Blount-Ayala

[Don Stone]

[email protected] wrote:

It seems clear that, in the current state of the combined/connected
world of the Gen-Medieval mailing list and the soc-gen-med newsgroup,
this is no longer a forum for medieval genealogy. Since participants
obviously cannot be counted on to moderate themselves, some degree of
imposed control would seem to be necessary if this forum is to have
any value at all.

[snip]

Any thoughts? Or other ideas on salvaging this forum?

and [email protected] wrote:
This has always been, and will always be, a forum for both medieval
genealogy and nere do wells whose only purpose is to disrupt. People
have and have always had, the choice of getting those messages in
emails and deleting them without reading, or using the newsgroup where
you can simply not read those threads.

I have advocated filtering out crossposts as a quick way currently of

avoiding a lot of unwanted material (coming to readers via either
mailing list or newsgroup). This particular technique may not work very
well a year or two from now, but some similar technique might very well.

There is a general Internet trend toward greater exercise of control by
receivers of information and less by transmitters. Thus, less emphasis
on moderated lists and more on filtering. I personally would not want
to be moderator or co-moderator of GEN-MEDIEVAL; I wouldn't want the
difficult decisions and the inevitable disputes about moderation
decisions. However, I would be happy to periodically update a set of
publicly-accessible filtering rules that could help readers (of the
mailing list or newsgroup) avoid messages that are off-topic or
undesired for one reason or another. And, of course, anyone else can
promulgate filtering rules that implement their preferences.

Moderated groups (and moderated printed material, e.g. refereed
journals) certainly play an important role, but so do messy unmoderated
lists and groups, whose "garbage" can be filtered out by subscribers and
is less likely to be retrieved later by search engines (and can be
filtered out in that context, too).

-- Don Stone

[Gjest]

I asked Bill, to what he was so vehemently objecting, and didn't get any
response.

Personally it's probably my unmasking that he wrote for the National
Enquirer, but per your suggestions, I've removed any mention of his wife or marriage.

Will Johnson



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

[Gjest]

P.S. I'd like to note, that his birthyear, birthplace, and current residence
are all published in the "About the Author" in his books, so it would be a
hard cry to complain about those being broadcast on a wider basis.

I don't know if anyone noticed, but his book on Shakespeare and the KJV only
shows in Worldcat at the Library of Congress.

Will Johnson



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

[Gjest]

In a message dated 12/8/2007 9:50:19 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

That was a typing mistake on my part, the survey was taken in 1185.
Sometimes my hands seem to act independently of the part of my brain
which is doing the thinking. The other relevant dates should be
adjusted one hundred years down, too. Sorry for the confusion it might
have caused. Thanks for pointing it out.>>


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Only slightly better, still problematic.
Perhaps you could cite *exactly* where in the Pipe Rolls, and quote the
survey. So we can check these.

Will Johnson



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

[Gjest]

On Dec 8, 10:04 am, [email protected] wrote:

I don't know if anyone noticed, but his book on Shakespeare and the KJV only
shows in Worldcat at the Library of Congress.

Speaking of the KJV, he berated one poster for not being familiar with
the famous Rev. Peck, immigrant, who had attended Oxford, where the
KJV was drafted. Peck actually attended Cambridge, but let's not let
the facts get in the way of a good . . . good . . . good what?

Good riddance.

taf

[D. Spencer Hines]

Bingo!

The burden must be on the receiver to filter -- NOT on the transmitter to
self-censor.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

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

[email protected] wrote:

There is a general Internet trend toward greater exercise of control by
receivers of information and less by transmitters. Thus, less emphasis on
moderated lists and more on filtering.

[D. Spencer Hines]

taf makes some useful points here.

The problem is Human Nature...

If a pogue or poguette is LOSING an argument, based on the facts and the
evidence, he or she will use any weapon that comes to hand and look to new
ones in order to dismember and disable his or her opponent.

Look at political campaigns, where the same thing happens.

Hillary and Obama are currently going at each other hammer and tongs
bringing in whatever ash and trash they can dig up and bring to bear -- even
going back to kindergarten days or issues of marital infidelity and
adultery.

The same thing happens on USENET -- which is NOT a League of Extraordinary
Ladies & Gentlemen who know how to Respect The Rules.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:718f9f65-d1ef-4e04-9ae1-2ec99040edb7@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

Arnold has not brought his marriage or his wife's name into sgm discourse
as far as I recall, and so personal details regarding her can have no
proper place in a spin-off from his participation here.

At its heart, I would have to agree with this. If the very act of
participating in this group opens one up to have their entire life
placed under a microscope, it must have a very stifling effect, and
tends to turn into a grand exercise in ad hominem. The only exception
I would make (which applies in this case to some, but only some, of
the information) is when the individual themselves introduces certain
credentials to give weight to their opinion, which action does, I
think, open these aspects (and only these aspects) of they life to
scrutiny, but this should not extend to their entire existence.
Likewise, there is a certain level of detail that should probably
never be breached, given the modern environment of identity theft,
even if the material is available for the asking: phone number,
address, birthdate and place, immediate family information, medical
information; and certain aspects that serve no good purpose and are
inherently inflammatory, such as issues of sexual orientation. I
personally find pointers to on-line photos from anyone but the subject
to be objectionable, but that may just be me.

Basically, however obnoxious a poster may have made themselves, does
it justify this kind of examination, and more importantly, will such
treatment serve as yet another way that this group tends to scare
newbies and lurkers into silence or even departure?

taf

[Bryn]

Needing no introduction "an" Usenet stalwart wrote:

taf makes some useful points here.

The problem is Human Nature...

If a pogue or poguette is LOSING an argument, based on the facts and the
evidence, he or she will use any weapon that comes to hand and look to new
ones in order to dismember and disable his or her opponent.

Look at political campaigns, where the same thing happens.

Hillary and Obama are currently going at each other hammer and tongs
bringing in whatever ash and trash they can dig up and bring to bear -- even
going back to kindergarten days or issues of marital infidelity and
adultery.

The same thing happens on USENET -- which is NOT a League of Extraordinary
Ladies & Gentlemen who know how to Respect The Rules.

Simulator in omni oratione...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

[email protected]> wrote in message
news:718f9f65-d1ef-4e04-9ae1-2ec99040edb7@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

Arnold has not brought his marriage or his wife's name into sgm discourse
as far as I recall, and so personal details regarding her can have no
proper place in a spin-off from his participation here.

At its heart, I would have to agree with this. If the very act of
participating in this group opens one up to have their entire life
placed under a microscope, it must have a very stifling effect, and
tends to turn into a grand exercise in ad hominem. The only exception
I would make (which applies in this case to some, but only some, of
the information) is when the individual themselves introduces certain
credentials to give weight to their opinion, which action does, I
think, open these aspects (and only these aspects) of they life to
scrutiny, but this should not extend to their entire existence.
Likewise, there is a certain level of detail that should probably
never be breached, given the modern environment of identity theft,
even if the material is available for the asking: phone number,
address, birthdate and place, immediate family information, medical
information; and certain aspects that serve no good purpose and are
inherently inflammatory, such as issues of sexual orientation. I
personally find pointers to on-line photos from anyone but the subject
to be objectionable, but that may just be me.

Basically, however obnoxious a poster may have made themselves, does
it justify this kind of examination, and more importantly, will such
treatment serve as yet another way that this group tends to scare
newbies and lurkers into silence or even departure?

taf

--
Bryn

Cha do theoidh mi raimh ris

[D. Spencer Hines]

taf makes some useful points here.

The problem is Human Nature...

If a stinking little reprobate of a pogue or poguette is LOSING an argument,
based on the facts and the evidence, he or she will use any weapon that
comes to mind or hand and look to new ones in order to dismember, castrate,
destroy and disable his or her opponent.

If none can be found, some will be fabricated and invented.

No bounds of Civilized Propriety are Respected, Heeded Or Honored.

Innocents ---- Ancestors, Wives, Children and Lovers -- Are Then Targeted
Along With The Guilty.

Charles Darwin was correct:

"USENET is red in tooth and claw."

We have seen that in spades with Pogue Stewart and Leo van de Pas, in their
increasingly hysterical and frenetic hissy fits against Douglas Richardson,
which are Most Entertaining -- BUT "red in tooth and claw" -- likewise with
Pogue Arnold.

Look at political campaigns, where the same thing happens....

Hillary and Obama are currently going at each other hammer and tongs
bringing in whatever ash and trash they can dig up and bring to bear -- even
going back to kindergarten days or issues of marital infidelity and
adultery.

The same thing happens on USENET -- which is NOT a League of Extraordinary
Ladies & Gentlemen who know how to Respect The Rules.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

[Gjest]

I checked to see if Google Books has any Pipe Rolls yet and found this

_http://books.google.com/books?id=3nIDAAAAMAAJ&pg=PP5_
(http://books.google.com/books?id=3nIDAAAAMAAJ&pg=PP5)

Lancashire



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

[Gjest]

Dear Fellow Posters,
USENET as You say is no League of
Extraordinary Ladies and Gentlemen for the greater part. We all know how to slice, dice,
back-bite et cetera each other`s posts , professions, characters. You know
that posts of that general sort do not add anything worth noting to this Group
who mostly can be Extraordinary if only They allow themselves to be.
Charles Darwin , the one I know of knew nothing of the Internet though He
did have all manner of colleagues ripping his theories and character to shreds.
He still does.
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)

[Bryn]

Needing no introduction "an" Usenet stalwart wrote:

taf makes some useful points here.

The problem is Human Nature...

If a stinking little reprobate of a pogue or poguette is LOSING an argument,
based on the facts and the evidence, he or she will use any weapon that
comes to mind or hand and look to new ones in order to dismember, castrate,
destroy and disable his or her opponent.

If none can be found, some will be fabricated and invented.

No bounds of Civilized Propriety are Respected, Heeded Or Honored.

Innocents ---- Ancestors, Wives, Children and Lovers -- Are Then Targeted
Along With The Guilty.

Charles Darwin was correct:

"USENET is red in tooth and claw."

We have seen that in spades with Pogue Stewart and Leo van de Pas, in their
increasingly hysterical and frenetic hissy fits against Douglas Richardson,
which are Most Entertaining -- BUT "red in tooth and claw" -- likewise with
Pogue Arnold.

Look at political campaigns, where the same thing happens....

Hillary and Obama are currently going at each other hammer and tongs
bringing in whatever ash and trash they can dig up and bring to bear -- even
going back to kindergarten days or issues of marital infidelity and
adultery.

The same thing happens on USENET -- which is NOT a League of Extraordinary
Ladies & Gentlemen who know how to Respect The Rules.

Simulator in omni oratione...

--
Bryn

Coldest days--
dried salmon,
gaunt pilgrim.

Bashõ

[Peter Stewart]

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

In article
21f416e5-bec9-4135-97d1-e51b94ec5ccf@d4 ... groups.com>,
[email protected] wrote:

How about a compromise.

The factual Wikipedia biography of Arnold is taken down. "Bill"
Arnold publicly undertakes NEVER to post again on SGM.

I think the Vulgate passage from Mark was a valedictory one
anyway--isn't it about shaking the dust from your feet when you leave?
If so--Deo gracias.

Well, I can't agree with you that thanks belong in that particular quarter,
but it would be a beneficial outcome certainly for the newsgroup and
probably for Arnold himself.

The only loser will be Richardson - who of course thinks you thanking him,
Nat - who will have to go back to lionising himself, with only the odd
double-speak hero-gram from Hawaii in support.

Unfortunately there will be more Bill Arnolds arriving over time. Some
people get carried away on discovering a descent from Charlemagne, supposing
this to be a distinction in their bloodlines and notable to the world at
large. Some find their way here looking for affirmation of the imagined
rarity and elaboration of what they expect to be highly satisfactory
details.

They are then exposed to a strange little world where conjecture from
ignorance is not uncommon, and imposture based on academic or professional
credentials is far from infrequent. Moreover, hypocrisy is the first and
last resort of some prominent posters, such as D.S.
"Leave-my-wife-out-of-this" Hines, who has the effrontery to suggest that
other people don't respect civilised rules or factual evidence in debate.

No wonder we get feral recruits from time to time, like Annie of unblessed
memory and the late (fingers crossed) Arnold...

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

In a message dated 12/8/2007 9:30:27 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

PS: In another message wjhonson wrote:

James wrote:
That a mother and father may be related is implicit.
(Otherwise you'd have a *maximum* of one descent from
Charlemagne, not a million!)
That makes no sense.
That *a* mother and father may be related, does not say you'd have one
descent.

You somehow flipped my meaning. "Otherwise" means "if not";
i.e. if mother and father are always completely unrelated, there'd
be a maximum of one descent. Trivially true, but absurd since
everyone's related. (Mine was a reduction ad absurdem to refute
someone who seemed unclear about this.)


-----------------------
This still makes no sense. Please clarify how you'd have ONE descent simply
because your own parents are related? If your mother has 12 descents from
person X, her marrying her own first cousin, lets say, does not make those 12
descents combine into a single descent. So you still inherit at least her
own 12 descents. You don't have just one.

Will Johnson



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

[James Dow Allen]

On Dec 8, 5:56 pm, [email protected] wrote:

[email protected] writes:
You somehow flipped my meaning. "Otherwise" means "if not";
i.e. if mother and father are always completely unrelated, there'd
be a maximum of one descent.

-----------------------
This still makes no sense. Please clarify how you'd have ONE descent simply
because your own parents are related?

You're still flipping my meaning. Reread the sentence above.
Here, I'll capitalize parts of it for you:
"If mother and father are completely UNrelated (get that? UN UN
UN-Related) there'd be a maximum of one descent."

Does this help?

James

[James Dow Allen]

On Dec 8, 6:22 pm, James Dow Allen <[email protected]> wrote:

On Dec 8, 5:56 pm, [email protected] wrote:
This still makes no sense. Please clarify how you'd have ONE descent simply
because your own parents are related?

You're still flipping my meaning. Reread the sentence above.
Here, I'll capitalize parts of it for you:
"If mother and father are ALWAYS completely UNrelated (get that? UN UN
UN-Related) there'd be a maximum of one descent."

Does this help?

I'm sure this confusion is all due to a silly
communication problem. To be sure, I've capitalized another
word above. ALWAYS means all mothers and fathers are
completely UNrelated. By recursion neither of your parents
have multiple descents. ... And all this, of course, arose
from a reduction ad absurdem.

The problem with being a logician is thinking others have
logical minds.

James

[Gjest]

Now that doesn't make sense either.

I mean related, near-term, *by people who themselves were near-term* as well.

Otherwise I'm sure you'll say something that doesn't address my point again




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

[Gjest]

If you want to call 33rd cousins "related", but in genealogical terms we are
all related to Adam and Eve and so not two people can be "unrelated". How's
that for extreme?

There are too many questionable descents from Charlemagne to be clear about
whether two people are or are not related 1200 years ago. I'm sure we've
gotten way off from the original intent.

I was referring in my own mind at least, to "near-term related" say related
in the past 200 years.

But I've forgotten the original point.



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

[Gjest]

In a message dated 12/8/2007 10:45:18 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

ALWAYS means all mothers and fathers are
completely UNrelated. By recursion neither of your parents
have multiple descents.


-------------------
Genetically I don't think it's possible that any two humans are completely
unrelated. So it's a moot point. At some point, in the distant past, whether
that is 500, 2500, or 25000 years ago, there is a relation. If two humans
were *completely* unrelated, they would not share any part of their DNA with
each other, but we know that that isn't the case. We all share part of the
same DNA. It's only the part that's different that allows us to use it in
studies.

Will Johnson



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

[[email protected]]

Hikaru,

In your post on the Senior Mallory line you state that "Soon after his
wife died in childbirth with her 17th child, Sir Richard married
Elizabeth Pakington, the step-daughter of Sir Michael Dormer, a former
Lord Mayor of London and a great granddaughter of an illegitimate
sister of King Edward IV's wife, thus a third cousin of Queen
Elizabeth I who treated Elizabeth Pakington's family, especially its
male members, whom she found stimulating to be around, as extended
family. Richard and Elizabeth had a son who died as a small child and
a daughter who was well provided for financially but was still not
married close to 40 years after her father's death in 1566."

Looking at Elizabeth Pakington's ancestry I see that the online
resource Tudorplace calls the wife of William Dormer of West Wycombe
Agnes Woodville but does not include any ancestry for her. Leo van de
Pas' execellent website calls her Agnes Launcelyn daughter of John
Launcelyn and Maud Stanley based on Burke and Paget.

I assume this Agnes is the great grandmother that you are referring
to. Do you know of any documentation that the wife of William Dormer
of West Wycombe (d bef 22 sep 1508) was the illegitimate daughter of
Richard Woodville, First Earl Rivers?

Doug Smith

[Hickory]

There has been terrible confusion in the ancestry of the Dormers and
Packingtons. I did most of my research on them, unfortunately, in
Japan and relied on a careful comparison of secondary sources, rather
than primary sources as I would normally have preferred to do. The
Dormer ancestry is dramatically different according to the visitation
year (Buckinghamshire, if I remember correctly, I can easily check
tomorrow), with the earliest visitation indicating the Woodville
descent (though not specifically the illegitimacy, which was perhaps
an unwarranted interpretation on my part). Generally, as a rough rule
of thumb that generally (though, unfortunately, not always applies) a
visitation can be trusted up to the grandparent level of surviving
members of an informants family, which would indicate that in the case
of the Woodville ancestry, it should be taken as more trustworthy than
the Launcelyn ancestry for certain members of the Dormer family, until
or unless contemporary evidence exists putting things into a better
perspective. It is something I should have already done, though, with
so much on my plate at the moment in terms of research deadlines to
meet, in spite of 12 hour research days, I literally have not had the
time to explore the matter further. My present reconstruction of what
I found is that both Agnes Woodville and Anne Launcelyn existed, but
that the designation of whose child was whose got badly mixed up at
the beginning of the 17th century.

If Agnes Woodville did exist (and, barring evidence to the contrary, I
see no reason for her not to), chronologically she could only really
comfortably fit as the daughter of the first Earl of Rivers, though
she most surely would not have been a daughter of his wife Jacquetta
as Edward IV used the full sisters of his wife as a valuable resource
in the marriage market. There is, of course, the possibility of her
being the product of a very early youthful indiscretion on the part of
either the second or third earls and her being married off in
essentially a child marriage, but I think this is the less likely
option.

My reconstruction would make Agnes Woodville the mother of Sir John
Baldwin's wife Agnes, by whom he had three children, yet another Agnes
who married Robert Pakington, a son William who died without heirs,
and second daughter Petronilla married firstly to a Ramsey by whom she
had a daughter Elizabeth and secondly to Edward Borelace as his first
wife and by whom she had a son the future Sir John Borelace. Sir John
Baldwin was an important judge during the reign of Henry VIII who did
some of the King's more important hatchet work for him. Agnes Baldwin
will, with a little research (http://www.books.google should do the trick),
be shown to have been the first wife of Robert Pakynton, an alderman
of London who was assassinated by a religious fanatic. They had four
children whom I have been able to trace, Sir Thomas Packington married
to Dorothy Kitson, Margaret married firstly to Benedict Lee and
secondly to Sir Thomas Scott of Yorkshire, Anne who married Richard
Culpepper, and Elizabeth who married firstly John Lane and secondly
Sir Richard Mallory, the future Lord Mayor of London.

The relations between these people will, if you care to investigate in
depth, prove to be mind-boggling in their complexity, thus the
confusion people, even today, have had in properly sorting them out.
Going back one generation from Elizabeth Packington, her father Robert
Packington's second wife was Katherine (family name unknown) the widow
of Richard Collyer of London. After Robert Packington's assassination
she married the soon to become Lord Mayor of London Sir Michael Dormer
who (again, if my memory of the Visitations is correct) should be
assigned an Anne Launcelyn descent. Katherine was, by the way, Sir
Michael Dormer's second wife, and the mother of none of his children.
Katherine, Lady Dormer, did appear to have been on good terms with Sir
Richard Mallory and his second wife Elizabeth her step-daughter by
Robert Packington. Sir Richard Mallory's first wife is always shown as
Anne Smith in published sources, but I have not been able to verify
the lady's original family name from primary sources. Certain things
about Sir Richard's life history would make more sense if she proved
to be a sister of Sir Clement Smith (the husband of Jane Seymour's
sister Dorothy), but sheer talent rather than any special connections
could also just as easily explain things.

I'm sorry none of the above is sourced. It comes from a very old set
of notes I made in Japan, but, if you use it as a guideline for
further research, I can promise you will be saving yourself many hours
of work. Also, if I remember (always a bit iffy in my case because of
having attention deficit syndrome), I will check things tomorrow to
see if it is a mid-16th century visitation for Buckinghamshire rather
than for another county which you will need to refer to.

Hikaru

[D. Spencer Hines]

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

Allow me to remind you that there is no such title as "XXX, King of
Scotland. The Scottish monarch is "XXX, King of Scots" or "XXX, Queen
of Scots."

------------Cordon Sanitaire-------------------------------------

Pogue Highlander [Michael Paterson], absolutely *determined* to flaunt his
ignorance, make a fool of himself and prove to all and sundry he is as dumb
as a sack of hammers, has posted New Entertaining Gibberish [NEG] for our
dalliance, dissection and delectation.

Posing as a Real Scot, this scrofulous Canadian [Vancouver] resident, Pogue
Highlander, has - once again -- bared his pimpled, scarred, flaccid arse and
presented it for a Good Robust Kicking.

I've put on my best sturdy boots, with the steel toes, and am happy to
oblige him in his masochistic pursuits into the slough of depravity -- by
leaving him with a few more scars.

It is a GREAT MYTH that the monarchs of Scotland have always styled
themselves as King or Queen of SCOTS and NEVER as King or Queen of SCOTLAND.

That is simply NOT TRUE.

Pogue Highlander [Michael Paterson] has proven himself to be pig ignorant
even about SCOTLAND and Styles Adopted By Scottish Monarchs.

Vide infra pro sapientia.

Pax Vobiscum.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat
----------------------------------

"David Dei gratia Rex Scotiae -- David by the Grace of God, King of
Scotland." [1124-1153]

"David Dei gratia Rex Scottorum -- David by the Grace of God, King of the
Scots" [1124-1153]

"From David I onwards, the royal style is either "rex Scottorum" or "rex
Scotiae"."

"In the late Middle Ages the styles "rex Scottorum" [King of Scots -- DSH]
and "rex Scotiae" [King of Scotland -- DSH] were used interchangeably."

"Similarly, the Monarchs of England could be referred to as the "king of the
English" as indeed Edward II of England was in the Declaration of Arbroath
(1320)."

"King of the Scots was used in "The Declaration of the Clergy in favour of
Robert the Bruce" (1334), as it was in the charter by which Edward Balliol
ceded the southern counties of Scotland to England."

"However, in many other documents King of Scotland was the preferred style,
including "The Letter of the Magnates of Scotland to the King of France"
(1308), "The Settlement of Succession on Robert the Bruce" (1315), the
Treaty of Corbeuil (1326), the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton (1328), the
Papal Bull authorising the anointing of Scottish Kings (1329) and the Treaty
of Berwick (1357)."

"This remained the case until the last three monarchs of Scotland, William
II of Scotland (William III of England), Mary II of Scotland (Mary II of
England), and Queen Anne, who became Anne of Great Britain following the
Acts of Union 1707."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_of_the_monarchs_of_Scotland>

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat opus

Dies Irae

[James Hogg]

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 19:29:30 -0000, "D. Wanker Hines"
<[email protected]> cross-posted the following e-jaculation:

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

Allow me to remind you that there is no such title as "XXX, King of
Scotland. The Scottish monarch is "XXX, King of Scots" or "XXX, Queen
of Scots."

------------Cordon Sanitaire-------------------------------------

[Much needed in your case - thanks for the warning]

Pogue Highlander [Michael Paterson], absolutely *determined* to flaunt his
ignorance, make a fool of himself and prove to all and sundry he is as dumb
as a sack of hammers, has posted New Entertaining Gibberish [NEG] for our
dalliance, dissection and delectation.

This can't possibly be described as *New* Entertaining Gibberish.
Highlander made his claim about a month ago and then partially
retracted it. Don't you remember that you posted exactly the same
excrutiatingly unwitty reply then?

Is this your subtle way of warning everyone else about the dangers of
self-abuse? Is it true what they used to say, that boxing the Jesuit
rots the brain? Or have you got some other excuse for this senile
behaviour?

Time for a sing-song once again. You all know the tune by now:

Despite my reputation as a learned medievalist
I am the very model of a modern interracialist.
I pour a glass of nectar from Kailua's finest winery
and get my load off after I download the latest binary.

Our club has all the skill it takes to organize a barbecue
And on the skillet every week I lay a strip of pork or two.
There's nothing as delicious as the spread at a Mongolian.
I claim descent from Genghis Khan (plus Churchill and Napoleon).

A giant of a man who hails from Bowling Green, Kentucky, I
am married to a Japanese, in that I was quite lucky, aye.
But now I long for something much more spicy and exotica.
So thank the Lord for laying on that digital erotica.

I love old John Wayne movies, Lagavulin and Rachmaninoff
X-plicit pictures of miscegenation while I'm jacking off.
I pop it in the popcorn box but contemplate donating it.
It's habit-forming though Kuniko's constantly B-rating it.


James Hogg

[Ken Ozanne]

Doug,
I did something like this a couple of years ago. To avoid memory
hassles, I followed each line down a few generations and then got the number
of lines from there down to my son (who happens to have a forename which is
unique in my database). I had all direct line ancestry from him marked, so
could easily tell which descendants of Charlemagne were relevant.

Even so it took an hour or three and I didn't end up thinking the time
well spent.

Best,
Ken

From: Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 12:01:41 -0600
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Albert's agnatic and uterine ancestry (Paths to Charlemagne)

Doug McDonald wrote:
Doug McDonald wrote:


So far, its "out of memory".

I tried. It needs either a 64 bit compiler or a complete rewrite to
use a local swap file larger than 4 gigabytes. The latter I'm
not going to do.



I did a spot check from several generation back, and
got a range of 33-40 for the number of generations
back Charlemagne was from Prince William. The numbers cluster
around 34-36. Only one of Princess Di's mostly female line
recent ancestors had 38, 39, or 40.


Doug McDonald

[Ken Ozanne]

John,
I'm not sure this is relevant, but I have in my notes:


Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica Vol 4 (1837) p 240 talks of Almaric,
Lord le Despenser, steward to King Richard I and his wife Alda Bluet
(Bloete). (Who had previously been misnamed as Elizabeth, daughter of Adam
or possibly Rowland Bluet.) Also of Thurston Despenser. Some reference to
Baker ŒNorthamptonshire¹ vol i p 108 and esp 130. I don¹t have immediate
access to that work.

Thanks for the update - it has sorted one or two things for me.

Best,
Ken

From: "John P. Ravilious" <[email protected]
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 16:11:06 -0800 (PST)
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: #Geoffrey / Galfridus le Despenser Lord Marcheley

Dear 'rainbow',

I think the Almeric Despenser you named at the beginning of your
post is an amalgamation of individuals, but certainly is not part of
the known ancestry of Sir Geoffrey le Despenser of Martley, co.
Worcester (d. 1251). There are many families who were
'Despensers' (to the King, or other notables) but I have not found
anyone related to the Despensers of Burton on the Wolds (also Arnesby,
Loughborough, etc.) named Almaric, Amaury or similar.

Following is how the descent stands at present, together with some
known collateral lines:

1. Hugh de Berges, of Burton on the Wolds, co. Leics.
= NN de Queniborough, sister of Thurstan de Queniborough
1. Ansketil de Berges, of Burton
= Rohese
1. Hugh de Berges (aka Hugh de Prestwold)
1. Ansketil de Berges (aka Ansketil de Prestwold)
2. Geoffrey le Despenser, 'dispensarius' of the Earl of
Chester
1. Thomas le Despenser, d. ca. 1207
= 'Recuara'
1. Geoffrey, dvp before 1191
2. Thomas le Despenser, dsp bef Oct 1218
= Joan de L'Isle (de Insula)
3. Sir Hugh le Despenser, d. bef 31 May 1238
Ancestor of the Lords le Despenser, etc.
4. William le Despenser, of Thorpe Montfort
dsp before 1251
5. Rohese le Despenser
= Stephen de Segrave, d. 1241
6. Henry le Despenser, d. aft 1213
7. Robert le Despenser, d. aft 1215
8. Sir Geoffrey le Despenser, of Martley, co. Worcester
d. 1251
= 1) NN
1. John le Despenser, of Martley, co. Worcs., dsp
1275
= 2) Emma de Harcourt (widow of John de St. John)
2. Elias le Despenser, of Arnesby and Loughborough
3. Ivo de Alspath (aka Ivo fitz Ansketil), constable of
Coventry


The credit for identifying Geoffrey le Despenser (the 'first') as
the family of Thomas le Despenser (the 'first') belongs to Clive West,
re: which see the SGM archives for further details.

Cheers,

John



On Dec 9, 4:02 am, "rainbow." <"rainbow."@clear.net.nz> wrote:
#Geoffrey / Galfridus le Despenser Lord Marcheley descends
from both
of these ancient families
Almeric Despenser de Abitot and de Chesney from La Quesnay,
Normandie, France

Thomas deSpencer = Rohaise/ Recuara
Children:
Thomas le Despenser B 1190, Dd d s.p 1218.
Rohese le Despenser B 1172 m/d Stephen de Segrave
Sir Hugh le Despenser B 1195?
#Geoffrey / Galfridus le Despenser Lord Marcheley B 1185?
Dd 1251;
m/d Emma de Harcourt.

[Gjest]

In a message dated 12/9/2007 8:10:13 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:

I tried. It needs either a 64 bit compiler or a complete rewrite to
use a local swap file larger than 4 gigabytes. The latter I'm
not going to do.>>


----------------
4 Gig is a hard wall for many of us.
We just never anticipated back in the 80s or 90s that any program would
actually have to address something that large. It's perhaps a *bit* lucky that
most Business programs at least have an intermediate level of interpretation
between them and the underlying machine. So it's not the actual programs
people are familiar with which have to be rewriten, but only that intervening
layer.

Of course compilers that generate actual machine-read code have to be
rewriten as well.



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

[Gjest]

In a message dated 12/9/2007 10:10:12 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:

I did a spot check from several generation back, and
got a range of 33-40 for the number of generations
back Charlemagne was from Prince William. The numbers cluster
around 34-36. Only one of Princess Di's mostly female line
recent ancestors had 38, 39, or 40.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------

Who is the most recent ancestor shared by both Charles and Diana?
Who is the most recent ancestor shared by both Elizabeth and Albert ?



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

[John Brandon]

tends to turn into a grand exercise in ad hominem. The only exception
I would make (which applies in this case to some, but only some, of
the information) is when the individual themselves introduces certain
credentials to give weight to their opinion, which action does, I
think, open these aspects (and only these aspects) of they life to
scrutiny, but this should not extend to their entire existence.
Likewise, there is a certain level of detail that should probably
never be breached, given the modern environment of identity theft,
even if the material is available for the asking: phone number,
address, birthdate and place, immediate family information, medical
information; and certain aspects that serve no good purpose and are
inherently inflammatory, such as issues of sexual orientation. I
personally find pointers to on-line photos from anyone but the subject
to be objectionable, but that may just be me.

Basically, however obnoxious a poster may have made themselves, does
it justify this kind of examination, and more importantly, will such
treatment serve as yet another way that this group tends to scare
newbies and lurkers into silence or even departure?

taf

What about pointers to salary listings? Just a heads-up to Todd -- I
noticed your monthly salary and no. of months paid per year is online
a while back. This could be perfectly normal and no cause for
concern, I suppose (some states make public information about
employees' salaries). But SC has a cut-off somewhat above your salary
amount .... and, of course, WAY, WAY above mine (more than double), so
that my salary info at least would never become public knowledge.

[Gjest]

On Dec 10, 8:23 am, John Brandon <[email protected]> wrote:

What about pointers to salary listings?

I can't see how this would contribute to an understanding of medieval
genealogy.

taf

[John Brandon]

I can't see how this would contribute to an understanding of medieval
genealogy.

taf

Hmmm, a typical tafian standoffish non-reply.

Just thought ya might want to know ...

[Gjest]

I would like to point out, that his wife and immediate family members are
all in a picture, which he submit, along with an article in the newspaper.

While that isn't something that would be known to the whole world instantly,
but only to the community that newspaper serves, it is something which you
can't quite claim now, post facto, is *private*. A person who is trying to
keep their family private, doesn't post a quarter page picture of them all in
the local newspaper, do they? With their names, not just images.

Will Johnson



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

[Gjest]

It might contribute to an understanding however of Todd. Part of our
addresses sources is to evaluate those sources as well. If a person, not speaking
of Todd in particular, puts themselves up as an expert because of some
particular life experience for example, it's within our purview to show that this
isn't possible.

For example that a certain expert could not have fought in WWII because he
was too young.

Now if Todd in a moment of pure bluster, unlike him, were to say "Well I
happen to control a department of 46 people who all revere me as a genius" and
we were able to show that actually he was a file clerk working in the
sub-basement, than that would be appropriate to the discussion. That is, that
sometimes Todd makes things up just to win an argument in the heat.

Will Johnson



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

[Gjest]

In a message dated 12/10/2007 11:30:47 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

It might contribute to an understanding however of Todd. Part of our
addresses sources is to evaluate those sources as well>>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Recte: "...addressING sources...."

Will Johnson



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

[John Brandon]

Recte: "...addressING sources...."

Thanks, Will, that cleared that right up ...

[D. Spencer Hines]

URL?

DSH

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

I would like to point out, that his wife and immediate family members are
all in a picture, which he submit, along with an article in the newspaper.

While that isn't something that would be known to the whole world
instantly,
but only to the community that newspaper serves, it is something which
you
can't quite claim now, post facto, is *private*. A person who is trying
to
keep their family private, doesn't post a quarter page picture of them
all in
the local newspaper, do they? With their names, not just images.

Will Johnson

[Peter Stewart]

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

I would like to point out, that his wife and immediate family members are
all in a picture, which he submit, along with an article in the newspaper.

While that isn't something that would be known to the whole world
instantly,
but only to the community that newspaper serves, it is something which
you
can't quite claim now, post facto, is *private*. A person who is trying
to
keep their family private, doesn't post a quarter page picture of them
all in
the local newspaper, do they? With their names, not just images.

Another strawman argument - Arnold's family information is out of bounds not
because it is *private*, but rather because rehashing it is simply
*inappropriate*. He didn't introduce his wife to the debate in sgm, for
example, no matter where else he or others might have named her online.

This had nothing to do with the discussions that Arnold had initiated in the
newsgroup, or his perversions of reason in general, or his
misrepresentations of other people's remarks in particular.

Equally, there is no need to know the pay grade of someone presenting here
as an influential genius. A misconceived argument from authority of this
kind is useless in the first place, whether or not the details are true.
Showing that a poster is lying about one aspect of a worthless special
pleading doesn't prove that the genealogical and/or historical point being
dishonestly supported is necessarily wrong.

Deceit or imposture from bogus authority need to be exposed, and the
perpetrators shamed in everyone else's eyes even though we know them to be
individually shameless. The behaviour of such posters can be usefully
discussed as a warning to new or unwary readers, but even that doesn't
justify creating external web pages to hold them - much less their families
and associates - up to wider public scrutiny as some kind of revenge for
offenses given and taken in this forum, or indeed to prevent more of the
same.

Arnold's claims for himself did not stack up _on the evidence he gave by
making these_: the insisting far too much, the extremely poor English, the
blatant ignorance, the deep absurdity. That's what should be concentrated
on, _here_ not elsewhere.

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

�Will Johnson wrote
That is, that sometimes Todd makes things up just to win an argument
in the heat.
--------------
me
oh, so true - Todd Farmerie has never admitted to a mistake, but will
justify any mistakes he makes to save face
what amazes me is that some people think he never makes a mistake
no scholar is he, just a fraud who has deceived many guillibe souls

chris

[Gjest]

Dear John,
I have not followed this discussion but opened this post to find you are descended from a Mary Courthope. I also descend from a Mary Courthope, daughter of John who married John Bysshe, b. 1520, ancestor of Ursula Bysshe Thompson Mottrom Colclough of Northumberland Co. VA. ( JOHN BYSSHE of Burstowe, co. Surrey, Esq. 2 and 3 Phil. and Mary, 1555/6. Will prd 1568 (P.C.C. 20 Babington). Md. Mary, dau. of John Courthorp, co. Kent.)
I was also interested in your mention of Richard Singletary. Do you have information on his parentage?
Thank you,
Pat

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: John Brandon <[email protected]>

Probably the most interesting person in this set is no. 1733 Mary
Courthope, the second wife of George Iddenden or Edenden, a marriage I
found in the extracted IGI, and which is a perfect match, as Edmund
their son (my ancestor) was born in October of the next year. The
standard Edenden article in NEHGR states that nothing was known about
George's second wife, not even a given name. Does anybody know if
this is a new "discovery" ...?


1601. - 1631. ---
1632. Richard Hovey [816/3264], d. 1676/7 Waltham Abbey, Essex
1633. ---
1634. Robert Andrews [817/3268], b. ---; d. 1644-46 Ipswich,
Massachusetts; m., as her first husband,
1635. Elizabeth ---- [817/3270], b. ---; d. 29 May 1671 Ipswich,
Massachusetts; m. (2) by 1655 Ipswich, Massachusetts to Henry Pinder
1636. John Dane, Sr. [818/3272], b. ca. 1585 Hertfordshire d. ---
1658 Roxbury, Massachusetts; m. (2) Annis (Bayford) Chandler; m. (1)
19 Oct. 1605 Little Berkhampstead, Herts.
1637. Frances Lone [818/3274], b. ---; d. by 1642 [?] Roxbury,
Massachusetts
1638. - 1663. ---
1664. Thomas Eaton [832/3328], son Thomas and Isabel (Baker) Eaton,
b. ca. 1565; d. 5 Nov. 1622 Hatton, Warwickshire; m. by ca. 1587
1665. Ellen ---- [832/3330], survived husband
1666. - 1673. ---
1674. John Rolfe [837/3348], son of John and Honor (----) Rolfe;
bapt. 24 Apr 1589 Whiteparish, Wiltshire (aged 50 in 1638 passenger
list); d. 8 Feb 1663/4, Newbury, Massachusetts; m. 2 Nov 1612
Whiteparish, Wiltshire
1675. Joan Coles [837/3350], b. ---; d. 3 Jun 1647 Salisbury,
Massachusetts [called "Ann" in passenger list]
1676. - 1677. ---
1678. George Marsh [839/3356], b. ca. 1596; d. 2 July 1647 Hingham,
Massachusetts; m. ca. 1620
1679. Elizabeth ---- [839/3358], b. ---; d. ---; m. (2) Nov. 1648
Weymouth, Massachusetts, to Richard Bowen
1680. Richard Kimball [840/3360], of Lawford, Essex
1681. ---
1682. Henry Scott [841/3364], of Rattlesden, Suffolk
1683. Martha Whatlock [841/3366]
1684. - 1689. ---
1690. William Bachiler [845/3380], b. ca. 1596 (aged 73 at death); d.
22 Feb. 1669/70 Charlestown, Massachusetts; m. (2) by 1638 Rachel
Bate, d. 28 May 1676 Charlestown, Massachusetts; m. (1) ---
1691. Jane ---- [845/3382], b. ---; d. shortly after 1 July 1637
Charlestown, Massachusetts
1692. Thomas Tenney [846/3384], son of John and Ursula (Mumbey)
Tenney, b. ca. 1614 --- (deposed, aged 66, in May 1680); d. 20 Feb.
1699/1700 Bradford, Massachusetts; m. (2) widow Elizabeth (Northend)
Parrat, no. 1695; m. (1) ---
1693. Anne Mighill [846/3386], b. ---; d. 26 Sept. 1657 Rowley,
Massachusetts
1694. Francis Parrat [847/3388], b. ---; d. between 18 Nov. 1655-30
Sept. 1656 Rowley, Massachusetts [? or at sea]; m. ---
1695. Elizabeth Northend [847/3390], b. ---; d. ---; m. (2) Thomas
Tenney, no. 1692.
1696. Robert White [848/3392], of Messing, Essex
1697. Bridget Allger [848/3394]
1698. - 1719. ---
1720. Francis Bushnell [860/3440], b. ca. 1580 Sussex, England; d. 13
Oct. 1646 Guilford, Connecticut; m. 13 May 1605 Horsham, Sussex
1721. Ferris Quenell [860/3442], bapt. 17 April 1587 Horsham, Sussex;
d. 10 March 1627 Horsham, Sussex [daughter of Henry and Beatrice
(Carter) Quenell or Queynell]
1722. Thomas Grombridge [861/3444], of Horsham, Sussex
1723. Agnes Ive [861/3446]
1724. - 1731. ---
1732. George Edenden or Iddenden [866/3464], son of William and Joan
(----) Iddenden, bapt. 18 July 1564 Cranbrook, Kent; bur. 24 April
1632 Cranbrook, Kent; m. (1) Sarah Iddenden; m. (2) 19 Oct. 1598
Lamberhurst, Kent
1733. Mary Courthope [866/3466], b. ---; d. --- (my second Courthope
line, the first being through Mrs. Dorothy [Sheafe] Whitfield)
1734. - 1737. ---
1738. Arnold Harrison [869/3476]
1739. - 1747. ---
1748. Edward Converse [874/3496], son of Allen and Joanna (----)
Combers or Converse, bapt. 23 March 1588/9 Navestock, Essex; d. 10
Aug. 1663 Woburn, Massachusetts; m. (2) Sarah ----, d. 1662; m. (3)
ca. early 1663 Joanna (Warren) Sprague, widow of Ralph Sprague; m. (1)
29 June 1614 Great Burstead, Essex
1749. Sarah Parker [874/3498], daughter of John and Mary (----)
Parker, b. ---; bur. 13 June 1625 South Weald, Essex
1750. Robert Long [875/3500], b. ca. 1590 (aged 45 in 1635); d. 9
Jan. 1663/4 Charlestown, Massachusetts; m. (2) by 1634 Elizabeth ---;
m. (1) 3 Oct. 1614 St. Albans Abbey, St. Albans, Hertfordshire
1751. Sarah Taylor [875/3502], daughter of John and Margaret
(Willmote) Taylor, bapt. 29 May 1595 St. Albans Abbey, St. Albans,
Hertfordshire; bur. 12 Dec. 1631 Dunstable, Bedfordshire
1752. - 1757. ---
1758. John Bulfinch [879/3516], b. --- d. --- Chatham, co. Kent
[presumably the man who was at Salem, Massachusetts, ca. 1640-45, but
later returned to England]
1759. - 1763. ---
1764. Nicholas Butler [882/3528], b. ---; d. ---; m. (2) 22 Jan.
1623/4 Ashford, Kent
1765. Joyce Baker [882/3530], bapt. 30 May 1602 Ashford, Kent; d. ---
1766. Thomas Lynde [883/3532], b. by ca. 1597; d. 30 Dec. 1671
Charlestown, Massachusetts; m. (2) 27 Nov. 1632 All Hallows, Bread
Street, London, to Margaret (----) Jordan; m. (3) 6 Dec. 1665
Charlestown, Massachusetts, to Rebecca (----) Trerice; m. (1) by ca.
1622
1767. --- ---- [883/3534], possibly the Hannah Line buried 11 Dec.
1631 Dunstable, Bedfordshire
1768. - 1775. ---
1776. Thomas Lombard or Lambert [888/3552], b. ---; d. ---; m. (2)
Joyce (----) Wallen, widow of Ralph; m. (2) ---
1777. --- ---- [888/3554], b. ---; d. ---
1778. Robert Linnell [889/3556], b. --- ; d. 27 Feb. 1662/3
Barnstable, Massachusetts; m. ---
1779. Peninah House [889/3558], daughter of Rev. John House, b. ---;
living 29 Oct. 1669 Barnstable, Massachusetts
1780. Samuel Eddy [890/3560], b. 1608; d. 1688 [? Plymouth],
Massachusetts; m. ---
1781. Elizabeth [possibly Savory] [890/3562], b. ---; d. ---
1782. John Daggett [891/3564], b. by ca. 1597; d. May 1673 Plymouth,
Massachusetts; m. (2) 1667 to Bathsheba Pratt; m. (1) 29 August 1622
Marston Moretaine, Bedfordshire
1783. Alice Brotherton [891/3566], daughter of Thomas and Ellen
(----) Brotherton, bapt. 6 March 1602 Husborne Crawley, Bedfordshire;
d. by 1667
1784. - 1791. ---
1792. John Eaton [896/3584], same as no. 832.
1793. Anne ---- [possibly Davie] [896/3586], same as no. 833.
1794. Richard Singletery [897/3588], same as no. 834.
1795. Susanna Cooke [897/3590], same as no. 835.
1796. Lt. John Sanders [898/3592], same as no. 836.
1797. Hester Rolfe [898/3594], same as no. 837.
1798. John Page [899/3596], same as no. 838.
1799. Mary Marsh [899/3598], same as no. 839.
1800. Richard Kimball [900/3600], same as no. 840.


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

[D. Spencer Hines]

Where are these publicly posted photos of Arnold?

DSH

>Will Johnson wrote

[wjhonson]

On Dec 10, 4:01 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote:

Where are these publicly posted photos of Arnold?

DSH



Will Johnson wrote- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't know of any URL where you can view the pictures. In fact I
know of no online pictures of Bill Arnold. His books all carry his
own picture solely, but the newspaper article is

The Coastal Observer (Lake Worth, Florida), 31 Mar 2005 "Arnold Still
Setting Record Straight", by Leonard Saffir

which shows him, his wife, and some other family members, naming them
all.

[D. Spencer Hines]

So, where did you see the newspaper and the book photos?

Thanks...

DSH

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

On Dec 10, 4:01 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote:

Where are these publicly posted photos of Arnold?

DSH

Will Johnson wrote- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't know of any URL where you can view the pictures. In fact I
know of no online pictures of Bill Arnold. His books all carry his
own picture solely, but the newspaper article is

The Coastal Observer (Lake Worth, Florida), 31 Mar 2005 "Arnold Still
Setting Record Straight", by Leonard Saffir

which shows him, his wife, and some other family members, naming them
all.

[Gjest]

On Dec 10, 1:45 pm, [email protected] wrote:

�Will Johnson wrote
That is, that sometimes Todd makes things up just to win an argument
in the heat.
--------------
me
oh, so true -

First of all, you have 'misunderstood' Will's post. He was setting up
a hypothetical. That being said . . .

Todd Farmerie has never admitted to a mistake,

You obviously have a rather selective memory of what has taken place
in this group, over the past decade.

but will
justify any mistakes he makes to save face
what amazes me is that some people think he never makes a mistake
no scholar is he, just a fraud who has deceived many guillibe souls

If you want to say I am wrong-headed, that is personal opinion to
which you are perfectly entitled. If you wish to believe that I have
misled the gullible souls, that too is a matter of opinion, although
specific examples would be useful in evaluating the claim. However,
"fraud" means something quite specific, and something else entirely
than that I just disagree with you. It is not a matter of opinion,
but of intentional deception. As such, a specific citation is
critical to this charge. If someone makes this charge without being
able to support it, they can safely be considered to be talking out of
their @$$. I await your next emission.

(Given that of 10 posts that have ever been made from this address, a
full 50% have contained reference to the same piece of pulp fiction,
by David Hughes, who pops in occasionally to purvey silliness in the
guise of genealogy and who has had his material repeatedly
contradicted by yours truly, I don't think the hostility is a
mystery.)


taf

[wjhonson]

On Dec 10, 5:08 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote:

So, where did you see the newspaper and the book photos?

Thanks...

DSH

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

Some time back, during one of those moments when Mr Arnold thought I
was a "great scholar" as opposed to an "idjit", he mailed me copies of
all three of his works. Tucked into his history of Lake Osborne, were
the newspaper accounts, loose-leaf photocopies.

Will Johnson

[D. Spencer Hines]

<G>

Thanks.

DSH

"wjhonson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:b1448cd8-76f1-41f1-a07f-69355b32f526@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Dec 10, 5:08 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote:

So, where did you see the newspaper and the book photos?

Thanks...

DSH

-------------------
Some time back, during one of those moments when Mr Arnold thought I
was a "great scholar" as opposed to an "idjit", he mailed me copies of
all three of his works. Tucked into his history of Lake Osborne, were
the newspaper accounts, loose-leaf photocopies.

Will Johnson

[D. Spencer Hines]

<G>

Thanks.

DSH

"wjhonson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:b1448cd8-76f1-41f1-a07f-69355b32f526@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Dec 10, 5:08 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote:

So, where did you see the newspaper and the book photos?

Thanks...

DSH

-------------------
Some time back, during one of those moments when Mr Arnold thought I
was a "great scholar" as opposed to an "idjit", he mailed me copies of
all three of his works. Tucked into his history of Lake Osborne, were
the newspaper accounts, loose-leaf photocopies.

Will Johnson

[D. Spencer Hines]

<G>

Thanks.

DSH

"wjhonson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:b1448cd8-76f1-41f1-a07f-69355b32f526@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Dec 10, 5:08 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote:

So, where did you see the newspaper and the book photos?

Thanks...

DSH

-------------------
Some time back, during one of those moments when Mr Arnold thought I
was a "great scholar" as opposed to an "idjit", he mailed me copies of
all three of his works. Tucked into his history of Lake Osborne, were
the newspaper accounts, loose-leaf photocopies.

Will Johnson

[D. Spencer Hines]

<G>

Thanks.

DSH

"wjhonson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:b1448cd8-76f1-41f1-a07f-69355b32f526@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Dec 10, 5:08 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote:

So, where did you see the newspaper and the book photos?

Thanks...

DSH

-------------------
Some time back, during one of those moments when Mr Arnold thought I
was a "great scholar" as opposed to an "idjit", he mailed me copies of
all three of his works. Tucked into his history of Lake Osborne, were
the newspaper accounts, loose-leaf photocopies.

Will Johnson

[D. Spencer Hines]

<G>

Thanks.

DSH

"wjhonson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:b1448cd8-76f1-41f1-a07f-69355b32f526@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Dec 10, 5:08 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote:

So, where did you see the newspaper and the book photos?

Thanks...

DSH

-------------------
Some time back, during one of those moments when Mr Arnold thought I
was a "great scholar" as opposed to an "idjit", he mailed me copies of
all three of his works. Tucked into his history of Lake Osborne, were
the newspaper accounts, loose-leaf photocopies.

Will Johnson

[Leticia Cluff]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 02:21:02 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
<[email protected]> wrote:

"wjhonson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:b1448cd8-76f1-41f1-a07f-69355b32f526@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Dec 10, 5:08 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote:

So, where did you see the newspaper and the book photos?

Thanks...

DSH

-------------------
Some time back, during one of those moments when Mr Arnold thought I
was a "great scholar" as opposed to an "idjit", he mailed me copies of
all three of his works. Tucked into his history of Lake Osborne, were
the newspaper accounts, loose-leaf photocopies.

Will Johnson

G

Thanks.

After repeatedly asking for a URL, our very own Curious George, the
equally simian DSH, finally has to be told what was blindingly obvious
right from the beginning to anyone with a modicum of reading ability,
namely, that the article he so yearns to see was in a printed
newspaper.

Still, I guess we ought to be grateful that a man with his
well-publicized proclivities can't find his own zipper in the dark.

Tish

[Gjest]

Dear John Brandon , Merilyn and others,
I also descend
from George and Elizabeth ( )Marsh through their daughter Mary Marsh who
married John Page, their son with the interesting name of Onesiphorus Page
married Mary Hauxworth and had a daughter Mary Page who married John Darling
of Kingston , NH, natural son of Naomi Flanders (daughter of Steven and Jane
( Sandusky) Flanders ) by a soldier named _____ Darling. The Court was
convinced by her brother Philip Flanders of Naomi`s innocence in such matters, they
pardoned her and She had the child. Some years later She was married to
Benjamin Eastman. John Darling and Mary Page had a daughter Abigail Darling who
married Benjamin Swett, their great grandaughter Mehitable Swett married John
Delano of Mexico and West Peru, Maine. their granddaughter Effie May (Delano)
Miller is my matrilineal Great grandmother.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



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

[John Brandon]

Dear John,
I have not followed this discussion but opened this post to find you are descended from a Mary Courthope. I also descend from a Mary Courthope, daughter of John who married John Bysshe, b. 1520, ancestor of Ursula Bysshe Thompson Mottrom Colclough of Northumberland Co. VA. ( JOHN BYSSHE of Burstowe, co. Surrey, Esq. 2 and 3 Phil. and Mary, 1555/6. Will prd 1568 (P.C.C. 20 Babington). Md. Mary, dau. of John Courthorp, co. Kent.)
I was also interested in your mention of Richard Singletary. Do you have information on his parentage?
Thank you,
Pat

Hi--

I don't know too much about the Courthope family, just that it's an
old, odd Kentish name, originally Curtopp or Courtopp. They were
clothiers near Cranbrook when they intermarried with the Sheafes,
another clothier family, in the early 1500s. There may have been some
pretensions of gentility at a later period (as I recall, some
Courthope was Somerset Herald in the early 19th century). You might
want to look at John B. Threlfall's tracings of Dorothy Sheafe
Whitfield's ancestry for clues: _The Ancestry of Reverend Henry
Whitfield (1590-1657) and his wife Dorothy Sheafe_.

Singletery is also an odd name, pretty much confined to Lincolnshire,
I think. I don't believe the origins of Richard are currently known
beyond a few clues linking him to Lincs. Threlfall may have
speculated on this line as well, but I don't have the specific
reference any longer (among a bunch of books I threw out ?). Or
possibly among the loose-leaf genealogical sheets he used to print up
on his mother's ancestry. I don't know where one would go about
locating those--I can't find my copies any more, and they also may
have been thrown out ...

[wjhonson]

On Dec 9, 9:47 am, Hickory <[email protected]> wrote:

After Robert Packington's assassination
she married the soon to become Lord Mayor of London Sir Michael Dormer
who (again, if my memory of the Visitations is correct) should be
assigned an Anne Launcelyn descent. Katherine was, by the way, Sir
Michael Dormer's second wife, and the mother of none of his children.
Katherine, Lady Dormer, did appear to have been on good terms with Sir
Richard Mallory and his second wife Elizabeth her step-daughter by
Robert Packington. Sir Richard Mallory's first wife is always shown as
Anne Smith in published sources, but I have not been able to verify
the lady's original family name from primary sources. Certain things
about Sir Richard's life history would make more sense if she proved
to be a sister of Sir Clement Smith (the husband of Jane Seymour's
sister Dorothy), but sheer talent rather than any special connections
could also just as easily explain things.

-------------------
It is fairly certain that this Sir Clement Smith, cannot be the
Clement Smith called "fifth son" of John Smith alias Harris of
Withcottes, Leics. by his wife Dorothy Cave. However, one wonders if
perhaps John could have had a brother named Clement.

The Clement Smith who married Dorothy Seymour, specifically called
"Youngest" daughter of Sir John Seymour of Wolf Hall, Wilts. by his
wife Marjorie Wentworth, is said to be of Little Baddow near
Chelmsford, Essex and also to have owned the Manor of Rivenhall
(sounds very Tolkienish don't it?)

Sir John Smith of Little Baddow (from 1572 in a regrant from Queen
Bess), *his* son if not also hers, has a DNB entry.

Will Johnson

[wjhonson]

On Dec 11, 2:05 pm, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

It is fairly certain that this Sir Clement Smith, cannot be the
Clement Smith called "fifth son" of John Smith alias Harris of
Withcottes, Leics. by his wife Dorothy Cave. However, one wonders if
perhaps John could have had a brother named Clement.

The Clement Smith who married Dorothy Seymour, specifically called
"Youngest" daughter of Sir John Seymour of Wolf Hall, Wilts. by his
wife Marjorie Wentworth, is said to be of Little Baddow near
Chelmsford, Essex and also to have owned the Manor of Rivenhall
(sounds very Tolkienish don't it?)

Sir John Smith of Little Baddow (from 1572 in a regrant from Queen
Bess), *his* son if not also hers, has a DNB entry.

Will Johnson

There is an additional problem.
I had had this Dorothy Seymour, by her second husband Thomas
Leventhorpe, Esq of Albury Hall, Herts, as the mother of six children
by him, and then dying herself by 1556. Clearly this now needs to be
rethought.

Dorothy Seymour married twice, her first husband Sir Clement Smith did
not die until 26 Aug 1552 at Little Baddow. It's a hard pressing that
would make her *then* get married and give birth to six more children
in three years. I can see I'm going to have to go back and more
carefully source this.

Will Johnson

[wjhonson]

On Dec 11, 2:20 pm, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

Dorothy Seymour married twice, her first husband Sir Clement Smith did
not die until 26 Aug 1552 at Little Baddow. It's a hard pressing that
would make her *then* get married and give birth to six more children
in three years. I can see I'm going to have to go back and more
carefully source this.

Will Johnson

In light of later events and how high the Seymour family reached,
isn't it surprising Will, when we say that *this* Sir Clement Smith
was in essence a new man ?

As you say he died in Little Baddow but also he was holding the Manor
of Rivenhall, which leads us to a reference to the famous author
Thomas Tusser (1524-1580).

Thomas is called the "fourth son" of his father William Tusser of
Rivenhall, by his wife called "Anne or Isabella" Smith, the sister of
this Sir Clement Smith.

Their parents being called Thomas Smith, esq of Rivenhall, co Essex by
his wife Isabella Toft, her father William Toft, Gent of Tofts in
Little Baddow and evidently she his only heir.

That certainly helps in the way of creating a family tree for Sir
Clement Smith, with the additional statement that William Toft Gent
died in 1470 and Thomas Tusser his great-grandson was born in or about
1524.

Will Johnson

[Gjest]

Dear John Brandon and others,
I have an Elizabeth Sheafe
born 1589 who married Moses Payne who settled in Braintree, Massachusetts. She
apparently being the daughter of Richard and Margery Sheafe (nee Roberts).
Richard was either the brother or father of Reverend Thomas Sheafe who married
Maria, daughter of Reverend William Wilson and Elizabeth Woodhull and had
Dorothy Sheafe, wife of Reverend Henry Whitfield. Richard Sheafe (and perhaps
Thomas) was the son of Thomas Sheafe and Mary Harman. who was the daughter of
Thomas Harman by his wife Elizabeth, daughter of Alexander Courthope by his 2nd
wife Katherine, daughter of Robert Foster. (I Wish I had a far more reliable
source than I do at this moment, which is a series of web pedigrees, but it`s a
place to start. Many records apparently at Cranbrook, Kent, England.
Also: Thomas W Wyman Jr in his
Charlestown Estates gives an Edmund Edenden (? same as your Edmund Iddenden) with a
wife Elizabeth Whitman / Wightman. They had a daughter Sarah Edenden born
1637 who married Thomas Rand. They are ancestors of Governor Bill Richardson and
myself among others.
Sincerely,
James
W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



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

[Gjest]

Todd Farmerie wrote

by David Hughes, who pops in occasionally to purvey silliness in the
guise of genealogy and who has had his material repeatedly
contradicted by yours truly, I don't think the hostility is a
mystery.)
--------------------------------

strange i was going to say the same about you
is that why he is a published author and you are a nobody who pretends
to be somebody; i have a copy of his book "British
Chronicles" [Heritage Books, 2007] and it is well worth the $94 it
costs

chris

[John Brandon]

Hi James,

Yes, your Elizabeth Sheafe Payne is a connection. Once again, the
John Brooks Threlfall book, _The Ancestry of Reverend Henry Whitfield
(1590-1657) and his Wife Dorothy Sheafe (159?-1669) of Guilford,
Conn._, should help you to place her correctly in the family. I'm
sure there's a copy at Hist-Gen in Boston, and probably many other
places.

Right, the same George and Edmund Edenden/ Iddenden (I share the Rand
descent as well) ...

Dear John Brandon and others,
I have an Elizabeth Sheafe
born 1589 who married Moses Payne who settled in Braintree, Massachusetts. She
apparently being the daughter of Richard and Margery Sheafe (nee Roberts).
Richard was either the brother or father of Reverend Thomas Sheafe who married
Maria, daughter of Reverend William Wilson and Elizabeth Woodhull and had
Dorothy Sheafe, wife of Reverend Henry Whitfield. Richard Sheafe (and perhaps
Thomas) was the son of Thomas Sheafe and Mary Harman. who was the daughter of
Thomas Harman by his wife Elizabeth, daughter of Alexander Courthope by his 2nd
wife Katherine, daughter of Robert Foster. (I Wish I had a far more reliable
source than I do at this moment, which is a series of web pedigrees, but it`s a
place to start. Many records apparently at Cranbrook, Kent, England.
Also: Thomas W Wyman Jr in his
Charlestown Estates gives an Edmund Edenden (? same as your EdmundIddenden) with a
wife Elizabeth Whitman / Wightman. They had a daughter Sarah Edenden born
1637 who married Thomas Rand. They are ancestors of Governor Bill Richardson and
myself among others.
Sincerely,
James
W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

[Leticia Cluff]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 05:40:07 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

Todd Farmerie wrote
by David Hughes, who pops in occasionally to purvey silliness in the
guise of genealogy and who has had his material repeatedly
contradicted by yours truly, I don't think the hostility is a
mystery.)
--------------------------------
strange i was going to say the same about you
is that why he is a published author and you are a nobody who pretends
to be somebody; i have a copy of his book "British
Chronicles" [Heritage Books, 2007] and it is well worth the $94 it
costs

chris

It is indeed touching, chris, to see the selfless loyalty with which
you doggedly promote the work of published author David Hughes (or
david hughes, as he signs his name in Usenet messages).

I notice you write "it is well worth the $94 it costs" rather than
"it is well worth the $94 I paid for it."

Someone else with greater expertise than mine could perhaps explain
the curious coincidence that both chris and david post from the same
IP host in New York, using Google Groups and AOL addresses.

And the name used in the latest email address, CHRIS8REGIS, strangely
evokes both Chris Davis and Regis Devoe, both of whom will be found in
the archives of this group, zealously posting legendary genealogies in
support of each other.

It all reminds me of the old surrealistic riddle:

Q: What's the difference between a duck?

A: One of its legs is both the same.


Tish

[D. Spencer Hines]

Says one sock puppet about another...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

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

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 05:40:07 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

Todd Farmerie wrote

by David Hughes, who pops in occasionally to purvey silliness in the
guise of genealogy and who has had his material repeatedly
contradicted by yours truly, I don't think the hostility is a
mystery.)
--------------------------------
strange i was going to say the same about you
is that why he is a published author and you are a nobody who pretends
to be somebody; i have a copy of his book "British
Chronicles" [Heritage Books, 2007] and it is well worth the $94 it
costs

chris

It is indeed touching, chris, to see the selfless loyalty with which
you doggedly promote the work of published author David Hughes (or
david hughes, as he signs his name in Usenet messages).

I notice you write "it is well worth the $94 it costs" rather than
"it is well worth the $94 I paid for it."

Someone else with greater expertise than mine could perhaps explain
the curious coincidence that both chris and david post from the same
IP host in New York, using Google Groups and AOL addresses.

And the name used in the latest email address, CHRIS8REGIS, strangely
evokes both Chris Davis and Regis Devoe, both of whom will be found in
the archives of this group, zealously posting legendary genealogies in
support of each other.

It all reminds me of the old surrealistic riddle:

Q: What's the difference between a duck?

A: One of its legs is both the same.


Tish

[Leticia Cluff]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:12:22 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
<[email protected]> wrote:

Says one sock puppet about another...

DSH

Another predictable libel from the two-faced purveyor of Bad Latin,
that Janus who has lost his initial and exposes both cheeks for the
regular and thoroughly deserved spanking that he secretly enjoys.

By the way, David, while I have your attention, might I remind you of
something else I found in the archives, the judgment you pronounced on
Douglas Richardson in October 2002:

"Anger, Envy and a Twisted Character ---- amalgamated with an
apparently quite limited intelligence and a paucity of True
Genealogical Talent can do strange things to a man ---- as we are
seeing ---- very nasty things."

This is the man you are now fawning over at every opportunity, and I
hardly need to remind you that fawn is a yellowish-brown color.

The very thought of the Hines tongue lapping frenetically around MY
hind quarters is positively nauseasting, so on the whole I would
prefer it if you go on saying nasty things about me. That way you show
yourself in your true light--which is as far removed from Lux et
Veritas as it is possible to get.

Tish

[Gjest]

On Dec 12, 5:40 am, [email protected] wrote:

Todd Farmerie wrote> by David Hughes, who pops in occasionally to purvey silliness in the
guise of genealogy and who has had his material repeatedly
contradicted by yours truly, I don't think the hostility is a
mystery.)

--------------------------------
strange i was going to say the same about you

The same what? That I am hostile toward you because of Mr. Hughes is
a purveyor of silliness in the guise of genealogy? No. I assure you
my feelings toward you are due entirely to your unprovoked attack.
At least though we have gotten to the heart of the matter.

is that why he is a published author

Umm. Anyone who wants to can be a published author. Subsidy
publishing (less charitably called vanity publishing) has a long
history. It is certainly an accomplishment to compile a work for
publication, and I am sure Mr. Hughes takes pride in his, but the fact
that it has been published is no indication of the quality of the
work.

and you are a nobody who pretends
to be somebody;

Actually, I am pretty sure I am somebody. Just to be certain, though,
let me check. [Lifts shirt and looks inside - yes, there is someone
there. Pulls a few short-hairs growing around navel - ouch!. I am
somebody, but who? checks picture on drivers license. Yes, I am not
only somebody, but actually who I claim to be. I wonder, can
Chris8Regis pass the same test?] Although not really relevant to this
discussion, I too am a published author, only I didn't pay for it - I
got paid for it. Up front. How about you Chris8Regis? Have you ever
published anything? If we searched for Chris8Regis on Amazon, would
anything come up? Or maybe you published under a pseudonym or ghost
wrote something, or maybe Chris8Regis is the pseudonym?

i have a copy of his book "British
Chronicles" [Heritage Books, 2007] and it is well worth the $94 it
costs

To you it may be, but this is a medieval genealogy group, so let's
talk about medieval genealogy. Do you want to talk about Mr. Hughes'
bogus pedigree in which he had the same Anglo-Saxon Ealdorman two
different places without realizing it, or the one where he had the
same mythical Scandinavian as the man's own grandfather, or his
descent from Iberia to Mohammad that is build on one invented
connection after another? Or my favorite, the one that shows a
prehistoric King of America or something of the sort. No, you probably
don't.

In my last response, I indicated what conclusion should be reached if
an accusation of fraud was not backed up. In this emission, you have
not provided the slightest support for your claim. This clearly
indicates that you have no evidence of fraud, but simply a vocabulary
too limited to come up with a more appropriate word with which to
insult me. That is truly sad, as there is such a range of choices, the
American insult vernacular being quite colorful.

taf

[John Brandon]

wrote something, or maybe Chris8Regis is the pseudonym?

Maybe Chris8Regis is a description of an activity.

[D. Spencer Hines]

Hmmmmmm...

taf confesses to being a shirt lifter.

DSH

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

Actually, I am pretty sure I am somebody. Just to be certain, though,
let me check. [Lifts shirt and looks inside - yes, there is someone
there. Pulls a few short-hairs growing around navel - ouch!. I am
somebody, but who? checks picture on drivers license.

[Gjest]

Todd Farmerie wrote
Although not really relevant to this

discussion, I too am a published author, only I didn't pay for it - I
got paid for it.
----------------------------------

what a lie you are; for your information Heritage Books is NOT a
vanity press, and you should know that - Todd Farmerie will lie
whenever he is cornered by truth - such a bold face lie is amazing -
and he gets royalty checks too
-----------------------------------
i know about five people with the name David Hughes - one lives in a
cell on the fourth floor - i see him nearly everyday in the computer
room which is on the first floor across the hall from the office and
security guard's station - i will tell him about this thread, but he
is probably too busy to answer liars like Todd Farmerie

chris

[wjhonson]

On Dec 12, 2:45 pm, [email protected] wrote:

- Todd Farmerie will lie
whenever he is cornered by truth - such a bold face lie is amazing -
and he gets royalty checks too

chris

For lying ? I'd like that job. How do I get a job where I'm paid for
lying?

Will Johnson

[Gjest]

On Dec 12, 2:45 pm, [email protected] wrote:

Todd Farmerie wrote
Although not really relevant to this> discussion, I too am a published author, only I didn't pay for it - I
got paid for it.

----------------------------------
what a lie you are;

Umm, no. I am not a lie. Whether I am a liar or not is a different
story, but I have already provided some evidence that I am not a lie.

for your information Heritage Books is NOT a
vanity press, and you should know that - Todd Farmerie will lie
whenever he is cornered by truth

Which truth would that be? That he is somebody and I am not? I have
already put that to rest. That publishing makes somebody somebody. I
also put that to rest. So, exactly what is the truth here that has me
cornered? You certainly haven't provided any up to this point, just an
unsubstantiated rant.

What you failed to answer, by the way, is whether you meet the
standard set by your own ad hominem. If one must be published to
criticize someone that is (a ridiculous position, but let's see what
the implications are) on what basis do you criticize me?

- such a bold face lie is amazing -
and he gets royalty checks too

Lies! Lies! ALL Lies! Now, back to what I actually said.

I said that being published is not a big deal, and that unlike some, I
have been published without paying for it. This makes your whole
"you're just jealous" claim a bit fatuous.

-----------------------------------
i know about five people with the name David Hughes - one lives in a
cell on the fourth floor - i see him nearly everyday in the computer
room which is on the first floor across the hall from the office and
security guard's station -

yawn . . . So what?

i will tell him about this thread, but he
is probably too busy to answer liars like Todd Farmerie

Maybe he can do a better job of supporting his position than you have
in supporting yours. Remember, we are awaiting the evidence that I am
a fraud. Remember too, that if one makes such accusations as you have
made and fails to support them, they will invariably be perceived as
talking out of their @$$. Your shrill calls of "fraud" and "liar" are
really not substantive, and are recognized as such.

And in this post, you have failed to answer any of the criticism
raised, or anything having to do with medieval genealogy. Just out of
curiosity, do you have anything of use to contribute to this group,
other than what you read in this valued book of yours, or have you
decided to simply make character assassination your stock in trade?

taf

[Gjest]

Dear Will,
I though that Roger le Bigod, 2nd Earl of Norfolk was the son
of Hugh le Bigod, 1st Earl of Norfolk by his 2nd wife Juliana de Vere, whose
ancestry in given In Weis Magna Charta Sureties line 155, 154 Juliana de Vere
being ta daughter of Aubrey de Vere II by his wife Alice de Clare, daughter
of Gilbert Fitz richard (de Clare) and Adeliz de Clermont, who through her
mother Margaret de Roucy was a descendant of Charlemagne (See Weis Ancestral
Roots of Certain American Colonists before 1700, 7th Edition lines 246 B, 246,
240, 151 et cetera) The Line is through Emperor Lothair I of the Holy Roman
Empire`s daughter Ermengarde who was ancestress by one Count Giselbert of the
first comital dynasty of Hainault. Count Reginer IV of Hainault`s daughter Beatrix
married Ebles I , Count of Roucy and had Adele who married Hildouin III,
Count of Roucy and Montdidier, Margaret of Roucy was one of their daughters.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



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

[wjhonson]

On Dec 12, 3:17 pm, [email protected] wrote:

Dear Will,
I though that Roger le Bigod, 2nd Earl of Norfolk was the son
of Hugh le Bigod, 1st Earl of Norfolk by his 2nd wife Juliana de Vere, whose
ancestry in given In Weis Magna Charta Sureties line 155, 154 Juliana de Vere
being the daughter of Aubrey de Vere II by his wife Alice de Clare, daughter
of Gilbert Fitz richard (de Clare) and Adeliz de Clermont, who through her
mother Margaret de Roucy was a descendant of Charlemagne (See Weis Ancestral
Roots of Certain American Colonists before 1700, 7th Edition lines 246 B, 246,
240, 151 et cetera) The Line is through Emperor Lothair I of the Holy Roman
Empire`s daughter Ermengarde who was ancestress by one Count Giselbert of the
first comital dynasty of Hainault. Count Reginer IV of Hainault`s daughter Beatrix
married Ebles I , Count of Roucy and had Adele who married Hildouin III,
Count of Roucy and Montdidier, Margaret of Roucy was one of their daughters.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

-------------
If you review the dates you'll see. There were two men of this name,
Roger died in 1107 and his *grandson* Roger (the son of Juliana de
Vere) who died before 2 Aug 1215

Will Johnson

[[email protected]]

On Dec 12, 6:00 pm, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

On Dec 12, 2:45 pm, [email protected] wrote:

- Todd Farmerie will lie
whenever he is cornered by truth - such a bold face lie is amazing -
and he gets royalty checks too

chris

For lying ? I'd like that job. How do I get a job where I'm paid for
lying?

Will Johnson

From: Leticia Cluff <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER OF GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL...
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:20:02 -0400
References: <mailman.551.1197315036.4586.gen-
[email protected]><315fdaa3-965b-443c-
[email protected]><49977bfd-
ee3a-4396-828e-6e85ef4e0120@s12g2000prg ... groups.com><b44e3581-1995-41b5-92d0-
[email protected]>

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 05:40:07 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

Todd Farmerie wrote
by David Hughes, who pops in occasionally to purvey silliness in the
guise of genealogy and who has had his material repeatedly
contradicted by yours truly, I don't think the hostility is a
mystery.)
--------------------------------
strange i was going to say the same about you
is that why he is a published author and you are a nobody who pretends
to be somebody; i have a copy of his book "British
Chronicles" [Heritage Books, 2007] and it is well worth the $94 it
costs

chris

It is indeed touching, chris, to see the selfless loyalty with which
you doggedly promote the work of published author David Hughes (or
david hughes, as he signs his name in Usenet messages).

I notice you write "it is well worth the $94 it costs" rather than
"it is well worth the $94 I paid for it."

Someone else with greater expertise than mine could perhaps explain
the curious coincidence that both chris and david post from the same
IP host in New York, using Google Groups and AOL addresses.

And the name used in the latest email address, CHRIS8REGIS, strangely
evokes both Chris Davis and Regis Devoe, both of whom will be found in
the archives of this group, zealously posting legendary genealogies in
support of each other.

It all reminds me of the old surrealistic riddle:

Q: What's the difference between a duck?

A: One of its legs is both the same.


Tish
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER OF GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL...
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:12:22 -0000
References: <mailman.551.1197315036.4586.gen-
[email protected]><315fdaa3-965b-443c-
[email protected]><49977bfd-
ee3a-4396-828e-6e85ef4e0120@s12g2000prg ... groups.com><b44e3581-1995-41b5-92d0-
[email protected]><[email protected]>

Says one sock puppet about another...

