Blount-Ayala

[John Foster]

John we're all waiting for you, a direct Bone >descendent, to find
something new.
Don't assume. Sorry...it was my sister's inlaws who are "Boneified"

descendants, not I. I said only that I was working on it.

My own has a couple of choices: McKee(M'Kie)/Stewart

and Johnson(a Quaker line)/Miller/Gilpin/Washington/Neville

My wife has a Veatch/Stewart line

and a
Wight/Chamberlain/Allen/Cleveland/Darby/Spalding/Farwell/Welby/Bulkeley
connection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 9:55 PM
Subject: Re: de Bohun, Le Bon, Bone, Bowman


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

-------------------------------
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Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.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

[Renia]

Andrew Chaplin wrote:

"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.

1910-1911.

[Renia]

Singanas@Texasgulfcoast wrote:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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

It was published between 1910-1911, as I said upthread.

[Janet Crawford]

On Jan 1, 2008 1:17 PM, Hovite <[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.<snip

There were many women named Bridget who became saints in Ireland:
194--BRIGID. Native of Kilbride, County Kildare. She lived in the late
5th and early 6th century. Feast day January 21st.

195--BRIGID. Native of Annaghdown, County Galway. Feast day January 7th.

196--BRIGID. She was the second patroness of Ireland, known as "Mary
of the Gael". Born about the year 451, she was the daughter of a
Leinster Chieftain. Brigid was professed by Saint Mel of Ardagh, who,
about 468, conferred Abbatial powers on her. She erected her famous
convent of Kildara (Church of the Oak), which was ruled by Abbots,
Bishops, and Abbesses. The Abbess of Kildare was regarded as the
Superioress General of all Nunneries which followed the old Celtic
rule in Ireland. Died on February 1st, in the year 525. She was
interred in the Cathedral, her relics were transferred to Downpatrick,
in the year 878. She was buried in the tomb of Saint Patrick and Saint
Colmcille. The three bodies were discovered on the 9th of June 1185.
Feast day February 1st.

197--BRIGID. She was the daughter of Doma, history is sketchy. Feast
day February 7th.

198--BRIGID. Believed to be a native of Killiney, County Dublin. Feast
March 6th.

199--BRIGID. She followed her brother, Saint Andrew, to the mountains
of Fisole. She led a solitary life. Feast day August 20th.

200--BRIGID. She was native of Mona Milain, Dalaradia. Feast day March 9th.

201--BRIGID. She was a native of Dublin. Feast day March 9th.

202--BRIGID and MAURA. Sisters believed to be of Irish origin, they
were murdered by barbarians at Balagny, near Creil. Feast day July
13th.

203--BRIGID. Native of Cluana Diailama. No history available. Feast
day August 13th. [Dianlama - dau of Bridget of]

One of these may well have died at that time. Never throw the baby out
with the bathwater, or so they say.

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

The Irish Annals are full of entries about the plague from 531 AD to
555 AD. The entry for 548 AD specifically states Ciaran did not die,
so your entry would be around 548 AD, adjusted.

Janet

[Paul J Gans]

In soc.history.medieval Renia <[email protected]> wrote:

Andrew Chaplin wrote:

"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.

1910-1911.

I fully agree, as I've just posted.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Gjest]

In a message dated 1/1/2008 6:08:54 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

Don't assume. Sorry...it was my sister's inlaws who are "Boneified"
descendants, not I. I said only that I was working on it.


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

Then the first thing to do, is to go over the immigrant-Bone records and
verify that they are in fact accurate and compelling. If they aren't, you are
done.

Will Johnson



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

[Gjest]

In a message dated 1/1/2008 3:58:23 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

First, the genealogies almost routinely skipped unimportant men.>>


-----------------------------------
But a statement like that is non-falsifiable.
You cannot prove it's true, you cannot prove it's false.

Will



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

[Janet Crawford]

Let's see. If I name my daughter Venus, then 1000 years from now one
could say she never existed because she was named after a goddess.
The Irish princesses appeared to have used both an ordinary name and
also a goddess name. If I say that Eithne was the daughter of a king,
it will be OK. But if I state that Aine was the [goddess] name, then
she is mythical. However, Eithne and Aine were used quite
interchangeably.They are, in fact, the same name.
Mothers can call their daughters by goddess names if they chose and it
does NOT make them mythical. There must have been thousands of
Bridgets in Ireland by this time, and they were all real people. That
a woman chose to use "Bridget" as her name does not change the fact
that she lived.
Francine started this tripe and if she hadn't already died, I would
throttle her for it.

Janet



On Jan 1, 2008 10:58 PM, Hovite <[email protected]> wrote:

On Jan 1, 4:29 pm, "Janet Crawford" <[email protected]> wrote:

196--BRIGID. She was the second patroness of Ireland, known as "Mary
of the Gael". Born about the year 451, she was the daughter of a
Leinster Chieftain. Brigid was professed by Saint Mel of Ardagh, who,
about 468, conferred Abbatial powers on her. She erected her famous
convent of Kildara (Church of the Oak), which was ruled by Abbots,
Bishops, and Abbesses. The Abbess of Kildare was regarded as the
Superioress General of all Nunneries which followed the old Celtic
rule in Ireland. Died on February 1st, in the year 525.

There are no authentic Irish records from the dates that you mention.
The relevant annals were invented centuries later. All those Bridgets
are nothing more than local manifestations of the goddess Brigantia.
Etymologically the name Bridget is derived from Brigantia, who was
widely worshipped throughout the Celtic world. Seven altars to the
goddess have been found in Britain. She is commemorated by place-names
such as Braganca in Portugal and Bregenz in Austria. She was the
tribal deity of the Brigantes of northern England and Wexford. Even
Francis John Byrne (Irish Kings and High-Kings), who was quite capable
of believing in imaginary people, concluded:

"we may see in the cult of St. Brigit, which in Leinster has a
particularly patriotic fervour, a Christianisation of the pagan
concept of the territorial goddess of sovereignty."


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

[Hovite]

On Jan 1, 4:29 pm, "Janet Crawford" <[email protected]> wrote:

196--BRIGID. She was the second patroness of Ireland, known as "Mary
of the Gael". Born about the year 451, she was the daughter of a
Leinster Chieftain. Brigid was professed by Saint Mel of Ardagh, who,
about 468, conferred Abbatial powers on her. She erected her famous
convent of Kildara (Church of the Oak), which was ruled by Abbots,
Bishops, and Abbesses. The Abbess of Kildare was regarded as the
Superioress General of all Nunneries which followed the old Celtic
rule in Ireland. Died on February 1st, in the year 525.

There are no authentic Irish records from the dates that you mention.
The relevant annals were invented centuries later. All those Bridgets
are nothing more than local manifestations of the goddess Brigantia.
Etymologically the name Bridget is derived from Brigantia, who was
widely worshipped throughout the Celtic world. Seven altars to the
goddess have been found in Britain. She is commemorated by place-names
such as Braganca in Portugal and Bregenz in Austria. She was the
tribal deity of the Brigantes of northern England and Wexford. Even
Francis John Byrne (Irish Kings and High-Kings), who was quite capable
of believing in imaginary people, concluded:

"we may see in the cult of St. Brigit, which in Leinster has a
particularly patriotic fervour, a Christianisation of the pagan
concept of the territorial goddess of sovereignty."

[wjhonson]

On Jan 1, 3:16 pm, "Janet Crawford" <[email protected]> wrote:

Let's see. If I name my daughter Venus, then 1000 years from now one
could say she never existed because she was named after a goddess.
The Irish princesses appeared to have used both an ordinary name and
also a goddess name. If I say that Eithne was the daughter of a king,
it will be OK. But if I state that Aine was the [goddess] name, then
she is mythical. However, Eithne and Aine were used quite
interchangeably.They are, in fact, the same name.
Mothers can call their daughters by goddess names if they chose and it
does NOT make them mythical. There must have been thousands of
Bridgets in Ireland by this time, and they were all real people. That
a woman chose to use "Bridget" as her name does not change the fact
that she lived.
Francine started this tripe and if she hadn't already died, I would
throttle her for it.

Janet
-------------------------

There are no sources. None. Zero. None.
That the "Irish princesses" used a goddess name or whatever, what is
that based on?
Anything at all? Or just wishful thinking?

If something then post your source. You are not a reliable source for
what occurred in Ireland 1500 years ago.

[Janet Crawford]

Here's just ONE out of Locus, but I can give you plenty more:

c. chúile dumai; Bran mac Muridaigh and his wife were burned in C. C.
D. in Laigis Chúile by Finachta mac Cellaigh (clearly in Leix; O'D.
placed it at Kilcool, c. Wick.), Ll. 39 a, 39 c, 388, Fir. 426, Au. i.
274, Fm. i. 396, Sto. 3 a 2; Murchadh, son of Bran, and his wife Aine
were burned in Cill Cuile Dumha in Leinster, Bb. 35 b; Bran Ardcenn
(K. of Lein., Fir.), mac Muiredaigh (of the O Tuathal) and his wife
Eithne (Aine, dau. of Domnall Midech, Fir.), burned in C. Chúile
Dumha, Ll. 39 c, 388; Nathfraech, Sacerdos, and the Ara of Brigit, in
C. Cula Dumai, Ll. 353; Coole tls. at Abbeyleix.

Janet

-------------------------
There are no sources. None. Zero. None.
That the "Irish princesses" used a goddess name or whatever, what is
that based on?
Anything at all? Or just wishful thinking?

If something then post your source. You are not a reliable source for
what occurred in Ireland 1500 years ago.

[wjhonson]

There are no *contemporary* sources.

What does the above have to do with "Briganta" ?

[Gjest]

On Dec 31 2007, 3:50 pm, "John Foster" <[email protected]> wrote:

I haven't found any documentation about my 6th grandfather either, but that
doesn't mean that I'm not here.

That is a non sequitur. The lack of documentation on your 6th
grandfather has no bearing on your own existence. It does, however,
mean that your 6th grandfather is undocumented, by definition.
Further, it does raise the question of whether he existed, at least in
the exact form you are looking for.

Where's all of the hostility coming from?

No hostility at all.

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.

Unfortunately the source cited from Oxford only says that Margaret had
been previously married, not to whom. Note:

[from quoted post]

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.

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...

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...."

So there is not the slightest hint that Margaret married Richard le
Bone, prior to this modern genealogy (many of which are of
questionable quality), and the only hint that she had any other wife
is a manuscript of unknown (at least to the author) date and
provenance. Thus such a le Bon marriage is clearly "undocumented",
and given the nature of the evidence (or lack thereof) would be
prudently dismissed unless further (i.e. any) documentation surfaces.
This is not specific to this relationship - any undocumented
relationship should be viewed with skepticism, and the more
'desirable' the claim, the more skeptical one should be.

taf

[[email protected]]

On Dec 29, 6:40 pm, Diana Trenchard <[email protected]>
wrote:

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?
A rule of this kind would have applied to all of them. However it may

have been impractical for lower levels of society to obtain a
dispensation -- I'm not sure just what the procedure involved was, but
presumably a petition would have to be sent to Rome or Avignon and not
everyone would be in a position to do that.

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?
There are posts in the SGM archives dealing with this topic. Basically

the peasants had to marry someone outside of their village to satisfy
these marriage requirements, but then they incurred a hefty fine from
the local lords for doing so (!)

What happened at the land-owning
gentry level?
A good question. I wonder if there would have been much expense

involved in obtaining a dispensation, and if so would that have been a
disincentive for all those other than at the highest levels of
society?

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.
Which Wises are these? I have Wyses at Sydenham Damerell in 1300s and

1400s. Some of these do have wive's names.
I also have Trenchards, although these Trenchards were a Dorset rather
than a Devon family, residing at Wolveton and Lytchett Matravers in
that county. They were descended in turn from older Trenchard families
which held lands in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. These Hampshire/
IOW Trenchards in turn were apparently descended from a Payn Trencart
who appears in the 1130 Pipe Roll. I do not have any wive's names for
these older Trenchards though. Are these the ones you are researching?

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.
If we are searching the same families, could you provide some more

detail here please.
I> 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.
Diana
I'm not so sure about this. Landowning families were probably in a

position to marry a bit further afield, and so avoid potential
problems with consanguinity. Secondly, after 1215 the prohibition did
not extend to folk who were more distantly related than third cousins
to each other.
Mark

[Gjest]

On Jan 1, 3:57 am, "Janet Crawford" <[email protected]> wrote:

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.

That may be the case in rare circumstances (where this can actually be
shown) but given that the earliest surviving record of any of these
people is 600 years after they supposedly lived, and given the general
conventions folowed, it is much more likely that these reflected the
reality of the 13th century, rather than that of the 7th.

taf

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article <[email protected]>,
"John Foster" <[email protected]> resurrected an old (1997)
thread, of which the pith:

(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.....

To which I replied, way back then:

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.

No one ever did this on list. This is one of those self-evidently
suspect Victorian genealogies. Has anyone since this cited book ever
reviewed the alleged male-line Bohun ancestry of this William Bone of
Pennsylvania? Is there any documentation of his parentage, let alone
the earlier aspects of the line?

Let me add one thing to what I said: back then I said "This observation
does not itself prove this line invalid..." It should be emphasized
that it is not necessary to *disprove* this line, to eject it from
consideration. The burden of proof, especially for a suspicious line
like this, is on anyone who would take any credence in it at all.

All that is necessary to dismiss it is to ask for evidence, and receive
nothing. Ten years seems like enough time.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

[Ed Rush]

I signed onto the [email protected] list a couple of days
ago, thinking it dealt with Middle Ages genealogy. Instead, much of
what I see here is a guy going on and on about how the spies are out
to get him, numerous people trying to one-up each other about owning
a century-old encyclopedia, and some personal sniping thrown in for
bad measure.

Is that the usual thing here, or has this weekend just been an
aberration?

-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*—
Ed

[CE Wood]

There are strange people everywhere, even on this list. This one
showed up about a month ago. Just ignore it, and enjoy the good
stuff.

CE Wood

On Jan 1, 7:08 pm, Ed Rush <[email protected]> wrote:

I signed onto the [email protected] list a couple of days
ago, thinking it dealt with Middle Ages genealogy. Instead, much of
what I see here is a guy going on and on about how the spies are out
to get him, numerous people trying to one-up each other about owning
a century-old encyclopedia, and some personal sniping thrown in for
bad measure.

Is that the usual thing here, or has this weekend just been an
aberration?

-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*--
Ed

[Gjest]

On Jan 1, 7:14 pm, CE Wood <[email protected]> wrote:

There are strange people everywhere, even on this list. This one
showed up about a month ago. Just ignore it, and enjoy the good
stuff.

Actually, this particular paranoid has been around for more than a
decade (he is even described in a Wikipedia page). He posts to every
group on USENET, in some sort of rotation, such that he will disappear
for months or years (while posting to other groups) then post
continually for weeks. Every time he does it, he has his email
account terminated, but he simply gets another one and keeps right at
it. In short, there is nothing that can be done to stop this other
than for the briefest time, so as CE suggested, he must simply be
ignored.

taf

[Louise]

Thank you Wilem,
I did try to find them when I looked at the Volumes,but had limited time.and
was totally amazed at the information contained.
I will see if I can obtain access again.
Would the date with the reference DB be the birth date?
Louise
----- Original Message -----
From: "Willem Nabuurs" <[email protected]>
To: "'Louise'" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 6:01 PM
Subject: RE: E Warlop-deciphreing information


These abbreviations do indeed refer to other publications. The explanation
for them can be found in the Sigla and Abbreviations section in the
beginning of Volume 3.

DB = Diplomata Belgica ante annum millesimum centesimum scripta (C.
Dehaisnes & J. Finot, Brussels, 1950, 2 volumes)

LT = Liber Traditionum Sancti Petri Blandiniensis (A. Fayen, Ghent, 1906)

VL = Chartes et documents de l'abbaye de Saint Pierre a Gand (A. van
Lokeren, Ghent, 1868-1871, 2 volumes)

Willem Nabuurs

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] Namens Louise
Verzonden: woensdag 2 januari 2008 6:55
Aan: [email protected]
Onderwerp: E Warlop-deciphreing information

Hello Again All & Happy New Year.
I was able to access Ernest Warlop's "the Flemish Nobility before 1300" and
thought I had photocopied relevant information regarding abbreviations.
I am wondering if someone more familiar than I can explain from AALST
pedigree as follows

Do they refer to another publication I need to access?
Thanks
Louise

1-Baldwin -
962 May 5 (LT, c.69,pp.75-76)
nob (DB,1,no.59(962,June 17)

2 Ralph
994,March 18 (DB,1,no 76)- 996-1029 (DB ,1,no. 83)


3 Ralph
1031/34 October1 (DB ,1,no 90)-1052 (VL,1,no 129)
nob (LT ,pp.105-106


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

[Wanda Thacker]

What happened after England quit being Catholic? I have two families that are my ancestors that came to America/USA in the 1600's.

In the late 1700's Thomas Lilly and Roseanna Meador had among their children
Thomas who married Delilah Payne
Robert who married Elizabeth Payne(Delilahs sister)
Judah who married Josiah Meador.

Thomas and Delilah Payne Lilly had a grandson George who married the granddaughter of Robert and Elizabeth Payne Lilly. This made them 2nd cousins marrying.

Thomas Lilly above had parents who were first cousins.

Thomas, Robert and Judah Lilly and Josiah Meador listed above, were ALL the grandchildren of the same 2 sets of grandparents. The Lilly's were the grandchildren of John Lilly who was appointed to be a "Viewer of the Tobacco". It was a very important position in the early 1600's colony, because they used the tobacco like money. It appears that all of this inter-marriage was to keep property within the Lilly and Meador families. However, it may have started because there was a limited amount of other colonists to marry.

I have never found anything that says what their religious leaders would have thought about all of this intermarriage. They owned land and were originally gentry, but ultimately were probably more like upper middle class. The Meadors were holders of large tracts of land too.

I basically have a family tree that stops forking and sorta merges twice in the 1600's and 1700's. Fortunately, they eventually started marrying out of the family, and I am not extremely inbred now. LOL

Wanda Thacker

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: On Dec 29, 6:40 pm, Diana Trenchard
wrote:

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?
A rule of this kind would have applied to all of them. However it may

have been impractical for lower levels of society to obtain a
dispensation -- I'm not sure just what the procedure involved was, but
presumably a petition would have to be sent to Rome or Avignon and not
everyone would be in a position to do that.

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?
There are posts in the SGM archives dealing with this topic. Basically

the peasants had to marry someone outside of their village to satisfy
these marriage requirements, but then they incurred a hefty fine from
the local lords for doing so (!)

What happened at the land-owning
gentry level?
A good question. I wonder if there would have been much expense

involved in obtaining a dispensation, and if so would that have been a
disincentive for all those other than at the highest levels of
society?

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.
Which Wises are these? I have Wyses at Sydenham Damerell in 1300s and

1400s. Some of these do have wive's names.
I also have Trenchards, although these Trenchards were a Dorset rather
than a Devon family, residing at Wolveton and Lytchett Matravers in
that county. They were descended in turn from older Trenchard families
which held lands in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. These Hampshire/
IOW Trenchards in turn were apparently descended from a Payn Trencart
who appears in the 1130 Pipe Roll. I do not have any wive's names for
these older Trenchards though. Are these the ones you are researching?

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.
If we are searching the same families, could you provide some more

detail here please.
I> 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.
Diana
I'm not so sure about this. Landowning families were probably in a

position to marry a bit further afield, and so avoid potential
problems with consanguinity. Secondly, after 1215 the prohibition did
not extend to folk who were more distantly related than third cousins
to each other.
Mark

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




Use what talents you possess; the woods would be verysilent if no birds sang except those that sang best.
- Henry Van Dyke, 1852 - 1933




Birds sing after a storm; why shouldn't people feel asfree to delight in whatever sunlight remains to them?
- Rose FitzgeraldKennedy, 1890 - 1995




Be as a bird perched on a frail branch that she feelsbending beneath her, still she sings away all the same,knowing she has wings.
- Victor Hugo, 1802 - 1885


My Scrap Journaling Blog: http://lascorpia64.wordpress.com/ Check it out for journaling prompts RECENTLY UPDATED, A LOT OF QUOTES
MY LAYOUT BLOG http://introspectivescrapping.blogspot.com/
http://wandasscrappingfreebies.blogspot.com/
POLITICAL OPINIONShttp://www.myspace.com/politica ... rrectrants

[Janet Crawford]

I am not sure what you mean by "the reality of the 13th century". What
I am saying is that people are often too quick to label a line as
"ficticious" when it has obvious flaws. I'd rather, based on my
experience, label it unproven, or needs extensive research, when one
can see that there are unreasonable gaps between generations or
suddenly a decendent appears in territory not related to the line to
that point in time. I look at these things as signals to go looking
for the reasons and not a reason to dismiss it outright as ficticious.
The scribes were not perfectionists, nor did they have our ability to
go looking for documents from other parts of the country. Their "mic"
is perhaps our "meic" for we are trying to be precise based on what we
have found that they never saw or heard. There is a misplaced power in
labeling something as ficticious or mythical that subverts further
research by the general population. I've seen atrocious conclusions
drawn by British authors about Ireland that continued to be published
for generations afterward and are only now being addressed in modern
times.
My initial thoughts are that if the scribes identified one man with
another, there was a reason and we need to seriously go looking for
the reason, and one of the reasons may be one of the examples I gave;
too little attention is given to the wives of the men and what they
brought to the marriage and devolved onto their children and
grandchildren.
For me the reality of the 13th century is that the scribes reflected a
relationship that on the surface has serious problems, but with more
research may well prove true. If we immediately throw things away as
"ficticious" we may as well meekly accept the flat earth theory as
well.

Janet


On Jan 2, 2008 2:03 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:

On Jan 1, 3:57 am, "Janet Crawford" <[email protected]> wrote:
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.

That may be the case in rare circumstances (where this can actually be
shown) but given that the earliest surviving record of any of these
people is 600 years after they supposedly lived, and given the general
conventions folowed, it is much more likely that these reflected the
reality of the 13th century, rather than that of the 7th.


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

[Gjest]

On Jan 2, 2:36 am, "Janet Crawford" <[email protected]> wrote:

I am not sure what you mean by "the reality of the 13th century".

What 13th century people thought should have been true in the 7th
century, not based on historical documents but on the current (13th
century) tribal affinities.

What
I am saying is that people are often too quick to label a line as
"ficticious" when it has obvious flaws. I'd rather, based on my
experience, label it unproven, or needs extensive research, when one
can see that there are unreasonable gaps between generations or
suddenly a decendent appears in territory not related to the line to
that point in time. I look at these things as signals to go looking
for the reasons and not a reason to dismiss it outright as ficticious.

In the pedigree in question, we are not talking about a missing
generation, or a sudden switch in location. We are talking about a
dozen consecutive generations of people found in no other documentary
source, then an individual important in the self-concept of the people
in question who miraculously appears atop.

The scribes were not perfectionists, nor did they have our ability to
go looking for documents from other parts of the country.

And many of them had no interest in doing so, when they could tell
their tale without worrying about the actual historical reality.

Their "mic"
is perhaps our "meic" for we are trying to be precise based on what we
have found that they never saw or heard. There is a misplaced power in
labeling something as ficticious or mythical that subverts further
research by the general population. I've seen atrocious conclusions
drawn by British authors about Ireland that continued to be published
for generations afterward and are only now being addressed in modern
times.

And for every one of those there are several pedigrees that were
invented that people continue to cling to because they just can't
bring themselves to face the truth. While some caution is needed in
labeling something a fiction, too much caution prevents a fair
assessment of many groundless pedigrees.

My initial thoughts are that if the scribes identified one man with
another, there was a reason and we need to seriously go looking for
the reason, and one of the reasons may be one of the examples I gave;
too little attention is given to the wives of the men and what they
brought to the marriage and devolved onto their children and
grandchildren.

You have predicated this on the assumption that scribes identified one
person with another. The other possibility, a much stronger one in
this case, is that the scribes decided the family should descend from
Ceneu, placed him at the top of the page, and then wrote in enough
names to fill the gap. (Various similar processes have been
identified in the clearly fraudulent pedigree of Cerdic.) Ceneu
already had a pedigree, but some scribe thought it more illustrious to
instead make him a grandson of Arthur. Mr. Hughes has simply picked
which version he likes best (the Arthur one), and declared the other a
mistaken misidentification of two Ceneus, but there was only one Ceneu
at the top of this pedigree, a man given two different pedigrees
depending on the politics of the scribes drawing them up.

For me the reality of the 13th century is that the scribes reflected a
relationship that on the surface has serious problems, but with more
research may well prove true.

Studies of modern populations at similar levels of development to the
scribes we are talking about - ones which as you say do not have
access to historical records, have shown that their pedigrees are of
reliable value only for about a hundred years, and then they reflect
current political reality. Allied clans are given common descent. If
a tribe switches allegiance, then within a couple of generations,
their pedigrees also are shifted to reflect relationship to the new
allies. Early scribes were no different. If they wanted their lord to
be related to the king, they made it so. If a legendary hero was a
fitting ancestor, they made it so. If they wanted their king to be
descended from a god, they made it so. If the audience switched to a
different god, they made it so.

If we immediately throw things away as
"ficticious" we may as well meekly accept the flat earth theory as
well.

I don't get your analogy - it seems backwards. The flat earth theory
is fictitious and should be called fictitious, rather than any
conclusion on the fiction of a flat earth being held in abeyance
pending future more definitive discoveries.

taf

[Renia]

Wanda Thacker wrote:

What happened after England quit being Catholic? I have two families that are my ancestors that came to America/USA in the 1600's.

When England became Catholic, it meant the Pope was no longer head of
the Church of England, which meant Papal Dispensations were irrelevant.

In the late 1700's Thomas Lilly and Roseanna Meador had among their children
Thomas who married Delilah Payne
Robert who married Elizabeth Payne(Delilahs sister)
Judah who married Josiah Meador.

Thomas and Delilah Payne Lilly had a grandson George who married the granddaughter of Robert and Elizabeth Payne Lilly. This made them 2nd cousins marrying.

Thomas Lilly above had parents who were first cousins.

This kind of intermarriage was common among the Landed Gentry for the
property reasons you mention below.

Thomas, Robert and Judah Lilly and Josiah Meador listed above, were ALL the grandchildren of the same 2 sets of grandparents. The Lilly's were the grandchildren of John Lilly who was appointed to be a "Viewer of the Tobacco". It was a very important position in the early 1600's colony, because they used the tobacco like money. It appears that all of this inter-marriage was to keep property within the Lilly and Meador families. However, it may have started because there was a limited amount of other colonists to marry.

I have never found anything that says what their religious leaders would have thought about all of this intermarriage.

It wasn't a problem in the Protestant Churches.

They owned land and were originally gentry, but ultimately were probably more like upper middle class.

Landed Gentry was Upper Middle Class. Depending on how much land they
owned, some of the wealthier ones were more like untitled aristocrats.

[fcoache]

Hi Mr. Dulong,

May I suggest an alternative if it makes sense (ethically)?

Maybe you want to get access to the first page of the 2008 edition with your
browser and then copy the URL in your text message and send it to the group?

Thank you

Florent Coache
Napierville, Quebec



-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of John P. DuLong
Sent: 31 décembre 2007 13:18
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Nobility of Québec Tables


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

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

[Leticia Cluff]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:54:22 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<[email protected]> wrote:

"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.

