Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
AaronParmenter@gmail.com
Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
Genealogics - Leo van de Pas reports:
Duncan I
BIOGRAPHY
Grandson and heir of King Malcolm II, Duncan I 'the Gracious' was born
about 1001. About 1030 he married Sibylla, probably sister of Siward,
Earl of Northumbria, and daughter of Bjorn Bearsson. He was murdered
by Macbeth at Bothnagowan (now Pitgaveny), near Elgin on 14 August
1040. He was buried with his ancestors in Iona.
Sources 1. [S00011] ~Burke's Guide to the Royal Family, London,
1973 , Reference: 313
Wikipedia reports:
[source]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_I_of_Scotland
Duncan I of Scotland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
DuDuncan I
(Donnchad mac Crínáin)
King of Scots
Reign
1034-1040
Birthplace
Scotland
Died
August 14, 1040 (aged 38)[1]
Pitgaveny, near Elgin
Buried
Iona ?
Predecessor
Malcolm II (Máel Coluim mac Cináeda)
Successor
Macbeth (Mac Bethad mac Findláich)
Consort
Suthen
Issue
Malcolm III (Máel Coluim mac Donnchada)
Donalbane (Domnall Bán mac Donnchada)
Royal House
Dunkeld
Father
Crínán of Dunkeld
Mother
Bethócncan I
(Donnchad mac Crínáin)
King of Scots
Reign
1034-1040
Birthplace
Scotland
Died
August 14, 1040 (aged 38)[1]
Donnchad mac Crínáin (Modern Gaelic: Donnchadh mac Crìonain)[2]
anglicised as Duncan I, and nicknamed An t-Ilgarach, "the Diseased" or
"the Sick"[3] (died 14 August 1040)[1] was king of Scotland (Alba). He
was son of Crínán, hereditary lay abbot of Dunkeld, and Bethóc,
daughter of king Malcolm II of Scotland (Máel Coluim mac Cináeda).
Unlike the "King Duncan" of Shakespeare's Macbeth, the historical
Duncan appears to have been a young man. He followed his grandfather
Malcolm as king after the latter's death on 25 November 1034, without
apparent opposition. He may have been Malcolm's acknowledged successor
or tánaise as the succession appears to have been uneventful.[4]
Earlier histories, following John of Fordun, supposed that Duncan had
been king of Strathclyde in his grandfather's lifetime, ruling the
former Kingdom of Strathclyde as an appanage. Modern historians
discount this idea.[5]
In 1039, Duncan led a large Scots army south to besiege Durham, but
the expedition ended in disaster. Duncan survived, but the following
year he led an army north into Moray, traditionally seen as Macbeth's
domain. There he was killed, at Pitgaveny near Elgin, by his own men
led by Macbeth, probably on 14 August 1040.[9]
Depictions in fiction
Duncan is depicted as an elderly King in Macbeth by William
Shakespeare. He is killed in his sleep by the protagonist, Macbeth.
Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
aaron
Genealogics - Leo van de Pas reports:
Duncan I
BIOGRAPHY
Grandson and heir of King Malcolm II, Duncan I 'the Gracious' was born
about 1001. About 1030 he married Sibylla, probably sister of Siward,
Earl of Northumbria, and daughter of Bjorn Bearsson. He was murdered
by Macbeth at Bothnagowan (now Pitgaveny), near Elgin on 14 August
1040. He was buried with his ancestors in Iona.
Sources 1. [S00011] ~Burke's Guide to the Royal Family, London,
1973 , Reference: 313
Wikipedia reports:
[source]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_I_of_Scotland
Duncan I of Scotland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
DuDuncan I
(Donnchad mac Crínáin)
King of Scots
Reign
1034-1040
Birthplace
Scotland
Died
August 14, 1040 (aged 38)[1]
Pitgaveny, near Elgin
Buried
Iona ?
Predecessor
Malcolm II (Máel Coluim mac Cináeda)
Successor
Macbeth (Mac Bethad mac Findláich)
Consort
Suthen
Issue
Malcolm III (Máel Coluim mac Donnchada)
Donalbane (Domnall Bán mac Donnchada)
Royal House
Dunkeld
Father
Crínán of Dunkeld
Mother
Bethócncan I
(Donnchad mac Crínáin)
King of Scots
Reign
1034-1040
Birthplace
Scotland
Died
August 14, 1040 (aged 38)[1]
Donnchad mac Crínáin (Modern Gaelic: Donnchadh mac Crìonain)[2]
anglicised as Duncan I, and nicknamed An t-Ilgarach, "the Diseased" or
"the Sick"[3] (died 14 August 1040)[1] was king of Scotland (Alba). He
was son of Crínán, hereditary lay abbot of Dunkeld, and Bethóc,
daughter of king Malcolm II of Scotland (Máel Coluim mac Cináeda).
Unlike the "King Duncan" of Shakespeare's Macbeth, the historical
Duncan appears to have been a young man. He followed his grandfather
Malcolm as king after the latter's death on 25 November 1034, without
apparent opposition. He may have been Malcolm's acknowledged successor
or tánaise as the succession appears to have been uneventful.[4]
Earlier histories, following John of Fordun, supposed that Duncan had
been king of Strathclyde in his grandfather's lifetime, ruling the
former Kingdom of Strathclyde as an appanage. Modern historians
discount this idea.[5]
In 1039, Duncan led a large Scots army south to besiege Durham, but
the expedition ended in disaster. Duncan survived, but the following
year he led an army north into Moray, traditionally seen as Macbeth's
domain. There he was killed, at Pitgaveny near Elgin, by his own men
led by Macbeth, probably on 14 August 1040.[9]
Depictions in fiction
Duncan is depicted as an elderly King in Macbeth by William
Shakespeare. He is killed in his sleep by the protagonist, Macbeth.
Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
aaron
-
Gjest
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
On Feb 11, 9:03 pm, "AaronParmen...@gmail.com"
<AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Wikipedia" is not a source.
<AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
Wikipedia reports:
[source]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_I_of_Scotland
Duncan I of Scotland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Wikipedia" is not a source.
-
AaronParmenter@gmail.com
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
On Feb 12, 12:33 am, lostcoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
And "wikipedia is not a source"
is not an answer.
aaron
On Feb 11, 9:03 pm, "AaronParmen...@gmail.com"
AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
Wikipedia reports:
[source]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_I_of_Scotland
Duncan I of Scotland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Wikipedia" is not a source.
And "wikipedia is not a source"
is not an answer.
aaron
-
Volucris
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
On 12 feb, 17:34, "AaronParmen...@gmail.com"
<AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
It is. But you're not here for learning or remembering. Otherwise you
would know that a Wikepedia page is as good or as bad as any
contribution on this newsgroup. There are well documented answers and
there is crap. You are just doing a trick. Seeking faults to use as a
stick for stirring up trouble.
Hans
<AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 12, 12:33 am, lostcoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 11, 9:03 pm, "AaronParmen...@gmail.com"
AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
Wikipedia reports:
[source]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_I_of_Scotland
Duncan I of Scotland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Wikipedia" is not a source.
And "wikipedia is not a source"
is not an answer.
aaron
It is. But you're not here for learning or remembering. Otherwise you
would know that a Wikepedia page is as good or as bad as any
contribution on this newsgroup. There are well documented answers and
there is crap. You are just doing a trick. Seeking faults to use as a
stick for stirring up trouble.
Hans
-
pj.evans
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
On Feb 12, 8:34 am, "AaronParmen...@gmail.com"
<AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, adn it doesn't qulify even as
a_secondary_ source. You should learn to use better-quality materials.
H*ll, I've read novels that are probably more reliable than that
article in Wikipedia. (Try _King Hereafter_ by Dunnett.)
<AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 12, 12:33 am, lostcoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 11, 9:03 pm, "AaronParmen...@gmail.com"
AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
Wikipedia reports:
[source]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_I_of_Scotland
Duncan I of Scotland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Wikipedia" is not a source.
And "wikipedia is not a source"
is not an answer.
aaron
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, adn it doesn't qulify even as
a_secondary_ source. You should learn to use better-quality materials.
H*ll, I've read novels that are probably more reliable than that
article in Wikipedia. (Try _King Hereafter_ by Dunnett.)
-
AaronParmenter@gmail.com
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
On Feb 12, 12:52 pm, "pj.evans" <pj.evans....@usa.net> wrote:
and you should learn to spell.
so, who knows?
Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
aaron
On Feb 12, 8:34 am, "AaronParmen...@gmail.com"
AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 12, 12:33 am, lostcoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 11, 9:03 pm, "AaronParmen...@gmail.com"
AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
Wikipedia reports:
[source]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_I_of_Scotland
Duncan I of Scotland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Wikipedia" is not a source.
And "wikipedia is not a source"
is not an answer.
aaron
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, adn[sic] it doesn't qulify[sic] even as
a_secondary_ source. You should learn to use better-quality materials.
H*ll, I've read novels that are probably more reliable than that
article in Wikipedia. (Try _King Hereafter_ by Dunnett.)
and you should learn to spell.
so, who knows?
Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
aaron
-
AaronParmenter@gmail.com
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
so, who knows?
Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
aaron
nobody knows here, so maybe they do in Scotland?
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/Sc ... acbeth.htm
HISTORIC-
Welcome to History UK - the History of Scotland!
Duncan and MacBeth
Duncan and MacBeth - famous names thanks to Shakespeare and the
Scottish Play, 'Macbeth'. But how historically accurate is
Shakespeare's story, if at all?
For centuries, the clans had been waging war on each other. Viking
warriors had been raiding the coasts of Scotland. King Malcolm of
Scotia, king of the Scots and Picts, routed the Angles of Lothian in
the Battle of Carham in 1018 and became the most powerful man in
Scotland. When King Owen of the Britons of Strathclyde died later
that year without issue, Duncan (Malcolm's grandson) became the
rightful heir through marriage. Malcolm was therefore able to unite
the Four Kingdoms of Scotland under one throne. Scotland in the early
11th century had finally become a single nation.
Duncan - King of Scotland 1034 - 40
Duncan became King of Scotland upon the death of Malcolm in 1034. He
was a much weaker character than Malcolm and a terrible leader. He led
a disastrous campaign into Northumbria and was forced to retreat
ignominiously back to Scotland. His cousin MacBeth, chief of the
northern Scots, also had a claim to the throne through his mother.
MacBeth formed an alliance with his cousin the Earl of Orkney, and
they defeated and killed Duncan near Forres in 1040.
MacBeth - King of Scotland 1040 - 57
MacBeth, the Mormaer of Moray, claimed the throne on his own behalf
and that of his wife Grauch, and after the death of Duncan made
himself king in his place. Respected for his strong leadership
qualities, MacBeth was a wise king who ruled successfully for 17
years. He lived in a fortified castle at Dunsinane north of Perth. His
rule was secure enough for him to go on a pilgrimage to Rome in 1050.
However the peace was not to last: Duncan's son Malcolm had fled to
Northumbria after the defeat of his father and had never given up his
claim to the throne. In 1054 with the support of Earl Siward, he led
an army against MacBeth, defeating him at the battle of Dunsinnan.
MacBeth remained king, restoring Malcolm's lands to him. But in 1057
at the battle of Lumphanan in Aberdeenshire on 15th August, MacBeth
was finally defeated and killed and Malcolm became King.
Shakespeare's 'Macbeth'
Shakespeare's 'Macbeth', written nearly 400 years ago, is widely
accepted as one of his great tragedies and rated alongside 'Hamlet',
'King Lear' and 'Julius Caesar'. But how historically correct is it?
Shakespeare appears to deliberately mix fact and fiction in the play.
Apparently using Holinshed's 'Chronicles of Scottish History' as his
source, Shakespeare sets the battle between Duncan and MacBeth in 1040
at Birnam Hill in Perthshire, rather than Forres where it actually
took place. In the play MacBeth dies at Dunsinane whereas in reality
it was at Lumphanan where he was defeated and killed.
As for the personalities of the two main characters, Duncan and
MacBeth, again Shakespeare's portrayal is not historically correct. In
the play Duncan is portrayed as a strong, wise and elderly king
whereas in reality he was a weak and ineffective ruler. Shakespeare's
Macbeth has virtually no legitimate claim to the throne whereas the
real MacBeth had a respectable claim through his mother's side -
indeed both MacBeth and his wife were descended from Kenneth MacAlpin.
Shakespeare also gives MacBeth the title 'Thane of Glamis' but in fact
Glamis was not known as a thanage in the 11th century.
All in all, the confusing mix of fact and fiction which runs through
the play is bewildering.
However it has to be asked - who would have heard of these two
Scottish kings had it not been for Shakespeare and the 'Scottish
Play'?
Heritage Accommodation in Scotland
© HUK
More British History
History of Scotland - History of England - History of Wales
seems the Scots know more about Scotland than the
soc.gen.medieval? if you disagree with this, speak up
aaron
-
AaronParmenter@gmail.com
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
On Feb 12, 3:25 pm, "AaronParmen...@gmail.com"
<AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
history? what I read so far, historically, is that Macbeth might have
been part
of an army which was responsible for the death of Duncan I and so we
might
conclude, Macbeth was partly responsible for the death of Duncan, but
to
say "murdered" smacks of the fiction of Shakespeare
anyone have documentation to the contrary?
aaron
<AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
so, who knows?
Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
aaron
nobody knows here, so maybe they do in Scotland?
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/Sc ... ndMacbet...
HISTORIC-
Welcome to History UK - the History of Scotland!
Duncan and MacBeth
Duncan and MacBeth - famous names thanks to Shakespeare and the
Scottish Play, 'Macbeth'. But how historically accurate is
Shakespeare's story, if at all?
For centuries, the clans had been waging war on each other. Viking
warriors had been raiding the coasts of Scotland. King Malcolm of
Scotia, king of the Scots and Picts, routed the Angles of Lothian in
the Battle of Carham in 1018 and became the most powerful man in
Scotland. When King Owen of the Britons of Strathclyde died later
that year without issue, Duncan (Malcolm's grandson) became the
rightful heir through marriage. Malcolm was therefore able to unite
the Four Kingdoms of Scotland under one throne. Scotland in the early
11th century had finally become a single nation.
Duncan - King of Scotland 1034 - 40
Duncan became King of Scotland upon the death of Malcolm in 1034. He
was a much weaker character than Malcolm and a terrible leader. He led
a disastrous campaign into Northumbria and was forced to retreat
ignominiously back to Scotland. His cousin MacBeth, chief of the
northern Scots, also had a claim to the throne through his mother.
MacBeth formed an alliance with his cousin the Earl of Orkney, and
they defeated and killed Duncan near Forres in 1040.
MacBeth - King of Scotland 1040 - 57
MacBeth, the Mormaer of Moray, claimed the throne on his own behalf
and that of his wife Grauch, and after the death of Duncan made
himself king in his place. Respected for his strong leadership
qualities, MacBeth was a wise king who ruled successfully for 17
years. He lived in a fortified castle at Dunsinane north of Perth. His
rule was secure enough for him to go on a pilgrimage to Rome in 1050.
However the peace was not to last: Duncan's son Malcolm had fled to
Northumbria after the defeat of his father and had never given up his
claim to the throne. In 1054 with the support of Earl Siward, he led
an army against MacBeth, defeating him at the battle of Dunsinnan.
MacBeth remained king, restoring Malcolm's lands to him. But in 1057
at the battle of Lumphanan in Aberdeenshire on 15th August, MacBeth
was finally defeated and killed and Malcolm became King.
Shakespeare's 'Macbeth'
Shakespeare's 'Macbeth', written nearly 400 years ago, is widely
accepted as one of his great tragedies and rated alongside 'Hamlet',
'King Lear' and 'Julius Caesar'. But how historically correct is it?
Shakespeare appears to deliberately mix fact and fiction in the play.
Apparently using Holinshed's 'Chronicles of Scottish History' as his
source, Shakespeare sets the battle between Duncan and MacBeth in 1040
at Birnam Hill in Perthshire, rather than Forres where it actually
took place. In the play MacBeth dies at Dunsinane whereas in reality
it was at Lumphanan where he was defeated and killed.
As for the personalities of the two main characters, Duncan and
MacBeth, again Shakespeare's portrayal is not historically correct. In
the play Duncan is portrayed as a strong, wise and elderly king
whereas in reality he was a weak and ineffective ruler. Shakespeare's
Macbeth has virtually no legitimate claim to the throne whereas the
real MacBeth had a respectable claim through his mother's side -
indeed both MacBeth and his wife were descended from Kenneth MacAlpin.
Shakespeare also gives MacBeth the title 'Thane of Glamis' but in fact
Glamis was not known as a thanage in the 11th century.
All in all, the confusing mix of fact and fiction which runs through
the play is bewildering.
However it has to be asked - who would have heard of these two
Scottish kings had it not been for Shakespeare and the 'Scottish
Play'?
Heritage Accommodation in Scotland
© HUK
More British History
History of Scotland - History of England - History of Wales
seems the Scots know more about Scotland than the
soc.gen.medieval? if you disagree with this, speak up
aaron
history? what I read so far, historically, is that Macbeth might have
been part
of an army which was responsible for the death of Duncan I and so we
might
conclude, Macbeth was partly responsible for the death of Duncan, but
to
say "murdered" smacks of the fiction of Shakespeare
anyone have documentation to the contrary?
aaron
-
Gjest
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
On Feb 13, 7:57 am, "AaronParmen...@gmail.com"
<AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
Nothing better to do in Florida?
Like most of your posts (under your various names) this has nothing to
do with mediaeval genealogy.
Have a nice day.
MA-R
<AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 12, 3:25 pm, "AaronParmen...@gmail.com"
AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
so, who knows?
Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
aaron
nobody knows here, so maybe they do in Scotland?
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/Sc ... ndMacbet...
HISTORIC-
Welcome to History UK - the History of Scotland!
Duncan and MacBeth
Duncan and MacBeth - famous names thanks to Shakespeare and the
Scottish Play, 'Macbeth'. But how historically accurate is
Shakespeare's story, if at all?
For centuries, the clans had been waging war on each other. Viking
warriors had been raiding the coasts of Scotland. King Malcolm of
Scotia, king of the Scots and Picts, routed the Angles of Lothian in
the Battle of Carham in 1018 and became the most powerful man in
Scotland. When King Owen of the Britons of Strathclyde died later
that year without issue, Duncan (Malcolm's grandson) became the
rightful heir through marriage. Malcolm was therefore able to unite
the Four Kingdoms of Scotland under one throne. Scotland in the early
11th century had finally become a single nation.
Duncan - King of Scotland 1034 - 40
Duncan became King of Scotland upon the death of Malcolm in 1034. He
was a much weaker character than Malcolm and a terrible leader. He led
a disastrous campaign into Northumbria and was forced to retreat
ignominiously back to Scotland. His cousin MacBeth, chief of the
northern Scots, also had a claim to the throne through his mother.
MacBeth formed an alliance with his cousin the Earl of Orkney, and
they defeated and killed Duncan near Forres in 1040.
MacBeth - King of Scotland 1040 - 57
MacBeth, the Mormaer of Moray, claimed the throne on his own behalf
and that of his wife Grauch, and after the death of Duncan made
himself king in his place. Respected for his strong leadership
qualities, MacBeth was a wise king who ruled successfully for 17
years. He lived in a fortified castle at Dunsinane north of Perth. His
rule was secure enough for him to go on a pilgrimage to Rome in 1050.
However the peace was not to last: Duncan's son Malcolm had fled to
Northumbria after the defeat of his father and had never given up his
claim to the throne. In 1054 with the support of Earl Siward, he led
an army against MacBeth, defeating him at the battle of Dunsinnan.
MacBeth remained king, restoring Malcolm's lands to him. But in 1057
at the battle of Lumphanan in Aberdeenshire on 15th August, MacBeth
was finally defeated and killed and Malcolm became King.
Shakespeare's 'Macbeth'
Shakespeare's 'Macbeth', written nearly 400 years ago, is widely
accepted as one of his great tragedies and rated alongside 'Hamlet',
'King Lear' and 'Julius Caesar'. But how historically correct is it?
Shakespeare appears to deliberately mix fact and fiction in the play.
Apparently using Holinshed's 'Chronicles of Scottish History' as his
source, Shakespeare sets the battle between Duncan and MacBeth in 1040
at Birnam Hill in Perthshire, rather than Forres where it actually
took place. In the play MacBeth dies at Dunsinane whereas in reality
it was at Lumphanan where he was defeated and killed.
