1st Earl of Argyll $B!g(B Isabel, daughter of
John Stewart, Lord Lorn

8. Archibald Campbell ($B"w(B at the Battle of Flodden, 1513), 2d Earl of
Argyll $B!g(B Elizabeth, dau. John Stewart, Earl of Lenox

9. Donald Campbell, O. C. (1492-1562), Abbot of Coupar Angus, Lord
Privy Seal for Mary, Queen of Scots

The British Peerage website proposes the Stewart pedgree segment, as
follows:

http://www.thepeerage.com

1. Robert I Bruce, King of Scotland ($B"w(B 1329) $B!g(B Isabel, dau. of Donald,
Earl of Mar

2. Marjorie ($B"w(B 1316), Princess of Scotland $B!g(B Walter Stewart
(1293-1326), 6th High Steward of Scotland

3. Robert II (1316-1390), 1st Stewart King of Scotland 1371-1390 $B!g(B
Elizabeth ($B"w(B1355), dau. Sir Adam Mure

4. Robert Stewart (~1340-1420) , 1st Duke of Albany, Regent of
Scotland $B!g(B Margaret Graham of Menteith ($B"w(B1380)

5. Marjory Stewart ($B"w(B 1432) $B!g(B Duncan Campbell, 1st Lord Campbell
(~1370-1453)

6. Archibald Campbell, Master of Campbell (~1393-1431/40) $B!g(B Elizabeth
Somerville

7. Colin Campbell ($B"w(B 1493), 1st Earl of Argyll $B!g(B Isabel, daughter of
John Stewart, Lord Lorn

8. Archibald Campbell ($B"w(B at the Battle of Flodden, 1513), 2d Earl of
Argyll $B!g(B Elizabeth, dau. John Stewart, Earl of Lenox

9. Donald Campbell, O. C. (1492-1562), Abbot of Coupar Angus, Lord
Privy Seal for Mary, Queen of Scots


[sources]:

http://www.thepeerage.com/p10802.htm#i108012

thePeerage.com
A genealogical survey of the peerage of Britain as well as the royal
families of Europe
Person Page - 10802



Sir Robert Stewart1
M, #108011, b. before 1420, d. after 1431


Last Edited=15 Mar 2006
Consanguinity Index=0.4%
Sir Robert Stewart was born before 1420. He was the son of Robert
Stewart, 1st Duke of Albany and Muriel Keith.1 He died after 1431.1
Sir Robert Stewart succeeded to the title of 4th Earl of Buchan
[S., 1382] on 17 August 1424, although he never seems to have been
recognised as the Earl of Buchan.2
Citations
1. [S11] Alison Weir, Britain's Royal Family: A Complete Genealogy
(London, U.K.: The Bodley Head, 1999), page 220. Hereinafter cited as
Britain's Royal Family.
2. [S6] G.E. Cokayne; with Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H.
White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, editors, The Complete
Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United
Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, new ed., 13 volumes in 14
(1910-1959; reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton
Publishing, 2000), volume II, page 377. Hereinafter cited as The
Complete Peerage.
Lady Marjorie Stewart1
F, #108012, b. before 1380, d. before August 1432


Last Edited=20 Aug 2006
Consanguinity Index=0.1%
Lady Marjorie Stewart was born before 1380. She was the daughter
of Robert Stewart, 1st Duke of Albany and Margaret Graham, Countess of
Menteith.1,2 She married Sir Duncan Campbell, 1st Lord Campbell, son
of Sir Colin Campbell of Lochow and Mariot Campbell.2 She died before
August 1432.3,2
Lady Marjorie Stewart was also known as Marceline Stewart.2 Her
married name became Campbell.
Child of Lady Marjorie Stewart and Sir Duncan Campbell, 1st Lord
Campbell
* Archibald Campbell, Master of Campbell+ b. b 1406, d. bt Aug 1431 -
Mar 14401
Citations
1. [S11] Alison Weir, Britain's Royal Family: A Complete Genealogy
(London, U.K.: The Bodley Head, 1999), page 220. Hereinafter cited as
Britain's Royal Family.
2. [S6] G.E. Cokayne; with Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H.
White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, editors, The Complete
Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United
Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, new ed., 13 volumes in 14
(1910-1959; reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton
Publishing, 2000), volume II, page 512. Hereinafter cited as The
Complete Peerage.
3. [S11] Alison Weir, Britain's Royal Family, page 220, says c 1406.
Sir Duncan Campbell, 1st Lord Campbell1
M, #108013, b. before 1390, d. 1453


Last Edited=12 Jul 2005
Consanguinity Index=0.8%
Sir Duncan Campbell, 1st Lord Campbell was born before 1390.2 He
was the son of Sir Colin Campbell of Lochow and Mariot Campbell.2 He
married, firstly, Lady Marjorie Stewart, daughter of Robert Stewart,
1st Duke of Albany and Margaret Graham, Countess of Menteith.2 He
married, secondly, Margaret Stewart, daughter of Sir John Stewart,
before 12 March 1439/40.3 He died in 1453.1 He was buried at Kilmun,
Cowal.3
In 1424 he was in the list of hostages for the redemption of King
James I from captivity.2 He held the office of a Justiciar of
Argyllshire.2 He was invested as a Privy Counsellor (P.C.) [Scotland].
4 He was invested as a Knight before March 1440.2 On 4 August 1442 he
founded the Collegiate Church of Kilmun, in Cowal.2 He was created 1st
Lord Campbell [Scotland] in 1445.2 He lived at Lochow, Argyllshire,
Scotland.4
Child of Sir Duncan Campbell, 1st Lord Campbell and Lady Marjorie
Stewart
* Archibald Campbell, Master of Campbell+ b. b 1406, d. bt Aug 1431 -
Mar 14401
Children of Sir Duncan Campbell, 1st Lord Campbell and Margaret
Stewart
* Sir Colin Campbell, 1st of Glenorchy+ b. b 1432, d. c Sep 14754
* Neil Campbell b. b 14424
* Duncan Campbell of Kilmichael+ b. b 14424
* Archibald Campbell b. b 14424
Citations
1. [S11] Alison Weir, Britain's Royal Family: A Complete Genealogy
(London, U.K.: The Bodley Head, 1999), page 220. Hereinafter cited as
Britain's Royal Family.
2. [S6] G.E. Cokayne; with Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H.
White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, editors, The Complete
Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United
Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, new ed., 13 volumes in 14
(1910-1959; reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton
Publishing, 2000), volume II, page 512. Hereinafter cited as The
Complete Peerage.
3. [S6] Cokayne, and others, The Complete Peerage, volume II, page
513.
4. [S8] Charles Mosley, editor, Burke's Peerage and Baronetage, 106th
edition, 2 volumes (Crans, Switzerland: Burke's Peerage (Genealogical
Books) Ltd, 1999), volume 1, page 104. Hereinafter cited as Burke's
Peerage and Baronetage, 106th edition.
Archibald Campbell, Master of Campbell1
M, #108014, b. before 1406, d. between August 1431 and March 1440


Last Edited=15 Sep 2003
Consanguinity Index=0.1%
Archibald Campbell, Master of Campbell was born before 1406. He
was the son of Sir Duncan Campbell, 1st Lord Campbell and Lady
Marjorie Stewart.1 He married, firstly, Elizabeth Somerville, daughter
of John Somerville, 2nd Lord Somerville and Helen Hepburn.1 He
married, secondly, unknown Stewart, daughter of Murdoch Stewart, 2nd
Duke of Albany, before 1440.2 He died between August 1431 and March
1440.1,3
Archibald Campbell, Master of Campbell was also known as
Gillespic.2 He was styled as Master of Campbell.4 He was also known as
Celestine.1 He lived at Lochow, Argyllshire, Scotland.4
Child of Archibald Campbell, Master of Campbell and Elizabeth
Somerville
* Colin Campbell, 1st Earl of Argyll+ b. bt 1435 - 1440, d. 10 May
14933
Citations
1. [S11] Alison Weir, Britain's Royal Family: A Complete Genealogy
(London, U.K.: The Bodley Head, 1999), page 220. Hereinafter cited as
Britain's Royal Family.
2. [S8] Charles Mosley, editor, Burke's Peerage and Baronetage, 106th
edition, 2 volumes (Crans, Switzerland: Burke's Peerage (Genealogical
Books) Ltd, 1999), volume 1, page 104. Hereinafter cited as Burke's
Peerage and Baronetage, 106th edition.
3. [S6] G.E. Cokayne; with Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H.
White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, editors, The Complete
Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United
Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, new ed., 13 volumes in 14
(1910-1959; reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton
Publishing, 2000), volume I, page 198. Hereinafter cited as The
Complete Peerage.
4. [S6] Cokayne, and others, The Complete Peerage, volume II, page
513.
Elizabeth Somerville1
F, #108015, b. before 1426


Last Edited=9 Sep 2003
Elizabeth Somerville was born before 1426. She was the daughter
of John Somerville, 2nd Lord Somerville and Helen Hepburn.1,2 She
married Archibald Campbell, Master of Campbell, son of Sir Duncan
Campbell, 1st Lord Campbell and Lady Marjorie Stewart.1
Her married name became Campbell.1
Child of Elizabeth Somerville and Archibald Campbell, Master of
Campbell
* Colin Campbell, 1st Earl of Argyll+ b. bt 1435 - 1440, d. 10 May
14933
Citations
1. [S11] Alison Weir, Britain's Royal Family: A Complete Genealogy
(London, U.K.: The Bodley Head, 1999), page 220. Hereinafter cited as
Britain's Royal Family.
2. [S6] G.E. Cokayne; with Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H.
White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, editors, The Complete
Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United
Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, new ed., 13 volumes in 14
(1910-1959; reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton
Publishing, 2000), volume XII/1, page 94. Hereinafter cited as The
Complete Peerage.
3. [S6] Cokayne, and others, The Complete Peerage, volume I, page 198.

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.19/1256 - Release Date: 2/2/2008
1:50 PM

[[email protected]]

On Feb 3, 12:58 am, "Leo van de Pas" <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Aaron,

What is your agenda? Why hammer that I have it wrong because it is different
from Nat Taylor? What if Nat has it wrong? What if we both have it wrong?

I have given you the details, to which you still have not replied, which
explains why I have what I have,
I have asked you to provide better sources.

If you can't, why continue this "Leo has it wrong."

Are you saying in this message that I do not have all English monarchs as
descendants of William the Conquerer? Which one?

Your "proof" is other websites but, sorry ,_other  websites_ are not
sources, unless they have sources displayed. If they do, you should say the
source is, as is mentioned on website xyz.

I think Nat Taylor already has stated he is not sure of his records.

Repeating  "Leo has it wrong" does not fix it. In stead of repeating this,
come with acceptable sources (not websites). If you can't, stop this mantra
"Leo has it wrong".

Leo, I have no agenda. But you are still wrong, because you are
denying the
value of your own website if it is not a source. Nat Taylor, by your
explanation,
is not a source. Of course, websites are sources, good and bad.

You wish to debate that websites are sources? Why are we at:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.genealogy.medieval/ ?

Leo, please note you cite Nat Taylor as your source of the descendants
of this
union, in dispute. So, how can you now deny that Nat Taylor's website
is a
source? You cite it in your own sources. Make sense please, and stop
telling
me to not express my opinion.

At present,
all I am noting is Genealogics disgrees with the stated other websites
on the
noted item. And if you choose to not address the differences, then so
be it.

You have a great website, a great source, so why don't you and Nat and
John Ravilious and others, maybe Will Johnson, with another great
website,
get this subject resolved?

aaron

[Leo van de Pas]

Dear Aaron,

You have primary sources, secondary sources, and then perhaps tertiary
sources. If you want websites to be a source, they belong in the third
group, if that group exists.

With my website I try to present information _with_ sources, that does not
make my website a source in itself, at least not a primary or secondary
source. A website may be a place where you can find information, but that on
its own is not enough to say it is reliable, it is based on fact, the facts,
preferably, should be found in _primary sources_ and websites are far from
primary sources. They are only indications where _real_ sources can be
found. I cringe when people say "Leo says", because I do not say anything.
What should be said, "Leo has extracted information from source ABC", or
"the information comes from source ABC according to Leo".

The value of my website, as I see it, is presenting what sources, often rare
and obscure ones, give for information. This will enable people to use the
information and they can check with the original source if they want to.

You say "I have choosen not to address the matter", I have. The ball is in
your court, I have stated where my information comes from. You say the
information is wrong, you supply _sources_ just saying Nat Taylor disagrees
with me does not help. Again, What if Nat Taylor has it wrong?

You are the one who has made an issue of this one point. You now mention
four people who should jump, because you say so.

What would happen if, say, I have ABC
Aaron Parmenter comes along and says it shoud be DEF
Fred Jones comes along and says, it is still wrong, it should be GHI
and on and on. If I make changes everytime people "say so" my website would
be a mess. I gladly change information, and regularly do, BUT not on "say
so".

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia
..
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Every English monarch down to Queen Elizabeth II is a
descendant of William the Conqueror


On Feb 3, 12:58 am, "Leo van de Pas" <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Aaron,

What is your agenda? Why hammer that I have it wrong because it is
different
from Nat Taylor? What if Nat has it wrong? What if we both have it wrong?

I have given you the details, to which you still have not replied, which
explains why I have what I have,
I have asked you to provide better sources.

If you can't, why continue this "Leo has it wrong."

Are you saying in this message that I do not have all English monarchs as
descendants of William the Conquerer? Which one?

Your "proof" is other websites but, sorry ,_other websites_ are not
sources, unless they have sources displayed. If they do, you should say
the
source is, as is mentioned on website xyz.

I think Nat Taylor already has stated he is not sure of his records.

Repeating "Leo has it wrong" does not fix it. In stead of repeating this,
come with acceptable sources (not websites). If you can't, stop this
mantra
"Leo has it wrong".

Leo, I have no agenda. But you are still wrong, because you are
denying the
value of your own website if it is not a source. Nat Taylor, by your
explanation,
is not a source. Of course, websites are sources, good and bad.

You wish to debate that websites are sources? Why are we at:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.genealogy.medieval/ ?

Leo, please note you cite Nat Taylor as your source of the descendants
of this
union, in dispute. So, how can you now deny that Nat Taylor's website
is a
source? You cite it in your own sources. Make sense please, and stop
telling
me to not express my opinion.

At present,
all I am noting is Genealogics disgrees with the stated other websites
on the
noted item. And if you choose to not address the differences, then so
be it.

You have a great website, a great source, so why don't you and Nat and
John Ravilious and others, maybe Will Johnson, with another great
website,
get this subject resolved?

aaron

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.19/1256 - Release Date: 2/2/2008
1:50 PM

[[email protected]]

On Feb 3, 8:36 am, "Leo van de Pas" <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Aaron,

You have primary sources, secondary sources, and then perhaps tertiary
sources. If you want websites to be a source, they belong in the third
group, if that group exists.

With my website I try to present information _with_ sources, that does not
make my website a source in itself, at least not a primary or secondary
source. A website may be a place where you can find information, but that on
its own is not enough to say it is reliable, it is based on fact, the facts,
preferably, should be found in _primary sources_ and websites are far from
primary sources. They are only indications where _real_ sources can be
found. I cringe when people say "Leo says", because I do not say anything.
What should be said, "Leo has extracted information from source ABC", or
"the information comes from source ABC according to Leo".

The value of my website, as I see it, is presenting what sources, often rare
and obscure ones, give for information. This will enable people to use the
information and they can check with the original source if they want to.

You say "I have choosen not to address the matter", I have. The ball is in
your court, I have stated where my information comes from. You say the
information is wrong, you supply _sources_ just saying Nat Taylor disagrees
with me does not help. Again, What if Nat Taylor has it wrong?

You are the one who has made an issue of this one point. You now mention
four people who should jump, because you say so.

What would happen if, say, I have ABC
Aaron Parmenter comes along and says it shoud be DEF
Fred Jones comes along and says, it is still wrong, it should be GHI
and on and on. If I make changes everytime people "say so" my website would
be a mess. I gladly change information, and regularly do, BUT not on "say
so".

Leo, I went to Nat Taylor's website because of your website, which you
cite
in your sources. I then found that your wife for the Steward was
different
than Nat Taylor's wife. Why? Why cite him as a source, and then put
in
a wife that disagrees with your source, disagrees with all the other
sources
I cited. I accept these are websites, not primary documentary
sources.
That is why I suggested others resolve it, which seems to be what is
done
here.

aaron

[Leo van de Pas]

Dear Aaron,

You are confusing me, not that this is very difficult.

You say that I have the wrong mother for Lady Marjory (Marcellina) Stewart
and that I have quoted the website of Nathaniel Taylor.What has one got to
do with the other? I have not quoted Nat Taylor with Lady
Marjory/Marcellina's information.

In other words both Nat and I have come to a different conclusion based on
different sources. How do we know who is correct? By looking at primary or
perhaps secondary sources. Other websites may quote those primary or
secondary sources, but if you think I should change my information (why
don't you want Nat Taylor to change his information ?) then YOU have to
supply those more convincing sources. Do you think it is fair of you to send
me (or Nat Taylor) on a wild goose chase, just because YOU think something
is wrong. You should not THINK something is wrong, you should KNOW. At the
moment Nat and I have differing information but we do not know WHO has it
wrong.

John Ravilious a short while back has sent a message that for a period he is
snowed under with work, and has no time for genealogy. Pity for you. Perhaps
he can shine a "final" light on the problem. But as is, I do not see why
either Nat Taylor or I should change our information, just because you THINK
something is wrong. Supply acceptable sources and I bet either or both
gladly will improve the information we have.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 2:59 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Every English monarch down to Queen Elizabeth II is a
descendant of William the Conqueror


On Feb 3, 8:36 am, "Leo van de Pas" <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Aaron,

You have primary sources, secondary sources, and then perhaps tertiary
sources. If you want websites to be a source, they belong in the third
group, if that group exists.

With my website I try to present information _with_ sources, that does not
make my website a source in itself, at least not a primary or secondary
source. A website may be a place where you can find information, but that
on
its own is not enough to say it is reliable, it is based on fact, the
facts,
preferably, should be found in _primary sources_ and websites are far from
primary sources. They are only indications where _real_ sources can be
found. I cringe when people say "Leo says", because I do not say anything.
What should be said, "Leo has extracted information from source ABC", or
"the information comes from source ABC according to Leo".

The value of my website, as I see it, is presenting what sources, often
rare
and obscure ones, give for information. This will enable people to use the
information and they can check with the original source if they want to.

You say "I have choosen not to address the matter", I have. The ball is in
your court, I have stated where my information comes from. You say the
information is wrong, you supply _sources_ just saying Nat Taylor
disagrees
with me does not help. Again, What if Nat Taylor has it wrong?

You are the one who has made an issue of this one point. You now mention
four people who should jump, because you say so.

What would happen if, say, I have ABC
Aaron Parmenter comes along and says it shoud be DEF
Fred Jones comes along and says, it is still wrong, it should be GHI
and on and on. If I make changes everytime people "say so" my website
would
be a mess. I gladly change information, and regularly do, BUT not on "say
so".