Thank you for that interesting reference, Peter. I have now read the
posts of "Uriah N. Owen" -- a person who failed to keep his promise to
resume posting from Britain after returning from his visit to the US,
whence all his messages came. I notice that this obvious fake (with
his lavish compliments on the craftsmanship of "Plantagenet Ancestry")
provoked no condemnation at all from DSH. On the contrary, Hines
ridiculed you and others who tried to expose the fraud. And Hines even
praised the sycophantic sock puppet in the following terms:

"Uriah N. Owen's comments make a Great Deal of Sense. We should be
hearing more from him -- he raises the standards of debate and probity
[sic] in this newsgroup."

Self-praise is no praise, Mr. Hines. From the linguistic fingerprints
it's as plain as a pikestaff that this fabrication was none other than
Hines "playing silly buggers," a favorite expression of this wannabe
Brit and his sock puppet. Hines must have found it hilarious that you
wrongly identified him as Douglas Richardson.

All this took place after Spencer pretended to forget his description
of Douglas as "a sly, manipulative charlatan and an utter fraud" and
the two men had kissed and made up, thus forging yet another of
Spencer's alliances behind the scenes, rather like the one clumsily
exposed in the following misdirected email (signed -- with cavalier
disregard for the meaning of these words -- Vires et Honor):

http://tinyurl.com/2e89cg

As he types words like Honor and Probity, Hines is laughing at
everyone, including his cruelly manipulated pawn Douglas Richardson
("Dear Spencer ~ It's always good to hear from you"). But everyone
else is laughing with contempt at Hines, who continually exposes
himself for what he is, the epitome of Dishonor and Improbity.

Tish

[Tony Hoskins]

Dear Ed:

Your question is right on the money. It is a question I have asked for
several years now, finding the too prevalent bad behavior and
off-topic-ness repellent. For this reason I have several times
unsubscribed though currently am on board - I live in hope!

Sadly ironic though illustrative for me is the fact that I recently
posted a legitimate and (I thought) interesting and important query in
re: the origins of Beatrix of Silesia-Glogau, to be met with a
responding silence, while silliness and bitter personal remarks
abundantly flew though the ether - even emanating from a few who
certainly know better.

Having said that there are nonetheless some fine and generous scholars
here, many of whom behave well and contribute things of real interest
and importance. This is the quandary of gen-med!

All in all - separating the wheat from the chaff - it is a worthy and
most important site, and I hope you will stick around.

Best wishes,

Tony Hoskins


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

[Tony Hoskins]

Received this fine email fom Worth Anderson:

Dear Mr. Hoskins:

As it happens, I purchased a book just today with information on this
point: Kazimierz Jasinski, "Rodowod Piastow slaskich," (Krakow,
Poland: Avalon, 2007), pp. 301-302 (orig. pub. Wroclaw, Poland:
Wroclawskie Towarzystwo Naukowe, 1973). Jasinski shows Beatrice
("Beatrycza" in Polish) as the daughter of Bolko I, and states (my
loose translation from the Polish):

"In current historical literature Beatrice is presented as daughter of
Henryk III of Glogau, despite the fact that historical sources
describe her clearly as the daughter of Bolko of Swidnica.[fn1] The
name Beatrice was carried also by her mother, the daughter of Otto V
the long, Margrave of Brandenburg." Jasinski then gives another page
addressing her biographic details, with citations to original sources.

Footnote 1 states (again, with my loose translation of the Polish
commentary into English): "Genealogia s. Hedwigis, MPH, t.4, s. 648:
Bolko... habuit... duas filias, unam Iuttam, ...et Beatricem, quam in
Strelin claustro, ... collocare disposuit ad domini famulatum;
Chronica Ludovici IV, Bayerische Chroniken des XIV. Jahrhunderts,
published G. Leidinger, Hannover 1918, s. 120; Saechsische Welthronik
(Dritte Bairische Fortsetzung), MG Deutsche Chroniken, t.2, Hannover
1877, s. 344. I [i.e., Jasinksi] treated the genealogy of Beatrice
precisely in my personal article under the title 'Beatrice, first
wwife of Ludwig of Bavaria, European-Slavic-Polish,' in 'Studia ku
uczczeniu profesora Kazimierza Tymienieckiego,' (Poznan, 1970), pp.
103-114. I [i.e., Jasinski] give in the text of that article further
detailed justifications."
All the best,

Worth S. Anderson

[Gjest]

In a message dated 1/1/2008 11:20:28 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

Kidston who I quoted was published back in 1936, long before the
database of http://www.tudorplace.com was created..


--------------------
No one is disputing that. I said that *you* were beaten to the punch. You
means you, not Kidston.



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

[Gjest]

In a message dated 1/2/2008 5:21:29 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

What was I supposed to do for eight years," I asked, "until the
personal computer was INVENTED?">>>


---------------------------------
The point being however, that *now* the internet has been invented, so
nobody has any excuse for not doing their own research. A significant number of
sources are now online thanks to Google Books (etc) and so nobody has any
excuse for not using them.

Including myself.

Will Johnson



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

[John Foster]

I don't mind looking at original computer references, as long as they are in
the original binary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)

In a message dated 1/2/2008 5:21:29 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

What was I supposed to do for eight years," I asked, "until the
personal computer was INVENTED?"


---------------------------------
The point being however, that *now* the internet has been invented, so
nobody has any excuse for not doing their own research. A significant
number of
sources are now online thanks to Google Books (etc) and so nobody has any
excuse for not using them.

Including myself.

Will Johnson



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

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

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 13:01:43 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

My students told me that this was a good chat room for discussions in
medieval studies; but instead I find in the very first thread some
mentally disturbed person, "TAF", ranting in a rage towards someone;
and, in another thread on the same page I find a delusional person,
"MI5", rambling on and on in a paranoid delirium. Can someone fill me
in on what is going on?; or, are my students mistaken over the value
of this website?

Ethel Senkus

How sweet and innocent you sound,
you lovely Lithuanian "newbie"
But lithe and lithen here, "oldboy"

Who is Hughes?
Hugh is whose?
Ethyl or Chrys?
Davis or Regis?
David or Devon?
AOL or AOK?

Arose by any other nym...

They Senkus here
They Senkus there
Those Taffies Senkus everywhere

Hell hath no furry animals like an Arthur/Author scorned.
Vanity of vanities, saith the Publisher,
vanity of vanities; all is vanity.


merciflage, merciflage, merciflage

~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne

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

[wjhonson]

On Jan 2, 1:33 pm, "Janet Crawford" <[email protected]> wrote:

If I understand TAF correctly, he will only use a primary document.
Anything written later is rubbish, not evidence, and must be tossed
aside as worthless. On that basis, most history never happened. Gone.
Fini.

Janet

Janet why are you here? So far your posts have had little useful
substance and when challenged you retreat to a position of attacking
based on not actually reading what anyone is saying. Do you think
that anyone is going to be in your corner?

The posts about Brigantia were spot-on. The sources cited are not
just non-contemporary but actually *many* centuries post facto. You
refuse to even acknowledge that point let alone address it. Instead
you take the nihilistic approach that "No sources are reliable!
None!"

That has nothing to do with what any of us are saying. What we're
saying is that EACH source must be *evaluated* in addition to being
read and cited. It appears you skipped the history course where they
taught us that authors write from their own perspective and each one
must be biographed to see if perhaps they were a bit biased.

IF we don't discuss the source author as well as the source, and
provenance, we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. That is not
history, that is not the practice of genealogy. Perhaps for a first-
year student. Don't you want to come forward into the real world the
rest of us inhabit?

Will Johnson

[pj.evans]

On Jan 2, 1:01 pm, [email protected] wrote:

My students told me that this was a good chat room for discussions in
medieval studies; but instead I find in the very first thread some
mentally disturbed person, "TAF", ranting in a rage towards someone;
and, in another thread on the same page I find a delusional person,
"MI5", rambling on and on in a paranoid delirium. Can someone fill me
in on what is going on?; or, are my students mistaken over the value
of this website?

Ethel Senkus

I think you can be sure that 'MI5' is delusional. None of its postings
have anything to do with this group (or any of the others it posts to,
as far as I can tell).

taf gets cranky when the world isn't being run to his standards.

(This group is actually medieval genealogy, not medieval studies.)

[Ian Goddard]

Peter Stewart wrote:

explained the pattern of "MI5" ramblings, and that nothing can be done about
these.

Not necessarily. The first step is to view the headers and complain to
site through which he's posting. Although he uses disposable mail
addresses his recent posts have been through news submission sites. The
one he was on before Christmas terminated him (unfortunately they didn't
terminate him bt sending about 5Kv to his PC but you can't have
everything!). If enough complaints go in then it's possible that the
news submission sites will look through their logs (or failing that go
back to the likes of Yahoo) and thus back to his ISP. Initially his ISP
may just throw him off but with the consolidation of the ISP industry in
the UK he's eventually going to find it difficult to get another ISP.
Even better, as he's almost certainly in breach of the Computer Misuse
Act one of them might take him to court.

But the essential thing is for us to complain in our droves.

--
Ian

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

[Gjest]

On Jan 2, 2:47 pm, Ian Goddard <[email protected]> wrote:

Peter Stewart wrote:
explained the pattern of "MI5" ramblings, and that nothing can be done about
these.

Not necessarily. The first step is to view the headers and complain to
site through which he's posting. Although he uses disposable mail
addresses his recent posts have been through news submission sites. The
one he was on before Christmas terminated him (unfortunately they didn't
terminate him bt sending about 5Kv to his PC but you can't have
everything!). If enough complaints go in then it's possible that the
news submission sites will look through their logs (or failing that go
back to the likes of Yahoo) and thus back to his ISP. Initially his ISP
may just throw him off but with the consolidation of the ISP industry in
the UK he's eventually going to find it difficult to get another ISP.
Even better, as he's almost certainly in breach of the Computer Misuse
Act one of them might take him to court.

But the essential thing is for us to complain in our droves.

Good luck. As I said earlier, people have been playing whack-the-mole
with MI5 for ten years, and he has yet to reach an end of the list of
ISPs willing to take his subscription money.

taf

[Gjest]

Dear Douglas, Todd and everyone else,
I guess it depends
on in what light you view this list. Several things, such as Douglas`
assignation of correct spelling of names are merely a matter of personal preference
as the documentation on these names when there were no standard spelling rules.
As to the listing of sources, web links etc. such policy is set by the list
owners , if it not ? If neither Todd nor Don Stone has requested such by the
list members, then it follows that that also is a matter of personal
preference. In in no way (personally) view this list as in any way a formal journal
such as One would customarily submit fully footnoted article to, but rather as a
sounding board to discuss ideas which perhaps would lead to such an article
being written. If I had such an idea in mind. I would think twice about
revealing all my secrets.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



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

[Gjest]

On Jan 2, 1:33 pm, "Janet Crawford" <[email protected]> wrote:

If I understand TAF correctly, he will only use a primary document.

.. . . or a trusted secondary source that accurately relies on cited
primary sources.

Anything written later is rubbish, not evidence, and must be tossed
aside as worthless.

Well, it quite often is - often enough that you can't really put much
trust in any of it, and the curious thing is that everyone thinks that
their source - the one allowing them to trace their family to
antiquity - is the one diamond in the rough. From where I sit, it all
looks pretty rough.

On that basis, most history never happened. Gone.
Fini.

Well, some sort of history obviously happened, but did it happen
exactly like someone six hundred years later said it did? Probably
not and that brings us to the second niggling question. Which parts of
it are the true parts? Well obviously that would be the parts we want
to be true, right?

Just look what Dudo did to Rollo. You would be hard pressed to point
to any specific thing in Dudo that is not supported by contemporary
documentation and say with any degree of confidence, "this item is
true".

That is just a little creative exaggeration, though, salted with a
little invention here and there. Now take look at Cerdic's pedigree,
surreptitiously grafted onto the that of Bernicia (but we had better
replace one eponymous ancestor with another), then extended with an
impossible string of alliterative verse in the form of supposed names,
then a few heroes interpolated, a god added to the top, another god
grafted on, then oops, we are christian now, so let's make the top guy
grandson of Noah. We can see each step along the way, and it is all
one immensely glorious fabrication (or rather, a series of of glorious
fabrications). Given this, what makes you think any other pedigree
representing the same 'scholarly tradition' should be viewed with
anything but extreme skepticism?



taf

[D. Spencer Hines]

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

On Jan 2, 1:33 pm, "Janet Crawford" <[email protected]> wrote:

If I understand TAF correctly, he will only use a primary document.

. . . or a trusted secondary source that accurately relies on cited
primary sources.

Anything written later is rubbish, not evidence, and must be tossed
aside as worthless.

Well, it quite often is - often enough that you can't really put much
trust in any of it, and the curious thing is that everyone thinks that
their source - the one allowing them to trace their family to
antiquity - is the one diamond in the rough. From where I sit, it all
looks pretty rough.
--------------------------------------------

taf is a CONFIRMED CYNIC in these genealogical matters because he can't find
any Royal Ascents for HIMSELF.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article
<2ca0de73-b414-4c6d-9b9c-6bd334036f1c@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
[email protected] wrote:

Good luck. As I said earlier, people have been playing whack-the-mole
with MI5 for ten years, and he has yet to reach an end of the list of
ISPs willing to take his subscription money.

Is it all still really the same person, or has he spawned a generation
of copycats? BTW you mentioned a Wikipedia page for him, but I couldn't
find one.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

[Gjest]

On Jan 2, 4:57 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

In article
2ca0de73-b414-4c6d-9b9c-6bd334036...@i1 ... groups.com>,

[email protected] wrote:
Good luck. As I said earlier, people have been playing whack-the-mole
with MI5 for ten years, and he has yet to reach an end of the list of
ISPs willing to take his subscription money.

Is it all still really the same person, or has he spawned a generation
of copycats?

Sort of like has been said of Shakespeare, they are either all written
by him or by some other guy with the same name. I haven't made a
study of him, but from what one digs up, it seems consistent with a
single person posting sequentially from a string of ISPs rather than
one quitting just as another starts (i.e. all posts in a spew appear
to come from a single source, so the only two models are a single
source for all, or each copycat takin a turn in a never-overlapping
pattern, which seems unlikely)

BTW you mentioned a Wikipedia page for him, but I couldn't
find one.

Not specifically for him. It is the "Notable Usenet personalities"
page.

taf

[D. Spencer Hines]

And also author of _The Steel Bonnets, The Story of the Anglo-Scottish
Border Reivers_.

Requiescat In Pace.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:cc664eee-b679-4142-b42a-7d9ba695f89c@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Author of Flashman series of books

http://www.ukmemoriam.com/george_fraser

Add a memory or write a memoriam.

http://www.ukmemoriam.com

http://www.usamemoriam.com

[[email protected]]

On Jan 2, 7:24 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote:

[email protected]> wrote in message

news:[email protected]...

On Jan 2, 1:33 pm, "Janet Crawford" <[email protected]> wrote:
If I understand TAF correctly, he will only use a primary document.

. . . or a trusted secondary source that accurately relies on cited
primary sources.

Anything written later is rubbish, not evidence, and must be tossed
aside as worthless.

Well, it quite often is - often enough that you can't really put much
trust in any of it, and the curious thing is that everyone thinks that
their source - the one allowing them to trace their family to
antiquity - is the one diamond in the rough.  From where I sit, it all
looks pretty rough.

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

taf is a CONFIRMED CYNIC in these genealogical matters because he can't find
any Royal Ascents for HIMSELF.

Sure he can, Robert Peck de Beckles

~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne

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

[D. Spencer Hines]

<G>

DSH

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:6bc82ffe-8f30-4ec9-9a3b-e11e1fad099d@w39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 2, 7:24 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote:

[email protected]> wrote in message

news:[email protected]...

On Jan 2, 1:33 pm, "Janet Crawford" <[email protected]> wrote:
If I understand TAF correctly, he will only use a primary document.

. . . or a trusted secondary source that accurately relies on cited
primary sources.

Anything written later is rubbish, not evidence, and must be tossed
aside as worthless.

Well, it quite often is - often enough that you can't really put much
trust in any of it, and the curious thing is that everyone thinks that
their source - the one allowing them to trace their family to
antiquity - is the one diamond in the rough. From where I sit, it all
looks pretty rough.

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

taf is a CONFIRMED CYNIC in these genealogical matters because he can't
find
any Royal Ascents for HIMSELF.

Sure he can, Robert Peck de Beckles

~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne

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

[[email protected]]

On Jan 2, 4:21 pm, norenxaq <[email protected]> wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
My students told me that this was a good chat room for discussions in
medieval studies; but instead I find in the very first thread some
mentally disturbed person, "TAF", ranting in a rage towards someone;

not really a rant. todd has strong opinions regarding the validity of
certain types of evidence and expresses them

and, in another thread on the same page I find a delusional person,
"MI5", rambling on and on in a paranoid delirium.

MI5 is a troll and not worth mentioning or replying to

Can someone fill me
in on what is going on?; or, are my students mistaken over the value
of this website?

there is value here

pay Willy $25/hr and get out of jail


$25-bding, $25-bding, $25-bding

~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne

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

[[email protected]]

On Jan 2, 4:43 pm, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

On Jan 2, 1:33 pm, "Janet Crawford" <[email protected]> wrote:

If I understand TAF correctly, he will only use a primary document.
Anything written later is rubbish, not evidence, and must be tossed
aside as worthless. On that basis, most history never happened. Gone.
Fini.

Janet

Janet why are you here?  

same scene's you, cupcakes 'n tea, spot on

persiflage, persiflage, persiflage

~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne

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

[[email protected]]

On Jan 2, 12:26 pm, Leticia Cluff <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:54:22 GMT, "Peter Stewart"

[email protected]> wrote:

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

"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"

Thank you for that interesting reference, Peter.

Tish

Tish, sock puppet for Taft

merci, merci, merci

~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne

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

[a.spencer3]

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

And also author of _The Steel Bonnets, The Story of the Anglo-Scottish
Border Reivers_.

Requiescat In Pace.

I fully understand Hines' attachment to Flashman.

A kindred soul without the humour & sex.

Surreyman

[Tony Hoskins]

Perhaps I was unclear. First of all, I didn't mean to imply that proof
was enhanced by sheer numbers of evidence-bits. I certainly would never
say that evidence is weightier based on numbers of substantiating
"facts". What I meant to say was that there simply must be no unresolved
contrary evidence.

Tony Hoskins

[email protected]> 01/03/08 06:02AM
Tony Hoskins wrote:

It cannot be emphasized too much that to be accepted a pedigree must
hold up to scrutiny of *every statement of fact* contained therein.
Not
merely most, or even 99.9% of the claims. A pedigree fails if less
than
100% of its "facts" pass muster.

This is simply false. One could have, for example, a generational
connection supported by 5 "facts". The pedigree stands as proven
if even ONE of the supportive facts is conclusive that the
connection is true. The others may merely be supportive.

A connection does not need even one absolutely proven fact,
which alone proves the connection.

Many. many connections agreed upon by all denizens of s.g.m.
are supported by fewer than one, independent, absolutely proven fact.
In fact, most medieval connections are in that category. They are
supported
by facts which, in aggregate, add up to 99% proof. The typical
case is name matches and temporal matches, both from 99%
good facts (pipe rolls, etc.) which, together, don't actually
say "A is the son of B", supported by evidence from evidence
based on transmittal of land, which is also not a 100%
proof. But together the evidence is strong enough to be
accepted.

Doug McDonald




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

[Douglas Richardson]

On Jan 2, 5:14 pm, [email protected] wrote:
< Dear Douglas, Todd and everyone else,
< I guess
it depends
< on in what light you view this list. Several things, such as
Douglas`
< assignation of correct spelling of names are merely a matter of
personal preference

For clarification, one more time, I accept the convention developed by
modern historians of the modernization and standardization of names,
both given and surnames. Whatever style or spelling(s) you personally
adopt, I firmly believe you should be consistent in your approach.

If you keep the Latin forms of Isabella, Cecilia, Alicia, Matilda,
etc. only for women, but refer to men by modern forms as Henry,
Robert, Edward, and John, then you are not being consistent. It's
that simple.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Tony Hoskins]

"But there's no country called "Hesse""

Arguably there was a "country" called Hesse-Darmstadt [und bei Rhein]
before the 1871 unification of Germany, as there had previously been an
independent electorate of Hesse (Cassel). At least these "countries"
were for a time undeniably sovereign independent states.

Tony Hoskins



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]

In a message dated 1/3/2008 9:25:12 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

If you keep the Latin forms of Isabella, Cecilia, Alicia, Matilda,
etc. only for women, but refer to men by modern forms as Henry,
Robert, Edward, and John, then you are not being consistent. It's
that simple.


-----------------------------------
Or if you call people by the Euro-squish names of "Henry le Boteler" or
"John de Marisco" ?

Or does consistency only apply to forenames or surnames separate from each
other ?



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

[Gjest]

In a message dated 1/3/2008 9:40:15 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

In the column:http://www.e-monsite.com/schmidverriers/
rubrique-1084681.html
website: http://www.schmidverriers.com


---------
But there's no country called "Hesse"



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

[wjhonson]

On Jan 3, 2:09 pm, Hovite <[email protected]> wrote:

There was no registration of births, death, and marriages in Ireland
in 451 or 525.

There was probably no paper or ink. The Roman alphabet had not yet
been introduced, nor Arabic numerals, and the BC/AD system of
chronology had not yet been invented.

The language in use is referred to as Primitive Irish. Some Primitive
Irish inscriptions have survived in stone. The system of writing used
was a script called Ogham, which has affinities with the Runes used by
Germanic peoples. Most of the inscriptions are along the edges
monoliths marking graves. The phrases employed are sparse and
formulaic. Here are a few examples, transcribed into Roman letters:

Several hundred of these stones survive, and they reveal the true
history and genealogy of Ireland, before it was fictionalized by
Christians. No dates are recorded, nor are there any stories about
Bridget, or Patrick, or Arthur, as they had not yet been invented. The
inscriptions have been collected and studied in works such as Corpus
Inscriptionum Insularum Celticarum, by R A S Macalister, and Die
Sprache der altirischen Ogam-inschriften, by Sabine Ziegler, and there
are also on line resources available.

As to whether the Primitive Irish had ink, I thought that they were
supposed to have "Saved Civilization" by their "...presevation of
Roman and Greek works amid the collapse of the Roman empire."

Cf "How the Irish Saved Civilization"
also a review at http://www.stefangeens.com/000238.html

Will Johnson

[Hovite]

On Jan 1, 4:29 pm, "Janet Crawford" <[email protected]> wrote:

196--BRIGID. She was the second patroness of Ireland, known as "Mary
of the Gael". Born about the year 451, she was the daughter of a
Leinster Chieftain. Brigid was professed by Saint Mel of Ardagh, who,
about 468, conferred Abbatial powers on her. She erected her famous
convent of Kildara (Church of the Oak), which was ruled by Abbots,
Bishops, and Abbesses. The Abbess of Kildare was regarded as the
Superioress General of all Nunneries which followed the old Celtic
rule in Ireland. Died on February 1st, in the year 525. She was
interred in the Cathedral, her relics were transferred to Downpatrick,
in the year 878. She was buried in the tomb of Saint Patrick and Saint
Colmcille. The three bodies were discovered on the 9th of June 1185.
Feast day February 1st.

There was no registration of births, death, and marriages in Ireland
in 451 or 525.

There was probably no paper or ink. The Roman alphabet had not yet
been introduced, nor Arabic numerals, and the BC/AD system of
chronology had not yet been invented.

The language in use is referred to as Primitive Irish. Some Primitive
Irish inscriptions have survived in stone. The system of writing used
was a script called Ogham, which has affinities with the Runes used by
Germanic peoples. Most of the inscriptions are along the edges
monoliths marking graves. The phrases employed are sparse and
formulaic. Here are a few examples, transcribed into Roman letters:

SAGRAMNI MAQI CUNOTAMI
(Tomb) of Sagramnos, son of Cunotamus

MAQI DECCEDDAS AVI TORANIAS
(Tomb) of the son of Decces, grandson of Toranis

SIDANI MAQI DALO
(Tomb) of Sidan, son of Dalo

TRIA MAQA MAILAGNI
(Tomb) of the three sons Mailagnos

Several hundred of these stones survive, and they reveal the true
history and genealogy of Ireland, before it was fictionalized by
Christians. No dates are recorded, nor are there any stories about
Bridget, or Patrick, or Arthur, as they had not yet been invented. The
inscriptions have been collected and studied in works such as Corpus
Inscriptionum Insularum Celticarum, by R A S Macalister, and Die
Sprache der altirischen Ogam-inschriften, by Sabine Ziegler, and there
are also on line resources available.

[Janet Crawford]

On 1/3/08, Hovite <[email protected]> wrote:

On Jan 1, 4:29 pm, "Janet Crawford" <[email protected]> wrote:

196--BRIGID. She was the second patroness of Ireland, known as "Mary
of the Gael". Born about the year 451, she was the daughter of a
Leinster Chieftain. Brigid was professed by Saint Mel of Ardagh, who,
about 468, conferred Abbatial powers on her. She erected her famous
convent of Kildara (Church of the Oak), which was ruled by Abbots,
Bishops, and Abbesses. The Abbess of Kildare was regarded as the
Superioress General of all Nunneries which followed the old Celtic
rule in Ireland. Died on February 1st, in the year 525. She was
interred in the Cathedral, her relics were transferred to Downpatrick,
in the year 878. She was buried in the tomb of Saint Patrick and Saint
Colmcille. The three bodies were discovered on the 9th of June 1185.
Feast day February 1st.

There was no registration of births, death, and marriages in Ireland
in 451 or 525.

There was probably no paper or ink. The Roman alphabet had not yet
been introduced, nor Arabic numerals, and the BC/AD system of
chronology had not yet been invented.

The language in use is referred to as Primitive Irish. Some Primitive
Irish inscriptions have survived in stone. The system of writing used
was a script called Ogham, which has affinities with the Runes used by
Germanic peoples. Most of the inscriptions are along the edges
monoliths marking graves. The phrases employed are sparse and
formulaic. Here are a few examples, transcribed into Roman letters:

SAGRAMNI MAQI CUNOTAMI
(Tomb) of Sagramnos, son of Cunotamus

MAQI DECCEDDAS AVI TORANIAS
(Tomb) of the son of Decces, grandson of Toranis

SIDANI MAQI DALO
(Tomb) of Sidan, son of Dalo

TRIA MAQA MAILAGNI
(Tomb) of the three sons Mailagnos

Several hundred of these stones survive, and they reveal the true
history and genealogy of Ireland, before it was fictionalized by
Christians. No dates are recorded, nor are there any stories about
Bridget, or Patrick, or Arthur, as they had not yet been invented. The
inscriptions have been collected and studied in works such as Corpus
Inscriptionum Insularum Celticarum, by R A S Macalister, and Die
Sprache der altirischen Ogam-inschriften, by Sabine Ziegler, and there
are also on line resources available.

Patrick is mythical.
There wre never any churches.
There were never any scribes.
There were never any kings.
If there were kings, they never had daughters, at least daughters who
had names. Sons either. Nor wives.
There were never any nunneries.
There was never anything to wtite on. (Except a few rocks.)
There were never any saints.
Your source on early medieval gravestones cannot be used as it is a
secondary source written far later.
All of this never existed.
There are no primary sources.

I would clarify that it is "Old Irish" not "primitive" Irish.
Ogham stones were boundary stones for the most part.
The phrases employed on gravestones are not "sparse and formulaic",
but Latin adaptions of Old Irish words and names. The stones provide
no "history of Ireland", other than being boundary markers or grave
markers. They are, however, a primary source requiring that a very few
people did exist in ancient Ireland - a mere handful. All men though.
No women existed.

I've got it now, oh, boy.

Janet

[YvonnePurdy]

Will,

I can't find this reference from the link (is it because I'm UK based)? ( Can you give me the details?

Yvonne

From: wjhonson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 03 January 2008 21:01

To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Ralph WORSLEY will proved 28 January 1574

Here in Vis Cheshire 1580 pg 225 we find one daughter Katherine who m
Thomas Tuchett

http://books.google.com/books?id=hlYN_LmEu8YC&pg=PA225

Will Johnson
<

[wjhonson]

On Jan 3, 3:20 pm, "YvonnePurdy" <[email protected]>
wrote:

Here in Vis Cheshire 1580 pg 225 we find one daughter Katherine who m
Thomas Tuchett

http://books.google.com/books?id=hlYN_LmEu8YC&pg=PA225

Will Johnson

"The Visitation of Cheshire in the Year 1580", by Robert Glover...
Published in 1882 by The Harleian Society. We find Katherine on page
225 in the Pedigree of the Tochett of Nether Whitley

Will Johnson

[wjhonson]

Janet, what exactly is the point of being branded here as our *next*
screwball?

You understand that what you type lives forever with your name
attached?

Is that really the legacy you want to leave? That people think you're
a nut and ignore you?

[John Foster]

Since all of us identified as newbies have received such a wonderful
reception this week from those who should know better, likely Janet, several
others, and myself will be looking for original information elsewhere, not
original diatribe here. BUH-bye. I may stay subscribed, and I may not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Thursday, January 03, 2008 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: Reality

Janet, what exactly is the point of being branded here as our *next*
screwball?

You understand that what you type lives forever with your name
attached?

Is that really the legacy you want to leave? That people think you're
a nut and ignore you?


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

[[email protected]]

On Jan 3, 6:53 pm, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

Janet, what exactly is the point of being branded here as our *next*
screwball?

You understand that what you type lives forever with your name
attached?

Is that really the legacy you want to leave?  That people think you're
a nut and ignore you?

you're the nut, Willy J. Coyote,
puffed up and throaty,
$25-bding, $25-bding, $25-bding,
pay Willy to do his nutty thing

persiflage, persiflage, persiflage

~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne

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

[Gjest]

Dear John Ravilious and others,
It does seem most strange that
Robert Brus the Competitor and Robert Brus of Carrick should absent
themselves from this meeting if they were in fact Mary`s family. Then again.. given the
extreme rancor between them and Strathearn`s representative (John Comyn, Earl
of Buchan) aside from which , at least Brus of Carrick was probably away on
campaign with King Edward I in Flanders as was the younger Red Comyn.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont, Maine
USA



**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exer ... 0000002489

[John P. Ravilious]

Dear James,

The little love lost between the Bruces and Comyns may well
account for the absence of a Brus in London at the time. The elder
Bruce, Lord of Annandale (presumably grandfather of Robert de Tony)
was aged about 80 at the time (born say 1210-1215, depending on whom
you talk to), and his son the Earl of Carrick (resigned the Earldom at
Berwick, 6 Nov 1292) may possibly still have been in Norway, re: the
marriage of his daughter Isabel to Eric, King of Norway.

As I said, I believe that the de Ros brothers were closely
related to the Brus family; hopefully some proof pro or con will be
found.

Cheers,

John


On Jan 3, 10:25 pm, [email protected] wrote:

Dear John Ravilious and others,
It does seem most strange that
Robert Brus the Competitor and Robert Brus of Carrick should absent
themselves from this meeting if they were in fact Mary`s family. Then again.. given the
extreme rancor between them and Strathearn`s representative (John Comyn, Earl
of Buchan) aside from which , at least Brus of Carrick was probably away on
campaign with King Edward I in Flanders as was the younger Red Comyn.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont, Maine
USA

**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exer ... 0000002489

[YvonnePurdy]

Thanks, Will. I've got there now, and also to the link of the reign of Henry VIII.

On page 153 of the same Vis Cheshire 1580, there's a possibility of a second husband for Katherine Worsley;
Edward Leigh of Grayes Inne, brother to Sr. Piers Leigh of Lyme made Knight 2 July at Grenewich 1598.

Yvonne Purdy (nee Sherlock)

From: wjhonson [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 03 January 2008 23:57
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Ralph WORSLEY will proved 28 January 1574


On Jan 3, 3:20 pm, "YvonnePurdy" <[email protected]>
wrote:

Here in Vis Cheshire 1580 pg 225 we find one daughter Katherine who m
Thomas Tuchett

http://books.google.com/books?id=hlYN_LmEu8YC&pg=PA225

Will Johnson

"The Visitation of Cheshire in the Year 1580", by Robert Glover...
Published in 1882 by The Harleian Society. We find Katherine on page
225 in the Pedigree of the Tochett of Nether Whitley

Will Johnson
<<

[Tony Hoskins]

"The Kost castle is currently in the ownership of a company, owned and
managed by brothers Giovanni and Pio Kinsky-dal Borgo together with
their father Norbert Kinsky."

Oddly enough, I was contacted by this same Norbert Kinsky (an officer
of the Knights of Malta), whose son Giovanni Zdenko Kinsky-dal Borgo
(1949-) married Michelle Hoskins, daughter of an American Air Force
general. It's heartening that the Kinskys are able to live in their
Netolicky ancestors' castle at Kost.

Many thanks, again, to Pavel for the information.

Tony Hoskins

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

[YvonnePurdy]

Will,

From IGI:

John SHAWKERLEY married Avis DAVENPORTE on 3 September 1589 at Northenden, Cheshire, England, so at least this
gives some time constraints.

I could find one or two snippet views on google books, which indicate that John Shakerley died about 1596, of
Northenden, 'Shakerley Esq. & Avys my wife and Richard Warburton, gent, to be overseers. Inv. dated 1596'.

and

John Shakerley of Northenden, 1596 (Will) October 25 1596.

Avis was married to Thomas Vawdrey at the time of her father, Ralph Worsley's 1574 will, so her second
marriage to Humphrey Davenport, and his death, must fall between 1574 and 1589.

Yvonne Purdy (nee Sherlock)

From: wjhonson [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 03 January 2008 20:28
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Ralph WORSLEY will proved 28 January 1574


The third daughter Avice married secondly Humphrey Davenport !

I'm really hoping you can find evidence that this is *that* Sir
Humphrey Davenport, Knt of Sutton, Cheshire, Chief Baron of the
Exchequer.

This Humphrey by his wife Mary Sutton, had a daughter Penelope
Davenport bap 17 May 1603 (by IGI Patron Sheets FWIW) who married into
the Cecil line by marrying Sir Cecil Trafford, Knt (knighted in 1618),
grandson of the Earl of Exeter.

By descent this Humphrey was of those Davenports of Bromhall and has
several seperate royal ascents.

Will Johnson
<

[kelly 6424]

That book is junk philosophy.
KB Gray
NY

From: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 16:47:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Reality
To: [email protected]; [email protected]


In a message dated 1/4/2008 1:35:48 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

Can you give an example of a Roman or Greek work preserved in this way?



---------------------------
No Paul, I don't have the book and haven't read it. The review states that
that is the main gist of that book so I'd imagine the book itself goes into
some detail about it. But again I haven't read it, I only found this quote in
a review of it.

Will



**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exer ... 0000002489

-------------------------------
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_012008

[Gjest]

In a message dated 1/4/2008 1:55:19 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

but I have not found any reason to question the
possibility of its origin in late 17th/early 18th century (neither the
confirmation of its age, naturally, but I am 99.99% positive that it
was not made "centuries after-the-fact").

I'm not saying it isn't possible. I'm saying we have two secondary sources
which conflict with each other (at least in my view). We cannot merely accept
one against the other, especially not knowing the provenance of the chart you
saw. Until some other document comes to light, we just have to leave the
situation for now.

That's my opinion.
Will Johnson


**************
Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in
shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exer ... 0000002489

[Gjest]

In a message dated 1/4/2008 1:51:25 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

That book is junk philosophy.


--------------------
OK now we have a second opinion, but we're still no closer to seeing what
sources are cited and what points the book makes about them.



**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exer ... 0000002489

[Gjest]

In a message dated 1/4/2008 1:35:48 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

Can you give an example of a Roman or Greek work preserved in this way?>>>



---------------------------
No Paul, I don't have the book and haven't read it. The review states that
that is the main gist of that book so I'd imagine the book itself goes into
some detail about it. But again I haven't read it, I only found this quote in
a review of it.

Will



**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exer ... 0000002489

[Hovite]

On Jan 3, 11:19 pm, "Janet Crawford" <[email protected]> wrote:

Patrick is mythical.

Saint Patrick is probably an imaginary person. Early historians did
not know of him. He is not mentioned by Bede, who died in 734, so his
story was probably invented after Bede's time.

F. J. Byrne (Irish Kings and High-Kings) accepted Patrick as a real
person but cautioned that "we may suspect that some of the seventh-
century traditions originally referred to Palladius and have been
transferred, whether deliberately or as a result on genuine confusion,
to the figure of Patrick". He was right, and it is quite easy to
demonstrate this:

Prosper of Aquitaine wrote that in 430: "Palladius was sent by Pope
Celestine to the Scots who believed in Christ, and was ordained as
their first bishop". This story was known to Bede and was repeated by
him: "In the year 430 Palladius was sent by Pope Celestine to the
Scots that believed in Christ to be their first bishop". This annal
was then copied into the earliest version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
(version A, compiled in 891): "430. In this year bishop Palladius was
sent by Pope Celestine to the Scots to strengthen their faith". But
during the twelfth century the manuscript was altered to read: "...
Palladius (vel Patricius)...". In another version of the chronicle
(version E, written in 1121) Palladius disappears and is replaced by
Patrick: "430. In this year Patrick was sent by pope Celestine to
preach baptism to the Scots".

Notice how with each scribe the story changes a little, so starting
from Palladius being sent to the Irish who were already Christian, it
eventually becomes a tale about Patrick being sent to convert the
Irish.

[Hovite]

On Jan 3, 10:20 pm, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

As to whether the Primitive Irish had ink, I thought that they were
supposed to have "Saved Civilization" by their "...presevation of
Roman and Greek works amid the collapse of the Roman empire."

Can you give an example of a Roman or Greek work preserved in this way?

[D. Spencer Hines]

The Sunday Times also had an excellent obituary...

DSH

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

January 3, 2008

George MacDonald Fraser: Times obituary

Author of dashing period novels which became a cult among young and old with
their caddish anti-hero, Flashman

George MacDonald Fraser brought delight to a generation of readers
throughout the English-speaking world with his Flashman books. He wrote
confidently on a range of themes, but Flashman made his name.

He had hit on a deceptively simple idea that proved to be a bestselling
formula at the end of the Swinging Sixties. The public still wanted to sit
down with a good rip-roaring yarn — but did not want heroes. So why not make
the central character a cad? A cad the reading public already knew about —
Harry Flashman, the bounder of Tom Brown’s Schooldays?

What happened to Flashman after the good Doctor Arnold expelled him from
Rugby? Fraser decided that he must have gone into the Army. Bully, liar and
coward he may still have been, but the Victorian military authorities did
not mind. Or perhaps they were simply too stupid to notice, as he whored and
cheated his way around the British Empire. The resulting stories became one
of the great tongue-in-cheek achievements of popular fiction.

The standing joke between Fraser and his readers was that these were genuine
memoirs: they had been discovered, “wrapped in oilskin” and stuffed into a
tea chest, during a house sale at Ashby, Leicestershire, in 1965. They
described how, after a long, eventful life, loved by the ladies and lauded
by the Establishment — Flashman was a brigadier-general, a VC, a Knight of
the Bath, a Chevalier of the Legion d’Honneur and, amusingly, holder of the
San Serafino Order of Purity and Truth — the old scoundrel mused in old age
about how he had got away with it: “The ideal time to be a hero,” he wrote,
“is when the battle is over and the other fellows are dead, God rest ’em,
and you take the credit.”

It was all rollicking nonsense; but it had a sterling quality that went to
the heart of many sophisticated readers who like to relax with a rubbishy
book provided it is well written rubbish. Fraser was a thoroughly
professional literary craftsman.

The books could be enjoyed at different levels. They sold in airport
bookshops and they found their way into the hands of solemn Americans who
could not understand why they were unable to find General Flashman in the
reference books. Letters came from people who claimed to be related to
Flashman as a result of one of his irregular liaisons. One serving British
officer claimed that his grandfather lent Flashman $50 and a horse during
the American Civil War — and never saw either again.

Fraser loved military history and he loved browsing through Victoriana. He
decided that the “Flashman Papers”, like all well-edited memoirs, deserved
to have scholarly references at the back of the book. Thus, when Flashman,
passing through London between postings, is taken unawares in disreputable
premises with his breeches down at his ankles the reader is told solemnly,
when he flicks through the pages to the end notes, that “Raiding of
gambling-hells was common after the Police Act of 1839 (see L.J. Ludovici,
The Itch for Play.)”.

The genial Fraser himself had not a glimmer of caddishness, and his own
military experience was very unlike Flashman’s. He served in the ranks in
General Slim’s 14th Army in Burma in the Second World War before being
commissioned in the Gordon Highlanders.

His time in Burma resulted in a memoir, published in 1992 under the title
Quartered Safe out Here, which ranks among the best of the kind of modestly
understated barrack-room books that provide a picture, more vivid than the
military historians can provide, of the harshness, squalor and black humour
of war on the ground. Here is the young Fraser in the jungle: “As the
section scout, I found myself advancing alone, safety catch off and one up
the spout, across a hundred yards of open ground to a silent screen of palm
and thicket concealing a village where there might or might not be a
Japanese position. There wasn’t, as it happened, but I remember every step.”
He found himself “wishing to God I’d passed Lower Latin and got into
university in 1943”.

He noted drily that when the 1945 general election came (after the war in
Europe ended but the soldiers of the Japanese Emperor showed no sign of
surrendering) he was not old enough to vote, although he was old enough to
lead jungle patrols.

Born in 1925, George MacDonald Fraser, the son of a doctor, was educated at
Carlisle Grammar School and Glasgow Academy. Back from the war, he became a
journalist, first in Canada and finally with the Glasgow Herald, of which he
became deputy editor.

For years one of his interests had been the heroic world of Victorian
adventure yarns for boys, and one of his sidelines at the Herald was to
provide agreeable little articles aimed at middle-aged readers who enjoyed
recalling the derring-do of school stories. Another interest was the
American pioneer days, and in due course Flashman enjoyed adventures among
the redskins.

Fraser was in his forties when he wrote Flashman (1969) — and realised the
dream of all journalists, of telling his editor he could not afford to carry
on with a newspaper career. He moved to the Isle of Man — as a tax haven
that was not too outlandish — and there he settled down to write, in a house
large enough to contain a snooker table, to indulge the only vice that he
might have shared with the cad of Rugby.

His first novel, based on a real episode in the First Afghan War, ends with
Flashman being welcomed home by the Great Duke himself and taken to
Buckingham Palace to be decorated by Queen Victoria (who, it emerged in the
later books, had something of a soft spot for Flashman).

The great and good, and the less good, of Victorian times moved effortlessly
across the pages of the Flashman books. Second in the series was Royal Flash
(1970), a Ruritarian romp in which the villain was the young Bismarck.
Subsequent volumes took the rascally Flashman around the globe.

Through it all, sabres glint in the sunlight and the white man comes out top
in the end; bosoms heave, bodices are ripped; foreigners strut and sneer and
simper and generally prove their inferiority. Part of the delight of the
stories, when they appeared in an age of women’s liberation and campaigns
against racial discrimination, was the shameless way Fraser ignored
political correctness. In spite of ill-health in his latter years — he had
been suffering from cancer — he continued to write: The last of the dozen
Flashman books, Flashman on the March, appeared in 2005.He also produced a
couple of collections of short stories.

Fraser was also a scenarist for a number of films. He wrote the screenplay
when Royal Flash became a movie in 1975, and wrote half a dozen other film
scripts, notably (in co-operation with Richard Maibaum) that of the James
Bond movie Octopussy (1983), which starred Roger Moore.

He had made his debut as a screenwriter in 1973 with the sleek Richard
Lester-directed The Three Musketeers, which starred Oliver Reed, Raquel
Welch and Michael York. He performed the same service in 1974 for the
somewhat perfunctory sequel, The Four Musketeers, also directed by Lester
and featuring the same cast as its rip-roaring protagonists. He was in
harness with Clive Exton on the script of the medieval nonsense frolic Red
Sonja (1985), directed by Richard Fleischer, and his final screenplay was
The Return of the Musketeers (1989), again directed by Lester, with Reed and
York now as somewhat mature hell-raisers. Fraser was appointed OBE in 1999.

He married, in 1949, Kathleen Hetherington. There were two sons and a
daughter (the novelist Caro Fraser).

George MacDonald Fraser, OBE, novelist and screenwriter, was born on April
2, 1925. He died on January 2, 2008, aged 82

<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article3126821.ece>

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Britannicus Traductus Sum

[Gjest]

In a message dated 1/4/2008 9:33:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
"rainbow."@clear.net.nz writes:

Any help to anyone?

Malise 8th Earl of Strathearn m/d Marjory de Ross
d/o Earl Hugh de Ross and Maud Matilda de Brus

Maud Matilda de Brus
d/o
Sir Robert Bruce of Carrick and Marjorie of Carrick
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Isabel B 1235?? m/d William d'Aubeney - Ld of Belvoir


-------------------
This is all in the archives, including a possible correction.
Please cite your sources.
Thanks
Will Johnson



**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exer ... 0000002489

[Gjest]

Dear John Ravilious, Douglas and others,
In MCA (sub
Aubeney) Douglas gives William de Roos who married 2nd Isabel a first wife Aubrey
Bisset. could she have been of the same family? She was born say before 1219
as her daughter Isabel Aubeney of Belvoir was born abt 1233 (see Richardson
MCA (sub Roos)
There were in fact a couple of connections between the Roos and Brus
families.
1 Robert fitz Roger, 2nd Baron of Warkworth married Margaret, daughter
of William fitz Walter de Chesney
2 John fitz Robert, 3rd Baron of Warkworth married Ada de Baliol
2 Alice fitz Robert married Peter fitz Herbert
3 (daughter of John) Cecily fitz John married Patrick Dunbar, Earl of
Dunbar (son of Euphemia (Brus) Dunbar, sister of Robert de Brus who married
Isabel of Huntingdon)
3 Lucy fitz Peter married William de Roos of Hemsley (parents of Robert
, husband of Isabel Aubeney)

note: through Roger fitz Richard`s 1 Baron of Warkworth`s wife Alice de
Vere there is a distant kinship to Robert de Brus the Competitor`s wife
Isabel de Clare as Alice`s mother was Alice de Clare, daughter of Gilbert fitz
Richard and Adeliza de Clermont
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA.




**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exer ... 0000002489

[Stewart Baldwin]

"Hovite" <[email protected]> wrote:

Saint Patrick is probably an imaginary person. Early historians did
not know of him. He is not mentioned by Bede, who died in 734, so his
story was probably invented after Bede's time.

Whether or not Bede mentioned him is irrelevant, as Bede was not well
informed on Irish matters. And the story of St. Patrick certainly existed
before the time of Bede. In fact, the two earliest surviving lives of
Patrick (by Tirechán and Muirchu) were both written in the seventh century,
before Bede's work. Also, there is the fact that there are two surviving
works, the Confessio and the letter to Coroticus (both unfortunately very
uninformative about Irish history) which are generally held to be genuine
works of Patrick himself.

F. J. Byrne (Irish Kings and High-Kings) accepted Patrick as a real
person but cautioned that "we may suspect that some of the seventh-
century traditions originally referred to Palladius and have been
transferred, whether deliberately or as a result on genuine confusion,
to the figure of Patrick". He was right, and it is quite easy to
demonstrate this:

Prosper of Aquitaine wrote that in 430: "Palladius was sent by Pope
Celestine to the Scots who believed in Christ, and was ordained as
their first bishop". This story was known to Bede and was repeated by
him: "In the year 430 Palladius was sent by Pope Celestine to the
Scots that believed in Christ to be their first bishop". This annal
was then copied into the earliest version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
(version A, compiled in 891): "430. In this year bishop Palladius was
sent by Pope Celestine to the Scots to strengthen their faith". But
during the twelfth century the manuscript was altered to read: "...
Palladius (vel Patricius)...". In another version of the chronicle
(version E, written in 1121) Palladius disappears and is replaced by
Patrick: "430. In this year Patrick was sent by pope Celestine to
preach baptism to the Scots".

Notice how with each scribe the story changes a little, so starting
from Palladius being sent to the Irish who were already Christian, it
eventually becomes a tale about Patrick being sent to convert the
Irish.

This logic is not acceptable. All it means is that Palladius and Patrick
were sometimes confused with each other. It is extremely misleading to take
a tiny handful of the relevant evidence and present it as if it supports
your hypothesis, ignoring the rest, as you are doing. Although it is true
that many elements of the more fanciful "biographies" of Patrick are later
fabrications, his basic historical existence is accepted by an overwhelming
majority of historians.

Stewart Baldwin

[pj.evans]

Wikipedia's rules are arcane, and generally function so that those
with the least knowledge have the most authority, unfortunately. (This
has come up in other fields. Wikipedia generally can't recognize that
administrative and editorial functions should not be combined in the
same people, and that number of edits is not a good measure of
knowledge.)

On Jan 5, 1:30 pm, "M.Sjostrom" <[email protected]> wrote:

I happened to drop to check what happens in Wikipedia,
and encountered the following situation:

In the articlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Des ... _William_I
there appears a genealogical lineage from Merovingians
to Charlemagne, in the said article's chapterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Des ... liam_I#T...

The lineage is based on idea that king Theudebald of
the Franks had son Grimwald of Aquitaine, whose
daughter were Itta, mother of Begga, through whose son
Pippin of Herstal the Carolingian main line descends.

Some editor had, fairly properly IMO, added there a
note "critical medieval genealogists regard this
genealogical link historically unattested and
practically untrustworthy".
Motivation seemingly was: "The Merovingian descent
through Charlemagne - there exist no proven lineage
from Merovingians to Carolingians, only proposed
hypotheses"

Not too long afterwards, a notorious editor, whose
name is known to be Charles von Hamm (possibly some
have encountered that person in some royalty
discussion fora) edited the mentioned cautionary note
totally away.

I am puzzled how any responsible person would oppose
the cautionary note. IIRC, everyone who knows at least
something about royal genealogies, knows that no
lineage from Merovingians towards the present day is
proven, not even close.

Seemingly it is important to some individuals to keep
ongoing a belief (delusion) in such hypothetized
lineages.

This sort of recurring maintenance of an unproven
descent is a setback to medieval genealogy.

      ___________________________________________________________________________­_________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article
<42dd709f-2efa-4bdb-83a0-0b98e8e3848c@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com>,
"pj.evans" <[email protected]> wrote:

On Jan 5, 1:30 pm, "M.Sjostrom" <[email protected]> wrote:
I happened to drop to check what happens in Wikipedia,
and encountered the following situation:

In the articlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent of Elizabeth II from
William I
there appears a genealogical lineage from Merovingians
to Charlemagne, in the said article's
chapterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent of Elizabeth II from William
I#T...

The lineage is based on idea that king Theudebald of
the Franks had son Grimwald of Aquitaine, whose
daughter were Itta, mother of Begga, through whose son
Pippin of Herstal the Carolingian main line descends.

Some editor had, fairly properly IMO, added there a
note "critical medieval genealogists regard this
genealogical link historically unattested and
practically untrustworthy".
Motivation seemingly was: "The Merovingian descent
through Charlemagne - there exist no proven lineage
from Merovingians to Carolingians, only proposed
hypotheses"

Not too long afterwards, a notorious editor, whose
name is known to be Charles von Hamm (possibly some
have encountered that person in some royalty
discussion fora) edited the mentioned cautionary note
totally away.

I am puzzled how any responsible person would oppose
the cautionary note. IIRC, everyone who knows at least
something about royal genealogies, knows that no
lineage from Merovingians towards the present day is
proven, not even close.

Seemingly it is important to some individuals to keep
ongoing a belief (delusion) in such hypothetized
lineages.

This sort of recurring maintenance of an unproven
descent is a setback to medieval genealogy.

Wikipedia's rules are arcane, and generally function so that those
with the least knowledge have the most authority, unfortunately. (This
has come up in other fields. Wikipedia generally can't recognize that
administrative and editorial functions should not be combined in the
same people, and that number of edits is not a good measure of
knowledge.)

I'm sure Wikipedia will now be cited as support for the viability of the
"Order of the Merovingian Dynasty," discussed here a month or so ago.

One telling Wikipedia case I've seen recently is the Wikipedia article
devoted to the pretender to the title 'King of Man', David Howe (on this
claim, see rec.heraldry, and Michael Andrews-Reading's website --

http://unrealroyal.com

). Howe or his supporters have spent countless hours defending, through
aggressive Wikipedia editing, his patently absurd claim (the issues are
more legal than genealogical: Howe last year learned what an 'heir
general' was, and that he was not one).

Wikipedia's governing dictum of 'neutrality' means, in practice, equal
time for opposing views, even if one view is self-evidently rational and
the other is simply a vigorously-defended fringe theory.

This flaw concerns not just medieval genealogy: I expect that Wikipedia
has become the clearinghouse of choice for fringe theories in every
discipline.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

[Dora Smith]

My apologies to the poeple on the Gen-medieval list, who run somewhat
brighter and far less ridiculous than the people on the newsgroup. I just
don't want to go over to the newsreader to answer this.

My answer is, there are certainly enough people here who would know!

I actually know what to do if you disagree with something in Wikipedia and
claim expertise, but I'm keeping mum. People would begin to mistake
Wikipedia for NewsWhatever.

Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]

----- Original Message -----
From: "M.Sjostrom" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 3:30 PM
Subject: Wikipedia is exceeding its own record of stupidity

I happened to drop to check what happens in Wikipedia,
and encountered the following situation:

--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.1/1183 - Release Date: 12/13/2007 9:15 AM

[Gjest]

Self-published statements are allowed in an article about that same person.
However that person's self-published statements are not normally allowable
in related articles, say about the Isle of Man for instance.

Statements contradicting those self-published claims, need to be from
published sources. In general webpages of other commentators are not citable
unless that commentator is some kind of acknowledged expert in that field. If
however, you've published your article in a book, newspaper, journal, etc. then
there would be no such restriction to citing your article.

Will Johnson



**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exer ... 0000002489

[Gjest]

On Jan 6, 5:39 pm, [email protected] wrote:

Self-published statements are allowed in an article about that same  person.  

Statements contradicting those self-published claims, need to be from  
published sources.  

The inappropriateness of such a policy is demonstrated amply in the
current case.

Let's say I set up a website [self-published] and claim to be the
rightful Emperor of America, because I am descended from George
Washington.

