Message from discussion count thomas arundell

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsread.com!newsprint.newsread.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!drn
From: Guy Stair Sainty <g...@sainty.org>
Newsgroups: alt.talk.royalty
Subject: Re: count thomas arundell
Date: 26 Jan 2005 13:02:36 -0800
Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com]
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <ct90hc0156i@drn.newsguy.com>
References: <1105413650.151371.4550@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <o48bv0haqff81k9m29e69o6krj6j4dcfbu@4ax.com> <1106619540.115846.24930@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <8ofdv0hhhtekbn8le1s2jqu5pl03jcbr0d@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: p-250.newsdawg.com
X-Newsreader: Direct Read News 4.20

In article <8ofdv0hhhtekbn8le1s2jqu5pl03jcb...@4ax.com>, Patrick
Cracroft-Brennan says...
>
>
>Thank you very much for your detailed response.  You will appreciate
>that HRE titles is not my area of expertise.  In the interpretation of
>the Imperial Decree I have relied on L G Pine's report of J H Round's
>article in "The Ancestor" - from what you are saying it does look as
>if Round misinterpreted the Decree.

I have had numerous inquiries from different descendants of this family and gave
them the same answer that this is due to Horace Round's mis-interpretation of
the patent, which is similar in its wording to other imperial patents. Of course
the title does not desdend through the female line, this merely means that the
tile passes to all descendants in the male line including to males and females
(and only until their own marriages).


-- 
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm