Blount-Ayala

[Ian Goddard]

Ken Ozanne wrote:

Guy, Richard, John, probably others,

This is the advice that got me sorted. I downloaded the book I was after
in short order with sureproxy, rather than laboriously copying a page at a
time using proxify. I know this will help some other list members as well.

Thanks enormously. Thanks also to those who offered other help.

As far as I know, google books is the only source of online books that
applies different conditions to users outside the US. So it is the only
place I know where proxification is crucial to downloading or even viewing.

Best,
Ken (whose Xmas has been made)


From: "Guy Vincent" <[email protected]
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:13:08 +1100
To: "Gen Med" <[email protected]
Subject: RE: Fixing Google Books [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Proxify is a reliable proxy server and often recommended here, however I find
it doesn't allow downloads (well, not over a certain size anyway).
Proxy.org lists many web based proxy servers (I'm using sureproxy at the
moment but have used others) that will allow downloads and at
a speed that doesn't make your pc obsolete before the download is complete.
This should solve the problem from anywhere outside the U.S.

Guy Vincent

For the UK I just tried http://www.superproxy.co.uk and that allowed a download
from Will's URL which proxify didn't. Now for some hunting....

--
Ian

Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard
at nildram co uk

[Gjest]

Dear Todd and others,
I think it doubtful that William I , King
of England was illiterate even if He preferred to sign with a cross, such was
done even by literate persons as proof of their Christian faith. One of my
fourth Great grandmothers Anna Cummings (nee Ward) wrote an extant letter which
She signed with both.
As to William, He probably issued any number of charters both as Duke (which
He was from ca. age 7) and in 1086 otdered the Domesday(DoomsDay) Book which
would of be no interest to him if He couldn`t read, add to that, He was the
monkish Edward`s apparent preferred successor.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?N ... 0000000004)

[[email protected]]

On Dec 23, 9:41 am, [email protected] wrote:

Dear Todd and others,
                                    I think it doubtful that William I , King
of England was illiterate even if He preferred to sign with a cross, such was
done even by literate persons as proof of their Christian faith. One of my
fourth Great grandmothers Anna Cummings (nee Ward) wrote an extant letter which
She signed with both.
 As to William, He probably issued any number of charters both as Duke (which
He was from ca. age 7) and in 1086 otdered the Domesday(DoomsDay) Book which
would of be no interest to him if He couldn`t read, add to that, He was the
monkish Edward`s apparent preferred successor.

Sincerely,

            James W Cummings

            Dixmont, Maine USA

If you mean he did not sign himself William I, but signed

with a cross as any illiterate person would?
If you are literate, tell us which is his known name?
William was knighted by Henry at age 15. His name?
Was his style his name? Was he always King of the English?
Was he always The Duke of Normandy?
Was he known as William the Conqueror?
Was he King of England?
As Duke of Normandy, he is known as William II. He was also,
particularly before the conquest, known as William the Bastard. Deny
it?
By his father's will, William succeeded him as Duke of Normandy at
age
seven in 1035 and was known as Duke William of Normandy (French:
Guillaume, duc de Normandie; Latin: Guglielmus Dux Normanniae). Deny
it?
Although the south of England submitted quickly to Norman rule,
resistance in the north continued for six more years until 1072.
During the first two years, King William I suffered many revolts
throughout England. If he was not King William I, what was he, if
you're so smart?
You can learn from here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Conqueror
persiflage, persiflage, persiflage
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
The signatures of William I and Matilda are the first two large
crosses on the Accord of Winchester from 1072.
List of changes to the royal style
Official styles of Sovereigns are shown below. Changes that only take
into account the gender of the Sovereign (such as replacing "King"
with "Queen") are not indicated. Heads of state who did not rule as
Kings or as Queens are shown in italics.
Styles of English sovereigns
Period
Style
Used by
1066-1087
King of the English
William I
William I of England
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
William I
King of the English (more...)
The Duke of Normandy in the Bayeux Tapestry
Reign
25 December 1066 - 9 September 1087
Coronation
25 December 1066
Consort
Matilda of Flanders
among others
Issue
Robert III, Duke of Normandy
William II of England
Adela, Countess of Blois
Henry I of England
Detail
Titles
King of the English
Duke of the Normans
Father
Robert the Magnificent
Mother
Herlette of Falaise
Born
10|14-28
Falaise, France
Died
9 September 1087
Convent of St. Gervais, Rouen
Burial
Saint-Étienne de Caen, France
William I of England (c.1028-9 September 1087), known as William the
Conqueror, was Duke of Normandy from 1035 to 1087 and King of England
from 1066.
In support of his claim to the English crown, William invaded England
in 1066, leading an army of Normans to victory over the Anglo-Saxon
forces of Harold Godwinson at the Battle of Hastings, and suppressed
subsequent English revolts in what has become known as the Norman
Conquest.[1]
His reign brought Norman culture to England, which had an enormous
impact on the subsequent course of England in the Middle Ages. In
addition to political changes, his reign also saw changes to English
law, a programme of building and fortification, changes in the
English
language, and the introduction of continental European feudalism into
England.
As Duke of Normandy, he is known as William II. He was also,
particularly before the conquest, known as William the Bastard.
By his father's will, William succeeded him as Duke of Normandy at
age
seven in 1035 and was known as Duke William of Normandy (French:
Guillaume, duc de Normandie; Latin: Guglielmus Dux Normanniae). By
the
rivaling Norman noblemen, who had better claim for duke, the usual
plots to usurp his place cost William, who was supported by King
Henry
I of France, three guardians, though not Count Alan of Brittany, who
was a later guardian. William was knighted by Henry at age 15. By the
time he turned 19 he was successfully dealing with threats of
rebellion and invasion. With the assistance of Henry, William finally
secured control of Normandy by defeating rebel Norman barons at Caen
in the Battle of Val-ès-Dunes in 1047, obtaining the Truce of God,
which was backed by the Roman Catholic Church.
March to London
For two weeks, William waited for a formal surrender of the English
throne, but the Witenagemot proclaimed the quite young Edgar Ætheling
instead, without coronation though. Thus, William's next target was
London, approaching proudly through the important territories of
Kent,
via Dover and Canterbury, inspiring fear in the English. However, at
London, William's advance was beaten back at London Bridge, and he
decided to march westward and to storm London from the northwest.
After receiving continental reinforcements, William crossed the
Thames
at Wallingford, and there he forced the surrender of Archbishop
Stigand (one of Edgar's lead supporters), in early December. William
reached Berkhamsted a few days later where Ætheling relinquished the
English crown personally and the exhausted Saxon noblemen of England
surrendered definitively. Although William was acclaimed then as
English King, he requested a coronation in London. As William I, he
was formally crowned on Christmas day 1066, in Westminster Abbey, by
Archbishop Aldred.[4]
English resistance
Although the south of England submitted quickly to Norman rule,
resistance in the north continued for six more years until 1072.
During the first two years, King William I suffered many revolts
throughout England (Dover, western Mercia, Wales, Exeter). Also, in
1068, Harold's illegitimate sons attempted an invasion of the
southwestern peninsula, but William defeated them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesday_Book
A line drawing entitled 'Domesday Book' from Andrew Williams's
Historic Byways and Highways of Old England.
Domesday Book (also known as Domesday, or Book of Winchester) was the
record of the great survey of England completed in 1086, executed for
William I of England. The survey was similar to a census by a
government of today. William needed information about the country he
had just conquered so he could administer it. While spending
Christmas
of 1085 in Gloucester, William "had deep speech with his counsellors
and sent men all over England to each shire ... to find out ... what
or how much each landholder had in land and livestock, and what it
was
worth." (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle)
On Dec 22, 3:59 pm, [email protected] wrote:

On Dec 22, 5:52 am, "Dora Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
OK, I'll bite.
What did people call William the Conqueror?
While the captions in the Bayeux tapestry are intended to be in Latin,
they display a certain English vernacular character. The Conqueror
appears as Willelm in most cases (along with Willelmi and Willelmus),
while in a few cases Wilgelm appears (remember, 'g' in Anglo-Saxon was
pronounced similar to 'y').
Willelm is also the most common form in the Domesday book.
There are seven pre-Conquest charters in which the name appear (there
was a Bishop William under Edward the C). In four cases the name
appears as Willielm. These are all in Latin, and three are universally
considered forgeries, while the fourth is debated as to authenticity.
The remaining three have Willelm. One is in Latin, and considered
spurious. The other two are in English, one considered authentic, the
other apparently dates to the late 11th century, either forged then or
copied from an authentic original.
That these sources seem in basic agreement points to the form of the
name used in England in the second half of the 11th century being
Willelm.
That being said, the most common English modern form is William and it
would be ridiculous egotistical pedantry to correct someone who uses
William, just because the man himself would not have used this
spelling.
taf

On Dec 23, 9:41 am, [email protected] wrote:

Dear Todd and others,
I think it doubtful that William I , King
of England was illiterate even if He preferred to sign with a cross, such was
done even by literate persons as proof of their Christian faith. One of my
fourth Great grandmothers Anna Cummings (nee Ward) wrote an extant letter which
She signed with both.
As to William, He probably issued any number of charters both as Duke (which
He was from ca. age 7) and in 1086 otdered the Domesday(DoomsDay) Book which
would of be no interest to him if He couldn`t read, add to that, He was the
monkish Edward`s apparent preferred successor.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

merci, merci, merci

You seem to know William I The Conqueror King of England?
By his father's will, William succeeded him as Duke of Normandy
at age seven in 1035 and was known as Duke William of
Normandy (French: Guillaume, duc de Normandie; Latin:
Guglielmus Dux Normanniae). William was knighted by Henry at
age 15. As Duke of Normandy, he is known as William II. He
was also, particularly before the conquest, known as William the
Bastard.

Was his father's will in Latin, and was his birth name Guglielmus
Dux Normanniae? Is his father's will first we hear of him? What
was his name/style in Latin when knighted? His father was Robert
the Magnificent, so why was he named/styled William II Duke of
Normandy and not Robert II Duke of Normandy? Was William an
ancestral name? Or was it plain Duke William of Normandy, knight?
Who named him William the Bastard? Why?

~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne

http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval

[Jonathan Morton]

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

Paragraph (e) may seem to no application in the 21st century (if sex with
imbeciles is covered elsewhere), but it does derive from a 19th century
case
where a choirmaster persuaded a teenage pupil who apparently had no
knowledge of sex, that what he was doing was a normal part of musical
education, and absolutely essential for improving her singing voice.

G

Hmmmmm...

What sort of sex was involved?

Aural, of course.

Regards

Jonathan

[Hovite]

On Dec 22, 8:59 pm, [email protected] wrote:

While the captions in the Bayeux tapestry are intended to be in Latin,
they display a certain English vernacular character. The Conqueror
appears as Willelm in most cases (along with Willelmi and Willelmus),
while in a few cases Wilgelm appears (remember, 'g' in Anglo-Saxon was
pronounced similar to 'y').

Willelm is also the most common form in the Domesday book.

There are seven pre-Conquest charters in which the name appear (there
was a Bishop William under Edward the C). In four cases the name
appears as Willielm. These are all in Latin, and three are universally
considered forgeries, while the fourth is debated as to authenticity.
The remaining three have Willelm. One is in Latin, and considered
spurious. The other two are in English, one considered authentic, the
other apparently dates to the late 11th century, either forged then or
copied from an authentic original.

His coins have PILLELM or PILLELMVS (P representing the rune for W).

[Hovite]

On Dec 21, 4:21 am, "Dora Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:

Any chance this Ednyfed Fychan was of the same line? Because this Merfyn
Frych was allegedly from one of two places, one of which was the Fifth of
Forth.

It is Cunedda and his sons who are is said to have migrated from (what
is now) southern Scotland to (what is now) northern Wales, and drove
out the Scots (migrants from what is now Ireland), 146 years before
the reign of his great-grandson Maelgwn.

What is certain is certain is that Gwynedd is derived from the
Votadini, which became in Welsh Guotodin, later Gododdin. The capital
of the Votadini was Coria Votadinorum, now Inveresk.

[Ian Wallace]

Jonathan wrote:-

Aural, of course.

Excellent!!!

I have been using this pun for years, finding it very funny but have
never come across anyone else using it. I was beginning to doubt my
own sense of humour...

Iain.

[R C]

So then the answer to the question about their ethnicity is that they are
obviously Cuneddian.

Merry Christmas from another Canadian-eh;)

R.

(Sorry couldn't resist, must be something in the eggnog)

[Hovite]

On Dec 21, 1:14 am, [email protected] wrote:

On Dec 20, 4:40 pm, "Dora Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:

Apparently a single 19th century Rice genealogist speculated all over the
place that Edmund Rice was descended from Sir Griffith Rice or Sir Ryhs Ap
Thomas, and cited whatsit where baronial lines are cited which doesn't back
it up. I find Sir Griffith Rice to be the grandson of Sir Rhys Ap Thomas,
a cousin of Henry Tudor who became prominent in the early Tudor dynasty.
The Angevin link is maternal line. The paternal line traces to Merfin
Frych, a Welsh baron, from either the Isle of Man or the Firth of Forth, who
married well and founded a royal dynasty.

Do you mean a male-line relative of Henry Tudor? If so, then Merfyn
Fyrch is not a male-line ancestor. The founder of the family's
prominence was a certain Ednyfed Fychan.

Supposedly Ednyfed and Merfyn were related, their common ancestor
being Ceneu, thus:

Ceneu
Gwrst
Mirchion Gul
Elidir
Llywarch Hen
Dwywg
Gwair
Tegid
Alcwn
Sandde
Elidir
Gwriad
Merfyn

and:

Ceneu
Mar
Cynfelin
Cynwyd Cynwydion
Cadrod Calchfynydd
Yspwys
Mwyntyrch
Yspwys
Mynan
Mor
Elevan
Cynan
Marchchudd
Carwed
Iaseth
Inethan
Edred
Idnerth
Gwgon
Iorwerth
Cynwrig
Ednyfed Fychan

[James Hogg]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:24:31 -0800 (PST), Hovite
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Dec 21, 4:21 am, "Dora Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
Any chance this Ednyfed Fychan was of the same line? Because this Merfyn
Frych was allegedly from one of two places, one of which was the Fifth of
Forth.

It is Cunedda and his sons who are is said to have migrated from (what
is now) southern Scotland to (what is now) northern Wales, and drove
out the Scots (migrants from what is now Ireland), 146 years before
the reign of his great-grandson Maelgwn.

What is certain is certain is that Gwynedd is derived from the
Votadini, which became in Welsh Guotodin, later Gododdin. The capital
of the Votadini was Coria Votadinorum, now Inveresk.

I'm not so certain so certain. The oldest known form of Gwynned is the
Latin Venedotia. How could that come from Votadini except possibly as
an inaccurate anagram?

Merry Christmas

James

[Gjest]

[email protected] wrote:
referring to Todd Farmerie

Still making it up as you go along, then lecturing others for their
failure to obey your 'rules'.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

oh so true; Todd Farmerie must have an unbelievably huge ego; oh, and
Todd we are not finished with that supposed book you published via a
vanity press
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i got this pedigree from P.C. Bartrum
- male-line -
01. ARTHUR, King of Britain 495/504/507-538
02.Amhar [Anir; Enir] (d517)
03. Cadrod "Calchvynydd" (d556) [who is not to be confused with Cadros
[Cadrod] of Kelso, the son of Cynwyd Cynwydion, of the "Cole Godebog
Pedigree", as he sometimes mistakenly is]
04. Yspwys (Esbwys), Lord of Ercing [Ergyng] (d581)
05. Cyngu "Carcludwys", Lord of Ercing (d624) [his epithet doubles for
his name in some manuscripts]
06.Alltu "Redegog", Lord of Ercing
07.Yspwys, Lord of Ercing
08.Mwyntyrch, Lord of Ercing
09.Yspwys, Lord of Ercing
[misidentified with Yspwys, the son of Cadrod "Calchvynydd", in some
manuscripts, hence, omitting five generations, # 3-7]
10.Manan, a Welsh noble
11.Mor, a Welsh noble
12.Elvyw (Elfyw) (Eiluyw; Aildyw; Elevan), a Welsh noble
13.Kynan (Cynan), Lord of Clwyd [Denbigh]
14.Marchudd, Lord of Rhos, the head of one of the "Eight Noble
Tribes"
15.Kerwit (Karwedh; Corwedd), Lord of Brnffenigl (Brynffanigl)
[Abergele]
16.Senylt (Siaset) (Iasedd; Iaseth) (Iassedd) (Jafsedd) (Jafeth), Lord
of Brnffenigl
17.Nethan (Methan) (Inethan), Lord of Brnffenigl
18.Edred (Edryd; Edryt), a Welsh prince
19.Idnerth, Lord of Brnffenigl
20.Gwgon (Gwgawn), Lord of Brnffenigl
21.Iorwerth, Lord of Brnffenigl
22.Kendrig (Cynwrig; Cynfrig), Lord of Brnffenigl
23.Edynfed "Fychan", Lord of Abergele [Brynffenigl] & Seneschal of
Gwynedd, d1246
24.Goronwy, Lord of Tref-Gastel, d1268 (above)
25.Tudor "Hen", Lord of Penmynydd, d1311
26.Goronwy, Lord of Penmynydd, d1331
27.Tudor "Frychan", Lord of Penmynydd, d1367
28.Maredudd, a Welsh noble, d1406
29.Owain Tudor, a Welsh squire, d1461
30.Edmund, Earl of Richmond, d1456
31. HENRY VII, King of England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chris

[wjhonson]

On Dec 25, 1:12 pm, [email protected] wrote:

i got this pedigree from P.C. Bartrum
- male-line -
01. ARTHUR, King of Britain 495/504/507-538
02.Amhar [Anir; Enir] (d517)
03. Cadrod "Calchvynydd" (d556) [who is not to be confused with Cadros
[Cadrod] of Kelso, the son of Cynwyd Cynwydion, of the "Cole Godebog
Pedigree", as he sometimes mistakenly is]
04. Yspwys (Esbwys), Lord of Ercing [Ergyng] (d581)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-----
chris

To start, the idea that Arthur was king until 538 is based on no
credible source. A close reading of the British History of Geoffrey
Monmouth shows that he is implying that Arthur must have been born
sometime between 485 and 495. So having a child who died in 517 and
had his own progeny doesn't fit that chronology.

In addition, Geoffrey, who one would think would be quite *eager* to
mention any connection forward from his main actor, does not give
Arthur any children. That alone should make all thinkers pause.

If there were in fact contemporary descendents in Geoffrey's time, he
would have mentioned it surely.

Will Johnson

[Hovite]

On Dec 26, 12:03 am, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

To start, the idea that Arthur was king until 538 is based on no
credible source. A close reading of the British History of Geoffrey
Monmouth shows

that he certainly wasn't a credible source. His book is mostly
fiction.

[Gjest]

Dear Will, Douglas and others,
The true identity of Eleanor ,
the wife of Conan Aske Esq of Aske would sreem to be neither Widdrington nor
de Medlam, but rather the daughter of one Roger Middleham. Archaelogia Aeliana
(Or Miscellaneous tracts relating to Antiquity (1857) document 23 relates to
the taking of Alianor (or Eleanor ) Aske`s Inquisition Post Mortum taken on
the 29 November 1428 before one Laurence de Acton, Mayor of thre City of
Newcastle. It refers to her having held in her demesne one half of a third part of a
waste messuage called Emilden place in the suburbs of Newcastle near the
Hospital of Blessed Mary Magdalene without the Newe Yhate(? New Gate) which half
of a third part was held of the King in free burgage (perhaps her father was a
burgher of that city) as parcel of said town, rendering yearly the sum of 2 d
to the Master of Tyne bridge for its` upkeep. The clear property value was
worth nothing as it was totally wasted. Eleanor died October 5, 1428 and her son
Roger was aged 37 years and upwards and survived her by 11 years.Her husband
Conan Aske, Esq of Aske Richmondshire was a witness for Richard . Lord
Scrope againest Sir Robert Grosvenor as to who had a better right to bear a certain
coat of arms which controversy took place in the reign of King Richard II .
hE had served in the wars with France, Spain and Scotland.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?N ... 0000000004)

[wjhonson]

On Dec 26, 6:32 am, Hovite <[email protected]> wrote:

On Dec 26, 12:03 am, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

To start, the idea that Arthur was king until 538 is based on no
credible source.  A close reading of the British History of Geoffrey
Monmouth shows

that he certainly wasn't a credible source. His book is mostly
fiction.

I think the point is, this entire line is mostly fiction.
Fictional lines require fictional sources, but when modern-day authors
create new facts from thin air that also needs to be pointed out. The
idea that Arthur was king until 538 is based on ... thin air. Nothing
at all. Not any shred of anything, fictional or not.

Will Johnson

[Gjest]

will johnson wrote

To start, the idea that Arthur was king until 538 is based on no
credible source. �A close reading of the British History of Geoffrey
Monmouth shows

that he certainly wasn't a credible source. His book is mostly
fiction.

I think the point is, this entire line is mostly fiction.
Fictional lines require fictional sources, but when modern-day authors
create new facts from thin air that also needs to be pointed out. �The
idea that Arthur was king until 538 is based on ... thin air. �Nothing
at all. �Not any shred of anything, fictional or not.
-------------------------------------

Will, this is too scholarly for you; your lack of knowledge on this
subject borders on Todd Farmerie's revisionist history of the time
period in question...all are agreed that the dates given by Monmouth
are incorrect as he attempted to outline a chronology, but it is
proven that GM did not invent Arthur out of thin air; if you don't
know that then you come from the school that believes Arthur was a
fictitious character, however, there is another school that believes
Arthur was a real person; yes, really!!! .....just curious, do you
believe that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead in what
year...there is disagreement of His dates also, or do you believe He
ever was; the reason i say this is that it has been my observation
that people who have trouble with an historical Jesus also have
trouble with an historical Arthur

[wjhonson]

I not at all comfortable with the following collection of statements:
A) that Roger Aske was "aged 37 and more" at his mother's IPM dated 29
Nov 1428
B) that his son Conan Aske was "aged 23" at his maternal grandfather's
IPM taken in 1427

It is perhaps *physically* possible, but I think a more likely
explanation is that something is amiss here.

Will Johnson

[wjhonson]

Nice flip of the argument.
I did not say I have trouble with the concept of an historical Arthur.
I said there is no shread of evidence in any source whatsoever
(credible) that he reigned until 538.

Since you posted that, as a fact, let's see you back it up instead of
trying to convince people we're talking about something quite
different.

Have a mice day !

Will Johnson

[Gjest]

Dear Will,
I understand your concerns but that`s the way They are
given. Roger may have been a couple of years older than the 37 given, but He was
apparently definitely less than forty in November of 1428 at his mother
Eleanor`s IPM. There was another post which evidently never was sent to the list, Joan
le Scrope was indeed married 1st to Sir William Pert who died about 1390
and 2nd to Sir Roger Swillington who died in 1417. Joan who died September
20,1427 had 3 children by her 1st husband, Isabel . wife of Robert Conyers of
Sockburn, Durham, Margaret, wife of Thomas Hopton and Elizabeth, wife of Roger
Aske of Aske (see Richardson MCA p 433 sub Hopton). Roger`s father Conan Aske
was born in 1348 and died after 1409 when He succeeded his father at Aske and
Marrick according to the infornation given In De Controversia in curia
militari inter Ricardum le Scrope et Robertum Grosvernor p 332
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA




**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?N ... 0000000004)

[wjhonson]

If Elizabeth was dead by 7H6 and her son Conan then received a share
of his grandfather's estate as *her* heir doesn't that imply that the
grandfather had just died? Can you clarify how you know she was dead,
and how you know that Conan was her heir to her father's estate, etc.
Maybe it would help to see exactly what you're quoting from.

[Gjest]

Dear Will,
Joan, the widow of Sir Roger Swyllington at Inquistion of 6
Henry Vi (1427) held in fee of her stepdaughter Margaret, wife of John Gray
of Ingelby, Lincoln the third part of the manor of Shelf, Co. York.(John
Crabtree Parish and Vicarage of Halifax, York p 394) Margaret succeeded her
brother John Swyllington who married Joan de Roos of Wissett, Suffolk but died sine
prole in 1418 a year after their father ( Miscellanea Genealogica p 50). a
Joan was Roger`s wife as early as 22 July 1391 when his father Sir Robert
Swillington`s will was proved. ( Testamenta Ventusta p 128)
Sincerely,

James W Cummings
ps the statements concerning Conan de Aske recieving his mother
Elizabeth`s share of his grandfather Pert`s estate should be taken with a large dose of
salt as it is contained in the notes connected to the will of his stepmother
Hawise ? Mowbray of Easby wife of William Selby and 2nd Roger Aske of Aske.
It was in 1464 that her will was made in 1465 that it was proved. (see
Eboracensia p 143) it is a publication of the Surtees Society.

Dixmont, Maine usa



**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?N ... 0000000004)

[Don Stone]

On 12/14/2007 Douglas Richardson wrote:

I'm satisfied that F.N. Craig and I have correctly established the
parentage of Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt. I've set out the
evidence (which is considerable) in great detail here on the
newsgroup, as well as in my book, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004). If you
want an absolutely conclusive answer to the matter, however, I believe
it may lie in the various fines which involve several members of the
Botetourt family for this generation. To my knowledge no one has
examined the actual fines.

Particularly relevant would be the fine involving the settlement of
the manor of Cantley, Norfolk in 1304-1305 by Guy Botetourt on William
Botetourt [Reference: Rye, Short Cal. of Feet of Fines for Norfolk 1
(1885):163], as well as the subsequent fine dated 1318-1319, in which
the same property was settled on William Botetourt and Maud his wife
[Reference: Rye, Short Cal. of Feet of Fines for Norfolk 2 (1886):
254]. These fines are significant to the discussion of Sir John
Botetourt's parentage, as the manor of Cantley, Norfolk is known to
have been held in later years by the heirs of Sir John Botetourt, 1st
Lord Botetourt. The passage of the manor of Cantley, Norfolk from Sir
Guy to William to the heirs of Sir John would have been governed by
the remainder clauses stated in these two fines. If they are stated
in a certain way, the remainder clauses could and should conclusively
establish that Sir John Botetourt was the eldest son and heir of Sir
Guy Botetourt.

A copy of these fines can be ordered from the PRO in London. Let us
know what you turn up.

On 12/27/2007 Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Dec 26, 5:22 pm, [email protected] wrote:
If the John Sutton who did survive and have descendants was in fact
the son of Joan
Clinton, how are we to explain that the manor of Coleshill did not
pass to him (and his descendants)?

This question is not one that should be asked, as the settlements set
forth in such fines were not always followed.

Douglas,

I agree with your most recent comment (immediately above) about fines,
and consequently wonder whether the two fines relating to the manor of
Cantley have much of a chance to "conclusively establish that Sir John
Botetourt was the eldest son and heir of Sir Guy Botetourt," as stated
in your older post.

-- Don Stone

[Douglas Richardson]

Don ~

In the case of fines, it is important to view all of the evidence,
both the fine itself and what you know of the family from other
records. Each case is a bit different, as the evidence differs from
fine to fine, and family to family. In some rare cases, for example,
a man knowingly tried to divert family property to an illegitimate
son, thus depriving his lawful heir(s) of their inheritance. This
often failed, even if a fine was recorded. However, if the man bought
property and gave it to his illegitimate child, that often worked. A
good case in point is a settlement by fine that Sir Peter de Montfort
(died 1369) made of the manor of Gunthorpe, Nottinghamshire in favor
of his three bastard children; this fine failed. However, he
elsewhere obtained the manor of Kingshurst (in Colehill), Warwickshire
from John de Clinton, and gave it to his bastard son, and that
worked. Settlements of property by fine for purposes of granting
property in marriage to daughters also usually worked.

In most instances, the reversions stated in the fines were followed to
the letter. That is because in most cases the intention behind the
fines was not to subvert the laws of inheritance but to uphold them.
In the case of multiple entailments, however, it could create a big
mess for the heirs.

In the case of the Coleshill fine, the lawful heir of Joan de Clinton,
namely her elder son and heir Baldwin Montfort, was set BEHIND her
younger son, John de Sutton. Since Coleshill was her chief estate,
had the conditions of this fine been observed, this would almost
certainly have triggered a lawsuit between Baldwin and John had
Coleshill gone to John de Sutton. Unless, of course, Joan de Clinton
already had a quitclaim from her elder son, Baldwin Montfort,
releasing his interest in the manor.

Assuming Joan did not have a quitclaim from Baldwin, two things may
have happened to prevent such a lawsuit. Joan de Clinton could have
issued a private charter of later date resettling the manor on her
lawful son and heir, Baldwin Montfort, thus revising the conditions of
the fine. They suspect such late-date settlements were occasionally
made, as the terms of recorded fines were sometimes not observed. Or,
Baldwin Montfort could have settled the matter privately with his half-
brother, John de Sutton, by way of a cash settlement.

In the case of the Botetourt fines, the reversions in those fines
probably refer to the right heirs of Guy Botetourt or the right heirs
of William Botetourt. However, we won't know what the exact
conditions of these fines are until they are properly examined. Then
we will know what we know. If the property was set to go to the
"right heirs" of each man and the property eventually fell to the
heirs of John Botetourt (as we know it did), then it is acceptable to
assume that John Botetourt was the right heir of Guy Botetourt and/or
William Botetourt. Again, the wording of the fine is important.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

<Douglas,
<
< I agree with your most recent comment (immediately above) about
fines,
< and consequently wonder whether the two fines relating to the manor
of
< Cantley have much of a chance to "conclusively establish that Sir
John
< Botetourt was the eldest son and heir of Sir Guy Botetourt," as
stated
< in your older post.
<
< -- Don Stone

[John Foster]

I was looking at the Lansden/Bone connection and was also curious about the
*undocumented* extra Bohun/Le Bon marriage of Margaret de Bohun b. 1311.
Her later or only other marriage to Hugh de Courtenay is well documented.

I found the earlier 3 messages of archive commentary here about the Bohun/Le
Bon problem and the reference list. UNFORTUNATELY I do not have anything
newer on this either.

Some Bone folks have updated the R.G. Bone book where all of that came from,
but admit that there is no new info on the early line, which contains the
weak link(s). The book would be useful primarily for expansion of Bone
descendants of William Bone I. They also may have some reprints available of
the original book. Here's the info. I will just post this for anyone
interested.

http://www.lansdenfamily.com/History_of ... merica.pdf

Lillian Lansden Hylbert is 100 this month and still going fairly strong.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Cokeley Foster, retsof *at* austin.rr.com was retsof *at* texas.net
RETSOFtware, where QUALITY is only a slogan...

TX4.US
RETSOF.US
COKELEY.US
LOVE-M-ALL-PETCARE.TX4.US

[Gjest]

Dear Will,
If Margaret were her daughter (of which She had 3 by William
Pert; Isabel Conyers, Margaret Hopton and Elizabeth Aske ) it would say her
daughter Margaret Gras rather than not referring to her as her daughter as well
as Roger`s. Note: Thomas Hopton was Roger`s Swillington`s illegitimate half
brother and He or his son John (also known as Swillington) would succeed to the
Swillington estates through an entail Roger apparently made. Interestingly ,
according to Lancashire fines British History On-Line (35-45 Edward III 140:37
Edward III, One month from Easter Day (30 April 1363) is about an agreement
between Sir Robert Swillington and Walter and John Neville of Hornby Castle
footnote 2 elaborates that the pedigree of Swillington is a perplexing one (
See The Herald and Genealogist iv :225 for details) and that Roger de
Swillington was married to Joan , daughter of Robert de Neville of Hornby Castle by
whom He had his son and heir John and his sister Margaret who married 1st
William Hopton Esq and 2nd Sir John Gray of Ingelby, Lincoln who died sp. Note:
An almost certain error as Margaret Pert married Roger Swillington`s brother
Thomas Hopton.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?N ... 0000000004)

[Ken Ozanne]

Nat,
All those you are missing are available on Internet Archive
http://www.archive.org/index.php search for Encyclopaedia Britannica (you
may have to choose texts first).

There are also volumes 30, 31 and a range of yearbooks going up into the
50s.

Best,
Ken

From: Nathaniel Taylor <[email protected]
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:19:03 -0500
To: [email protected]
Subject: OT: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edition

Hi. Sorry to do this, but apropos google books, I'm trying to compile a
list of 'full-books' pdfs of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed. I
come up several volumes short but the search engine is notoriously
sketchy for volumes of a multi-volume work. I did see a couple of these
missing volumes available in snippet view, though (aargh).

This sort of refeerence table doesn't seem to be handy on Wikisource or
anywhere else. Here is what I have so far, below. Can anyone come up
with full-book hits for the remaining volumes?

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edition:

Vol 1 A to ANDROPHAGI
http://books.google.com/books?id=QhPpsUqUkZoC
Vol 2 ANDROS to AUSTRIA
http://books.google.com/books?id=Yjd5EQGM9zUC
Vol 3 AUSTRIA LOWER to BISECTRIX
http://books.google.com/books?id=AvanjGny7mcC
Vol 4 BISHARIN to CALGARY
http://books.google.com/books?id=KHrJ00s_qs4C
Vol 5 CALHOUN to CHATELAINE
http://books.google.com/books?id=bgz5N0CeRiAC
Vol 6 CHÂTELET to CONSTANTINE
http://books.google.com/books?id=VBIRzxLzFLwC
Vol 7 CONSTANTINE PAVLOVICH to DEMIDOV

Vol 8 DEMIJOHN to EDWARD

Vol 9 EDWARDES to EVANGELICAL ASSOCIATION
http://books.google.com/books?id=0qZzgJ-B4JwC
Vol 10 EVANGELICAL CHURCH to FRANCIS JOSEPH
http://books.google.com/books?id=jhZsJc4z5RkC
Vol 11 FRANSISCANS to GIBSON
http://books.google.com/books?id=kPstAAAAIAAJ
Vol 12 GICHTEL to HARMONIUM
http://books.google.com/books?id=DgTALFa3sa4C
Vol 13 HARMONY to HURSTMONCEAUX
http://books.google.com/books?id=2SN6-c9_l7QC
Vol 14 HUSBAND to ITALIC
http://books.google.com/books?id=S45w-F57LHcC
Vol 15 ITALY to KYSHTYM
http://books.google.com/books?id=HlQEAAAAYAAJ
Vol 16 L to LORD ADVOCATE
http://books.google.com/books?id=OvYtAAAAIAAJ
Vol 17 LORD CHAMBERLAIN to MECKLENBURG

Vol 18 MEDAL to MUMPS
http://books.google.com/books?id=XbX3VOh5ziYC
Vol 19 MUN to ODDFELLOWS
http://books.google.com/books?id=PSGqT_wYSrsC
Vol 20 ODE to PAYMENT OF MEMBERS
http://books.google.com/books?id=-HGhBxRQf3sC
Vol 21 PAYN to POLKA
http://books.google.com/books?id=RGyYpMQYow4C
Vol 22 POLL to REEVES

Vol 23 REFECTORY to SAINTE-BEUVE
http://books.google.com/books?id=vbozEF-xrLsC
Vol 24 SAINTE-CLAIRE DEVILLE to SHUTTLE
http://books.google.com/books?id=U4AoYvJG7LAC
Vol 25 SHUVÂLOV to SUBLIMINAL SELF

Vol 26 SUBMARINE MINES to TOM-TOM

Vol 27 TONALITE to VESUSIUS
http://books.google.com/books?id=5vgGE8_CGOEC
Vol 28 VETCH to ZYMOTIC DISEASES
http://books.google.com/books?id=vf8tAAAAIAAJ
Vol 29 INDEX


Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

[Gjest]

Excuse me!
The genealogy section is in English language.
http://www.tipestory.it

Happy new year 2008

[Nathaniel Taylor]

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

Nat,
All those you are missing are available on Internet Archive
http://www.archive.org/index.php search for Encyclopaedia Britannica (you
may have to choose texts first).

There are also volumes 30, 31 and a range of yearbooks going up into the
50s.

Best,
Ken

Thanks! I was also told this offlist.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

[E. S. Caypatch]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:25:21 +1100, Ken Ozanne
<[email protected]> wrote:

Nat,
All those you are missing are available on Internet Archive
http://www.archive.org/index.php search for Encyclopaedia Britannica (you
may have to choose texts first).

There are also volumes 30, 31 and a range of yearbooks going up into the
50s.

These are obviously the volumes that DSH was thinking of when he
wrote:

How many more volumes are there?

And certain uncharitable people thought it was a stupid question.

Ed

[Gjest]

On Dec 28, 7:41 am, Nathaniel Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

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

Nat,
All those you are missing are available on Internet Archive
http://www.archive.org/index.phpsearch for Encyclopaedia Britannica (you
may have to choose texts first).

There are also volumes 30, 31 and a range of yearbooks going up into the
50s.

Best,
Ken

Thanks! I was also told this offlist.

Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net

When you are done with Brittanica, there is always the Dictionary of
National Biography.

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query ... ography%29

Fred Chalfant

[Renia]

E. S. Caypatch wrote:

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:25:21 +1100, Ken Ozanne
[email protected]> wrote:


Nat,
All those you are missing are available on Internet Archive
http://www.archive.org/index.php search for Encyclopaedia Britannica (you
may have to choose texts first).

There are also volumes 30, 31 and a range of yearbooks going up into the
50s.


These are obviously the volumes that DSH was thinking of when he
wrote:


How many more volumes are there?


And certain uncharitable people thought it was a stupid question.

If that is the case, then I apologise.

I have volumes 1-2, 9-10, 17, 20-21, 23, 26, 29(Index) with no
indication of further volumes.

[Francisco Tavares de Alme]

On 28 Dez, 14:53, E. S. Caypatch <[email protected]> wrote:

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:25:21 +1100, Ken Ozanne

[email protected]> wrote:
Nat,
All those you are missing are available on Internet Archive
http://www.archive.org/index.phpsearch for Encyclopaedia Britannica (you
may have to choose texts first).

There are also volumes 30, 31 and a range of yearbooks going up into the
50s.

These are obviously the volumes that DSH was thinking of when he
wrote:

How many more volumes are there?

And certain uncharitable people thought it was a stupid question.

Ed

Even if - a very big if as DSH last perfomance makes difficult to
assume he was thinking of those extra volumes - those "uncharitable
people" have been found wrong it was once in a thousand times.
They have all my solidarity.

Best regards,
Francisco

[YvonnePurdy]

Hi Louise and Will,

I found a little more Worsley information, including an Ottwell Worsley, but later than Ottewell Worsley who
died in 1470.

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=41381

Footnotes (fn.) 28 & 32 give a little more detail.

In my original post, I said that Ralph WORSLEY's will mentioned:

Katheryn, wife of Thomas ENTCHET

ENTCHET should read TUTCHET.

Regards,
Yvonne Purdy (nee Sherlock)










-----Original Message-----
From: Louise Staley [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 28 December 2007 03:32
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Ralph WORSLEY will proved 28 January 1574


Hello all & merry Christmas,

I did not see the post that this replied to so perhaps this has been
answered there.

Would this Ottewell Worsley also have been the father of an Anne
Worsley who married John Gainsford (bef. 1430 - 1491) who in turn were
the parents of (at least) Sir John Gainsford (abt. 1469 - 1540),
Ottewell Gainsford & George Gainsford?

Other than his fatherhood of Anne, I know nothing of Ottewell,
including that he was knighted. Can you enlighten me as to any sources
for Ottewell?

Louise Staley


On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:08:50 -0800 (PST), wjhonson <[email protected]>
wrote:

I'm afraid I can't offer much.

Interesting name you mentioned Ottewell Worsley.
There was a Sir Ottewell Worsley, Knt of Calais who died 24 Mar 1470
(fully a hundred years before the time period in which you're
interested). He had at least one daughter Margaret Worsley who
married Sir Adrian Whetehill, esq Comptroller of Calais and their son
was that Sir Richard Whetehill who married Elizabeth Muston.

This line descends to hundreds of living people (if not thousands),
but doesn't really help you except to point out that wherever this odd
name Ottewell came from, it wasn't necessarily this man's mother's
maiden name.

Will Johnson

[pj.evans]

On Dec 28, 9:23 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you...

Yes, I wasn't sure -- but wondered if there were more volumes than the 29
Nat had called out.

Peter Stewart just took another opportunity to make a public, vindictive
fool of himself -- followed quickly by Renia Simmonds.

Par for the course...

The 12th Edition allegedly has 32 volumes.

So I gather all volumes of the 11th Edition are available here?

All those you are missing are available on Internet Archive
http://www.archive.org/index.phpsearch for Encyclopaedia Britannica (you
may have to choose texts first).

Great!  If true.

I realize the 11th Edition of the Britannica is supposed to be a gem -- but
why so, exactly?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"E. S. Caypatch" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...



On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:25:21 +1100, Ken Ozanne
[email protected]> wrote:

Nat,
All those you are missing are available on Internet Archive
http://www.archive.org/index.phpsearch for Encyclopaedia Britannica (you
may have to choose texts first).

There are also volumes 30, 31 and a range of yearbooks going up into
the 50s.

These are obviously the volumes that DSH was thinking of when he
wrote:

How many more volumes are there?

And certain uncharitable people thought it was a stupid question.

Ed- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Try this page:
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/LoveToK ... xplanation

They're putting it online.

[D. Spencer Hines]

So noted...

Much better than just a bare link, but it takes more work on the part of the
poster:

"It must be the last encyclopedia in the tradition of Diderot which assumes
that information can be made memorable only when it is slightly colored by
prejudice."

And colored by intelligence as well.

The 11th Edition seems to have first appeared in 1910, not 1911.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
---------------------------------------

The Eleventh Edition filled 29 volumes [sic] and contains over 44 million
words. It contains over 40,000 articles written by over 1,500 authors
within their various fields of expertise. What was particularly remarkable
was that many of the entries were written by the most famous people of the
age. As such, it was considered to represent the sum of human knowledge at
the beginning of the 20th Century.

[Indeed. Edwardian, in the best sense of the word. -- DSH]

Sir Kenneth Clark, in _Another Part of the Wood_, wrote of the Eleventh
Edition:

"One leaps from one subject to another, fascinated as much by the play of
mind and idiosyncrasies of their authors as by the facts and dates. It must
be the last encyclopedia in the tradition of Diderot which assumes that
information can be made memorable only when it is slightly colored by
prejudice. When T.S. Eliot wrote 'Soul curled up on the window seat reading
the Encyclopedia' he was certainly thinking of the eleventh edition."

<http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/LoveToKnow_1911:Explanation>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DSH

[D. Spencer Hines]

Hilarious!

Pogue Leo The Salami-Slicer & Hairsplitter...

This from the same Leo who says "There are no stupid questions."

Pogue Leo, with no legal training at all, and not all that bright either,
does not know that one should often -- indeed almost always, say lawyers in
Court -- ask only questions to which one already knows the answers -- or has
corralled and triangulated them.

Further, we still have many pogues and poguettes here who think the 11th
Edition of the Britannica first appeared in 1911.

Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Enjoy!

So, are there 31 volumes in the 11th Edition -- or only 29?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Leo van de Pas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> In my opinion the question _was_ phrased in a _stupid manner_.

[D. Spencer Hines]

"Liberals" HATE value judgements of any sort -- except their own, of course.
---------------------------------------------

"It must be the last encyclopedia in the tradition of Diderot which assumes
that information can be made memorable only when it is slightly colored by
prejudice."

Sir Kenneth Clark, in _Another Part of the Wood_, wrote of the Eleventh
Edition
--------------------------

Yes, much better than Pogue Gans, infra.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Paul J Gans" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

No, I don't think value judgements are appropriate in history
itself. The historian's job is to report on what happened, as
best as he can figure. As soon as you start to decide good and
evil, you bias your viewpoint.

[D. Spencer Hines]

A smart person often asks a question to which he ALREADY knows the answer
because she knows that many OTHER people DON'T know the answer.

Once again, Leo van de Pas bares his ignorance and total lack of any Legal
or Rhetorical Education.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

[D. Spencer Hines]

Douglas,

This Sir John de Sutton used to be considered as an ancestor of another John
Washington of Surry County, Virginia -- in addition to John and Lawrence
Washington of Westmoreland County, as I recall.

Gary Boyd Roberts so mentions this John Washington in RD 600 and he was
mentioned in PA2.

Yet I notice you don't mention him below.

For interest's sake, I've listed below the 17th Century New World
immigrants that descend from Sir John de Sutton and his 2nd wife, Joan
de Clinton:

Robert Abell, Dannett Abney, Agnes Mackworth, Richard More, Elizabeth
Marshall, Thomas Rudyard, John & Lawrence Washington, Mary Wolsesley

Why is that?

Cheers,

Spencer Hines

Kailua, Hawai'i

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

Dear Newsgroup ~

Sir John de Sutton (died 1369 or 1370), of Dudley, Staffordshire, and
Malpas and Shocklach, Cheshire, is the male line ancestor of the well
known barons known as Lords Dudley. Sir John de Sutton is known to
have married twice. He married (1st) 25 December 1357 Katherine de
Stafford, daughter of Ralph de Stafford, K.G., 1st Earl of Stafford,
by his 1st wife, Margaret, daughter and heiress of Hugh de Audley,
Knt., Earl of Gloucester. Katherine was born on or before 16 Sept.
1348, and was living as late as 30 June 1361. She died before 25 Dec.
1361. Following Katherine's death, Sir John de Sutton married (2nd)
Joan de Clinton, widow of John de Montfort, Knt. (living 25 May 1361),
and daughter and heiress of John de Clinton, Knt. (died 1353), of
Coleshill, Warwickshire, by Joan, younger daughter of Roger Hillary,
Knt. Joan was born about 1341 (aged 12 in 1353).

Sir John de Sutton was succeeded by a son and heir, John de Sutton the
younger, who according to records was born at Coleshill (in Arden),
Warwickshire 6 December 1361. If correct, then the younger John would
have to be the child of Katherine de Stafford, as Joan de Clinton's
first husband, John de Montfort, was still living 25 May 1361. This
is the position taken by Patrick W. Montague-Smith in his article
entitled, "'An Unrecorded Line of Descent From King Edward I of
England With Some Early Settled American Descendants'" which appeared
in The Genealogist, 5 (1984):131-157. Yet, still it is odd that the
younger John de Sutton was born at Coleshill, Warwickshire, as this
property is known to have been the inheritance of Joan de Clinton, Sir
John de Sutton's second wife. Also, contemporary records indicate
that Sir John de Sutton's 2nd wife, Joan de Clinton, definitely had a
son named John de Sutton, for which reference please see VCH Warwick 4
(1951): 50. This material may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... 0Astley%22

Even more bizarre, there is a contemporary lawsuit dated 1363 which
shows that Katherine de Stafford's father, Earl Ralph de Stafford, was
suing in that year to recover money he had given for the marriage of
his daughter, Katherine, to John de Sutton. By the terms of Katherine
and John's marriage settlement, it was stipulated that should
Katherine died within four years of the marriage that the money which
the Earl had given for the marriage should be returned to him, and for
which restitution he had entered into a bond for himself and his heirs
[Reference: Wrottesley, Staffordshire Suits: Plea Rolls (Colls. Hist.
Staffs. 13) (1892): 38]. It is inconceivable to me that if Katherine
de Stafford was the mother of a surviving child by her marriage to
John de Sutton that her father would be suing for the return of this
money. Thus, we have a third indication (and a rather strong one at
that) that Katherine de Stafford was not the mother of Sir John de
Sutton's son and heir at all but died without issue. Fourth, if
Katherine de Stafford was the mother of the younger John de Sutton,
then she would have been at been 12 years old (or thereabouts) at this
child's birth, which is virtually impossible.

Is there any other evidence which indicates whether Katherine de
Stafford or Joan de Clinton was the mother of Sir John de Sutton's son
and heir, the younger John. Actually, yes there is. In recent time,
I've learned that in 1484, a descendant of the younger John de Sutton,
namely John Sutton, 1st Lord Dudley, referred to William Catesby,
Esq., as his kinsman ["consanguineum"] [Reference: Nicolas, The
History of the Town & School of Rugby (1826): 21-29]. See the
following weblinks below for this information:

http://books.google.com/books?id=L7MHAA ... y#PPA22,M1

http://books.google.com/books?id=L7MHAA ... y#PPA27,M1

William Catesby's ancestry can be found at Jim Weber's great database
at the following weblink:

http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bi ... style=TEXT

Studying William Cateby's ancestry, it is significant to note that his
paternal grandmother, Margaret (or Rose) Montfort, was a granddaughter
of the same Joan de Clinton named above, which Joan was wife
successively of Sir John de Montfort and Sir John de Sutton. If Lord
Dudley's grandfather, the younger John de Sutton, was the son of this
Joan de Clinton, it would make Lord Dudley and William Catesby related
in the 3rd and 4th degrees (or, if you prefer second cousins once
removed). Otherwise, there would be no known kinship between the two
men.

Given the evidence cited above and this new evidence, I conclude that
Joan de Clinton is indeed the mother of John de Sutton the younger,
not Katherine de Stafford as stated by Montague-Smith. I also
conclude that the alleged Dec. 1361 birth date of John de Sutton the
younger is evidently in error, presumably only by a year. This change
in the Sutton-Dudley pedigree thus removes the earliest Plantagenet
connection which had been claimed for the family of the Lords Dudley.

For interest's sake, I've listed below the 17th Century New World
immigrants that descend from Sir John de Sutton and his 2nd wife, Joan
de Clinton:

Robert Abell, Dannett Abney, Agnes Mackworth, Richard More, Elizabeth
Marshall, Thomas Rudyard, John & Lawrence Washington, Mary Wolsesley.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[D. Spencer Hines]

Interesting...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
----------------------------------------

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

Nat,

All those you are missing are available on Internet Archive
http://www.archive.org/index.php search for Encyclopaedia Britannica (you
may have to choose texts first).

There are also volumes 30, 31 and a range of yearbooks going up into the
50s.

Best,
Ken

[D. Spencer Hines]

Pogue Leo even got THAT...

Dead Wrong...

Nat Taylor talked in terms of 29 volumes.

Vide infra.

DSH

"Leo van de Pas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

A says there are 28 volumes
----------------------------------------

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edition:

Vol 1 A to ANDROPHAGI
http://books.google.com/books?id=QhPpsUqUkZoC
Vol 2 ANDROS to AUSTRIA
http://books.google.com/books?id=Yjd5EQGM9zUC
Vol 3 AUSTRIA LOWER to BISECTRIX
http://books.google.com/books?id=AvanjGny7mcC
Vol 4 BISHARIN to CALGARY
http://books.google.com/books?id=KHrJ00s_qs4C
Vol 5 CALHOUN to CHATELAINE
http://books.google.com/books?id=bgz5N0CeRiAC
Vol 6 CHÂTELET to CONSTANTINE
http://books.google.com/books?id=VBIRzxLzFLwC
Vol 7 CONSTANTINE PAVLOVICH to DEMIDOV

Vol 8 DEMIJOHN to EDWARD

Vol 9 EDWARDES to EVANGELICAL ASSOCIATION
http://books.google.com/books?id=0qZzgJ-B4JwC
Vol 10 EVANGELICAL CHURCH to FRANCIS JOSEPH
http://books.google.com/books?id=jhZsJc4z5RkC
Vol 11 FRANSISCANS to GIBSON
http://books.google.com/books?id=kPstAAAAIAAJ
Vol 12 GICHTEL to HARMONIUM
http://books.google.com/books?id=DgTALFa3sa4C
Vol 13 HARMONY to HURSTMONCEAUX
http://books.google.com/books?id=2SN6-c9_l7QC
Vol 14 HUSBAND to ITALIC
http://books.google.com/books?id=S45w-F57LHcC
Vol 15 ITALY to KYSHTYM
http://books.google.com/books?id=HlQEAAAAYAAJ
Vol 16 L to LORD ADVOCATE
http://books.google.com/books?id=OvYtAAAAIAAJ
Vol 17 LORD CHAMBERLAIN to MECKLENBURG

Vol 18 MEDAL to MUMPS
http://books.google.com/books?id=XbX3VOh5ziYC
Vol 19 MUN to ODDFELLOWS
http://books.google.com/books?id=PSGqT_wYSrsC
Vol 20 ODE to PAYMENT OF MEMBERS
http://books.google.com/books?id=-HGhBxRQf3sC
Vol 21 PAYN to POLKA
http://books.google.com/books?id=RGyYpMQYow4C
Vol 22 POLL to REEVES

Vol 23 REFECTORY to SAINTE-BEUVE
http://books.google.com/books?id=vbozEF-xrLsC
Vol 24 SAINTE-CLAIRE DEVILLE to SHUTTLE
http://books.google.com/books?id=U4AoYvJG7LAC
Vol 25 SHUVÂLOV to SUBLIMINAL SELF

Vol 26 SUBMARINE MINES to TOM-TOM

Vol 27 TONALITE to VESUSIUS
http://books.google.com/books?id=5vgGE8_CGOEC
Vol 28 VETCH to ZYMOTIC DISEASES
http://books.google.com/books?id=vf8tAAAAIAAJ
Vol 29 INDEX

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

[Peter Stewart]

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

Thank you...

Yes, I wasn't sure -- but wondered if there were more volumes than the 29
Nat had called out.

Peter Stewart just took another opportunity to make a public, vindictive
fool of himself -- followed quickly by Renia Simmonds.

Par for the course...

The 12th Edition allegedly has 32 volumes.

Then perhaps you can explain why the British Library catalogue states that
the full set has 29 volumes?

http://catalogue.bl.uk/F/P2DKCKF7FT5KS3 ... format=999

Peter Stewart

[D. Spencer Hines]

Recte...

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

Hilarious!

Pogue Leo NOW confuses questions to which a person knows the answers with
LEADING questions.

A Grave Mistake...

Again, we see that Pogue Leo has no Legal or Rhetorical Education.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

[Peter Stewart]

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

So noted...

Much better than just a bare link, but it takes more work on the part of
the
poster:

"It must be the last encyclopedia in the tradition of Diderot which
assumes
that information can be made memorable only when it is slightly colored by
prejudice."

And colored by intelligence as well.

The 11th Edition seems to have first appeared in 1910, not 1911.

It is known as the 1911 edition precisely because that is when the integral
set was COMPLETED by the index, volume 29.

Supplementary material published later cannot be counted as part of the 1911
EB, as the British Library catalogue shows.

An "escape hatch" is not open to loud and stupid misuse, it is for crawling
through surreptitiously.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

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

E. S. Caypatch wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:25:21 +1100, Ken Ozanne
[email protected]> wrote:


Nat, All those you are missing are available on Internet Archive
http://www.archive.org/index.php search for Encyclopaedia Britannica (you
may have to choose texts first).

There are also volumes 30, 31 and a range of yearbooks going up into
the
50s.


These are obviously the volumes that DSH was thinking of when he
wrote:


How many more volumes are there?


And certain uncharitable people thought it was a stupid question.

If that is the case, then I apologise.

I have volumes 1-2, 9-10, 17, 20-21, 23, 26, 29(Index) with no indication
of further volumes.

That's because there weren't any further volumes of the 1911 edition, Renia.
Supplements were published over a decade later, between editions.

The high educational and literary prestige of the 1911 edition has always
been unique to the 28 alphabetic volumes plus index that were issued in 1910
and 1911, as anyone pretending to knowledge about it - like Hines - ought to
know

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Inane crosspostings removed.

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

Nat is looking at the version published in 1910 -- reportedly BEFORE the
index, Volume 29, was published.

But he clearly knows there was a Volume 29.

Vide infra.

Vol 1 A to ANDROPHAGI
http://books.google.com/books?id=QhPpsUqUkZoC

But then, what's all this about Volumes 30 and 31?

Hmmmmmm...

"How many more volumes are there" sounds like a pretty smart question.

Um, no - how many more volumes are there of a set that, as you had already
been told, was completed with the alphabet (ZYM) in volume 28 and indexed in
volume 29 is about as stupid as a question can very well get.

Now you are trying to laugh at Nat's searching Google Books for the title
published in 1910 as well as 1911, that you have been told were the
publication years of EB's 11th edition, while at the same time trying to
claim that supplements published from 1922 were part of this 1910/11 set.

Your idea of hilarity is no more sane than your bibliographic witterings are
sensible.