I then set up a wikipedia site, using an anonymous account, and
reference it to my website. In my wikipedia article, I say I have
staked my claim to be Emperor of America as a descendant of George
Washington.

Someone then investigates and discovers the details of my claim are
untrue. Only, in order to rebut it, he cannot put the rebuttal on a
website and cite it, because that's self-publication and it's not
allowed. Instead, the research must be published elsewhere by an
independent publisher (because if he publishes it himself it's still
self publication.) Only then it can be added to the wikipedia
article.

But, of course, all I need to do in order to rebut this rebuttal is to
add a page to my website saying it's wrong. I don't even need to give
any sensible reasons. I can then quite validly re-edit the wikipedia
article, stating I have refuted that research, and cite... my webpage.

That, surely, has to be a nonsense.

The present case is worse than this, though, because the claimant
himself seems to be editing and re-editing the article regularly,
using an anonymous account. Indeed, he has admitted elsewhere to
having done this in respect of other fantasy claims he has made - he's
actually complained about what a drain on his time it can be!

But if anyone suggests this, they get into trouble from the
administrators for breaching wikipedia's doctrine of good faith: you
have to assume that other contributors are nice people.

Furthermore, those who have criticised this have themselves been
accused by the administrators of being biased and seeking to use
wikipedia to further their own agendas. The fact that they are
anonymous is being used as a sign of bad faith [NB the doctrine of
good faith ceased to apply to them as soon as they showed signs of
dissent]. It doesn't even matter that the administrators themselves
use anonymous accounts.

Worse still, the claimant is allowed to make any claim he wants: eg I
am granting Manx titles as history permits me. Someone else added a
note that there was no evidence that Manx titles had ever been granted
historically - and the administrator removed this because it was an
unproven statement; when questioned, the administrator replied that it
was necessary to prove the negative before the original claim could be
commented on. Does this remind anyone of some of the least scholarly
contributors here?

So, we have a claimant with a history of abusing wikipedia being
allowed to set up and edit his own article, making up his sources as
he goes, and we have those who attempt to deal with this accused of
bad faith and bias, and subject to bans. When they show dissent to
the adminstrators, the administrators rule that they are showing bias
while fooling themselves that they are being neutral, and when they
suggest the same of the administrators, they are told that the
administrators' apparent bias is just resented neutrality. And the
administrators back each other up, citing the doctrine of solidarity.

Meanwhile, the claimant continues to pollute an ostensible reference
source, and the internet, with baseless, self-serving garbage.

It is hard to decide whether it is more like Catch 22 or 1984!

MA-R

[Gjest]

In a message dated 1/5/2008 11:10:36 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

Let's say I set up a website [self-published] and claim to be the
rightful Emperor of America, because I am descended from George
Washington.>>



----------------------------
That's a bit of mischaracterization. People *have* tried exactly what you
propose and they are shot down. Articles are routinely removed if found to be
about people of no real wide-spread interest.

In order to have a Wikipedia article, it is not enough to launch outrageous
claims

*You* as an individual must yourself be cited *by* several independent
publications in a non-trivial way. So at that point you become a person of
interest to the mass market.

It is only *after* that point, that what you yourself say about yourself
becomes of any interest on Wikipedia.

So if you, MAR, were featured in a few news stories in some daily rag I mean
newspaper, then it's quite possible that some enterprising Wikipedian would
find you of enough interest to try to write a mini-biography. Now if some
other Wikipedian finds that you've actually published several statements about
yourself, your beliefs, etc. they could add those quotes, citing you, with a
proviso like "he claims", "he states", etc and be entirely without the
policy.

Will Johnson



**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exer ... 0000002489

[Gjest]

In a message dated 1/5/2008 11:10:36 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

But, of course, all I need to do in order to rebut this rebuttal is to
add a page to my website saying it's wrong. I don't even need to give
any sensible reasons. I can then quite validly re-edit the wikipedia
article, stating I have refuted that research, and cite... my webpage.>>


-------------------------------
Also, in general editing of your own article is frowned upon by Wikipedians.
There have been several long drawn-out cat fights around this issue. For
the most part, one self-serving editor is quickly dispatched by a cadre of
self-righteous ones

In fact the article on the Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is a case in point
and has led to massive rewrites of policy to handle just this sort of
self-editing.

Now if some *other* editor, cites your webpage, about yourself, on your own
Wiki-article, they should then properly says "he says X", not "X is wrong".
The goal is to write like journalists, not theologians.

Will Johnson



**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exer ... 0000002489

[Gjest]

In a message dated 1/5/2008 11:17:54 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

proviso like "he claims", "he states", etc and be entirely without the
policy.>>>
-----------------
Good way to neuter myself...
Of course I meant "entirely WITHIN the policy" not without...

Will Johnson





**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exer ... 0000002489

[Dora Smith]

What?

(Couldn't resist.)

Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:39 AM
Subject: Re: Wikipedia is exceeding its own record of stupidity

Self-published statements are allowed in an article about that same
person.
However that person's self-published statements are not normally
allowable
in related articles, say about the Isle of Man for instance.

Statements contradicting those self-published claims, need to be from
published sources. In general webpages of other commentators are not
citable
unless that commentator is some kind of acknowledged expert in that
field. If
however, you've published your article in a book, newspaper, journal,
etc. then
there would be no such restriction to citing your article.

Will Johnson

--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.1/1183 - Release Date: 12/13/2007 9:15 AM

[Gjest]

On Jan 6, 6:16 pm, [email protected] wrote:

In a message dated 1/5/2008 11:10:36 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  

[email protected] writes:

Let's  say I set up a website [self-published] and claim to be the
rightful  Emperor of America, because I am descended from  George
Washington.

----------------------------
That's a bit of mischaracterization.  People *have* tried exactly what  you
propose and they are shot down.  Articles are routinely removed if  found to be
about people of no real wide-spread interest.

Thanks, Will; I am perfectly aware of the logic of the situation. But
it doesn't always go the way it should. Sometimes they succeed.

In order to have a Wikipedia article, it is not enough to launch outrageous  
claims

*You* as an individual must yourself be cited *by* several independent  
publications in a non-trivial way.  So at that point you become a person of  
interest to the mass market.

On the contrary, launching outrageous claims is enough. Get one or
two media outlets to make a passing reference to them, or some
gullible home-town reported to write a puff piece on a slow news day,
and you're home and hosed.

It is only *after* that point, that what you yourself say about yourself  
becomes of any interest on Wikipedia.

So if you, MAR, were featured in a few news stories in some daily rag I  mean
newspaper, then it's quite possible that some enterprising Wikipedian would  
find you of enough interest to try to write a mini-biography.  

It's worse than that: you can write your own page. No need to wait
for someone else. Doing a self-write fits in nicely with a self-
promotion campaign, don't you know.

Now if some  
other Wikipedian finds that you've actually published several statements about  
yourself, your beliefs, etc.  they could add those quotes, citing you, with  a
proviso like "he claims", "he states", etc and be entirely without the  
policy.

Or you could simply do it all yourself, using an anonymous handle, and
be entirely within policy. And if anyone tries to combat it, allege
bias and anonymous attacks and lack of good faith and lack of sources
and the solidarity doctrine, and hope you're lucky enough to find an
administrator to back you up and ban those trying to undo your work.

That's how it's going at present. When I first became aware of it, I
thought commonsense would prevail, but I am left bemused at the
discovery that that's not how wikipedia works.

MA-R

[Gjest]

In a message dated 1/5/2008 11:50:23 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
<<On the contrary, launching outrageous claims is enough. Get one or
two media outlets to make a passing reference to them, or some
gullible home-town reported to write a puff piece on a slow news day,
and you're home and hosed.>>


Not quite. The references have to be non-trivial, and multiple. If you
have an example of a Wikipedia biography about a person who has not had
non-trivial or multiple citations let me know and I'll tag it for removal.

<<It's worse than that: you can write your own page. No need to wait
for someone else. Doing a self-write fits in nicely with a self-
promotion campaign, don't you know.>>

This is also not true. Many pages of what we Wikipedians call *SELF* have
been removed, for the very reason that the person who wrote the page, is the
subject themselves. Regardless of whether they are notable or not. There was
a quite interesting case about a micro-nation that had a fierce battle over
it for this very reason. I'm currently engaged in a case that has gone
through mediation to arbitration right now over a person who is constantly trying
to re-write portions of their own article.

<<Or you could simply do it all yourself, using an anonymous handle, and
be entirely within policy. And if anyone tries to combat it, allege
bias and anonymous attacks and lack of good faith and lack of sources
and the solidarity doctrine, and hope you're lucky enough to find an
administrator to back you up and ban those trying to undo your work>>

Yes there have been cases of sock-puppets trying to write self-promotional
articles. Typically they are found out, esp. on those articles that anyone is
truly that interested in. Self-sock-puppets however tend to keep popping
up. So it's a constant battle. It helps that there are thousand of
Wikipedians to patrol that sort of thing.

Will Johnson





**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exer ... 0000002489

[Gjest]

By the way MAR, if there is something in particular about that article to
which you object, let me know. I'm not adverse to battling it out on Wikipedia.

I don't think the argument of citing your article however will win, but
perhaps citing the underlying sources would be persuasive at an atomic level, not
however in conclusion since that would be "the creation of new unpublished
facts", which isn't allowed.



**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exer ... 0000002489

[Gjest]

On Jan 6, 7:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:

In a message dated 1/5/2008 11:50:23 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  [email protected] writes:

On the contrary, launching  outrageous claims is enough.  Get one or
two media outlets to make a  passing reference to them, or some
gullible home-town reported to write a  puff piece on a slow news day,
and you're home and  hosed.

Not quite.  The references have to be non-trivial, and  multiple.  If you
have an example of a Wikipedia biography about a person  who has not had
non-trivial or multiple citations let me know and I'll tag it  for removal.

Interpretations of "non-trivial" citations will vary, I suppose.

It's worse than that: you can write your own  page.  No need to wait
for someone else.  Doing a self-write fits  in nicely with a self-
promotion campaign, don't you know.

This is also not true.  Many pages of what we Wikipedians call  *SELF* have
been removed, for the very reason that the person who wrote the  page, is the
subject themselves.  Regardless of whether they are notable or  not.  There was
a quite interesting case about a micro-nation that had a  fierce battle over
it for this very reason.  I'm currently engaged in a  case that has gone
through mediation to arbitration right now over a person who  is constantly trying
to re-write portions of their own  article.

Perhaps the same thing should happen with this article. The
individual concerned was also active in a micronation case, and he
wrote the following in relation to that:

"I've taken it upon myself to start a Wikipeida [sic] page for
Vikesland".

"I am easily identified as a new user with one agenda... and taken
less seriously by the Wikipedia community, according to Wikipedia
guidelines... I've personally been spending a lot of time dealing with
edits there over the last week".

Or you could simply do it all yourself, using an  anonymous handle, and
be entirely within policy.  And if anyone tries to  combat it, allege
bias and anonymous attacks and lack of good faith and lack  of sources
and the solidarity doctrine, and hope you're lucky enough to find  an
administrator to back you up and ban those trying to undo your  work

Yes there have been cases of sock-puppets trying to write  self-promotional
articles.  Typically they are found out, esp. on those  articles that anyone is
truly that interested in.  Self-sock-puppets  however tend to keep popping
up.  So it's a constant battle.  It helps  that there are thousands of
Wikipedians to patrol that sort of  thing.

All it takes is one administrator to decide the other Wikipedians are
the problem, and the solitary sock-puppet is on top.

The article in question is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Howe ... of_Mann%29

And the talk may be seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David ... of_Mann%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hu12

and here (under "unrealroyal.com"):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_ ... -blacklist

I actually *agree* that under the policy, my site should not be used
as a citation or reference. And there are plenty of references,
including those on my site, to rebut the ridiculous claims being
promoted.

What I don't agree with is the way the administrator has consistently
assisted and defended the editor whose entire Wikipedia existence
seems devoted to inserting the claimant's material onto the site.
This editor posts as 'Lazydown', and probably originally called
himself 'Theisles'. Calls for admin to check whether these are
sockpuppets have been ignored - the administrators are only concerned
whether the various other editors are sockpuppets (for me!). It would
also be interesting to see who set the article up last month.

The claimant has talked about launching an "aggressive internet
marketing campaign" and has form for using Wikipedia as a tool for
exactly this. He also has form for posting on google groups using
aliases - to the extent that he had 'conversations' with himself.
That should be enough to cause concern.

My own view is that the whole article should be deleted, as happened
last time, but I am not going to try to get directly involved. I am
sympathetic to Wikipedia but have always considered that it would be a
failure in practice, and I have no interest in learning how to become
an editor myself. It is a distraction as far as I am concerned. But
don't be influenced by my views, Will - read it for yourself and make
up your own mind.

MA-R

[Gjest]

In a message dated 1/6/2008 1:05:21 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:


My own view is that the whole article should be deleted, as happened
last time, but I am not going to try to get directly involved.>>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
The person is notable. I wouldn't think a call for deletion would garner
the necessary support.

A person who has been mentioned non-trivially by multiple separate news
sources is notable in my view.



**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exer ... 0000002489

[Gjest]

Some new Wikipedians who launch immediately into confrontational issues, can
be faced with a seemingly insurmountable obstacle. There have been attempts
in the past to try to figure out a way to *assist* in helping people
navigate the bizarre pathways of Wikipedia, but none have been terribly successful.

At any rate, I've left a few comments in appropriate places, so we'll see if
anything comes of it. Meanwhile, if there is anything on his personal
biography that you think is poorly sourced or non-neutral, let me know.

Thanks
Will



**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exer ... 0000002489

[[email protected]]

On Jan 6, 4:23 am, [email protected] wrote:

Some new Wikipedians who launch immediately into confrontational issues,  can
be faced with a seemingly insurmountable obstacle.  There have been  attempts
in the past to try to figure out a way to *assist* in helping people  
navigate the bizarre pathways of Wikipedia, but none have been terribly  successful.