As for the personalities of the two main characters, Duncan and
MacBeth, again Shakespeare's portrayal is not historically correct. In
the play Duncan is portrayed as a strong, wise and elderly king
whereas in reality he was a weak and ineffective ruler. Shakespeare's
Macbeth has virtually no legitimate claim to the throne whereas the
real MacBeth had a respectable claim through his mother's side -
indeed both MacBeth and his wife were descended from Kenneth MacAlpin.
Shakespeare also gives MacBeth the title 'Thane of Glamis' but in fact
Glamis was not known as a thanage in the 11th century.
All in all, the confusing mix of fact and fiction which runs through
the play is bewildering.
However it has to be asked - who would have heard of these two
Scottish kings had it not been for Shakespeare and the 'Scottish
Play'?
Heritage Accommodation in Scotland
© HUK
More British History
History of Scotland - History of England - History of Wales
seems the Scots know more about Scotland than the
soc.gen.medieval? if you disagree with this, speak up
aaron
history? what I read so far, historically, is that Macbeth might have
been part
of an army which was responsible for the death of Duncan I and so we
might
conclude, Macbeth was partly responsible for the death of Duncan, but
to
say "murdered" smacks of the fiction of Shakespeare
anyone have documentation to the contrary?
aaron
Nothing better to do in Florida?
Like most of your posts (under your various names) this has nothing to
do with mediaeval genealogy.
Have a nice day.
MA-R
-
AaronParmenter@gmail.com
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
Analysis of Shakespeare's sources can prove invaluable to dramatic
production as well as literary criticism. For either character
sketches or purposes of subtext, source documents can provide
additional information or views on the events and personalities that
make up the tangled skein of a Shakespearean plot. Directors and
doctors can thus come together, examining texts in different ways, but
all for the purpose of enlightening and enlivening Shakespeare's
complex and multi-faceted works.
Quotes from Macbeth are taken from The Riverside Shakespeare,
copyright 1974 by Houghton Mifflin Co.
Quotes from Raphael Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland, and
Ireland are taken from the ENGL 511 text.
do members consider Raphael Holinshed's Chronicles of England,
Scotland,
and Ireland history? Or pseudo-history?
aaron
-
AaronParmenter@gmail.com
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
history? what I read so far, historically, is that Macbeth might have
been part
of an army which was responsible for the death of Duncan I and so we
might
conclude, Macbeth was partly responsible for the death of Duncan, but
to
say "murdered" smacks of the fiction of Shakespeare
anyone have documentation to the contrary?
aaron
here are the sources of the traditional history behind the fiction
http://www.io.com/~jlockett/Grist/Engli ... urces.html
To Strut and Fret Upon the Stage:
Theatrical Interpretation of Sources for Macbeth
Literary and theatrical criticisms of drama, particularly of
Shakespeare, have long been at odds with each other, with a
rapprochement coming into sight only within the last few decades.
Literary criticism tends to concentrate on plays as tissues of symbols
and philosophy, to the ire of practical actors searching for clues to
characterization. Theatrical criticism, on the other hand, leans more
towards character analysis, the sort of psychological study sometimes
leading towards nebulous theorizing like "How many children had Lady
Macbeth?" Too often it leaves dramatic source material only to the
minute examination of literary scholars and historians. Yet studies of
sources can open a world of ideas to the dramatic artist, in either
conceptions of a play as a whole or for specific character sketches.
In this paper, I plan to examine Shakespeare's primary source
materials for Macbeth, including extracts from Raphael Holinshed's
historical works, in light of their suggestions for practical
production. The performance side of analysis will appear in examples
drawn from the recent Baker Shakespeare performances of Macbeth (in
which I played Banquo) and the production notebooks of Glen Byam Shaw
for his 1955 production at Stratford-upon-Avon (edited by Michael
Mullin and published by the University of Missouri Press in 1976 as
Macbeth Onstage).
Examination of Macbeth spins a complex web of textual history,
comprising interrelated and plagiarized historical accounts, other
plays by Shakespeare and his contemporaries, and a host of current
political events surrounding the accession of James VI of Scotland to
the throne of England, thus forming the United Kingdom. This paper
will cast primary emphasis on the historical sources: potential
political sources, such as the Gowrie conspiracy or the Gunpowder
Plot, are by far secondary to the historical influences, and, while
interesting, supply more information about chronologies than
characters. Similarly, many sources are notable for influencing word-
choice or metaphors in Shakespeare's work but, except where such
borrowing sheds significant light on characters or situations, it will
be ignored.
Raphael Holinshed and his predecessor historians supply the basic
historical data for the story of Macbeth, and Shakespeare's
modifications to that story can tell actors and directors a great deal
about his possible intentions on the way the tale should be played.
The most obvious change to the historical events is compression:
Shakespeare's two main sources in Holinshed (Donwald's murder of King
Duff when "kindled in wrath by the words of his wife" in 967 A.D. and
Macbeth's usurpation around 1040 A.D.) lie over seventy years apart
chronologically, and each spans several years. Yet the play itself
passes in a blur and rush of realized ambition and consequent death,
lasting perhaps two months. The three invasions in Holinshed, by
Makdowald and his "kerns and gallowglasses," by Sueno and his
Norwegians, and by Canute's Danes in revenge for Sueno's defeat,
combine to one mammoth battle related in I.ii. Macbeth's ten years of
beneficent rule are swallowed up in the pause between Acts II and III
with no notice by any of his associates or enemies, and his seven
years as a tyrant pass in a welter of short and action-filled scenes.
This compression and streamlining of source material confirms what
many directors of Macbeth have come to realize: the play must move
lightly, quickly: "as though one were running down a great flight of
steps in a nightmare" (Mullin, p. 17) as Stratford director Shaw put
it. The play cannot be bogged down in cumbersome set changes or long
pantomimes or dumb-shows, or else the pacing, the ruinous speed
Shakespeare has been so careful to build into his version of the
source materials, will fail -- as will the show. Shaw designed a
simple set, with flying backdrops and alternate use of forestage and
back areas, to allow seamless transitions between prepared sets, often
with blackouts as short as five seconds. Baker's production this year,
though working with a much smaller budget, managed similar speed with
mimimal set and frenetic percussion music to enliven even the longer
blackouts.
But what type of man is the title character himself, Shakespeare's
Macbeth, cobbled together from historical accounts and playwright's
imagination? As mentioned, Macbeth's decade of good rule is eliminated
-- his decay is swift and sudden after Duncan's murder. That crime
itself, the killing of Duncan, receives different treatments in source
and in drama. Donwald has his servants kill King Duff and then spirit
the body away to a secret grave under a river in the fields: much is
made of the process of the murder. Holinshed's Macbeth accomplishes
his dirty deed in a much shorter narrative, but even he has
assistance, from "his trustie friends, amongst whom Banquho was the
chiefest," and then takes up the kingship for a peaceful and just
reign a decade long.
But Shakespeare's Macbeth is all alone with his Lady in his crime, and
the plan for the murder is simplicity itself: the action and interest
of the play lie in the aftermath of the deed. This change, more than
any other, rebukes those literary critics who argue that the Folio
Macbeth has had extensive cuts, including a murder scene: any such
addition would be dramatically superfluous, contrary to Shakespeare's
obvious intentions. Indeed, on stage, "[Shaw's] staging emphasized not
the murder, but the discovery of the murder" (Mullin, p. 249). The
events of II.iii -- the suspense during the Porter's banter with the
audience and then with Macduff and Lennox; the confusion of the
discovery, as Lady Macbeth faints and the princes Malcolm and
Donalbain discuss flight from the country -- are all additions by
Shakespeare. Malcolm and Donalbain's departure appears in Holinshed,
but the immediacy of their argument on stage makes it a significant
part of the chaos of regicide, a more vital spectacle than Holinshed's
tale of Donwald's overzealous murder of King Duff's drunken
chamberlains.
Indeed, Shakespeare seems to have taken pains to make Macbeth less
effective in his plotting than Holinshed's semi-historical figure.
Holinshed's Macbeth invites "Banquho with his sonne named Fleance, to
come to a supper that he had prepared for them, which was in deed, as
he had devised, present death at the hands of certeine murderers, whom
he hired to execute that deed, appointing them to meet with the same
Banquho and his sonne without the palace, as they returned to their
lodgings, and there to slea them...." Shakespeare's character's plan
is much more prone to disaster: the invitation is to a large, well-
attended feast, and the murder occurs beforehand, so that the murdered
guests are sooner missed and suspicion is sooner aroused (as in
Lennox's speech in III.vi). Holinshed's ruler is a cruel tyrant,
Shakespeare's a growing paranoiac whose mind is slipping away under
the weight of guilt and supernatural forces. This mental
fragmentation, already apparent in the play, becomes even clearer in
light of Shakespeare's modifications to his sources.
But it is in the minor characters that theatrical criticism of the
sources proves most helpful. Small parts are often considered the most
difficult for actors to play: fewer lines in the script means fewer
clues around which to construct a character. The sources can provide
additional clues, by either pointing out contrasts with the play or by
supplying additional information or viewpoints.
I found Holinshed's Chronicles of great use during rehearsals for
Baker Shakespeare's Macbeth, while I was trying to "find" Banquo. My
first concept for the character was that of a serious, forthright,
virtuous, slightly "stuck-up" Scottish noble who eschewed flattery.
But this preliminary concept refused to fit the text: my so-called
"ornithology monologue" ("This guest of summer, / The temple-haunting
martlet...." (I.vi.3-4)) would not read as anything but pure flattery
towards Duncan, and the annunciation scene with the witches (I.iii)
always seemed to play flatly with a stern Banquo. Then I read
Holinshed's Chronicles, and found traces of a different sort of thane.
Shakespeare had to be wary of how he portrayed Banquo, since the semi-
legendary thane of Lochquhaber was the ancestor of King James I. But
Holinshed describes Banquo's assistance in the murder of King Duncan,
and that was the spark to make me realize that Banquo could be
ambitious too: he had as much, or more, riding on the witches'
prophecy as Macbeth. "Why, by the verities on thee made good / May
they not be my oracles as well, / And set me up in hope?" (III.i.
