Blount-Ayala

[Kay Allen]

Sorry, I did not see your original post on the
Burleys. There is much in the archives on this topic
in the archives. There are two separate Burley
families. The traditional works are totally inaccurate
and grafted.

K Allen AG

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

On 3 Dec, 05:54, Douglas Richardson
[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Hikaru ~

Nice post, but you've left out ALL of your
sources. Can you possibly
repost the message, and add your sources please?

I can provide you further particulars regarding
John de Hopton and his
wife, Isabel de Burley. Please see below.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City,
Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Family of John de Hopton, Knt., and his wife,
Isabel Burley:

1. JOHN DE HOPTON, Knt., of Prilleston, Norfolk,
Burwaton and Fitz,
Shropshire, Fulbrook, Great Harborough, Pailton
(in Monks Kirkby), and
Wodecote (in Leek Wootton), Warwickshire, etc.,
son and heir, adult by
1370. He married before 1377 ISABEL BURLEY,
daughter of John Burley,
K.G., of Birley, Herefordshire. They had one son,
John. In 1370 he
owed £100 to John Brown, of Buckinghamshire, which
debt was still
unpaid in 1376. In 1387 he granted the manors of
Great Harborough,
Fulbrook, Pailton (in Monks Kirkby), and Wodecote
(in Leek Wootton),
Warwickshire to John son of Henry Langford
(evidently a trustee). His
widow, Isabel, allegedly married (2nd) JOHN
TRUSSELL.

References:

Blomefield, An Essay Towards a Topog. Hist. of the
County of Norfolk 5
(1806): 319. Beltz, Memorials of the Most Noble
Order of the Garter
(1841): 257-260. Lloyd, Hist. of the Princes, the
Lords Marcher, and
the Ancient Nobility of Powys Fadog 3 (1882): 208.
Tresswell &
Vincent, Vis. of Shropshire 1623, 1569 & 1584 1
(H.S.P. 28) (1889):
253-256 (1623 Vis.) (Hopton pedigree: "Sir John
Hopton Knt. = [1]
Elizabetha da. & heir to Sir John Burley Knt. [2]
= Johannes Trussell,
2d maritus"). Desc. Cat. of Ancient Deeds 3
(1900): 195. Trans.
Shropshire Arch. & Nat. Hist. Soc. 3rd Ser. 4
(1904): 302-304; 4th
Ser. 6 (1916-17): 233. VCH Warwick 6 (1951): 100.
Shropshire Feet of
Fines, CP 25/1/195/18, no. 11 (fine dated 12
Nov.1379 between John de
Hopton, knight, querent, and William Thornhull and
Florence, his wife,
deforciants, re. the manor of Burwarton and the
advowson of the church
of the same manor, and a moiety of the manor of
Fittes [Fitz],
Shropshire) (abstract of document available online
at

http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fin ... 5_18.shtml).
PRO Document, C 241/158/56 (debt of John de
Hopton, Knt. to John
Brown) (abstract of document available online

athttp://www.catalogue.nationalarchives ... search.asp).


I apologize for the lack of sources. It was based on
the traditional
works people use, the close rolls, patent rolls,
fine rolls, curia
regis cases, feudal aids, etc. The extra frill came
from the easy
access I have to the additional charters of the
British Library and to
its manuscripts collection. Because I have attention
deficit syndrome,
I can literally only do one thing at a time. My
practice is to do
throrough research first. Then write things up from
memory, then go
back later to rewrite and put in the sources. When I
wrote the Burley
and Driby postings it felt literally as if the
spirits of the past had
taken control of my hands and mind to make me tell
their story. In the
case of the Burley posting I worked at my computer
16 hours non-stop,
except for making myself a couple of cups of tea and
a small snack as
I went along. My notes are still terribly disordered
but if there is
some detail that interests you, I would be happy to
make a quick
search and send back the relevant source to you. The
final version of
my book concerning Thomas Mallory of Papworth St.
Agnes and a re-
opening of the question of the authorship of "Le
Morte Darthur" will,
I hope, be ready by summer of next year. Putting in
the sources, which
I recognize as all-important, will be several months
down the line,
but I will be happy to send the relevant chapters
fully sourced, as I
finish them, to anyone interested.

One last thing, thanks for the extra Hopton
information. That family,
too, needs further study. Fortunately, the published
work on them in
earlier times was not nearly as bad as with the
Burleys. I appreciate
your input. It was an honor that a scholar of your
stature would take
note of my postings.

Hikaru


-------------------------------
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]

Dear Douglas, Peter and others,
Perhaps One of Roger de
Melun`s parents was a Lusignan , legitimate or otherwise.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

[Gjest]

On Dec 3, 9:55 am, [email protected] wrote:

Dear Douglas, Peter and others,
Perhaps One of Roger de
Melun`s parents was a Lusignan , legitimate or otherwise.

Ah, yes. They are sometimes easy to overlook, but given that it is a
half-sibling relationship (assuming the stated relationship is
accurate), it would have to be legitimate, not otherwise.

taf

[Gjest]

Dear Douglas,
If Waleran`s son Ralph de Meulan died without
surviving issue, could a descendant of one of his sisters, for instance Isabel who
married Maurice II de Nevers, Sire de Craon assume the surname. their great
grandson Maurice IV de Nevers, Sire de Craon was the 2nd husband of King Henry
III of England`s half sister Isabella de Lusignan.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

[fcoache]

Renia,

YES I did.

Florent Coache
Napierville, Quebec



-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Renia
Sent: 3 decembre 2007 16:50
To: [email protected]
Subject: Test


Test. Anyone receive this?

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

[Renia]

fcoache wrote:

Renia,

YES I did.

Florent Coache
Napierville, Quebec

Thanks, peeps.

[wjhonson]

On Dec 1, 9:08 am, Renia <[email protected]> wrote:

Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: [email protected] (Marlyn Lewis)
Date: 1998/03/22
Subject: Reade.

Have you seen anything on the Reade family of Beccles, Norfolk? According to the
Visitations, this family of William Reade of Beccles (born, say 1475) had a
daughter Elizabeth who married Augustine Steward, Esq. of Norwich (son of Geoffrey
Steward and Cycelle Boyce, daughter of Augustine Boyce), and their daughter
Elizabeth married Thomas Sotherton. The son of Thomas Sotherton and Elizabeth
Steward was Augustine Sotherton of Hesleden, Norfolk who married 22 Sep 1572 to
Anne Peche (Peck) and he died 26 Mar 1585. The line then descends to the their
daughter Elizabeth Sotherton who married Thomas Warner, and their son Augustine
Warner (1611-1674) died in Virginia.
-------------------------

Thank you Renia for pulling that out of the archives. I had not had
this continuation of the ancestry of President George Washington in my
database. As to the "Visitation", Marilyn mentions here, she does not
specify, but I have found it, or at least one repeating it here
http://books.google.com/books?id=HS8EAA ... th+steward

In the Vis Norfolk, 1563, 1589, 1613 compilation

Very useful for linking this family, earlier, into the various other
families with who they tied. Helps with the chronology.

Will Johnson

[wjhonson]

On Dec 1, 10:12 am, Nathaniel Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

There have also been plenty of one-volume greatest hit
historical genealogy works which offer incomplete charts for basic
historical purposes: I have often used such charts for teaching. One
nicely printed volume I have and enjoy is and edition of the old
_Genealogical Tables Illustrative of Modern History_, ed. Hereford B.
George & successors (Oxford: Clarendon Press, editions from 1874 through
about WWII). This uses 'Modern' in the English academic meaning of
post-Classical.

Nat Taylor http://www.nltaylor.net
---------------------

Nat thank you for this reference. I found an edition dated 1875 on
Google Books
http://books.google.com/books?id=FqMNAA ... =titlepage

And it's so closely related to my goal, that I've added it to my
Sources page.

Will Johnson

[Gjest]

On Dec 2, 5:10 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

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

BA: From Ninian Magruder and Elizabeth Brewer, my line comes down as follows:
15. John Magruder and Jane Offutt
16. Ninian Offutt Magruder and Mary Harris (she may have a royal descent as
well)

NT: Via what gateway?

BA: Do you mean Mary Harris?

Yes, by what immigrant ancestor is Mary Harris alleged to have royal
ancestry?





NT: I do not believe that there are any descents from Henry II or Geoffrey
of Anjou to this particular Scottish emigrant. The endogamous early
Stewarts had no such descents, and I haven't looked fully into all the
known (apparent) ancestors of Alexander Magruder to find other
Anglo-Scottish marriages that might bring it in. This is something that
can probably be tested in Brice Clagett's forthcoming work which should
give 10 generations of Alexander Magruder's (apparent) known ancestry in
all lines.

BA: Of this part, my cousin wrote me: "Magruder lines of descent from
royalty have been published widely since at least the World War I era.
I've never investigated them, but I recall at least some of them tracing
the Magruders through the McGregors. (Magruder was supposed to a a
McGregor sept.) As I understand it, DNA evidence shows the
Magruder-McGregor descent is spurious. There might, however, be some
royal lines through the American immigrant's wife, Margaret Braithwaite,
but I don't know the quality of the research supporting her identification
or the lines further back."

More recent literature than that known to your cousin has dispensed with
the mistaken idea that 'Magruder' is a form of 'McGregor' and that the
Magruders are related to the old clan of McGregor. The articles by Kurz
& Magruder, here (I cite again) --

Charles G. Kurz & Thomas G. Magruder, Jr., "The Ancestral History of
Margaret Campbell of Keithick," _Yearbook of the American Clan Gregor
Society_, 62 (1978), 55-65;

and

idem, "The McGruder Lineage in Scotland to Magruder Family in America,"
_Yearbook..._ 63 (1979), 53-71.

-- show that the Magruders were a small family who were partisans of the
Perthshire Drummonds in the 16th century. All apparent earlier noble
ancestry comes through the Drummond-Magruder marriage apparently in the
generation above the emigrant Alexander.

By the way, Alexander Magruder, the immigrant, was not married to a
Margaret Braithwaite--this is another long-disproved canard.

If I read you both right, we possibly have a Charlemagne descent here,
but not a Plantagenet, right?

Many, many Carolingian descents can be found behind the late medieval
Scottish noble ancestry alleged for Alexander Magruder. I've given you
one line here, chosen because it goes through William the Conqueror and
because it can be followed for several generations in the very best
resource of its kind on the Internet -- Stewart Baldwin's _Henry
Project_, starting here for the page on King Henry I:

http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproj ... nry001.htm

Here is *a* line from Charlemagne to Robert I 'the Bruce', King of Scots:

Charlemagne = Hildegard
Louis 'the Pious' = Judith
Charles II 'the Bald' of West Franks = Ermentrud
Judith of 'France' = Baldwin I 'Iron-arm', count of Flanders
Baldwin II, count of Flanders = Alfthryth of Wessex
Arnulf I, count of Flanders = Adele de Vermandois
Baldwin III, count of Flanders = Mathilde of Saxony
Arnulf II, count of Flanders = Rosala Susanna, dau. Berengar, K. of Italy
Baldwin IV, count of Flanders = Otgiva of Lucembourg
Baldwin V, count of Flanders = Adele, dau. Robert II of France
Matilda of Flanders = William I, king of England
Henry I, king of England
Robert, Earl of Gloucester (illegitimate) = Mabel fitz Hamon
Maud of Gloucester = Ranulf, earl of Chester
Hugh Keveliok, earl of Chester = Bertrada de Montfort
Maud of Chester = David, Earl of Huntingdon
Isabella = Robert de Brus, lord of Annandale
Robert de Brus, lord of Annandale = Isabella de Clare
Robert de Brus, lord of Annandale = Margaret, countess of Carrick
Robert I, king of Scots (etc.)

You can follow the line down to Magruder on my page you noted earlier.

This is one of many, many lines you can find. Using Leo's site --

http://www.genealogics.org

-- and starting with Robert the Bruce, here --

http://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php ... 3&tree=LEO

-- or even Alexander Magruder, the immigrant, himself, here --

http://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php ... 4&tree=LEO

-- you can find many, many more interesting things.

Earlier I misspoke: the Scottish kings with an obvious Carolingian
ancestry begin only in 1153.

Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here's a line from Charlemagne to William the Conqueror:

Charlemagne (died 814) father of:
Carloman (Pippin), King of Italy (died 810) father of:
Bernard, King of Italy (died 818) father of:
Peppin, Count of Vermandois (born circa 815) father of:
Herbert I of Vermandois (died 907) father of:
Herbert II of Vermandois (died 943) father of:
Robert of Vermandois (died 968) father of:
Adele of Meaux (died 995) mother of:
Ermengarde of Anjou, mother of:
Judith (died 1017) mother of:
Robert, Duke of Normandy (died 999) father of:
William I the Conqueror

[wjhonson]

On Dec 2, 1:04 pm, Renia <[email protected]> wrote:

The NEHGR article mentions the Visitation of Suffolk, 1664-1668, which
includes the pedigree of Peck of North Cove.

Arms: Argent on a chevron engrailed Gules three crosses pattee of the field

The tabular pedigree begins with the second Robert Peck of Beccles,
Suffolk, who married Ellen Babb, dau of Nicholas Babb of Guildford,
Surrey and names names their son, Nicholas, who married Rachell Young,
daughter of Will Young of Yarmouth, Norfolk.

William Peck, son of Nicholas, is the person who signed the pedigree,
and his six sons are named. He was a gent of North Cove in 1664, and
married Dorothy, daughter of SirButtsBacon, Baronet, of Blundesdon,
Suffolk. Neither Robert Peck nor Nicholas Peck were described as "gent"
by their descendant, William.

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

Are you sure that Sir Butts Bacon wasn't possibly of Blundeston,
Norfolk ?
By the way I believe he was created 1st Bart of Mildenhall, Suffolk
(cr 1627)

It would make sense that he had a daughter Dorothy, as he is supposed
to have married Dorothy Warner (on 4 Jul 1611 at Culford, Suffolk),
dau of Sir Henry Warner of Mildenhall

Will Johnson

[Bill Arnold]

NT: I am also a descendant of Col. Henry Ridgely (d. 1710, Anne Arundel
County, MD). He was wealthy & had reasonably high status, but according
to current published work his ancestry is unknown (see e.g. Sharon J.
Doliante, _Maryland and Virginia Colonials_ [Baltimore: Genealogical
Publishing, 1991]). I have never even seen any specific allegations of
parentage, let alone noble ancestry for him.

BA: Our cousin has done an AT for me of my southern ancestor in the line
in which we are second cousins. I do not have in that AT the reference
to Henry Ridgely. Generally, our cousin has only put in an AT something
which is comfirmed so I assume he has viewed the works you mention
and has the same misgivings you state. For parents of Mary Harris in the
AT he has not placed parents. In his post to me about yours, he had made
that reference about: 16. Ninian Offutt Magruder and Mary Harris (she may
have a royal descent as well).

BA: I will forward our gen-medieval messages to him and hope he can take
time from teaching duties to respond. In short: I know there are many
lines off the AT he is working on which are still *working* lines and so
he has not sent them to me yet. When he publishes lines, with documented
sources, he then sends me the published article. I hope I am understanding
you correctly.

Bill

*****






____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/

[Bill Arnold]

Fred Chalfant Wrote:
Is Mary Harris a descendant of Col. Henry Ridgely? If your Mary Harris
is the Mary Harris daughter of Thomas Harris and Sarah Offutt then she
is not a descendant of Henry Ridgely. Henry Ridgely is not a gateway
ancestor. His parents are unknown. There has been a false line
attributed to his first wife, Elizabeth Howard, through her father
Matthew Howard, but his origins are unknown. Also Henry Ridgely did
not marry a Sarah Warner as is incorrectly put forth by some.

BA: I wrote the following to Nat Taylor about this matter:

BA: Our cousin has done an AT for me of my southern ancestor in the line
in which we are second cousins. I do not have in that AT the reference
to Henry Ridgely. Generally, our cousin has only put in an AT something
which is comfirmed so I assume he has viewed the works you mention
and has the same misgivings you state. For parents of Mary Harris in the
AT he has not placed parents. In his post to me about yours, he had made
that reference about: 16. Ninian Offutt Magruder and Mary Harris (she may
have a royal descent as well).

BA: I will forward our gen-medieval messages to him and hope he can take
time from teaching duties to respond. In short: I know there are many
lines off the AT he is working on which are still *working* lines and so
he has not sent them to me yet. When he publishes lines, with documented
sources, he then sends me the published article. I hope I am understanding
you correctly.

Bill
PS Fred, because I see no parents for Mary Harris in the AT my cousin gave
me I cannot know who her parents were. Are you suggesting they *were*
Thomas Harris and Sarah Offutt? Because Mary Harris's husband Ninian
Offutt Magruder was a son of John Magruder and Jane Offutt, it looks like
Mary Harris might have married an Offutt cousin? Do you know if it was,
and it looks like it might have been a first cousin at that? Do you have
a source? Better yet, can you supply the families and their interrelationships?
This is all *news* to me.

*****








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

[Willem Nabuurs]

Hi Louise,

Warlop, in his "The Flemish nobility before 1300", extensively describes the
family of Aalst, and gives the Baldwin who died 23/24 april 1082 children
with names Baldwin II, Siger, Gilbert, Wenemar, Gertrude, Lietgarde and a
daughter who married Ingelbert IV of Petegem. No William and no Ivan. I am
not sure of your sources, but usually, Warlop is very reliable. He has
included detailed references to the sources he used (both primary and
secondary).

Willem Nabuurs

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] Namens Louise
Verzonden: dinsdag 4 december 2007 6:47
Aan: [email protected]
Onderwerp: counts of aalst/alost

Hello all,
I am hoping someone can assist me sorting.
I have Ralph of Aalst m Giselle of Luxemburg
I have 4 sons (Sherman in The Continental Origins of the Ghent Family of
Lincolnshire has 3)

Any assistance or suggestions will be appreciated
Louise Australia

1 Baldwin -the eldest
2 Ralph II The Chamberlain(Camerarius in Latin) and if the children
witnessed the Charters in order of age he is second born
3 Gilbert of Ghent-I have substantial information on him & his family
4 Ragenfidus also documented Ragenfrith, the youngest. He is mentioned in a
citation from the Chronicles of Watten Abbey 1075
Radolphus, cameravius Ragenfridus, frater enus. ( I do not know what
these last 2 words say




My main problem is trying to sort out Baldwin -who died 23 or 24 April 1082.
I have him with a son Baldwin,who was his heir and also William and Ivan
I then have William marrying and having Gilbert
Gilbert married had
Jan
William
Thomas
Robert
Ralph
Stephen

I then have Robert as becoming Constable of Halisham who had a Charter that
is dated 1169
What I have says
Charter of Robert, the Constable of Halisham ,restoring to my brother Thomas
van Aalst, a capital messuage and two carucates of land in Fraisthorpe
Yorkshire
Also restore to my brother Ralph van Aalst 2 other carucates in Fraisthorpe.

Among many witnesses it has
Jan my brother
William my brother
William my son
Robert my son
Andrew my son who will be count
Godfrey my son
Stephen my brother

-------------------------------
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]

In a message dated 11/30/2007 3:35:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

How do you descend from Jonathan Brewster?


--------------------------
I just created this page to answer this question.

_http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Jonathan_Brewser_to_Herbert
_Drysdale_Newell_
(http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... ale_Newell)


Will Johnson



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

[D. Spencer Hines]

Yes, so how do you relate to Herbert_Drysdale_Newell?

He's your maternal Grandfather?...

DSH

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

In a message dated 11/30/2007 3:35:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

How do you descend from Jonathan Brewster?

--------------------------
I just created this page to answer this question.

_http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Jonathan_Brewser_to_Herbert
_Drysdale_Newell_
(http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... ale_Newell)


Will Johnson

[Bill Arnold]

[email protected] wrote:

Here's a line from Charlemagne to William the Conqueror:

Charlemagne (died 814) father of:
Carloman (Pippin), King of Italy (died 810) father of:
Bernard, King of Italy (died 818) father of:
Peppin, Count of Vermandois (born circa 815) father of:
Herbert I of Vermandois (died 907) father of:
Herbert II of Vermandois (died 943) father of:
Robert of Vermandois (died 968) father of:
Adele of Meaux (died 995) mother of:
Ermengarde of Anjou, mother of:
Judith (died 1017) mother of:
Robert, Duke of Normandy (died 999) father of:
William I the Conqueror

BA: Thanks for that line. I see one from Nat Taylor and this one.
Can you give me a guessimate of how many there might be from
Charlemagne to William I the Conqueror? Is it know precisely?
With abt. 12 generations and many children, I assume it could be
in the thousands?

Bill

*****




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

[Gjest]

Dear M. Sjostrom ,
Isabella de Lusignan was born in 1234 - died
1299. She married 1st Geoffrey de Rancon , Sire de Tailebourg by whom a son
Judhael. She didn`t marry Maurice de Craon until about 1255. The translation of the
English Chronicle 1235 - 1261 British History on- line says that in 1256
" About the Feast of Saint Michael (September 29) Master Roger of Weseham,
Bishop of Lichfield resigned the see owing to a long illness and sufficient
provision being made for him the lord Roger de Meulan (alias Longespee) succeeded
having been canonically elected by the Convent of Coventry and the Canons of
Lichfield.
Clearly Roger was not a little boy.
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA
ps Sorry about the earlier Craon idea.




**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

[Nathaniel Taylor]

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

[email protected] wrote:

Here's a line from Charlemagne to William the Conqueror:

Charlemagne (died 814) father of:
Carloman (Pippin), King of Italy (died 810) father of:
Bernard, King of Italy (died 818) father of:
Peppin, Count of Vermandois (born circa 815) father of:
Herbert I of Vermandois (died 907) father of:
Herbert II of Vermandois (died 943) father of:
Robert of Vermandois (died 968) father of:
Adele of Meaux (died 995) mother of:
Ermengarde of Anjou, mother of:
Judith (died 1017) mother of:
Robert, Duke of Normandy (died 999) father of:
William I the Conqueror

BA: Thanks for that line. I see one from Nat Taylor and this one.
Can you give me a guessimate of how many there might be from
Charlemagne to William I the Conqueror? Is it know precisely?
With abt. 12 generations and many children, I assume it could be
in the thousands?

There is only one apparent line from Charlemagne to William the
Conqueror--the one above--but there are over a dozen uncontroversial
lines to his wife, Matilda of Flanders (and hence to King Henry I, their
son (I remember reading an old article in the _NEHGS Nexus_ which listed
the number of descents from Charlemagne to each English king from
William I to Edward III; I think it gave William 1 line and Henry I 19
lines, etc.).

If you follow the line given above in Stewart Baldwin's excellent Henry
Project pages, you will see that there is a generation in which the
descent is not directly documented in primary sources:

http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproj ... rib001.htm

This is why the example I gave you went through Matilda of Flanders.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

[Gjest]

On Dec 4, 8:47 am, Nathaniel Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

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

BA: Thanks for that line. I see one from Nat Taylor and this one.
Can you give me a guessimate of how many there might be from
Charlemagne to William I the Conqueror? Is it know precisely?
With abt. 12 generations and many children, I assume it could be
in the thousands?

There is only one apparent line from Charlemagne to William the
Conqueror--the one above--

There is only one 'proven' line. There have been numerous claims of
others. Bear in mind that with the exception of Judith, the mothers
of Norman rulers are poorly documented, there origins obscure even to
contemporaries. In review, Herleve was daughter (it is said) of a
local tradesman in Falaise - little probability of a Charlemagne
descent there. Gunnor was born to Danish parents of what might be
called the lower gentry - none there. Sprota was just a maiden taken
in a slave raid in Brittany - little chance of a descent there. Poppa
was daughter of a lord named Berenger from Bayeux. He has been
speculated to be either the Frankish or Breton lords of that name.
(the Breton has been speculated to be maternal grandson of the
Frankish, but this is based on nothing but the name). Richard I is
claimed to be nepos of a Vermandois-related count, but this may refled
a pseudo-relationship, via his father's legitimate wife. In turn, this
Vermandois connection has been used to link the Frank Berenger with
the Vermandois, and hence Carolingian descent. You can see how
tenuous this is.

That leaves Judith. On her paternal side, she descends from the same
Breton Judicael Berenger, who has been speculated to be maternal
grandson of the Frank Berenger. No wives are known at all in this
line, and given the status of the family, were probably local Bretons
- slim chance of descent from Charlemagne. Judith's mother was of
Anjou, and the earlier generations there were clearly on the rise -
they and their wives drawn from lower, not higher social status.
Finally we have the Vermandois line. Here there are loads of
possibilities, as the wives were probably drawn from the higher levels
of the nobility. However, Carolingian descent down to this point is
largely known (those reconstructing have gravitated to the few places
where there could be a descent and concluded that is exactly where the
relationship must lie).

All in all, I would set the upper limit at about a dozen, and that the
lone solid descent is the only one is not out of the question.

taf

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article
<1e9a8d31-fca1-49a5-a217-4614b7a28343@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
[email protected] wrote:

On Dec 4, 8:47 am, Nathaniel Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Arnold <[email protected]> wrote:

BA: Thanks for that line. I see one from Nat Taylor and this one.
Can you give me a guessimate of how many there might be from
Charlemagne to William I the Conqueror? Is it know precisely?
With abt. 12 generations and many children, I assume it could be
in the thousands?

There is only one apparent line from Charlemagne to William the
Conqueror--the one above--

There is only one 'proven' line.

I agree with your review of the turf. But this one 'proved' line is
itself unproved at the generation of Heribert I to Heribert II--see
Stewart's page for Heribert I at the Henry Project.

http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproj ... rib001.htm

Of course there's no stretch here: it is perfectly reasonable to
conclude that Heribert II, as apparent successor to lands & power, was
likely son, and almost certainly son or nephew, of Heribert I--but it
isn't 'proved' by contemporary or near-contemporary statement of
relationship.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

[Gjest]

In a message dated 12/4/2007 2:15:21 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

Yes, so how do you relate to Herbert_Drysdale_Newell?>>
----------------------
I have to leave some bit of mystery. Like you telling me that I had gotten
something wrong in my report of you, but not telling me what

Will



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

[D. Spencer Hines]

So you don't relate to him at all.

Understood.

DSH

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

In a message dated 12/4/2007 2:15:21 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

Yes, so how do you relate to Herbert_Drysdale_Newell?
----------------------
I have to leave some bit of mystery. Like you telling me that I had
gotten
something wrong in my report of you, but not telling me what

[Gjest]

Evidently, regarding the Vinland map, there are experts on both sides. Some
time ago, one expert claimed that he had found a certain chemical in the ink
that proved it was modern. Another expert however, later, claimed to have
found that chemical only in very minute traces, not inconsistent with a
medieval map.

The main problem with the Vinland map in my mind, is that it is so
incredibly accurate. *Could* such detailed knowledge really have existed at one
point, and then be lost for 800 years ? Even of things like the shape of the
coast of Israel (Palestine), or the northern extremes of Greenland, or the
details of the islands of Greece?

Could a Viking ship actually sail around the northern edge of Greenland to
even know what it looked like? And certainly they didn't walk the entire
island.

Those are real problems.

Will Johnson



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

[D. Spencer Hines]

Nonsense...

The Vinland Map is NOT "so incredibly accurate".

You obviously have not examined it closely and read the literature.

Read:

_The Vinland Map And The Tartar Relation_ -- AFTER reading this, _in toto_,
by Hu McCullough:

<http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/vinland/vinland.htm>

Then you MIGHT begin to know what you're talking about.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

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

The main problem with the Vinland map in my mind, is that it is so
incredibly accurate.

[Gjest]

I have to review the evidence again. It appears the line breaks at the very
top anyway



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

[Gjest]

In a message dated 12/4/2007 10:30:17 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch ... inland.htm>>


----------------------
Where in this long discussion do they mention how accurate Greenland is?



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

[Gjest]

Dear Nat and others,
I descend from John White of York, Maine 5
times but through only 2 of his children. John White of Kittery, Maine who had a
wife Lucy bet 1674-1678 had a daughter Sarah married to Adrian Frye and a
daughter name unknown who married William Thompson Adrian`s daughter Elizabeth
Frye married William`s son James Thompson and had a among others a son Alexander
Thompson and a daughter Mercy Thompson. Alexander Thompson married Sarah
Grover and had Tamsin Thompson who married Philip Jenkins, who was the son of
Mercy Thompson`s 2nd husband David Jenkins (by this time they lived in Brunswick,
Maine. Adrian and Sarah (White) Frye`s daughter Sarah married Nicholas
Morrell a daughter Elizabeth Morrell married Thomas Hobbs. The first four lines
come in on my mother`s side, the 5th through my father.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

[Doug McDonald]

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Doug McDonald has mentioned a continuing academic controversy on Chief
Illiniwek.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Illiniwek

Where does it stand now?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Off topic, that's where ... despite I being the idiot who brought it up
in s.g.m.

And you can quote me on that.

[wjhonson]

On Dec 3, 8:53 pm, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

Are you sure that SirButtsBacon wasn't possibly of Blundeston,
Norfolk ?
By the way I believe he was created 1st Bart of Mildenhall, Suffolk
(cr 1627)

It would make sense that he had a daughter Dorothy, as he is supposed
to have married Dorothy Warner (on 4 Jul 1611 at Culford, Suffolk),
dau of Sir Henry Warner of Mildenhall

Will Johnson
-----------------------------

A bit further on this Warner/Bacon connection see
http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/view ... bacon&cr=1

[Peter Stewart]

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

Dear M. Sjostrom ,
Isabella de Lusignan was born in 1234 - died
1299. She married 1st Geoffrey de Rancon , Sire de Tailebourg by whom a
son
Judhael. She didn`t marry Maurice de Craon until about 1255. The
translation of the
English Chronicle 1235 - 1261 British History on- line says that in
1256
" About the Feast of Saint Michael (September 29) Master Roger of Weseham,
Bishop of Lichfield resigned the see owing to a long illness and
sufficient
provision being made for him the lord Roger de Meulan (alias Longespee)
succeeded
having been canonically elected by the Convent of Coventry and the Canons
of
Lichfield.
Clearly Roger was not a little boy.

The last statement is certainly true - apart from Matthew Paris calling him
"magistrum Rogerum de Molend" at the time of his election as bishop, the
chapter of Lichfield in a letter to the archibishop of Canterbury seeking
confirmation of the election described him as "dominum Rogerum de Meuleng",
a prudent man ("virum providum"), a canon of Lichfield and papal chaplain
("canonicum Lichfeldensem, ac domini Papae capellanum"). There was no
suggestion that a dispensation might be needed due to inadequate age,
indicating that Roger was already qualified for episcopacy (past his 30th
birthday) or at least for election to this (aged 26 or more).