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

[email protected]
Feb 11 2005, 5:23 pm
"He is well attested in records of that period with his father, and after digging I did find
out
that his father was the High Sheriff of County Down, but his mother is nowhere
to be found. "
As per your usual method of creating fictitious pedigrees you provide NO sources. Not a
single
citation. "Digging" is not a source, no matter what David Hughes taught you.
*flips hair, swivels head*
Will Johnson
Matthew Rockefeller
Feb 11 2005, 6:00 pm
Every generation can be found in Burke's Peerage you stupid, braying
ass. And digging consists of looking at birth certificate records and
property deeds, call it what you will. A recent prominent descendant of
this line passed away and his obituary was in the New York Times, go
look that up, if you have the brain power. Some people actually look at
records and don't just get their information from the encyclopedia
brittanica or what have you.
As usual you've contributed nothing, you're worthless to this newsgroup
and the genealogical community. You're nothing but a fly attempting to
land on the cake. Thankfully, I've got a swatter in hand. I'll say it
again, don't bother responding to my posts if you don't have anything
to add. It's amazing that it hasn't sunk in yet.
I don't owe you an explantation for anything. I don't have a drop of
respect for you. If someone I respect asks me a question, then I'll
answer it the best I can. You, as I've repeatedly said, have
contributed nothing. You are not an expert, not an author, not even a
genealogist, but simply someone who gets his kicks out of interupting
research that is worthwhile. You're a godless and fruitless man who
needs a hobby that doesn't involve tearing down, but building up. I
suppose you're another atheist, like Gordon Hale. Is it any wonder you
think you evolve from monkeys when you behave like them and mimic them
in everyway.
May God have mercy on your soul!
Matthew
[email protected]
View profile
More options Feb 11 2005, 7:12 pm
Here is the line that Matthew posted, snipped to just show the relevant time period
"Charles II Stuart (b May 29, 1630
snip
Rev. Capt. Charles Beauclerk (Country Antrim, Ireland ca 1824 - "
So a line from 1630 to 1824.
When I asked him what "digging" he did to confirm it, here is a quote from his last message.
"digging consists of looking at birth certificate records and property deeds, call it what you
will. "
BIRTH certificates!!
How much deeper can Matthew go in this cycle of proving that he has no clue what he's about?
But
please Matthew, if you're looked at "birth certificates" on this line please share with us
this
fabulous resource that you've miraculously uncovered. We would all be in your debt.
Will Johnson
[email protected]
Feb 11 2005, 7:14 pm
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/11/2005 6:33:31 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected]
writes: Gordon Hale Grand Prairie, Texas
Feb 11 2005, 7:40 pm
"Tony Hoskins"
Hello Gordon, This is "way OT", but here goes. Regards, Tony Hoskins Santa Rosa, California
Feb 11 2005, 8:47 pm
Peter Stewart
Well said, Tony - and by some way the most intelligent opinion posted here on any subject in a
good while. Peter Stewart ""Tony Hoskins"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:s20cec02.015@CENTRAL_SVR2... - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -> Hello Gordon,
This
is "way OT", but here goes. > Regards, > Tony Hoskins > Santa Rosa, California
Feb 11 2005, 9:20 pm
Peter Stewart
I should amend this: the most intelligent opinion on any OT subject.... Happily we also have
some
outstanding contributors who never stray from the field of medieval genealogy. I appreciate
them.
Peter Stewart "Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]... - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted
text
-
Well said, Tony - and by some way the most intelligent opinion posted here > on any subject in
a
good while. > Peter Stewart > ""Tony Hoskins"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:s20cec02.015@CENTRAL_SVR2... >> Hello Gordon, >> Regards, >> Tony Hoskins >> Santa Rosa,
California
Feb 11 2005, 9:25 pm
Renia
- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -Matthew Rockefeller wrote: > > The source they give
for
this, is: Quarterly returns of births in Ireland, 1864-1955, with index to births, 1864-1921
Ireland. General Register Office. Renia
Feb 11 2005, 9:31 pm
Denis Beauregard
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 01:47:58 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] ("Tony Hoskins") wrote in
soc.genealogy.medieval:Denis -- 0 Denis Beauregard /\/ http://www.francogene.com |\
Adresse modifiée souvent/email changed frequently<< / | Société généalogique
canadienne-française oo oo http://www.sgcf.com
Feb 11 2005, 9:47 pm
Feb 12 2005, 1:33 am
In article <[email protected]>,
"Matthew Rockefeller" <[email protected]> wrote:
in reply to Will Johnson's call for documentation
As usual you've contributed nothing, you're worthless to this newsgroup
and the genealogical community. You're nothing but a fly attempting to
land on the cake.
John Brandon
An agnate royal Stewart line ending up, after two bastardies, in the > 19th-century US is
certainly worth noting--the sort of thing Gary Boyd > Roberts would want to include in his
compendia. And we know that they have exalted present-day descendants (i..e., members of the
Rockefeller family), something that is almost more important to Gary (for some odd reason)
than
that they have a royal line. So this Beauclerk item is something he'd probably want to look
into.
Feb 12 2005, 12:07 pm
Aaron parmenter
Excellent, Renia. This is what I'm talking about, actual research. I've looked through the
census
records for them as well, but you've found a little more than I did, for which I'm grateful.
snip> Feb 13 2005, 11:31 am
Matthew Rockefeller
Feb 13 2005, 12:03 pm
I'm just about done replying to him. It's not good for my well being or
his. When someone calls me a liar, point blank, then they are asking
for abuse. I'm one of the few people in this world who always means
well, and I don't take lightly to my integrity being insulted.
Who is this Will Jhonson anyway to being questioning me? That's my
point. It's nothing personal. You say long-term readers, but I don't
find him making useful comments in the archives. Everyone I talk to in
emails are appauled at how he talks to everyone, including the true
long-term contributors and other serious genealogists, and contributed
nothing himself.
In some cases I've gone to great pains to research individuals and
check marriage records and the link, baptismal records, and I seriously
don't appreciate him having no appreciation for my time and work. When
he starts treating me and others with a fair amount of respect, then
he'll end up learning a lot more. People will answer respectful
inquiries, but nobody takes being called a liar well.
Matthew Rockefeller
Feb 13 2005, 12:16 pm
Some interesting food for thought As soon as people learn to love one another
and recognize that they are divine, then the world will be a more
positive and productive place.
Matthew
[email protected]
Your Beauclerk problem is clearly 19th century and outside the dates of discussion. Even
Charles
II is outside the scope of SGM technically. Again, read my earlier posting and you need to
tell
us
not so much what you have as what research you've done in order for us to give you advice on
where
to turn next.
Feb 13 2005, 1:00 pm

[email protected]
And in addition, mister descendent of God, you could post some of your well-researched details
on
your own ancestor where others could check them. I'm sure we'd all be edified by the
information
with sources cited on your descent from Baha U'llah.
Feb 13 2005, 11:16 pm
[email protected]
View profile
More options Feb 13 2005, 11:26 pm
In a message dated 2/13/2005 11:08:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
Don't waste anything, love the Supreme Being, and love your
neighbors. I respectfully request you to refrain from writing such off topic messages
to this forum. You have cast down a gauntlet for me which I, because I have
not desire to continue to bore the true genealogists here, will not pick up.
If, however, you do not desist in such efforts I MUST take arms against your
inane philosophy.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

[email protected]
Feb 14 2005, 11:19 am
In a message dated 2/14/2005 6:15:39 AM Pacific Standard Time,

[email protected] writes:
Anyone with a large ancestry has thousands of sources. You want them
all? Or you want him to do your work for you and prise out the
individual sources for individual people? You ask too much.

No Renia I want him to post ONE source, that proves ANYTHING he says. So far
that is too much for him to bear.

Where does he say this? I interpret him as saying he has looked at more
modern birth certificates.

Renia he posted a line from 1650 or so to about 1820 or so and claimed to
have proved the line from in part "... birth certificates...". That is what I
pointed out. The implausibility if not impossibility of such a thing.

That probably depends on you. You have munged your email address, and
Jhonson is how you appear. Who is to know what is the correct spelling
of your surname.

Incorrect. I have not "munged" my address. My email address is Wjhonson and
it always has been, he assumed my surname was also Jhonson when in fact it is
Johnson.

Looking through the archives, I see you are as guilty as the next person
of not citing sources. When you do cite them, they are online sources
(primarily Leos) and encyclopedias, not primary sources. Wikipedia,
useful though it can be, is a user-contributary encyclopedia, and full
of mistakes. The only other source you cite, is your web site,
advertising your services as a professional genealogist.

But see I do cite them. And Leo's cite rests on top of well-known sources.
And on wikipedia you could not be more mistaken. The entries there are not
only read but CORRECTED by a committee or persons, some quite expert in their
field. That is not less useful, but actually MORE useful than an encyclopaedia
that is never corrected. And some of the more edited entries list their
sources as well as you quite well know I'm sure.
And I have never advertised my own cite on this list. If I have please post
such an advertisment.
Thank you for your concern.
Will Johnson

[email protected]
Feb 13 2005, 11:14 pm
In a message dated 2/13/2005 8:08:01 PM Pacific Standard Time,

[email protected] writes:
In some cases I've gone to great pains to research individuals and
check marriage records and the link, baptismal records, and I seriously
don't appreciate him having no appreciation for my time and work. When
he starts treating me and others with a fair amount of respect, then
he'll end up learning a lot more. People will answer respectful
inquiries, but nobody takes being called a liar well.

Irrelevant, specious, tendentious and pointless.
Prove me wrong, post your sources.
Otherwise wear your egg.
Birth certificates for people in the 17th century no less ?
Who is the charlatan here?
Will Johnson get my name right.
Renia
View profile
More options Feb 14 2005, 9:04 am

[email protected] wrote:
In a message dated 2/13/2005 8:08:01 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
In some cases I've gone to great pains to research individuals and
check marriage records and the link, baptismal records, and I seriously
don't appreciate him having no appreciation for my time and work. When
he starts treating me and others with a fair amount of respect, then
he'll end up learning a lot more. People will answer respectful
inquiries, but nobody takes being called a liar well.
Irrelevant, specious, tendentious and pointless.
Prove me wrong, post your sources.

Anyone with a large ancestry has thousands of sources. You want them
all? Or you want him to do your work for you and prise out the
individual sources for individual people? You ask too much.

Otherwise wear your egg.
Birth certificates for people in the 17th century no less ?

Where does he say this? I interpret him as saying he has looked at more
modern birth certificates.

Who is the charlatan here?
Will Johnson get my name right.

That probably depends on you. You have munged your email address, and
Jhonson is how you appear. Who is to know what is the correct spelling
of your surname.
Looking through the archives, I see you are as guilty as the next person
of not citing sources. When you do cite them, they are online sources
(primarily Leos) and encyclopedias, not primary sources. Wikipedia,
useful though it can be, is a user-contributary encyclopedia, and full
of mistakes. The only other source you cite, is your web site,
advertising your services as a professional genealogist.
Renia

comp.databases.pick


http://groups.google.com/group/comp.dat ... ce5fe09218
Will Jhonson, moron?
This is a Usenet group -
Create, send & track e-Newsletters
Easy-to-use. 500 free Emails!
http://www.VerticalResponse.com

Mass mailing to Pick sites using FFT Internet Web crawler
Options

WJhonson
FFT announces the availability of FFT WebCrawler 2.0 for Pick and Multi-value systems. Crawl
the
internet stripping Pick URL and E-mail leads out of the HTML jumble and mass mail them today!
Why
let your competition get ahead? Send your resume to 50 or 500 sites in a few minutes. Notify
the
world of your new software release by direct E-mail! License WebCrawler 2.0 today for one
hundred
dollars. So cheap and yet so good....
Oct 1 1999, 2:00 am


WJhonson
Get FFT WebCrawler 2.0 today Mailto: [email protected] or go to the web at:
http://members.aol.com/fft2001/prof/index.htm
Oct 1 1999, 2:00 am

Luke Webber
View profile
More options Oct 1 1999, 2:00 am
Christ, and I complained about the V3 double post!
Anybody wants to send bulk email to Pick people or otherwise had better
realise they're wasting their time. Bulk email doesn't work and your ISP is
just as likely to shut down your account while the rest of us look on and
cheer.
Take your WebCrawler and stick it where the monkey hid its nuts, Moron.
Luke Webber
(Follow-up to [email protected])

- Show quoted text -


FFT2001
Thank you for your kind words. However, writing software to do mass mailing is not a violation
of
any terms of service. How a person chooses to use that software is their choice.
Oct 3 1999, 2:00 am


Richard Ginsburg
FFT2001 <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Thank you for your kind words. However, writing software to do mass mailing is > not a
violation
of any terms of service. How a person chooses to use that > software is their choice.
However,
building guns is not a violation of any terms of service. How a person chooses to use that
gun
is
their choice. If you make it, they will abuse it...
Oct 3 1999, 2:00 am

Luke Webber
Bullshit. You have advertised a product specifically tailored to do something considered
repugnant
by the entire internet community. If you're not violating your terms of service you're
encouraging
others to do so, which IMO is actually worse. It's much like the difference between drugtaking
and
dealing. Even Richard's comparison doesn't quite hold up because some guns actually do have
peaceful uses. You're selling something which can *only* be put to bad use, so don't peddle
your
sophistry to me. Luke - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -FFT2001 wrote in message
[email protected]>... >Thank you for your kind words. However,
writing software to do mass mailing is >not a violation of any terms of service. How a person
chooses to use that >software is their choice.
Oct 4 1999, 2:00 am


Concerned Netizen
......... You have advertised a product specifically tailored to do > something considered
repugnant by the entire internet community. I'm sure one or two sleaze-bags don't find it
repugnant.
Oct 4 1999, 2:00 am


Gulraj Rijhwani
In article <[email protected]> [email protected] "FFT2001"
writes: > Thank you for your kind words. However, writing software to do mass mailing is
not
a
violation of any terms of service. How a person chooses to use that > software is their
choice.
Writing it may not be. Writing an e-mail harvester as a purely didactic exercise is quite
interesting, though hardly taxing. However, trying to flog one for personal gain, and
explicitly
encouraging the abuse that it is designed to facilitiate is utterly reprehensible. And it IS
contrary to most major ISPs AUPs these days, not only to send unsolicited bulk e-mail, but
also
to
advertise such facilities or encourage their use. -- Gulraj Rijhwani \\
Courtfields
Limited, Chessington, Surrey, UK [email protected] \\ Tel: +44 (0)208 255 4667
Mob:
0976 431936 http://www.courtfld.demon.co.uk \\ Fax: +44 (0)208 287 8381 ----- Specialist in
Pick,
Unidata, datacomms and general connectivity ---
Oct 5 1999, 2:00 am

Gulraj Rijhwani
In article <[email protected]> [email protected]
"WJhonson"
writes: > FFT announces the availability of FFT WebCrawler 2.0 for Pick and Multi-value
systems.
Crawl the internet stripping Pick URL and E-mail leads out of the > HTML jumble and mass mail
them today! Why let your competition get ahead? ..when you can actively push their boat for
them.
Send your resume to 50 or 500 sites in a few minutes. ..and advertise for all to see the
fact
that you are an utter clue vacuum not fit for employment in anything remotely approaching 'net
matters. > Notify the world of your new > software release by direct E-mail! ..and be assured
of
alienating any potential market you may have had on the Internet. Hmmm - sound like a great
strategies to me... Please rush me my priority order (under plain unmarked wrapper) now! NOT!
--
Gulraj Rijhwani \\ Courtfields Limited, Chessington, Surrey, UK
[email protected] \\ Tel: +44 (0)208 255 4667 Mob: 0976 431936
http://www.courtfld.demon.co.uk \\ Fax: +44 (0)208 287 8381 ----- Specialist in Pick,
Unidata,
Oct 5 1999, 2:00 am

tgm
On 03 Oct 1999 14:32:40 GMT, [email protected] (FFT2001) wrote: >Thank you for your kind words.
However, writing software to do mass mailing is >not a violation of any terms of service.
How
a
person chooses to use that >software is their choice. How some people use

Who is this Will Jhonson? Is he a professional spammer or
professional genealogist?

I'm actually quite upset about the spammers. They overran and ruined
my business account and made it utterly worthless. It has cost me a
lot of money and business, not to mention time. So when I know that
Mr. Johnson supports and encourages this kind of thing, it makes my
blood boil. Yes, Will Johnson computer spammer programmer should be
ashamed of himself, but he obviously doesn't care about anyone but
himself. If you read his response back in 1999, even though he was
called a moron, he still justified himself. A therapist would have
fun with him. When he talks to himself on the newsgroup, I find that
utterly bizarre behavior. I worked with a William Johnson in NYC in
the summer of 1990, when I was interning, and wonder if this is him?
Did he ever work in NYC?

aarppt

[wjhonson]

As a follow-up I thought I'd have fun and enumerate *every* proposed
descent from Charlemagne to Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk. Turns out
there are eight of them. Most if not all are probably highly
speculative, so that's your warning.

See
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... of_Norfolk

If anyone has any additions or changes, let me know.

Will Johnson

[Gjest]

Dear Will,
True enough, but You do state the 2nd Earl of Norfolk. Roger
le Bigod died 1107 wasn`t an Earl of Norfolk , was He ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



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

[wjhonson]

On Dec 12, 3:31 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

I'm actually quite upset about the spammers. They overran and ruined
my business account and made it utterly worthless. It has cost me a
lot of money and business, not to mention time. So when I know that
Mr. Johnson supports and encourages this kind of thing, it makes my
blood boil. Yes, Will Johnson computer spammer programmer should be
ashamed of himself, but he obviously doesn't care about anyone but
himself. If you read his response back in 1999, even though he was
called a moron, he still justified himself. A therapist would have
fun with him. When he talks to himself on the newsgroup, I find that
utterly bizarre behavior. I worked with a William Johnson in NYC in
the summer of 1990, when I was interning, and wonder if this is him?
Did he ever work in NYC?

aarppt

I don't think I was around this group in 1999, but there probably was
a previous William Johnson or whatever out there, it's a fairly common
name. Yes I did work in New York City, and yes I was there in 1990.
I don't recognize your name though.

Will Johnson

[wjhonson]

On Dec 12, 3:39 pm, [email protected] wrote:

Dear Will,
True enough, but You do state the 2nd Earl of Norfolk. Roger
le Bigod died 1107 wasn`t an Earl of Norfolk , was He ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

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

Well poop.
Maybe it was supposed to say Sheriff of Norfolk... yeah that's it....
(sits in the corner)

Will

[Gjest]

On Dec 12, 3:35 pm, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

As a follow-up I thought I'd have fun and enumerate *every* proposed
descent from Charlemagne to Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk. Turns out
there are eight of them. Most if not all are probably highly
speculative, so that's your warning.

Seehttp://www.countyhistorian.com/cecil ... _to_Hugh...

If anyone has any additions or changes, let me know.

Well, Let's see:

Descent 1
1. Charlemange, King of the Franks (from 768), Emperor of the West
(from 800)
2. Louis I, King of France died 20 Jun 840
3. Winilda (Guinidilda) de Ampurias living 877

Bogus filiation. her ancestry is unknown, but certainly not daughter
of Louis.

4. Suniare, Count of Besalu and Urgel died 15 Oct 950
5. Borrell II, Count of Barcelona died 30 Sep 992
6. Raimond Borrel I, Count of Barcelona died 24 Feb 1018/19
7. Godehaut (Adela) of Barcelona died 1077

A Roger de Toeny went to Iberian and is said to have married the widow
of Garcia of Navarre, but there is some debate about the reliability
of this, and that it was the (otherwise unknown) father of Robert de
Tosny of Belvoir is pure speculation. She was not Godehaut, who is
wife of the Roger found above the Toeny main line, and who appears
distinct from this Iberian Roger. It is all pretty murky.

8. Robert de Tosny, seigneur of Belvoir (in 1063), died 4 Aug 1088
9. Adelisa de Tosny, Dame of Belvoir (from 1129)
10. Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk died between 1 Jan 1172
and 8 Mar 1177

Descent 2

1. Charlemange, King of the Franks (from 768), Emperor of the West
(from 800)
2. Berthe of /France/ died 829 + Angilbert "The Saint" of /
Ponthieu/
3. Arsende of /Ponthieu/ + Remigus, Count of /Rheims/

I have never seen these connections suggested before, and am quite
skeptical about them.

4. Bertha de /Remy/ + Raimund I, Count of /Toulouse/ and of
Rouergue
5. Eudes (Odo), Count of /Toulouse/ died 918/19
6. Armengol, Count of /Toulouse/ died 937 + Adelaide, Countess of /
Rouergue/

Armengol (Ermengaud) was never Count of Toulouse.

7. Richildis de /Rouergue/ , toponym speculated

(quite - based entirely on the appearance of the name Armengol in the
Barcelona family in the next generation)

8. Borrell II, Count of /Barcelona/
9. then as in Descent 1

[edit]
Descent 3

Same as Descent 2 above, except in this descent Adelaide, Countess of
Rouergue is made the daughter of Eudes (Odo) Count of Toulouse,
instead of her husband being his son.

Again, I have never seen this even speculated. There seems general
consensus that Ermengaud was of the Toulouse stem.

[edit]
Descent 4

1. Charlemange, King of the Franks (from 768), Emperor of the West
(from 800)
2. Berthe of /France/ died 829 + Angilbert "The Saint" of /
Ponthieu/
3. Arsende of /Ponthieu/ + Remigus, Count of /Rheims/
4. Bertha de /Remy/ + Raimund I, Count of /Toulouse/ and of
Rouergue
5. Eudes (Odo), Count of /Toulouse/ died 918/19
6. Ermengaud, Count of /Rouergue/ died 937

(This is the same man you call Armengol above)

7. Raymond II, Count of /Rouergue/ died 961
8. Luitgarde (Leodegarda ) of /Toulouse/ , toponym speculated died
998

(quite, this is based on the name Raimond appearing in the Counts of
Barcelona in the next generation, but if the marriage was in the
generation before, this marriage is not also needed to explain
Rouergue names in the Barcelona counts)

9. Raimond Borrel I Count of /Barcelona/ died 25 Feb 1018/19
10. Godehaut (Adela) of Barcelona died 1077
11. Robert de Tosny, seigneur of Belvoir (in 1063), died 4 Aug 1088
12. Adelisa de Tosny, Dame of Belvoir (from 1129)
13. Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk died between 1 Jan 1172
and 8 Mar 1177

[edit]
Descent 5

1. Charlemange, King of the Franks (from 768), Emperor of the West
(from 800)
2. Louis I, King of France died 20 Jun 840
3. Lothaire, King of Italy, Bavaria and /HR Emperor/ died 29 Sep
855
4. Lothar II, King of Lorraine, King of /Italy/ died 8 Aug 869
5. Berta of /Lorraine/ , illegitimate died 8 Mar 925
6. Boso, Count of Arles -931, Marquis of /Tuscany/ 931-, died 936
7. Bertha of /Tuscany/
8. Luitgarde (Leodegarda ) of /Toulouse/ , toponym speculated died
998

In addition to issues over Liutgarde belonging here at all, there is
no information on which of Raymond's wives was the mother of this
hypothetical daughter (and I don't remember how solid the marriage of
Bertha of Tuscany to Raymond is).

9. Raimond Borrel I Count of /Barcelona/ died 25 Feb 1018/19
10. Godehaut (Adela) of Barcelona died 1077
11. Robert de Tosny, seigneur of Belvoir (in 1063), died 4 Aug 1088
12. Adelisa de Tosny, Dame of Belvoir (from 1129)
13. Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk died between 1 Jan 1172
and 8 Mar 1177

[edit]
Descent 6

1. Charlemange, King of the Franks (from 768), Emperor of the West
(from 800)
2. Louis I, King of France died 20 Jun 840
3. Lothaire, King of Italy, Bavaria and /HR Emperor/ died 29 Sep
855
4. Louis II "le Jeune", King of Italy, /HR Emperor/ died 12 Aug 875
5. Ermengarde of /Lorraine/ died before 22 Jun 896
6. Willa of /Vienne/ died 14 Jun 929
7. Willa of /Burgundy/

That Willa, wife of Boso had this maternity is likewise speculation.

8. Bertha of /Tuscany/
9. Luitgarde (Leodegarda ) of /Toulouse/ , toponym speculated died
998
10. Raimond Borrel I Count of /Barcelona/ died 25 Feb 1018/19
11. Godehaut (Adela) of Barcelona died 1077
12. Robert de Tosny, seigneur of Belvoir (in 1063), died 4 Aug 1088
13. Adelisa de Tosny, Dame of Belvoir (from 1129)
14. Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk died between 1 Jan 1172
and 8 Mar 1177

[edit]
Descent 7

1. Charlemagne, King of the Franks 768-814, /HR Emperor/ 800-814
2. Louis (A) I, King of /France/ died 20 Jun 840
3. Lothaire, King of Italy, Bavaria and /HR Emperor/ died 29 Sep
855
4. Lothar II, King of Lorraine, King of /Italy/ died 8 Aug 869
5. Berta of /Lorraine/ , illegitimate died 8 Mar 925
6. Guido (Gui), Marquis of /Tuscany/ , Count of Lucca

I don't know that the derivation of the Este can be safely traced to
Bertha, although I have never looked into it in any detail.

7. Adalbert III, Marquise of /Tuscany/
8. Oberto Azzo, Count of /Lucca/ & Este died 975
9. Oberto II, Count of /Genoa/ , Tortone & Este died 1014
10. Gisela de /Este/
11. Oberto I, Marquis of /Liguria & Savona/ died abt 1034
12. Oberto II, Marquis of /Liguria/ died before 1065
13. Manfredo, Marquis of /Liguria/ died 1079
14. Adelisa of /Savona/ died 1085/7

I don't think there is the slightest evidence for the parentage of the
wife of Robert de Tosny of Belvoir.

15. Adelisa de Tosny, Dame of Belvoir (from 1129)
16. Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk died between 1 Jan 1172
and 8 Mar 1177

[edit]
Descent 8

1. Charlemange, King of the Franks (from 768), Emperor of the West
(from 800)
2. Louis I, King of France died 20 Jun 840
3. Lothaire, King of Italy, Bavaria and /HR Emperor/ died 29 Sep
855
4. Louis II "le Jeune", King of Italy, /HR Emperor/ died 12 Aug 875
5. Ermengarde of /Lorraine/ died before 22 Jun 896
6. Willa of /Vienne/ died 14 Jun 929
7. Waldrada of /Burgundy/
8. Theubaldis, Marquis of /Spoleto/ died before 961
9. Guilla of /Spoleto/

Ditto Waldrada. I have seen some highly speculative lines from her,
but nothing solid.

10. Oberto II, Count of /Genoa/ , Tortone & Este died 1014
11. Gisela de /Este/
12. Oberto I, Marquis of /Liguria & Savona/ died abt 1034
13. Oberto II, Marquis of /Liguria/ died before 1065
14. Manfredo, Marquis of /Liguria/ died 1079
15. Adelisa of /Savona/ died 1085/7
16. Adelisa de Tosny, Dame of Belvoir (from 1129)
17. Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk died between 1 Jan 1172
and 8 Mar 1177


Well, so much for those.

taf

[wjhonson]

I have incorporated your critiques into the page
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... of_Norfolk

Hopefully I've gotten the gist of where you are saying each line is
problematic.

Will Johnson

[Gjest]

On Dec 12, 4:38 pm, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

I have incorporated your critiques into the pagehttp://www.countyhistorian.com/ceci ... _to_Hugh...

Hopefully I've gotten the gist of where you are saying each line is
problematic.

Will Johnson

Not exactly.

Line 1. Godeheut was neither daughter of Raimond Borrell nor mother of
Robert de Tosny. A chronicler claimed that the daughter of Raimond
Borrel, widow of Garcia, married A Roger de Toeny. The only known wife
of Garcia was named Stephanie, but there is no Iberian evidence that
she married anyone else, and another source makes Stephanie niece of
Raimond, daughter of his brother-in-law Bernard of Foix. It has been
speculated that the chronicler got confused and that Roger's wife and
Garcia's wife were distinct, but first cousins, while other's dismiss
the whole marriage, and still others accept it as described. That the
Tosny of Belvoir come from this marriage is speculative, and based on
the fact that Robert had a brother named Berenger (a name found in the
next Barcelona generation, but also found in Brittany and Normandy,
the father of Poppa being named Berenger). I guess I would suggest
replacing the name Godeheut with Stephanie, and characterizing the
relationship as speculative. (Godeheut was the documented wife of
Roger who was ancestor of the Toeny. However, if this is the same
Roger who went to Spain, his Spanish bride wasn't Godeheut. If the
Spanish Roger was not the same as the Roger who married Godeheut, she
is likewise out of the loop. Either way, Godeheut is not mother of
Robert de Belvoir, but that doesn't affect the hypothesized link of
Belvoir to Barcelona.

Where you indicate that the toponym is speculated, this perhaps gives
the wrong impression - it is not the toponym per se, but that she had
this specific parentage that is speculative, the toponym just being an
indication of this speculative parentage.

In line 7, it whould probably be expressed differently. In calling her
Adelaide of Savona, it is begging the question. She is just known as
Adelaide, and that she was de Savona is pure invention.

For Line 8, as I remember, and I don't remember very well, the problem
is not that Waldrada was daughter of Willa, but in the descent from
Waldrada. Perhaps someone else can chime in here.

taf

[CE Wood]

Get elected president or vice-president.

CE Wood

On Dec 12, 3:00 pm, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

On Dec 12, 2:45 pm, [email protected] wrote:

- Todd Farmerie will lie
whenever he is cornered by truth - such a bold face lie is amazing -
and he gets royalty checks too

chris

For lying ? I'd like that job. How do I get a job where I'm paid for
lying?

Will Johnson

[Peter Stewart]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:233a1173-65b2-4865-b47a-20a350829846@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

For Line 8, as I remember, and I don't remember very well, the problem
is not that Waldrada was daughter of Willa, but in the descent from
Waldrada. Perhaps someone else can chime in here.

I prefer not to read through such dumps of ancestral lines, much less eight
of them at once - every immediate link from Charlemagne to a distant
relative or to a descendant may be of interest separately, but not in the
slightest to me for merely connecting two end personages who can't have
known each other or influenced each other's lives in any way. Medieval
genealogy for me is not abstract or for getting at statistical oddities, or
a game of trivial pursuit.

However, in this case I checked the one line in question:

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

<snip>

Descent 8

1. Charlemange, King of the Franks (from 768), Emperor of the West
(from 800)
2. Louis I, King of France died 20 Jun 840
3. Lothaire, King of Italy, Bavaria and /HR Emperor/ died 29 Sep
855
4. Louis II "le Jeune", King of Italy, /HR Emperor/ died 12 Aug 875
5. Ermengarde of /Lorraine/ died before 22 Jun 896
6. Willa of /Vienne/ died 14 Jun 929
7. Waldrada of /Burgundy/
8. Theubaldis, Marquis of /Spoleto/ died before 961
9. Guilla of /Spoleto/

Ditto Waldrada. I have seen some highly speculative lines from her,
but nothing solid.

and it is already broken before reaching Waldrada #7: her mother Willa _may_
have been a daughter of Ermengarde's husband Boso, but if so the conjecture
is that she was from his prior marriage, to a wife whom he murdered in order
to marry Louis II's daughter Ermengarde.

Peter Stewart

[[email protected]]

On Dec 12, 6:40 pm, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

On Dec 12, 3:31 pm, "[email protected]"

[email protected]> wrote:
I'm actually quite upset about the spammers. They overran and ruined
my business account and made it utterly worthless. It has cost me a
lot of money and business, not to mention time. So when I know that
Mr. Johnson supports and encourages this kind of thing, it makes my
blood boil. Yes, Will Johnson computer spammer programmer should be
ashamed of himself, but he obviously doesn't care about anyone but
himself. If you read his response back in 1999, even though he was
called a moron, he still justified himself. A therapist would have
fun with him. When he talks to himself on the newsgroup, I find that
utterly bizarre behavior. I worked with a William Johnson in NYC in
the summer of 1990, when I was interning, and wonder if this is him?
Did he ever work in NYC?

aarppt

I don't think I was around this group in 1999, but there probably was
a previous William Johnson or whatever out there, it's a fairly common
name. Yes I did work in New York City, and yes I was there in 1990.
I don't recognize your name though.

Will Johnson

comp.databases.pick
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.dat ... ead/thre...
Will Jhonson, moron?
This is a Usenet group -
Create, send & track e-Newsletters
Easy-to-use. 500 free Emails!
http://www.VerticalResponse.com
Mass mailing to Pick sites using FFT Internet Web crawler
Options
WJhonson
FFT announces the availability of FFT WebCrawler 2.0 for Pick and Multi-value systems. Crawl
the
internet stripping Pick URL and E-mail leads out of the HTML jumble and mass mail them today!
Why
let your competition get ahead? Send your resume to 50 or 500 sites in a few minutes. Notify
the
world of your new software release by direct E-mail! License WebCrawler 2.0 today for one
hundred
dollars. So cheap and yet so good....
Oct 1 1999, 2:00 am
WJhonson
Get FFT WebCrawler 2.0 today Mailto: [email protected] or go to the web at:
http://members.aol.com/fft2001/prof/index.htm
Oct 1 1999, 2:00 am
Luke Webber
View profile
More options Oct 1 1999, 2:00 am
Christ, and I complained about the V3 double post!
Anybody wants to send bulk email to Pick people or otherwise had better
realise they're wasting their time. Bulk email doesn't work and your ISP is
just as likely to shut down your account while the rest of us look on and
cheer.
Take your WebCrawler and stick it where the monkey hid its nuts, Moron.
Luke Webber
(Follow-up to [email protected])
- Show quoted text -
FFT2001
Thank you for your kind words. However, writing software to do mass mailing is not a violation
of
any terms of service. How a person chooses to use that software is their choice.
Oct 3 1999, 2:00 am
Richard Ginsburg
FFT2001 <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Thank you for your kind words. However, writing software to do mass mailing is > not a
violation
of any terms of service. How a person chooses to use that > software is their choice.
However,
building guns is not a violation of any terms of service. How a person chooses to use that
gun
is
their choice. If you make it, they will abuse it...
Oct 3 1999, 2:00 am
Luke Webber
Bullshit. You have advertised a product specifically tailored to do something considered
repugnant
by the entire internet community. If you're not violating your terms of service you're
encouraging
others to do so, which IMO is actually worse. It's much like the difference between drugtaking
and
dealing. Even Richard's comparison doesn't quite hold up because some guns actually do have
peaceful uses. You're selling something which can *only* be put to bad use, so don't peddle
your
sophistry to me. Luke - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -FFT2001 wrote in message
[email protected]>... >Thank you for your kind words. However,
writing software to do mass mailing is >not a violation of any terms of service. How a person
chooses to use that >software is their choice.
Oct 4 1999, 2:00 am
Concerned Netizen
......... You have advertised a product specifically tailored to do > something considered
repugnant by the entire internet community. I'm sure one or two sleaze-bags don't find it
repugnant.
Oct 4 1999, 2:00 am
Gulraj Rijhwani
In article <[email protected]> [email protected] "FFT2001"
writes: > Thank you for your kind words. However, writing software to do mass mailing is
not
a
violation of any terms of service. How a person chooses to use that > software is their
choice.
Writing it may not be. Writing an e-mail harvester as a purely didactic exercise is quite
interesting, though hardly taxing. However, trying to flog one for personal gain, and
explicitly
encouraging the abuse that it is designed to facilitiate is utterly reprehensible. And it IS
contrary to most major ISPs AUPs these days, not only to send unsolicited bulk e-mail, but
also
to
advertise such facilities or encourage their use. -- Gulraj Rijhwani \\
Courtfields
Limited, Chessington, Surrey, UK [email protected] \\ Tel: +44 (0)208 255 4667
Mob:
0976 431936 http://www.courtfld.demon.co.uk \\ Fax: +44 (0)208 287 8381 ----- Specialist in
Pick,
Unidata, datacomms and general connectivity ---
Oct 5 1999, 2:00 am
Gulraj Rijhwani
In article <[email protected]> [email protected]
"WJhonson"
writes: > FFT announces the availability of FFT WebCrawler 2.0 for Pick and Multi-value
systems.
Crawl the internet stripping Pick URL and E-mail leads out of the > HTML jumble and mass mail
them today! Why let your competition get ahead? ..when you can actively push their boat for
them.
Send your resume to 50 or 500 sites in a few minutes. ..and advertise for all to see the
fact
that you are an utter clue vacuum not fit for employment in anything remotely approaching 'net
matters. > Notify the world of your new > software release by direct E-mail! ..and be assured
of
alienating any potential market you may have had on the Internet. Hmmm - sound like a great
strategies to me... Please rush me my priority order (under plain unmarked wrapper) now! NOT!
--
Gulraj Rijhwani \\ Courtfields Limited, Chessington, Surrey, UK
[email protected] \\ Tel: +44 (0)208 255 4667 Mob: 0976 431936
http://www.courtfld.demon.co.uk \\ Fax: +44 (0)208 287 8381 ----- Specialist in Pick,
Unidata,
Oct 5 1999, 2:00 am
tgm
On 03 Oct 1999 14:32:40 GMT, [email protected] (FFT2001) wrote: >Thank you for your kind words.
However, writing software to do mass mailing is >not a violation of any terms of service.
How
a
person chooses to use that >software is their choice. How some people use

Who is this Will Jhonson? Is he a professional spammer or
professional genealogist?

I'm actually quite upset about the spammers. They overran and ruined
my business account and made it utterly worthless. It has cost me a
lot of money and business, not to mention time. So when I know that
Mr. Johnson supports and encourages this kind of thing, it makes my
blood boil. Yes, Will Johnson computer spammer programmer should be
ashamed of himself, but he obviously doesn't care about anyone but
himself. If you read his response back in 1999, even though he was
called a moron, he still justified himself. A therapist would have
fun with him. When he talks to himself on the newsgroup, I find that
utterly bizarre behavior. I worked with a William Johnson in NYC in
the summer of 1990, when I was interning, and wonder if this is him?
Did he ever work in NYC?

I don't think I was around this group in 1999, but there probably was
a previous William Johnson or whatever out there, it's a fairly common
name. Yes I did work in New York City, and yes I was there in 1990.
I don't recognize your name though.
Will Johnson

You were the computer programmer at the company where we met, and
you never talked about genealogy. You were a computer whiz. You
were
from the upper midwest, you told me, near Chicago where you went to
college
about 4 years earlier. Your email address [email protected] posted to
Google computer boards in 1999, and I was not happy to see you had
become
a maker of spam programs. I always considered you very smart. Why
did
someone there call you a moron?

[Gjest]

On Dec 12, 6:24 pm, "Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote:

[email protected]> wrote in message

news:233a1173-65b2-4865-b47a-20a350829846@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

snip

For Line 8, as I remember, and I don't remember very well, the problem
is not that Waldrada was daughter of Willa, but in the descent from
Waldrada. Perhaps someone else can chime in here.

I prefer not to read through such dumps of ancestral lines, much less eight
of them at once - every immediate link from Charlemagne to a distant
relative or to a descendant may be of interest separately, but not in the
slightest to me for merely connecting two end personages who can't have
known each other or influenced each other's lives in any way. Medieval
genealogy for me is not abstract or for getting at statistical oddities, or
a game of trivial pursuit.