8-10) suddenly took on new force as plotting on the part of Banquo. He
might not be tempted to such dire acts as Macbeth, but could still
maneuver for political position, as when my Banquo cut off Rosse (an
evil schemer himself, in the Baker production) to agree with Duncan
about the "temple-haunting martlet." The character as I conceived him
suspected Macbeth of the murder, yet kept his peace, waiting to see
how the witches' prophecy would turn out.
On reading Shaw's production notebook, I find I was not alone in my
interpretation, for in the 1955 Stratford production Banquo was even
more involved in the murder plot. In II.i, as Banquo encounters the
seething Macbeth before the murder, Shaw's Banquo seems to guardedly
agree with Macbeth with his "I shall be counsell'd." (II.i.29) At the
end of III.iii, Macbeth enters to observe (and, indeed, to some extent
frighten off) the fleeing Malcolm and Donalbain. Then, "as he goes
into the hall he meets Banquo. Nothing is said." (Mullin, p. 109). But
a look passes between the two -- a moment of complicity. Shaw even
writes that "[Banquo] is the first person, I think, to suspect the
truth about the murder of Duncan, but he says nothing. Why?.... I
think his silence about the Witches is mostly on account of his own
interest in the future of the Crown.... I don't think that it is
possible to believe that he remains silent only out of friendship for
Macbeth; & if it is fear that prevents him from telling the truth, &
he is completely honest, then he could leave the country. Of course he
is not a villain but is not a simple honest man either. He has his own
particular form of ambition." (Mullin, p. 116)
Yet Banquo need not always be a stern Scot. Holinshed describes how,
after encountering the witches, it "was reputed at the first but some
vaine fantasticall illusion by Mackbeth and Banquho, insomuch that
Banquho would call Mackbeth in jest, king of Scotland; and Mackbeth
againe would call him in sport likewise, the father of manie kings,"
and "the same night after... Banquho jested with [Macbeth]." These
descriptions solved the significant problem for Pab Schwendimann (who
played Macbeth) and me of how to interpret the characters' lines after
the witches disappearance in I.iii: should we be entirely believing or
absolutely incredulous, or some mixture of the two? On first
encountering the witches, my Banquo was scornful -- "Speak then to me,
who neither beg nor fear / Your favors nor your hate." (I.iii.60-1)
Pab's Macbeth was more trusting, already partly under the influence of
the witch's wound-up "charm," interested but still doubtful. The
witches' mysterious disappearance forced a more serious note, but we
soon fell to jesting, giving a comic motivation to lines such as "Your
children shall be kings. / You shall be king!" (I.iii.86-7). Not until
the arrival of Rosse and Angus and their news of Cawdor's death were
we forced to realize that the witches might have spoken truth. Sources
for the play thus provided motivations and subtext for a difficult
acting passage, proving theatrically practical as well as literarily
interesting.
King Duncan, too, can be significantly "fleshed out" by reference to
the sources. Often he is played as a weak, doddering old man --
perhaps as counterpoint to the virile young Macbeth, perhaps because
Holinshed says he was "soft and gentle of nature" and "had too much of
clemencie," causing the rebellion of Makdowald through over-leniency
to offenders. Yet later, says Holinshed, Duncan "began to assemble an
armie in most speedie wise, like a verie valiant capteine: for
oftentimes it happeneth, that a dull coward and slouthfull person,
constrained by necessities, becommeth verie hardie and active," and he
cleverly laces his enemies' supplies with sleep-inducing milkwort
berries to free himself from seige.
Shakespeare's Duncan is more remote than Holinshed's: he does not lead
the army himself, but hears of Macbeth and Banquo's exploits from
behind the lines (I.ii). Yet he has no compunctions about sentencing
Cawdor to death. Very possibly, Shakespeare's Duncan is a ruler
similar to Duke Vincentio in Measure for Measure: ready to hand the
cares of state (warfare, in this case) over to lieutenants when dirty
work must be done, and then watching to ensure his commands are
executed. But Duncan's lieutenant turns on him, and he has no time to
corral him again, as Vincentio does with Angelo. While he is alive,
though, Duncan shows a fair mind for political maneuvering. Holinshed
sets a span of time between Macbeth's victory and Duncan's appointment
of Malcolm as successor. As Shaw explains it, "the old King senses the
power & ambitions of Macbeth & having honoured him, deliberately
chooses this moment [I.iv] to name Malcolm as his successor & make him
prince of Cumberland.... He again shows his good will to Macbeth by
telling him that he will spend the night at his Castle at
Inverness." (Mullin, p. 56) "Crowning Malcolm is a calculated risk,
and by favoring Macbeth with his presence, Duncan hopes to cancel any
resentment Macbeth might feel" (Mullin, p. 25) -- Duncan himself has
his own ambitions. The audience will feel more horror at Macbeth and
pity for Duncan if he is an effective ruler cut down in his prime than
if he is a doddering, ineffective Lear: Shakespeare's variance from
the sources again shows his dramatic intentions.
Analysis of Shakespeare's sources can prove invaluable to dramatic
production as well as literary criticism. For either character
sketches or purposes of subtext, source documents can provide
additional information or views on the events and personalities that
make up the tangled skein of a Shakespearean plot. Directors and
doctors can thus come together, examining texts in different ways, but
all for the purpose of enlightening and enlivening Shakespeare's
complex and multi-faceted works.
Quotes from Macbeth are taken from The Riverside Shakespeare,
copyright 1974 by Houghton Mifflin Co.
Quotes from Raphael Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland, and
Ireland are taken from the ENGL 511 text.
Quotes from Glen Byam Shaw's production notebooks are taken from
Macbeth Onstage: An Annotated Facsimile of Glen Byam Shaw's 1955
Promptbook, edited by Michael Mullin, copyright 1976 by University of
Missouri Press.
aaron
-
AaronParmenter@gmail.com
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
On Feb 12, 4:47 pm, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
then you cannot read
Duncan - King of Scotland 1034 - 40
Duncan became King of Scotland upon the death of Malcolm in 1034. He
was a much weaker character than Malcolm and a terrible leader. He led
a disastrous campaign into Northumbria and was forced to retreat
ignominiously back to Scotland. His cousin MacBeth, chief of the
northern Scots, also had a claim to the throne through his mother.
MacBeth formed an alliance with his cousin the Earl of Orkney, and
they defeated and killed Duncan near Forres in 1040.
MacBeth - King of Scotland 1040 - 57
MacBeth, the Mormaer of Moray, claimed the throne on his own behalf
and that of his wife Grauch, and after the death of Duncan made
himself king in his place. Respected for his strong leadership
qualities, MacBeth was a wise king who ruled successfully for 17
years. He lived in a fortified castle at Dunsinane north of Perth. His
rule was secure enough for him to go on a pilgrimage to Rome in 1050.
However the peace was not to last: Duncan's son Malcolm had fled to
Northumbria after the defeat of his father and had never given up his
claim to the throne. In 1054 with the support of Earl Siward, he led
an army against MacBeth, defeating him at the battle of Dunsinnan.
MacBeth remained king, restoring Malcolm's lands to him. But in 1057
at the battle of Lumphanan in Aberdeenshire on 15th August, MacBeth
was finally defeated and killed and Malcolm became King.
the point is clear, if one has descent from Duncan I King of Scotland
then one's ancestor's death cannot be written properly until/unless
the question is settled
aaron
On Feb 13, 7:57 am, "AaronParmen...@gmail.com"
AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 12, 3:25 pm, "AaronParmen...@gmail.com"
AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
so, who knows?
Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
aaron
nobody knows here, so maybe they do in Scotland?
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/Sc ... dMacbet....
HISTORIC-
Welcome to History UK - the History of Scotland!
Duncan and MacBeth
Duncan and MacBeth - famous names thanks to Shakespeare and the
Scottish Play, 'Macbeth'. But how historically accurate is
Shakespeare's story, if at all?
For centuries, the clans had been waging war on each other. Viking
warriors had been raiding the coasts of Scotland. King Malcolm of
Scotia, king of the Scots and Picts, routed the Angles of Lothian in
the Battle of Carham in 1018 and became the most powerful man in
Scotland. When King Owen of the Britons of Strathclyde died later
that year without issue, Duncan (Malcolm's grandson) became the
rightful heir through marriage. Malcolm was therefore able to unite
the Four Kingdoms of Scotland under one throne. Scotland in the early
11th century had finally become a single nation.
Duncan - King of Scotland 1034 - 40
Duncan became King of Scotland upon the death of Malcolm in 1034. He
was a much weaker character than Malcolm and a terrible leader. He led
a disastrous campaign into Northumbria and was forced to retreat
ignominiously back to Scotland. His cousin MacBeth, chief of the
northern Scots, also had a claim to the throne through his mother.
MacBeth formed an alliance with his cousin the Earl of Orkney, and
they defeated and killed Duncan near Forres in 1040.
MacBeth - King of Scotland 1040 - 57
MacBeth, the Mormaer of Moray, claimed the throne on his own behalf
and that of his wife Grauch, and after the death of Duncan made
himself king in his place. Respected for his strong leadership
qualities, MacBeth was a wise king who ruled successfully for 17
years. He lived in a fortified castle at Dunsinane north of Perth. His
rule was secure enough for him to go on a pilgrimage to Rome in 1050.
However the peace was not to last: Duncan's son Malcolm had fled to
Northumbria after the defeat of his father and had never given up his
claim to the throne. In 1054 with the support of Earl Siward, he led
an army against MacBeth, defeating him at the battle of Dunsinnan.
MacBeth remained king, restoring Malcolm's lands to him. But in 1057
at the battle of Lumphanan in Aberdeenshire on 15th August, MacBeth
was finally defeated and killed and Malcolm became King.
Shakespeare's 'Macbeth'
Shakespeare's 'Macbeth', written nearly 400 years ago, is widely
accepted as one of his great tragedies and rated alongside 'Hamlet',
'King Lear' and 'Julius Caesar'. But how historically correct is it?
Shakespeare appears to deliberately mix fact and fiction in the play.
Apparently using Holinshed's 'Chronicles of Scottish History' as his
source, Shakespeare sets the battle between Duncan and MacBeth in 1040
at Birnam Hill in Perthshire, rather than Forres where it actually
took place. In the play MacBeth dies at Dunsinane whereas in reality
it was at Lumphanan where he was defeated and killed.