However, I think the date given is wrong. According to the documents from
the chapters of Lichfield and Coventry copied in the annals of Burton, Roger
de Weseham formally resigned his bishopric on 4 December 1256 and Roger the
king's nephew was elected on 30 January (i.e. 1257).

Also, I think Isabelle of Lusignan's marriages took place in reverse order
to your information above - I haven't verified this, but my undestanding
from secondary works is that Maurice V of Craon was her first husband: he
died before 27 May 1250 and in February 1253 she married Geoffrey of Rancon,
seneschal of Poitout, who died in September 1263.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

"Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...

<snip>

Also, I think Isabelle of Lusignan's marriages took place in reverse order
to your information above - I haven't verified this, but my undestanding
from secondary works is that Maurice V of Craon was her first husband: he
died before 27 May 1250 and in February 1253 she married Geoffrey of
Rancon, seneschal of Poitout, who died in September 1263.

Corrections: Maurice V of Craon died before 27 May 1250 and in February 1251
(Annunciation style, i.e. 1252 not 1253) Isabella married Geoffrey of
Rancon, seneschal of Poitou.

Peter Stewart

[Baldoni]

D. Spencer Hines wrote on 04/12/2007 :

Read _The Vinland Map And The Tartar Relation_, as I said previously.

The Northern Coast of Greenland is NOT drawn accurately in the Vinland Map.

You've been conned.

Read first, then post.

DSH

Ever had a good drink Hines and then woken the next day to find a large
brown map of Greenland on the seat of your pants ?

--
Count Baldoni

[Baldoni]

D. Spencer Hines explained on 04/12/2007 :

Doug McDonald has mentioned a continuing academic controversy on Chief
Illiniwek.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Illiniwek

Where does it stand now?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Sweet Jesus have mercy on you Prods for the way you treated those poor
indians. Before you got past the mountains you were burning them alive
on the East Coast. You will not serve them liquer today.

--
Count Baldoni

[D. Spencer Hines]

You did indeed.

So where does it stand?

Hoist with your own petar? <g>

DSH

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Doug McDonald has mentioned a continuing academic controversy on Chief
Illiniwek.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Illiniwek

Where does it stand now?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Off topic, that's where ... despite I being the idiot who brought it up
in s.g.m.

And you can quote me on that.

[Ray O'Hara]

"Jack Linthicum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:84ff6f81-1223-4776-b93d-05bce9bfffd4@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Count Baldoni

This is one of Hines favorite topics 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006 and
now 2007. One of them ran 2150 posts. Prepare yourself.

the entire "who discovered America" argument os pointless.
we are here because of columbus.

[Gjest]

Dear Peter,
Many Thanks for setting the record straight on both
accounts(i.e . lord Roger de Meulan`s date of election as Bishop of Lichfield and on
the marriage order of Isabella de Lusignan to her husbands.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

[Peter Jason]

Another day, another troll!



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

You did indeed.

So where does it stand?

Hoist with your own petar? <g

DSH

"Doug McDonald"
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in
message
news:[email protected]...

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Doug McDonald has mentioned a continuing
academic controversy on Chief Illiniwek.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Illiniwek

Where does it stand now?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Off topic, that's where ... despite I
being the idiot who brought it up
in s.g.m.

And you can quote me on that.

[Doug McDonald]

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Read This Please:

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch ... inland.htm

Comments?

That's a well-known article.

Let me quote just one section from it "The anatase titanium dioxide particles found on the Vinland
map by Walter and Lucy McCrone (1974, 1988, 1998) and by Katherine Brown and Robin Clark (2002) are
consistent with naturally occuring anatase particles appearing in kaolin clays per Charles Weaver
(1976) and Enver Murad (1997), could have been produced with medieval technology per Jacqueline Olin
(2000, 2003), or could even be due to the conservatorial transfer mechanism proposed by James
Enterline (2002). Although the unusual VM ink deserves further study and comparison, there is at
present no technical reason to reject its purported age."

That's simply false. It was the major argument used at the seminar I attended.

There is a devastating argument to show that the above is simply false: the
natural anatase or anatase produced by medieval technology mentioned above do not show
the nanoscale structre of the material found on the map. This destroys that argument
in the above paragraph. The anatase appears mostly, most concentratedly, in
the lines, which could not have been due to random transfer. All these arguments
are thus destroyed. As I mentioned, at the seminar I attended where this was the
main argument, it was destroyed by comments from the audience, and, in fact,
the presenter was left a speechless lump at the end, so destroyed was he. HE
could not refute the evidence the questioners brought forth. Never, in 40 years
of attending scientific seminars, have I ever seen one so soundly demolished
as this one was. Yes, I've been to ones that were wrong, and demonstrably so ...
but in every case at the end of the day, the presenter actually agreed that
he had got it wrong, and retracted the paper in whole or part. This did not happen
here ... the poor guy just gave up. He could not refute the arguments
against his own arguments, but yet he could not bring himself to concede he
was wrong. And apparently he has given similar seminars since, to
audiences which did not contain the real experts present at the one at UIUC.

An, oh yes ... the ink in the Tartar Relation is different.

Doug McDonald

[D. Spencer Hines]

Thank you, Doug.

That's most informative.

DSH

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Read This Please:

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch ... inland.htm

Comments?

That's a well-known article.

Let me quote just one section from it "The anatase titanium dioxide
particles found on the Vinland map by Walter and Lucy McCrone (1974, 1988,
1998) and by Katherine Brown and Robin Clark (2002) are consistent with
naturally occuring anatase particles appearing in kaolin clays per Charles
Weaver (1976) and Enver Murad (1997), could have been produced with
medieval technology per Jacqueline Olin (2000, 2003), or could even be due
to the conservatorial transfer mechanism proposed by James Enterline
(2002). Although the unusual VM ink deserves further study and comparison,
there is at present no technical reason to reject its purported age."

That's simply false. It was the major argument used at the seminar I
attended.

There is a devastating argument to show that the above is simply false:
the
natural anatase or anatase produced by medieval technology mentioned above
do not show
the nanoscale structre of the material found on the map. This destroys
that argument
in the above paragraph. The anatase appears mostly, most concentratedly,
in
the lines, which could not have been due to random transfer. All these
arguments
are thus destroyed. As I mentioned, at the seminar I attended where this
was the
main argument, it was destroyed by comments from the audience, and, in
fact,
the presenter was left a speechless lump at the end, so destroyed was he.
HE
could not refute the evidence the questioners brought forth. Never, in 40
years
of attending scientific seminars, have I ever seen one so soundly
demolished
as this one was. Yes, I've been to ones that were wrong, and demonstrably
so ...
but in every case at the end of the day, the presenter actually agreed
that
he had got it wrong, and retracted the paper in whole or part. This did
not happen
here ... the poor guy just gave up. He could not refute the arguments
against his own arguments, but yet he could not bring himself to concede
he
was wrong. And apparently he has given similar seminars since, to
audiences which did not contain the real experts present at the one at
UIUC.

An, oh yes ... the ink in the Tartar Relation is different.

Doug McDonald

[Renia]

wjhonson wrote:

On Dec 2, 1:04 pm, Renia <[email protected]> wrote:

The NEHGR article mentions the Visitation of Suffolk, 1664-1668, which
includes the pedigree of Peck of North Cove.

Arms: Argent on a chevron engrailed Gules three crosses pattee of the field

The tabular pedigree begins with the second Robert Peck of Beccles,
Suffolk, who married Ellen Babb, dau of Nicholas Babb of Guildford,
Surrey and names names their son, Nicholas, who married Rachell Young,
daughter of Will Young of Yarmouth, Norfolk.

William Peck, son of Nicholas, is the person who signed the pedigree,
and his six sons are named. He was a gent of North Cove in 1664, and
married Dorothy, daughter of SirButtsBacon, Baronet, of Blundesdon,
Suffolk. Neither Robert Peck nor Nicholas Peck were described as "gent"
by their descendant, William.


----------------------------
Are you sure that Sir Butts Bacon wasn't possibly of Blundeston,
Norfolk ?

Possibly. I don't have the pedigree the visitation to hand now. There
can't be that many contemporaries called Sir Butts Bacon.

I'm surprised Bill Arnold hasn't commented on any of my postings about
the Peck family. Perhaps he hasn't received them?

[Bill Arnold]

BA: yes, but...this new/old map is something different.
It is argued that the mapmaker is known, and that this
first map of his was altered for *royal* reason, what we
would term today: *politics.* So: unless it is proved a
fraud, medieval scholars must deal with the question of
how the knowledge got to the mapmaker. We know
ancient Egyptians as early as 2500 BC had boats of 142
feet long with displacements of 45 tons and 18 feet wide
with a draft of 5 feet. Such a boat could have sailed the oceans.
There are ancient texts which state:
ancient Egyptian navigators circumnavigated the entire
coast of Africa, and because they had sailed north and south
they had a vast knowledge of nighttime navigation by the
stars. Their vast system of star charts served not only night
travel across the unmarked deserts but across the unmarked
oceans. It is not inconceivable they circumnavigated the
globe, and we all know, or should, about the famous library
of Alexandria which contained knowledge now found in
other works and other libraries. There are gold artifacts found
in Ireland/England/on the Continent which date from abt.
1500 BC which also suggest travel by land from Egypt to
the north had been accomplished, so none of this should
be surprising of such a development during the *Dark Ages*:

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories ... ramid5.htm

[in part]
The boat was removed, piece by piece, under the supervision of
Ahmed Youssef Mustafa, the master restorer who worked on
Hetephere's funerary furniture. It is 43.3 meters (142 feet) long
and made of Lebanese cedar wood and some acacia. Its displacement
was 45 tons. The maximum draft is 1.48 meters (5 feet). It is 5.9 meters
wide. The separate parts of the boat had numerous U-shaped holes
so that the boat could be 'stitched' together using ropes made of
fibers. Interestingly many of the boats planks were marked with
signs for prow, stern, port and starboard. Nevertheless it took Mustafa
some ten years to completely reassemble the boat. That work was not
until 1968.

Bill

*****




____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ

[Bill Arnold]

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

This Peck family evidently wants to be reseached. Their ghosts are
interferring with my work.

I noted some Bacon family wills, and hoping to track down the ultimate
proof for who the rebel Nathaniel Bacon was (please don't quote
secondary sources at me), I was perusing these wills.

This particular part of the Bacon family I had not seen before. The
Wills mostly have to deal with the Bacons of Hedgsett Hall (aka,
Hessett, aka Heggesett), co Suffolk. The editor notes that Thomas
Bacon, Gent of Heggesett, with Will dated 10 Mar 1546/7 was a son of
John Bacon of Drinkstone. And that that Robert Bacon of Drenkestone
who m Isabel Gage (or Cage) and who I had already *known* were the
parents of Sir Nicholas Bacon, Keeper of the Great Seal.... was his
brother.

That is that Robert Bacon of Drenkestone, was the eldest son of John
Bacon of Drenkstone and that Thomas Bacon of Hedgsett was Robert's
brother.

Which is great, as Robert is a Cecil 5

Robert Bacon, father of
Sir Nicholas Bacon who married secondly
Anne Cooke, sister of
Mildred Cooke, who married as his second wife
William Cecil son of
Richard Cecil

So in linking up, adding, expanding, these new connections I ran into
this
Robert Bacon + Isabella Gage parents of
James Bacon, Sheriff of London 1568 +secondly Margaret Rawlins parents
of
Sir James Bacon of Friston Hall (d 1618) + Elizabeth Bacon parents of
James Bacon, Rector of Burgate, Suffolk (d 9 Nov 1649), "second son" +
Martha Honywood

This link

http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/Book ... Bacon&cr=1

states that after James Bacon died, Martha his widow married secondly
that same Rev Robert Peck, Record of Higham who we all know by now,
went to the Colonies for a while, then came back and died at Higham in
1656

They also state that his daughter by his first, unnamed, wife was one
Anne Peck who married John Mason of Seabrook, Connecticut. Another
source gives this marriage date as Jul 1639.

BA: Gen-medieval member JimPup, are you reading this? This is your line!
Give thanks to gentleman and gentlewoman scholars Will and Renia!!

Bill

*****



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

[Gjest]

On Dec 4, 4:38 pm, Bill Arnold <[email protected]> wrote:

BA: yes, but...this new/old map is something different.
It is argued that the mapmaker is known, and that this
first map of his was altered for *royal* reason, what we
would term today: *politics.* So: unless it is proved a
fraud, medieval scholars must deal with the question of
how the knowledge got to the mapmaker.

Does the map have a genealogical tree on it?

Given how distasteful you found the British Food thread, you seem more
than willing to start an off-topic one of your own.

taf

[wjhonson]

On Dec 4, 7:46 pm, Bill Arnold <[email protected]> wrote:

Who was the Duke of Lorraine who brought Waldseemuller and a
group of scholars together at a monastery in Saint-Die in France to
create a new map of the world? What are his dates? What is his
parentage? His ancestry?

Who was Vasco Nunez de Balboa who did not reach the Pacific by land
until 1513, and Ferdinand Magellan did not round the southern tip of the
continent until 1520? What are their dates? What are their parentage?
Their ancestry? Gee whiz, TAF: this is certainly more germane to gen-med
than terrible British food of today, agreed?

Bill

*****
the 1507
Waldseemuller map remains a puzzle for researchers.
Why did the mapmaker name the territory America and then change his mind later? How was he able to
draw South America so accurately? Why did he put a huge ocean west of America years before
European explorers discovered the Pacific?

Researchers are hopeful that putting the rarely shown map on permanent display for the first time
since it was discovered in the Waldburg-Wolfegg castle archives in 1901 may stimulate interest in
finding out more about the documents used to produce it.
The map was created by the German monk Martin Waldseemuller. Thirteen years after Christopher
Columbus first landed in the Western Hemisphere, the Duke of Lorraine brought Waldseemuller and a
group of scholars together at a monastery in Saint-Die in France

Antoine (aka Anthony) was Duke of Lorraine from 1508 to 1544 when he
died.
His father Rene of Anjou was the celebrated Duke of Lorraine who
figures in royal-conspiracy theories, freemasons, and all that.

Will

[Bill Arnold]

TAF: Does the map have a genealogical tree on it? Given how distasteful
you found the British Food thread, you seem more than willing to start an
off-topic one of your own.

BA: Well, the mapmaker and other principals connected to the supposed
*Medieval* date of the map certainly had genealogical trees. And I fail
to see how a modern garbage thread should be compared to a medieval
document you all should be aware of: the question of authenticating it
is part-and-parcel of the goals of genealogists here.

Who was German monk Martin Waldseemuller? What are his dates?
What is his parentage? His ancestry?

Who was the Duke of Lorraine who brought Waldseemuller and a
group of scholars together at a monastery in Saint-Die in France to
create a new map of the world? What are his dates? What is his
parentage? His ancestry?

Who was Vasco Nunez de Balboa who did not reach the Pacific by land
until 1513, and Ferdinand Magellan did not round the southern tip of the
continent until 1520? What are their dates? What are their parentage?
Their ancestry? Gee whiz, TAF: this is certainly more germane to gen-med
than terrible British food of today, agreed?

