Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The rise of the aristo-cockney accent
746 views
Skip to first unread message
Dingbat
Feb 12, 2016, 7:46:17 AM2/12/16
to
Is this a transition from Received to Given pronunciation?
If the Queen's governess were still alive today, she may have noticed a few discordant notes in her charge's formerly crystal clear diction. OK, she ain' exactly droppin' her Ts and her Gs like Russell Brand, but linguists have nevertheless found that her enunciation today might have been considered a little, well, common in her youth.
Her Majesty is by no means alone in this. The cut-glass accent of the upper class - the soundtrack to period dramas like Downton Abbey and Upstairs, Downstairs - has become a little rough around the edges over the last few decades, as more and more people adopt a kind of aristo-cockney hybrid.
continued at http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160202-has-the-queen-become-frightfully-common
If the Queen's governess were still alive today, she may have noticed a few discordant notes in her charge's formerly crystal clear diction. OK, she ain' exactly droppin' her Ts and her Gs like Russell Brand, but linguists have nevertheless found that her enunciation today might have been considered a little, well, common in her youth.
Her Majesty is by no means alone in this. The cut-glass accent of the upper class - the soundtrack to period dramas like Downton Abbey and Upstairs, Downstairs - has become a little rough around the edges over the last few decades, as more and more people adopt a kind of aristo-cockney hybrid.
continued at http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160202-has-the-queen-become-frightfully-common
![Peter Duncanson [BrE]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjU1GGYFBCZgBCNB-pRgkosMu-ej0qpnECw3jc8uGYOTiF8a=s40-c)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Feb 12, 2016, 7:50:11 AM2/12/16
to
her original pronunciation in private but uses a modified pronunciation
in public.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
anal...@hotmail.com
Feb 12, 2016, 8:36:54 AM2/12/16
to
Only upper class Indians can speak proper English. Both RP and Indian RP (Shashi Tharoor for example) suggest class - except that only Indian RP has cut glass vowels and consonants without adjacent sounds blending into each other. Any deviations of RP from Indian RP only reduce clarity, without affecting classiness one way or the other.
Harrison Hill
Feb 12, 2016, 9:27:55 AM2/12/16
to
I speak; that marks you out (South of say Luton) as non-working
class. In all of Britain's cities, you will find large pockets of
people speaking like that, especially in and around the University.
Somebody told me here that it is called the "County" dialect, but
I stand to be corrected.
Harrison Hill
Feb 12, 2016, 9:40:53 AM2/12/16
to
(Estuary), Vanessa Feltz (County) and Boris Johnson (RP) are
all highly educated and articulate; but you can tell "as soon
as they open their mouths" that they are working, middle and
upper class respectively:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAoX5edvifc
Jerry Friedman
Feb 12, 2016, 10:16:37 AM2/12/16
to
On 2/12/16 5:46 AM, Dingbat wrote:
> Is this a transition from Received to Given pronunciation?
:-)
> Is this a transition from Received to Given pronunciation?
> If the Queen's governess were still alive today, she may have noticed a few discordant notes in her charge's formerly crystal clear diction. OK, she ain' exactly droppin' her Ts and her Gs like Russell Brand, but linguists have nevertheless found that her enunciation today might have been considered a little, well, common in her youth.
> Her Majesty is by no means alone in this. The cut-glass accent of the upper class - the soundtrack to period dramas like Downton Abbey and Upstairs, Downstairs - has become a little rough around the edges over the last few decades, as more and more people adopt a kind of aristo-cockney hybrid.
>
> continued at http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160202-has-the-queen-become-frightfully-common
more than that, but it's too early in the morning.
And a quotation for you:
"'Hell's all this balls about thumb-prints, George?' he asked, perhaps
in an effort to deflate Wilbraham's success. 'Like something out of
Phillips Oppenheim.'
"Belgravia cockney, thought Guillam: the last stage of linguistic collapse."
--John le Carré, /The Honourable Schoolboy/ (1977)
Apparently there have been later stages.
--
Jerry Friedman
Katy Jennison
Feb 12, 2016, 10:41:20 AM2/12/16
to
RP, not Boris's. Boris's is "posh". (The really interesting difference
is that between Ken Livingstone's and Brian Paddick's.)
And while I'm about it, one of the things which sets my teeth on edge is
that "may have noticed" in the original post: "If the Queen's governess
were still alive today, she may have noticed a few discordant notes in
her charge's formerly crystal clear diction." Aaargh.
--
Katy Jennison
Harrison Hill
Feb 12, 2016, 11:07:42 AM2/12/16
to
I cannot for the life of me see why. "She may have been African" is
not the same as "She might have been African" and "may have noticed..." is
not the same as "might have noticed...".
"Might" introduces a random element. "May" puts it more down to her
skill and attention.
There are similar problems with "could/can you do this" and "would/will
you do that" - which no doubt take your teeth right over the edge and
onto the beach below.
I've never been able to understand the problem :)
Richard Tobin
Feb 12, 2016, 11:10:03 AM2/12/16
to
Peter T. Daniels
Feb 12, 2016, 11:57:54 AM2/12/16
to
CDB
Feb 12, 2016, 12:36:56 PM2/12/16
to
On 12/02/2016 10:41 AM, Katy Jennison wrote:
> Harrison Hill wrote:
Not for here, alas.
> I stand to be corrected too, but I'd characterise Vanessa's accent as
> RP, not Boris's. Boris's is "posh". (The really interesting
> difference is that between Ken Livingstone's and Brian Paddick's.)
> And while I'm about it, one of the things which sets my teeth on edge
> is that "may have noticed" in the original post: "If the Queen's
> governess were still alive today, she may have noticed a few
> discordant notes in her charge's formerly crystal clear diction."
> Aaargh.
I dislike it too, but have always supposed it was acceptable in BrE,
because I've come across it there but not here. Interesting to see it
disparaged by BrEophone RRs.
> Harrison Hill wrote:
> I stand to be corrected too, but I'd characterise Vanessa's accent as
> RP, not Boris's. Boris's is "posh". (The really interesting
> difference is that between Ken Livingstone's and Brian Paddick's.)
> And while I'm about it, one of the things which sets my teeth on edge
> is that "may have noticed" in the original post: "If the Queen's
> governess were still alive today, she may have noticed a few
> discordant notes in her charge's formerly crystal clear diction."
> Aaargh.
because I've come across it there but not here. Interesting to see it
disparaged by BrEophone RRs.
Katy Jennison
Feb 12, 2016, 12:38:52 PM2/12/16
to
certainty. "William Rufus may have been shot deliberately", but we'll
probably never know. But given that the governess was long dead before
the Queen's diction altered, it's impossible for her to have witnessed
it: there's no uncertainty. If she'd still been alive, however, she
might have done. But not may have done, because she wasn't.
--
Katy Jennison
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Feb 12, 2016, 12:44:23 PM2/12/16
to
> because I've come across it there but not here. Interesting to see it
> disparaged by BrEophone RRs.
athel
Peter T. Daniels
Feb 12, 2016, 3:44:10 PM2/12/16
to
have been shot deliberately, but he wasn't," but you can say "William Rufus
might have been shot deliberately, but he wasn't."
> But given that the governess was long dead before
> the Queen's diction altered, it's impossible for her to have witnessed
> it: there's no uncertainty. If she'd still been alive, however, she
> might have done. But not may have done, because she wasn't.
Don Phillipson
Feb 12, 2016, 4:40:38 PM2/12/16
to
<anal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e30123ca-1356-4927...@googlegroups.com...
> Only upper class Indians can speak proper English. Both RP and
> Indian RP (Shashi Tharoor for example) suggest class - except
> that only Indian RP has cut glass vowels and consonants without
> adjacent sounds blending into each other. Any deviations of RP
> from Indian RP only reduce clarity
This is indeed a current judgment (or prejudice.) WIWAL the
English used to say Edinburgh was the only place where the
language was correctly spoken without also claiming high
social status.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
news:e30123ca-1356-4927...@googlegroups.com...
> Only upper class Indians can speak proper English. Both RP and
> Indian RP (Shashi Tharoor for example) suggest class - except
> that only Indian RP has cut glass vowels and consonants without
> adjacent sounds blending into each other. Any deviations of RP
> from Indian RP only reduce clarity
English used to say Edinburgh was the only place where the
language was correctly spoken without also claiming high
social status.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Message has been deleted
Dingbat
Feb 12, 2016, 6:12:51 PM2/12/16
to
On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 3:10:38 AM UTC+5:30, Don Phillipson wrote:
> <analyst41> wrote ...
I'd speculate thus: Edinburghers of all classes that did business with the English needed to learn a more standard dialect as a second language in order to make themselves understood. The standard dialect most available to be formally learned had a Received Pronunciation. Since use of RP (or King's English) in Edinburgh wasn't peculiar to one social class, it wasn't assumed that speaking it marked one as having high social status or as claiming such status.
> <analyst41> wrote ...