As for the personalities of the two main characters, Duncan and
MacBeth, again Shakespeare's portrayal is not historically correct. In
the play Duncan is portrayed as a strong, wise and elderly king
whereas in reality he was a weak and ineffective ruler. Shakespeare's
Macbeth has virtually no legitimate claim to the throne whereas the
real MacBeth had a respectable claim through his mother's side -
indeed both MacBeth and his wife were descended from Kenneth MacAlpin.
Shakespeare also gives MacBeth the title 'Thane of Glamis' but in fact
Glamis was not known as a thanage in the 11th century.
All in all, the confusing mix of fact and fiction which runs through
the play is bewildering.
However it has to be asked - who would have heard of these two
Scottish kings had it not been for Shakespeare and the 'Scottish
Play'?
Heritage Accommodation in Scotland
© HUK
More British History
History of Scotland - History of England - History of Wales
seems the Scots know more about Scotland than the
soc.gen.medieval? if you disagree with this, speak up
aaron
history? what I read so far, historically, is that Macbeth might have
been part
of an army which was responsible for the death of Duncan I and so we
might
conclude, Macbeth was partly responsible for the death of Duncan, but
to
say "murdered" smacks of the fiction of Shakespeare
anyone have documentation to the contrary?
aaron
Like most of your posts (under your various names) this has nothing to
do with mediaeval genealogy.
then you cannot read
Duncan - King of Scotland 1034 - 40
Duncan became King of Scotland upon the death of Malcolm in 1034. He
was a much weaker character than Malcolm and a terrible leader. He led
a disastrous campaign into Northumbria and was forced to retreat
ignominiously back to Scotland. His cousin MacBeth, chief of the
northern Scots, also had a claim to the throne through his mother.
MacBeth formed an alliance with his cousin the Earl of Orkney, and
they defeated and killed Duncan near Forres in 1040.
MacBeth - King of Scotland 1040 - 57
MacBeth, the Mormaer of Moray, claimed the throne on his own behalf
and that of his wife Grauch, and after the death of Duncan made
himself king in his place. Respected for his strong leadership
qualities, MacBeth was a wise king who ruled successfully for 17
years. He lived in a fortified castle at Dunsinane north of Perth. His
rule was secure enough for him to go on a pilgrimage to Rome in 1050.
However the peace was not to last: Duncan's son Malcolm had fled to
Northumbria after the defeat of his father and had never given up his
claim to the throne. In 1054 with the support of Earl Siward, he led
an army against MacBeth, defeating him at the battle of Dunsinnan.
MacBeth remained king, restoring Malcolm's lands to him. But in 1057
at the battle of Lumphanan in Aberdeenshire on 15th August, MacBeth
was finally defeated and killed and Malcolm became King.
the point is clear, if one has descent from Duncan I King of Scotland
then one's ancestor's death cannot be written properly until/unless
the question is settled
aaron
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
<AaronParmenter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:672438f0-dc5f-4aef-8d6f-40425955eb06@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 12, 4:47 pm, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
<snip>
Then you will just have to go on wallowing in uncertainty, and you can stop
boring us with inconclusive screeds copied from any and every place you can
find them.
The question can't be answered, like so many in history. No contemporary
source tells us by whose hand Duncan died, whether this was Macbeth himself
or someone unknown. No source tells us who did not kill Duncan. There is a
long-established tradition that this was Macbeth, probably just on the
common basis of suspicion, "cui bono".
Get over it. The man died, the forensic details are lost.
Peter Stewart
news:672438f0-dc5f-4aef-8d6f-40425955eb06@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 12, 4:47 pm, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
<snip>
the point is clear, if one has descent from Duncan I King of Scotland
then one's ancestor's death cannot be written properly until/unless
the question is settled
Then you will just have to go on wallowing in uncertainty, and you can stop
boring us with inconclusive screeds copied from any and every place you can
find them.
The question can't be answered, like so many in history. No contemporary
source tells us by whose hand Duncan died, whether this was Macbeth himself
or someone unknown. No source tells us who did not kill Duncan. There is a
long-established tradition that this was Macbeth, probably just on the
common basis of suspicion, "cui bono".
Get over it. The man died, the forensic details are lost.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
On Feb 13, 9:05 am, "AaronParmen...@gmail.com"
(snip of lengthy and irrelevant cut-and-paste)
Yes - so much clearer now. Do you speak English as well as
balderdash?
We can recommend a good English teacher in Florida for you if you
like; no doubt he's quite handy for you. You could include your
friend 'Fluff' while you're at it - and give the list a break from
your collective drivel.
MA-R
(snip of lengthy and irrelevant cut-and-paste)
the point is clear, if one has descent from Duncan I King of Scotland
then one's ancestor's death cannot be written properly until/unless
the question is settled
Yes - so much clearer now. Do you speak English as well as
balderdash?
We can recommend a good English teacher in Florida for you if you
like; no doubt he's quite handy for you. You could include your
friend 'Fluff' while you're at it - and give the list a break from
your collective drivel.
MA-R
-
Gjest
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
On Feb 12, 8:34 am, "AaronParmen...@gmail.com"
<AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
What was the question?
<AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 12, 12:33 am, lostcoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 11, 9:03 pm, "AaronParmen...@gmail.com"
AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
Wikipedia reports:
[source]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_I_of_Scotland
Duncan I of Scotland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Wikipedia" is not a source.
And "wikipedia is not a source"
is not an answer.
aaron
What was the question?
-
letiTiAflufF@gmail.com
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
On Feb 12, 6:24 pm, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking
the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click
the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select
the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Home » Legal Banter forum » Search Forums
Search Results
Author Name Remember Me?
Password
Site Map Home Register Authors List Today's Posts Search Tags Web
Partners
Showing results 1 to 4 of 4
Search took 0.06 seconds. Search: Posts made by: mjcar@btinternet.com
Forum: uk.legal (Legal Issues in the UK) November 12th 05, 11:44 PM
Posted to alt.talk.royalty,uk.legal
Replies: 8
Peerage and attainder or corruption of blood for felony
Views: 9
Posted By mjcar@btinternet.com
Peerage and attainder or corruption of blood for felony
Don Aitken schrieb:
On 12 Nov 2005 08:27:57 -0800, wrote:
the law generally prevents a felon enriching himself as a consequence
(or by-product) of his crimes.
...
Forum: uk.legal (Legal Issues in the UK) November 12th 05, 04:27 PM
Posted to alt.talk.royalty,uk.legal
Replies: 8
Peerage and attainder or corruption of blood for felony
Views: 9
Posted By mjcar@btinternet.com
Peerage and attainder or corruption of blood for felony
Candide schrieb:
IIRC "entailments" were in use for many estates, so depending upon the
details the murderer may or may not come into the whole bag of tricks.
Then again knowing the details of...
Forum: uk.legal (Legal Issues in the UK) November 11th 05, 09:29 PM
Posted to alt.talk.royalty,uk.legal
Replies: 8
Peerage and attainder or corruption of blood for felony
Views: 9
Posted By mjcar@btinternet.com
Peerage and attainder or corruption of blood for felony
schrieb:
How are peerages (and baronetages) affected by attainder and
corruption
of blood for felonies?
If the heir of a peer/baronet slays the peer/baronet, then...
Forum: uk.legal (Legal Issues in the UK) October 31st 05, 05:44 PM
Posted to alt.talk.royalty,uk.legal
Replies: 4
William, Prince of What?
Views: 17
Posted By mjcar@btinternet.com
William, Prince of What?
It might be theoretical (though I doubt it: what is your source for
stating that this feudal incident was saved - or that it ever
existed?); it woud not be "necessary". Ransom could be raised...
Showing results 1 to 4 of 4
Forum Jump
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:21 PM.
- Contact Us - LegalBanter Home - FAQ - Links - Privacy Statement -
Top
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine
Optimization by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2008 Legal Banter, part of the NewsgroupBanter
project.
The comments are property of their posters.
Loans - Bad Credit Mortgages - 3d Paper Models - Loans - Free
Advertising
persiflage, persiflage, persiflage
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
On Feb 13, 9:05 am, "AaronParmen...@gmail.com"
(snip of lengthy and irrelevant cut-and-paste)
the point is clear, if one has descent from Duncan I King of Scotland
then one's ancestor's death cannot be written properly until/unless
the question is settled
Yes - so much clearer now. Do you speak English as well as
balderdash?
We can recommend a good English teacher in Florida for you if you
like; no doubt he's quite handy for you. You could include your
friend 'Fluff' while you're at it - and give the list a break from
your collective drivel.
MA-R
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking
the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click
the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select
the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Home » Legal Banter forum » Search Forums
Search Results
Author Name Remember Me?
Password
Site Map Home Register Authors List Today's Posts Search Tags Web
Partners
Showing results 1 to 4 of 4
Search took 0.06 seconds. Search: Posts made by: mjcar@btinternet.com
Forum: uk.legal (Legal Issues in the UK) November 12th 05, 11:44 PM
Posted to alt.talk.royalty,uk.legal
Replies: 8
Peerage and attainder or corruption of blood for felony
Views: 9
Posted By mjcar@btinternet.com
Peerage and attainder or corruption of blood for felony
Don Aitken schrieb:
On 12 Nov 2005 08:27:57 -0800, wrote:
the law generally prevents a felon enriching himself as a consequence
(or by-product) of his crimes.
...
Forum: uk.legal (Legal Issues in the UK) November 12th 05, 04:27 PM
Posted to alt.talk.royalty,uk.legal
Replies: 8
Peerage and attainder or corruption of blood for felony
Views: 9
Posted By mjcar@btinternet.com
Peerage and attainder or corruption of blood for felony
Candide schrieb:
IIRC "entailments" were in use for many estates, so depending upon the
details the murderer may or may not come into the whole bag of tricks.
Then again knowing the details of...
Forum: uk.legal (Legal Issues in the UK) November 11th 05, 09:29 PM
Posted to alt.talk.royalty,uk.legal
Replies: 8
Peerage and attainder or corruption of blood for felony
Views: 9
Posted By mjcar@btinternet.com
Peerage and attainder or corruption of blood for felony
schrieb:
How are peerages (and baronetages) affected by attainder and
corruption
of blood for felonies?
If the heir of a peer/baronet slays the peer/baronet, then...
Forum: uk.legal (Legal Issues in the UK) October 31st 05, 05:44 PM
Posted to alt.talk.royalty,uk.legal
Replies: 4
William, Prince of What?
Views: 17
Posted By mjcar@btinternet.com
William, Prince of What?
It might be theoretical (though I doubt it: what is your source for
stating that this feudal incident was saved - or that it ever
existed?); it woud not be "necessary". Ransom could be raised...
Showing results 1 to 4 of 4
Forum Jump
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:21 PM.
- Contact Us - LegalBanter Home - FAQ - Links - Privacy Statement -
Top
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine
Optimization by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2008 Legal Banter, part of the NewsgroupBanter
project.
The comments are property of their posters.
Loans - Bad Credit Mortgages - 3d Paper Models - Loans - Free
Advertising
persiflage, persiflage, persiflage
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
-
AaronParmenter@gmail.com
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
On Feb 12, 5:51 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
well, Peter, your screed is not my screed
but if you say no contemporary source tells us by whose hand Duncan
died,
then why is Leo telling us Duncan was murdered, and citing a source
beyond
his website? I can accept so much in history is/will remain
unanswered.
But I cared to ask about my ancestor. This newsgroup is so filled
with junk
and gibberish I guess I can ask about an ancestor who lived during
medieval
times in Scotland. As to the long established tradition of Macbeth, I
posted
sources which suggest it was in battle and not by sword in a castle.
Get over
what? This is gen medieval, it is MY ancestor, and I will post
anything I want
about it. You get over it. Better yet, go back to sleep.
aaron
AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:672438f0-dc5f-4aef-8d6f-40425955eb06@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 12, 4:47 pm, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
snip
the point is clear, if one has descent from Duncan I King of Scotland
then one's ancestor's death cannot be written properly until/unless
the question is settled
Then you will just have to go on wallowing in uncertainty, and you can stop
boring us with inconclusive screeds copied from any and every place you can
find them.
The question can't be answered, like so many in history. No contemporary
source tells us by whose hand Duncan died, whether this was Macbeth himself
or someone unknown. No source tells us who did not kill Duncan. There is a
long-established tradition that this was Macbeth, probably just on the
common basis of suspicion, "cui bono".
Get over it. The man died, the forensic details are lost.
Peter Stewart
well, Peter, your screed is not my screed
but if you say no contemporary source tells us by whose hand Duncan
died,
then why is Leo telling us Duncan was murdered, and citing a source
beyond
his website? I can accept so much in history is/will remain
unanswered.
But I cared to ask about my ancestor. This newsgroup is so filled
with junk
and gibberish I guess I can ask about an ancestor who lived during
medieval
times in Scotland. As to the long established tradition of Macbeth, I
posted
sources which suggest it was in battle and not by sword in a castle.
Get over
what? This is gen medieval, it is MY ancestor, and I will post
anything I want
about it. You get over it. Better yet, go back to sleep.
aaron
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
<AaronParmenter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:26f65b42-1dc2-48ab-9b59-5ff1d02ae91b@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Your determination to attack Leo is as idiotic as it is rancorous - quite
obviously he has not claimed a contemporary source for his information, and
he has told you where this came from.
No, you tried to assail Leo once again and then demanded an answer without
bothering to work out for yourself that if this can't be found in reference
works online it is probably because it isn't known. Duncan is not some
obscure ancestor unique to you.
You are currently doing more than anyone to fill it with junk and gibberish.
Your twisted agenda is clear.
So swords were not used in battles and these never took place in castles?
Your need for definite information when this is not available, of course.
Peter Stewart
news:26f65b42-1dc2-48ab-9b59-5ff1d02ae91b@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
well, Peter, your screed is not my screed
but if you say no contemporary source tells us by whose
hand Duncan died, then why is Leo telling us Duncan was
murdered, and citing a source beyond his website?
Your determination to attack Leo is as idiotic as it is rancorous - quite
obviously he has not claimed a contemporary source for his information, and
he has told you where this came from.
I can accept so much in history is/will remain unanswered.
But I cared to ask about my ancestor.
No, you tried to assail Leo once again and then demanded an answer without
bothering to work out for yourself that if this can't be found in reference
works online it is probably because it isn't known. Duncan is not some
obscure ancestor unique to you.
This newsgroup is so filled with junk and gibberish I guess I can
ask about an ancestor who lived during medieval times in Scotland.
You are currently doing more than anyone to fill it with junk and gibberish.
Your twisted agenda is clear.
As to the long established tradition of Macbeth, I posted sources
which suggest it was in battle and not by sword in a castle.
So swords were not used in battles and these never took place in castles?
Get over what?
Your need for definite information when this is not available, of course.
Peter Stewart
-
AaronParmenter@gmail.com
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
On Feb 13, 3:40 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
what are you, Vatican Secretary, protector of the faith, in Pope Leo?
if I am idiotic, you are a scruffy puppy nudging Pope Leo's leg. I
cited
websites, and Pope Leo has said they are not sources. Then his
Genealogics
is not a source, is it? So why defend it? And Will Johnson's website
is not
a source, is it? And gen-medieval is not a source, is it? What else
do you
wish to trash as you hound Leo's leg? What is your speaking up for
Leo?
His website is nothing special, as he himself said websites are not
sources.
But it is a poor example of history, too. If Duncan I was killed in
battle between
armies fighting, then he fell as a warrior and was not murdered. How
difficult
is it for your to understand history, Peter?
aaron
Your determination to attack Leo is as idiotic as it is rancorous - quite
obviously he has not claimed a contemporary source for his information, and
he has told you where this came from.
what are you, Vatican Secretary, protector of the faith, in Pope Leo?
if I am idiotic, you are a scruffy puppy nudging Pope Leo's leg. I
cited
websites, and Pope Leo has said they are not sources. Then his
Genealogics
is not a source, is it? So why defend it? And Will Johnson's website
is not
a source, is it? And gen-medieval is not a source, is it? What else
do you
wish to trash as you hound Leo's leg? What is your speaking up for
Leo?
His website is nothing special, as he himself said websites are not
sources.
But it is a poor example of history, too. If Duncan I was killed in
battle between
armies fighting, then he fell as a warrior and was not murdered. How
difficult
is it for your to understand history, Peter?
aaron
-
Gjest
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
On Feb 14, 9:31 am, "AaronParmen...@gmail.com"
(snip of usual immature rubbish)
Hi "Aaron"
Your purpose here is very clear: you seek to attack Leo and Will at
any opportunity.
Leo and Will, as it happens, are both long-standing, generous,
intelligent contributors to this list. They are incredibly helpful,
and (coincidentally) both have valuable websites through which they
make considerable and useful information available to all, for free.
In deciding to oppose them under any guise or at any opportunity, you
demonstrate to the rest of us that you have extremely poor judgment.
Furthermore, you are not a valuable contributor here - you are a
gnat. Your posts are largely off-topic, invariable rambling and
frequently illogical.
I note from one of your earlier posts you assert that your great-
grandmother is still living. While it is hard to credit anything you
post, if this is so I imagine you are quite young. Whether that is so
or not, you are certainly very immature.
Furthermore, you are inextricably linked with the 'Fluff' troll (as
Tish Cluff has shown), and with the Richardson troll (as John Brandon
has shown) - see their posts here, dated 19 December 2007:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/soc.g ... 2f03bcc91f
So, we see that down in sunny Florida, you and another very dull troll
share a computer. You also share a modus: you denigrate valuable,
worthwhile contributors while offering nothing of value yourself.
Attacking useful posters like Will, Leo and Todd, and associating with
trolls like 'Fluff', Richardson and Hines says all we need to know
about you.
In case you haven't noticed, this group exists to discuss mediaeval
genealogy. That's not what you're interested in, is it? If you think
you will ever get any support or interest here - other than from
desperate trolls or your fellow sock-puppets, you are even more
deluded than you first seemed. Now - into the kill-file with you.
Kind regards, Michael
(snip of usual immature rubbish)
Hi "Aaron"
Your purpose here is very clear: you seek to attack Leo and Will at
any opportunity.
Leo and Will, as it happens, are both long-standing, generous,
intelligent contributors to this list. They are incredibly helpful,
and (coincidentally) both have valuable websites through which they
make considerable and useful information available to all, for free.
In deciding to oppose them under any guise or at any opportunity, you
demonstrate to the rest of us that you have extremely poor judgment.
Furthermore, you are not a valuable contributor here - you are a
gnat. Your posts are largely off-topic, invariable rambling and
frequently illogical.
I note from one of your earlier posts you assert that your great-
grandmother is still living. While it is hard to credit anything you
post, if this is so I imagine you are quite young. Whether that is so
or not, you are certainly very immature.
Furthermore, you are inextricably linked with the 'Fluff' troll (as
Tish Cluff has shown), and with the Richardson troll (as John Brandon
has shown) - see their posts here, dated 19 December 2007:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/soc.g ... 2f03bcc91f
So, we see that down in sunny Florida, you and another very dull troll
share a computer. You also share a modus: you denigrate valuable,
worthwhile contributors while offering nothing of value yourself.
Attacking useful posters like Will, Leo and Todd, and associating with
trolls like 'Fluff', Richardson and Hines says all we need to know
about you.
In case you haven't noticed, this group exists to discuss mediaeval
genealogy. That's not what you're interested in, is it? If you think
you will ever get any support or interest here - other than from
desperate trolls or your fellow sock-puppets, you are even more
deluded than you first seemed. Now - into the kill-file with you.
Kind regards, Michael
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
Golly, the supply of noxious fools is endless....
<AaronParmenter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f614040-4959-43e7-8336-c93ac267a121@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Genealogics does not claim to be a "source" but rather simply a resource:
Leo has never represented his work as other than it is, and that is why your
deperation to attack it as something different is so absurd, and so
malicious.
So why does Genealogics bother you so much that you waste a lot of time
digging out contradictions that are equally unsourced as to contemporary
documentation?
Evidently not so difficult as it must be for you - if a subject took the
field against his king, that was usually considered insurrection. If the
sovereign was killed and his throne usurped as a result, that may certainly
be thought a kind of assassination or murder. If Macbeth was responsible for
the assault on Duncan, it is perfectly comprehensible that a tradition of
one man personally murdering the other should have arisen, just as you found
it repeated on Leo's website, without any claim to be derived from an
eye-witness account.
That you thought this was something peculiar to Genealogics, or that had
never been thoroughly aired due to the high historiacal and literary
interest of the subjects, tells us nothing at all about Leo's website, but
something about your extraordinary ignorance.
Peter Stewart
<AaronParmenter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f614040-4959-43e7-8336-c93ac267a121@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 13, 3:40 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Your determination to attack Leo is as idiotic as it is rancorous -
quite
obviously he has not claimed a contemporary source for his information,
and he has told you where this came from.
what are you, Vatican Secretary, protector of the faith, in Pope Leo?
if I am idiotic, you are a scruffy puppy nudging Pope Leo's leg. I
cited websites, and Pope Leo has said they are not sources. Then his
Genealogics is not a source, is it? So why defend it?
Genealogics does not claim to be a "source" but rather simply a resource:
Leo has never represented his work as other than it is, and that is why your
deperation to attack it as something different is so absurd, and so
malicious.
And Will Johnson's website is not a source, is it? And gen-medieval
is not a source, is it? What else do you wish to trash as you hound Leo's
leg? What is your speaking up for Leo? His website is nothing special,
as he himself said websites are not sources.
So why does Genealogics bother you so much that you waste a lot of time
digging out contradictions that are equally unsourced as to contemporary
documentation?
But it is a poor example of history, too. If Duncan I was killed in
battle between armies fighting, then he fell as a warrior and was not
murdered. How difficult is it for your to understand history, Peter?
Evidently not so difficult as it must be for you - if a subject took the
field against his king, that was usually considered insurrection. If the
sovereign was killed and his throne usurped as a result, that may certainly
be thought a kind of assassination or murder. If Macbeth was responsible for
the assault on Duncan, it is perfectly comprehensible that a tradition of
one man personally murdering the other should have arisen, just as you found
it repeated on Leo's website, without any claim to be derived from an
eye-witness account.
That you thought this was something peculiar to Genealogics, or that had
never been thoroughly aired due to the high historiacal and literary
interest of the subjects, tells us nothing at all about Leo's website, but
something about your extraordinary ignorance.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
On Feb 14, 2:36 pm, "letiTiAfl...@gmail.com" <letiTiAfl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
"I"? That "I" cited? It looks like our latest dull troll has posted
using the wrong email account - or has confused his personalities.
A review of this thread shows that the Scotland UK source/resource was
cited by 'Aaron Parmenter' on 13 February at 07.25 am.
As Tish has demonstrated, you and 'Aaron Parmenter' are one. What a
surprise.
Who else are you?
Sheesh - of all the trolls in all the world, we only ever seem to get
the lame ones.
MA-R
wrote:
On Feb 13, 8:10 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Genealogics does not claim to be a "source" but rather simply a resource:
Leo has never represented his work as other than it is, and that is why your
deperation to attack it as something different is so absurd, and so
malicious.
O great Seer, now Leo's Genealogics gets a pass because it's a
resource,
not a source? What blather, shameless nonesense, when Will says the
Great Source Genealogics? And this source/resource is full of errors?
The Scotland UK source/resource I cited
"I"? That "I" cited? It looks like our latest dull troll has posted
using the wrong email account - or has confused his personalities.
A review of this thread shows that the Scotland UK source/resource was
cited by 'Aaron Parmenter' on 13 February at 07.25 am.
As Tish has demonstrated, you and 'Aaron Parmenter' are one. What a
surprise.
Who else are you?
Sheesh - of all the trolls in all the world, we only ever seem to get
the lame ones.
MA-R
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
On Feb 14, 2:36 pm, "letiTiAfl...@gmail.com" <letiTiAfl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
If you seriously don't understand the difference between a "source"
and a "resource" in the context of medieval genealogy, and as a result
make such a cretinous spectacle of yourself as in the gibberish above,
you are not likely to gain any personal benefit whatsoever from
spending your time on SGM discourse, while wasting everybody else's.
No, I said nothing at all about basing my remarks on sources - this is
your hysterial ranting again.
If you also don't comprehand the plain words "a kind of assassination
or murder" in the context of my remarks, you need remedial education,
as Michael and others have suggested already, that SGM cannot provide.
Nonsense, "fiction" is clearly another concept you fail to understand.
Since you cannot know that Duncan was not killed by Macbeth
personally, you have no warrant for calling this "fiction". And of
course it isn't Leo who is attacking people in the first place.
Your literary prowess is roughly equal to a brainless schoolboy trying
to ape Kerouac ranting in his cups. Entirely pathetic.
Peter Stewart
wrote:
On Feb 13, 8:10 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Genealogics does not claim to be a "source" but rather simply a resource:
Leo has never represented his work as other than it is, and that is why your
deperation to attack it as something different is so absurd, and so
malicious.
O great Seer, now Leo's Genealogics gets a pass because it's a
resource,
not a source? What blather, shameless nonesense, when Will says the
Great Source Genealogics? And this source/resource is full of errors?
The Scotland UK source/resource I cited comes with more fact than
Leo's fiction, and your silly wordsmith gibberish, balderdash, crumbs
If you seriously don't understand the difference between a "source"
and a "resource" in the context of medieval genealogy, and as a result
make such a cretinous spectacle of yourself as in the gibberish above,
you are not likely to gain any personal benefit whatsoever from
spending your time on SGM discourse, while wasting everybody else's.
Evidently not so difficult as it must be for you - if a subject took the
field against his king, that was usually considered insurrection. If the
sovereign was killed and his throne usurped as a result, that may certainly
be thought a kind of assassination or murder. If Macbeth was responsible for
the assault on Duncan, it is perfectly comprehensible that a tradition of
one man personally murdering the other should have arisen, just as you found
it repeated on Leo's website, without any claim to be derived from an
eye-witness account.
What tripe, and you pass this B***S*** off as history, based on
sources?
No, I said nothing at all about basing my remarks on sources - this is
your hysterial ranting again.
Your analysis/comment is so full of it, it reads like an idiot spoke
Zebratalk
Every king, queen, Earl, Count, you name it, since William I the
Conqueror
to Robert the Bruce to all of them, killed, usurped, fought the fight
to take a crown
And the winner won, the loser lost, but it was not murder, unless it
was murder
Do you even own a dictionary? What of the man who married a tanner's
daughter
and they hung skins to embarrass him, and he cut off the left hand and
right foot
of every villager to teach them lessons, smacks of what to you,
kindness and good?
If you also don't comprehand the plain words "a kind of assassination
or murder" in the context of my remarks, you need remedial education,
as Michael and others have suggested already, that SGM cannot provide.
Leo needs to clean up his act, rather than attack scholars, his
webpages are fiction
Nonsense, "fiction" is clearly another concept you fail to understand.
Since you cannot know that Duncan was not killed by Macbeth
personally, you have no warrant for calling this "fiction". And of
course it isn't Leo who is attacking people in the first place.
Your literary prowess is roughly equal to a brainless schoolboy trying
to ape Kerouac ranting in his cups. Entirely pathetic.
Peter Stewart
-
letiTiAflufF@gmail.com
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
On Feb 13, 8:10 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Genealogics does not claim to be a "source" but rather simply a resource:
Leo has never represented his work as other than it is, and that is why your
deperation to attack it as something different is so absurd, and so
malicious.
O great Seer, now Leo's Genealogics gets a pass because it's a
resource,
not a source? What blather, shameless nonesense, when Will says the
Great Source Genealogics? And this source/resource is full of errors?
The Scotland UK source/resource I cited comes with more fact than
Leo's fiction, and your silly wordsmith gibberish, balderdash, crumbs
Evidently not so difficult as it must be for you - if a subject took the
field against his king, that was usually considered insurrection. If the
sovereign was killed and his throne usurped as a result, that may certainly
be thought a kind of assassination or murder. If Macbeth was responsible for
the assault on Duncan, it is perfectly comprehensible that a tradition of
one man personally murdering the other should have arisen, just as you found
it repeated on Leo's website, without any claim to be derived from an
eye-witness account.
What tripe, and you pass this B***S*** off as history, based on
sources?
Your analysis/comment is so full of it, it reads like an idiot spoke
Zebratalk
Every king, queen, Earl, Count, you name it, since William I the
Conqueror
to Robert the Bruce to all of them, killed, usurped, fought the fight
to take a crown
And the winner won, the loser lost, but it was not murder, unless it
was murder
Do you even own a dictionary? What of the man who married a tanner's
daughter
and they hung skins to embarrass him, and he cut off the left hand and
right foot
of every villager to teach them lessons, smacks of what to you,
kindness and good?
Leo needs to clean up his act, rather than attack scholars, his
webpages are fiction
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
That you thought this was something peculiar to Genealogics, or that had
never been thoroughly aired due to the high historiacal and literary
interest of the subjects, tells us nothing at all about Leo's website, but
something about your extraordinary ignorance.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
On Feb 14, 3:19 pm, "letiTiAfl...@gmail.com" <letiTiAfl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Whereas you are merely full of B***A***...
MA-R
wrote:
I understand more about this world than you can place on that pinhead
you call yourself, clown, full of yourself, full of B***S***
Whereas you are merely full of B***A***...
MA-R
-
letiTiAflufF@gmail.com
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com
If you seriously don't understand the difference between a "source"
and a "resource" in the context of medieval genealogy, and as a result
make such a cretinous spectacle of yourself as in the gibberish above,
you are not likely to gain any personal benefit whatsoever from
spending your time on SGM discourse, while wasting everybody else's.
What a pompous a$$ you are, peter stewie
I understand more about this world than you can place on that pinhead
you call yourself, clown, full of yourself, full of B***S***
persiflage, persiflage, persiflage
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
-
letiTiAflufF@gmail.com
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
On Feb 13, 11:03 pm, Peter Stewart <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
If you also don't comprehand the plain words "a kind of assassination
or murder" in the context of my remarks, you need remedial education,
as Michael and others have suggested already, that SGM cannot provide.
Masking your mistakes behind "in the context of my remarks"?
How convenient of one who can't write his way out of a paper bag
Nonsense, "fiction" is clearly another concept you fail to understand.