Bill

*****
the 1507
Waldseemuller map remains a puzzle for researchers.
Why did the mapmaker name the territory America and then change his mind later? How was he able to
draw South America so accurately? Why did he put a huge ocean west of America years before
European explorers discovered the Pacific?

Researchers are hopeful that putting the rarely shown map on permanent display for the first time
since it was discovered in the Waldburg-Wolfegg castle archives in 1901 may stimulate interest in
finding out more about the documents used to produce it.
The map was created by the German monk Martin Waldseemuller. Thirteen years after Christopher
Columbus first landed in the Western Hemisphere, the Duke of Lorraine brought Waldseemuller and a
group of scholars together at a monastery in Saint-Die in France to create a new map of the world.
The result, published two years later, is stunningly accurate and surprisingly modern.
"The actual shape of South America is correct," said Hebert. "The width of South America at
certain key points is correct within 70 miles of accuracy."
Given what Europeans are believed to have known about the world at the time, it should not have
been possible for the mapmakers to produce it, he said.
The map gives a reasonably correct depiction of the west coast of South America. But according to
history, Vasco Nunez de Balboa did not reach the Pacific by land until 1513, and Ferdinand
Magellan did not round the southern tip of the continent until 1520.
"So this is a rather compelling map to say, 'How did they come to that conclusion,"' Hebert said.
The mapmakers say they based it on the 1,300-year-old works of the Egyptian geographer Ptolemy as
well as letters Florentine navigator Amerigo Vespucci wrote describing his voyages to the new
world. But Hebert said there must have been something more.
"From the writings of Vespucci you couldn't have prepared the map," Hebert said. "There had to be
something cartographic with it."
MISGIVINGS ABOUT AMERICA
Waldseemuller made it clear he was naming the new land after Vespucci, describing how he came up
with the name America based on the navigator's first name.
But he soon had misgivings about what he had done. An atlas Waldseemuller produced six years later
shows only part of the east coast of the Americas, and refers to it as Terra Incognita -- unknown
land.
"America has gone out of his lexicon," Hebert said. "(No) place in the atlas -- in the text or in
the maps -- does the name America appear."
His 1516 mariner's map, on the same scale as the 1507 map, steps back even further, showing only
parts of the new continents and reconnecting the north to Asia. South America is labeled Terra
Nova -- New World -- and North America is labeled Terra de Cuba -- Land of Cuba.
"Essentially he's reconnecting North America to the Asian mainland, suggesting a continual world
of land mass rather than separated by those bodies of water that separate us from Europe and
Asia," Hebert said.
Why the rollback? No one knows.
In writings accompanying the 1516 map, Waldseemuller comes across as if he "has seen the better of
his error and is now correcting it," Hebert said.
He speculated that power politics played a role. Spain and Portugal divided the globe between them
in 1494, two years after Columbus, with territory to the east going to Portugal and land to the
west to Spain.
That demarcation line is oddly absent from the 1507 Waldseemuller map, and flags marking
territorial claims in South America suggest Portugal controls the region's southernmost land, even
though it is in Spain's area of influence. On the later map, the southernmost flag is Spanish,
Hebert said.
"It is possible one could say the 1507 map is influenced strongly by Portuguese sources and
conceivably the 1516 map may be influenced more by Spanish sources," he said.
Although the map conceals many mysteries, one thing is clear: it represents a revolutionary shift
in the way Europe viewed the world.
"This is ... essentially the beginning or first map of the modern age, and it's one that
everything builds on from that point forward," Hebert said. "It becomes a keystone map."
(Editing by Eddie Evans)




____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

[Bill Arnold]

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

On Dec 4, 7:46 pm, Bill Arnold <[email protected]> wrote:
Who was the Duke of Lorraine who brought Waldseemuller and a
group of scholars together at a monastery in Saint-Die in France to
create a new map of the world? What are his dates? What is his
parentage? His ancestry?

Who was Vasco Nunez de Balboa who did not reach the Pacific by land
until 1513, and Ferdinand Magellan did not round the southern tip of the
continent until 1520? What are their dates? What are their parentage?
Their ancestry? Gee whiz, TAF: this is certainly more germane to gen-med
than terrible British food of today, agreed?

Bill

*****
the 1507
Waldseemuller map remains a puzzle for researchers.
Why did the mapmaker name the territory America and then change his mind later? How was he
able to
draw South America so accurately? Why did he put a huge ocean west of America years before
European explorers discovered the Pacific?

Researchers are hopeful that putting the rarely shown map on permanent display for the first
time
since it was discovered in the Waldburg-Wolfegg castle archives in 1901 may stimulate interest
in
finding out more about the documents used to produce it.
The map was created by the German monk Martin Waldseemuller. Thirteen years after Christopher
Columbus first landed in the Western Hemisphere, the Duke of Lorraine brought Waldseemuller
and a
group of scholars together at a monastery in Saint-Die in France

Antoine (aka Anthony) was Duke of Lorraine from 1508 to 1544 when he
died.
His father Rene of Anjou was the celebrated Duke of Lorraine who
figures in royal-conspiracy theories, freemasons, and all that.

BA: Well < G > we *ALL* know that freemasonry was based on the masonry
symbolism of ancient Egypt and the masons who built the pyramids, in particular
the legendary Imhotep. Now: do you suppose that thid Duke of Lorraine had
a genealogy which dates back to the Crusades? Was this Lorraine family into
fraudulent maps? And how could they make a fraudulent map of the world
when at that time supposedly no one knew of the Pacific: so what induced them
to create such a map, including South America, if not they had a vast library?
Is their genealogy relevant to this story, or not? How does the Monk and
the Monastery fit into this? Which came first, the Dukedom of Lorraine or
the Monastery of the Monk Waldseemuller?

Bill

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

[Bill Arnold]

--- Bill Arnold <[email protected]> wrote:

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

On Dec 4, 7:46 pm, Bill Arnold <[email protected]> wrote:
Who was the Duke of Lorraine who brought Waldseemuller and a
group of scholars together at a monastery in Saint-Die in France to
create a new map of the world? What are his dates? What is his
parentage? His ancestry?

Who was Vasco Nunez de Balboa who did not reach the Pacific by land
until 1513, and Ferdinand Magellan did not round the southern tip of the
continent until 1520? What are their dates? What are their parentage?
Their ancestry? Gee whiz, TAF: this is certainly more germane to gen-med
than terrible British food of today, agreed?

Bill

*****
the 1507
Waldseemuller map remains a puzzle for researchers.
Why did the mapmaker name the territory America and then change his mind later? How was he
able to
draw South America so accurately? Why did he put a huge ocean west of America years before
European explorers discovered the Pacific?

Researchers are hopeful that putting the rarely shown map on permanent display for the first
time
since it was discovered in the Waldburg-Wolfegg castle archives in 1901 may stimulate
interest
in
finding out more about the documents used to produce it.
The map was created by the German monk Martin Waldseemuller. Thirteen years after
Christopher
Columbus first landed in the Western Hemisphere, the Duke of Lorraine brought Waldseemuller
and a
group of scholars together at a monastery in Saint-Die in France

Antoine (aka Anthony) was Duke of Lorraine from 1508 to 1544 when he
died.
His father Rene of Anjou was the celebrated Duke of Lorraine who
figures in royal-conspiracy theories, freemasons, and all that.


BA: Well < G > we *ALL* know that freemasonry was based on the masonry
symbolism of ancient Egypt and the masons who built the pyramids, in particular
the legendary Imhotep. Now: do you suppose that thid Duke of Lorraine had
a genealogy which dates back to the Crusades? Was this Lorraine family into
fraudulent maps? And how could they make a fraudulent map of the world
when at that time supposedly no one knew of the Pacific: so what induced them
to create such a map, including South America, if not they had a vast library?
Is their genealogy relevant to this story, or not? How does the Monk and
the Monastery fit into this? Which came first, the Dukedom of Lorraine or
the Monastery of the Monk Waldseemuller?

Bill

BA: TAF sure knows how to expand gen-medieval threads of significance!
OK: supposedly, by history some guy name Amerigo V. P. discovers America,
when we all know it was discovered earlier than that by westerners. But at
any rate, after that abt. 1492 C. Columbus discovers it again, and within 13
years a Monk and a Duke in Germany are making an accurate map of South
America and the Pacific and it is printed in 1507, two years later. That's
faster than the KJV came into existence and with a lot less men involved.
So, who were these players and why in Germany, inland? There is a lot
of genealogy to cover here, TAF, are you up for it? Better to construct
this history than deconstruct my paragraph, don't you think? And, yes,
Will, you are a gentleman and a scholar for doing scholarship like a gent!

Bill

*******


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62s ... o8Wcj9tAcJ

[wjhonson]

On Dec 4, 8:07 pm, Bill Arnold <[email protected]> wrote:

BA: Well < G > we *ALL* know that freemasonry was based on the masonry
symbolism of ancient Egypt and the masons who built the pyramids, in particular
the legendary Imhotep. Now: do you suppose that thid Duke of Lorraine had
a genealogy which dates back to the Crusades? Was this Lorraine family into
fraudulent maps? And how could they make a fraudulent map of the world
when at that time supposedly no one knew of the Pacific: so what induced them
to create such a map, including South America, if not they had a vast library?
Is their genealogy relevant to this story, or not? How does the Monk and
the Monastery fit into this? Which came first, the Dukedom of Lorraine or
the Monastery of the Monk Waldseemuller?

Bill
------------------

There is no need to wonder if he had a long genealogy. We know he
did. For example Boleslaw III, Duke of Poland (from 1102) who died
Oct 1138 was one of Rene de Anjou's ancestors, as was St Vladimer,
Grand Duke of Kiev 978-1015. Just to name a few. Rene has a huge
number of known ancestors.

As for your question about how could they know? Come on Bill you can
figure this one out.

WHEN the Templars were destroyed as an organization, they had a large
treasure. Some of them escaped on their many ships with their
treasure and came to the Americas where they established "Golden
Cities of the Gods". Of course since Rene de Anjou was the head of
the Order of the Secret Paw, he was in constant trans-oceanic
communication with the Templars in the Americas.

One day Goldilocks came to a small cabin in the woods.

No wait... I mean, the map commissioned by the House of the Dukes of
Lorraine, was a pious fraud, in that, it actually had existed in their
family for hundreds of years!

Once the hiddle Templars realized that their secret would soon be
known to the world, since the European powers were all mounting
expeditions, etc, they escaped into caverns that led to the interior
of the Earth and re-established their cities there. The caverns are
carefully hidden by advanced inter-dimensional vibratory optics, which
we surface-dwellers have not yet discovered. If by accident, anyone
happens to stumble into one of these hidden entrances, they are
captured and never heard from again. Of course they live happily
inside the Earth.

Will Johnson

[Bill Arnold]

[email protected] wrote:

In a message dated 12/4/2007 8:19:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:>--------------Amerigo wasn't *before* Columbus, he was *after* him.

BA: I am so glad you know. Now: who was the Monk?

Bill

*****


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

[Bill Arnold]

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

On Dec 4, 8:07 pm, Bill Arnold <[email protected]> wrote:
BA: Well < G > we *ALL* know that freemasonry was based on the masonry
symbolism of ancient Egypt and the masons who built the pyramids, in particular
the legendary Imhotep. Now: do you suppose that thid Duke of Lorraine had
a genealogy which dates back to the Crusades? Was this Lorraine family into
fraudulent maps? And how could they make a fraudulent map of the world
when at that time supposedly no one knew of the Pacific: so what induced them
to create such a map, including South America, if not they had a vast library?
Is their genealogy relevant to this story, or not? How does the Monk and
the Monastery fit into this? Which came first, the Dukedom of Lorraine or
the Monastery of the Monk Waldseemuller?

Bill
------------------
There is no need to wonder if he had a long genealogy. We know he
did. For example Boleslaw III, Duke of Poland (from 1102) who died
Oct 1138 was one of Rene de Anjou's ancestors, as was St Vladimer,
Grand Duke of Kiev 978-1015. Just to name a few. Rene has a huge
number of known ancestors.

As for your question about how could they know? Come on Bill you can
figure this one out.

WHEN the Templars were destroyed as an organization, they had a large
treasure. Some of them escaped on their many ships with their
treasure and came to the Americas where they established "Golden
Cities of the Gods". Of course since Rene de Anjou was the head of
the Order of the Secret Paw, he was in constant trans-oceanic
communication with the Templars in the Americas.

One day Goldilocks came to a small cabin in the woods.

No wait... I mean, the map commissioned by the House of the Dukes of
Lorraine, was a pious fraud, in that, it actually had existed in their
family for hundreds of years!

Once the hiddle Templars realized that their secret would soon be
known to the world, since the European powers were all mounting
expeditions, etc, they escaped into caverns that led to the interior
of the Earth and re-established their cities there. The caverns are
carefully hidden by advanced inter-dimensional vibratory optics, which
we surface-dwellers have not yet discovered. If by accident, anyone
happens to stumble into one of these hidden entrances, they are
captured and never heard from again. Of course they live happily
inside the Earth.

BA: Jules Verne, you ain't. The map is real, it is medieval, and somebody
has got a lot of explaining to do. Gen-medieval scholars know the
background of the players. Who was the Monk?

Bill

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ

[Bill Arnold]

--- Bill Arnold <[email protected]> wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

In a message dated 12/4/2007 8:19:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:>--------------Amerigo wasn't *before* Columbus, he was *after* him.

BA: I am so glad you know. Now: who was the Monk?

Bill

*****

Ba: There you go!
Vespucci, Amerigo!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amerigo Vespucci

Statue at the Uffizi, Florence.
Born March 9, 1454
Died February 22, 1512 (aged 57)
Amerigo Vespucci (March 9, 1454 - February 22, 1512) was an Italian merchant, explorer and
cartographer. He played a senior role in two voyages which explored the east coast of South
America between 1499 and 1502. On the second of these voyages he discovered that South America
extended much further south than before known by the Europeans. This convinced him that this land
was part of a new continent, a bold contention at a time when other European explorers crossing
the Atlantic thought they were reaching Asia (the "Indies"). Vespucci's voyages became widely
known in Europe after two accounts attributed to him were published between 1502 and 1504. In
1507, Martin Waldseemüller produced a world map on which he named the new continent "America"
after Vespucci's first name, Amerigo. In an accompanying book, Waldseemüller published one of the
Vespucci accounts, which led to criticism that Vespucci was trying to usurp Christopher Columbus's
glory. However, the rediscovery in the 18th century of other letters by Vespucci, primarily the
Soderini Letter, has led to the view that the early published accounts were fabrications, not by
Vespucci, but by others. Waldseemüller may have suspected the self promoting tendencies of
Vespucci even in his own time as later publications replaced "America" with "Terra Incognita".

BA: Who was the Monk? What was his relationship with the Duke? Which
came first, Lorraine, or the Monastery? What was the Duke's or the Monk's
motivation to make a map honoring an Italian explorer? Gen anyone?

Bill

*****






____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ

[Bill Arnold]

--- Bill Arnold <[email protected]> wrote:

--- Bill Arnold <[email protected]> wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

In a message dated 12/4/2007 8:19:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:>--------------Amerigo wasn't *before* Columbus, he was *after* him.

BA: I am so glad you know. Now: who was the Monk?

Bill

*****


Ba: There you go!
Vespucci, Amerigo!
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amerigo Vespucci

Statue at the Uffizi, Florence.
Born March 9, 1454
Died February 22, 1512 (aged 57)
Amerigo Vespucci (March 9, 1454 - February 22, 1512) was an Italian merchant, explorer and
cartographer. He played a senior role in two voyages which explored the east coast of South
America between 1499 and 1502. On the second of these voyages he discovered that South America
extended much further south than before known by the Europeans. This convinced him that this
land
was part of a new continent, a bold contention at a time when other European explorers crossing
the Atlantic thought they were reaching Asia (the "Indies"). Vespucci's voyages became widely
known in Europe after two accounts attributed to him were published between 1502 and 1504. In
1507, Martin Waldseemüller produced a world map on which he named the new continent "America"
after Vespucci's first name, Amerigo. In an accompanying book, Waldseemüller published one of
the
Vespucci accounts, which led to criticism that Vespucci was trying to usurp Christopher
Columbus's
glory. However, the rediscovery in the 18th century of other letters by Vespucci, primarily the
Soderini Letter, has led to the view that the early published accounts were fabrications, not by
Vespucci, but by others. Waldseemüller may have suspected the self promoting tendencies of
Vespucci even in his own time as later publications replaced "America" with "Terra Incognita".

BA: Who was the Monk? What was his relationship with the Duke? Which
came first, Lorraine, or the Monastery? What was the Duke's or the Monk's
motivation to make a map honoring an Italian explorer? Gen anyone?

Bill

*****

BA: OK: so now the view is that Amerigo's supposed publications a few years before the map
of 1507 were "fabrications." Ah: but the map was real! So, who was the Monk and the Duke?
Why would *they* want to discredit C. Columbus and the Queen: wasn't it Isabella? Ws there
gen between the royal Isabella and the Duke? Who was this Monk? And why would the Duke
and the Monk in Germany choose a *supposed* Italian explorer's accounts to discredit another
earlier Italian's explorations and discoveries, and in the process discredit HM the Queen
Isabella?
Surely: someone on gen understands this was a War Between the States in Europe and in the
process made us Americans proud to be from America and then were were Incognitos from
Terra Incognito!

Bill

*****

Bill

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

[wjhonson]

What source is telling you that Ralph Boteler of Sawbridgeworth,
Hertford, the known ancestor of [1st US president] George Washington,
connects backward to Edmund Butler, a known son of James Earl of
Ormonde (died 28 Oct 1546 of poison at Ely House, London) ?

Thanks
Will Johnson

[Renia]

Bill Arnold wrote:

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


On Dec 4, 8:07 pm, Bill Arnold <[email protected]> wrote:

BA: Well < G > we *ALL* know that freemasonry was based on the masonry
symbolism of ancient Egypt and the masons who built the pyramids, in particular
the legendary Imhotep. Now: do you suppose that thid Duke of Lorraine had
a genealogy which dates back to the Crusades? Was this Lorraine family into
fraudulent maps? And how could they make a fraudulent map of the world
when at that time supposedly no one knew of the Pacific: so what induced them
to create such a map, including South America, if not they had a vast library?
Is their genealogy relevant to this story, or not? How does the Monk and
the Monastery fit into this? Which came first, the Dukedom of Lorraine or
the Monastery of the Monk Waldseemuller?

Bill

------------------
There is no need to wonder if he had a long genealogy. We know he
did. For example Boleslaw III, Duke of Poland (from 1102) who died
Oct 1138 was one of Rene de Anjou's ancestors, as was St Vladimer,
Grand Duke of Kiev 978-1015. Just to name a few. Rene has a huge
number of known ancestors.

As for your question about how could they know? Come on Bill you can
figure this one out.

WHEN the Templars were destroyed as an organization, they had a large
treasure. Some of them escaped on their many ships with their
treasure and came to the Americas where they established "Golden
Cities of the Gods". Of course since Rene de Anjou was the head of
the Order of the Secret Paw, he was in constant trans-oceanic
communication with the Templars in the Americas.

One day Goldilocks came to a small cabin in the woods.

No wait... I mean, the map commissioned by the House of the Dukes of
Lorraine, was a pious fraud, in that, it actually had existed in their
family for hundreds of years!

Once the hiddle Templars realized that their secret would soon be
known to the world, since the European powers were all mounting
expeditions, etc, they escaped into caverns that led to the interior
of the Earth and re-established their cities there. The caverns are
carefully hidden by advanced inter-dimensional vibratory optics, which
we surface-dwellers have not yet discovered. If by accident, anyone
happens to stumble into one of these hidden entrances, they are
captured and never heard from again. Of course they live happily
inside the Earth.




BA: Jules Verne, you ain't. The map is real, it is medieval,

That is not known for sure. There is still much debate about it. See the
soc.history.medieval and sci.archaeology archives for more info, apart
from anywhere else.

and somebody
has got a lot of explaining to do. Gen-medieval scholars know the
background of the players. Who was the Monk?

Bill

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ

[Skraedder]

Ray O'Hara wrote:

"Jack Linthicum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:84ff6f81-1223-4776-b93d-05bce9bfffd4@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Count Baldoni
This is one of Hines favorite topics 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006 and
now 2007. One of them ran 2150 posts. Prepare yourself.


the entire "who discovered America" argument os pointless.
we are here because of columbus.

That does not make the 'argument' pointless. It is interesting in its
own right.

Skraedder

[Gjest]

Thanks, Will. There is scattered information about Gordon. One reference indicates he had nine children. Of those, I know of Sons: Charles, army, and Archibald. Daughters: Henrietta, Philadelphia, Elizabeth and Agatha Harriott. Sons-in-law: Robert Charles and Abraham Taylor. Exec: Robert Charles and Abraham Taylor, per will. He possibly had a son, Patrick born in 1697 in Aberdeen. There is a Patrick Gordon in the early records of Bucks Co. Pa. Gordon came to Pennsylvania at the behest of Hannah Penn. Would very much like to know his heritage and other descendants.
Pat

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: wjhonson <[email protected]>

On Dec 4, 11:05 am, [email protected] wrote:
Little seems available concerning the ancestry of Gov. Patrick Gordon of
Pennsylvania (1726-36). The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography
contains a segment which indicates the seal of Gov. Gordon quartered the arms
of Gordon, Badenoch, Seton and Frazer. This article states that Burke's General
Armory, shows Gov. Gordon's daughter Philadelphia's descendant, John Taylor
Gordon, was from Alexander Gordon, 3rd Earl of Huntly.
Can anyone shed light on the veracity of this descent?
Thank you,
Pat

When Patrick Gordon arrived in 1726 he was said to be "62 years of
age". He had married Isabella nee Clarke sometime before this. His
daughter Philadelphia married in 1733 to Abram Taylor.

Patrick Gordon's will and inventory are both dated 1736 so he died in
that year.

FWIW there is a Patron sheet submission in the IGI which states that
Patrick Gordon and Isabella Clarke married on 3 Apr 1695. As is
typical of Patron sheet submissions there is no useful source listed.

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

[Gjest]

Tom can you repeat that in a hundred words or less





**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

[Gjest]

We're not actually *here*, *because* of Columbus. If you recall, he sailed
the ocean blue, as they say, in 1492 and a bit later. The Pilgrims landed in
1620 ish. Quite an awful long time isn't it? What were the European powers
doing in that interim? Trying desperately to get colonists over there? Not
really.



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

[Gjest]

By the way Tom, I would absolutely object to arbitration by some LDS
staffer. I don't have confidence that they are any more qualified to interpret the
sources than Jack Sprat.

As to the other part, where you suggest we start with the sources, then
build on them, then have a sort-of committee to decide the best
interpretations... that is exactly what Wikipedia does. In the real world, we start with the
long articles, then add the citations, then begin endless arguments over what
the sources actually say, and what they mean.

If you want to write an article about someone that Wikipedia rejects because
they aren't notable enough, I'll put it up on my own wiki.

Will Johnson



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

[Gjest]

Pat I'm feeling that possibly tracking down the underlying *source* for that
Patron Sheet submission might be one route. Perhaps there is a published
list of his letters, maybe he wrote some back home or referred to some
relations. Also his Will is extant. So those are places to start.



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

[Gjest]

Dear Douglas,
How do We know this Roger wasn`t a Meulan and a
Longespee. Could Earl William of Salisbury have had a daughter who married (or not)
a member of the Meulan family. nepos can after all simply mean kinsman , can
it not , as well as nephew or grandson ?
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA
Source : A Variety of SMG posts, especially by You and Peter.



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

[Bill Arnold]

Douglas Ricardson: This case demonstrates once again the paramount
need to examine the original contemporary records of the period, and
not simply depend on modern secondary sources.
Please cite your sources and provide weblinks. Thanks!

BA: You tell them, Lion! It amazes me to no end, how these scholarly
posts of Douglas Richardson are trashed by unscholarly ad hominem
attacks. This is gen-medieval, and the challenge to a post of scholarly
import should be a scholarly challenge on *content* and *context* with
sources, weblinks, et al. The Lion has roared on point!

Bill

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear James ~

Thank you for your post. Always good to hear from you.

It is impossible for Bishop Roger de Meulan to have been the nephew of
King Henry III and his brother, Richard, Earl of Cornwall, and also be
the son of their first cousin, William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury.
The two relationships are mutually exclusive.

King Henry III does have one "alleged" illegitimate sister, Isabel,
who could have been Bishop Roger de Meulan's mother. Isabel was the
wife of Richard Fitz Ives, Knt., of Degembris (in Newlyn East) and
Trenoweth-with-Trewithgy (in Probus), Cornwall, who died about
Michaelmas 1211. Thus, being widowed in 1211, Isabel could easily
have married Sir Ralph de Meulan, who was lord of Ipplepen, Devon in
the 1220's.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Dec 5, 3:06 pm, [email protected] wrote:

Dear Douglas,
How do We know this Roger wasn`t a Meulan and a
Longespee. Could Earl William of Salisbury have had a daughter who married (or not)
a member of the Meulan family. nepos can after all simply mean kinsman , can
it not , as well as nephew or grandson ?
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

[Gjest]

Dear Douglas,
I can`t get this myself , but if You have access to
Jestor, the following article " The Mise of Lewes, 1264 which refers to ... Roger
Longespee, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry and another Montfortian of
baronial descent... jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-8266(198307)98%3A388%3C588%

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA
He is also called Roger de Meuland, Roger de Meyland and Roger de Mellent




**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

[Merilyn Pedrick]

Don't forget the other stabs at colonisation Will. There was the Roanoke
Island lot in 1587 who all disappeared, and then the Virginia lot about 20
years later.

Merilyn





-------Original Message-------



From: [email protected]

Date: 12/06/07 04:49:57

To: [email protected]

Subject: Re: 500-Year Old Map Of *America* A Puzzle



We're not actually *here*, *because* of Columbus. If you recall, he sailed

the ocean blue, as they say, in 1492 and a bit later. The Pilgrims landed in

1620 ish. Quite an awful long time isn't it? What were the European powers

doing in that interim? Trying desperately to get colonists over there? Not

really.







**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest

products.

(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)



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

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

[Ian Goddard]

Ray O'Hara wrote:

"Jack Linthicum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:84ff6f81-1223-4776-b93d-05bce9bfffd4@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Count Baldoni
This is one of Hines favorite topics 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006 and
now 2007. One of them ran 2150 posts. Prepare yourself.


the entire "who discovered America" argument os pointless.
we are here because of columbus.

If you're there because of Columbus I must be here in spite of him!

--
Ian

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

[Bill Arnold]

Merilyn Pedrick: Don't forget the other stabs at colonisation Will.
There was the Roanoke Island lot in 1587 who all disappeared, and
then the Virginia lot about 20 years later.

BA: In support of your remarks above, Merilyn, it is written that when
the Pilgrims landed in Plymouth in 1620 they were met by indians who
spoke English, supposedly learned from Englishmen who had arrived in
Virginia decades earlier and traded with indians up and down the coast.

http://teacher.scholastic.com/researcht ... /plymouth/

By legend the Pilgrims stepped ashore at Plymouth Rock...The colonists encountered the Indian
Samoset, who surprised them by speaking English, learned from English traders on the coast of
Maine. Samoset introduced the colonists to Massasoit, chief of the Wampanoag Indians, who signed a
peace treaty with the Pilgrims. Squanto, another English-speaking Indian, acted as guide and
interpreter, and with his help the colonists learned to plant corn, catch fish, and gather fruit.
The Pilgrims invited the Indians to celebrate their first harvest in 1621, an event now celebrated
as Thanksgiving Day. After Massasoit's death, the Wampanoag joined a tribal coalition to eliminate
English settlers, but in the ensuing King Philip's War the Wampanoag were nearly exterminated. The
colony gradually grew in size, and the original settlement known as the Plimoth Plantation
expanded as settlers built houses in the area. Plymouth Colony retained its independence for over
70 years, and by 1691 its population exceeded 7,000. It was integrated with the Massachusetts Bay
Company's much larger colony to establish the royal colony of Massachusetts — now the state of the
same name.

Chief Massasoit has the word *Great* in it, from which
the state of Massachusetts gets its name. The tribe by that name
also are attributed to have been the origin of the state name.

Meaning of Place Name: Massachusetts

http://www.sacklunch.net/placenames/M/M ... setts.html

Massachusetts: Natick Indian word Masasuset, contraction of Massa,
"great," adchu, "mountain," et, "near," "the place of the great hills"
(reference to the Blue Hills). Roger Williams writes "I have learned
the Massachusetts were so called from the Blue Hills."

*Massasoit*

http://www.seekonk.k12.ma.us/history/history_v2.html

Bill
PS Gateway ancestor Joseph Peck and the Peck descendants settled
the towns of Seekonk and Rehoboth/Attleboro

*****



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

[Bill Arnold]

NT: Yes, by what immigrant ancestor is Mary Harris alleged to have royal
ancestry? I am also a descendant of Col. Henry Ridgely (d. 1710, Anne Arundel
County, MD). He was wealthy & had reasonably high status, but according
to current published work his ancestry is unknown (see e.g. Sharon J.
Doliante, _Maryland and Virginia Colonials_ [Baltimore: Genealogical
Publishing, 1991]). I have never even seen any specific allegations of
parentage, let alone noble ancestry for him.

BA: Cousin Nat Taylor, re: above, I have compiled the following, which is
a *working* pedigree/lineage welcoming correction, additions, et al., which
seeks affirmation of gateway ancestors to America and possible royal ancestors
abroad. My second cousin was a contributor to the creation of this post
years ago, and I have had it in my file, and neither of us consider it to
be totally accurate, and issue the standard warning that this AT is only
a *working AT* and I, Bill Arnold, take full responsibility for errors. I
can provide some birth and death dates if needed to assist, but trim it
to make it a pedigree for eventual Charlemagne/other royal descent.
As already noted in the archives, through Nat Taylor's website the Magruder
line can be traced back to Charlemagne through William I The Conqueror
King of England.

Because we share cousinship in a few lines, it may turn out we share
cousinship in more than a few, and/or welcome new cousins on board.
The generations are from my grandmother's generation. Feel free to
question any segment and I will assist as best I am able.

Bill

*****

10. William Thomas Wright m. 12 January 1880
11. Frances Louise Overton
________________________________
20. John Thomas (Shep) Wright m. 4 December 1859, Thomson, Georgia
21. Mary Caroline Eugenia (Jenny) Cliett
________________________________________
22. William Jackson Overton m. 2 March 1852, Taliaferro County, Georgia
23. Elizabeth Justina (Lizzie) McKenney
_________________________________________
40. Thomas Jefferson Wright m. 14 November 1833, Columbia County, Georgia
41. Pamelia Magruder
_______________________________________
42. William Cliett m. 22 February 1842, Columbia County, Georgia
43. Caroline Elizabeth Zachry
________________________________________
44. Willis Overton (born Willis Howerton) m. 20 December 1791, Culpeper
45. Susannah Tureman
________________________________________
46. George McKenney m. 2 September 1813, Lincoln County, Georgia
47. Frances Mardre
_______________________________________
b. 16 January 1793, Bertie County, North Carolina
d. 7 August 1867, Wilkes County, Georgia
________________________________________
80-81. [Parents of Thomas J. Wright are unknown]
________________________________________
82. John Magruder m. 20 October 1800, Columbia County, Georgia
83. Sarah Prior
________________________________________
84. Jonathan Cliett m. 1 January 1793, Columbia County, Georgia
85. Mary Chambless
_______________________________________
86. William Zachry m. about 1809, Columbia County, Georgia
87. Caroline Tindall
_______________________________________
88. Obediah Overton (born Obediah Howerton) m. before 1770,
probably Spotsylvania County, Virginia
89. [probably] Frances [—?—]
_______________________________________
90. Ignatius Tureman m. before 1770
91. Eleanor [ —?—]
________________________________________
92. John McKenney m. about 1784
93. Catherine Rowland
________________________________________
94. John Mardre m. about 1783, probably Bertie County, North Carolina
95. Frances Capehart
________________________________________
160-163. [Grandparents of Thomas J. Wright unknown]
________________________________________
164. Ninian Offutt Magruder m.
165. Mary Harris
________________________________________
166. Haden Prior m. 9 October 1769, Granville County, North Carolina
167. Elizabeth Wade
________________________________________
168. James Cliett m.
169. [mother of Jonathan Cliett unknown]
________________________________________
170. [John?] Chambless
171. Mary [Taylor?]
________________________________________
172. William Zachary m. 21 November 1780, Caswell County, North Carolina
173. Nancy Lea
_______________________________________
174. Bird Booker Tindall m.
175. Nancy [Taylor?]
_________________________________________
176. John Overton [born John Howerton] m. before 1745
177. [possibly] Mary [—?—]
_________________________________________
180. Robert Tureman m. 23 December 1737, Middlesex County, Virginia
181. Mary Rice
_________________________________________
182-183. [Maternal grandparents of Susannah Tureman unknown]
_________________________________________
184. Travis McKinney m.
185. Nancy (Ann) [—?—]
__________________________________________
186-187. [Parents of Catherine Rowland unknown]
__________________________________________
188-189. [Parents of John Mardre unknown]
__________________________________________
190. Michael Capehart m. about 1749, Bertie County, North Carolina
191. Frances Hardy
__________________________________________
328. John Magruder m. about 1731, Montgomery County, Maryland
329. Jane Offutt
___________________________________________
332. Philip Prior m. about 1732
333. Ann Haden
___________________________________________
334. John Wade m.
335. Mary [—?—]
___________________________________________
344. James Zach(a)ry m.
345. Mary [Jackson?]
___________________________________________
346. James Lea (or Leigh) m.
347. Winnefred Kavanaugh
___________________________________________
348. William Tindall m.
349. Elizabeth Ann (Betsy) Bryan or Bryant [or possibly Booker]
___________________________________________
351. Thomas Howerton m.
352. [--?--]
___________________________________________
368. William McKinney m. about 1733
369. Winifred Gathings
___________________________________________
382. Lamb Hardy
383. Elizabeth Parrott
___________________________________________
656. Ninian Magruder (I) m.
657. Elizabeth Brewer
___________________________________________
658. Edward Offutt m.
659. Eleanor Edmonston
___________________________________________
664. Robert Prior b. 1666, England m. 1689
665. Betty Virginia Green
___________________________________________
668. Andrew Wade m.
669. Martha Farley
___________________________________________
692. James Lea (or Leigh) m. 1746
693. Ann Herndon
___________________________________________
702. Thomas Howerton b. about 1640 in England m.
[--?--]
____________________________________________
736. William McKinney m. about 1710
737. Elizabeth Blundall
____________________________________________
738. John Gathings m.
739. Ann Cobham
____________________________________________
1312. Samuel Magruder m.
1313. Sarah Beall
____________________________________________
1384. John Leigh or Lea b. 1677, England m.
1385. Ann Taylor b. 12 January 1674, Carlisle, County Cumberland, England
____________________________________________
1386. Edward Herndon m.
1387. Mary Waller b. 23 February 1674, Newport, Buckinghamshire, England
____________________________________________
2624. Alexander Magruder b. 1610, Belliclone, Perthshire, Scotland m.
[--?--]

end of American gateway AT
********************************************




____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62s ... o8Wcj9tAcJ

[Gjest]

Thanks, Will. I have will abstract and will take a look at the patron sheet.
Pat

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: [email protected]

Pat I'm feeling that possibly tracking down the underlying *source* for that
Patron Sheet submission might be one route. Perhaps there is a published
list of his letters, maybe he wrote some back home or referred to some
relations. Also his Will is extant. So those are places to start.



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

[Gjest]

Thank you very much, James. The Pennsylvanian Magazine of History and Biography also mentioned that Patrick Gordon's motto was "Par l'epee' and the crest, a right arm embowed grasping a sword. The writer stated that he had examined some arms in the Pennsylvania Historical Society and "elsewhere" and found that Patrick Gordon used a shield bearing "1st Az. three boars heads or Gordon; 2nd: Or. three lions heads, erased gu. Badenoch 3rd: Or, three cresents within the royal tressure of Scotland gu. Seton 4th: Az. three cinque-foils arg. Fraser.
I've some work to do.
Pat
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: James Dempster <[email protected]>

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:05:58 +0000, [email protected] wrote:

Little seems available concerning the ancestry of Gov. Patrick Gordon of
Pennsylvania (1726-36). The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography
contains a segment which indicates the seal of Gov. Gordon quartered the arms
of Gordon, Badenoch, Seton and Frazer. This article states that Burke's General
Armory, shows Gov. Gordon's daughter Philadelphia's descendant, John Taylor
Gordon, was from Alexander Gordon, 3rd Earl of Huntly.
Can anyone shed light on the veracity of this descent?

The arms of Dr John Taylor-Gordon as described in Burkes General
Armory do not show him to be a descendant of 3rd Earl of Huntly. They
are quarterly 1&4 Gordon and 2&3 Taylor.

The Gordon arms in Burkes are

Azure three boars' heads erased Or within a bordure Sable

There are no quarterings Badenoch, Seton or Fraser.

John Taylor-Gordon's arms were matriculated in 1837 in Lyon Register
where he is described as an MD of Aberdeen.

The lack of the Badenoch, Seton and Fraser quarterings is not
conclusive proof that he was not descended from the Huntly Gordons but
is suggestive that he might not be. It could be worthwhile writing to
Lyon Clerk at the Court of the Lord Lyon to see what genealogical
evidence was presented at the time of the matriculation.

http://www.lyon-court.com

The Gordons have been well written up by J.M. Bulloch in the late 19th
and early 20th centuries and it would seem likely that if there is
anything to be found his book "The House of Gordon" is as good a place
to start as any.

James
James Dempster

You know you've had a good night
when you wake up
and someone's outlining you in chalk.

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

[Peter Stewart]

On Dec 6, 9:06 am, [email protected] wrote:

Dear Douglas,
How do We know this Roger wasn`t a Meulan and a
Longespee. Could Earl William of Salisbury have had a daughter who married (or not)
a member of the Meulan family. nepos can after all simply mean kinsman , can
it not , as well as nephew or grandson ?

James, you evidently missed my first post in this thread clarifying
that "nepos" did mean nephew in this case, since Henry III's brother
Richard earl of Cornwall was described as "avunculus" (uncle) to
Roger. That is one of the important points from a contemporary source
that Richardson had overlooked due to his feline laziness and
incompetence.

The likelihood that Roger was a son of Raoul of Meulan, as Richardson
has proposed, is vanishingly small. He is embarking on another erratic
"Countess Ida" quest, in which he will eventually proclaim himself the
discoverer of any individual who may emerge as the most plausible
candidate from other people's research.

Seizing on Isabel who may have been a bastard daughter of King John as
a proposed first wife of this man is even more pointless. All we know
so far is that John probably had a grandson named Roger de Meuleng who
was actively supported by Richard of Cornwall in gaining a bishopric.

Peter Stewart

[Douglas Richardson]

On Dec 5, 5:39 pm, Peter Stewart <[email protected]> wrote:

No sources. No weblinks. IGNORE

[D. Spencer Hines]

The BRITISH, not just ENGLISH, historians are, of course correct in
retaining the term Dark Ages.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

John 5:14

Matthew 7:6

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

How stupid. Historians in general today do not much
use the term "dark ages" for just those reasons. The
only major exception are some English historians for
whom the term denotes a time period of variable length
and starting date, generally prior to 1066.

[Renia]

Total silence from Bill Arnold regarding my multiple posts about the
Peck family.

A gentleman scholar is someone who does your work for you, Bill?

[D. Spencer Hines]

Correct...

And Rightly So...

Vide Petrarch -- and my many previous posts on this classic
historiographical issue.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

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

Paul J Gans wrote:

How stupid. Historians in general today do not much
use the term "dark ages" for just those reasons.

You are wrong. The term is still in common usage among British historians.

[Renia]

Bill Arnold wrote:

Renia: Total silence from Bill Arnold regarding my multiple posts about the
Peck family. A gentleman scholar is someone who does your work for you, Bill?

Ba: Renia, Dah'ling, as it is said over in Palm Bleach, Florida, I luv you dearly!
You must have missed my praise of you and Will in the same *Breathless*
breath about JimPup owing you all *Grace* because you wrote about his line:
Anne Peck. Of course, because this list has been so unkind to newcomers
JimPup is fearful of popping up his head that you all might cut it off again:
a nasty habit of Royalty! Now, Renia, read that post and come back at me,
if you wish: Sweetheart, as we say here in the south to ones we truly love!

I saw that post. But you made no comment as to your thoughts on my analysis.

[D. Spencer Hines]

Good Point...

The OP is Russian and knows what he's writing about.

Keep in mind that all of Nicholas II's children -- four daughters and a
son -- were murdered by the Bolsheviks.

None of the children had married or had children of their own when they were
murdered by the Bolsheviks at Ekatererinburg on 16 July 1918.

Simple Historical Facts Any Fool Can Easily Find Online...At Wikipedia.

Even Pogue Stewart...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:7922df1b-1b4c-4252-a803-2bcc6e6f06ee@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

A little bit of a nitpicking: none of the surviving Romanovs is a
'descendant' of Nicholas II.

Nicholas can't be blamed (even if he was in reality) for Khodynka
(event was organized by the administration of Moscow Governor-General,
Nicky's uncle who was later assassinated) or for Bloody Sunday (he
was not even in St. Petersburg at this time).

However, there are plenty of issues on his personal account. Which, of
course, can't justify the murder of his children.

[Bill Arnold]

Peter Stewart: If anyone here can't see how disgraceful, shoddy and unscholarly
Richardson's approach has been over this - himself, Hines and Arnold
included - why not post a detailed and specific rebuttal of criticisms, with
citations and weblinks?

BA: OK, Petah! You wish to now include me in your ad hominems. Let me tell
you something: you are precisely "disgraceful, shoddy and unscholarly" to put
my name next to Hines! That is number one. Number two, I have not been
making these posts, but The Lion has! It seems to me that Douglas Richardson
carries gen-medieval on his back. He posts original material. What have you
posted, on a daily basis? O, I know: I should look at ten years of archives? Then
you should look at everything *I* have written: fair enough? I note the following:
without the slightest doubt as to fact. Douglas Richardson is a *Lion* among
a pack of rabid animals who are more uncouth than sloths! You cannot get it
into your thick skull that you can treat the core subject matter of a post without
constantly attacking the messenger. I have no quarrel with you, but I surely
have a quarrel with your methods. Your messages reek of jealousy, envy
and I pity your *Grace* because, Your Grace, you are sorely lacking thereof.
Remember this: authors author books. That is what an author is. A writer
writes. Where are your authored books, Petah? I do not have any sense that
your reputation precedes you? No one on this list except Douglas Richardson
has a Lion's reputation. You could earn one, so could TAF, so could Will, and
on and on and on. When Douglas Richardson authors a book, he has a page
of acknowledgments. Scholars in all disciplines know who first published a
proprietary thoughts, because, Sir, that is a case for suit, or didn't you know
that? And there are scholarly circles, in which any scholar can quote what is
even declared *by permission only* in parts in the interest of scholarship and
the author *CANNOT* stop it. It is called *fair use*: or didn't you know that,
either? You seem to know a tad little about nothing. You cannot stop Douglas
Richardson from research, analysis and authoring his works. Period. You do
*not* have to contribute. The internet is a new *medium* oft referred to as
the *Information Highway.* Love it, or leave it, Petah! And the next time you
use my name in vain, remember you *Grace* has diminished himself even more
in the eyes of the world.

I remain,
your humble scholar,

Bill

*****


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

[Bill Arnold]

--- Renia <[email protected]> wrote:

Bill Arnold wrote:

Renia: Total silence from Bill Arnold regarding my multiple posts about the
Peck family. A gentleman scholar is someone who does your work for you, Bill?

Ba: Renia, Dah'ling, as it is said over in Palm Bleach, Florida, I luv you dearly!
You must have missed my praise of you and Will in the same *Breathless*
breath about JimPup owing you all *Grace* because you wrote about his line:
Anne Peck. Of course, because this list has been so unkind to newcomers
JimPup is fearful of popping up his head that you all might cut it off again:
a nasty habit of Royalty! Now, Renia, read that post and come back at me,
if you wish: Sweetheart, as we say here in the south to ones we truly love!

I saw that post. But you made no comment as to your thoughts on my analysis.

BA: OK, Renia, let me be candid! Do you think that Bill Arnold lives in a vacuum?
People send me *private* emails, even *call* me on the telephone? What a novel
idea? Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus, and he brings bright colored wrapped
packages to bright-eyed and bushy-tailed happy kids who grow up to be snarly
and mean adults! Hey, Renia, I did *not* make this world: < G > did! I inhabit
it. Now, some people I correspond with and talk with on the phone have suggested
to Bill Arnold to *lay-low* and let the Peck stuff chill! What a novel idea? Yes:
I consulted the archives and I have posted *circa* 600 posts! Holy Cow! And almost
all on Peck! I thank Nat Taylor, gentleman and scholar, for aligning the Magruders,
Scots of the first order, of which I descent from William I The Conqueror King of
England from Charlemagne. I am sure Douglas Richardson when he compiles
his *Charlemagne Ancestry* which will be a block-buster best-seller here in the
*States* will include the *Magruder* line back to the Scots. And you and Will
and jump on board. I note Will has taken note. I am only a tad little disappointed
that it took me *dropping* the Peck Football for you to pick it up, and declare
to the *field* that suddenly Little Renia wants to play! God bless you! You are
sweet! So: what do I think of your analysis? Well, where were you when I was
taking mortar rounds over Mount Suribachi at my dug-in position on the beach
and enemy aircraft were strafing my hole in the mud? What am I to think, when
gen-medievalers revel in my wake, the parade of jesters jeer my risen from the
dead, and my head has been stuck on pole on the ramparts stinking to High
Heaven for nigh this fortnight: and the guard at post cries, "Hark, the cock
crows, the sun is up, and all is well with the world.

Bill


Bill Arnold
[email protected]
MFA, U-Mass, Amherst
Dickinson Scholar
Independent Scholar
Independent Scholar, Modern Language Association
Professor of world literature classics
Author, EMILY DICKINSON'S SECRET LOVE: Mystery "Master" Behind Poems,
230 pages, 1998.
ISBN 1-892582-00-7
---------------------------------------------------------------------

"There is magic in the web" Shakespeare (Othello, Act 3, Scene 4)

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




____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62s ... o8Wcj9tAcJ

[Bill Arnold]

Renia: Total silence from Bill Arnold regarding my multiple posts about the
Peck family. A gentleman scholar is someone who does your work for you, Bill?

Ba: Renia, Dah'ling, as it is said over in Palm Bleach, Florida, I luv you dearly!
You must have missed my praise of you and Will in the same *Breathless*
breath about JimPup owing you all *Grace* because you wrote about his line:
Anne Peck. Of course, because this list has been so unkind to newcomers
JimPup is fearful of popping up his head that you all might cut it off again:
a nasty habit of Royalty! Now, Renia, read that post and come back at me,
if you wish: Sweetheart, as we say here in the south to ones we truly love!

Bill

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

[Peter Stewart]

On Dec 6, 2:33 pm, Bill Arnold <[email protected]> wrote:

Peter Stewart: If anyone here can't see how disgraceful, shoddy and unscholarly
Richardson's approach has been over this - himself, Hines and Arnold
included - why not post a detailed and specific rebuttal of criticisms, with
citations and weblinks?

BA: OK, Petah! You wish to now include me in your ad hominems.

It's not an "ad hominem", such as using infantile name forms - that
means attacking a person for reasons unconnected to the matter under
dispute, whereas the sycophantic and self-seeking attitude of yourself
and Hines to Richardson is entirely germane to my point You had both
already "weighed" (or rather "light-weighed") into the discussion on
this thread, Arnold with the absurd effusion copied with double-
chevrons below:

BA: You tell them, Lion! It amazes me to no end, how these scholarly
posts of Douglas Richardson are trashed by unscholarly ad hominem
attacks. This is gen-medieval, and the challenge to a post of scholarly
import should be a scholarly challenge on *content* and *context* with
sources, weblinks, et al. The Lion has roared on point!

Let me tell you something: you are precisely "disgraceful, shoddy and
unscholarly" to put my name next to Hines! That is number one. Number
two, I have not been making these posts, but The Lion has!

You made the embarrassing post quoted above....

It seems to me that Douglas Richardson carries gen-medieval on his
back. He posts original material. What have you posted, on a daily
basis? O, I know: I should look at ten years of archives?

Yes you should, and should have done before (or, better, instead of)
opining without a clue.

Then you should look at everything *I* have written: fair enough?

No, not fair at all. I have no intention of reading every bit of
nonsense and twisted special pleading that you have written, but have
seen enough to know that you are a fraud. So sue me.

No self-respecting college would have employed you to teach, or left
students at risk of polluting their minds with your stupidity and
craziness if this gross mistake had ever been made in the first place.

There is a wide difference between good minds gone bad, as of course
happens occasionally with academic cranks, and plain bad minds: yours
is one of the latter. You don't display any of the discipline in
thought or expression of which vestiges would remain in the mental
ruin of an accomplished individual. You are a phoney. Perhaps you
"taught" in a fly-by-night operation selling worthless degree
certificates, or some such institution of the prostitution of
learning, but not in a decent college. You self-registered as a
"scholar" of Emily Dickinson, but you don't use the language well
enough to have a deep appreciation of her poetry much less
Shakespeare's. You are a lonely, poisonous nutter with an obsessive-
compulsive personal agenda to run through studies in these fields,
like a phantom bull through a crowded street - no-one gets hurt, but a
few novices get spooked into imagining that you might know something.

I note the following:
without the slightest doubt as to fact. Douglas Richardson is a *Lion* among
a pack of rabid animals who are more uncouth than sloths! You cannot get it
into your thick skull that you can treat the core subject matter of a post without
constantly attacking the messenger. I have no quarrel with you, but I surely
have a quarrel with your methods. Your messages reek of jealousy, envy
and I pity your *Grace* because, Your Grace, you are sorely lacking thereof.
Remember this: authors author books. That is what an author is. A writer
writes. Where are your authored books, Petah? I do not have any sense that
your reputation precedes you? No one on this list except Douglas Richardson
has a Lion's reputation. You could earn one, so could TAF, so could Will, and
on and on and on. When Douglas Richardson authors a book, he has a page
of acknowledgments.

When Douglas Richardson authors a book, he should have a book of
acknowledgements.

Claiming that production of a book on medieval genealogy (that even
Roderick Stuart managed) alone qualifies a person to post forthright
opinions on this subject is so silly as to be another kind of ad
hominem in this instance.

Scholars in all disciplines know who first published a
proprietary thoughts, because, Sir, that is a case for suit, or didn't you know
that? And there are scholarly circles, in which any scholar can quote what is
even declared *by permission only* in parts in the interest of scholarship and
the author *CANNOT* stop it. It is called *fair use*: or didn't you know that,
either? You seem to know a tad little about nothing. You cannot stop Douglas
Richardson from research, analysis and authoring his works. Period. You do
*not* have to contribute. The internet is a new *medium* oft referred to as
the *Information Highway.* Love it, or leave it, Petah! And the next time you
use my name in vain, remember you *Grace* has diminished himself even more
in the eyes of the world.

I remain,
your humble scholar,

Not nearly humble enough, as your unhinged rant above shows, and you
are most certainly no kind of scholar. But you are ideally apt in
character and mind to be Richardson's new cheerleader.

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

On Dec 5, 8:28 pm, Peter Stewart <[email protected]> wrote:

On Dec 6, 2:33 pm, Bill Arnold <[email protected]> wrote:

Peter Stewart: If anyone here can't see how disgraceful, shoddy and unscholarly
Richardson's approach has been over this - himself, Hines and Arnold
included - why not post a detailed and specific rebuttal of criticisms, with
citations and weblinks?

BA: OK, Petah! You wish to now include me in your ad hominems.

A post full of ad hominems, decrying ad hominems. One does wonder
when he will put down the pom pons and himself make a useful
contribution to the group

Let me tell you something: you are precisely "disgraceful, shoddy and
unscholarly" to put my name next to Hines! That is number one.

He seems to have forgotten that he accused someone else of being
Hines' lover. Now the hypocrite objects so vehemently to himself
being linked with Hines.

You self-registered as a
"scholar" of Emily Dickinson, but you don't use the language well
enough to have a deep appreciation of her poetry much less
Shakespeare's.

You are operating under a misconception. His specialty is not her
language. His primary interest would seem to be that other most noble
and scholarly subspecialty of literature, an analysis of who she had
the hots for.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

On Dec 6, 4:36 pm, [email protected] wrote:

On Dec 5, 8:28 pm, Peter Stewart <[email protected]> wrote:

<snip>

You self-registered as a "scholar" of Emily Dickinson, but you
don't use the language well enough to have a deep appreciation of
her poetry much less Shakespeare's.

You are operating under a misconception. His specialty is not her
language. His primary interest would seem to be that other most noble
and scholarly subspecialty of literature, an analysis of who she had
the hots for.

Yes, I supposed it was a debased interest on Arnold's aprt, not far
above the pornographic pursuits of Hines that he is shamelessly
willing to share with the world in order to continue scaring up some
human contact, however contemptuous of himself, online.

But surely Arnold used the poems as fodder for his degraded
"analysis". A person who deploys two (or more) colons in one sentence
is incapable of engaging in literary studies without remedial
teaching. Arnold's level of expression in prose wouldn't allow him to
comprehend the instructions on a paper sick-bag to any useful purpose,
much less the refinements of Emily Dickinson's writing.

Peter Stewart

[Douglas Richardson]

On Dec 5, 10:36 pm, [email protected] wrote:

< You are operating under a misconception. His specialty is not her
< language. His primary interest would seem to be that other most
noble
< and scholarly subspecialty of literature, an analysis of who she had
< the hots for.
<
< taf

taf is way off topic, which is what happens when posters fail to give
their evidence and cite their sources.

'Nuff said.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[wjhonson]

On Dec 5, 7:33 pm, Bill Arnold <[email protected]> wrote:

When Douglas Richardson authors a book, he has a page of acknowledgments.

Sure, except for those people from whom he lifts and refuses to
acknowledge.

Scholars in all disciplines know who first published a
proprietary thoughts, because, Sir, that is a case for suit, or didn't you know
that?

I'm sure we would all be in your debt, were you to provide an actual
case, won, where one person sued another because they stole their
published thought without acknowledgement.

And there are scholarly circles, in which any scholar can quote what is
even declared *by permission only* in parts in the interest of scholarship and
the author *CANNOT* stop it. It is called *fair use*: or didn't you know that,
either?

Fair Use has nothing to do with scholarly beneficence. It is a
Copyright Law exemption.

Will Johnson

[D. Spencer Hines]

Amusing...

taf posts an ad hominem attack on Arnold -- ridiculing and excoriating
Arnold for having posted an ad hominem attack on Stewart, who had posted an
ad hominem attack on Richardson, Arnold and Hines....

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

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

On Dec 5, 8:28 pm, Peter Stewart <[email protected]> wrote:

On Dec 6, 2:33 pm, Bill Arnold <[email protected]> wrote:

Peter Stewart: If anyone here can't see how disgraceful, shoddy and
unscholarly
Richardson's approach has been over this - himself, Hines and Arnold
included - why not post a detailed and specific rebuttal of criticisms,
with
citations and weblinks?

BA: OK, Petah! You wish to now include me in your ad hominems.

A post full of ad hominems, decrying ad hominems. One does wonder
when he will put down the pom pons and himself make a useful
contribution to the group

Let me tell you something: you are precisely "disgraceful, shoddy and
unscholarly" to put my name next to Hines! That is number one.

He seems to have forgotten that he accused someone else of being
Hines' lover. Now the hypocrite objects so vehemently to himself
being linked with Hines.

You self-registered as a
"scholar" of Emily Dickinson, but you don't use the language well
enough to have a deep appreciation of her poetry much less
Shakespeare's.

You are operating under a misconception. His specialty is not her
language. His primary interest would seem to be that other most noble
and scholarly subspecialty of literature, an analysis of who she had
the hots for.

taf

[Renia]

Bill Arnold wrote:

--- Renia <[email protected]> wrote:


Bill Arnold wrote:


Renia: Total silence from Bill Arnold regarding my multiple posts about the
Peck family. A gentleman scholar is someone who does your work for you, Bill?

Ba: Renia, Dah'ling, as it is said over in Palm Bleach, Florida, I luv you dearly!
You must have missed my praise of you and Will in the same *Breathless*
breath about JimPup owing you all *Grace* because you wrote about his line:
Anne Peck. Of course, because this list has been so unkind to newcomers
JimPup is fearful of popping up his head that you all might cut it off again:
a nasty habit of Royalty! Now, Renia, read that post and come back at me,
if you wish: Sweetheart, as we say here in the south to ones we truly love!

I saw that post. But you made no comment as to your thoughts on my analysis.



BA: OK, Renia, let me be candid! Do you think that Bill Arnold lives in a vacuum?
People send me *private* emails, even *call* me on the telephone?

Fine, but we have shared no private emails or telephone calls about the
Pecks or any other subject.

What a novel
idea? Yes, Virginia,

Now, who else do I know who personally knows Virginia?

there is a Santa Claus, and he brings bright colored wrapped
packages to bright-eyed and bushy-tailed happy kids who grow up to be snarly
and mean adults! Hey, Renia, I did *not* make this world: < G > did! I inhabit
it.

Same here. Now, what do you think of the several posts I made about the
Pecks?

Now, some people I correspond with and talk with on the phone have suggested
to Bill Arnold to *lay-low* and let the Peck stuff chill!

Probably a good idea. But, two things:

First, you are quite correct in saying this family his been little
discussed on this newsgroup.

Second, it would be a politeness for you to respond to the comments I
made on the NEHGR article.

What a novel idea? Yes:
I consulted the archives and I have posted *circa* 600 posts! Holy Cow! And almost
all on Peck! I thank Nat Taylor, gentleman and scholar, for aligning the Magruders,
Scots of the first order, of which I descent from William I The Conqueror King of
England from Charlemagne.

Fine, but where do the Pecks come in?

I am sure Douglas Richardson when he compiles
his *Charlemagne Ancestry* which will be a block-buster best-seller here in the
*States* will include the *Magruder* line back to the Scots. And you and Will
and jump on board. I note Will has taken note. I am only a tad little disappointed
that it took me *dropping* the Peck Football for you to pick it up,

I'm not a Peck. I'm not even American. I have no Peck relatives
whatsoever so I would never have picked up on that article but for your
stupid attitude to genealogy. Had you actually read and understood that
article, you would never have posted those 600 ridiculous posts.

and declare
to the *field* that suddenly Little Renia wants to play! God bless you! You are
sweet! So: what do I think of your analysis? Well, where were you when I was
taking mortar rounds over Mount Suribachi at my dug-in position on the beach

What has that to do with anything?. I wasn't even born so don't blame me
for not taking mortar-rounds with you.

and enemy aircraft were strafing my hole in the mud? What am I to think, when
gen-medievalers revel in my wake, the parade of jesters jeer my risen from the
dead, and my head has been stuck on pole on the ramparts stinking to High
Heaven for nigh this fortnight: and the guard at post cries, "Hark, the cock
crows, the sun is up, and all is well with the world.

What the hell are you talking about?

So, do you still think the Pecks descend from Charlemagne?

[Bill Arnold]

Douglas Richardson: I don't have just a page of acknowledgements in
my books. My books have HUGE bibliographies where EVERY published
source that I 've consulted in the preparation of my books is fully cited
and GRATEFULLY acknowledged. And my bibliography continues to
expand and grow!

BA: Written as only a true and certain gentleman and scholar would do!
The Lion has engraved it in stone!

Bill

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62s ... o8Wcj9tAcJ

[Bill Arnold]

BA: I am sure Douglas Richardson when he compiles his *Charlemagne Ancestry*
which will be a block-buster best-seller here in the *States* will include the
*Magruder* line back to the Scots. And you and Will and jump on board. I note
Will has taken note. I am only a tad little disappointed that it took me *dropping*
the Peck Football for you to pick it up....

Renia: I'm not a Peck. I'm not even American. I have no Peck relatives
whatsoever so I would never have picked up on that article but for your
stupid attitude to genealogy. Had you actually read and understood that
article, you would never have posted those 600 ridiculous posts. So, do you still
think the Pecks descend from Charlemagne?

BA: Interesante. So, now, you state you read an article on the Pecks because
of my "stupid attitude to genealogy." That was your *stated* motivation? You
wrote that, not me. I am *underwhelmed* by such a stupid attitude toward
genealogy by you, not me. I not only *read* the 1930s articles in the Register,
I also understood them. I stated flatly two things, neither of which you now
acknowledge in your ad hominem: (1) I read it and acknowledged the *FACTS*
therein but did not agree with all the *OPINIONS* of the authors about those
facts. And now, my "600 ridiculous posts" have got your dander up and snarly
and you wish me to say something gentlemanly about your ad hominems. Nah.
No. Zilch. Zippo. Nada. No way, Jose. Forgeddabouditt! And in answer to my
thoughts about the Peck descent from Charlemagne? Sheesh. That is a tough
one. As a gentleman and a scholar, I find because of the hard work of John
Higgins, Nat Taylor, and others who emailed me off-list, and spoke to me on
the telephone, I would have to tell you as a naif among giants in medieval
genealogy: I do *not* know. I do know the following: there is in the Brit Lib
a Peck Pedigree which alleges it; the parentage of Robert Peck, the Elder,
the grandfather of gateway ancestor Joseph Peck, emigrant to America in 1638,
is still in *limbo* and *WILL* be pursued by scholars in perpetuity as long as
the archives of gen-medieval exist: so help me < G >! Once all extant records
in England and Scotland and elsewhere which impinge upon this scholarly
question are studied in depth, court, chancery, deed, wills, IPMs, et al., and
a final resolution as to the parentage of Robert Peck, the Elder, is established,
then it might indeed turn out that this Englishman of the 15th/16thC had
descent from Charlemagne. Who knows? You certainly do not.

Bill

*****








____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

[Bill Arnold]

TAF: You [Petah] are operating under a misconception. His[BA] specialty
is not her language. His primary interest would seem to be that other most
noble and scholarly subspecialty of literature, an analysis of who she had
the hots for.

BA: In the realm you refer to, I am known as a Dickinson scholar and
biographer. I have also been known to *parse* a few writings of poet Emily
Dickinson, including her letters and poems and issue a few exegeses.

Bill

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

[Bill Arnold]

Will Johnson: I'm sure we would all be in your debt, were you to provide an actual
case, won, where one person sued another because they stole their published thought
without acknowledgement.

BA: Check it out!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchwald_v._Paramount

http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/sue.htm

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/'Rounders ... 0123324483

http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/distprac.htm

Bill

*****



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

[Gjest]

On Dec 6, 4:58 am, Bill Arnold <[email protected]> wrote:

Will Johnson: I'm sure we would all be in your debt, were you to provide an actual
case, won, where one person sued another because they stole their published thought
without acknowledgement.

[this in response to Mr. Arnold's : "Scholars in all disciplines know
who first published a proprietary thoughts, because, Sir, that is a
case for suit, or didn't you know that?"]

BA: Check it out!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchwald_v._Paramount

http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/sue.htm

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/'Rounders ... roader+p...

http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/distprac.htm

Bill

All of which deal with movie studios stealing script ideas. Given that
the writing of movie scripts is not generally considered a scholarly
discipline, nor have they been published and then taken without
attribution, it is difficult to see how these could be deemed
relevant.

Mr. Arnold is right in one respect - the scholars in a field usually
do know when someone has been pirating the ideas of others. They know
when an author has published material that is contradicted or
unsupported by the references given for that material. They sometimes
even can tell when an author has cited references second-hand, without
actually consulting them. It is the novices with stars in their eyes
who fail to recognize the complexity of the situation, grossly
oversimplifying it with silly nicknames and acting the cheerleader
without understanding the context.

taf

[D. Spencer Hines]

Hmmmmmm...

Have you parsed her knees?

DSH

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

TAF: You [Petah] are operating under a misconception. His[BA] specialty
is not her language. His primary interest would seem to be that other most
noble and scholarly subspecialty of literature, an analysis of who she had
the hots for.

BA: In the realm you refer to, I am known as a Dickinson scholar and
biographer. I have also been known to *parse* a few writings of poet
Emily
Dickinson, including her letters and poems and issue a few exegeses.

Bill

[Renia]

Bill Arnold wrote:

BA: I am sure Douglas Richardson when he compiles his *Charlemagne Ancestry*
which will be a block-buster best-seller here in the *States* will include the
*Magruder* line back to the Scots. And you and Will and jump on board. I note
Will has taken note. I am only a tad little disappointed that it took me *dropping*
the Peck Football for you to pick it up....

Renia: I'm not a Peck. I'm not even American. I have no Peck relatives
whatsoever so I would never have picked up on that article but for your
stupid attitude to genealogy. Had you actually read and understood that
article, you would never have posted those 600 ridiculous posts. So, do you still
think the Pecks descend from Charlemagne?

BA: Interesante. So, now, you state you read an article on the Pecks because
of my "stupid attitude to genealogy." That was your *stated* motivation? You
wrote that, not me. I am *underwhelmed* by such a stupid attitude toward
genealogy by you, not me. I not only *read* the 1930s articles in the Register,
I also understood them.

Apparently, you didn't, because you ranted and raved, as you have done
in this post, that people aren't gentlemen and scholars if they don't
agree with you.

The article makes it quite clear the Suffolk Pecks do not descend from
the Yorkshire Pecks. The article even gives a possible father for Robert
Peck, the elder. You have ignored all this.

I stated flatly two things, neither of which you now
acknowledge in your ad hominem: (1) I read it and acknowledged the *FACTS*

Only those *FACTS* which you choose to be facts. Anything else, as you
say below, is *OPINION*.

therein but did not agree with all the *OPINIONS* of the authors about those
facts. And now, my "600 ridiculous posts" have got your dander up and snarly
and you wish me to say something gentlemanly about your ad hominems. Nah.

As to ad hominems, you are the master of them. I spent some time
studying the article for you, made some points, and waited for your
answer so we could discuss it. Nothing.

No. Zilch. Zippo. Nada. No way, Jose. Forgeddabouditt! And in answer to my
thoughts about the Peck descent from Charlemagne? Sheesh. That is a tough
one. As a gentleman and a scholar, I find because of the hard work of John
Higgins, Nat Taylor, and others who emailed me off-list, and spoke to me on
the telephone, I would have to tell you as a naif among giants in medieval
genealogy: I do *not* know.

Fair comment.

I do know the following: there is in the Brit Lib
a Peck Pedigree which alleges it; the parentage of Robert Peck, the Elder,
the grandfather of gateway ancestor Joseph Peck, emigrant to America in 1638,
is still in *limbo* and *WILL* be pursued by scholars in perpetuity as long as
the archives of gen-medieval exist: so help me < G >!

And this is just what I tried to help you to do in my series of posts on
the subject. But you didn't reply or seem to want to discuss it.

Once all extant records
in England and Scotland and elsewhere which impinge upon this scholarly
question are studied in depth, court, chancery, deed, wills, IPMs, et al., and
a final resolution as to the parentage of Robert Peck, the Elder, is established,
then it might indeed turn out that this Englishman of the 15th/16thC had
descent from Charlemagne. Who knows? You certainly do not.

No, I don't and I don't really care.

But you have ranted and raved about all this, so I thought I would try
and help you. Now you're ranting and raving again.

I helped you before with some of the Middleton stuff. Now I've looked at
your Pecks for you.

You really are an ungrateful and very rude little man.

Enter ad hominem here:

[D. Spencer Hines]

Alex, do you blame Tsar Nikolai II for Russia's defeats in the
Russo-Japanese War?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

[Renia]

Bill Arnold wrote:

BA: Once all extant records in England and Scotland and elsewhere which
impinge upon this scholarly question are studied in depth, court, chancery,
deed, wills, IPMs, et al., and a final resolution as to the parentage of Robert Peck,
the Elder, is established, then it might indeed turn out that this Englishman of
the 15th/16thC had descent from Charlemagne. Who knows? You certainly do not.

Renia: No, I don't and I don't really care.

BA: Sheesh. Well tell me something I do *not* know. But worldwide there are enough
genealogy scholars who *care* to find out and will publish about it: maybe right here
at gen-medieval.

I did already.

[Renia]

Bill Arnold wrote:

BA: I do know the following: there is in the Brit Lib a Peck Pedigree which
alleges it; the parentage of Robert Peck, the Elder, the grandfather of
gateway ancestor Joseph Peck, emigrant to America in 1638, is still in
*limbo* and *WILL* be pursued by scholars in perpetuity as long as
the archives of gen-medieval exist: so help me < G >!

Renia: And this is just what I tried to help you to do in my series of posts on
the subject. But you didn't reply or seem to want to discuss it.

BA: You need to visit your optometrist! I explained effusively why after 600
Peck posts I stood aside.

BA: Once all extant records in England and Scotland and elsewhere which
impinge upon this scholarly question are studied in depth, court, chancery,
deed, wills, IPMs, et al., and a final resolution as to the parentage of Robert Peck,
the Elder, is established, then it might indeed turn out that this Englishman of
the 15th/16thC had descent from Charlemagne. Who knows? You certainly do not.

Renia: No, I don't and I don't really care.

BA: Sheesh. Well tell me something I do *not* know. But worldwide there are enough
genealogy scholars who *care* to find out and will publish about it: maybe right here
at gen-medieval.

Renia: But you have ranted and raved about all this, so I thought I would try
and help you. Now you're ranting and raving again. I helped you before with some of
the Middleton stuff. Now I've looked at your Pecks for you. You really are an ungrateful
and very rude little man.

BA: I stand six foot tall. And I am not ungrateful, I have praised you more than once,
and TAF rarely if ever, DSH never, et al. Consult the archives. As to where you *stand*
right now, it is right in front of us: The Ice Princess. And you ought to know, as an
American, we stopped curtsying the day we dump English tea in Boston harbor and
started a revolution. Evolve, Ice Princess, it would become you.

I really don't know what this is all about. I try to help you and you
evade the issue by proclaiming you gave reasons why you're not talking
about the Pecks any more. But you gave those reasons AFTER I'd done your
research for you.

Now, you are calling me names because I did your work for you.

You may be tall, but you are a very little man. You do not act like a
scholar at all. You have not received a degree, have you? If you have,
then you would know what I am talking about.

[Gjest]

On Dec 6, 6:45 am, Bill Arnold <[email protected]> wrote:

TAF: All of which deal with movie studios stealing script ideas. Given that
the writing of movie scripts is not generally considered a scholarly
discipline, nor have they been published and then taken without
attribution, it is difficult to see how these could be deemed
relevant.

BA: All of which belies the ignorance of the poster and his noisy
sycophants. There is a profound difference between an *idea* which
is *not* copyrightable and a written script or any other written document
attributable to a writer or an author.

All of which is bluster to distract from the issue of stealing
scholarly ideas without attribution, which is an issue of scholarly
integrity, not copyright law.

We are really talking about
*copyright law* and as I have already written it varies from nation to nation,

No, you are misapplying copyright law to complaints involving research
integrity.

and because *THIS* is the information highway aka the internet, there is a
whole new branch called internet copyright law. Educate yourselves,
sycophants!

To accuse others of sycophancy given your behavior here is ironic.

TAF: Mr. Arnold is right in one respect - the scholars in a field usually
do know when someone has been pirating the ideas of others. They know
when an author has published material that is contradicted or
unsupported by the references given for that material. They sometimes
even can tell when an author has cited references second-hand, without
actually consulting them. It is the novices with stars in their eyes
who fail to recognize the complexity of the situation, grossly
oversimplifying it with silly nicknames and acting the cheerleader
without understanding the context.

BA: Although the above comment by TAF is grossly self-serving, he
needs to get a heads-up on not only *copyright law* but *libel law*
as he is knee-deep in the doo-doo patties in a cow pasture somewhere
in America, as it has been stated. I have written I am a scholar, published,
and a journalist, published, with front-page stories and down-pages stories,
at a major worldwide tabbie which is well-known by those who know my
bio. I have written extensively in scholarly circles and have a few books
which are scholarly.

Yawn. . .

I can assure gen-medievaliers that TAF has not a clue
about these *copyright* and *libel* matters,

If this last statement, an argument from personal assurance, is
indicative of your scholarship, well, it speaks for itself. I can
assure 'gen-medievaliers' (gag) that at least with regard to what I do
and do not know about copyright and libel law, Mr. Arnold is talking
out of his @$$.

taf

[Bill Arnold]

BA: I do know the following: there is in the Brit Lib a Peck Pedigree which
alleges it; the parentage of Robert Peck, the Elder, the grandfather of
gateway ancestor Joseph Peck, emigrant to America in 1638, is still in
*limbo* and *WILL* be pursued by scholars in perpetuity as long as
the archives of gen-medieval exist: so help me < G >!

Renia: And this is just what I tried to help you to do in my series of posts on
the subject. But you didn't reply or seem to want to discuss it.

BA: You need to visit your optometrist! I explained effusively why after 600
Peck posts I stood aside.

BA: Once all extant records in England and Scotland and elsewhere which
impinge upon this scholarly question are studied in depth, court, chancery,
deed, wills, IPMs, et al., and a final resolution as to the parentage of Robert Peck,
the Elder, is established, then it might indeed turn out that this Englishman of
the 15th/16thC had descent from Charlemagne. Who knows? You certainly do not.

Renia: No, I don't and I don't really care.

BA: Sheesh. Well tell me something I do *not* know. But worldwide there are enough
genealogy scholars who *care* to find out and will publish about it: maybe right here
at gen-medieval.

Renia: But you have ranted and raved about all this, so I thought I would try
and help you. Now you're ranting and raving again. I helped you before with some of
the Middleton stuff. Now I've looked at your Pecks for you. You really are an ungrateful
and very rude little man.

BA: I stand six foot tall. And I am not ungrateful, I have praised you more than once,
and TAF rarely if ever, DSH never, et al. Consult the archives. As to where you *stand*
right now, it is right in front of us: The Ice Princess. And you ought to know, as an
American, we stopped curtsying the day we dump English tea in Boston harbor and
started a revolution. Evolve, Ice Princess, it would become you.

Bill

*****




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

[Bill Arnold]

BA: I stand six foot tall. And I am not ungrateful, I have praised you more than once,
and TAF rarely if ever, DSH never, et al. Consult the archives. As to where you *stand*
right now, it is right in front of us: The Ice Princess. And you ought to know, as an
American, we stopped curtsying the day we dump English tea in Boston harbor and
started a revolution. Evolve, Ice Princess, it would become you.

Renia: I really don't know what this is all about. I try to help you and you
evade the issue by proclaiming you gave reasons why you're not talking
about the Pecks any more. But you gave those reasons AFTER I'd done your
research for you. Now, you are calling me names because I did your work for you.

BA: *The Ice Princess* is an Honorific, like HM the Queen!

Renia: You may be tall, but you are a very little man. You do not act like a
scholar at all. You have not received a degree, have you? If you have,
then you would know what I am talking about.

BA: Et tu, Brute? Degree? I have several, a five-year degree, B.B.A. in Finance
from U-Mass, Amherst, with a minor in English, and taught English in the Ed-block
at Holyoke High School in 1964: my *Blackboard Jungle* days. As for my
advanced degree, in which I had to show reading proficiency in a foreign
language, French, and which was a *teaching* degree of 60-grad hours at
the same institution, I did receive it in 1967 and am entitled to the following
sig file:

We are still on square one: love

Bill Arnold


Bill Arnold
[email protected]
MFA, U-Mass, Amherst
Dickinson Scholar
Independent Scholar
Independent Scholar, Modern Language Association
Professor of world literature classics
Author, EMILY DICKINSON'S SECRET LOVE: Mystery "Master" Behind Poems,
230 pages, 1998.
ISBN 1-892582-00-7
---------------------------------------------------------------------

"There is magic in the web" Shakespeare (Othello, Act 3, Scene 4)

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


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