>
> > Only upper class Indians can speak proper English. Both RP and
> > Indian RP (Shashi Tharoor for example) suggest class - except
> > that only Indian RP has cut glass vowels and consonants without
> > adjacent sounds blending into each other. Any deviations of RP
> > from Indian RP only reduce clarity
>
> This is indeed a current judgment (or prejudice.) WIWAL the
> English used to say Edinburgh was the only place where the
> language was correctly spoken without also claiming high
> social status.
> --
Edinburgh had a different language Scots a few centuries back. There were once translators between Scots and English at the London docks. Scots has converged with English sufficiently to seem to some (but not to me) like a dialect of English and Edinburgh English is influenced by Scots; whichever of these my taxi driver spoke, it seemed like gibberish to me.
> > Only upper class Indians can speak proper English. Both RP and
> > Indian RP (Shashi Tharoor for example) suggest class - except
> > that only Indian RP has cut glass vowels and consonants without
> > adjacent sounds blending into each other. Any deviations of RP
> > from Indian RP only reduce clarity
>
> This is indeed a current judgment (or prejudice.) WIWAL the
> English used to say Edinburgh was the only place where the
> language was correctly spoken without also claiming high
> social status.
> --
I'd speculate thus: Edinburghers of all classes that did business with the English needed to learn a more standard dialect as a second language in order to make themselves understood. The standard dialect most available to be formally learned had a Received Pronunciation. Since use of RP (or King's English) in Edinburgh wasn't peculiar to one social class, it wasn't assumed that speaking it marked one as having high social status or as claiming such status.
Message has been deleted
bill van
Feb 12, 2016, 7:17:21 PM2/12/16
to
In article <di6jvg...@mid.individual.net>,
If I was still editing newspaper copy and it crossed my desk, I'd
replace "may" with "might". But most of my colleagues wouldn't have
noticed it.
--
bill
replace "may" with "might". But most of my colleagues wouldn't have
noticed it.
--
bill
Robert Bannister
Feb 12, 2016, 7:49:49 PM2/12/16
to
were here now then we might say "she may have noticed", but following
"if she were here", "might" is the only choice.
--
Robert B. born England
Western Australia since 1972
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Feb 13, 2016, 6:11:39 AM2/13/16
to
On 2016-02-12 17:44:16 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
> On 2016-02-12 17:36:47 +0000, CDB said:
>
>> [ … ]
> On 2016-02-12 17:36:47 +0000, CDB said:
>
Nor here, alas alack. I wanted to hear it, to find out what others
considered RP etc.
>>
>>> I stand to be corrected too, but I'd characterise Vanessa's accent as
>>> RP, not Boris's. Boris's is "posh". (The really interesting
>>> difference is that between Ken Livingstone's and Brian Paddick's.)
--
>>> I stand to be corrected too, but I'd characterise Vanessa's accent as
>>> RP, not Boris's. Boris's is "posh". (The really interesting
>>> difference is that between Ken Livingstone's and Brian Paddick's.)
athel
Don Phillipson
Feb 13, 2016, 8:39:33 AM2/13/16
to
"Dingbat" <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4fb18f3b-da21-4db6...@googlegroups.com...
> I'd speculate thus: Edinburghers of all classes that did business
> with the English needed to learn a more standard dialect as a
> second language in order to make themselves understood.
> The standard dialect most available to be formally learned
> had a Received Pronunciation. Since use of RP (or King's
> English) in Edinburgh wasn't peculiar to one social class, it
> wasn't assumed that speaking it marked one as having high
> social status or as claiming such status.
This is a plausible explanation -- but omits the tradition of Scottish
public education. By the 18th century Scotland had a tradition of
universal free primary education with admirably high standards,
i.e. more uniform and more comprehensive than in England.
RP had not emerged by that date. How English should be
spoken was the consensus of the Scottish universities where
teachers were educated -- not necessarily traders.
news:4fb18f3b-da21-4db6...@googlegroups.com...
> I'd speculate thus: Edinburghers of all classes that did business
> with the English needed to learn a more standard dialect as a
> second language in order to make themselves understood.
> The standard dialect most available to be formally learned
> had a Received Pronunciation. Since use of RP (or King's
> English) in Edinburgh wasn't peculiar to one social class, it
> wasn't assumed that speaking it marked one as having high
> social status or as claiming such status.
public education. By the 18th century Scotland had a tradition of
universal free primary education with admirably high standards,
i.e. more uniform and more comprehensive than in England.
RP had not emerged by that date. How English should be
spoken was the consensus of the Scottish universities where
teachers were educated -- not necessarily traders.
GordonD
Feb 14, 2016, 6:33:38 AM2/14/16
to
Morningside and (say) Niddrie. I think I'm somewhere in the middle...
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
Tom P
Feb 19, 2016, 12:49:02 PM2/19/16
to
English and German families, and up until 1917 the House of Windsor was
the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. All of them spoke German as well as
English, and the received pronunciation has similarities to the German
accent spoken in regions of Germany.
Ross
Feb 19, 2016, 3:18:12 PM2/19/16
to
Robert Bannister
Feb 19, 2016, 6:05:46 PM2/19/16
to
On 20/02/2016 1:48 am, Tom P wrote:
> On 02/12/2016 01:46 PM, Dingbat wrote:
>> Is this a transition from Received to Given pronunciation?
>>
>>
>> If the Queen's governess were still alive today, she may have noticed
>> a few discordant notes in her charge's formerly crystal clear diction.
>> OK, she ain' exactly droppin' her Ts and her Gs like Russell Brand,
>> but linguists have nevertheless found that her enunciation today might
>> have been considered a little, well, common in her youth.
>> Her Majesty is by no means alone in this. The cut-glass accent of the
>> upper class - the soundtrack to period dramas like Downton Abbey and
>> Upstairs, Downstairs - has become a little rough around the edges over
>> the last few decades, as more and more people adopt a kind of
>> aristo-cockney hybrid.
>>
>> continued at
>> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160202-has-the-queen-become-frightfully-common
>>
>>
>
> I notice that nobody mentioned that the royal family was a mixture of
> English and German families
English? Over time, they have been some kind of Celtic (in early times),
> On 02/12/2016 01:46 PM, Dingbat wrote:
>> Is this a transition from Received to Given pronunciation?
>>
>>
>> If the Queen's governess were still alive today, she may have noticed
>> a few discordant notes in her charge's formerly crystal clear diction.
>> OK, she ain' exactly droppin' her Ts and her Gs like Russell Brand,
>> but linguists have nevertheless found that her enunciation today might
>> have been considered a little, well, common in her youth.
>> Her Majesty is by no means alone in this. The cut-glass accent of the
>> upper class - the soundtrack to period dramas like Downton Abbey and
>> Upstairs, Downstairs - has become a little rough around the edges over
>> the last few decades, as more and more people adopt a kind of
>> aristo-cockney hybrid.
>>
>> continued at
>> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160202-has-the-queen-become-frightfully-common
>>
>>
>
> I notice that nobody mentioned that the royal family was a mixture of
> English and German families
Saxon (Alfred), Danish (Knut), Norman (William), partly Welsh (Henry
Tudor), and Scottish (James Stuart). Where does "English" come in?
, and up until 1917 the House of Windsor was
> the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. All of them spoke German as well as
> English, and the received pronunciation has similarities to the German
> accent spoken in regions of Germany.
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Dingbat
Feb 19, 2016, 6:42:08 PM2/19/16
to
On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 4:35:46 AM UTC+5:30, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 20/02/2016 1:48 am, Tom P wrote:
> > On 02/12/2016 01:46 PM, Dingbat wrote:
> >> Is this a transition from Received to Given pronunciation?
> >>
> >>
> >> If the Queen's governess were still alive today, she may have noticed
> >> a few discordant notes in her charge's formerly crystal clear diction.
> >> OK, she ain' exactly droppin' her Ts and her Gs like Russell Brand,
> >> but linguists have nevertheless found that her enunciation today might
> >> have been considered a little, well, common in her youth.
> >> Her Majesty is by no means alone in this. The cut-glass accent of the
> >> upper class - the soundtrack to period dramas like Downton Abbey and
> >> Upstairs, Downstairs - has become a little rough around the edges over
> >> the last few decades, as more and more people adopt a kind of
> >> aristo-cockney hybrid.
> >>
> >> continued at
> >> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160202-has-the-queen-become-frightfully-common
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I notice that nobody mentioned that the royal family was a mixture of
> > English and German families
>
> English? Over time, they have been some kind of Celtic (in early times),
> Saxon (Alfred), Danish (Knut), Norman (William), partly Welsh (Henry
> Tudor), and Scottish (James Stuart). Where does "English" come in?
>
QE2's mother.
> On 20/02/2016 1:48 am, Tom P wrote:
> > On 02/12/2016 01:46 PM, Dingbat wrote:
> >> Is this a transition from Received to Given pronunciation?
> >>
> >>
> >> If the Queen's governess were still alive today, she may have noticed
> >> a few discordant notes in her charge's formerly crystal clear diction.
> >> OK, she ain' exactly droppin' her Ts and her Gs like Russell Brand,
> >> but linguists have nevertheless found that her enunciation today might
> >> have been considered a little, well, common in her youth.
> >> Her Majesty is by no means alone in this. The cut-glass accent of the
> >> upper class - the soundtrack to period dramas like Downton Abbey and
> >> Upstairs, Downstairs - has become a little rough around the edges over
> >> the last few decades, as more and more people adopt a kind of
> >> aristo-cockney hybrid.
> >>
> >> continued at
> >> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160202-has-the-queen-become-frightfully-common
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I notice that nobody mentioned that the royal family was a mixture of
> > English and German families
>
> English? Over time, they have been some kind of Celtic (in early times),
> Saxon (Alfred), Danish (Knut), Norman (William), partly Welsh (Henry
> Tudor), and Scottish (James Stuart). Where does "English" come in?
>
http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Bowes-Lyon-Family-Tree-5
Janet
Feb 19, 2016, 7:50:24 PM2/19/16
to
In article <e36094e5-2b06-452b...@googlegroups.com>,
benl...@ihug.co.nz says...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Received_Pronunciation#History
"RP is often believed to be based on the accents of southern England,
but it actually has most in common with the Early Modern English
dialects of the East Midlands. This was the most populated and most
prosperous area of England during the 14th and 15th centuries. By the
end of the 15th century, "Standard English" was established in the City
of London. A mixture of London speech with elements from East Midlands,
Middlesex, and Essex became what is now known as Received Pronunciation"
Janet.
benl...@ihug.co.nz says...
"RP is often believed to be based on the accents of southern England,
but it actually has most in common with the Early Modern English
dialects of the East Midlands. This was the most populated and most
prosperous area of England during the 14th and 15th centuries. By the
end of the 15th century, "Standard English" was established in the City
of London. A mixture of London speech with elements from East Midlands,
Middlesex, and Essex became what is now known as Received Pronunciation"
Janet.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Feb 20, 2016, 5:19:30 AM2/20/16
to
--
athel
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Feb 20, 2016, 7:59:45 AM2/20/16
to
goes back approximately thousand years. It traces it through female as
well as male lines. The earliest are in Scotland.
>>
>> , and up until 1917 the House of Windsor was
>> > the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. All of them spoke German as well as
>> > English, and the received pronunciation has similarities to the German
>> > accent spoken in regions of Germany.
>>
>> --
>> Robert B. born England a long time ago;
>> Western Australia since 1972
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
CDB
Feb 20, 2016, 9:04:31 AM2/20/16
to
On 19/02/2016 3:18 PM, Ross wrote:
There may also be a question of who sets the RP standard. I remember
seeing members of the aristocracy sneering (in print) at the Queen's
pronunciation, some time in the Sixties. Maybe the Spencers, dunno.
seeing members of the aristocracy sneering (in print) at the Queen's
pronunciation, some time in the Sixties. Maybe the Spencers, dunno.
the Omrud
Feb 20, 2016, 10:30:22 AM2/20/16
to
On 20/02/2016 12:59, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> Somewhere I have a diagram of the ancestry, wihin Britain, of QE2 that
> goes back approximately thousand years. It traces it through female as
> well as male lines. The earliest are in Scotland.
Only a thousand years?
> Somewhere I have a diagram of the ancestry, wihin Britain, of QE2 that
> goes back approximately thousand years. It traces it through female as
> well as male lines. The earliest are in Scotland.
--
David
Katy Jennison
Feb 20, 2016, 10:49:40 AM2/20/16
to
far as the male. (By female line I assume mother, mother's mother,
mother's mother's mother, etc etc.)
--
Katy Jennison
David Kleinecke
Feb 20, 2016, 12:07:01 PM2/20/16
to
mother back to Charlemagne. I don't believe it.
the Omrud
Feb 20, 2016, 12:30:30 PM2/20/16
to
On 20/02/2016 17:06, David Kleinecke wrote:
> I have a piece of paper (copied by my uncle from a book) that traces my
> mother back to Charlemagne. I don't believe it.
He must have been getting on a bit.
> I have a piece of paper (copied by my uncle from a book) that traces my
> mother back to Charlemagne. I don't believe it.
--
David
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Feb 20, 2016, 1:11:32 PM2/20/16
to
reasonably reliable (though not before 1066 or so), but those of noble
families, let alone ordinary people, tend to contain a lot of wishful
thinking and fantasy.
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Feb 20, 2016, 1:17:01 PM2/20/16
to
the male, but that wasn't the case in the 19th century, and probably
much more recently.
You might enjoy The Seven Daughters of Eve (Brian Sykes). Chapters
15–21 are embarrassingly awful. The rest is OK if you don't mind an
author who is very pleased with himself.
--
athel
Jack Campin
Feb 20, 2016, 7:34:04 PM2/20/16
to
>>> I notice that nobody mentioned that the royal family was a mixture of
>>> English and German families, and up until 1917 the House of Windsor
>>> was the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. All of them spoke German as
>>> well as English, and the received pronunciation has similarities to
>>> the German accent spoken in regions of Germany.
> > Could you give an example or two?
> I was wondering that myself.
It sounds like an American's fantasy of how British culture works.
>>> English and German families, and up until 1917 the House of Windsor
>>> was the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. All of them spoke German as
>>> well as English, and the received pronunciation has similarities to
>>> the German accent spoken in regions of Germany.
> > Could you give an example or two?
> I was wondering that myself.
With no sound radio, how could the monarch's accent influence the
way the whole country spoke?
This certainly isn't anything like "RP" as we understand it - Queen
Victoria recorded in 1900:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMMhRxkmmZs
She sounds like a friend of mine who was born in Germany and has
lived much of her life among Gaelic speakers in the Western Isles.
Strikingly pretty and youthful voice. But she didn't get anyone
else "receiving" it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
Peter T. Daniels
Feb 20, 2016, 10:30:17 PM2/20/16
to
On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 7:34:04 PM UTC-5, Jack Campin wrote:
> >>> I notice that nobody mentioned that the royal family was a mixture of
> >>> English and German families, and up until 1917 the House of Windsor
> >>> was the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. All of them spoke German as
> >>> well as English, and the received pronunciation has similarities to
> >>> the German accent spoken in regions of Germany.
> > > Could you give an example or two?
> > I was wondering that myself.
>
> It sounds like an American's fantasy of how British culture works.
>
> With no sound radio, how could the monarch's accent influence the
> way the whole country spoke?
>
> This certainly isn't anything like "RP" as we understand it - Queen
> Victoria recorded in 1900:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMMhRxkmmZs
>
> She sounds like a friend of mine who was born in Germany and has
> lived much of her life among Gaelic speakers in the Western Isles.
> Strikingly pretty and youthful voice. But she didn't get anyone
> else "receiving" it.
The first 18 seconds sound astonishingly German, but it wouldn't load beyond
> >>> I notice that nobody mentioned that the royal family was a mixture of
> >>> English and German families, and up until 1917 the House of Windsor
> >>> was the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. All of them spoke German as
> >>> well as English, and the received pronunciation has similarities to
> >>> the German accent spoken in regions of Germany.
> > > Could you give an example or two?
> > I was wondering that myself.
>
> It sounds like an American's fantasy of how British culture works.
>
> With no sound radio, how could the monarch's accent influence the
> way the whole country spoke?
>
> This certainly isn't anything like "RP" as we understand it - Queen
> Victoria recorded in 1900:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMMhRxkmmZs
>
> She sounds like a friend of mine who was born in Germany and has
> lived much of her life among Gaelic speakers in the Western Isles.
> Strikingly pretty and youthful voice. But she didn't get anyone
> else "receiving" it.
that -- the spinner kept spinning, and the one on the side labeled "Queen
Victoria's voice" wouldn't open.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Feb 21, 2016, 7:40:31 AM2/21/16
to
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 19:30:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 7:34:04 PM UTC-5, Jack Campin wrote:
>
>> >>> I notice that nobody mentioned that the royal family was a mixture of
>> >>> English and German families, and up until 1917 the House of Windsor
>> >>> was the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. All of them spoke German as
>> >>> well as English, and the received pronunciation has similarities to
>> >>> the German accent spoken in regions of Germany.
>> > > Could you give an example or two?
>> > I was wondering that myself.
>>
>> It sounds like an American's fantasy of how British culture works.
>>
>> With no sound radio, how could the monarch's accent influence the
>> way the whole country spoke?
>>
>> This certainly isn't anything like "RP" as we understand it - Queen
>> Victoria recorded in 1900:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMMhRxkmmZs
>>
>> She sounds like a friend of mine who was born in Germany and has
>> lived much of her life among Gaelic speakers in the Western Isles.
>> Strikingly pretty and youthful voice. But she didn't get anyone
>> else "receiving" it.
>
>The first 18 seconds sound astonishingly German,
There could be good reasons for that.