At any rate, I've left a few comments in appropriate places, so we'll see  if
anything comes of it.  Meanwhile, if there is anything on his personal  
biography that you think is poorly sourced or non-neutral, let me know.

Hmmm...

who are you? the head of wikis everywhere?
Wikipedia articles are quick, searchable street maps
nobody who is anybody claims them <G>

lux

persiflage, persiflage, persiflage

~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne

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

[Gjest]

Dear fellow Listers,
I believe the title Prince / Princess as a child
of the royal family begun it`s usage in England under King Edward III as did
the title of Duke.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exer ... 0000002489

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article
<aae3be94-8dcf-49c2-acd8-3d2569da444d@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
[email protected] wrote:

What I don't agree with is the way the administrator has consistently
assisted and defended the editor whose entire Wikipedia existence
seems devoted to inserting the claimant's material onto the site.
This editor posts as 'Lazydown', and probably originally called
himself 'Theisles'. Calls for admin to check whether these are
sockpuppets have been ignored - the administrators are only concerned
whether the various other editors are sockpuppets (for me!). It would
also be interesting to see who set the article up last month.

The article was created by someone with administrative privileges (I
think), called 'Hu12', the person posing as the impartial authority.
Note that at the time 'TheIsles' began posting back in October 2006 (and
it was 'TheIsles' who first injected the Howe claim in the other two
Wikipedia pages, 'King of Mann' and 'Lord of Mann'), David Howe was
calling himself "David Howe-Stanley, Prince of Mann and The Isles." It
doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who would have chosen the
handle 'TheIsles', even though TheIsles, precisely once, denied being
Howe when challenged about it. But later on 'Theisles' abruptly stopped
contributing, at precisely the moment 'Lazydown' first appeared.

The claimant has talked about launching an "aggressive internet
marketing campaign" and has form for using Wikipedia as a tool for
exactly this. He also has form for posting on google groups using
aliases - to the extent that he had 'conversations' with himself.
That should be enough to cause concern.

My own view is that the whole article should be deleted, as happened
last time, but I am not going to try to get directly involved. I am
sympathetic to Wikipedia but have always considered that it would be a
failure in practice, and I have no interest in learning how to become
an editor myself. It is a distraction as far as I am concerned. But
don't be influenced by my views, Will - read it for yourself and make
up your own mind.

Michael, what is needed is a journal article covering the legal and
genealogical bases of the claims, to appear in one of the decent,
editorially reviewed genealogical journals. The problem is that most of
these are quarterly and the earliest such an article could appear might
be four to six months.

The problem is that the genealogical component of the claim is not
controversial in the slightest. Folks who don't know any better are
assuming that that is the weak point of the claim: perhaps Howe is
banking on this: by triumphantly dragging out proofs of his descent
after it is challenged, he might lead the unwary to assume that he has
actually supported a claim to a title.

For the blood pressure, one might just as well take the tack of waiting
to see how absurd this whole episode might get before a reasoned
rebuttal appears in print.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

[Leticia Cluff]

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 13:39:00 EST, [email protected] wrote:

Dear fellow Listers,
I believe the title Prince / Princess as a child
of the royal family begun it`s usage in England under King Edward III as did
the title of Duke.

If the Oxford English Dictionary can be accepted as a more reliable
source than Wikipedia, then what you believe about the title and its
usage is roughly correct. However, "prince" at first did not refer to
ANY child of the royal family, but only to the eldest son.

Here's the relevant definition plus an illuminating quotation from the
OED:

Quote

7. A male member of a royal family other than a reigning king (in
early use also a princess); esp. in the United Kingdom, a son or
grandson of a monarch (also as a prefixed title).

Originally in Prince of Wales, a title of the deposed Welsh rulers
conferred (from the 14th. cent. on) upon the eldest surviving son of
the King or Queen of England, the epithet prince being later extended
to all male children of the reigning British royal family and,
eventually, those of other countries

[...]

1577 W. HARRISON Descr. Eng. (1877) II. v. I. 106 The title of prince
dooth peculiarlie belong to the kings eldest sonne... The kings
yoonger sonnes be but gentlemen by birth (till they haue receiued
creation of higher estate, to be either visconts, earles, or dukes)
and called after their names, as lord Henrie, or lord Edward.

End quote



Tish
(hoping that Bill will not bother to reply this time)

[Spacy Bickerson]

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

1907, IIRC.

1910-1911.

My favorite edition was the 1905 handy edition. About 6 x 9 ran to over
twenty volumes including atlas - alas I no longer have access to it so use
the 1911 edition on-line.
BTW it is possible to edit the pages that have mistakes, though not directly
as in Wikipedia and the site has been revised from its original format - now
much better go to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org

[John P. Ravilious]

Monday, 7 January, 2008


Hello All,

The recent discussion re: Robert de Tony, the brothers de
Ros and their kin brought up an old discussion. In 2003 I had
addressed the issue of the parentage of Maud or Matilda
d'Aubigny (de Albini, &c.), the wife of Gilbert, earl of
Strathearn [1]. Beyond the onomastic and chronological
matters discussed, and Chris Phillips' citation from Complete
Peerage, the matter was essentially where CP XII(1):381, note
(e) had left it, stating of Maud' father that

' He was probably William the Breton (Brito) II,
ancestor of the Lords of Belvoir, whose wife was
Maud de St Liz, da. of Robert FitzRichard de Clare. '[2]

I can add to the foregoing what the heraldic evidence
indicates. The account in Scots Peerage of the Earls of
Strathearn notes that Earl Gilbert had a seal with nine billets
(or similar), but that "The later Celtic Earls all bore or, two
chevronels gules" [3]. The arms of d'Aubigny of Belvoir were,
"Or, within a bordure gules two chevrons of the last"
(alternately described as "Or, two chevrons within a bordure
gules"). These are reflected in many printed sources, and are
also the arms found in the windows at Belvoir castle. The arms
of d'Aubigny of Arundel were 'Gules, a lion rampant or', which
were modified by their Mowbray kinsman [4]. These arms were
clearly unrelated to the arms of the lords of Belvoir, or to
those of the Earls of Strathearn.

This is a clear indication of the adoption of the arms of
Gilbert's wife in place of his own, with a difference in that
the bordure was eliminated. This provides sufficient evidence
that Maud d'Aubigny was of the family of d'Aubigny of Belvoir,
and clearly not that of the d'Aubigny Earls of Arundel. While
it does not in itself assist in placing her in the correct
generation, I believe all the evidence points to Maud being
the daughter of William d'Aubigny and Maud de St. Liz, as
previously discussed.

Cheers,

John *



NOTES

[1] J. Ravilious, <Gilbert, earl of Strathearn (d. 1223) and
Maud d'Aubigny>, SGM, 19 June 2003:

' SP says in part of Gilbert, Earl of Strathearn (d. 1223),

' He married, first, Matilda, daughter of William
d'Aubigny. She witnessed many of his charters to
Inchaffray up to the year 1210 [NOTE 5: Charters
of Inchaffray, 25]. He married, secondly, Ysenda,
a lady who held lands in Abercairey, and had two
brothers Sir Richard and Galfrid of Gask.' [1]

No further identification is provided, resulting in various
readers/databases giving numerous affiliations for Matilda
daughter of William. A number indicate Matilda as a
daughter of one of the Earls of Arundel.

I would identify Matilda/Maud d'Aubigny as the
daughter of William d'Aubigny of Belvoir, co. Leics.
(d. ca. 1167) by his wife Maud fitz Robert, based
on a number of factors.

1. Gilbert was born say 1150, being allegedly aged 73
at his death in 1223 (SP VIII:242). His first wife
Matilda/Maud was likely born about or slightly later
than the same date.

2. William d'Aubigny, son and heir of William (d. 1167)
and Maud fitz Robert, was born after 1146 (MC 5).

3. Of the issue of Gilbert of Strathearn and Maud
d'Aubigny, the fourth son (and eventual heir) Robert
" ..appears, with his elder brothers, as a witness
to his father's charters to Inchaffray so early as
1199,..." (SP VIII:244). Assuming Robert was born
no later than 1185, and was at least the fourth
child of Gilbert and Maud, it is safe to say the
eldest known child (son, Gilchrist) was born no
later than say 1179/1180, and possibly somewhat
earlier. This appears to strengthen a birth range
for Maud d'Aubigny of between say 1150 and 1165 at
the extreme, and most likely say 1155-1160.

4. The names of the issue of Gilbert, earl of Strathearn
and Maud d'Aubigny definitely reflect a close
relationship to the d'Aubigny family of Belvoir, and
not that of the earls of Arundel. Their names, and the
evident name source/namesake, are as follows:

Child Name Namesake Relation to
(Apparent) Child

A. Gilchrist None identified (* possibly no familial
source: name means
"servant of Christ")

B. William William d'Aubigny Maternal Grandfather
of Belvoir (d.ca.1167)

also

William, the son Maternal Uncle

C. Ferteth Ferteth, earl of Paternal Grandfather
Strathearn (d. 1171)

D. Robert Robert fitz Richard Mother's Maternal
de Clare, of Little Grandfather
Dunmow, Essex (d. 1134)

E. Fergus Not identified Unknown

F. Malise Malise, earl of Father's Paternal
Strathearn (d. aft 1140) Grandfather

also,

Malise, of Muthill & c. Paternal Uncle

G. Gilbert Gilbert, earl of Father
Strathearn

H. Matilda Matilda d'Aubigny Mother

also,

Maud fitz Robert Maternal Grandmother

I. Cecilia Cecilia de Belvoir, Mother's Paternal
also le Bigod, heiress Grandmother
of Belvoir (d aft 1129)

J. Ethna Ethna, wife of Ferteth, Paternal Grandmother
earl of Strathearn


I would be interested in hearing of any further docu-
mentation, opinion or relevant comment/criticism concerning
this identification. As a followup, I will post a detailed AT
for either the children (or a grandchild) of Gilbert of
Strathearn and Maud d'Aubigny.

Meanwhile, good luck, and good hunting.

John *



NOTES:

[1] The Scots Peerage, ed. Sir James Balfour Paul, vol.
VIII, p. 242 (The Ancient Earls of Strathearn). '



[2] Chris Phillips replied as follows, in the same thread:

'Complete Peerage, vol. 12, part 1, p. 381, note e, suggests
the same affiliation:
"Inchaffray, pp. 2, 6 [Charters of Inchaffray Abbey, Scot.
Hist. Soc.] He was probably William the Breton (Brito) II,
ancestor of the Lords of Belvoir, whose wife was Maud de St Liz,
da. of Robert FitzRichard de Clare. See Round, Feudal England,
pp. 474-76, 575; Farrer, Early Yorkshire Charters, vol. i, p.
461; vol. vi, ed. C. T. Clay, Yorks Arch. Soc., Rec. Ser., p.
209." '


[3] SP VIII:254.


[4] John W. Papworth, An Alphabetical Dictionary of Coats of
Arms Belonging to Families in Great Britain and Ireland
(London: T. Richards, 1874),p. 78]. See also Joseph
Foster, Some Feudal Coats of Arms (Oxford and London:
James Parker & Co., 1902), p. 66.


* John P. Ravilious

[Gjest]

Dear John Ravilious and others,
Interesting that the
Brus family`s connections to this group appear to be through a branch of the
Clare family and through thev Scots` royal house.. The Earl of Buchan and
Lord Roos were both descended from Maud St Liz, Buchan through her 2nd husband
Saher de Quincy, Lord Roos through Robert fitz Richard (de Clare). also
interesting that the groom descended from Maud`s sister Alice, wife of Ralph V de
Toeni.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exer ... 0000002489

[M.Sjostrom]

Interestingly enough, the matriline to which William
the Conqueror belonged, continues straight through
this family:
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?pers ... erations=6

It would be a service to this matriline (passing the
mitochondrial DNA of the exalted fisher's wife from
Normandy), if daughters of this Strathearn couple were
to have children, also daughters to continue it.



____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch ... y=shopping

[Gjest]

On Jan 7, 1:00 pm, "John P. Ravilious" <[email protected]> wrote:

' He was probably William the Breton (Brito) II,
ancestor of the Lords of Belvoir, whose wife was
Maud de St Liz, da. of Robert FitzRichard de Clare. '[2]

I can add to the foregoing what the heraldic evidence
indicates. The account in Scots Peerage of the Earls of
Strathearn notes that Earl Gilbert had a seal with nine billets
(or similar), but that "The later Celtic Earls all bore or, two
chevronels gules" [3]. The arms of d'Aubigny of Belvoir were,
"Or, within a bordure gules two chevrons of the last"
(alternately described as "Or, two chevrons within a bordure
gules"). These are reflected in many printed sources, and are
also the arms found in the windows at Belvoir castle. The arms
of d'Aubigny of Arundel were 'Gules, a lion rampant or', which
were modified by their Mowbray kinsman [4]. These arms were
clearly unrelated to the arms of the lords of Belvoir, or to
those of the Earls of Strathearn.

This is a clear indication of the adoption of the arms of
Gilbert's wife in place of his own, with a difference in that
the bordure was eliminated. This provides sufficient evidence
that Maud d'Aubigny was of the family of d'Aubigny of Belvoir,
and clearly not that of the d'Aubigny Earls of Arundel. While
it does not in itself assist in placing her in the correct
generation, I believe all the evidence points to Maud being
the daughter of William d'Aubigny and Maud de St. Liz, as
previously discussed.

It is perhaps noteworthy that the Clare family and their kin represent
one of the well-studied clusters of related arms in Anglo-Norman
England (along with the Vere-Mandevilles quarterly cluster and the
Warenne-Beaumont chequey cluster), sharing chevrons. It would seem
that the chevron arms of Aubigny of Belvoir come from Clare via St.
Liz.

taf