 |
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: lmah...@att.net
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 20:55:02 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sat, Feb 2 2008 11:55 pm
Subject: Re: Turcus, Turcot, etc. in 10th-century Burgundy (was re: crusaders)
On Jan 27, 5:27 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
> Interesting elaboration; thank you. The sources are: > 1. First-century origins in Eastern empire. > Again, can you provide a source for any of these statements or claims? An inhalation of special herbs and a few bottles of whiskey. Leslie You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: Denis Beauregard <denis.b-at-francogene....@fr.invalid>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 23:57:44 -0500
Local: Sun, Jan 27 2008 11:57 pm
Subject: Re: Turcus, Turcot, etc. in 10th-century Burgundy (was re: crusaders)
Le Sun, 27 Jan 2008 13:34:06 -0500, Nathaniel Taylor
<nltay...@nltaylor.net> écrivait dans soc.genealogy.medieval: >Could you provide specific evidence for each of these claims? I'm sure My feeling in this case is that Turquault was a given name. >I am not alone in finding them extraordinary and therefore requiring >some sort of precise evidentiary support. Anyway, if you check the geometry of some family names, you will http://www.geopatronyme.com/cgi-bin/carte/nomcarte.cgi?nom=turcot&sub... Denis -- You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: t...@clearwire.net
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:24:15 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sun, Jan 27 2008 2:24 pm
Subject: Re: crusaders
On Jan 27, 9:17 am, Bob Turcott <bobturc...@msn.com> wrote:
> Nat, Well, not really. It only shows that there were designs on shields, > Interms of sources I have stated gallica, secondly heraldry existed long before the 12th century but it lacks any proof of consistency nor heredity. Harold does fly a banner, but war banners long predated heraldry as you are using the term. > one can argue that heraldry did not formally exist till the 11th & 12th centuries, but many historians will argue A minority. > that heraldry did exist long before the 12th century, and I am one of those that believe it existed around the year 900 or before, And I don't think any but the smallest minority of that minority would trace it this early, as true heraldry rather than just vague symbolism. What I mean by this last is that the tombs at Notre Dame show lis-like emblems at the top of very old scepters that may foreshadow the royal arms. However, when the French royals actually started using true heraldry, it blossomed in several lines at once, with nothing in common but the colors blue and gold, suggesting that there was no such family association with this symbol in a true heraldic sense at the time it was adopted by the royals. > but such herldry was not documented seriously till the 11th or 12th centuries. A convenient argument - it existed but there is no evidence because no one wrote it down. So hard to distinguish from the alternative, that no one wrote it down because it didn't exist. As to the specific origins of the arms in question, it is problematic taf You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: Denis Beauregard <denis.b-at-francogene....@fr.invalid>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 14:47:10 -0500
Local: Sun, Jan 27 2008 2:47 pm
Subject: Re: crusaders
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:24:15 -0800 (PST), t...@clearwire.net wrote in
soc.genealogy.medieval: >Well, not really. It only shows that there were designs on shields, I think you should look at the pere Anselme works and the equivalent >but it lacks any proof of consistency nor heredity. Harold does fly a >banner, but war banners long predated heraldry as you are using the >term. in England. While made after the medieval times, you can look for families existing before year 1000 for example, and see which ones have a crest. Also, look for a family claiming the same root as another one for the mere reason both had a similar crest. I didn't make the study but I am pretty sure you will find what you define as "heraldry" sooner than expected, i.e. consistency and hereditary. Indeed, I would expect something in the Roman era if something Denis -- You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: t...@clearwire.net
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 12:18:10 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sun, Jan 27 2008 3:18 pm
Subject: Re: crusaders
On Jan 27, 11:47 am, Denis Beauregard <denis.b-at-
francogene....@fr.invalid> wrote: I mentioned symbolism, but whether it rises to the level of a 'crest' > On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:24:15 -0800 (PST), t...@clearwire.net wrote in > soc.genealogy.medieval: > >Well, not really. It only shows that there were designs on shields, > I think you should look at the pere Anselme works and the equivalent in the heraldic sense . . . . Yes, Henry I gave boots decorated with golden lions to his son in law, but it was the setting of these on a shield that marked the initiation of heraldry in the medieval sense. > Also, look for a family claiming the same root as I was leaving out the third prong, which was met by his example - > another one for the mere reason both had a similar crest. I didn't > make the study but I am pretty sure you will find what you define > as "heraldry" sooner than expected, i.e. consistency and hereditary. display on shields. > Indeed, I would expect something in the Roman era if something Yes, there was Roman-era familial symbolism, just as there was tribal > coloured survived from that time. totem use, and they both forshadow the medieval heraldry of hereditary arms on shields, but that does not mean any European had arms, in this medieval sense, at these earlier dates, particularly in the 800s. taf You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 16:18:22 -0500
Local: Sun, Jan 27 2008 4:18 pm
Subject: Re: crusaders
> On Jan 27, 11:47 am, Denis Beauregard <denis.b-at- Can I interject here about the use of the word 'crest'? In the English > francogene....@fr.invalid> wrote: > > On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:24:15 -0800 (PST), t...@clearwire.net wrote in > > soc.genealogy.medieval: > > >Well, not really. It only shows that there were designs on shields, > > I think you should look at the pere Anselme works and the equivalent language, the word 'crest' refers to the little added device on top of a coat of arms, sometimes derived from an ornament worn atop a closed great helm in tournament use from the 13th century onward. 'Coat of arms' is the correct term for the pattern painted or tooled on someone's shield itself. Crest is very often misused to mean 'coat of arms'. Consult the faq for the usenet group rec.heraldry, here: http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/heraldry.faq See especially the section, "What is the difference between a coat of This is not just niggling--it is important to be specific and precise > > Also, look for a family claiming the same root as This argument has been made in a couple of instances, including the > > another one for the mere reason both had a similar crest. I didn't > > make the study but I am pretty sure you will find what you define > > as "heraldry" sooner than expected, i.e. consistency and hereditary. chequy fields (or charges) borne by various Vermandois descendants, or the cross patonce for some families related to the early counts of Toulouse. But Denis's conclusion is far from self-evident. There is not enough evidence to show that we are really dealing with inherited charges rather than, say, coats adopted contemporaneously by people who knew themselves to be kin, allies or affines, of others who used or adopted similar devices. And mentioning these isolated and controversial cases does not help to document the specific claim made about another family, earlier in this thread. Nat Taylor You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: g...@gordonbanks.com (Gordon Banks)
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:00:33 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Thurs, Jan 26 2006 6:00 pm
Subject: Re: matrilineal comments
My cousin, Gene Devenport, through Y-DNA testing (www.davenportdna.com -
Gene is #8305) can trace his Y back to Orme de Davenport around 1100 in Cheshire, based on close matches with English Davenports from various Davenport manors in Cheshire. Rev. John Davenport also comes from that line. Unfortunately, we can't trace the actual names of OUR Y carrier Davenport ancestors beyond Samuel Devenport, who was in the 1790 Census in Orange Co. NC. The Banks DNA project hasn't helped me so far, as we seem to be a more You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: kirk...@comcast.net ("Gordon and Jane Kirkemo")
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:52:30 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Thurs, Jan 26 2006 6:52 pm
Subject: RE: matrilineal comments
This has been an interesting thread. Here are my ancestors:
Y= Bjorn (fl. 1590s) from Kvisle, Norway. Mt=Elizabeth Ironside, wife of John Cowper (d. 1609), apparently from XY=Maria Fredericka Brinket (b. c.1816), wife of Helmuth Wagner from Sincerely, Gordon Kirkemo You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farme...@interfold.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 00:02:06 -0700
Local: Thurs, Jan 26 2006 2:02 am
Subject: Re: matrilineal comments
Nathaniel Taylor wrote: This is the line from which you get (statistically) more of your X > Is there any biological significance to the 'XY' (gender alternating) chromosome(s) than any other. A woman gets one X from her mother, representing 50/50 of each maternal grandparent, while she gets the other from the father, but it comes entirely from the paternal grandmother (the paternal grandfather providing the father with his Y- a man gets his sole X exclusively from his mother). Thus, any line with two successive male generations contributes nothing to the X of their descendant, while for all other lines, the percent contribution is divided in half for each female generation, but remains undivided for each male generation. The line with the most male generations, without two in a row, is that which alternates, having twice the contribution per generation as the all-female line. Curiously, this line differs for siblings of different genders - mine is taf You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltay...@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:35:52 GMT
Local: Thurs, Jan 26 2006 10:35 am
Subject: Re: matrilineal comments
In article <dr9s5s$l0...@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farme...@interfold.com> wrote: Exactly. My daughters share my XY line, but my son's XY goes only back to Cynthia (surname unknown, but perhaps a Whiting), widow in 1828 of Isaac Dudley, of North Haven, Connecticut. I believe they are the parents of Whiting Dudley, b. in North Haven in 1823, but I am not sure. Nat Taylor a genealogist's sketchbook: my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors: You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||