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 7:34:04 PM UTC-5, Jack Campin wrote:
>
>> >>> I notice that nobody mentioned that the royal family was a mixture of
>> >>> English and German families, and up until 1917 the House of Windsor
>> >>> was the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. All of them spoke German as
>> >>> well as English, and the received pronunciation has similarities to
>> >>> the German accent spoken in regions of Germany.
>> > > Could you give an example or two?
>> > I was wondering that myself.
>>
>> It sounds like an American's fantasy of how British culture works.
>>
>> With no sound radio, how could the monarch's accent influence the
>> way the whole country spoke?
>>
>> This certainly isn't anything like "RP" as we understand it - Queen
>> Victoria recorded in 1900:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMMhRxkmmZs
>>
>> She sounds like a friend of mine who was born in Germany and has
>> lived much of her life among Gaelic speakers in the Western Isles.
>> Strikingly pretty and youthful voice. But she didn't get anyone
>> else "receiving" it.
>
>The first 18 seconds sound astonishingly German,
Information from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Victoria
Victoria was born in 1818. Her father died in 1820. "Victoria was raised
under close supervision by her German-born mother Princess Victoria of
Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld". She married her German husband in 1840.
> but it wouldn't load beyond
>that -- the spinner kept spinning, and the one on the side labeled "Queen
>Victoria's voice" wouldn't open.
Peter T. Daniels
Feb 21, 2016, 8:01:09 AM2/21/16
to
her mother, unless she was forbidden interaction with any children her
own age and never even sent to school.
Did she never speak in public? Instead of The Emperor's New Clothes, was
it a matter of The Empress's Old Accent?
charles
Feb 21, 2016, 8:28:16 AM2/21/16
to
In article <71be2dfd-8996-4a33...@googlegroups.com>,
she would not have gone to school. A private governess is likely.
> Did she never speak in public? Instead of The Emperor's New Clothes, was
> it a matter of The Empress's Old Accent?
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
> Did she never speak in public? Instead of The Emperor's New Clothes, was
> it a matter of The Empress's Old Accent?
from KT24 in Surrey, England
Jack Campin
Feb 21, 2016, 8:32:57 AM2/21/16
to
> The first 18 seconds sound astonishingly German, but it wouldn't
is a bit unreliable. Usually it works if you try again a few
minutes later.
The other link is a very noisy wax cylinder recording from
the 1880s - you can just about make out that there is a voice
there, but that's all.
> load beyond that -- the spinner kept spinning, and the one on the
> side labeled "Queen Victoria's voice" wouldn't open.
YouTube is prone to random hangs, particularly if your connection
> side labeled "Queen Victoria's voice" wouldn't open.
is a bit unreliable. Usually it works if you try again a few
minutes later.
The other link is a very noisy wax cylinder recording from
the 1880s - you can just about make out that there is a voice
there, but that's all.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Feb 21, 2016, 8:32:59 AM2/21/16
to
On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 05:01:07 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
This says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Victoria#Heiress_presumptive
Victoria later described her childhood as "rather melancholy".[7]
Her mother was extremely protective, and Victoria was raised largely
isolated from other children under the so-called "Kensington
System", an elaborate set of rules and protocols devised by the
Duchess** and her ambitious and domineering comptroller, Sir John
Conroy, who was rumoured to be the Duchess's lover.[8] The system
prevented the princess from meeting people whom her mother and
Conroy deemed undesirable (including most of her father's family),
and was designed to render her weak and dependent upon them.[9] The
Duchess avoided the court because she was scandalised by the
presence of King William's bastard children,[10] and perhaps
prompted the emergence of Victorian morality by insisting that her
daughter avoid any appearance of sexual impropriety.[11] Victoria
shared a bedroom with her mother every night, studied with private
tutors to a regular timetable, and spent her play-hours with her
dolls and her King Charles spaniel, Dash.[12] Her lessons included
French, German, Italian, and Latin,[13] but she spoke only English
at home.[14]
** The Duchess of Kent, her German-born mother.
>Did she never speak in public? Instead of The Emperor's New Clothes, was
>it a matter of The Empress's Old Accent?
>
>> > but it wouldn't load beyond
>> >that -- the spinner kept spinning, and the one on the side labeled "Queen
>> >Victoria's voice" wouldn't open.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Victoria#Heiress_presumptive
Victoria later described her childhood as "rather melancholy".[7]
Her mother was extremely protective, and Victoria was raised largely
isolated from other children under the so-called "Kensington
System", an elaborate set of rules and protocols devised by the
Duchess** and her ambitious and domineering comptroller, Sir John
Conroy, who was rumoured to be the Duchess's lover.[8] The system
prevented the princess from meeting people whom her mother and
Conroy deemed undesirable (including most of her father's family),
and was designed to render her weak and dependent upon them.[9] The
Duchess avoided the court because she was scandalised by the
presence of King William's bastard children,[10] and perhaps
prompted the emergence of Victorian morality by insisting that her
daughter avoid any appearance of sexual impropriety.[11] Victoria
shared a bedroom with her mother every night, studied with private
tutors to a regular timetable, and spent her play-hours with her
dolls and her King Charles spaniel, Dash.[12] Her lessons included
French, German, Italian, and Latin,[13] but she spoke only English
at home.[14]
** The Duchess of Kent, her German-born mother.
>Did she never speak in public? Instead of The Emperor's New Clothes, was
>it a matter of The Empress's Old Accent?
>
>> > but it wouldn't load beyond
>> >that -- the spinner kept spinning, and the one on the side labeled "Queen
>> >Victoria's voice" wouldn't open.
Janet
Feb 21, 2016, 8:49:55 AM2/21/16
to
In article <2f30a914-cac9-4087...@googlegroups.com>,
gram...@verizon.net says...
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMMhRxkmmZs
Has to be a fake spoof of QV supposedly sending a Christmas address
on 25 Dec 1900 to the nation, troops, "and my empire around the
world"... at a time when there was no means of national or global
broadcasting, or of her subjects and empire receiving the message.
The location and lead up to her death are on record; she spent
Christmas 1900 at her private home on the isle of Wight, a crippled
frail old woman suffering periods of confusion; and died there a few
weeks later on January 22 1901
Real Christmas broadcasts from the monarch began in 1935.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/ImagesandBroadcasts/TheQueensChristmasBroadcasts
/Overview.aspx
Janet.
gram...@verizon.net says...
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMMhRxkmmZs
Has to be a fake spoof of QV supposedly sending a Christmas address
on 25 Dec 1900 to the nation, troops, "and my empire around the
world"... at a time when there was no means of national or global
broadcasting, or of her subjects and empire receiving the message.
The location and lead up to her death are on record; she spent
Christmas 1900 at her private home on the isle of Wight, a crippled
frail old woman suffering periods of confusion; and died there a few
weeks later on January 22 1901
Real Christmas broadcasts from the monarch began in 1935.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/ImagesandBroadcasts/TheQueensChristmasBroadcasts
/Overview.aspx
Janet.
Peter T. Daniels
Feb 21, 2016, 9:07:11 AM2/21/16
to
suppose she had a German accent.
The earliest president whose voice was recorded is Grover Cleveland, but he
lived for a very long time after his term (not quite so long as Hoover or
Carter), and was recorded when it was quite ordinary to do so. There's a
recording by Theodore Roosevelt from ca. 1912, and his accent is remarkably
like my great-aunt's (who was about 20 years younger).
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Feb 21, 2016, 10:03:29 AM2/21/16
to
On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 13:49:48 -0000, Janet <nob...@home.org> wrote:
>In article <2f30a914-cac9-4087...@googlegroups.com>,
>gram...@verizon.net says...
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMMhRxkmmZs
>
> Has to be a fake spoof of QV supposedly sending a Christmas address
>on 25 Dec 1900 to the nation, troops, "and my empire around the
>world"... at a time when there was no means of national or global
>broadcasting, or of her subjects and empire receiving the message.
>
The comments on that YouTube page agree, although there are various
>In article <2f30a914-cac9-4087...@googlegroups.com>,
>gram...@verizon.net says...
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMMhRxkmmZs
>
> Has to be a fake spoof of QV supposedly sending a Christmas address
>on 25 Dec 1900 to the nation, troops, "and my empire around the
>world"... at a time when there was no means of national or global
>broadcasting, or of her subjects and empire receiving the message.
>
suggestions as to the speaker's accent: the subcontinent (India), South
Africa, Wales, for instance.
> The location and lead up to her death are on record; she spent
>Christmas 1900 at her private home on the isle of Wight, a crippled
>frail old woman suffering periods of confusion; and died there a few
>weeks later on January 22 1901
>
> Real Christmas broadcasts from the monarch began in 1935.
>
>http://www.royal.gov.uk/ImagesandBroadcasts/TheQueensChristmasBroadcasts
>/Overview.aspx
>
>
> Janet.
Janet
Feb 21, 2016, 10:13:04 AM2/21/16
to
In article <555566ba...@candehope.me.uk>, cha...@candehope.me.uk
says...
she had a very sheltered youth
http://www.hrp.org.uk/kensington-palace/visit-us/top-things-to-see-and-
do/victoria-revealed/victoria-as-a-princess/the-kensington-system/
"On the death of George IV in 1830, the young Victoria became next in
line to the throne. Her mother, the Duchess of Kent, and her ambitious
adviser, Sir John Conroy, sought to protect and enhance their power by
keeping Victoria under their control.Their rigid set of rules became
known as The Kensington System. Victoria was never allowed out of the
sight of an adult – she was always supervised by her mother, one of her
tutors, or her governess, Baroness Lehzen.
She was rarely allowed to meet other children, with the exception of
Conroy’s daughters and her own half-sister, Feodora, who married and
moved away from Kensington when Victoria was nine. Victoria even had to
sleep in the same room as her mother until she became queen."
>unless she was forbidden interaction with any children her
> > own age and never even sent to school.
Heirs to the throne were educated at home by tutors and governesses
until 1955 when Charles became the first royal heir to be educated in
school with other children.
> she would not have gone to school. A private governess is likely.
She had a German governess/companion, and spoke only German until she
was three.
> > Did she never speak in public?
I doubt she ever addressed the general populace at a public venue.
She may have spoken in Parliament (monarch attends the opening of each
new session) though she more often did not attend in person and sent a
message to be read out. As an adult; Before Albert died her frequent
pregnancy would have kept her out of public view and afterhis death, she
avoided public apppearances.
Her numerous private journals were written in perfectly fluent
English.
Janet.
says...
http://www.hrp.org.uk/kensington-palace/visit-us/top-things-to-see-and-
do/victoria-revealed/victoria-as-a-princess/the-kensington-system/
"On the death of George IV in 1830, the young Victoria became next in
line to the throne. Her mother, the Duchess of Kent, and her ambitious
adviser, Sir John Conroy, sought to protect and enhance their power by
keeping Victoria under their control.Their rigid set of rules became
known as The Kensington System. Victoria was never allowed out of the
sight of an adult – she was always supervised by her mother, one of her
tutors, or her governess, Baroness Lehzen.
She was rarely allowed to meet other children, with the exception of
Conroy’s daughters and her own half-sister, Feodora, who married and
moved away from Kensington when Victoria was nine. Victoria even had to
sleep in the same room as her mother until she became queen."
>unless she was forbidden interaction with any children her
> > own age and never even sent to school.
until 1955 when Charles became the first royal heir to be educated in
school with other children.
> she would not have gone to school. A private governess is likely.
was three.
> > Did she never speak in public?
She may have spoken in Parliament (monarch attends the opening of each
new session) though she more often did not attend in person and sent a
message to be read out. As an adult; Before Albert died her frequent
pregnancy would have kept her out of public view and afterhis death, she
avoided public apppearances.
Her numerous private journals were written in perfectly fluent
English.
Janet.
Katy Jennison
Feb 21, 2016, 10:27:48 AM2/21/16
to
prepared to be fooled for a little while. I saw that it was claimed
that the recording had been "cleaned up" by whoever posted it.
--
Katy Jennison
Ross
Feb 21, 2016, 3:51:09 PM2/21/16
to
The other (supposedly authentic) recording of her voice is in
such bad condition it's impossible to say anything about
her accent.
Strangely enough, though, this led to the 1923 Empire Day messages
of George V and Queen Mary. Mary of Teck was apparently by birth
a German princess, but born and raised in England (probably in
highly restricted company, like Victoria). If you listen to her
speak (starting at about 2:00), it sounds to me like a German accent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9znNb1wys8
Robert Bannister
Feb 21, 2016, 6:10:32 PM2/21/16
to
On 21/02/2016 9:01 pm, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 7:40:31 AM UTC-5, PeterWD wrote:
>> Information from:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Victoria
>>
>> Victoria was born in 1818. Her father died in 1820. "Victoria was raised
>> under close supervision by her German-born mother Princess Victoria of
>> Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld". She married her German husband in 1840.
>
> It would be most unusual for her to have gotten a foreign accent from
> her mother, unless she was forbidden interaction with any children her
> own age and never even sent to school.
I don't think she did get to meet many other children, and surely even
> On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 7:40:31 AM UTC-5, PeterWD wrote:
>> Information from:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Victoria
>>
>> Victoria was born in 1818. Her father died in 1820. "Victoria was raised
>> under close supervision by her German-born mother Princess Victoria of
>> Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld". She married her German husband in 1840.
>
> It would be most unusual for her to have gotten a foreign accent from
> her mother, unless she was forbidden interaction with any children her
> own age and never even sent to school.
in your own country, rich or important people didn't go to school - they
had tutors. Schools did exist prior to 1900, but not in abundance in any
country. Some British schools are indeed centuries older than that, but
only for boys, of course. Women were thought to only need tuition in
sewing, music, dancing and foreign languages.
Robert Bannister
Feb 21, 2016, 6:16:34 PM2/21/16
to
out, but the vowels don't sound RP to me so much as Edwardian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax3B4gRQNU4
Janet
Feb 22, 2016, 8:24:13 AM2/22/16
to
In article <efaca6ed-1c1e-4b9b...@googlegroups.com>,
benl...@ihug.co.nz says...
I agree, she does.
However, on the same link, George V, grandson of Victoria, has no
trace of a German accent. He became king in 1910, just 9 years after
her death.
George V been educated at home with his brother, by an English tutor,
then joined the Navy at age 12. Multilingual Victoria complained that
neither George or his brother could speak German (or French).
That suggests to me that if the reclusive Victoria had a German
accent, its influence had not penetrated into the RP spoken by her
descendants in line of succession.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_V#Early_life_and_education
Janet
benl...@ihug.co.nz says...
However, on the same link, George V, grandson of Victoria, has no
trace of a German accent. He became king in 1910, just 9 years after
her death.
George V been educated at home with his brother, by an English tutor,
then joined the Navy at age 12. Multilingual Victoria complained that
neither George or his brother could speak German (or French).
That suggests to me that if the reclusive Victoria had a German
accent, its influence had not penetrated into the RP spoken by her
descendants in line of succession.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_V#Early_life_and_education
Janet
Peter Moylan
Feb 28, 2016, 3:02:07 AM2/28/16
to
On 2016-Feb-21 04:06, David Kleinecke wrote:
>
> I have a piece of paper (copied by my uncle from a book) that traces my
> mother back to Charlemagne. I don't believe it.
My wife can trace her ancestry back to one of the Stewart kings (Robert
>
> I have a piece of paper (copied by my uncle from a book) that traces my
> mother back to Charlemagne. I don't believe it.
II), and beyond. That seems to be reasonably reliable, because the
MacDonald line is one of the best-documented in the world. Before about
1000 AD, though, I suspect that there's a fair bit of guesswork involved.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Jack Campin
Feb 28, 2016, 5:55:01 AM2/28/16
to
>> I have a piece of paper (copied by my uncle from a book) that
>> traces my mother back to Charlemagne. I don't believe it.
> My wife can trace her ancestry back to one of the Stewart
> kings (Robert II), and beyond. That seems to be reasonably
> reliable, because the MacDonald line is one of the best-
> documented in the world. Before about 1000 AD, though,
> I suspect that there's a fair bit of guesswork involved.
These genealogies probably all work by linking to some well-known
>> traces my mother back to Charlemagne. I don't believe it.
> My wife can trace her ancestry back to one of the Stewart
> kings (Robert II), and beyond. That seems to be reasonably
> reliable, because the MacDonald line is one of the best-
> documented in the world. Before about 1000 AD, though,
> I suspect that there's a fair bit of guesswork involved.
elite figure who themselves had a genealogy going back a long way,
but given their power and wealth, also had an interest in documenting
it. It's not like families of peasants kept records for 1000 years.
I knew a Canadian woman who could trace her ancestry back to Genghis
Khan - the link was the Romanian/Ottoman prince Dimitrie Cantemir,
a few centuries after Genghis.
Lewis
Feb 28, 2016, 8:24:51 AM2/28/16
to
In message <nau9c6$c4n$1...@dont-email.me>
was on his mother's side. He spent most of his life (as a hobby) trying
to trace his father's line back to royalty, but never succeeded.
Yes, he was annoyed that the "royal blood" was on his mother's side.
Because of this, I know that Prince Charles is my 17th cousin twice
removed. Or that might have been Princess Di. I suppose I could load up
the GEDCOM file again and double check, but why?
--
"How good bad music and bad reasons sound when we march against an
enemy." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> On 2016-Feb-21 04:06, David Kleinecke wrote:
>>
>> I have a piece of paper (copied by my uncle from a book) that traces my
>> mother back to Charlemagne. I don't believe it.
> My wife can trace her ancestry back to one of the Stewart kings (Robert
> II), and beyond. That seems to be reasonably reliable, because the
> MacDonald line is one of the best-documented in the world. Before about
> 1000 AD, though, I suspect that there's a fair bit of guesswork involved.