Leo, I went to Nat Taylor's website because of your website, which you
cite
in your sources. I then found that your wife for the Steward was
different
than Nat Taylor's wife. Why? Why cite him as a source, and then put
in
a wife that disagrees with your source, disagrees with all the other
sources
I cited. I accept these are websites, not primary documentary
sources.
That is why I suggested others resolve it, which seems to be what is
done
here.

aaron

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.19/1256 - Release Date: 2/2/2008
1:50 PM

[Patricia A. Junkin]

I have been studying the case concerning the dower of Joan de Cobeham
Columbers Zouche found in the Yearbooks of Edward II, p. 190.
The dispute seems to henge on whether Joan was of age when she signed
a document in 1285. Joan and her second husband, Oliver la Zouche
claim she was within age, not of age. The plaintiff was Henry de
Cobeham, son of the John de Cobham to whom Joan seemingly quitclaimed
the dower lands gotten from Michael Columbers.
Any help appreciated,
Pat

[[email protected]]

On Feb 3, 2:34 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Aaron,

You are confusing me, not that this is very difficult.

You say that I have the wrong mother for Lady Marjory (Marcellina) Stewart
and that I have quoted the website of Nathaniel Taylor.What has one got to
do with the other? I have not quoted Nat Taylor with Lady
Marjory/Marcellina's information.

In other words both Nat and I have come to a different conclusion based on
different sources. How do we know who is correct? By looking at primary or
perhaps secondary sources. Other websites may quote those primary or
secondary sources, but if you think I should change my information (why
don't you want Nat Taylor to change his information ?) then YOU have to
supply those more convincing sources. Do you think it is fair of you to send
me (or Nat Taylor) on a wild goose chase, just because YOU think something
is wrong. You should not THINK something is wrong, you should KNOW. At the
moment Nat and I have differing information but we do not know WHO has it
wrong.

John Ravilious a short while back has sent a message that for a period he is
snowed under with work, and has no time for genealogy. Pity for you. Perhaps
he can shine a "final" light on the problem. But as is, I do not see why
either Nat Taylor or I should change our information, just because you THINK
something is wrong. Supply acceptable sources and I bet either or both
gladly will improve the information we have.

Leo, I do not know why you are defensive about this. You are the one
who
cites Nat Taylor as a source of this info, then you offer a different
wife than
Nat has on his website. That seems to me to then not be the source of
your
info? Why not put his info, or at least cite the source of yours?
Peerage.com
has sources, and I supplied that.

aaron

[Peter Stewart]

Original subject line changed, as this would have to be just about the
silliest ever given on SGM]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ba9af5d0-7221-4812-ab83-fd22b4bb6ed5@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

Leo, I do not know why you are defensive about this. You are the
one who cites Nat Taylor as a source of this info,

Leo has already told you that he does not cite Nat Taylor as his source for
the specific information you are complaining about: the above appears to be
either deeply ignorant or dishonest.

I looked at Genealogics at the only source I can see given for Marjory
(Marcellina) Stewart is "Burke's Genealogical and Heraldic History of the
Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage, London, 1938, Reference: page 145."

Nat Taylor may be an indefatiguable scholar, but he did not write the 1938
edition of Burke's peerage - or any other for that matter.

If you wish to be taken seriously, it is better to start here by tackling
your question directly rather than demanding that others should do so or
trying to use it as a means of unwarranted - and so far completely
unsubstantiated - attack.

Peter Stewart

[Nathaniel Taylor]

I never looked into this question before, nor did I notice any
discrepancy in the secondary sources until the recent thread(s).

For what it's worth, Scots Peerage is quite deliberately vague about the
maternity of this Marjory, and all but one of Albany's other daughters.
It looks as if she is more likely to have been born after 1380 than
before, but I have yet to see a concise and careful chronological
exposition.

For that matter, the wives of some other of the Campbells in this era
seem rather shoddily identified at least in SP.

Perhaps there is more recent systematic investigation of this family
elsewhere?

Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/