Since you cannot know that Duncan was not killed by Macbeth
personally, you have no warrant for calling this "fiction". And of
course it isn't Leo who is attacking people in the first place.
fiction is false, history is fact, ask MissKnowItAllfromSandyinGrease
and no, Leo doesn't attack anybody, no, not Pope Leo the Saint
Omni, BSadeuxious, bada$$ descents man, hisself
and all this coming from MisterPersiflage, hisself
persiflage, persiflage, persiflage
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
-
Gjest
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
On Feb 13, 8:37 am, "AaronParmen...@gmail.com"
if you say no contemporary source tells us by whose hand Duncan
Because his website is not holding itself up as an original source;
rather it is a compilation of information from mainly secondary
sources. It is more valuable than most because it is scholarly, honest
and flexible. When an error is documented by someone and passed on to
Leo, it is corrected. An emotion based on flotsam about one's presumed
ancestor is simply not documentation.
sources which suggest it was in battle and not by sword in a castle.
I think that a rather large percentage of us on this list are
descended from Duncan. Nothing particularly special. Your sources, so
far, have not been adequate.
if you say no contemporary source tells us by whose hand Duncan
died,
then why is Leo telling us Duncan was murdered, and citing a source
beyond
his website?
Because his website is not holding itself up as an original source;
rather it is a compilation of information from mainly secondary
sources. It is more valuable than most because it is scholarly, honest
and flexible. When an error is documented by someone and passed on to
Leo, it is corrected. An emotion based on flotsam about one's presumed
ancestor is simply not documentation.
sources which suggest it was in battle and not by sword in a castle.
Get over
what? This is gen medieval, it is MY ancestor, and I will post
anything I want
about it.
I think that a rather large percentage of us on this list are
descended from Duncan. Nothing particularly special. Your sources, so
far, have not been adequate.
-
Gjest
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
On Feb 13, 2:31 pm, "AaronParmen...@gmail.com"
<AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
You do not seem to know the difference between primary or contemporary
sources, secondary sources, and encyclopedic summaries. No one claims
that Genealogics, by itself, is a source. It points to secondary
sources. The secondary sources point to primary sources. Why is it so
important to you that this king be a fallen warrior in battle rather
than the victim of an assassination? He's my ancestor, too, and I
haven't lost any sleep over the question. Nor do I plan to. In fact,
it's bed-time right now. Bronwen
<AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 13, 3:40 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Your determination to attack Leo is as idiotic as it is rancorous - quite
obviously he has not claimed a contemporary source for his information, and
he has told you where this came from.
what are you, Vatican Secretary, protector of the faith, in Pope Leo?
if I am idiotic, you are a scruffy puppy nudging Pope Leo's leg. I
cited
websites, and Pope Leo has said they are not sources. Then his
Genealogics
is not a source, is it? So why defend it? And Will Johnson's website
is not
a source, is it? And gen-medieval is not a source, is it? What else
do you
wish to trash as you hound Leo's leg? What is your speaking up for
Leo?
His website is nothing special, as he himself said websites are not
sources.
But it is a poor example of history, too. If Duncan I was killed in
battle between
armies fighting, then he fell as a warrior and was not murdered. How
difficult
is it for your to understand history, Peter?
aaron
You do not seem to know the difference between primary or contemporary
sources, secondary sources, and encyclopedic summaries. No one claims
that Genealogics, by itself, is a source. It points to secondary
sources. The secondary sources point to primary sources. Why is it so
important to you that this king be a fallen warrior in battle rather
than the victim of an assassination? He's my ancestor, too, and I
haven't lost any sleep over the question. Nor do I plan to. In fact,
it's bed-time right now. Bronwen
-
Gjest
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
On Feb 13, 7:36 pm, "letiTiAfl...@gmail.com" <letiTiAfl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
This posting seems to have been the result of that famous experiment
to let a chimpanzee bang away at a keyboard to see what random words
might come up.
wrote:
On Feb 13, 8:10 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Genealogics does not claim to be a "source" but rather simply a resource:
Leo has never represented his work as other than it is, and that is why your
deperation to attack it as something different is so absurd, and so
malicious.
O great Seer, now Leo's Genealogics gets a pass because it's a
resource,
not a source? What blather, shameless nonesense, when Will says the
Great Source Genealogics? And this source/resource is full of errors?
The Scotland UK source/resource I cited comes with more fact than
Leo's fiction, and your silly wordsmith gibberish, balderdash, crumbs
Evidently not so difficult as it must be for you - if a subject took the
field against his king, that was usually considered insurrection. If the
sovereign was killed and his throne usurped as a result, that may certainly
be thought a kind of assassination or murder. If Macbeth was responsible for
the assault on Duncan, it is perfectly comprehensible that a tradition of
one man personally murdering the other should have arisen, just as you found
it repeated on Leo's website, without any claim to be derived from an
eye-witness account.
What tripe, and you pass this B***S*** off as history, based on
sources?
Your analysis/comment is so full of it, it reads like an idiot spoke
Zebratalk
Every king, queen, Earl, Count, you name it, since William I the
Conqueror
to Robert the Bruce to all of them, killed, usurped, fought the fight
to take a crown
And the winner won, the loser lost, but it was not murder, unless it
was murder
Do you even own a dictionary? What of the man who married a tanner's
daughter
and they hung skins to embarrass him, and he cut off the left hand and
right foot
of every villager to teach them lessons, smacks of what to you,
kindness and good?
Leo needs to clean up his act, rather than attack scholars, his
webpages are fiction
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbingAncestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
That you thought this was something peculiar to Genealogics, or that had
never been thoroughly aired due to the high historiacal and literary
interest of the subjects, tells us nothing at all about Leo's website, but
something about your extraordinary ignorance.
Peter Stewart- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
This posting seems to have been the result of that famous experiment
to let a chimpanzee bang away at a keyboard to see what random words
might come up.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
<lostcooper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1636efe0-858a-4f9a-8e4c-a6d673e9fe9e@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I think it's a lost cause, Bronwen, this person is no more sane than he is
literate.
Anyone who fails to acknowledge the difference between a "source" meaning
the origin or starting-point of information, and a "resource" meaning a
stock or repository of information, is beyond educating.
Peter Stewart
news:1636efe0-858a-4f9a-8e4c-a6d673e9fe9e@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
You do not seem to know the difference between primary or
contemporary sources, secondary sources, and encyclopedic
summaries. No one claims that Genealogics, by itself, is a source.
It points to secondary sources. The secondary sources point to
primary sources.
I think it's a lost cause, Bronwen, this person is no more sane than he is
literate.
Anyone who fails to acknowledge the difference between a "source" meaning
the origin or starting-point of information, and a "resource" meaning a
stock or repository of information, is beyond educating.
Peter Stewart
-
Leticia Cluff
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:42:53 -0800 (PST), mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
It's interesting to look at the posters who are consistently attacked
by Aaron Fluff. I won't bother to list all the people he seems to have
a grudge against.
Even more interesting is to see the posters he leaves alone. He has
never once attacked Spencer Hines or Douglas Richardson. That reveals
some sense of honor among trolls.
Tish
On Feb 14, 2:36 pm, "letiTiAfl...@gmail.com" <letiTiAfl...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Feb 13, 8:10 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Genealogics does not claim to be a "source" but rather simply a resource:
Leo has never represented his work as other than it is, and that is why your
deperation to attack it as something different is so absurd, and so
malicious.
O great Seer, now Leo's Genealogics gets a pass because it's a
resource,
not a source? What blather, shameless nonesense, when Will says the
Great Source Genealogics? And this source/resource is full of errors?
The Scotland UK source/resource I cited
"I"? That "I" cited? It looks like our latest dull troll has posted
using the wrong email account - or has confused his personalities.
A review of this thread shows that the Scotland UK source/resource was
cited by 'Aaron Parmenter' on 13 February at 07.25 am.
As Tish has demonstrated, you and 'Aaron Parmenter' are one. What a
surprise.
Who else are you?
Sheesh - of all the trolls in all the world, we only ever seem to get
the lame ones.
It's interesting to look at the posters who are consistently attacked
by Aaron Fluff. I won't bother to list all the people he seems to have
a grudge against.
Even more interesting is to see the posters he leaves alone. He has
never once attacked Spencer Hines or Douglas Richardson. That reveals
some sense of honor among trolls.
Tish
-
Volucris
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
Oh boy,
That kind of puts me in the realm of the trolls. Never thought I would
sink so far.
Hans
On 14 feb, 17:55, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com>
wrote:
That kind of puts me in the realm of the trolls. Never thought I would
sink so far.
Hans
On 14 feb, 17:55, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:42:53 -0800 (PST), mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
On Feb 14, 2:36 pm, "letiTiAfl...@gmail.com" <letiTiAfl...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Feb 13, 8:10 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Genealogics does not claim to be a "source" but rather simply a resource:
Leo has never represented his work as other than it is, and that is why your
deperation to attack it as something different is so absurd, and so
malicious.
O great Seer, now Leo's Genealogics gets a pass because it's a
resource,
not a source? What blather, shameless nonesense, when Will says the
Great Source Genealogics? And this source/resource is full of errors?
The Scotland UK source/resource I cited
"I"? That "I" cited? It looks like our latest dull troll has posted
using the wrong email account - or has confused his personalities.
A review of this thread shows that the Scotland UK source/resource was
cited by 'Aaron Parmenter' on 13 February at 07.25 am.
As Tish has demonstrated, you and 'Aaron Parmenter' are one. What a
surprise.
Who else are you?
Sheesh - of all the trolls in all the world, we only ever seem to get
the lame ones.
It's interesting to look at the posters who are consistently attacked
by Aaron Fluff. I won't bother to list all the people he seems to have
a grudge against.
Even more interesting is to see the posters he leaves alone. He has
never once attacked Spencer Hines or Douglas Richardson. That reveals
some sense of honor among trolls.
Tish- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
-
Leticia Cluff
Re: Was Duncan I "the Gracious" murdered by Macbeth?
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:58:59 -0800 (PST), Volucris
<volucris@kpnplanet.nl> wrote:
Jij treft geen blaam.
Tish
<volucris@kpnplanet.nl> wrote:
Oh boy,
That kind of puts me in the realm of the trolls. Never thought I would
sink so far.
Jij treft geen blaam.
Tish