Peter Stewart

[James Hogg]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:49:21 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
<[email protected]> wrote:

Nat is looking at the version published in 1910 -- reportedly BEFORE the
index, Volume 29, was published.

But he clearly knows there was a Volume 29.

Vide infra.

Vol 1 A to ANDROPHAGI
http://books.google.com/books?id=QhPpsUqUkZoC

But then, what's all this about Volumes 30 and 31?

Hmmmmmm...

"How many more volumes are there" sounds like a pretty smart question.

But it wasn't smart at the time you first posted the question. It has
taken you a long time, considerable wriggling and a lot of help from
other people to convince yourself (but no one else) that it was a
smart question.

Twit

James

[Peter Stewart]

Crosspostings removed, again. Why does Hines wish to display his stupidity
more widely? We already know it is fathomlessly deep...

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

Supplements and Errata to an Edition should be included as part of an
Edition, of course....

As Renia has just told you, EB counted the supplementary volumes to the 9th
edition as forming with it the 10th edition, not as part of the 9th, "of
course".

Peter Stewart

[Hovite]

On Dec 26, 11:49 pm, [email protected] wrote:

Will, this is too scholarly for you; your lack of knowledge on this
subject borders on Todd Farmerie's revisionist history of the time
period in question...all are agreed that the dates given by Monmouth
are incorrect as he attempted to outline a chronology, but it is
proven that GM did not invent Arthur out of thin air; if you don't
know that then you come from the school that believes Arthur was a
fictitious character, however, there is another school that believes
Arthur was a real person; yes, really!!! .....just curious, do you
believe that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead in what
year...there is disagreement of His dates also, or do you believe He
ever was; the reason i say this is that it has been my observation
that people who have trouble with an historical Jesus also have
trouble with an historical Arthur

That is because some people are more gullible than others.

There is no contemporary evidence for either Jesus or Arthur.

The earliest reliable source for the Jesus story is the Roman
historian Tacitus, writing in about 100 AD. He stated that Christ was
executed in the reign of Tiberius {14-37}. This, however, is
contradicted by Suetonius, who blamed Christ for causing riots in Rome
during the reign of Claudius {41-54}. But both were merely reporting
events that supposedly happened before they were born; they had no
first hand information.

Some people feel the need to believe in the existence of a historical
Jesus, and, likewise, some believe in a historical Arthur, but the
evidence for his reign is significantly poorer. The earliest reference
is centuries after his supposed life, and one has to wonder where the
information came from. Geoffrey did not invent Arthur, but is book is
fiction, an early example of the dragon fantasy genre, and the
character of Arthur as portrayed in that book certainly never existed.
The only earlier source is Nennius, but his lists of battles and
miracles do not inspire confidence, and he wrote centuries after the
alleged events. Had a great and powerful King Arthur really reigned,
one would have expected some evidence to have survived, perhaps the
odd coin, or some mention by contemporary historians, but there is
none.

The date of Arthur's death comes from Welsh Annals composed many
centuries later.

Geoffrey of Monmouth did not give dates.

[D. Spencer Hines]

"James Hogg" is, of course, a sock puppet too.

Just like "Leticia Cluff".

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

[Peter Stewart]

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

"James Hogg" is, of course, a sock puppet too.

Just like "Leticia Cluff".

You haven't established that Leticia Cluff is a pseudonym rather than a
lifelong name for a single poster, much less a "sock puppet" for a second
person who also uses another identifier here, in the manner of "Uriah" the
Turk for Douglas Richardson, as exposed by his web browsing for local
colour.

Ditto, "of course", James Hogg, who openly ackowledged using
"E.S.Caypatch" - and the joke, "of course", was on you.

Peter Stewart

[D. Spencer Hines]

"James Hogg" and "Leticia Cluff" are both sock puppets.

There are several others here as well -- as the cognoscenti well understand.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

[wjhonson]

On Dec 28, 3:14 pm, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

To wit, Mep asked whether Anne Feilding who was the daughter of
William Feilding d 1471 and Agnes St Liz; and who, this Anne, married
Humphrey Grey d 1499 and "aged 12" in 1460

To Clarify : it was Humphrey Grey who was "aged 12" in 1460
The above reading is ambiguous the way I first typed it.

Will Johnson

[R C]

ESSEX of LAMBOURNE, BERKS. pedigree available at the following URL on this
page and the next. That will get you started.

http://www.sureproxy.com/nph-index.cgi/ ... om/books=3
fid=3dKxUNAAAAIAAJ&pg=3dPA124&dq=3d=2522thomas+essex=2522&lr=3d&as_brr=3d0

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Leo van de Pas
Sent: 28-Dec-07 1:25 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Tantalising Hyde remark

In Burke's Landed Gentry 1937, page 1204

Here is an entry for William Hyde, of South Denchworth and Kingston Isle,
born 4 April 1518, died July 1567. He married Alice, daughter of Sir Thomas
Essex, (descended through Sir Henry de Essex, temp Henry II, from Robert,
son of Wymarke Staller, of the Palace of King Edward the Confessor) etc.

In such a short description more than 500 years are covered. I have not
looked at the Essex family as such, can anyone join these names?

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia

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

[James Hogg]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:32:25 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
<[email protected]> wrote:

like "Leticia Cluff".

Yes, I like Letitia Cluff. So do other people, judging by her ratings
in Google Groups: 4 stars from 231 ratings.

To be compared with the paltry 2 stars awarded to fake address
[email protected] in 6226 ratings.

Your previous bogus address, [email protected],
likewise got only 2 stars in 6263 ratings.


James Hogg
poet laureate
too modest to mention his own ratings

[Barbarossa]

"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:

Nat is looking at the version published in 1910 --
reportedly BEFORE the index, Volume 29, was published.

But he clearly knows there was a Volume 29.

Vide infra.

Vol 1 A to ANDROPHAGI
http://books.google.com/books?id=QhPpsUqUkZoC

But then, what's all this about Volumes 30 and 31?

Hmmmmmm...

"How many more volumes are there" sounds like a pretty smart
question.

Peter Stewart :

Um, no - how many more volumes are there of a set that, as you
had already been told, was completed with the alphabet (ZYM)
in volume 28 and indexed in volume 29 is about as stupid as a
question can very well get.

Now you are trying to laugh at Nat's searching Google Books
for the title published in 1910 as well as 1911, that you have
been told were the publication years of EB's 11th edition,
while at the same time trying to claim that supplements
published from 1922 were part of this 1910/11 set.

Barbarossa:

Well, it's really the TWELFTH, but what it says on the title
page third and last of the NEW volumes is:


The Encyclopaedia Britannica

The New Volumes constituting with the twenty-nine volumes of the
Eleventh Edition,

The Twelfth Edition

of that work, and also supplying a new, distinctive, and
independent reference dealing with events and developments of the
period 1910 to 1921 inclusive.

The Third of the New Volumes

Volume XXXII

Pacific Ocean Islands to Zuloaga

Also a separate index and list of contributors covering the New
Volumes XXX, XXXI and XXXII.
--
________B___a___r___b___a___r___o___s___s___a________
Wayne B. Hewitt Encinitas, CA [email protected]

[D. Spencer Hines]

Aha!

Interesting, if true.

No editing at all?

Tough to prove I'll bet.

But longer, meatier, "biased" [ translate: delightful to read] articles were
the result.

Yes:

Beware The Terrible Simplifier -- With Scissors.

How did you come by your set of the 11th Edition?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

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

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

I realize the 11th Edition of the Britannica is supposed to be
a gem -- but why so, exactly?

As I understand it, the 11th was the last edition wherein the
authors of the articles (most of them famous and well known
experts in their fields) did not have their submissions edited
down by the publishers.
--
________B___a___r___b___a___r___o___s___s___a________
Wayne B. Hewitt Encinitas, CA [email protected]

[Dave]

Renia wrote:

Peter Stewart wrote:

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

E. S. Caypatch wrote:

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:25:21 +1100, Ken Ozanne
[email protected]> wrote:



Nat, All those you are missing are available on Internet Archive
http://www.archive.org/index.php search for Encyclopaedia
Britannica (you
may have to choose texts first).

There are also volumes 30, 31 and a range of yearbooks going up
into the
50s.


These are obviously the volumes that DSH was thinking of when he
wrote:



How many more volumes are there?


And certain uncharitable people thought it was a stupid question.

If that is the case, then I apologise.

I have volumes 1-2, 9-10, 17, 20-21, 23, 26, 29(Index) with no
indication of further volumes.


That's because there weren't any further volumes of the 1911 edition,
Renia. Supplements were published over a decade later, between editions.

The high educational and literary prestige of the 1911 edition has
always been unique to the 28 alphabetic volumes plus index that were
issued in 1910 and 1911, as anyone pretending to knowledge about it -
like Hines - ought to know

Out of interest, Vol 29 (index) says of the various editions:
1st edition, 3 vols, published 1768-1771
2nd edition, 10 vols, published 1777-1784
3rd edition, 18 vols, published 1788-1797
4th edition, 20 vols, published 1801-1810
5th edition, 20 vols, published 1815-1817
6th edition, 20 vols, published 1823-1824
7th edition, 21 vols, published 1830-1842
8th edition, 22 vols, published 1853-1860
9th edition, 25 vols, published 1875-1889
10th edition, 9th edn + 11 supplementary vols, published 1902-1903
11th edition, 29 vols, published 1910-1911

I noticed today Oxfam Book Shop, Bedford [England] "Encyclopaedia
Britannica - 11th Edition - Much sought after and complete". £99 pounds.

Oxfam Bookshop
16 St. Pauls Square
BEDFORD Bedfordshire MK40 1SL
tel: 01234 213768


It occupied a few shelves, if I has read this thread earlier I could
have least stood there and counted the Volumes.



dave

[D. Spencer Hines]

Was it in Good Shape?

DSH

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

I noticed today Oxfam Book Shop, Bedford [England] "Encyclopaedia
Britannica - 11th Edition - Much sought after and complete". £99
pounds.

Oxfam Bookshop
16 St. Pauls Square
BEDFORD Bedfordshire MK40 1SL
tel: 01234 213768

It occupied a few shelves, if I has read this thread earlier I could
have least stood there and counted the Volumes.

[Renia]

Dave wrote:

Renia wrote:

Peter Stewart wrote:

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

E. S. Caypatch wrote:

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:25:21 +1100, Ken Ozanne
[email protected]> wrote:



Nat, All those you are missing are available on Internet Archive
http://www.archive.org/index.php search for Encyclopaedia
Britannica (you
may have to choose texts first).

There are also volumes 30, 31 and a range of yearbooks going up
into the
50s.



These are obviously the volumes that DSH was thinking of when he
wrote:



How many more volumes are there?



And certain uncharitable people thought it was a stupid question.


If that is the case, then I apologise.

I have volumes 1-2, 9-10, 17, 20-21, 23, 26, 29(Index) with no
indication of further volumes.



That's because there weren't any further volumes of the 1911 edition,
Renia. Supplements were published over a decade later, between editions.

The high educational and literary prestige of the 1911 edition has
always been unique to the 28 alphabetic volumes plus index that were
issued in 1910 and 1911, as anyone pretending to knowledge about it -
like Hines - ought to know


Out of interest, Vol 29 (index) says of the various editions:
1st edition, 3 vols, published 1768-1771
2nd edition, 10 vols, published 1777-1784
3rd edition, 18 vols, published 1788-1797
4th edition, 20 vols, published 1801-1810
5th edition, 20 vols, published 1815-1817 6th edition, 20 vols,
published 1823-1824
7th edition, 21 vols, published 1830-1842
8th edition, 22 vols, published 1853-1860
9th edition, 25 vols, published 1875-1889
10th edition, 9th edn + 11 supplementary vols, published 1902-1903
11th edition, 29 vols, published 1910-1911


I noticed today Oxfam Book Shop, Bedford [England] "Encyclopaedia
Britannica - 11th Edition - Much sought after and complete". £99 pounds.

Oxfam Bookshop
16 St. Pauls Square
BEDFORD Bedfordshire MK40 1SL
tel: 01234 213768


It occupied a few shelves, if I has read this thread earlier I could
have least stood there and counted the Volumes.

I got mine in a second-hand bookshop years ago, with many volumes
missing, sadly. Mine is the "handy volume issue".

[D. Spencer Hines]

Dear Douglas,

Well, partially.

Did you feel he was not provably a grandson of The Reverend Lawrence
Washington of Sulgrave Manor and Margaret Butler?

If so, I agree.

Have you discussed the issue with Gary Boyd Roberts and does he concur that
John Washington of Surry should not be included?

Cheers,

DSH

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

Dear Spencer ~

Thank you for your good post. It's always good to hear from you.

Some time ago I reviewed the evidence concerning the alleged English
origins of the New World immigrant, John Washington, of Surry County,
Virginia and did not feel it was sufficient to justify accepting his
stated origins and parentage. The parentage claimed for him could
well be correct, but I'd like to see better evidence to prove the
connections.

I do accept, however, the parentage and ancestry of John Washington,
of Westmoreland County, Virginia. He is the John Washington mentioned
in my post as a descendant of John de Sutton.

I trust this answers your question.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Dec 28, 1:09 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote:

Douglas,

This Sir John de Sutton used to be considered as an ancestor of another
John
Washington of Surry County, Virginia -- in addition to John and Lawrence
Washington of Westmoreland County, as I recall.

Gary Boyd Roberts so mentions this John Washington in RD 600 and he was
mentioned in PA2.

Yet I notice you don't mention him below.

For interest's sake, I've listed below the 17th Century New World
immigrants that descend from Sir John de Sutton and his 2nd wife, Joan
de Clinton:

Robert Abell, Dannett Abney, Agnes Mackworth, Richard More, Elizabeth
Marshall, Thomas Rudyard, John & Lawrence Washington, Mary Wolsesley

Why is that?

Cheers,

Spencer Hines

Kailua, Hawai'i

[Tony Hoskins]

Hello Michael:

Sadly, I do not have this date. Perhaps of interest nonetheless might
be the follwing entry for his grandfather the 1st Earl of Derby [_Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography_]:

Stanley, Thomas, first earl of Derby (c.1433-1504), magnate, was the
eldest son of Thomas Stanley, first Baron Stanley (1406-1459), and Joan,
daughter of Sir Robert Goushill.

First engagements in politics

Little is known about Thomas Stanley's early life. Family tradition has
him winning his spurs avenging a Scots raid on the Isle of Man,
presumably that of 1456. His father's lands and offices in Cheshire and
Lancashire, and on the Isle of Man, gave him ample opportunity to gain
experience in the leadership of men; his father's prominence in the
king's household likewise provided him with an early introduction to
court. He is named among the squires of Henry VI in 1454. The Stanleys
had connections, too, with nobles outside court circles. In the late
1450s Thomas married Eleanor, daughter of Richard Neville, earl of
Salisbury, and sister of Richard Neville, earl of Warwick (the
Kingmaker). Among their children was James Stanley, bishop of Ely. On
his father's death in February 1459, he found himself heir to a
formidable inheritance but in a position fraught with danger.

In 1459 the accord between the Lancastrian and the Yorkist lords broke
down, and the conflict came to the borders of the Stanley sphere of
influence. Queen Margaret held court at Lichfield, appealing on behalf
of the prince of Wales for the loyalty of the men of the palatinate of
Chester. With the earl of Salisbury mobilizing in Yorkshire, and heading
south-west to join the duke of York at Ludlow, the queen ordered Lord
Stanley to raise forces to intercept him. Salisbury, too, was in
communication with his son-in-law. The two armies met at Bloreheath in
August 1459. Though no more than a few miles away, Stanley kept his 2000
men out of the fight. It was alleged that he both prevented some
Cheshire levies joining the queen, and secretly committed troops to
Salisbury. His brother, William Stanley, was certainly in the rebel
host, and subsequently attainted. On the morning after the battle,
Thomas sent the queen his excuses and 'departed home again', while
writing to congratulate Salisbury on his escape. The parliament that met
at Coventry later in the year petitioned for Thomas Stanley's attainder.
The queen thought it wise to overlook his conduct, and pardoned him.
Supporter of York
In the summer of 1460 Lord Stanley again disappointed the queen. After
Henry VI's capture at the battle of Northampton, he began to co-operate
with the Yorkist lords who had possession of the king and ruled in his
name. In October he participated in the settlement by which Richard,
duke of York, was made heir to the throne, and in November he was
serving, alongside his Neville affines, in the council. While York and
Salisbury rode north against the queen's forces in December, and were
defeated and slain at Wakefield, he may have remained with the younger
Yorkist lords in London. Given the lack of firm evidence as to his
participation in the acclamation of Edward IV and the Yorkist victory at
Towton, it is probable that over the winter of 1460-61 he returned to
the relative security of his own regional power base. Still, Stanley
rapidly consolidated his association with the Yorkist regime. In the
early 1460s he joined his brother-in-law, the earl of Warwick, in the
sieges and campaigns that drove the Lancastrian forces across the
Scottish border. Stanley was not one of Edward's inner circle, but was
confirmed in his fees and offices. The new king needed Stanley to secure
the north-west, with its traditions of loyalty to the royal household.
With Lancastrian forces holding out in Wales and in the north, the
region had obvious strategic importance. In 1464 there was a Lancastrian
rising in the area, and in the following year Henry VI sought refuge in
north Lancashire, where he was finally taken captive. When in 1465 Lord
Stanley took honours in the tournament held to celebrate the marriage of
Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville, it might have seemed as if he had
ridden out the storm.

In the late 1460s, however, instability returned. The coalition that
had brought Edward IV to the throne was breaking apart, and Stanley
found his loyalties divided between the king and his Neville in-laws.
The dramatic shifts in political fortune between 1469 and 1471, and
their impact on the tangled networks of affinity and allegiance, are
hard to unravel. When the earl of Warwick, fleeing before Edward IV in
1470, made his way to Manchester in the hope of support, Stanley held
aloof, but on Warwick's return he lent him armed support in the
restoration of Henry VI. For Lord Stanley, alongside the main game,
there was an important sideshow. In 1468 he had been granted the
wardship of the heiresses of the Harringtons of Hornby in north
Lancashire. His bid to take over their estates was resisted by the male
heir, who remained loyal to Edward IV. Stanley's siege of Hornby Castle
was his main contribution to the fighting of this time. This struggle
involved conflict with Richard, duke of Gloucester, the king's brother,
who backed the Harringtons and was based for a time at Hornby. Lord
Stanley stood his ground in the north-west, and, given his profile and
Neville connections, did well to avoid the bloodbath at the battles of
Barnet and Tewkesbury, which followed the return of Edward IV in the
spring of 1471. Sir William Stanley was among the first to rally to
Edward, and he may have brought his brother's good wishes with him.

Lord Stanley was soon forgiven for his disloyalty. Appointed steward of
the king's household late in 1471, he was thenceforward a regular member
of the royal council. The death of his first wife some time before 1471
severed his connection with the Nevilles and made possible, some time
early in 1472, a marriage even more distinguished and politically
significant. Margaret Beaufort, countess of Richmond, his new wife, was
the mother of Henry Tudor and potentially heir-general of the house of
Lancaster. Yet the marriage was probably blessed by Edward IV, and
strengthened rather than weakened Stanley's position at court, where a
match between Elizabeth of York and Henry Tudor was mooted. At the same
time, while Edward's reservations about Stanley's loyalty may have led
to the advancement of the king's brother in the region, their respective
spheres of influence had been redrawn in Stanley's favour by 1475.
Stanley led a retinue of 40 lances and 300 archers in the king's
expedition to France in 1475, during which he found an opportunity to
commend himself to the favour of Louis XI. In 1482 he served with a
large company in Gloucester's campaign in Scotland, and played a key
role in the capture of Berwick.

Dominance in the north-west
In the mean time Lord Stanley consolidated and extended his hegemony in
the north-west. The changes of regime never really weakened his family's
grip on the key offices in the palatinates of Chester and Lancaster.
Stanley was a man of considerable acumen, and probably the most
successful power-broker of his age. Like most effective affinities, his
retinue was held together not by grants of annuities but by the less
brittle bonds of good lordship. Given his office holding both regionally
and at court, Stanley did not need to draw ruinously on his own reserves
to dispense patronage on a grand scale. His active role in the
arbitration of local disputes is well documented. The royal council and
the council of the duchy of Lancaster regularly referred matters to him.
He in turn delegated business to his counsellors, kinsmen and wives. On
occasion Eleanor, Lady Stanley, took the initiative as facilitator and
peacemaker. In the mid-1460s she wrote to Peter Warburton on a client's
behalf, making clear what was required to 'cause me to be your good
lady', and in 1466 she took the sting out of a dispute between two
Lancashire squires (JRL, Arley Charter 30/2; Lancs. RO, DDF 600).

Yet 'good lordship' had its brutal face. The Stanleys were disinclined
to brook any opposition or tolerate any rivals in the north-west. If the
vicissitudes of the time encouraged some Lancashire families, like the
Butlers, barons of Warrington, to assert themselves, they were soon put
in their place. Early in 1464 Sir John Butler was slain, prompting the
king to summon Lord Stanley before him. According to ballad tradition,
which adds lurid detail to the sparse record, Butler was murdered by
Stanley's servants. Indeed the ballad takes amoral delight in the king's
reluctance to discipline Stanley. In defending and extending their
hegemony the Stanleys were prepared to go head-to-head with the
mightiest in the land. In 1469 the king appointed his brother to a
number of duchy of Lancaster offices previously held by Stanley. In
defiance of royal orders, Stanley made it impossible for Gloucester to
assume his responsibilities. This rivalry, with the struggle over Hornby
another focus, led briefly to open warfare. According to the Stanley
legend, Gloucester assembled an army at Preston intending to attack and
burn Lathom, but was put to flight by the Stanleys at Ribble Bridge.
Gloucester's banner was taken by Jack Morris of Wigan and was kept as a
trophy at Wigan church for some forty years.

After the accession of Edward V, Stanley was prominent among the lords
and prelates who sought to maintain a balance of power between the young
king's uncle, Richard of Gloucester, and his maternal kinsmen, the
Woodvilles. When Gloucester attacked this group at a council meeting on
13 June, Stanley was wounded and placed under arrest, but was spared
summary execution, the fate of Lord Hastings. According to Polydore
Vergil, Gloucester feared that Stanley's son would raise Lancashire and
Cheshire against him. On 24 June Gloucester had Edward V and his brother
declared illegitimate, and two days later he took the throne as Richard
III. In preparing the ground for the usurpation and in consolidating his
position, Richard found it more expedient to appease than to alienate
the house of Stanley. Lord Stanley, who continued as steward of the
household, was soon at liberty and seemingly implicated in the new
order. He bore the great mace at Richard's coronation, and his wife
waited on the new queen. He was elected to the Order of the Garter,
taking the stall vacated by Lord Hastings.

Richard III and Bosworth
To all appearances, Stanley was a pillar of the Ricardian regime. After
the coronation he joined the royal progress westwards to Gloucester and
then northwards to York. His commitment to the new regime paid dividends
in the autumn of 1483, when a series of plots against the king coalesced
in a major rising in southern and western England under the leadership
of the duke of Buckingham. A key feature of the rebellion was the link
forged between men loyal to Edward IV, who, assuming his sons had
perished in the Tower of London, shifted their allegiance to his
daughter, Elizabeth of York, and the die-hard Lancastrians who espoused
the cause of Henry Tudor. When Richard returned from the north to
suppress the rebellion, Stanley and his brother were at the king's side
and were richly rewarded from the forfeited estates of the rebels. In
place of Buckingham, Richard appointed Stanley as constable of England,
first in an acting capacity and then, on 18 December, formally. Yet it
is conceivable that Stanley might himself have become involved in the
rising. His wife, Margaret Beaufort, was a key conspirator, and brokered
the alliance between Elizabeth of York and her son Henry Tudor. Stanley,
who seems to have been with the king when he heard news of the
rebellion, may have had no other option than to act as his loyal
lieutenant. Indeed it was only by making a solemn undertaking to keep
his wife in custody and to put an end to her intrigues that Stanley
saved her from attainder.

Richard cannot wholly have trusted Stanley. When in the summer of 1485
the latter took leave to return to Lathom the king asked that his son,
George Stanley, Lord Strange, take his place at court. The Stanleys had
been in communication with Henry Tudor and the Lancastrian exiles for
some time. Henry Tudor's strategy of landing in Wales and crossing to
Shrewsbury depended on the support of Sir William Stanley, the
chamberlain of Chester and north Wales, and presumably on that of
Stanley himself. Once informed of the invasion, the king ordered the two
brothers to raise the men of the region in readiness to take the field
against the pretender. On hearing that Henry Tudor was marching
unopposed through Wales, Richard ordered Lord Stanley to join him at
once. According to the continuator of the Crowland chronicle, Stanley
excused himself on the grounds of illness. By this stage the king had
firm evidence of Stanley complicity. After an abortive bid to escape
from the court, Lord Strange confessed that he, his uncle Sir William
Stanley, and his cousin Sir John Savage (d. 1492) [see under Savage
family] were in league with Henry Tudor. The king proclaimed the two
knights traitors, and let it be known that Strange was hostage for his
father's loyalty in the coming conflict.

Henry Tudor led his army into the heart of the kingdom, making contact
with Sir William Stanley at Stone in Staffordshire. Three armies
followed each other into the midlands: Lord Stanley and his forces; then
Sir William Stanley; and finally Henry Tudor and the rebel host. It
cannot have been entirely clear whether the Stanleyites were falling
back before the rebels or shielding them from the royal host. After his
evacuation of Lichfield, Lord Stanley may have had a secret meeting with
Henry at Atherstone on 20 August, but when the Stanleyites arrived south
of Market Bosworth they took up a position independent of both the royal
host and the rebel army. The two brothers played similar roles to those
they had played at Bloreheath over a quarter of a century earlier. Lord
Stanley took no part in the action, hanging between the two armies, and
it was Sir William's intervention that gave Henry the victory. It was
presumably the elder brother, if anyone, who placed Richard's coronet on
Henry Tudor's head.

Henry VII showed his gratitude to his 'right dearly beloved father' on
27 October 1485 by creating him earl of Derby. Early in 1486 he
confirmed him as constable of England and high steward of the duchy of
Lancaster, and granted him other offices and estates. Even so, at the
time of the Lambert Simnel rising of 1487, there may have been concern
that the Stanleys were again hedging their bets, and there was relief in
the royal host when the Stanleyites came in at Nottingham. The victory
at Stoke (16 June 1487) brought further rewards for Stanley, notably
lands forfeited by Viscount Lovell, Sir Thomas Pilkington, and Sir
Thomas Broughton in Lancashire and elsewhere. In 1489 the Stanleys again
made a notable contribution to the army raised by the king to suppress a
rising in Yorkshire. It may be that Sir William Stanley, now chamberlain
of the household, felt that he deserved greater reward. In 1495 he
rashly entered into an intrigue with the supporters of Perkin Warbeck.
Henry VII felt confident enough to strike him down, and then to
undertake a state visit to Lancashire, where he stayed with his
stepfather and mother at their manors of Lathom and Knowsley.
Last years and death
In 1504 the earl of Derby could look back on a career of forty-five
years of remarkable political success. His closeness to the royal
family, his tenure of high office nationally, and his territorial
holdings, which stretched from the Isle of Man deep into the midlands,
made him a figure of great power and influence. Under his adroit
leadership the north-west escaped the worst horrors of civil strife,
while most of its leading families consistently found themselves on the
winning side. The deeds of the Stanleys were celebrated in ballads
composed in the region, while the hangings from King Richard's tent and
other trophies were displayed at Lathom and elsewhere. At the same time
Stanley and his wives helped bring a degree of cultivation and
refinement to the north-west. Their patronage underpinned the careers of
a number of young Lancashire men, like William Smith, Hugh Oldham, and
Christopher Urswick, who later won distinction in the church and world
of learning.

Still, Derby's last years may not have been entirely happy. There are
signs that he had overextended himself. Spending more time in the
capital, he found it hard to resolve the disputes that arose in his
sphere of influence and maintain control over unruly members of his
affinity. A property dispute at Mellor on the Cheshire and Derbyshire
border festered in the 1490s as both sides found support from within the
old Stanley connection, and as appeals to Derby's 'good lordship'
prompted fitful, rather than focused, intervention. Henry VII showed
himself less willing to accommodate the aggrandizement of the Stanleys.
In 1495 he had Sir William Stanley executed on charges of treason, and
over the next few years clipped the wings of a number of other family
members.

Henry VII's visit to Lancashire in the summer of 1495 marked a
watershed of sorts. Early in 1499 Margaret Beaufort left Lathom for
good, establishing an independent household at Collyweston and taking a
vow of chastity. Derby visited her from time to time as he moved between
Lathom and the capital, where he continued to serve as a member of the
king's council and constable of England. He presided in this latter
capacity at a state trial at Westminster in May 1502. His eldest son,
George, Lord Strange, died after a banquet in London in December 1503.
Derby fell ill at Lathom the following summer. In his will of 28 July
1504 he ordained masses for the souls of himself, his wives, parents,
ancestors, children, siblings, and, ever the good lord, 'them that have
died in the service of my lord my father or of me' (PRO, PROB 11/14,
fols. 148r-149v). He died at Lathom the following day, and was buried
with his ancestors at Burscough Priory.

MICHAEL J. BENNETT
Sources B. Coward, The Stanleys, lords Stanley and earls of Derby,
1385-1672: the origins, wealth and power of a landowning family, Chetham
Society, 3rd ser., 30 (1983) · M. Jones, 'Richard III and the Stanleys',
Richard III and the north, ed. R. Horrox (1986), 27-50 · Chancery
records · RotP, vol. 6 · N. Pronay and J. Cox, eds., The Crowland
chronicle continuations, 1459-1486 (1986) · 'Sir John Butler', Bishop
Percy's folio manuscript: ballads and romances, ed. J. W. Hales and F.
J. Furnivall, 3 (1868), 205-14 · 'Bosworth Feilde', Bishop Percy's folio
manuscript: ballads and romances, ed. J. W. Hales and F. J. Furnivall, 3
(1868), 233-59 · 'The antiquity of the family of the Stanleys in English
metre', Bodl. Oxf., MS Rawl. poet. 143, fols. 12-27 · Lancs. RO, DDF 600
· JRL, Arley Charter 30/2 · PRO, PROB 11/14, fols. 148r-149v · M. J.
Bennett, The battle of Bosworth (1985) · C. Ross, Edward IV (1974) · C.
Carpenter, Locality and polity: a study of Warwickshire landed society,
1401-1499 (1992) · Report on manuscripts in various collections, 8
vols., HMC, 55 (1901-14), vol. 2 [Sir George Wombwell] · R. Horrox,
Richard III, a study of service, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and
Thought, 4th ser., 11 (1989) · M. K. Jones and M. G. Underwood, The
king's mother: Lady Margaret Beaufort, countess of Richmond and Derby
(1992) · M. Bennett, Lambert Simnel and the battle of Stoke (1987)

Archives Lancs. RO, Derby muniments, DDK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Oxford University Press 2004-7 All rights reserved

Michael J. Bennett, 'Stanley, Thomas, first earl of Derby
(c.1433-1504)', Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford
University Press, Sept 2004; online edn, May 2007
[wehttp://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/26279, accessed 29 Dec 2007]

Thomas Stanley (c.1433-1504): doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/26279
-------------------------------------------

Best wishes,

Tony

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

707/545-0831, ext. 562

[Gjest]

On Dec 30, 11:38 am, "Tony Hoskins" <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Michael:

Sadly, I do not have this date. Perhaps of interest nonetheless might
be the follwing entry for his grandfather the 1st Earl of Derby [_Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography_]:

Many thanks, Tony. Plenty of good stuff there!

Best wishes, Michael

[Barbarossa]

"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:

I realize the 11th Edition of the Britannica is supposed to be
a gem -- but why so, exactly?

Barbarossa:

As I understand it, the 11th was the last edition wherein the
authors of the articles (most of them famous and well known
experts in their fields) did not have their submissions edited
down by the publishers.

"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:

Aha!

Interesting, if true.

No editing at all?

Tough to prove I'll bet.

But longer, meatier, "biased" [translate: delightful to read]
articles were the result.

Barbarossa:

I suspect that experts and authorities were asked to submit
articles (possibly within certain length requirements) that were
then subject only to the normal proof-reading. Others may have to
speak to whether articles were ever rejected or returned for
re-writes.

I did know a PhD at work (retired, many years ago) who did
indeed submit an article to the EB (a later edition, of course)
on squash and gourds.

"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:

How did you come by your set of the 11th Edition?

Barbarossa:

About thirty five years ago I was discussing the 11th with a
colleague at work and decided to look for a set. I did manage to
find a complete Twelfth in good condition in a used book store in
downtown San Diego. It is the "small" edition - about 6 X 9
inches and tiny print - that came out of the Lincoln County
library in Kemmerer, Wyoming.
--
________B___a___r___b___a___r___o___s___s___a________
Wayne B. Hewitt Encinitas, CA [email protected]

[Gjest]

Dear Listers,
Richard Fleming , Bishop, of Lincoln is said variously
to be son to or brother of the Robert Fleming of Woodhall who was the father
of Cecily (Fleming) Waterton. He was Canon of York by 1407 at the time of Sir
Thomas II Le Fleming of Wath-upon-Dearn`s granting the advowson of the Church
of Wath to Robert Waterton Esq of Methley who acquired the manor of Woodhall
at around the same time. WIkipedia says the future Bishop was born at Croston,
Lancashire in about 1385 which would seem to coincide with what Archbishop
Arundel of Canterbury had to say in November of 1407 concerning him and his
apparent liking for the Lollardy teachings of William Wycliffe that He (Richard
Fleming) and others were like beardless boys who having learned to read before
They could spell deserved to be well birched (the English Church in the
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries pp 184-85 William Wolfe Capes. Robert Waterton
was an esquire of the body to kIng Henry IV and the Lollards with whom Fleming
was agreeing claimed that Richard II was yet yet alive and ought to be
restored to the throne. Croston came into the Fleming family in the reign of King
Edward II of England through the marriage of Isabel, daughter and heiress of Sir
John de la Mare of Croston to Thomas I Fleming of Wath (see extract frim
Edward Baine`s Parish of Croston as described in History of the County Palatine
and Duchy of Lancaster) a who died after 1343 according to John Ravilious "
Ancestry of the Lords Fauconberg : Thomas fitz Richard de Cukeney on October 5,
2005
It seems very likely that Thomas I`s son and heir Thomas II was the father
by an unknown to me at this time wife of John IV Fleming his heir at Wath,
Robert Fleming of Woodhall and Bishop Richard.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?N ... 0000000004)

[David Teague]

I actually have the 13th (1926), which is the 11th reprinted, plus the 3 supplemental volumes of the early 1920s(= the 12th ed.), plus the 3 further volumes published in 1926. One of the patrons of the small community library where I used to work brought in a massive donation of maybe 200 - 300 separate volumes, including the 1926 EB, and my boss let me have the encyclopedias in return for my "sweat equity" in carrying in and sorting the entire donation.

David Teague

From: [email protected]
Subject: I Actually HAVE an Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition ...
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:13:12 -0800
To: [email protected]

"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:

Nat is looking at the version published in 1910 --
reportedly BEFORE the index, Volume 29, was published.

But he clearly knows there was a Volume 29.

Vide infra.

Vol 1 A to ANDROPHAGI
http://books.google.com/books?id=QhPpsUqUkZoC

But then, what's all this about Volumes 30 and 31?

Hmmmmmm...

"How many more volumes are there" sounds like a pretty smart
question.

Peter Stewart :

Um, no - how many more volumes are there of a set that, as you
had already been told, was completed with the alphabet (ZYM)
in volume 28 and indexed in volume 29 is about as stupid as a
question can very well get.

Now you are trying to laugh at Nat's searching Google Books
for the title published in 1910 as well as 1911, that you have
been told were the publication years of EB's 11th edition,
while at the same time trying to claim that supplements
published from 1922 were part of this 1910/11 set.

Barbarossa:

Well, it's really the TWELFTH, but what it says on the title
page third and last of the NEW volumes is:


The Encyclopaedia Britannica

The New Volumes constituting with the twenty-nine volumes of the
Eleventh Edition,

The Twelfth Edition

of that work, and also supplying a new, distinctive, and
independent reference dealing with events and developments of the
period 1910 to 1921 inclusive.

The Third of the New Volumes

Volume XXXII

Pacific Ocean Islands to Zuloaga

Also a separate index and list of contributors covering the New
Volumes XXX, XXXI and XXXII.
--
________B___a___r___b___a___r___o___s___s___a________
Wayne B. Hewitt Encinitas, CA [email protected]

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

_________________________________________________________________
Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary!
http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx? ... tlink1_dec

[David Teague]

Actually, IIRC, Geoffrey of Monmouth does give 542 as the date of the passing of Arthur; in fact, this instance is quite famous precisely because Geoffrey almost never gave dates elsewhere.

This, of course, says nothing about the source Geoffrey used for this particular date.

David Teague

From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Arthur
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:14:39 -0800
To: [email protected]

The date of Arthur's death comes from Welsh Annals composed many centuries later.

Geoffrey of Monmouth did not give dates.



_________________________________________________________________
Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com?ocid=TXT_TAG ... ows_122007

[Gjest]

In a message dated 12/30/2007 11:25:26 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:


Actually, IIRC, Geoffrey of Monmouth does give 542 as the date of the
passing of Arthur; in fact, this instance is quite famous precisely because
Geoffrey almost never gave dates elsewhere.


----------------------
Since the work is online perhaps you could provide an exact and specific URL
directly to where he states this?

Thanks!

Will Johnson



**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?N ... 0000000004)

[D. Spencer Hines]

Interesting!

Thanks.

That 13th Edition (1926) seems to be the best one to own -- more complete
and with the 1920's material.

So it's a total of 35 volumes, including the index?

Volumes 33, 34 and 35 cover 1920's material [new articles?]
alphabetically -- with some errata material?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

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

I actually have the 13th (1926), which is the 11th reprinted, plus the 3
supplemental volumes of the early 1920s(= the 12th ed.), plus the 3
further volumes published in 1926. One of the patrons of the small
community library where I used to work brought in a massive donation of
maybe 200 - 300 separate volumes, including the 1926 EB, and my boss let
me have the encyclopedias in return for my "sweat equity" in carrying in
and sorting the entire donation.

David Teague


From: [email protected]
Subject: I Actually HAVE an Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition ...
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:13:12 -0800
To: [email protected]

"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:

Nat is looking at the version published in 1910 --
reportedly BEFORE the index, Volume 29, was published.

But he clearly knows there was a Volume 29.

Vide infra.

Vol 1 A to ANDROPHAGI
http://books.google.com/books?id=QhPpsUqUkZoC

But then, what's all this about Volumes 30 and 31?

Hmmmmmm...

"How many more volumes are there" sounds like a pretty smart
question.

Peter Stewart :

Um, no - how many more volumes are there of a set that, as you
had already been told, was completed with the alphabet (ZYM)
in volume 28 and indexed in volume 29 is about as stupid as a
question can very well get.

Now you are trying to laugh at Nat's searching Google Books
for the title published in 1910 as well as 1911, that you have
been told were the publication years of EB's 11th edition,
while at the same time trying to claim that supplements
published from 1922 were part of this 1910/11 set.

Barbarossa:

Well, it's really the TWELFTH, but what it says on the title
page third and last of the NEW volumes is:


The Encyclopaedia Britannica

The New Volumes constituting with the twenty-nine volumes of the
Eleventh Edition,

The Twelfth Edition

of that work, and also supplying a new, distinctive, and
independent reference dealing with events and developments of the
period 1910 to 1921 inclusive.

The Third of the New Volumes

Volume XXXII

Pacific Ocean Islands to Zuloaga

Also a separate index and list of contributors covering the New
Volumes XXX, XXXI and XXXII.
--
________B___a___r___b___a___r___o___s___s___a________
Wayne B. Hewitt Encinitas, CA [email protected]

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

_________________________________________________________________
Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary!
http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx? ... tlink1_dec

[David Teague]

From: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 14:49:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Arthur
To: [email protected]


In a message dated 12/30/2007 11:25:26 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:


Actually, IIRC, Geoffrey of Monmouth does give 542 as the date of the
passing of Arthur; in fact, this instance is quite famous precisely because
Geoffrey almost never gave dates elsewhere.


----------------------
Since the work is online perhaps you could provide an exact and specific URL
directly to where he states this?

Thanks!

Will Johnson

Dear Will (et al.),

http://www.lib.rochester.edu/CAMELOT/geofhkb.htm

the very last line of the quoted Book XI, Ch. II.

David Teague
_________________________________________________________________
i’m is proud to present Cause Effect, a series about real people making a difference.
http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/MTV/?so ... use_Effect

[Gjest]

Somewhere in my meanderings I remember seeing where they were crowned "King
and Queen of Man" way back in 15.... something or other. I'll have to see if
I can find that reference again.



**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?N ... 0000000004)

[Doug McDonald]

Wanda Thacker wrote:

I don't actually know of any successful use of genetic testing to establish
links to the medieval aristocracy, though in some cases I've seen it feed
speculation. The problem is that usually the Y DNA lines of the actual
medieval aristocrats are not available for comparison.

There is one certain case for aristocracy (plus the added fact that the
progenitor in question was twice referred to as "rex", which he really
wasn't.

That is the line of Somerled progenoitor of the Lords of the Isles.
Three Chiefs of the Clan Donald, with impeccable paper trails,
have been tested, (Y chromosome of course) and agree. There are also
five others with good to impeccable paper trails and they all agree also.

These all go back to John, 1st Lord of the Isles, d. 1386. Thus DNA
confirms the paper to this point with near certainty. There are also
a couple of people (McAlister) who branch off at Donald "the Eponymous"
d. 1269, which more or less confirms the line back to him.
The remaining two generations to Somerled himself remain unconfirmed by
DNA.

This line is R1a1, which pretty much means "Viking", as Celtic
people at that time simply were not R1a. The exact haplotype
is more specific, and implies Norse Viking, as opposed to
Danish.

You can see the data at clan-donald-usa.org.

Disclaimer: the DNA part of that web site is mostly my creation, but
the historical material is by Mark MacDonald, the Clan Donald USA
historian, not me.

Doug McDonald

[conaught2]

Hi Diana,

I am not familiar with the dispensations granted in England, but am somewhat
familiar with those granted in Ireland. The records I have for Ireland
in the 1400, 1500 and 1500s are for couples who were of the landed gentry.
In the 1800s the dispensations I have records for in County Mayo and County
Donegal are tenant farmers. For earlier records the Archbishop's Register's
are a wealth of information. Unfortunately not many of the registers still
exist. Archbishop Mey, Cromer and Dowdall have records relating to the
ecclesiastical courts which dealt with the dispensations. The records I
have for the 1800s are found in the parish records.

There is a very interesting book which was published in 2007, it sites
several cases in Ireland, England, Frankish marriages,and Southern French.

"To Have and To Hold Marrying and Its Documentation in Western Christendom,
400-1600" Edited by Philip L. Reynolds and John Witte, Jr.Cambridge
University Press - ISBN 978 0 521 86736 8

Margaret K.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Diana Trenchard" <[email protected]>
To: "Gen-Med" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 12:40 AM
Subject: Papal dispensations

Many times on this List there has been mention of a papal
dispensation permitting close relatives to marry. To which levels of
society did this apply? I can't imagine mediaeval agricultural
labourers always applying for one, even though marriages at that
level of society would mostly be within a limited circle of people,
and must therefore have been 'forbidden' marriages. Would a local
priest turn a blind eye in these lower levels of society, or did it
depend on how particular he was? What happened at the land-owning
gentry level?

My reason for asking is to try and sort out the TRENCHARD and WISE
families in West Devon, for whom virtually no wives' names are
known. Over a couple of hundred years (12-14C) these land-owning
(and occasionally knighted) families lived side by side in several
adjacent manors/parishes, and sometimes owned properties in, or parts
of, each others' manors. It is a reasonable assumption that they
intermarried, but no evidence of any wives' names has been found by
researchers of either family. Given the length of time, there must
surely have been marriages between cousins within the prohibited
relationships that should have required papal dispensations.

My principal question therefore is, is it possible to research within
the dispensations or are they all still tucked away in the Vatican
Archives? Were copies kept in Catholic records in England, and are
they also accessible?

Diana

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

[David Teague]

Actually, I've had a chance to go home and have a closer look at the 13th EB, and what they did was to reprint the 11th ed. and to replace the 3 supplemental volumes of the 1921 ed. (the 12th) with 3 entirely new supplemental volumes which covered all the years since the 11th ed. So, with the 28 volumes of the 11th, plus the 3 revised and expanded supplemental volumes, plus the index volume, the total is 32 volumes. (My set, however, is one of those where each volume has the contents of two volumes bound together in one book, so I have 32 volumes bound in 16.)

David Teague

From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: I Actually HAVE an Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition ...
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:03:38 +0000
To: [email protected]

Interesting!

Thanks.

That 13th Edition (1926) seems to be the best one to own -- more complete
and with the 1920's material.

So it's a total of 35 volumes, including the index?

Volumes 33, 34 and 35 cover 1920's material [new articles?]
alphabetically -- with some errata material?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"David Teague" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

I actually have the 13th (1926), which is the 11th reprinted, plus the 3
supplemental volumes of the early 1920s(= the 12th ed.), plus the 3
further volumes published in 1926. One of the patrons of the small
community library where I used to work brought in a massive donation of
maybe 200 - 300 separate volumes, including the 1926 EB, and my boss let
me have the encyclopedias in return for my "sweat equity" in carrying in
and sorting the entire donation.

David Teague


From: [email protected]
Subject: I Actually HAVE an Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition ...
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:13:12 -0800
To: [email protected]

"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:

Nat is looking at the version published in 1910 --
reportedly BEFORE the index, Volume 29, was published.

But he clearly knows there was a Volume 29.

Vide infra.

Vol 1 A to ANDROPHAGI
http://books.google.com/books?id=QhPpsUqUkZoC

But then, what's all this about Volumes 30 and 31?

Hmmmmmm...

"How many more volumes are there" sounds like a pretty smart
question.

Peter Stewart :

Um, no - how many more volumes are there of a set that, as you
had already been told, was completed with the alphabet (ZYM)
in volume 28 and indexed in volume 29 is about as stupid as a
question can very well get.

Now you are trying to laugh at Nat's searching Google Books
for the title published in 1910 as well as 1911, that you have
been told were the publication years of EB's 11th edition,
while at the same time trying to claim that supplements
published from 1922 were part of this 1910/11 set.

Barbarossa:

Well, it's really the TWELFTH, but what it says on the title
page third and last of the NEW volumes is:


The Encyclopaedia Britannica

The New Volumes constituting with the twenty-nine volumes of the
Eleventh Edition,

The Twelfth Edition

of that work, and also supplying a new, distinctive, and
independent reference dealing with events and developments of the
period 1910 to 1921 inclusive.

The Third of the New Volumes

Volume XXXII

Pacific Ocean Islands to Zuloaga

Also a separate index and list of contributors covering the New
Volumes XXX, XXXI and XXXII.
--
________B___a___r___b___a___r___o___s___s___a________
Wayne B. Hewitt Encinitas, CA [email protected]

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

_________________________________________________________________
Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary!
http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx? ... tlink1_dec



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

_________________________________________________________________
Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com?ocid=TXT_TAG ... ows_122007

[D. Spencer Hines]

Thanks.

DSH

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

Actually, I've had a chance to go home and have a closer look at the 13th
EB, and what they did was to reprint the 11th ed. and to replace the 3
supplemental volumes of the 1921 ed. (the 12th) with 3 entirely new
supplemental volumes which covered all the years since the 11th ed. So,
with the 28 volumes of the 11th, plus the 3 revised and expanded
supplemental volumes, plus the index volume, the total is 32 volumes. (My
set, however, is one of those where each volume has the contents of two
volumes bound together in one book, so I have 32 volumes bound in 16.)

David Teague

From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: I Actually HAVE an Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition
...
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:03:38 +0000
To: [email protected]

Interesting!

Thanks.

That 13th Edition (1926) seems to be the best one to own -- more complete
and with the 1920's material.

So it's a total of 35 volumes, including the index?

Volumes 33, 34 and 35 cover 1920's material [new articles?]
alphabetically -- with some errata material?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"David Teague" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

I actually have the 13th (1926), which is the 11th reprinted, plus the 3
supplemental volumes of the early 1920s(= the 12th ed.), plus the 3
further volumes published in 1926. One of the patrons of the small
community library where I used to work brought in a massive donation of
maybe 200 - 300 separate volumes, including the 1926 EB, and my boss let
me have the encyclopedias in return for my "sweat equity" in carrying in
and sorting the entire donation.

David Teague

From: [email protected]
Subject: I Actually HAVE an Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition ...
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:13:12 -0800
To: [email protected]

"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:

Nat is looking at the version published in 1910 --
reportedly BEFORE the index, Volume 29, was published.

But he clearly knows there was a Volume 29.

Vide infra.

Vol 1 A to ANDROPHAGI
http://books.google.com/books?id=QhPpsUqUkZoC

But then, what's all this about Volumes 30 and 31?

Hmmmmmm...

"How many more volumes are there" sounds like a pretty smart
question.

Peter Stewart :

Um, no - how many more volumes are there of a set that, as you
had already been told, was completed with the alphabet (ZYM)
in volume 28 and indexed in volume 29 is about as stupid as a
question can very well get.

Now you are trying to laugh at Nat's searching Google Books
for the title published in 1910 as well as 1911, that you have
been told were the publication years of EB's 11th edition,
while at the same time trying to claim that supplements
published from 1922 were part of this 1910/11 set.

Barbarossa:

Well, it's really the TWELFTH, but what it says on the title
page third and last of the NEW volumes is:


The Encyclopaedia Britannica

The New Volumes constituting with the twenty-nine volumes of the
Eleventh Edition,

The Twelfth Edition

of that work, and also supplying a new, distinctive, and
independent reference dealing with events and developments of the
period 1910 to 1921 inclusive.

The Third of the New Volumes

Volume XXXII

Pacific Ocean Islands to Zuloaga

Also a separate index and list of contributors covering the New
Volumes XXX, XXXI and XXXII.
--
________B___a___r___b___a___r___o___s___s___a________
Wayne B. Hewitt Encinitas, CA [email protected]

[JohnR]

On Dec 31, 5:56 am, David Teague <[email protected]> wrote:

Actually, I've had a chance to go home and have a closer look at the 13th EB, and what they did was to reprint the 11th ed. and to replace the 3 supplemental volumes of the 1921 ed. (the 12th) with 3 entirely new supplemental volumes which covered all the years since the 11th ed. So, with the 28 volumes of the 11th, plus the 3 revised and expanded supplemental volumes, plus the index volume, the total is 32 volumes. (My set, however, is one of those where each volume has the contents of two volumes bound together in one book, so I have 32 volumes bound in 16.)

David Teague

I have the 11th India paper edition in 29 volumes and the 3 "New
volumes constituting, in combination with the twenty-nine volumes of
the eleventh edition.The twelfth edition .... "

John

[Gjest]

Dear Will, John and others,
I have found 3 documents which
doubtless reveal the rather sordid tale of why Waterton recieved the advowson of
the church at Wath-on-Dearne and perhaps the manor of Woodhall as well.

Chancery Certificates of Statute Merchant and Statute Staple
C 241/192/2
Scope and Content:
Debtor: Thomas Fleming, Knt., John Fleming, his son and heir ,
Thomas Fleming, Reyner Fleming , the son of Thomas, John de Clifton , Thomas
de Clifton, William Bacon, John Cresse, William the son of Ivo de Wath and
Robert Deyne of Herningfield
Creditor: Thomas Chandos, Rector of the Church of Wath-on-Dearne
(Strathforth Wapentake , West Riding, Yorkshire)
Amount : 1000 pounds
beforre William Frost, Mayor of York, William de Chester, clerk
taken June 30, 1401
Sent by the King to the Mayor and clerk
Writ delivered August 6, 1402, another certificate sent to the
Charncery Easter term 1403
******************************************************************************
******************************************
On-line Document SC 8/103/5067
? 1405 Thomas Chandos, clerk formerly parson of Wath addressed the Council
petitioning for writs to be sent to Thomas Fleming, knt. and Thomas Toneton,
Rector of the Church of Saint Nicholas at Pontefract under the Great Seal that
They appear before the King on pain of 1000 pounds or that another remedy be
found for their wrongful detention and non-payment of a certain annuity by
maintenance and menaces contrary to the law. And also to have the authority of the
present Parliament to execute a statute merchant and beyond this to compell
payment of the annuity in times to come and arrears for times past. He states
that Fleming and others are bound by surety for an amount of _____ marks due to
the petioner during his lifetime and each is bound in a statute merchant of
150 pounds. For Non-payment the petitioner sought execution of the same statute
merchant and then Fleming (patron of Wath) planned through a conspiracy
between himself and Toneton (Note: Toneton succeeded Chandos as parson of Wath and
kept the position after Waterton took over) to exclude the petitoner from the
annuity as from the execution of the statute. Toneton made such menaces etc.
in this regard that the petitioner was unable to secure the execution of
thestatute as the law demands. They also laboured the men and the officiers of the
sheriff that none should execute the statute.
Let writs be sentto the Sheriff of York [ such that ] Fleming and Toneton be
before the King and Council at Westminister at the next quindene of Easter to
answer to the complaint written within and that the same council has the
authority of parliament to make right according to their discretion.
******************************************************************************
*********************************************
Chancery Certificates of Statute Merchant and Statute Staple
C 241/202/46

Scope and Content: Debtor: Thomas Fleming , knt.[ of York ]
Creditors: Robert Waterton, Esquire and
Richard Fleming, clerk [ of York]
Amount : 500 pounds
Before Henry Wyman, Mayor of York, William del
Booth, clerk
taken April 12, 1407
first term December 25, 1407
last term December 25, 1407
Writ to the Sheriff of York
sent by John de Bolton, Mayor of York,
William del Booth
Endorsement: Civitatus Ebor Corum Justic` d`ni Regis de
Banco in quindenas`te Trinitatis
22 October 1410
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?N ... 0000000004)

[fcoache]

Hi Mr. Dulong,

Thank you for this information.

Unfortunately, when loading your suggested URL, there is only the 1st page
loading, stating this is a 2008 update.

Is it possible to have access to the complete document?

I had access to the 2007 document and it surely was a fantastic job Mr.
Drolet made.

Thank you for your attention.

Florent Coache
Napierville, Quebec


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of John P. DuLong
Sent: 31 décembre 2007 09:03
To: [email protected]
Subject: Nobility of Québec Tables


Hello Folks,

Yves Drolet has prepared a nice New Year's present for us, an update to
his Tables généalogiques de la noblesse québécoise du XVIIe au XIXe
siècle. You can view it at
http://members.aol.com/audcent/Quebec_Nobility.pdf.

This is a comprehensive set of genealogical tables for French-Canadian
families identified as being nobles. The style and format is based on
Detlev Schwennicke's Europäische Stammtafeln for European noble families.

It is easy to use and informative. Sources for each table are provided
near the end of the work and he includes an index to the families that
are subjects of the tables (but not to every surname mentioned in the
tables, but the entire document can be searched using the Adobe find
feature).

I wish I had access to this useful tool when I started researching my
French-Canadian noble ancestors.

Regards,

JP

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

[John P. DuLong]

Several people have emailed me now and told me that they are unable to
view the document. I just tried it several times and could get to it.
I also cleared out my cache and retried it with success. Nevertheless,
I will let M. Drolet know that people are having trouble accessing the file.

JP


fcoache wrote:

Hi Mr. Dulong,

Thank you for this information.

Unfortunately, when loading your suggested URL, there is only the 1st page
loading, stating this is a 2008 update.

Is it possible to have access to the complete document?

I had access to the 2007 document and it surely was a fantastic job Mr.
Drolet made.

Thank you for your attention.

Florent Coache
Napierville, Quebec


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of John P. DuLong
Sent: 31 décembre 2007 09:03
To: [email protected]
Subject: Nobility of Québec Tables


Hello Folks,

Yves Drolet has prepared a nice New Year's present for us, an update to
his Tables généalogiques de la noblesse québécoise du XVIIe au XIXe
siècle. You can view it at
http://members.aol.com/audcent/Quebec_Nobility.pdf.

This is a comprehensive set of genealogical tables for French-Canadian
families identified as being nobles. The style and format is based on
Detlev Schwennicke's Europäische Stammtafeln for European noble families.

It is easy to use and informative. Sources for each table are provided
near the end of the work and he includes an index to the families that
are subjects of the tables (but not to every surname mentioned in the
tables, but the entire document can be searched using the Adobe find
feature).

I wish I had access to this useful tool when I started researching my
French-Canadian noble ancestors.

Regards,

JP

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

[David Teague]

Interesting. Did you happen on yours in some out-of-the-way second-hand bookshop or someone's yard/jumble sale? Or did they come to you in some altogether mundane fashion -- if I'm not being overly inquisitive, that is.

David Teague

From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: I Actually HAVE an Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition ...
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:33:39 -0800
To: [email protected]

On Dec 31, 5:56 am, David Teague wrote:
Actually, I've had a chance to go home and have a closer look at the 13th EB, and what they did was to reprint the 11th ed. and to replace the 3 supplemental volumes of the 1921 ed. (the 12th) with 3 entirely new supplemental volumes which covered all the years since the 11th ed. So, with the 28 volumes of the 11th, plus the 3 revised and expanded supplemental volumes, plus the index volume, the total is 32 volumes. (My set, however, is one of those where each volume has the contents of two volumes bound together in one book, so I have 32 volumes bound in 16.)

David Teague


I have the 11th India paper edition in 29 volumes and the 3 "New
volumes constituting, in combination with the twenty-nine volumes of
the eleventh edition.The twelfth edition .... "

John

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

_________________________________________________________________
Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com?ocid=TXT_TAG ... ows_122007

[Gjest]

Dear John, David and others,
I have a set of the 200th
anniversary edition from 1969 (24 volumes including the index) which is I would
imagine extremely coomonplace in this day and age. It is the transitory edition
from the older Brittanicas to the so called Brittanica 3. which consisted of
the Micropaedia (which was breifer articles on all sorts of subjects) the
Macropaedia (long detailed articles on selected subjects) and the one volume index(i
forget what name ewas given to that)
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?N ... 0000000004)

[Denis Beauregard]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:18:05 -0500, "John P. DuLong"
<[email protected]> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:

Several people have emailed me now and told me that they are unable to
view the document. I just tried it several times and could get to it.
I also cleared out my cache and retried it with success. Nevertheless,
I will let M. Drolet know that people are having trouble accessing the file.

I presume the fiel was downloaded in text and not in binary format.
Mr Drolet didn't make the download, but the webmaster did.

I will email Mr Drolet and ask him if I can publish his work on
my site. That will set the case.


Happy New Year - Bonne Année


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
/ | Maintenant sur cédérom, début à 1770 (Version 2008)
oo oo Now on CD-ROM, beginnings to 1770 (2008 Release)

[wjhonson]

Thank you Dave for looking that up.
There is a copy of the British History in Google Books so I can supply
a direct link right to the page in question.

"The British History of Geoffrey of Monmouth: in Twelve Books", by
Geoffrey of Monmouth
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA230&id=FUoMAAAAIAAJ
Book XI Chapter II
That his reign ended in 542

I would note that it states that he gave up his crown in 542, not
necessarily that he died. Arthur was taken to the Island of Avalon to
be cured of his wounds, the implication possibly being that he did not
die that year or perhaps ever.

The previously contributed date of 538 is quite possibly a modern-day
attempt to correct dates in Geoffrey's account using a supposition
that Christ was born in 4 BC. By the way there are other *dates*
given in Geoffrey's account other than this one. Or at least things
which can be firmly dated. For example he states that certain things
occured at the time that Claudius invaded England.

Will Johnson

[taf]

On Dec 27, 6:40 pm, "John Foster" <[email protected]> wrote:

I was looking at the Lansden/Bone connection and was also curious about the
*undocumented* extra Bohun/Le Bon marriage of Margaret de Bohun b. 1311.
Her later or only other marriage to Hugh de Courtenay is well documented.

I don't think there was an undocumented extra Bohun/Bone marriage. If
there was one, by definition there is no evidence of it, and thus it
is genealogically moot.

taf

[taf]

On Dec 27, 11:08 am, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

In the case of the Botetourt fines, the reversions in those fines
probably refer to the right heirs of Guy Botetourt or the right heirs
of William Botetourt.

Which, of course, assumes a reversion appears in the fine, AND that
reversion clause actually states the relationships involved, neither
of which assumption is valid, there being numerous fines that fail to
provide such details.

However, we won't know what the exact
conditions of these fines are until they are properly examined.

What is stopping you?

taf

[John Foster]

It depends on which direction you are coming from. There are a few Bone
descendants as well as the R. G. Bone book of descendants who list it. The
preponderance of everyone else do not so I called it "undocumented".
"Unproven" may be a better word.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John C. Foster, retsof *at* austin.rr.com was retsof *at* texas.net
RETSOFtware, where QUALITY is only a slogan...

TX4.US
RETSOF.US
COKELEY.US
LOVE-M-ALL-PETCARE.TX4.US
----- Original Message -----
From: "taf" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: de Bohun, Le Bon, Bone, Bowman

On Dec 27, 6:40 pm, "John Foster" <[email protected]> wrote:
I was looking at the Lansden/Bone connection and was also curious about
the
*undocumented* extra Bohun/Le Bon marriage of Margaret de Bohun b. 1311.
Her later or only other marriage to Hugh de Courtenay is well documented.

I don't think there was an undocumented extra Bohun/Bone marriage. If
there was one, by definition there is no evidence of it, and thus it
is genealogically moot.

taf

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

[taf]

On Dec 24, 11:14 am, Hovite <[email protected]> wrote:

Supposedly Ednyfed and Merfyn were related, their common ancestor
being Ceneu, thus:

Supposedly, yes, but this is actually indicative of nothing more than
that the same person was considered to be an appropriate ancestor of
these two lineages.

taf

[taf]

On Dec 25, 1:12 pm, [email protected] wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

referring to Todd Farmerie

Still making it up as you go along, then lecturing others for their
failure to obey your 'rules'.

That's right. It is perfectly credible that I would say this about
myself. Do you really find boldly telling lies to be an effective way
of conducting scholarly debate, or do you just lack a conscience? You
might want to take into account that the telling of such lies reflects
poorly on your general credibility, not just with respect to the one
issue you are lying about.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
oh so true; Todd Farmerie must have an unbelievably huge ego; oh, and
Todd we are not finished with that supposed book you published via a
vanity press

Bring it on, oh clueless wonder. If you aren't finished with the
nonexistent book that was nothing but research notes printed with an
old line printer, then continue on with it and reveal exactly how
vacuous you really are. Please do.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i got this pedigree from P.C. Bartrum

via P.T. Barnum

- male-line -
01. ARTHUR, King of Britain 495/504/507-538
02.Amhar [Anir; Enir] (d517)
03. Cadrod "Calchvynydd" (d556) [who is not to be confused with Cadros
[Cadrod] of Kelso, the son of Cynwyd Cynwydion, of the "Cole Godebog
Pedigree", as he sometimes mistakenly is]

I have been through this before with Mr. Hughes. There was no such
person, and to suggest that one fictional person has been mistakenly
confused with another fictional person, and that this accounts for a
difference in the pedigrees, is just laughable. If you think
otherwise, then you should be able to provide a contemporary or near
contemporary source that attests to this individual, Cadrod
"Calchvynydd", d. 556, as son of Amhar. Simply put, you can't.

04. Yspwys (Esbwys), Lord of Ercing [Ergyng] (d581)
05. Cyngu "Carcludwys", Lord of Ercing (d624) [his epithet doubles for
his name in some manuscripts]
06.Alltu "Redegog", Lord of Ercing
07.Yspwys, Lord of Ercing
08.Mwyntyrch, Lord of Ercing
09.Yspwys, Lord of Ercing
[misidentified with Yspwys, the son of Cadrod "Calchvynydd", in some
manuscripts, hence, omitting five generations, # 3-7]

Again, what makes one set of fictional pedigrees more accurate than
another?


taf

[taf]

On Dec 26, 3:49 pm, [email protected] wrote:

will johnson wrote> > > To start, the idea that Arthur was king until 538 is based on no
credible source. �A close reading of the British History of Geoffrey
Monmouth shows

that he certainly wasn't a credible source. His book is mostly
fiction.

I think the point is, this entire line is mostly fiction.
Fictional lines require fictional sources, but when modern-day authors
create new facts from thin air that also needs to be pointed out. �The
idea that Arthur was king until 538 is based on ... thin air. �Nothing
at all. �Not any shred of anything, fictional or not.

-------------------------------------
Will, this is too scholarly for you; your lack of knowledge on this
subject borders on Todd Farmerie's revisionist history of the time
period in question...

Hardly mine and only revisionist by comparison to the credulous pseudo-
histories that Mr. Hughes prefers.

all are agreed that the dates given by Monmouth
are incorrect as he attempted to outline a chronology,

No, not all are agreed. You can find pigheaded name collectors that
will believe anything they want, independent of the lack of
contemporary support.

but it is
proven that GM did not invent Arthur out of thin air;

True, but Banquo was not invented by Shakespeare from scratch either,
but that doesn't mean he ever existed or that the pedigrees tracing to
him are valid.

if you don't
know that then you come from the school that believes Arthur was a
fictitious character,

. . . a large school.

however, there is another school that believes
Arthur was a real person; yes, really!!!

Yes, there is, but most of them (those who are credulous about their
research) still do not believe the invented pedigrees supposedly
tracing from him.

.....just curious, do you
believe that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead in what
year...there is disagreement of His dates also, or do you believe He
ever was; the reason i say this is that it has been my observation
that people who have trouble with an historical Jesus also have
trouble with an historical Arthur

That's right, try to distract the issue with the reality of some other
individual, entirely unconnected to Arthur and depending on entirely
distinct sources. Here is a free hint. Analogy is a poor argument for
genealogy. While we are at it, it did not escape notice that this is
nothing but a disguised ad hominem - anyone who disagrees with me is
an ungodly heathen. There is logic for you.

taf

[taf]

On Dec 31, 2:17 pm, "John Foster" <[email protected]> wrote:

It depends on which direction you are coming from. There are a few Bone
descendants as well as the R. G. Bone book of descendants who list it. The
preponderance of everyone else do not so I called it "undocumented".
"Unproven" may be a better word.

Undocumented is perfectly accurate - there is no document that shows
it to have ever occurred.

taf

[John Foster]

I haven't found any documentation about my 6th grandfather either, but that
doesn't mean that I'm not here. Where's all of the hostility coming from?

Undocumented is perfectly accurate - there is no document that shows
it to have ever occurred.

Here's a document that refers to a book that makes the claim from Bohun
family papers in a library in Oxford.

http://www.lansdenfamily.com/History_of ... merica.pdf

Let's paste the original discussion again from this very archive. That also
exists.

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 0873515040
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1997-09 > 0873515040
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From: Michele Chavez<[email protected] >
Subject: de Bohun, le Bon, and Bone
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 03:04:00 GMT


Hi Everyone,

I'm working on a Bone line that claims descent from the de
Bohun's through a "marriage" between Richard le Bon of Scotland,
who supposedly married his distant English cousin, Margaret de
Bohun. According a book called The Bone Family in America,
Margaret's family had Richard and Margaret's marriage annulled
shortly after the birth of their son John. She then married Hugh
de Courtenay and had 17 more children.

The only evidence of the marriage that the book's author was able
to find was in a library at Oxford among de Bohun family papers,
which said that Margaret's marriage to de Courtenay was her
SECOND marriage.

Also, Richard le Bon's line was supposed to have descended from
the de Bohuns but his branch was estranged from the English
branch when his ancestor supported the losing side between Prince
Henry and Henry II.

The book says:

"When Prince Henry revolted against his father in 1173, Sir
Robert de Bohun was one of his associates. In the next year, the
situation became critical when Prince Henry persuaded William the
Lion, King of Scotland, to joint him in the war against his
father...The battle ended in a complete route of the rebellious
forces; King William was captured and imprisoned, Sir Robert [de
Bohun] fled to Scotland...the rift between the de Bohuns was too
great; it is believed that Sir Robert never saw his father or
brother Humphrey again...

"About 1323, Sir Richard le Bon de Bohun, a descendant of the
Scottish branch of the family mentioned earlier, was sent to
England on a special mission. He visited his cousins, the family
of Humphrey, the seventh Baron de Bohun, and fell in love with
Margaret. They `married' and had a son, John. Before the latter
was a year old, the family had the marriage annulled and Lady
Margaret was married shortly thereafter (August 11, 1325) to Sir
Hugh de Courtenay III (1303-77), Earl of Devon. Sir Richard and
his infant son lived in Scotland. The Scottish family soon
thereafter dropped the de Bohun; so the son was known as John le
Bon....

"The Scottish branch of the de Bohun family consists of shadowy
figures of the past from 1183, when Sir Robert de Bohun settled
on a fief granted him by King William the Lion, until 1610 when a
descendant of Sir Robert's migrated to Northern Ireland. The
English branch appeared many times in records of the period
(1066-1447) as noted in Chapter VIII above. Genealogists of the
Bone family have discovered some records of the Scottish branch
in libraries, museums, and record offices in Edinburgh, Glasgow,
Belfast, Londonderry, and London. As a result of tedious
checking, begun in 1870-71, a list of direct male descendants
from Sir Robert to William Bone of Pennsylvania has been
compiled.

(0) Humphrey, third Baron de Bohun (1109-87)
(1) Sir Robert `le Bon' de Bohun (b. c1153); to Scotland in
1174-83.
(2) Sir Richard `le Bon' de Bohun (b 1181)
(3) Sir William le Bon de Bohun (b. 1215)
(4) Sir Henry le Bon de Bohun (b. c1243)
(5) Sir Richard le Bon de Bohun (1271-1325)
(6) Sir Richard le Bon de Bohun (1297-1357)
(7) John le Bon (1324-1391)
(8) Humphrey le Bon (d. 1408) ?
(9) William le Bon (d. 1435)
(10) Robert le Bon (d. 1478)
(11) John le Bon (d. 1514)
(12) John le Bon (d. 1513)
(13) John Bone (d. 1547); had two sons (or brothers named Bone)
who migrated to the English midlands prior to 1549
(14) Robert Bone of Scotland (d. after 1573)
(15) James Bone of Scotland (d. 1609/10)
(16) Robert Bone of Scotland (d. 1609/10); had two sons who left
Scotland; Thomas to English Midlands in 1610, and
(17) Robert Bone: to Northern Ireland in 1610. He had five
sons, the two youngest of whom left Ireland; Thomas for the West
Indies and George to the Virginia colony, both in 1650/51; his
eldest
(18) William Bone (d. Northern Ireland 1674)
(19) John Bone of Ulster (1649-1720); had five sons (eldest
Humphrey --d.s.p.;.); the second of whom as
(20) William Bone (1670-1728): migrated in 1692 to that part of
Chester County, Pennsylvania, which later became Lancaster
County.....

"One of the most interesting, yet traumatic, stories in the
history of the Bone family took place in 1325 when Lady Margaret
de Bohun was forced to leave her husband, Sir Richard de Bohun,
and her infant son, John, a few months old, and marry Hugh de
Courtenay, Earl of Devon. Sir Richard and his infant son settled
on their Scottish land and ties with the English relations were
evidently severed....When John le Bon de Bohun reached adulthood,
he dropped the de Bohun and the family thereafter became known as
le Bon until early in the sixteenth century when they began using
Bone....

"One of the problems of the Bone genealogists has been to find a
record of the marriage of Lady Margaret and Sir Richard le Bon de
Bohun. Family legend connected the Bones with the de Bohuns and
had it that the Bones were direct descendants of King Edward I.
Dave Bone in his 1870-90 records shows Margaret de Bohun, Edward
I's granddaughter, as the mother of John le Bon of Scotland. In
1926, I copied from some of Dave's material the following note,
scribbled on yellow lined paper, `Sir Richard le B de B
(1297-1357) m. c1323 Lady Margaret de Bohun (1305-91), dau of Sir
Humphrey and Lady Eliz. de B. - (An 1324/25): one son John (b.
1324).' It was thought that the AN of Dave's stood for
`annulment.' Hwever, there are some problems: No record has
been found of Margaret's marriage to Sir Richard, yet there are
records in volumes on the peerage, published in the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries, giving her marriage to Sir Hugh de
Courtenay....Attempts have been made to find contemporary records
or references to her marriage to Sir Richard and/or to an
annulment in libraries, record offices; even in the Vatican
library...

"I finally received some help from two sources: from Dr. Wallace
Notestein, eminent Professor of English History (medieval period)
at Yale, and from a manuscript in the Bodleian Library of Oxford
University....Dr. Notestein showed an interest in my query and
stated that the royal family not only might have obtained a papal
annulment, but also might have been successful in having the
marriage deleted from all known records...

"There is one more inportant and interesting piece of evidence
which I found in the winter of 1945-46. At the time I was
teaching history at Shrivenham University, located in the village
of Shrivenham, near Swindon, and not far from Oxford, England. I
had a special permit to use the libraries at Oxford University.
Through the help of Sir Richard Livingstone, Vice Chancellor of
Oxford, a librarian was assigned to help a few of us with some
special projects. I consulted him about `my married problem.'
He finally located some very old documents, `Le Courtenay (Devon)
Familie, MSS' in the Bodleian Library. I read the old pages and
became fascinated. I suddenly found a clue....I copied the
following, "...Hugh de Courtenay, earl of Devon, died in 1340.
He was suc. by his son Hugh, b. Jl. 12, 1303; mar. Aug. 11, 1325,
to Lady Margaret de Bohun, as her second husband. She was a
granddaughter of Edward I and daughter of the Earl of Hereford
and Essex. He was kn. 1327; they had eight sons and nine
daughters...."

I'd appreciate comments on the possible validity of this
information and would like to know if anyone else here is
researching this particular line and found similar stories.
Sorry to be so long-winded.

Michele Chavez
[email protected]
http://www.av.qnet.com/~mchave
---end

answer 1:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 0873559198
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1997-09 > 0873559198
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From: Nathaniel Taylor<[email protected] >
Subject: Re: de Bohun, le Bon, and Bone
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 10:19:58 -0500


In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Michele
Chavez) wrote:

I'm working on a Bone line that claims descent from the de
Bohun's through a "marriage" between Richard le Bon of Scotland,
who supposedly married his distant English cousin, Margaret de
Bohun. According a book called The Bone Family in America ...

Please provide author's name, date and place of publication.

... "As a result of tedious checking, begun in 1870-71, a list of direct
male descendants from Sir Robert to William Bone of Pennsylvania has been
compiled."

(0) Humphrey, third Baron de Bohun (1109-87)
(1) Sir Robert `le Bon' de Bohun (b. c1153); to Scotland in
1174-83.
....
(6) Sir Richard le Bon de Bohun (1297-1357)
[who allegedly married Margaret de Bohun]

....

(20) William Bone (1670-1728): migrated in 1692 to that part of
Chester County, Pennsylvania, which later became Lancaster
County.....

This line seems fishy both in the male-line descent from Bohuns and in the
alleged marriage of Richard 'le Bon' to Margaret de Bohun. Victorian
"genealogists" crafting Anglo-Norman descents often wanted to have their
cake and eat it too--that is, they hoped to show a male-line link to a
family of the Norman period, and then also 'prove' a maternal descent from
a more recent (and often royally-descended) daughter of the main line of
that family, as if to redouble the claim of some obscure modern family to
represent an ancient powerful one. This fits that pattern and should
cause one to be doubly insistent on proof of each individual in each
generation of the alleged pedigree.

This observation does not itself prove this line invalid, but should be
food for thought. The author of your source describes the compilation of
the pedigree in the 1870s as 'tedious checking'. While this might be
taken to imply that the pedigree was compiled the right way (i.e. with
careful, time-consuming research), it more clearly shows that the (second)
author didn't appreciate the value or intrinsic interest of careful work
in the sources. Another reason to be dubious.

The first step in reviewing this pedigree is to establish with independent
proofs the origins of the Pennsylvanian in Northern Ireland, and, working
backwards, in Scotland.

--
Nat Taylor

-----
answer 2:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 0873560635

From: Michele Chavez<[email protected] >
Subject: Re: de Bohun, le Bon, and Bone
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 15:43:55 GMT


Hi Nat,

[email protected] (Nathaniel Taylor) wrote:

Please provide author's name, date and place of publication.

TITLE:History of the Bone family of America: descendants of
William Bone I to the mid-nineteenth century and some of his
ancestors.
AUTHOR(S):Bone, Robert Gehlmann, 1906- (Main)
PUBLISHED:Normal, Ill., 1972-
DESCRIPTION:v. illus. 28 cm.
NOTES:INCOMPLETE CONTENTS: v. 1. 1692-1850.
SUBJECTS:Bone family.
LC CALL NO.:CS71.B7111972
DEWEY CLASS NO.:929/.2/0973
FORMAT:Book
LCCN:73-152735 //r91

... "As a result of tedious checking, begun in 1870-71, a list of direct
male descendants from Sir Robert to William Bone of Pennsylvania has been
compiled."

(0) Humphrey, third Baron de Bohun (1109-87)
(1) Sir Robert `le Bon' de Bohun (b. c1153); to Scotland in
1174-83.
...
(6) Sir Richard le Bon de Bohun (1297-1357)
[who allegedly married Margaret de Bohun]
...
(20) William Bone (1670-1728): migrated in 1692 to that part of
Chester County, Pennsylvania, which later became Lancaster
County.....

This line seems fishy both in the male-line descent from Bohuns and in the
alleged marriage of Richard 'le Bon' to Margaret de Bohun. Victorian
"genealogists" crafting Anglo-Norman descents often wanted to have their
cake and eat it too--that is, they hoped to show a male-line link to a
family of the Norman period, and then also 'prove' a maternal descent from
a more recent (and often royally-descended) daughter of the main line of
that family, as if to redouble the claim of some obscure modern family to
represent an ancient powerful one. This fits that pattern and should
cause one to be doubly insistent on proof of each individual in each
generation of the alleged pedigree.

This observation does not itself prove this line invalid, but should be
food for thought. The author of your source describes the compilation of
the pedigree in the 1870s as 'tedious checking'. While this might be
taken to imply that the pedigree was compiled the right way (i.e. with
careful, time-consuming research), it more clearly shows that the (second)
author didn't appreciate the value or intrinsic interest of careful work
in the sources. Another reason to be dubious.

Thank you, Nat, for your comments. Even though this Bone line is
not my own (it's actually my ex-husband's and, therefore, my
son's] I don't want to accept anything that doesn't have evidence
to support it. The director of the Family History Center I
volunteer at told me that it is easier to do your own research
than it is to recreate someone else's research, but that I could
use it as a guide (i.e. places to look for records).

The first step in reviewing this pedigree is to establish with independent
proofs the origins of the Pennsylvanian in Northern Ireland, and, working
backwards, in Scotland.

Sounds like a plan. Right now, I haven't gotten that far back.
I'm still working on the descendents:

1. John A. Jr BONE was born circa 1785 Rowan, North Carolina. He
married Martha Overstreet on 1 Feb 1814 Swaneetown, Illinois. He
died on 15 Aug 1855 Hickman, Kentucky.

[Some] Children of John A. Jr Bone and Martha Overstreet were as
follows:

2 i.Infant BONE was born in 1816 Hopkins, Kentucky.
3 ii.Nancy BONE was born circa 1822. She married John
William McWhorter on 3 Apr 1842 in Hickman Co, Kentucky. She died
in 1904. She was buried in 1904 in the McWhorter Family
Graveyard, Hickman, Kentucky.

There are hundreds of Bones in Hickman County. I've tried to
keep track of them all and it is quite confusing. I've put quite
a few into my database, but don't know for sure who is connected
to whom. And I've avoided putting any of the information from
the book into my data. There is a pedigree that I found on one
of the 1st two World Family Trees that must have come from a
similar source and somehow the compiler either neglected to put
in several generations and left some gaps or the estimated World
Family Tree dates were 200 years off. That made even a newer
"genealogist" (one year) such as myself just a wee bit
suspicious, even before I got my hands on the microfilm of the
book.

I did find reference (I'll have to look for where I put it) to a
history book that details the Scots migration from Scotland to
Northern Ireland to Pennsylvania to North Carolina, and hope to
find a copy of it and read it.

I certainly appreciate the comments of someone with more
experience. I haven't told my ex-husband or son of the claims of
this line and won't unless there are some facts to back them up.
It does feel good to have someone to discuss this with!

Michele Chavez
[email protected]
http://www.av.qnet.com/~mchave

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John C. Foster, retsof *at* austin.rr.com was retsof *at* texas.net
RETSOFtware, where QUALITY is only a slogan...

TX4.US
RETSOF.US
COKELEY.US
LOVE-M-ALL-PETCARE.TX4.US
"taf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On Dec 31, 2:17 pm, "John Foster" <[email protected]> wrote:
It depends on which direction you are coming from. There are a few Bone
descendants as well as the R. G. Bone book of descendants who list it.
The
preponderance of everyone else do not so I called it "undocumented".
"Unproven" may be a better word.

Undocumented is perfectly accurate - there is no document that shows
it to have ever occurred.

taf

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
John C. Foster, retsof *at* austin.rr.com was retsof *at* texas.net
RETSOFtware, where QUALITY is only a slogan...

TX4.US
RETSOF.US
COKELEY.US
LOVE-M-ALL-PETCARE.TX4.US
----- Original Message -----
From: "taf" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: de Bohun, Le Bon, Bone, Bowman

On Dec 31, 2:17 pm, "John Foster" <[email protected]> wrote:
It depends on which direction you are coming from. There are a few Bone
descendants as well as the R. G. Bone book of descendants who list it.
The
preponderance of everyone else do not so I called it "undocumented".
"Unproven" may be a better word.

Undocumented is perfectly accurate - there is no document that shows
it to have ever occurred.

taf

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


--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1163 - Release Date:
12/1/2007 12:05 PM

[wjhonson]

The vast majority of this descent appears to be a fabrication.

There are a few wholely ridiculous claims made to patch it together.
The History of the Bone family is not a reliable source for this sort
of claim you should lay it aside and start with something better.

No one is claiming that family histories aren't reliable for certain
claims. However as soon as you being using them to make claims into
noble lines, they cannot be used. You must return to the high-level
sources who actually understand the documents they are using to re-
create the families. Family histories mostly do not understand the
documents. Esp. family histories from the 19th century which are
fairly awful for the *most* part.

Will Johnson

[John Foster]

I don't doubt that. It's weak. That book is probably good enough for the
American side of things. I was trying to find out whether anything else has
come to light.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
John C. Foster, retsof *at* austin.rr.com was retsof *at* texas.net
RETSOFtware, where QUALITY is only a slogan...

TX4.US
RETSOF.US
COKELEY.US
LOVE-M-ALL-PETCARE.TX4.US
----- Original Message -----
From: "wjhonson" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: de Bohun, Le Bon, Bone, Bowman

The vast majority of this descent appears to be a fabrication.

There are a few wholely ridiculous claims made to patch it together.
The History of the Bone family is not a reliable source for this sort
of claim you should lay it aside and start with something better.

No one is claiming that family histories aren't reliable for certain
claims. However as soon as you being using them to make claims into
noble lines, they cannot be used. You must return to the high-level
sources who actually understand the documents they are using to re-
create the families. Family histories mostly do not understand the
documents. Esp. family histories from the 19th century which are
fairly awful for the *most* part.

Will Johnson


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


--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1163 - Release Date:
12/1/2007 12:05 PM

[D. Spencer Hines]

Dear Douglas,

Well, partially.

Did you feel he was not provably a grandson of The Reverend Lawrence
Washington of Sulgrave Manor and Margaret Butler?

If so, I agree.

Have you discussed the issue with Gary Boyd Roberts and does he concur that
John Washington of Surry should not be included?

Cheers,

DSH

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

Dear Spencer ~

Thank you for your good post. It's always good to hear from you.

Some time ago I reviewed the evidence concerning the alleged English
origins of the New World immigrant, John Washington, of Surry County,
Virginia and did not feel it was sufficient to justify accepting his
stated origins and parentage. The parentage claimed for him could
well be correct, but I'd like to see better evidence to prove the
connections.

I do accept, however, the parentage and ancestry of John Washington,
of Westmoreland County, Virginia. He is the John Washington mentioned
in my post as a descendant of John de Sutton.

I trust this answers your question.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Dec 28, 1:09 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote:

Douglas,

This Sir John de Sutton used to be considered as an ancestor of another
John
Washington of Surry County, Virginia -- in addition to John and Lawrence
Washington of Westmoreland County, as I recall.

Gary Boyd Roberts so mentions this John Washington in RD 600 and he was
mentioned in PA2.

Yet I notice you don't mention him below.

For interest's sake, I've listed below the 17th Century New World
immigrants that descend from Sir John de Sutton and his 2nd wife, Joan
de Clinton:

Robert Abell, Dannett Abney, Agnes Mackworth, Richard More, Elizabeth
Marshall, Thomas Rudyard, John & Lawrence Washington, Mary Wolsesley

Why is that?

Cheers,

Spencer Hines

Kailua, Hawai'i

[Gjest]

Dear Will, John and Douglas,
Aside from the Waterton pedigree
I have not found Woodhall manor either Woodhall-In Stanley or
Woodhall-in-Methley , York (? Are They the same) in the possession of Robert or any other
Fleming. We also don`t have an actual pedigree showing where " Robert" the father
of Cecily fits in the family. Robert Waterton actually recieved
Woodhall-in-Stanley from the monks at the Hospital of Saint Nicholas at Pontefract.
Thomas II Fleming seems to have had John IV who succeeded to Wath and Croston ,
Thomas was likely the one married to Isabel de Lancester, daughter of John de
Lancaster and was given Coniston and Rydal Hall, Reyner we know nothing of save
He was alive in 1401 and over 21 at that time. possibly He is the mysterious
Robert, father of the Armiger Robert and Cecily Waterton, perhaps not. Robert
Fleming the Dean of Lincoln 1416-1483 is supposed to be a bastard of the
arminger Robert and Bishop Richard in 1427 sought a papal dispensation to have his
nephew made a canon,though not yet twelve.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine



**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?N ... 0000000004)

[wjhonson]

On Dec 31, 4:08 pm, "John Foster" <[email protected]> wrote:

I don't doubt that. It's weak. That book is probably good enough for the
American side of things. I was trying to find out whether anything else has
come to light.

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

John we're all waiting for you, a direct Bone descendent, to find
something new.

Why don't you describe the documents related to the first American
immigrant and what arguments are used to carry them back over the sea
to England? That would be a good start.

Typically American family histories are horribly lacking in the proof
of that link. Since you most likely have a copy or photocopy of the
relevant pages from this history you can quote what they say. If you
don't have those copies that should be your first step.

Will Johnson

[D. Spencer Hines]

Dear Douglas,

Thank you kindly.

I'm not as sure any more evidence will accumulate on John Washington of
Surry and he may not be a descendant of Lawrence Washington and Margaret
Butler.

A Joyous & Prosperous New Year To You & Your Family,

D. Spencer Hines, Kailua Hawai'i

"Douglas Richardson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:6e48a7cf-52ea-4086-b833-962c1e0cd063@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

Dear Spencer ~

On occasion, Gary Boyd Roberts and I discuss the various royal
descents that have problems. As I recall, we've talked about the
Washington line in the past, but not in any great depth. I believe
Gary is aware that I've pulled the Washington of Surry line, but have
retained the other two Washington immigrants. In his own RD500 book,
I see he says the Washington of Surry line is "probable." So even he
has questions about it. Give it enough time, and I'm sure more
evidence will surface to prove it conclusively.

Best to you and your's in 2008.

As ever, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Dec 31, 5:36 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Douglas,

Well, partially.

Did you feel he was not provably a grandson of The Reverend Lawrence
Washington of Sulgrave Manor and Margaret Butler?

If so, I agree.

Have you discussed the issue with Gary Boyd Roberts and does he concur
that John Washington of Surry should not be included?

Cheers,

DSH

"Douglas Richardson" <[email protected]> wrote in message

news:[email protected]...

Dear Spencer ~

Thank you for your good post. It's always good to hear from you.

Some time ago I reviewed the evidence concerning the alleged English
origins of the New World immigrant, John Washington, of Surry County,
Virginia and did not feel it was sufficient to justify accepting his
stated origins and parentage. The parentage claimed for him could
well be correct, but I'd like to see better evidence to prove the
connections.

I do accept, however, the parentage and ancestry of John Washington,
of Westmoreland County, Virginia. He is the John Washington mentioned
in my post as a descendant of John de Sutton.

I trust this answers your question.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Dec 28, 1:09 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote:
Douglas,

This Sir John de Sutton used to be considered as an ancestor of
another
John
Washington of Surry County, Virginia -- in addition to John and
Lawrence
Washington of Westmoreland County, as I recall.

Gary Boyd Roberts so mentions this John Washington in RD 600 and he
was
mentioned in PA2.

Yet I notice you don't mention him below.

For interest's sake, I've listed below the 17th Century New World
immigrants that descend from Sir John de Sutton and his 2nd wife,
Joan
de Clinton:

Robert Abell, Dannett Abney, Agnes Mackworth, Richard More,
Elizabeth
Marshall, Thomas Rudyard, John & Lawrence Washington, Mary Wolsesley

Why is that?

Cheers,

Spencer Hines

Kailua, Hawai'i

[Janet Crawford]

On Dec 31, 2007 10:41 PM, taf <[email protected]> wrote:

On Dec 24, 11:14 am, Hovite <[email protected]> wrote:

Supposedly Ednyfed and Merfyn were related, their common ancestor
being Ceneu, thus:

Supposedly, yes, but this is actually indicative of nothing more than
that the same person was considered to be an appropriate ancestor of
these two lineages.

taf

I've been working with the Irish Munster genealogies for quite a while
and have noted things that make some of the lines appear to be
ficticious, but are, in fact, true lines.
First, the genealogies almost routinely skipped unimportant men.
Second, they skipped the daughters and their husbands except in a few
rare circumstances. Third, there were scribal errors that switched
people or meshed two lines together - I have found one that meshed 3
lines together. Fourth, a maternal line, or part of it, can be
inserted as part of the paternal line, and vice versa. Fifth, you may
be looking at a maternal line and not a paternal line but the mother's
name will have been dropped.
It can take months or even years, to dig out the problem, or the
missing name(s), but once you dig out the clue, the line is no longer
"Ficticious".

For example:

King X
|
Unimportant # 1 (Name not mentioned)
|
Daughter of Unimportant #1 = ? (Names not mentioned)
|
Unimportant #2 (Name not mentioned)
|
Person Y (who may even be in a different part of the country as he had
rights from his grandmother's husband)

The genealogies may read Person Y is "son" of King X, when he is
really the great grandchild, and the line would appear to be
ficticious, but is not.

Janet

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Singanas@Texasgulfcoast" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On Dec 30 2007, 1:27 am, Barbarossa <[email protected]> wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:
I realize the 11th Edition of the Britannica is supposed to be
a gem -- but why so, exactly?

Barbarossa:

As I understand it, the 11th was the last edition wherein the
authors of the articles (most of them famous and well known
experts in their fields) did not have their submissions edited
down by the publishers.
"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:
Aha!

Interesting, if true.

No editing at all?

Tough to prove I'll bet.

But longer, meatier, "biased" [translate: delightful to read]
articles were the result.

Barbarossa:

I suspect that experts and authorities were asked to submit
articles (possibly within certain length requirements) that were
then subject only to the normal proof-reading. Others may have to
speak to whether articles were ever rejected or returned for
re-writes.

I did know a PhD at work (retired, many years ago) who did
indeed submit an article to the EB (a later edition, of course)
on squash and gourds.

"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:
How did you come by your set of the 11th Edition?

Barbarossa:

About thirty five years ago I was discussing the 11th with a
colleague at work and decided to look for a set. I did manage to
find a complete Twelfth in good condition in a used book store in
downtown San Diego. It is the "small" edition - about 6 X 9
inches and tiny print - that came out of the Lincoln County
library in Kemmerer, Wyoming.
--
________B___a___r___b___a___r___o___s___s___a________
Wayne B. Hewitt Encinitas, CA [email protected]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In what year did the EB 11th Edition appear? My EB is in another
city and I believe the publication year is 1990 or '91.
I paid $35 for it (Macropedia plus Micropedia) about 4 years ago as
a (Houston) Friends of the Library volunteer worker.

Cheers, David H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1907, IIRC.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Hovite]

On Dec 31 2007, 9:37 pm, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

The previously contributed date of 538 is quite possibly a modern-day
attempt to correct dates in Geoffrey's account

The date goes back before Geoffrey to the Welsh Annals, Version A,
compiled in the tenth century. The implied date is year 93 in whatever
bizarre system the author was using:

....
an. St. Columba is born. Death of St. Bridget.
an.
an.
an. lxxx.
an.
an.
an.
an.
an.
an.
an.
an.
an.
an. xc.
an.
an.
an. The Action of Camlann, in which Arthur and Medraut fell. And there
was a pestilence in Britain and in Ireland.
an.
an.
an.
an.
an.
an.
an. c. The falling asleep of Ciaran.
.....

Note that no number is given for the year of the Battle of Camlann,
but it looks as if xciii was intended. Unfortunately these Annals are
worthless. The earlier entries relate to events that supposedly
occurred several centuries before the Annals were compiled, and
include fictional people, such as St. Bridget, whose is a
Christianized version of the Celtic god Brigantia. Converting the
dates in the Annals to another system is therefore not just
problematic but pointless.

Nevertheless, Geoffrey equated year 93 with his year 542, but other
authors have obtained different results, such as 537.