My maternal grandfather traced his ancestry back to King John, but that
> On 2016-Feb-21 04:06, David Kleinecke wrote:
>>
>> I have a piece of paper (copied by my uncle from a book) that traces my
>> mother back to Charlemagne. I don't believe it.
> My wife can trace her ancestry back to one of the Stewart kings (Robert
> II), and beyond. That seems to be reasonably reliable, because the
> MacDonald line is one of the best-documented in the world. Before about
> 1000 AD, though, I suspect that there's a fair bit of guesswork involved.
was on his mother's side. He spent most of his life (as a hobby) trying
to trace his father's line back to royalty, but never succeeded.
Yes, he was annoyed that the "royal blood" was on his mother's side.
Because of this, I know that Prince Charles is my 17th cousin twice
removed. Or that might have been Princess Di. I suppose I could load up
the GEDCOM file again and double check, but why?
--
"How good bad music and bad reasons sound when we march against an
enemy." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Janet
Feb 28, 2016, 9:49:42 AM2/28/16
to
In article <bogus-19B06F....@four.schnuerpel.eu>,
bo...@purr.demon.co.uk says...
never encountered a Brit who traced their lineage back to any
historic figure; or further than about 200 years ago.
OTOH, I have never encountered an American who had bought a family
tree of their Brit forebears, which did NOT claim an unbroken record
going back 500 or a 1000 years to at least one famous historic figure,
royalty, etc.
I suspect this is a reflection on the integrity of the family trees
business to clients overseas, rather than the fertility of ancient
kings.
Janet
bo...@purr.demon.co.uk says...
>
> >> I have a piece of paper (copied by my uncle from a book) that
> >> traces my mother back to Charlemagne. I don't believe it.
> > My wife can trace her ancestry back to one of the Stewart
> > kings (Robert II), and beyond. That seems to be reasonably
> > reliable, because the MacDonald line is one of the best-
> > documented in the world. Before about 1000 AD, though,
> > I suspect that there's a fair bit of guesswork involved.
>
> These genealogies probably all work by linking to some well-known
> elite figure who themselves had a genealogy going back a long way,
> but given their power and wealth, also had an interest in documenting
> it. It's not like families of peasants kept records for 1000 years.
> I knew a Canadian woman who could trace her ancestry back to Genghis
> Khan - the link was the Romanian/Ottoman prince Dimitrie Cantemir,
> a few centuries after Genghis.
Excepting current members of an aristocratic or royal line, I have
> >> I have a piece of paper (copied by my uncle from a book) that
> >> traces my mother back to Charlemagne. I don't believe it.
> > My wife can trace her ancestry back to one of the Stewart
> > kings (Robert II), and beyond. That seems to be reasonably
> > reliable, because the MacDonald line is one of the best-
> > documented in the world. Before about 1000 AD, though,
> > I suspect that there's a fair bit of guesswork involved.
>
> These genealogies probably all work by linking to some well-known
> elite figure who themselves had a genealogy going back a long way,
> but given their power and wealth, also had an interest in documenting
> it. It's not like families of peasants kept records for 1000 years.
> I knew a Canadian woman who could trace her ancestry back to Genghis
> Khan - the link was the Romanian/Ottoman prince Dimitrie Cantemir,
> a few centuries after Genghis.
never encountered a Brit who traced their lineage back to any
historic figure; or further than about 200 years ago.
OTOH, I have never encountered an American who had bought a family
tree of their Brit forebears, which did NOT claim an unbroken record
going back 500 or a 1000 years to at least one famous historic figure,
royalty, etc.
I suspect this is a reflection on the integrity of the family trees
business to clients overseas, rather than the fertility of ancient
kings.
Janet
Jerry Friedman
Feb 28, 2016, 12:44:32 PM2/28/16
to
On 2/28/16 1:02 AM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 2016-Feb-21 04:06, David Kleinecke wrote:
>>
>> I have a piece of paper (copied by my uncle from a book) that traces my
>> mother back to Charlemagne. I don't believe it.
>
> My wife can trace her ancestry back to one of the Stewart kings (Robert
> II), and beyond. That seems to be reasonably reliable, because the
> MacDonald line is one of the best-documented in the world. Before about
> 1000 AD, though, I suspect that there's a fair bit of guesswork involved.
This might be a good time to mention that people's fathers listed in
> On 2016-Feb-21 04:06, David Kleinecke wrote:
>>
>> I have a piece of paper (copied by my uncle from a book) that traces my
>> mother back to Charlemagne. I don't believe it.
>
> My wife can trace her ancestry back to one of the Stewart kings (Robert
> II), and beyond. That seems to be reasonably reliable, because the
> MacDonald line is one of the best-documented in the world. Before about
> 1000 AD, though, I suspect that there's a fair bit of guesswork involved.
genealogies weren't necessarily their biological fathers. Tracing one's
ancestry back a mere 700 years (Wikipedia tells me it will be 700 years
on Wednesday) has considerable uncertainties. (So do anniversaries over
a period of centuries.)
--
Jerry Friedman
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Feb 28, 2016, 2:08:43 PM2/28/16
to
probability that a particular person's biological father is also their
legal father is not much better than 80%. However, I don't believe it's
as bad as that. Brian Sykes in Adam's Curse reported that about half
the men called Sykes in England have the same Y chromosome: that
implies about 99% fidelity in each generation. (However, Sykes
overlooked a possibility that I find plausible. Suppose that you were a
married woman in the days when it was your duty to have children, and
if you didn't it was your fault; suppose further that you were pretty
sure that your husband was infertile (or completely sure that he was
impotent or that he refused intercourse). What could you do to satisfy
your family? By far the least risky thing would be to have children by
your brother-in-law or father-in-law: in either case your sons would
have the "right" Y chromosome.)
Incidentally, the surname "Sykes" probably arose only once: if there
were several independent Sykes families the probability of fidelity
would be higher than what he calculated (as there are at least two
unrelated Bowden families, and a great many unrelated Smith families).
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
Feb 28, 2016, 3:03:34 PM2/28/16
to
On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:49:42 AM UTC-5, Janet wrote:
> Excepting current members of an aristocratic or royal line, I have
> never encountered a Brit who traced their lineage back to any
> historic figure; or further than about 200 years ago.
>
> OTOH, I have never encountered an American who had bought a family
> tree of their Brit forebears, which did NOT claim an unbroken record
> going back 500 or a 1000 years to at least one famous historic figure,
> royalty, etc.
>
> I suspect this is a reflection on the integrity of the family trees
> business to clients overseas, rather than the fertility of ancient
> kings.
We don't need no stinkin' overseas family trees (AmE tree) businesses -- we
> Excepting current members of an aristocratic or royal line, I have
> never encountered a Brit who traced their lineage back to any
> historic figure; or further than about 200 years ago.
>
> OTOH, I have never encountered an American who had bought a family
> tree of their Brit forebears, which did NOT claim an unbroken record
> going back 500 or a 1000 years to at least one famous historic figure,
> royalty, etc.
>
> I suspect this is a reflection on the integrity of the family trees
> business to clients overseas, rather than the fertility of ancient
> kings.
have the Mormons.
Also ancestry.com, which has added DNA testing to their repertoire.
Peter T. Daniels
Feb 28, 2016, 3:08:42 PM2/28/16
to
On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 2:08:43 PM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> One estimate that I read (in one of Jared Diamond's books) is that the
> probability that a particular person's biological father is also their
> legal father is not much better than 80%. However, I don't believe it's
> as bad as that. Brian Sykes in Adam's Curse reported that about half
> the men called Sykes in England have the same Y chromosome: that
> implies about 99% fidelity in each generation. (However, Sykes
> overlooked a possibility that I find plausible. Suppose that you were a
> married woman in the days when it was your duty to have children, and
> if you didn't it was your fault; suppose further that you were pretty
> sure that your husband was infertile (or completely sure that he was
> impotent or that he refused intercourse). What could you do to satisfy
> your family? By far the least risky thing would be to have children by
> your brother-in-law or father-in-law: in either case your sons would
> have the "right" Y chromosome.)
But before they knew about chromosomes, the father would know that he
> One estimate that I read (in one of Jared Diamond's books) is that the
> probability that a particular person's biological father is also their
> legal father is not much better than 80%. However, I don't believe it's
> as bad as that. Brian Sykes in Adam's Curse reported that about half
> the men called Sykes in England have the same Y chromosome: that
> implies about 99% fidelity in each generation. (However, Sykes
> overlooked a possibility that I find plausible. Suppose that you were a
> married woman in the days when it was your duty to have children, and
> if you didn't it was your fault; suppose further that you were pretty
> sure that your husband was infertile (or completely sure that he was
> impotent or that he refused intercourse). What could you do to satisfy
> your family? By far the least risky thing would be to have children by
> your brother-in-law or father-in-law: in either case your sons would
> have the "right" Y chromosome.)
was impotent (or not inclined "that way," though to be sure Edward II
did produce an heir -- or did he?), so even if by reason of embarrassment
there was no public acklowledgement of adultery, he would know the child
was not his and would be likely to disfavor it.
Cheryl
Feb 28, 2016, 3:10:54 PM2/28/16
to
upset any assumption of a 100% genetic connection with one's ancestors -
don't sociologists distinguish between genetic and social parents?
Relatives on my American side traced my paternal line back to medieval
England, if I recall correctly, but no nobles were discovered and I
think the earliest couple of generations were listed as probable and not
certain ancestors. That's, of course, without considering adultery,
expedients such as you describe used by childless couples and any number
of arrangements whereby a child from one parent's previous relationship,
or an illegitimate or orphaned child from somewhere else in the family
tree was taken into the family and considered socially as one of the
family, without surviving records to show that they weren't biologically
their parents' child as well.
--
Cheryl
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Cheryl
Feb 28, 2016, 3:19:28 PM2/28/16
to
business or estate going. It didn't work very well for Edward II (or
another monarch or two I can think of - didn't Isabella of Castile have
a niece who probably wasn't a niece? Supposedly conceived through a plot
among the girl's mother, her mother's husband and her mother's husband's
boyfriend, if I remember my ancient scandals correctly) but that doesn't
mean other people didn't try something similar and make the arrangement
work.
And if the alleged father was infertile but not impotent, he could
always claim (to himself or others) that the child was his. Without a
DNA test, no one could prove him wrong, especially if the real father
was a relative, reducing the chances of having a child with a
suspiciously strong resemblance to some other man.
David Kleinecke
Feb 28, 2016, 3:39:41 PM2/28/16
to
And the identity of the true father of one of the founders of one of
the old dynasties is always suspect. Self-made men had a tendency to
improve on the truth.
Jerry Friedman
Feb 28, 2016, 5:53:57 PM2/28/16
to
one thing led to another, particularly if he shared some of the
characteristics that attracted you to your husband.
> By
> far the least risky thing would be to have children by your
> brother-in-law or father-in-law: in either case your sons would have the
> "right" Y chromosome.)
male line.
> Incidentally, the surname "Sykes" probably arose only once: if there
> were several independent Sykes families the probability of fidelity
> would be higher than what he calculated (as there are at least two
> unrelated Bowden families, and a great many unrelated Smith families).
chromosome.
Even more remarkably, a study found that almost half the Jewish men who
claim to be kohanim (descendants of priests) have the same markers on
their Y chromosomes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2771134/
On the other hand, a study of claimed syeds or sayyids (descendants of
Hassan or Hussein) of South Asian ancestry living in England found no
correlation.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/publications/articles/2010/Belle_AAS10_Syed.pdf
I found an announcement that a study in 2013 would soon publish the
result that many claimed male-line descendants of Confucius had the same
Y chromosome, but I couldn't find a published version.
http://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/technology/article/1354787/study-finds-single-bloodline-among-self-claimed-confucius
--
Jerry Friedman
Charles Bishop
Feb 28, 2016, 6:41:35 PM2/28/16
to
In article <MPG.313d195cf...@news.individual.net>,
My mother, bless her pea-pickin' heart, got the family crest for Bishop
some year ago from one of those places.
I don't remember if there was a genealogy along with it, but the crest
was made up of course.
My aunt (mom's sister) in her later years, had people visiting her from
the area around the small Colorado town where she grew up, asking for
copies of family photos and letters as an aid to doing genealogy work on
shared relatives.
--
charles
some year ago from one of those places.
I don't remember if there was a genealogy along with it, but the crest
was made up of course.
My aunt (mom's sister) in her later years, had people visiting her from
the area around the small Colorado town where she grew up, asking for
copies of family photos and letters as an aid to doing genealogy work on
shared relatives.
--
charles
Peter Moylan
Feb 28, 2016, 11:19:25 PM2/28/16
to
On 2016-Feb-28 21:54, Jack Campin wrote:
>>> I have a piece of paper (copied by my uncle from a book) that
>>> traces my mother back to Charlemagne. I don't believe it.
>> My wife can trace her ancestry back to one of the Stewart
>> kings (Robert II), and beyond. That seems to be reasonably
>> reliable, because the MacDonald line is one of the best-
>> documented in the world. Before about 1000 AD, though,
>> I suspect that there's a fair bit of guesswork involved.
>
> These genealogies probably all work by linking to some well-known
> elite figure who themselves had a genealogy going back a long way,
> but given their power and wealth, also had an interest in documenting
> it. It's not like families of peasants kept records for 1000 years.
> I knew a Canadian woman who could trace her ancestry back to Genghis
> Khan - the link was the Romanian/Ottoman prince Dimitrie Cantemir,
> a few centuries after Genghis.
For Lynne (my wife) it was even easier. Once she got to the 7th
>>> I have a piece of paper (copied by my uncle from a book) that
>>> traces my mother back to Charlemagne. I don't believe it.
>> My wife can trace her ancestry back to one of the Stewart
>> kings (Robert II), and beyond. That seems to be reasonably
>> reliable, because the MacDonald line is one of the best-
>> documented in the world. Before about 1000 AD, though,
>> I suspect that there's a fair bit of guesswork involved.
>
> These genealogies probably all work by linking to some well-known
> elite figure who themselves had a genealogy going back a long way,
> but given their power and wealth, also had an interest in documenting
> it. It's not like families of peasants kept records for 1000 years.
> I knew a Canadian woman who could trace her ancestry back to Genghis
> Khan - the link was the Romanian/Ottoman prince Dimitrie Cantemir,
> a few centuries after Genghis.
chieftain of the MacDonalds of Fersit (born about 1744) she was hooked
into the Lords of the Isles, and therefore something that is covered by
books for over a millennium.
One way -- probably the most common way -- to make progress in family
history research is to find connections to data that other people have
collected. This is particularly easy if you find a connection to someone
rich and famous. (Not the case for me. I have peasants all the way down.)
Some people cheat, of course. I found one web site that continued that
line back to Noah, and of course the rest is in the Bible.
Peter Moylan
Feb 28, 2016, 11:25:39 PM2/28/16
to
On 2016-Feb-29 00:21, Lewis wrote:
> Because of this, I know that Prince Charles is my 17th cousin twice
> removed. Or that might have been Princess Di. I suppose I could load up
> the GEDCOM file again and double check, but why?
Because of years of effort, and a great deal of sharing of data, I have
> Because of this, I know that Prince Charles is my 17th cousin twice
> removed. Or that might have been Princess Di. I suppose I could load up
> the GEDCOM file again and double check, but why?
about 9500 people in my family tree. In that entire pile, I've found
only two famous people: Nicole Kidman and Arthur Calwell. Arthur is a
genuine moderately close relative, but I've already pruned out Nicole on
the grounds that the relationship is too distant. When I get the time, I
might well decide to prune a few thousand other people, on the same grounds.
Once you get past about third cousin, you're getting to people who are
pretty much unrelated to you.
RH Draney
Feb 28, 2016, 11:49:58 PM2/28/16
to
On 2/28/2016 9:19 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> One way -- probably the most common way -- to make progress in family
> history research is to find connections to data that other people have
> collected. This is particularly easy if you find a connection to someone
> rich and famous. (Not the case for me. I have peasants all the way down.)
>
> Some people cheat, of course. I found one web site that continued that
> line back to Noah, and of course the rest is in the Bible.
And then there's the (jealous much?) onlooker who said that one of his
>
> One way -- probably the most common way -- to make progress in family
> history research is to find connections to data that other people have
> collected. This is particularly easy if you find a connection to someone
> rich and famous. (Not the case for me. I have peasants all the way down.)
>
> Some people cheat, of course. I found one web site that continued that
> line back to Noah, and of course the rest is in the Bible.
acquaintances claimed to be able to trace his lineage all the way back
to the first lungfish that crawled up onto dry land....r
Jerry Friedman
Feb 29, 2016, 10:32:53 AM2/29/16
to
--
Jerry Friedman
charles
Feb 29, 2016, 11:04:35 AM2/29/16
to
In article <nb1ob2$i1v$1...@news.albasani.net>, Jerry Friedman
Lord High Everything Else
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
Oliver Cromm
Feb 29, 2016, 1:36:54 PM2/29/16
to
* Janet:
> In article <bogus-19B06F....@four.schnuerpel.eu>,
> bo...@purr.demon.co.uk says...
>>
>>>> I have a piece of paper (copied by my uncle from a book) that
>>>> traces my mother back to Charlemagne. I don't believe it.
>>> My wife can trace her ancestry back to one of the Stewart
>>> kings (Robert II), and beyond. That seems to be reasonably
>>> reliable, because the MacDonald line is one of the best-
>>> documented in the world. Before about 1000 AD, though,
>>> I suspect that there's a fair bit of guesswork involved.
>>
>> These genealogies probably all work by linking to some well-known
>> elite figure who themselves had a genealogy going back a long way,
>> but given their power and wealth, also had an interest in documenting
>> it. It's not like families of peasants kept records for 1000 years.
>> I knew a Canadian woman who could trace her ancestry back to Genghis
>> Khan - the link was the Romanian/Ottoman prince Dimitrie Cantemir,
>> a few centuries after Genghis.
>
> Excepting current members of an aristocratic or royal line, I have
> never encountered a Brit who traced their lineage back to any
> historic figure; or further than about 200 years ago.
My father traced the male line back about 350 years by consulting
original church registers. A big task, but he trusted no other
sources. I'm sure the results aren't 100% certain, even apart from
Jerry's caveat. Beyond that, the Thirty Years' War left
insurmountable holes in the records, and that'll be true for
almost everyone. Our family name being rare and very localized, it
is quite likely that some older (15th century) references to
people bearing the same name are relatives, but the exact
connection is unclear.
1000 years back, ordinary people didn't have family names. They
were usually identified by the house they lived in, but blood
relationships become very murky.
--
Humans write software and while a piece of software might be
bug free humans are not. - Robert Klemme
> In article <bogus-19B06F....@four.schnuerpel.eu>,
> bo...@purr.demon.co.uk says...
>>
>>>> I have a piece of paper (copied by my uncle from a book) that
>>>> traces my mother back to Charlemagne. I don't believe it.
>>> My wife can trace her ancestry back to one of the Stewart
>>> kings (Robert II), and beyond. That seems to be reasonably
>>> reliable, because the MacDonald line is one of the best-
>>> documented in the world. Before about 1000 AD, though,
>>> I suspect that there's a fair bit of guesswork involved.
>>
>> These genealogies probably all work by linking to some well-known
>> elite figure who themselves had a genealogy going back a long way,
>> but given their power and wealth, also had an interest in documenting
>> it. It's not like families of peasants kept records for 1000 years.
>> I knew a Canadian woman who could trace her ancestry back to Genghis
>> Khan - the link was the Romanian/Ottoman prince Dimitrie Cantemir,
>> a few centuries after Genghis.
>
> Excepting current members of an aristocratic or royal line, I have
> never encountered a Brit who traced their lineage back to any
> historic figure; or further than about 200 years ago.
original church registers. A big task, but he trusted no other
sources. I'm sure the results aren't 100% certain, even apart from
Jerry's caveat. Beyond that, the Thirty Years' War left
insurmountable holes in the records, and that'll be true for
almost everyone. Our family name being rare and very localized, it
is quite likely that some older (15th century) references to
people bearing the same name are relatives, but the exact
connection is unclear.
1000 years back, ordinary people didn't have family names. They
were usually identified by the house they lived in, but blood
relationships become very murky.
--
Humans write software and while a piece of software might be
bug free humans are not. - Robert Klemme
Lewis
Mar 1, 2016, 1:15:59 AM3/1/16
to
In message <nb0in...@news6.newsguy.com>
The molecules that make up my body originated in a cluster of stars
about 8-10 billion years ago after they exploded in galaxy altering
supernovae.
--
If you [Carrot] were dice, you'd always roll sixes. And the dice don't
roll themselves. If it wasn't against everything he wanted to be true
about the world, Vimes might just then have believed in destiny
controlling people. And gods help the other people who were around when
a big destiny was alive in the world, bending every poor bugger around
itself...
about 8-10 billion years ago after they exploded in galaxy altering
supernovae.
--
If you [Carrot] were dice, you'd always roll sixes. And the dice don't
roll themselves. If it wasn't against everything he wanted to be true
about the world, Vimes might just then have believed in destiny
controlling people. And gods help the other people who were around when
a big destiny was alive in the world, bending every poor bugger around
itself...
Jerry Friedman
Mar 1, 2016, 1:34:59 AM3/1/16
to
On 2/28/16 4:41 PM, Charles Bishop wrote:
> In article <MPG.313d195cf...@news.individual.net>,
> Janet <nob...@home.com> wrote:
...
> In article <MPG.313d195cf...@news.individual.net>,
> Janet <nob...@home.com> wrote:
>> Excepting current members of an aristocratic or royal line, I have
>> never encountered a Brit who traced their lineage back to any
>> historic figure; or further than about 200 years ago.
>>
>> OTOH, I have never encountered an American who had bought a family
>> tree of their Brit forebears, which did NOT claim an unbroken record
>> going back 500 or a 1000 years to at least one famous historic figure,
>> royalty, etc.
tree, though it rings a faint bell.
>> I suspect this is a reflection on the integrity of the family trees
>> business to clients overseas, rather than the fertility of ancient
>> kings.
>>
> My mother, bless her pea-pickin' heart, got the family crest for Bishop
> some year ago from one of those places.
>
> I don't remember if there was a genealogy along with it, but the crest
> was made up of course.
I'd think it would be easier and marginally less fraudulent to use the
real coat of arms and crest of a real person named Bishop. I found a
couple, but I don't see why you'd look any further than Sir Cecil
Bishop, Bart., who claimed descent from one of the co-heiresses of
Edward Lord Zouch (died in the reign of James I) and was given the title
of Baron Zouch of Harringworth and Totnes in 1815.
https://books.google.com/books?id=fMY_AAAAcAAJ&pg=PR101
How could anybody could resist claiming to be a descendant of Baron
Zouch?
Arms: Gules, ten bezants, and a canton ermine.
Crest: A trunk of a tree or, leafed vert, thereon a falcon rising argent.
Of course, you wouldn't be entitled to anything so simple, but why let
the rules stand in your way?
--
Jerry Friedman
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Mar 1, 2016, 4:11:38 AM3/1/16
to
On 2016-03-01 06:12:53 +0000, Lewis said:
> In message <nb0in...@news6.newsguy.com>
> RH Draney <dado...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 2/28/2016 9:19 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>
>>> One way -- probably the most common way -- to make progress in family
>>> history research is to find connections to data that other people have
>>> collected. This is particularly easy if you find a connection to someone
>>> rich and famous. (Not the case for me. I have peasants all the way down.)
>>>
>>> Some people cheat, of course. I found one web site that continued that
>>> line back to Noah, and of course the rest is in the Bible.
>
>> And then there's the (jealous much?) onlooker who said that one of his
>> acquaintances claimed to be able to trace his lineage all the way back
>> to the first lungfish that crawled up onto dry land....r
>
> The molecules that make up my body originated in a cluster of stars
> about 8-10 billion years ago after they exploded in galaxy altering
> supernovae.
They weren't molecules then, and certainly not that ones you have now!
> In message <nb0in...@news6.newsguy.com>
> RH Draney <dado...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 2/28/2016 9:19 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>
>>> One way -- probably the most common way -- to make progress in family
>>> history research is to find connections to data that other people have
>>> collected. This is particularly easy if you find a connection to someone
>>> rich and famous. (Not the case for me. I have peasants all the way down.)
>>>
>>> Some people cheat, of course. I found one web site that continued that
>>> line back to Noah, and of course the rest is in the Bible.
>
>> And then there's the (jealous much?) onlooker who said that one of his
>> acquaintances claimed to be able to trace his lineage all the way back
>> to the first lungfish that crawled up onto dry land....r
>
> The molecules that make up my body originated in a cluster of stars
> about 8-10 billion years ago after they exploded in galaxy altering
> supernovae.
--
athel
GordonD
Mar 1, 2016, 12:09:22 PM3/1/16
to
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
Lewis
Mar 2, 2016, 2:49:24 AM3/2/16
to
In message <djl4m5...@mid.individual.net>
Atoms. Fine.
Stupid thinkos.
--
A Clean House Is A Sign Of A Misspent Life
Stupid thinkos.
--
A Clean House Is A Sign Of A Misspent Life
Richard Tobin
Mar 2, 2016, 11:40:03 AM3/2/16
to
In article <slrnndd6o1....@amelia.local>,
exchanged electrons with other atoms? Nucleii perhaps.
-- Richard
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>> The molecules that make up my body originated in a cluster of stars
>>> about 8-10 billion years ago after they exploded in galaxy altering
>>> supernovae.
>> They weren't molecules then, and certainly not that ones you have now!
>Atoms. Fine.
I'm not convinced of that either. Who knows how many times they have
>>> The molecules that make up my body originated in a cluster of stars
>>> about 8-10 billion years ago after they exploded in galaxy altering
>>> supernovae.
>> They weren't molecules then, and certainly not that ones you have now!
>Atoms. Fine.
exchanged electrons with other atoms? Nucleii perhaps.
-- Richard
Snidely
Mar 3, 2016, 2:40:44 AM3/3/16
to
Richard Tobin suggested that ...
Not counting the children of unstable of nucleii.
/dps
--
There's nothing inherently wrong with Big Data. What matters, as it
does for Arnold Lund in California or Richard Rothman in Baltimore, are
the questions -- old and new, good and bad -- this newest tool lets us
ask. (R. Lerhman, CSMonitor.com)
/dps
--
There's nothing inherently wrong with Big Data. What matters, as it
does for Arnold Lund in California or Richard Rothman in Baltimore, are
the questions -- old and new, good and bad -- this newest tool lets us
ask. (R. Lerhman, CSMonitor.com)
0 new messages