However, in this case I checked the one line in question:

[email protected]> wrote in message

news:[email protected]...

snip



Descent 8

1. Charlemange, King of the Franks (from 768), Emperor of the West
(from 800)
2. Louis I, King of France died 20 Jun 840
3. Lothaire, King of Italy, Bavaria and /HR Emperor/ died 29 Sep
855
4. Louis II "le Jeune", King of Italy, /HR Emperor/ died 12 Aug 875
5. Ermengarde of /Lorraine/ died before 22 Jun 896
6. Willa of /Vienne/ died 14 Jun 929
7. Waldrada of /Burgundy/
8. Theubaldis, Marquis of /Spoleto/ died before 961
9. Guilla of /Spoleto/

Ditto Waldrada. I have seen some highly speculative lines from her,
but nothing solid.

and it is already broken before reaching Waldrada #7: her mother Willa _may_
have been a daughter of Ermengarde's husband Boso, but if so the conjecture
is that she was from his prior marriage, to a wife whom he murdered in order
to marry Louis II's daughter Ermengarde.

You are right that the earlier generation should have been labeled
speculative, but I think the Linacre Prosopography Onomastics volume
has an article speculating that Willa was, in fact, daughter of
Ermengarde (can't find my copy right now). I also vaguely recall an
alternative that traced the same Willa from Lothair II.

taf

[wjhonson]

On Dec 12, 8:11 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

You were the computer programmer at the company where we met, and
you never talked about genealogy. You were a computer whiz. You were
from the upper midwest, you told me, near Chicago where you went to college
about 4 years earlier. Your email address [email protected] posted to
Google computer boards in 1999, and I was not happy to see you had become
a maker of spam programs. I always considered you very smart. Why
did someone there call you a moron?
------------------------------------------------------------

Not from the upper midwest, I'm from the Pacific Northwest, in that I
was born there. I went to college at Northwestern which is just
outside Chicago. I thought you meant that I was posting *here* to
this board in 1999. Yes I've been posting to the Pick computer boards
for um...I have to count on my toes... 21 years? Can that be right?
Was there even an internet 21 years ago?

At any rate, *this* is medieval genealogy, not can we dig up a post
from 8 years ago calling me an idiot You don't have to go nearly
that far back my friend. I'm called an idiot on a regular basis.

Will Johnson

P.S. The "spam" program as you call it (but I don't) was writen for
one particular purpose, used and then shelved.

[Peter Stewart]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:2bcb3ae4-0a0b-4b35-a3af-cc61c75faf2e@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Dec 12, 6:24 pm, "Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote:

<snip>

[email protected]> wrote in message

news:[email protected]...

snip



Descent 8

1. Charlemange, King of the Franks (from 768), Emperor of the West
(from 800)
2. Louis I, King of France died 20 Jun 840
3. Lothaire, King of Italy, Bavaria and /HR Emperor/ died 29 Sep
855
4. Louis II "le Jeune", King of Italy, /HR Emperor/ died 12 Aug 875
5. Ermengarde of /Lorraine/ died before 22 Jun 896
6. Willa of /Vienne/ died 14 Jun 929
7. Waldrada of /Burgundy/
8. Theubaldis, Marquis of /Spoleto/ died before 961
9. Guilla of /Spoleto/

Ditto Waldrada. I have seen some highly speculative lines from her,
but nothing solid.

and it is already broken before reaching Waldrada #7: her mother Willa
_may_
have been a daughter of Ermengarde's husband Boso, but if so the
conjecture
is that she was from his prior marriage, to a wife whom he murdered in
order
to marry Louis II's daughter Ermengarde.

You are right that the earlier generation should have been labeled
speculative, but I think the Linacre Prosopography Onomastics volume
has an article speculating that Willa was, in fact, daughter of
Ermengarde (can't find my copy right now). I also vaguely recall an
alternative that traced the same Willa from Lothair II.

Jean-Noël Mathieu in 'Recherches sur les origines de deux princesses du IXe
siècle: la reine Guille de Bourgogne et l'impératrice Engelberge',
_Onomastique et parenté dans l'Occident médiéval_ (2000) repeated Mauric
Chaume's conjecture that Willa was daughter of Boso by Ermentrude, but
offered little argument for this beyond the fact that she had a son named
Louis. He also speculated that the chronology allowed for Willa to be a
daughter of Emperor Louis II, he was not fixated on her being his
granddaughter.

But if she was one of the two daughters of Boso by his first wife, she would
have been a half-sister of Emperor Louis III - there are other ways to
account for this name occurring in her family than necessarily making her
the descendant of a namesake. However, Chaume didn't usually think so in
such cases, unless of course it happened to suit his conjectures for other
reasons.

There is no source giving direct or otherwise convincing support for this
particular relationship.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

[Ken Ozanne]

John,
'Armigerous Ancestors' says there was a version edited by Sir C. Sharp
and H.B. Taylor in 1820. There is also 'Pedigrees Recorded at the
Visitations of Durham in 1575, 1615 and 1666' edited by J. Foster in 1887. I
have the latter which would still be available on CD from the successors of
Archive CD books. What do you need?

Best,
Ken

From: John Watson <[email protected]
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:39:11 -0800 (PST)
To: [email protected]
Subject: Visitation of Durham 1615

Hi all,

I came across a reference to the following herald's visitation. Does
anyone know if this is available in print?

"The Visitation of the Countie Palantyne of Durham taken by Richard
St. George Esquire otherwise called Noroy King of Armes, of the East,
West and North Parts of England from the River of Trent Northward and
in his companie Henry St. George, Bleumantle Pursuyvant of Armes, in
the year of our Lord 1615"

Regards,

John

[Gjest]

I have checked Hasted's History of Kent, but no luck for Conworth. This
giant work is now on-line at

_http://www.british-history.ac.uk/catalogue.aspx?gid=99_
(http://www.british-history.ac.uk/catalogue.aspx?gid=99)


where you could try variants. Also there are a few results for Payne, but
nothing that looked like the one you are looking at.

Sandwich was a more important place than it now is, once being a port is now
a couple of miles inland. The court (apart from manorial courts) moved
around the country, so one sitting at Sandwich was likely to deal with local
matters, I would imagine matters to the east of Canterbury.




In a message dated 13/12/2007 11:55:24 GMT Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

In the patent rolls of the reign of Edward lll, I have found a reference
which says that Robert Payne of Conworth was granted such and such by the
court.
The court was sitting at Sandwich at the time, and the time period is 1358
to 1361.
Does anyone know if this means that only residents of the Kent region would
have been heard in the Sandwich sitting, or could someone from another part
of the realm have a matter settled in Sandwich?
My interest is not in Robert Payne, but in the place called Conworth. Does
anyone know where this place might have been, or how I might find out? I
have contacted several archives in Kent, but so far without success.
With thanks,
Alwynne

[Gjest]

On Dec 12, 11:45 pm, "Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote:

But if she was one of the two daughters of Boso by his first wife, she would
have been a half-sister of Emperor Louis III - there are other ways to
account for this name occurring in her family than necessarily making her
the descendant of a namesake. However, Chaume didn't usually think so in
such cases, unless of course it happened to suit his conjectures for other
reasons.

I know I am preaching to the choir, but I repeatedly see these
onomastic reconstructions being unable to conceive of the possibility
that someone might name a child after a half-sibling. They have
turned a reasonable tendency to honor one's immediate family into a
formal set of rules that have no historical basis (and that doesn't
even take into account the other ways people selected names).

taf

[Peter Stewart]

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

On Dec 12, 11:45 pm, "Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote:

But if she was one of the two daughters of Boso by his first wife, she
would
have been a half-sister of Emperor Louis III - there are other ways to
account for this name occurring in her family than necessarily making her
the descendant of a namesake. However, Chaume didn't usually think so in
such cases, unless of course it happened to suit his conjectures for
other
reasons.

I know I am preaching to the choir, but I repeatedly see these
onomastic reconstructions being unable to conceive of the possibility
that someone might name a child after a half-sibling. They have
turned a reasonable tendency to honor one's immediate family into a
formal set of rules that have no historical basis (and that doesn't
even take into account the other ways people selected names).

Yes, this is one of the outcomes from taking two wrong approaches to the
study of genealogy in my view - first, starting from the idea that any
problem may be amenable to solution, when a lack of evidence can never be
satisfactorily overcome by guesswork; and secondly, that statistical
probabilities can have any definite application to individual circumstances
when working from the unknown where the vagaries of people are concerned.

Even if it could be shown - and anyway it can't, of course - that 90% of
people were named after an ancestor, this cannot tell you that a specific
case didn't fall into the 10% of exceptions. We know from direct evidence
that some Frankish noble families gave exotic names to children, for a
variety of reasons, or called them after godparents, beloved saints, etc.
Obviously at some point in any bloodline there must be a first person to
bear any name, so that eventually it must be admitted that parental whim
took over from a supposed obsession with pedigree in the choice.

We don't know enough to trace developing practices in this regard, to say,
for instance "Before 700 AD they invented or adopted new names, after that
they repeated family precedents". This is simplifictation turned into
nonsense.

We also don't and can't know enough about social mobility. We do know that
names alleged to be the proprietary stock of certain noble families also
occurred at other levels of the social hierarchy. Who can say whether the
first Louis was a peasant or a lord, much less whether the second was his
own son or a neighbour's?

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

On Dec 13, 12:43 pm, "Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote:

Yes, this is one of the outcomes from taking two wrong approaches to the
study of genealogy in my view - first, starting from the idea that any
problem may be amenable to solution, when a lack of evidence can never be
satisfactorily overcome by guesswork; and secondly, that statistical
probabilities can have any definite application to individual circumstances
when working from the unknown where the vagaries of people are concerned.

Just the other day, I again came across the rule (not trend, not
tendency, but RULE) that the eldest son was named for the paternal
grandfather, the second for the maternal, and it went on for three
more steps, then being used to identify who were the fathers of the
parents.

Even if it could be shown - and anyway it can't, of course - that 90% of
people were named after an ancestor, this cannot tell you that a specific
case didn't fall into the 10% of exceptions. We know from direct evidence
that some Frankish noble families gave exotic names to children, for a
variety of reasons, or called them after godparents, beloved saints, etc.

.. . . feudal lords . . .

I am reminded of Jackman's attempt to show that all Greek named
Western Europeans were named due to some family memory of a distant
Greek connection in their pedigree, to the point where there is
willingness to overturn relationships attested to in near-contemporary
sources simply because the names don't match with the expectations.
Someone was trying to make Richard I of Normandy legitimate son of his
father because of the names he gave his daughters, when our main
source for his illegitimacy was a friend of Richard's own half-
brother. It started as a framework to help understand the documented
events, then to supplement the documented events, and now to correct
documented events.

Obviously at some point in any bloodline there must be a first person to
bear any name, so that eventually it must be admitted that parental whim
took over from a supposed obsession with pedigree in the choice.

As readers are probably aware, it is really annoying to me to find
onomastic reconstructions being applied to the early families of
Navarre, where we know so few names (little more than a handful of
male names, and less than that for females), and those that we know
show up in multiple families, so how anyone can claim these names as
evidence of relationship is beyond me. It is like claiming that the
use of William or Richard or Robert or Roger means anything in
Conquest-era Norman families. Further, there are only five known
families, yet there were not just five families in the whole region,
and it is unreasonable to conclude that each bride must come from one
of the other four (or from Asturias). Basically, it all begs the
question - it asks "which of these other families did this bride come
from?" assuming out of hand that she did come from one of them, and
all the while there is a Prince Garcia out there who doesn't fit into
any of the families.

taf

[John Watson]

On Dec 13, 4:25 pm, Ken Ozanne <[email protected]> wrote:

John,
'Armigerous Ancestors' says there was a version edited by Sir C. Sharp
and H.B. Taylor in 1820. There is also 'Pedigrees Recorded at the
Visitations of Durham in 1575, 1615 and 1666' edited by J. Foster in 1887. I
have the latter which would still be available on CD from the successors of
Archive CD books. What do you need?

Best,
Ken

Hi Ken,

I wish I'd known that before Ron Neep closed shop.

Before I start chasing around trying to find it, and if you have the
cd, can you do a quick check for me for a family called Ward / Warde
of Hurworth on Tees. I have a George Ward born about 1528, with
brothers Robert and Christopher. I know that there is a Ward pedigree
in the 1615 visitation, but that may be a different family.

Regards,

John

[Peter Stewart]

On Dec 14, 9:51 am, [email protected] wrote:

On Dec 13, 12:43 pm, "Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote:

Yes, this is one of the outcomes from taking two wrong approaches to the
study of genealogy in my view - first, starting from the idea that any
problem may be amenable to solution, when a lack of evidence can never be
satisfactorily overcome by guesswork; and secondly, that statistical
probabilities can have any definite application to individual circumstances
when working from the unknown where the vagaries of people are concerned.

Just the other day, I again came across the rule (not trend, not
tendency, but RULE) that the eldest son was named for the paternal
grandfather, the second for the maternal, and it went on for three
more steps, then being used to identify who were the fathers of the
parents.

Even if it could be shown - and anyway it can't, of course - that 90% of
people were named after an ancestor, this cannot tell you that a specific
case didn't fall into the 10% of exceptions. We know from direct evidence
that some Frankish noble families gave exotic names to children, for a
variety of reasons, or called them after godparents, beloved saints, etc.

. . . feudal lords . . .

I am reminded of Jackman's attempt to show that all Greek named
Western Europeans were named due to some family memory of a distant
Greek connection in their pedigree, to the point where there is
willingness to overturn relationships attested to in near-contemporary
sources simply because the names don't match with the expectations.

One of the favourite excesses of this school of genealogy is with the
first dynasty of counts in Anjou. In that case the family memory
traced to a forester living south-east of Angers in the early- to
mid-9th century. But this is "corrected" by the wise heads who follow
Karl Werner in opining that the line _must_ have traced to the
Carolingian aristocracy, based on a selective survey of inadequate
evidence and despite the degrading of ancestors that are meant to be
such a source of pride, allegedly just to make a more romantic story -
so much for memories going back to "distant Greek connections", if
descendants can't even be trusted for intervening generations in their
own immediate neighbourhoods.

Peter Stewart

[Alwynne Mackie]

Thank you for that Adrian.
I think I shall chase up Robert Payne, just in case. these Conworths are a
rare lot, and every one I have found so far has been from the same family -
which makes it easy and hard.
Cheers,
Alwynne

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

I have checked Hasted's History of Kent, but no luck for Conworth. This
giant work is now on-line at

_http://www.british-history.ac.uk/catalogue.aspx?gid=99_
(http://www.british-history.ac.uk/catalogue.aspx?gid=99)


where you could try variants. Also there are a few results for Payne,
but
nothing that looked like the one you are looking at.

Sandwich was a more important place than it now is, once being a port is
now
a couple of miles inland. The court (apart from manorial courts) moved
around the country, so one sitting at Sandwich was likely to deal with
local
matters, I would imagine matters to the east of Canterbury.




In a message dated 13/12/2007 11:55:24 GMT Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

In the patent rolls of the reign of Edward lll, I have found a reference
which says that Robert Payne of Conworth was granted such and such by the
court.
The court was sitting at Sandwich at the time, and the time period is
1358
to 1361.
Does anyone know if this means that only residents of the Kent region
would
have been heard in the Sandwich sitting, or could someone from another
part
of the realm have a matter settled in Sandwich?
My interest is not in Robert Payne, but in the place called Conworth.
Does
anyone know where this place might have been, or how I might find out? I
have contacted several archives in Kent, but so far without success.
With thanks,
Alwynne

[[email protected]]

On Dec 13, 12:05 am, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

On Dec 12, 8:11 pm, "[email protected]"<[email protected]> wrote:
You were the computer programmer at the company where we met, and
you never talked about genealogy. You were a computer whiz. You were
from the upper midwest, you told me, near Chicago where you went to college
about 4 years earlier. Your email address [email protected] posted to
Google computer boards in 1999, and I was not happy to see you had become
a maker of spam programs. I always considered you very smart. Why
did someone there call you a moron?

------------------------------------------------------------
Not from the upper midwest, I'm from the Pacific Northwest, in that I
was born there. I went to college at Northwestern which is just
outside Chicago. I thought you meant that I was posting *here* to
this board in 1999. Yes I've been posting to the Pick computer boards
for um...I have to count on my toes... 21 years? Can that be right?
Was there even an internet 21 years ago?

At any rate, *this* is medieval genealogy, not can we dig up a post
from 8 years ago calling me an idiot You don't have to go nearly
that far back my friend. I'm called an idiot on a regular basis.

Will Johnson

P.S. The "spam" program as you call it (but I don't) was writen for
one particular purpose, used and then shelved.

http://members.aol.com/fft2001/prof/resume.htm

* AOL MainMailAIMJoin AOL


Will Johnson
(home) 831 688 6476
Fast Forward Technologies
(office) 831 477 7125
180 Seventh Ave, Suite 102
(fax) 831 688 0978
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
(E-mail) [email protected]

http://members.aol.com/fft2001/prof (web site)

All work experience is in Pick and/or Universe.

Contract Programmer, Santa Cruz, CA dba: Fast Forward Technologies

Client: OutSource It
Assignment: Universe Software Modification
Application: Customer Service
Dates: 2003 to 2005
Vertical: Business-to-Business
Platform: Universe on Windows NT
A business service and support operation handling direct customer
contact and order processing for large customer-oriented operations.

Client: Foster Farms
Assignment: Universe AFS Software Modification
Application: Distribution
Dates: Oct 2000 to 2002
Vertical: Retail
Platform: Universe on Unix
A poultry manufacturing and distribution company. Change and maintain
code to support order-entry, invoicing, shipping, inventory, and other
typical distribution modules.

Client: http://www.flippinlures.com
Assignment: Internet Web Store
Application: Sales
Dates: Oct 2000 to Oct 2001
Vertical: Retail
Platform: Universe on Windows NT
An Internet web store catering to the fishing industry. I built the
tools to interface the Universe application to a web server. This
includes laying out pages in HTML and creating Universe subroutines to
interface with them to provide customized responses to web-user input.

Client: Synapse Computer Solutions
Assignment: Software Modification
Application: Sales, Inventory, Accounting
Dates: Oct 1999 to May 2001
Vertical: Distribution
Platform: MvBase on Windows NT
A software house selling and maintaining an integrated, turnkey
package for the distribution market. Modules include: Inventory,
Sales, A/R, A/P, G/L, payroll and Physical Inventory.

Client: Cornerstone Propane
Assignment: Software Modification
Application: Sales, Service, Distribution
Dates: April 1999 to June 2000
Vertical: Propane
Platform: Universe on Windows NT
A nationwide, propane, retail distributor. Modules include: Inventory,
Sales, Service, and Scheduling.

Client: Santa Clara COE
Assignment: Software Modification
Application: Large Payroll System
Dates: August 1998 to July 1999
Vertical: Government, Education
Platform: Universe on HP through Novell Network
Modify and install a new payroll system writen in Pick Basic on
UniVerse. This system replaced a legacy COBOL system that was not
year-2000 compliant.

Client: Salant
Assignment: Software Modification
Application: All MRP functions, Systems
Dates: January 1998 to July 1998
Vertical: Garment Manufacturer/Distribution
Platform: Advanced Pick on Sequoia
A garment maker in New York City. Telecommuting from Santa Cruz, CA.
Modules included: Accounts Receivable, Sales, Order Entry, Purchasing
and Distribution.

Project Leader, January 1996 to December 1997, New York City, NY
Employee of Salant, a garment maker. Directly supervised and approved
the work of 8 senior-level programmers.

Senior Programmer/Analyst, August 1995 to January 1996, New York City,
NY
Employee of HealthFirst, an HMO. Wrote claims adjudication system that
automatically resolved 40 % of all claims submitted.

Contract Programmer, April 1991 to July 1995, New York City, NY
Clients included: Evergreen Financial Systems, a software company; the
Camry Group, a software company; Execu-Tone, a telephone equipment
manufacturer; Health Services, a software company; BT Summit, an
office supply distributor; Brooks Brothers, a retail clothing company;
HealthFirst, an HMO and Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, an energy
producer in Buchanan, NY.

Database Manager, August 1989 to April 1991, New York City, NY
Employee of Life Extension Institute, a health-care provider. Only
technical person on staff, so I did every computer-related function,
from A to Z, including having my own budget and purchasing decision.

Contract Programmer, April 1988 to August 1989, New York City, NY
Various companies, which can be furnished upon request

Programmer, January 1985 to April 1988, Chicago, IL
Various companies, which can be furnished upon request.

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Arts in Computer Studies and Math, Northwestern
University, Evanston, Illinois. 1985.


[email protected] wrote,
Oct 1 1999, 2:00 am
FFT announces the availability of FFT WebCrawler 2.0 for Pick and
Multi-value
systems. Crawl the internet stripping Pick URL and E-mail leads out
of the
HTML jumble and mass mail them today! Why let your competition get
ahead? Send
your resume to 50 or 500 sites in a few minutes. Notify the world of
your new
software release by direct E-mail! License WebCrawler 2.0 today for
one
hundred dollars. So cheap and yet so good....

Luke Webber wrote,
Oct 1 1999, 2:00 am
Christ...Anybody wants to send bulk email to Pick people is a
spammer... your ISP is
just as likely to shut down your account while the rest of us look on
and
cheer. Take your WebCrawler and stick it where the monkey hid its
nuts,
Moron.

Where in his resume has Will Johnson at aol.com found time to be
certified as an
accredited professional genealogist?

[wjhonson]

On Dec 13, 7:58 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

Where in his resume has Will Johnson at aol.com found time to be
certified as an accredited professional genealogist?

I did not and do not require anyone's permission to be a professional
genealogist. No one, to my knowledge, has bestowed upon me any
credentials. And I haven't asked or applied for any.

Will Johnson

[Ken Ozanne]

John,
Not much joy, I'm afraid. Pedigrees are Ward of Bishop-Middleham which
does have a George, but his elder brother John was alive in 1615 and there
was no Robert or Christopher among his 5 brothers. Ward of Trimdon has none
of the names you were after. It would appear that both pedigrees were from
the 1615 Visitation. The former has 3 generations, the latter 5.

All of the Archive CD books are still available. I don't know where you
are, but, for instance, there are Archive CD books Australia and Archive CD
books Ireland. Either should have this Visitation volume, but not the great
special that allowed me to buy something like 68 volumes for £100.

Best,
Ken

From: John Watson <[email protected]
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:40:14 -0800 (PST)
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Durham Visitation of 1615

On Dec 13, 4:25 pm, Ken Ozanne <[email protected]> wrote:
John,
'Armigerous Ancestors' says there was a version edited by Sir C. Sharp
and H.B. Taylor in 1820. There is also 'Pedigrees Recorded at the
Visitations of Durham in 1575, 1615 and 1666' edited by J. Foster in 1887. I
have the latter which would still be available on CD from the successors of
Archive CD books. What do you need?

Best,
Ken


Hi Ken,

I wish I'd known that before Ron Neep closed shop.

Before I start chasing around trying to find it, and if you have the
cd, can you do a quick check for me for a family called Ward / Warde
of Hurworth on Tees. I have a George Ward born about 1528, with
brothers Robert and Christopher. I know that there is a Ward pedigree
in the 1615 visitation, but that may be a different family.

Regards,

John

[Gjest]

On Dec 14, 2:58 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

(tiresome rubbish, which has been snipped).

Where in his resume has Will Johnson at aol.com found time to be
certified as an
accredited professional genealogist?

If you have any mediaeval genealogy to contribute, "Adrian", do so,
otherwise be a big boy and kindly shove off.

MA-R

[[email protected]]

On Dec 13, 11:34 pm, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

On Dec 13, 7:58 pm, "[email protected]"

[email protected]> wrote:
Where in his resume has Will Johnson at aol.com found time to be
certified as an accredited professional genealogist?

I did not and do not require anyone's permission to be a professional
genealogist. No one, to my knowledge, has bestowed upon me any
credentials. And I haven't asked or applied for any.

Will Johnson

From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Descents From Charlemange
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:04:04 -0800 (PST)

On Dec 12, 3:35 pm, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

As a follow-up I thought I'd have fun and enumerate *every* proposed
descent from Charlemagne to Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk. Turns out
there are eight of them. Most if not all are probably highly
speculative, so that's your warning.

Seehttp://www.countyhistorian.com/cecil ... _to_Hugh...

If anyone has any additions or changes, let me know.

Well, Let's see:

Descent 1
1. Charlemange, King of the Franks (from 768), Emperor of the West
(from 800)
2. Louis I, King of France died 20 Jun 840
3. Winilda (Guinidilda) de Ampurias living 877

Bogus filiation. her ancestry is unknown, but certainly not daughter
of Louis.

4. Suniare, Count of Besalu and Urgel died 15 Oct 950
5. Borrell II, Count of Barcelona died 30 Sep 992
6. Raimond Borrel I, Count of Barcelona died 24 Feb 1018/19
7. Godehaut (Adela) of Barcelona died 1077

A Roger de Toeny went to Iberian and is said to have married the widow
of Garcia of Navarre, but there is some debate about the reliability
of this, and that it was the (otherwise unknown) father of Robert de
Tosny of Belvoir is pure speculation. She was not Godehaut, who is
wife of the Roger found above the Toeny main line, and who appears
distinct from this Iberian Roger. It is all pretty murky.

8. Robert de Tosny, seigneur of Belvoir (in 1063), died 4 Aug 1088
9. Adelisa de Tosny, Dame of Belvoir (from 1129)
10. Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk died between 1 Jan 1172
and 8 Mar 1177

Descent 2

1. Charlemange, King of the Franks (from 768), Emperor of the West
(from 800)
2. Berthe of /France/ died 829 + Angilbert "The Saint" of /
Ponthieu/
3. Arsende of /Ponthieu/ + Remigus, Count of /Rheims/

I have never seen these connections suggested before, and am quite
skeptical about them.

4. Bertha de /Remy/ + Raimund I, Count of /Toulouse/ and of
Rouergue
5. Eudes (Odo), Count of /Toulouse/ died 918/19
6. Armengol, Count of /Toulouse/ died 937 + Adelaide, Countess of /
Rouergue/

Armengol (Ermengaud) was never Count of Toulouse.

7. Richildis de /Rouergue/ , toponym speculated

(quite - based entirely on the appearance of the name Armengol in the
Barcelona family in the next generation)

8. Borrell II, Count of /Barcelona/
9. then as in Descent 1

[edit]
Descent 3

Same as Descent 2 above, except in this descent Adelaide, Countess of
Rouergue is made the daughter of Eudes (Odo) Count of Toulouse,
instead of her husband being his son.

Again, I have never seen this even speculated. There seems general
consensus that Ermengaud was of the Toulouse stem.

[edit]
Descent 4

1. Charlemange, King of the Franks (from 768), Emperor of the West
(from 800)
2. Berthe of /France/ died 829 + Angilbert "The Saint" of /
Ponthieu/
3. Arsende of /Ponthieu/ + Remigus, Count of /Rheims/
4. Bertha de /Remy/ + Raimund I, Count of /Toulouse/ and of
Rouergue
5. Eudes (Odo), Count of /Toulouse/ died 918/19
6. Ermengaud, Count of /Rouergue/ died 937

(This is the same man you call Armengol above)

7. Raymond II, Count of /Rouergue/ died 961
8. Luitgarde (Leodegarda ) of /Toulouse/ , toponym speculated died
998

(quite, this is based on the name Raimond appearing in the Counts of
Barcelona in the next generation, but if the marriage was in the
generation before, this marriage is not also needed to explain
Rouergue names in the Barcelona counts)

9. Raimond Borrel I Count of /Barcelona/ died 25 Feb 1018/19
10. Godehaut (Adela) of Barcelona died 1077
11. Robert de Tosny, seigneur of Belvoir (in 1063), died 4 Aug 1088
12. Adelisa de Tosny, Dame of Belvoir (from 1129)
13. Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk died between 1 Jan 1172
and 8 Mar 1177

[edit]
Descent 5

1. Charlemange, King of the Franks (from 768), Emperor of the West
(from 800)
2. Louis I, King of France died 20 Jun 840
3. Lothaire, King of Italy, Bavaria and /HR Emperor/ died 29 Sep
855
4. Lothar II, King of Lorraine, King of /Italy/ died 8 Aug 869
5. Berta of /Lorraine/ , illegitimate died 8 Mar 925
6. Boso, Count of Arles -931, Marquis of /Tuscany/ 931-, died 936
7. Bertha of /Tuscany/
8. Luitgarde (Leodegarda ) of /Toulouse/ , toponym speculated died
998

In addition to issues over Liutgarde belonging here at all, there is
no information on which of Raymond's wives was the mother of this
hypothetical daughter (and I don't remember how solid the marriage of
Bertha of Tuscany to Raymond is).

9. Raimond Borrel I Count of /Barcelona/ died 25 Feb 1018/19
10. Godehaut (Adela) of Barcelona died 1077
11. Robert de Tosny, seigneur of Belvoir (in 1063), died 4 Aug 1088
12. Adelisa de Tosny, Dame of Belvoir (from 1129)
13. Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk died between 1 Jan 1172
and 8 Mar 1177

[edit]
Descent 6

1. Charlemange, King of the Franks (from 768), Emperor of the West
(from 800)
2. Louis I, King of France died 20 Jun 840
3. Lothaire, King of Italy, Bavaria and /HR Emperor/ died 29 Sep
855
4. Louis II "le Jeune", King of Italy, /HR Emperor/ died 12 Aug 875
5. Ermengarde of /Lorraine/ died before 22 Jun 896
6. Willa of /Vienne/ died 14 Jun 929
7. Willa of /Burgundy/

That Willa, wife of Boso had this maternity is likewise speculation.

8. Bertha of /Tuscany/
9. Luitgarde (Leodegarda ) of /Toulouse/ , toponym speculated died
998
10. Raimond Borrel I Count of /Barcelona/ died 25 Feb 1018/19
11. Godehaut (Adela) of Barcelona died 1077
12. Robert de Tosny, seigneur of Belvoir (in 1063), died 4 Aug 1088
13. Adelisa de Tosny, Dame of Belvoir (from 1129)
14. Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk died between 1 Jan 1172
and 8 Mar 1177

[edit]
Descent 7

1. Charlemagne, King of the Franks 768-814, /HR Emperor/ 800-814
2. Louis (A) I, King of /France/ died 20 Jun 840
3. Lothaire, King of Italy, Bavaria and /HR Emperor/ died 29 Sep
855
4. Lothar II, King of Lorraine, King of /Italy/ died 8 Aug 869
5. Berta of /Lorraine/ , illegitimate died 8 Mar 925
6. Guido (Gui), Marquis of /Tuscany/ , Count of Lucca

I don't know that the derivation of the Este can be safely traced to
Bertha, although I have never looked into it in any detail.

7. Adalbert III, Marquise of /Tuscany/
8. Oberto Azzo, Count of /Lucca/ & Este died 975
9. Oberto II, Count of /Genoa/ , Tortone & Este died 1014
10. Gisela de /Este/
11. Oberto I, Marquis of /Liguria & Savona/ died abt 1034
12. Oberto II, Marquis of /Liguria/ died before 1065
13. Manfredo, Marquis of /Liguria/ died 1079
14. Adelisa of /Savona/ died 1085/7

I don't think there is the slightest evidence for the parentage of the
wife of Robert de Tosny of Belvoir.

15. Adelisa de Tosny, Dame of Belvoir (from 1129)
16. Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk died between 1 Jan 1172
and 8 Mar 1177

[edit]
Descent 8

1. Charlemange, King of the Franks (from 768), Emperor of the West
(from 800)
2. Louis I, King of France died 20 Jun 840
3. Lothaire, King of Italy, Bavaria and /HR Emperor/ died 29 Sep
855
4. Louis II "le Jeune", King of Italy, /HR Emperor/ died 12 Aug 875
5. Ermengarde of /Lorraine/ died before 22 Jun 896
6. Willa of /Vienne/ died 14 Jun 929
7. Waldrada of /Burgundy/
8. Theubaldis, Marquis of /Spoleto/ died before 961
9. Guilla of /Spoleto/

Ditto Waldrada. I have seen some highly speculative lines from her,
but nothing solid.

10. Oberto II, Count of /Genoa/ , Tortone & Este died 1014
11. Gisela de /Este/
12. Oberto I, Marquis of /Liguria & Savona/ died abt 1034
13. Oberto II, Marquis of /Liguria/ died before 1065
14. Manfredo, Marquis of /Liguria/ died 1079
15. Adelisa of /Savona/ died 1085/7
16. Adelisa de Tosny, Dame of Belvoir (from 1129)
17. Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk died between 1 Jan 1172
and 8 Mar 1177

Well, so much for those. taf

From: wjhonson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Descents From Charlemange
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:38:43 -0800 (PST)

I have incorporated your critiques into the page
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... of_Norfolk

Hopefully I've gotten the gist of where you are saying each line is
problematic. Will Johnson

From: wjhonson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE OWNER OF GEN-MEDIEVAL, ET AL...
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:34:11 -0800 (PST)

On Dec 13, 7:58 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

Where in his resume has Will Johnson at aol.com found time to be
certified as an accredited professional genealogist?

I did not and do not require anyone's permission to be a professional
genealogist. No one, to my knowledge, has bestowed upon me any
credentials. And I haven't asked or applied for any. Will Johnson

Will Johnson is not a professional genealogist but somebody signed taf
is.
Will Johnson pretends and taf is. Will this fraud professional
genealogist
convince others he did this work on his spammer's website and he gets
$ 25 an hour for this work and taf gets nothing? The work appears to
be
owned by taf not Will Johnson.

[Gjest]

On Dec 13, 7:58 pm, "[email protected]"

[email protected]> wrote:
Where in his resume has Will Johnson at aol.com found time to be
certified as an accredited professional genealogist?

I did not and do not require anyone's permission to be a professional
genealogist. No one, to my knowledge, has bestowed upon me any
credentials. And I haven't asked or applied for any. Will Johnson

Will Johnson is not a professional genealogist but somebody signed taf
is.
Will Johnson pretends and taf is. Will this fraud professional
genealogist
convince others he did this work on his spammer's website and he gets
$ 25 an hour for this work and taf gets nothing? The work appears to
be
owned by taf not Will Johnson.

No-one's interested. It's nothing to do with medieval genealogy. Will
Johnson is a respected member of this list. Just go away

David

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

Will Johnson is not a professional genealogist but somebody signed taf
is. Will Johnson pretends and taf is. Will this fraud professional
genealogist convince others he did this work on his spammer's website
and he gets $ 25 an hour for this work and taf gets nothing? The
work appears to be owned by taf not Will Johnson.

If Will works as a professional genealogist that means he gets money
from clients to research specific things for them. Will has said that
he does, and as far as I know Todd does not (though he would be
extremely good at it if he chose to do it).

And I hope Will doesn't take it personally when I point out that
experienced genealogists know that whether or not one does work for
hire, does not necessarily say anything about one's particular skill or
experience. Research for hire is an unregulated profession and Will is
free to do it without any of the various accreditation options out
there. It is not necessary to hire only someone with relevant
university degrees or accreditation from the BCG or the APG, to get good
results or good value for the money.

By the way, presumably Will is not being paid for these Carolingian
descents, nor for most of the other stuff he posts here and on his
website for criticism by others. Criticism which, I should point out,
is cheerfully accepted--in this respect Will is far, far superior to
some other frequent posters here.

If you want to blacken his name, you'll have to do much better. But you
shouldn't do it here, anyway, because it is off topic.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

[D. Spencer Hines]

If Will hires himself out at $25 an hour for his genealogical work that's a
very cheap rate.

Hell, a dental hygienist can get $80-$100.

DSH

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

In article
c201602d-3b24-4632-b8fd-bcefcbc54803@d4 ... groups.com>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

Will Johnson is not a professional genealogist but somebody signed taf
is. Will Johnson pretends and taf is. Will this fraud professional
genealogist convince others he did this work on his spammer's website
and he gets $ 25 an hour for this work and taf gets nothing? The
work appears to be owned by taf not Will Johnson.

If Will works as a professional genealogist that means he gets money
from clients to research specific things for them. Will has said that
he does, and as far as I know Todd does not (though he would be
extremely good at it if he chose to do it).

And I hope Will doesn't take it personally when I point out that
experienced genealogists know that whether or not one does work for
hire, does not necessarily say anything about one's particular skill or
experience. Research for hire is an unregulated profession and Will is
free to do it without any of the various accreditation options out
there. It is not necessary to hire only someone with relevant
university degrees or accreditation from the BCG or the APG, to get good
results or good value for the money.

By the way, presumably Will is not being paid for these Carolingian
descents, nor for most of the other stuff he posts here and on his
website for criticism by others. Criticism which, I should point out,
is cheerfully accepted--in this respect Will is far, far superior to
some other frequent posters here.

If you want to blacken his name, you'll have to do much better. But you
shouldn't do it here, anyway, because it is off topic.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

[Gjest]

In a message dated 12/14/2007 10:10:33 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

By the way, presumably Will is not being paid for these Carolingian
descents, nor for most of the other stuff he posts here and on his
website for criticism by others. Criticism which, I should point out,
is cheerfully accepted--in this respect Will is far, far superior to
some other frequent posters here.>>
---------------------

That's right. I've never gotten paid for any of the postings I've made here

WISH I WERE! Wouldn't that be something.

Will Johnson



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

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

I've posted below the exact reference to Robert, brother of Sir John
Botetourt [Lord Botetourt], as found in the book, Records of the
Wardrobe and Household, 1286-1289, which work is edited by Benjamin F.
Byerly and Catherine Ridder Byerly.

Book of Private Prests:

"xvo die Octobris domino Johanni Boteturte de prestito per manus
Roberti fratris sui et Terrici scutiferi sui querentium pecuniam illam
ad opus suum apud Queninton' percipiente thesaurario, lxvj. li. xiij
s. iiij d. sterlingorum." [Reference: Byerly & Byerly, Reords. of the
Wardrobe and Household, 1286-1289 (1986): 258].

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah